Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields
Interviews With John Thune, Tim Johnson
Aired October 13, 2002 - 10:30 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.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: I'm Al Hunt. Robert Novak and I will question two candidates for the United States Senate seat in South Dakota.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: They are Republican Congressman John Thune and Democratic Senator Tim Johnson. We will question Senator Johnson later, but first we will interview Congressman Thune.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK (voice-over): John Thune came to Washington in 1985 as a 24-year-old senatorial aide after earning his MBA from the University of South Dakota. He returned to his home state four years later as executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party. He was elected to Congress in 1996 and is completing his third term.
In the campaign, Congressman Thune has stressed the issue of national defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: Al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam Hussein, enemies of America working to obtain nuclear weapons. Now more than ever, our nation must have a missile defense system to shoot down missiles fired at America. Yet Tim Johnson has voted against a missile defense system 29 different times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK: Congressman Thune, since Senator Johnson has announced his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, isn't this issue no longer relevant to your campaign?
REP. JOHN THUNE (R), SOUTH DAKOTA: I think the issue of national security is always relevant. The people of South Dakota and, I would dare say, the people of this country care a lot about national security, they care about defense.
Tim Johnson and I have very different records on the issue of defense. His record goes back 16 years while he was a House member and I was a senator. And the votes that we have, the records that we have compiled over our terms in Congress are very different. And I think the people of South Dakota deserve the right to be informed about what those differences are when it comes to making a choice in November. NOVAK: We ran the part of your campaign ad showing the picture of Saddam Hussein. You're the first Republican ad to use that. Do you think that perhaps you went a little over the line in using Saddam Hussein in an ad that criticizes Senator Johnson?
THUNE: Well, I don't think anybody -- I mean, anybody in this country knows that Hussein is the number-one enemy of America. And all we're simply doing is pointing that fact out again. It's not like people haven't seen that image before. All we're simply doing is saying, "This is the number-one enemy of America. This is why we need a missile defense. This is why we need to have a strong military."
And I think the ad is very straightforward, it's very simple, and I don't think there's anything offensive about it. The only people, really, who have commented about it are the national media and the Johnson campaign.
NOVAK: Congressman, the homeland security bill is stalled in the Senate over the issue of government employee labor unions and how much power they should have.
Do you think that that is sufficient reason for stalling this bill, or do you think that both sides ought to give in and make some compromises and get the homeland security bill passed so you have a new Cabinet-level department?
THUNE: Look, every president going back to Jimmy Carter and actually before that, back to the Kennedy administration, has had flexibility when it comes to the issue of national security.
All this president has said is that I need flexibility when it comes to protecting the homeland, to keeping America safe when it comes to hiring and firing and transferring and disciplinary action against federal employees, and I think that makes perfect sense.
And I think it's something that the administration, if they don't get, doesn't think it's worth having a bill. They're going to fight for this, and I think they ought to.
This shouldn't be an issue that holds up this important legislation in the United States Senate. They need to get off the dime and get it passed.
HUNT: Congressman, let me go back to that -- to your ad that features Saddam Hussein. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from your neighboring state of Nebraska and a Vietnam war veteran, said on the Senate floor this past week that he lamented that, quote, "Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in the political campaigns," and said that, "War is too serious to be relegated to campaign TV spots."
Why do you think Senator Hagel is wrong?
THUNE: Well, I don't -- I think Senator Hagel, obviously, is talking, I think, in the broader context about those who are trying to politicize this war. We've not attempted to do that at all. All we've simply said is that national security is important issue for public debate and political debate in this country.
In fact, I think one of the fundamental questions that people ask when they're looking at who they're going to elect to lead this country is, "Is my world safe, is my country safe, is my neighborhood safe?" It happens that we are in an environment today where national security is very much on the minds of the American people and on the minds of people of South Dakota.
And again, we have very different records. All we're simply doing is pointing out the differences in those records.
HUNT: The specific issue you were talking about there was missile defense and what you said was Senator Johnson's insufficient support for it.
President Bush this week gave many reasons as to why Saddam Hussein needs to be replaced and the threat that he poses, but one that he did not cite was that he could deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles against the United States, which, of course, missile defense is intended to defend against.
