2005 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION.

Transcription

1 2005 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS CBS TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "CBS NEWS' FACE THE NATION. " CBS News FACE THE NATION Sunday, April 17, 2005 GUESTS: Representative DAVID DREIER (R-CA) Chairman, Rules Committee Representative CHARLES RANGEL, (D-NY) Ranking Member, Ways and Means Committee JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG Legal Correspondent The Chicago Tribune MODERATOR: BOB SCHIEFFER - CBS News This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with FACE THE NATION - CBS NEWS BURRELLE'S I NFORMATION S ERVICES / /

2 BOB SCHIEFFER, host: Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Today on FACE THE NATION, the stock market is dropping, the price of gas keeps going up. The war in Iraq goes on, yet Congress has tied itself up in a debate over House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's future and changing Senate rules to outlaw filibusters. Can the majority leader lead effectively while under a cloud of ethics problems? Should he step down? What does it all mean to you, the taxpayer? We'll talk to a member from each party, Republican David Dreier of California and Democrat Charles Rangel of New York. Then we'll talk with Jan Crawford Greenburg, legal correspondent for the Chicago Tribune about Republican Senate leader Bill Frist and his plan that changed Senate rules to make it easier to confirm controversial judges. Finally, I'll have a word on a wheeler-dealer insider with the staying power of crabgrass. But first, the Congress in turmoil while the country's problems mount on FACE THE NATION. Announcer: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer. SCHIEFFER: Good morning again. Joining us from New York, Congressman Charles Rangel. He, of course, is the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Here in the studio, the chairman of the House Rules Committee and a member of the Republican leadership in the House, Congressman David Dreier. Gentlemen, welcome once again. Representative DAVID DREIER (Republican, California; Chairman, House Rules Committee): Always good to be with you, Bob. Representative CHARLES RANGEL (Democrat, New York; House Ways and Means Committee): Good to be with you, Bob. SCHIEFFER: We are going to talk today about what's going on in the House and whether the House is able to do anything or will it continue to be just tied up in knots over what to do about your leader, Congressman Dreier, Congressman DeLay? And perhaps we should just set the stage. By the controversy about Congressman DeLay is overseas trips that he's taken in the past and who paid for them, who he took money from and the connections between that and how he voted on various issues, and also his close association with a lobbyist who is now under federal investigation over whether or not he did something illegal in charging Indian tribes in the $60-million range for lobbying things. Has Congressman DeLay--Congressman Dreier, has he done anything wrong? Rep. DREIER: Well, Bob, everything that you said sounds absolutely horrible. But you know, and everyone in the Congress knows, that Tom DeLay has not been found in violation of any rule, regulation, statute or law at all. SCHIEFFER: Yeah, but he's being investigated.

3 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Rep. DREIER: Well, the thing is he wants to be investigated. He wants to have a chance to clear his name by going before the House Ethics Committee so that whatever question is out there can, in fact, be addressed. I mean, I really do believe, Bob, that if you look at where we are in this issue, it's amazing that it's the Democratic leadership that has really decided to demonize Tom DeLay. It's been a great sport in this town for a while. And what has happened is we, over the last few months, have been able to pass legislation with rank-and-file support from Democrats. This week we got 302 votes on the bankruptcy legislation to try and bring some common sense back to it. If you look at the repeal of the death tax, if you look at the other issues that we have been able to address, my big issue, the border security. We had 42 Democrats who joined with us. So rank-and-file Democrats are helping us work in a bipartisan way to get things done while the Democratic leader opposes all this legislation that enjoys bipartisan support and is really standing in way and trying to create this issue of Tom DeLay as really a smoke screen here. SCHIEFFER: Well, let's go to Congressman Rangel. Do you agree with what Congressman Dreier has just said? Rep. DREIER: Of course he does. SCHIEFFER: He sounds like things are just going very well up there. Rep. RANGEL: I had no idea that Dave Dreier could be so creative. I think the most serious damage, not just to the Republicans, but to the House of Representatives is what Dave Dreier and the Rules Committee did. The three Republicans on that committee that had the nerve to admonish the majority leader DeLay were kicked off of the Rules Committee, and then they put in another rule. I mean... Rep. DREIER: Charlie, Charlie, let's finish that. Rep. RANGEL: Please don't do this, Dave. Rep. DREIER: No, no, no. You're talking about the Ethics Committee and the rules Committee. Rep. RANGEL: It's not fair for you to do this. Rep. DREIER: No, Charlie, be straight. They're not members of the Rules Committee, it's the House Ethics Committee you're talking about. Rep. RANGEL: But it was the Rules Committee that allowed this change to take place... Rep. DREIER: The Rules Committee... Rep. RANGEL:...that says--david... Rep. DREIER: Go ahead. Rep. RANGEL: This is not a debate until I finish at least, David. What happens is that you cannot get a review of the conduct of anybody, Republican or Democrat, unless you are able to get a Republican to vote against DeLay or to vote against a Republican. This is not the way