Do you have any evidence that either al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein is developing the capacity to deliver ICBMs?
THUNE: Well, I think it's clear, I mean, we don't want to wait until he has that capability...
HUNT: Do you think he's doing it right now?
THUNE: I think that they're trying to acquire -- we know they're trying to acquire a nuclear capability...
HUNT: No, but the capacity to deliver?
THUNE: ... and to extend the range of their missiles.
And I think that, again, this is the number-one enemy of the United States. This is someone who has hostile intentions toward the United States. This is someone who is trying -- who already has weapons of mass destruction, is trying to acquire nuclear capability and to extend the range of his missiles.
HUNT: All right. We're going to take a break right now, Congressman.
But when we come back, we'll have the Big Question for Congressman John Thune.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: And now the Big Question for John Thune.
Congressman, could you cite one example of a position that you've taken during this campaign that asks Americans as South Dakota voters to make a real sacrifice?
THUNE: A position that I have taken that asks...
HUNT: That requires a sacrifice.
THUNE: ... that requires a sacrifice. I think any time you take a position, and certainly with the potential conflict in Iraq, where you're asking South Dakotans, military people in our state who might have to make the ultimate sacrifice to go into a theater of battle, there's no question about that.
NOVAK: Congressman Thune, can you imagine in the United States Senate, as a Republican, any important issue where you might break party lines and not vote as a Republican?
THUNE: Well, if you look at my record today, I mean, I think I'm going to make the vote that's right for the people of South Dakota.
I have parted company with my party a number of times on issues during my tenure in the House, and people have asked, "Do you have any difference of opinion with the president of the United States?" There are a number of issues that we have disagreed on. Trade with Cuba, arming pilots, one of the stimulus packages last year are all issues where I parted company with the White House on an issue.
But I think the important thing is, people in South Dakota want to know they've got an independent voice that'll do the right thing for them.
NOVAK: Congressman John Thune, thank you very much.
THUNE: Nice to be with you.
NOVAK: We have to take a break. When we come back, we'll hear from the other candidate for the U.S. Senate from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Welcome back. We continue with the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota by interviewing the Democratic incumbent, Senator Tim Johnson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK (voice-over): Tim Johnson, while practicing law, served eight years in the South Dakota legislature before being elected to Congress in 1986. After 10 years in the House, he ran for the Senate in 1996 and defeated incumbent Republican Senator Larry Pressler by two percentage points.
In the campaign, Senator Johnson is stressing his connection with the state's senior senator, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and has hit Congressman Thune on economic issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: We will need to raise the age of retirement. John Thune's own words. No guaranteed Social Security. De-entitle Medicare. Thune again. No guaranteed right to Medicare.
No wonder John Thune isn't telling the truth about Tim Johnson's record on Social Security, because if you had Thune's record, what else could you do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK: Senator Johnson, in your record in the House and the Senate, you voted against defense appropriations and authorizations to the tune of $2.1 trillion, spread over several years.
Whether those were justifiable or not, doesn't your vote make your national defense record a legitimate issue in your campaign with Congressman Thune?
SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: No, I don't think so. I voted for very substantial defense increases all those years. There were all these differences about one version versus another. I'm not willing to vote for funding that is simply a boondoggle for defense contractors, but I am willing to support a strong national defense.
The defense bill that I just voted for on the Senate side this year is the largest defense appropriations bill in history. I voted 21 times for missile defense, for that matter.
So I'm proud of my defense record and will stand next to it up to anybody.
NOVAK: You did vote in 1991 against the Gulf War resolution. This time you are supporting the Gulf War resolution. The 1991 issue was at a blatant case of Iraqi aggression. What has changed your mind? Have you changed your philosophy in the last 10 years?
JOHNSON: No, that was a radically different circumstance. In 1991, we had a regional problem where one dictatorship was invading another, and there were tactical issues about how best to address it.
Many of us thought -- you know, it was a 52-to-47 vote in the Senate at that time, in fact. Many of us thought that we hadn't exhausted airstrikes, cruise missiles, sanctions and diplomacy, and that we ought to do that first before placing a large ground army, half a million troops, on the ground.
That view didn't prevail. The president went ahead with that force, and I think just essentially everybody then supported the president in the effort after that. But there was a tactical question on that regional conflict at that time.
NOVAK: Senator Johnson, pending on the Senate floor now is the homeland security bill, which is tied up over a question of how much authority the government employee should have or the president should have.
Do you think it's proper to stop this bill from passing and not have a Department of Homeland Security created just to satisfy the government employees?
JOHNSON: No, I think what's unfortunate is the Republican leadership in the Senate has blocked passage of that legislation. We have 51, 52 votes to pass a bill, to get it to conference committee, but we've run into a filibuster from Senator Lott and his colleagues.
I think that we have a good middle-ground bill, one which gives the president great flexibility but which, at the same time, doesn't unravel our civil service protections. We don't want to go back to the bad old days of a government agency that's full of political cronies and where you don't have the kind of a systematic protection of jobs that we have under civil service. Yet at the same time, we want to give flexibility.
I think we're doing a good job with that. If the Republican leadership would allow us to get to conference committee, I think we could negotiate a good bill.
HUNT: Senator, your opponent has come into criticism for that ad that seems to link you to Saddam Hussein, but the substance of that was the differences that you have on missile defense. And isn't it really a legitimate issue that he is much more pro-missile defense than you are?
JOHNSON: Well, he has voted for missile defense, as have I. I voted for missile defense some 21 times. In fact, in this year's appropriations bill is $7 billion for missile defense development.
HUNT: You've mostly voted against it, Senator.
JOHNSON: Well, I have voted against the immediate implementation of a missile defense plan because they haven't proven that the thing works. I'm not willing to spend tens of billions of the taxpayers' dollars on a system that doesn't yet work.
I am willing, however, to invest significant amounts of money to make sure we do the development and the research that will put us in a position so we can hopefully get to a point where we have a missile defense system that is in fact a meaningful one.
HUNT: To pick up on Bob's earlier question, I know this is quite personal to you, your son is in the 101st Airborne division, served in Afghanistan. But didn't the Democrats in Congress really make a political decision that the war was taking away from the economic and health care issue and decide, "Boy, let's just pass the resolution and get out of town"?
JOHNSON: Oh, I don't know that that's a political decision. I think that there's a broad, bipartisan consensus that we need to do something about the weapons of mass destruction being developed in Iraq. We need to move on with that.
I think there is a hope, however, that we will also be able to debate questions relative to health care and education and jobs and the economy. I think that will go forward.
HUNT: OK. Senator, we're going to have to take a break now.
But when we come back, we'll have the Big Question for Senator Tim Johnson.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: And now the Big Question for Tim Johnson:
Senator, could you cite one example during this campaign where you have asked Americans, as South Dakota voters, to make a real sacrifice?
JOHNSON: Well, I think that voting for the '93 Budget Act was a step in the right direction where we balanced the federal budget. We both cut programs and we raised some taxes, mostly on upper-income people.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: During this campaign, during the last two years?
HUNT: Yes, sir.
JOHNSON: Well, I think during this campaign, again, we're talking about fiscal responsibility, and that means that you can't have anything.
And so we've talked about trying to rein in the scope of the tax cuts. I voted for very large tax cuts, but you can't go as far as my opponent wants to do without pushing us so deeply into red ink that we'll never have the funding for education and other issues.
NOVAK: You voted against your party, Senator, on the tax cut issue. Can you think of any issue coming up in the next Congress, if you're reelected, that you would depart from the Democratic line on?
JOHNSON: Well, I'll take each issue as it comes. As you know, I've also voted against party leadership on some of the trade issues. I voted against on some tax issues in the past, when President Clinton tried to range the BTU tax, energy tax.
So I'll take each shot as they come along. I don't think either party has all the answers, and each have their fair share of bad ideas.
NOVAK: Coming up at noon on "LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER," special interview with first lady Laura Bush.
HUNT: Thanks for joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 13, 2002 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: I'm Al Hunt. Robert Novak and I will question two candidates for the United States Senate seat in South Dakota.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: They are Republican Congressman John Thune and Democratic Senator Tim Johnson. We will question Senator Johnson later, but first we will interview Congressman Thune.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK (voice-over): John Thune came to Washington in 1985 as a 24-year-old senatorial aide after earning his MBA from the University of South Dakota. He returned to his home state four years later as executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party. He was elected to Congress in 1996 and is completing his third term.
In the campaign, Congressman Thune has stressed the issue of national defense.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: Al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam Hussein, enemies of America working to obtain nuclear weapons. Now more than ever, our nation must have a missile defense system to shoot down missiles fired at America. Yet Tim Johnson has voted against a missile defense system 29 different times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK: Congressman Thune, since Senator Johnson has announced his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, isn't this issue no longer relevant to your campaign?
REP. JOHN THUNE (R), SOUTH DAKOTA: I think the issue of national security is always relevant. The people of South Dakota and, I would dare say, the people of this country care a lot about national security, they care about defense.
Tim Johnson and I have very different records on the issue of defense. His record goes back 16 years while he was a House member and I was a senator. And the votes that we have, the records that we have compiled over our terms in Congress are very different. And I think the people of South Dakota deserve the right to be informed about what those differences are when it comes to making a choice in November. NOVAK: We ran the part of your campaign ad showing the picture of Saddam Hussein. You're the first Republican ad to use that. Do you think that perhaps you went a little over the line in using Saddam Hussein in an ad that criticizes Senator Johnson?
THUNE: Well, I don't think anybody -- I mean, anybody in this country knows that Hussein is the number-one enemy of America. And all we're simply doing is pointing that fact out again. It's not like people haven't seen that image before. All we're simply doing is saying, "This is the number-one enemy of America. This is why we need a missile defense. This is why we need to have a strong military."
And I think the ad is very straightforward, it's very simple, and I don't think there's anything offensive about it. The only people, really, who have commented about it are the national media and the Johnson campaign.
NOVAK: Congressman, the homeland security bill is stalled in the Senate over the issue of government employee labor unions and how much power they should have.
Do you think that that is sufficient reason for stalling this bill, or do you think that both sides ought to give in and make some compromises and get the homeland security bill passed so you have a new Cabinet-level department?
THUNE: Look, every president going back to Jimmy Carter and actually before that, back to the Kennedy administration, has had flexibility when it comes to the issue of national security.
All this president has said is that I need flexibility when it comes to protecting the homeland, to keeping America safe when it comes to hiring and firing and transferring and disciplinary action against federal employees, and I think that makes perfect sense.
And I think it's something that the administration, if they don't get, doesn't think it's worth having a bill. They're going to fight for this, and I think they ought to.
This shouldn't be an issue that holds up this important legislation in the United States Senate. They need to get off the dime and get it passed.
HUNT: Congressman, let me go back to that -- to your ad that features Saddam Hussein. Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from your neighboring state of Nebraska and a Vietnam war veteran, said on the Senate floor this past week that he lamented that, quote, "Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in the political campaigns," and said that, "War is too serious to be relegated to campaign TV spots."
Why do you think Senator Hagel is wrong?
THUNE: Well, I don't -- I think Senator Hagel, obviously, is talking, I think, in the broader context about those who are trying to politicize this war. We've not attempted to do that at all. All we've simply said is that national security is important issue for public debate and political debate in this country.
In fact, I think one of the fundamental questions that people ask when they're looking at who they're going to elect to lead this country is, "Is my world safe, is my country safe, is my neighborhood safe?" It happens that we are in an environment today where national security is very much on the minds of the American people and on the minds of people of South Dakota.
And again, we have very different records. All we're simply doing is pointing out the differences in those records.
HUNT: The specific issue you were talking about there was missile defense and what you said was Senator Johnson's insufficient support for it.
President Bush this week gave many reasons as to why Saddam Hussein needs to be replaced and the threat that he poses, but one that he did not cite was that he could deliver intercontinental ballistic missiles against the United States, which, of course, missile defense is intended to defend against.
Do you have any evidence that either al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein is developing the capacity to deliver ICBMs?
THUNE: Well, I think it's clear, I mean, we don't want to wait until he has that capability...
HUNT: Do you think he's doing it right now?
THUNE: I think that they're trying to acquire -- we know they're trying to acquire a nuclear capability...
HUNT: No, but the capacity to deliver?
THUNE: ... and to extend the range of their missiles.
And I think that, again, this is the number-one enemy of the United States. This is someone who has hostile intentions toward the United States. This is someone who is trying -- who already has weapons of mass destruction, is trying to acquire nuclear capability and to extend the range of his missiles.
HUNT: All right. We're going to take a break right now, Congressman.
But when we come back, we'll have the Big Question for Congressman John Thune.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: And now the Big Question for John Thune.
Congressman, could you cite one example of a position that you've taken during this campaign that asks Americans as South Dakota voters to make a real sacrifice?
THUNE: A position that I have taken that asks...
HUNT: That requires a sacrifice.
THUNE: ... that requires a sacrifice. I think any time you take a position, and certainly with the potential conflict in Iraq, where you're asking South Dakotans, military people in our state who might have to make the ultimate sacrifice to go into a theater of battle, there's no question about that.
NOVAK: Congressman Thune, can you imagine in the United States Senate, as a Republican, any important issue where you might break party lines and not vote as a Republican?
THUNE: Well, if you look at my record today, I mean, I think I'm going to make the vote that's right for the people of South Dakota.
I have parted company with my party a number of times on issues during my tenure in the House, and people have asked, "Do you have any difference of opinion with the president of the United States?" There are a number of issues that we have disagreed on. Trade with Cuba, arming pilots, one of the stimulus packages last year are all issues where I parted company with the White House on an issue.
But I think the important thing is, people in South Dakota want to know they've got an independent voice that'll do the right thing for them.
NOVAK: Congressman John Thune, thank you very much.
THUNE: Nice to be with you.
NOVAK: We have to take a break. When we come back, we'll hear from the other candidate for the U.S. Senate from South Dakota, Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Welcome back. We continue with the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota by interviewing the Democratic incumbent, Senator Tim Johnson.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK (voice-over): Tim Johnson, while practicing law, served eight years in the South Dakota legislature before being elected to Congress in 1986. After 10 years in the House, he ran for the Senate in 1996 and defeated incumbent Republican Senator Larry Pressler by two percentage points.
In the campaign, Senator Johnson is stressing his connection with the state's senior senator, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and has hit Congressman Thune on economic issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NARRATOR: We will need to raise the age of retirement. John Thune's own words. No guaranteed Social Security. De-entitle Medicare. Thune again. No guaranteed right to Medicare.
No wonder John Thune isn't telling the truth about Tim Johnson's record on Social Security, because if you had Thune's record, what else could you do?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NOVAK: Senator Johnson, in your record in the House and the Senate, you voted against defense appropriations and authorizations to the tune of $2.1 trillion, spread over several years.
Whether those were justifiable or not, doesn't your vote make your national defense record a legitimate issue in your campaign with Congressman Thune?
SEN. TIM JOHNSON (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: No, I don't think so. I voted for very substantial defense increases all those years. There were all these differences about one version versus another. I'm not willing to vote for funding that is simply a boondoggle for defense contractors, but I am willing to support a strong national defense.
The defense bill that I just voted for on the Senate side this year is the largest defense appropriations bill in history. I voted 21 times for missile defense, for that matter.
So I'm proud of my defense record and will stand next to it up to anybody.
NOVAK: You did vote in 1991 against the Gulf War resolution. This time you are supporting the Gulf War resolution. The 1991 issue was at a blatant case of Iraqi aggression. What has changed your mind? Have you changed your philosophy in the last 10 years?
JOHNSON: No, that was a radically different circumstance. In 1991, we had a regional problem where one dictatorship was invading another, and there were tactical issues about how best to address it.
Many of us thought -- you know, it was a 52-to-47 vote in the Senate at that time, in fact. Many of us thought that we hadn't exhausted airstrikes, cruise missiles, sanctions and diplomacy, and that we ought to do that first before placing a large ground army, half a million troops, on the ground.
That view didn't prevail. The president went ahead with that force, and I think just essentially everybody then supported the president in the effort after that. But there was a tactical question on that regional conflict at that time.
NOVAK: Senator Johnson, pending on the Senate floor now is the homeland security bill, which is tied up over a question of how much authority the government employee should have or the president should have.
Do you think it's proper to stop this bill from passing and not have a Department of Homeland Security created just to satisfy the government employees?
JOHNSON: No, I think what's unfortunate is the Republican leadership in the Senate has blocked passage of that legislation. We have 51, 52 votes to pass a bill, to get it to conference committee, but we've run into a filibuster from Senator Lott and his colleagues.
I think that we have a good middle-ground bill, one which gives the president great flexibility but which, at the same time, doesn't unravel our civil service protections. We don't want to go back to the bad old days of a government agency that's full of political cronies and where you don't have the kind of a systematic protection of jobs that we have under civil service. Yet at the same time, we want to give flexibility.
I think we're doing a good job with that. If the Republican leadership would allow us to get to conference committee, I think we could negotiate a good bill.
HUNT: Senator, your opponent has come into criticism for that ad that seems to link you to Saddam Hussein, but the substance of that was the differences that you have on missile defense. And isn't it really a legitimate issue that he is much more pro-missile defense than you are?
JOHNSON: Well, he has voted for missile defense, as have I. I voted for missile defense some 21 times. In fact, in this year's appropriations bill is $7 billion for missile defense development.
HUNT: You've mostly voted against it, Senator.
JOHNSON: Well, I have voted against the immediate implementation of a missile defense plan because they haven't proven that the thing works. I'm not willing to spend tens of billions of the taxpayers' dollars on a system that doesn't yet work.
I am willing, however, to invest significant amounts of money to make sure we do the development and the research that will put us in a position so we can hopefully get to a point where we have a missile defense system that is in fact a meaningful one.
HUNT: To pick up on Bob's earlier question, I know this is quite personal to you, your son is in the 101st Airborne division, served in Afghanistan. But didn't the Democrats in Congress really make a political decision that the war was taking away from the economic and health care issue and decide, "Boy, let's just pass the resolution and get out of town"?
JOHNSON: Oh, I don't know that that's a political decision. I think that there's a broad, bipartisan consensus that we need to do something about the weapons of mass destruction being developed in Iraq. We need to move on with that.
I think there is a hope, however, that we will also be able to debate questions relative to health care and education and jobs and the economy. I think that will go forward.
HUNT: OK. Senator, we're going to have to take a break now.
But when we come back, we'll have the Big Question for Senator Tim Johnson.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: And now the Big Question for Tim Johnson:
Senator, could you cite one example during this campaign where you have asked Americans, as South Dakota voters, to make a real sacrifice?
JOHNSON: Well, I think that voting for the '93 Budget Act was a step in the right direction where we balanced the federal budget. We both cut programs and we raised some taxes, mostly on upper-income people.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: During this campaign, during the last two years?
HUNT: Yes, sir.
JOHNSON: Well, I think during this campaign, again, we're talking about fiscal responsibility, and that means that you can't have anything.
And so we've talked about trying to rein in the scope of the tax cuts. I voted for very large tax cuts, but you can't go as far as my opponent wants to do without pushing us so deeply into red ink that we'll never have the funding for education and other issues.
NOVAK: You voted against your party, Senator, on the tax cut issue. Can you think of any issue coming up in the next Congress, if you're reelected, that you would depart from the Democratic line on?
JOHNSON: Well, I'll take each issue as it comes. As you know, I've also voted against party leadership on some of the trade issues. I voted against on some tax issues in the past, when President Clinton tried to range the BTU tax, energy tax.
So I'll take each shot as they come along. I don't think either party has all the answers, and each have their fair share of bad ideas.
NOVAK: Coming up at noon on "LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER," special interview with first lady Laura Bush.
HUNT: Thanks for joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