4 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, it's been. It's been five Democrats and five Republicans. And for you to say that DeLay wants this aired, he doesn't need the Ethics Committee. They call him the hammer because he's the hammer on Democrats, and he's the hammer on moderate Republicans. And your committee could change this and restore the integrity that the Ethics Committee used to have. And that's the biggest thing. Rep. DREIER: Well, Charlie, let me tell you... Rep. RANGEL: I'm not saying if DeLay is guilty or not because this is not a court of law. Rep. DREIER: Good. Rep. RANGEL: But what he is doing by stonewalling these accusations, the clouds of corruption are not just on the Republicans but the entire House of Representatives. Rep. DREIER: He is not only not stonewalling, Charlie, he very much wants to come forward and address these things. What we want to do, and I know you share our goal of trying to ensure that we bring partisanship back to the ethics process itself. If you look at the reforms that we put into place at the beginning of this Congress, we simply say that you have to have bipartisanship on these investigations. And what's happened in years past? Usually when investigations have been pursued, they've been unanimous votes, all 10 members, Democrats, Republicans pursuing. Rep. RANGEL: Well, why did he knock off the Republicans that were critical of DeLay? Why did you kick them off of the committee? Rep. DREIER: I don't know what you're talking about as far as being kicked off. Rep. RANGEL: You don't know. You don't know. No, you kicked them off the committee because they were bipartisan. Rep. DREIER: Let me just tell you, the people on that Committee, Congress Doc Hastings, who serves on the Rules Committee and is a new chairman of this committee... Rep. RANGEL: OK. Rep. DREIER:...has reached out to the Democratic leader, Alan Mollohan, trying to come to a bipartisan compromise on this. Rep. RANGEL: What happened to the old chairman? Rep. DREIER: He had term limits, and he was out. Rep. RANGEL: Why did you... Rep. DREIER: We're trying to put together bipartisanship on this, and Hastings has reached out to the Democrats. SCHIEFFER: Let me just reach--before we get too mired in the details here, let's look at what former Speaker Newt Gingrich said about Tom DeLay, because he didn't say it's the fault of the Democrats. Here's the way he put it when asked, `Where are Tom DeLay's troubles?' Listen to this.

5 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Former Representative NEWT GINGRICH (Former House Speaker): (From videotape) That's the famous Hillary Clinton defense. This is the vast left-wing, you know, conspiracy, as opposed to her description of a vast right-wing conspiracy. DeLay's problem isn't with the Democrats. DeLay's problem's with the country. And so DeLay has a challenge, I think, to lay out a case that the country comes to believe, that the country decides is legitimate. If he does that, he's fine. SCHIEFFER: Well, now let me just ask you, Congressman Dreier, because what you're saying is he ought to go before the Ethics Committee and do this. So far the Congress is gridlocked in this partisan debate that the Ethics Committee can't actually come together. Whose ever fault that is, would it be better for him to call a news conference or go on a television show or something of that nature and just lay out to people what it is that he has or hasn't done... Rep. DREIER: Bob... SCHIEFFER:...as Newt Gingrich says? Rep. DREIER: Bob, you began this broadcast by talking about energy prices. I mean, my constituents are concerned about the cost of gasoline. We're going to be passing this week, with bipartisan support, an energy bill on top of all these other great things that we've been able to do. And this issue is a distraction. Why should Tom DeLay have--go on a television news program when, in fact, we have a structure in place? It is the House Ethics Committee. They are the entity that is designed to deal with this. And all these charges have been leveled and we know--i mean, the moment that the Democrat who's the leader on the House Ethics Committee, Alan Mollohan, refused to compromise with Doc Hastings, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the political arm of the Democrats, came out with a Web site that is designed to smear Tom DeLay. SCHIEFFER: Well... Rep. DREIER: Let's put this Ethics Committee into place and let Tom DeLay come forward and, with the sobriety of a very thoughtful Ethics Committee member--you know, members dealing with him, rather than doing this on a television program or, you know, in some circus, let him do it with those people deliberating over this issue so that he can, in fact, clear his name. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about something--and I want to get Congressman Rangel's view on this. You know, obviously, earlier this year, earlier this month, there was some controversy over the remarks that Congressman DeLay made about the federal judges in saying they would face retribution for their behavior. This was in conjunction with the Terri Schiavo case. Last night, speaking to the National Rifle Association, Congressman DeLay said--and I'm quoting here an Associated Press account: "When a man is in trouble or is in a good fight, you want to have your friends around, preferably armed. So I feel good." What is your reaction to that, Congressman? Rep. DREIER: Well, my reaction is, first of all, Tom DeLay, like most of the rest of us, are supporters of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights and believe in the right to keep and bear arms. But I will tell you that--let me just tell you the... SCHIEFFER: Well, don't you find that rather inflammatory?

6 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Rep. DREIER: Let me say this. I disagree with what Tom DeLay said earlier. I believe strongly in the independence of the judiciary. And Tom DeLay said that he regretted having made those statements and he apologized for it. So let's realize that we are on the same page in our quest to make sure that as we encourage the rule of law--and I've just come back from a trip all over the Middle East, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, where building democratic institutions is something that's happening in the wake of our policy in Iraq, and people are encouraged about that, Bob. We need to do everything that we can to make sure that we have an independent judiciary, and that's something Tom DeLay... SCHIEFFER: So you're stepping back and you're disassociating yourself from these kinds of remarks. Rep. DREIER: He apologized. He apologized... SCHIEFFER: But this latest statement... Rep. DREIER: Well, I mean, listen, I mean, that's Tom DeLay and that was a speech that he gave to the NRA. And, you know, he certainly is entitled to say what he wishes there. SCHIEFFER: Congressman Rangel, would you want to comment on that? Rep. RANGEL: Yeah. I sympathize with Dave Dreier because basically he's an honest and sincere member of Congress. But the truth is, in this Congress, if you make criticism of Tom DeLay, you're out of business. And the three members, the Republican members on the Ethics Committee, was bounced because they were critical of him. Tom DeLay takes no prisoners. Now this is true--it is true... Rep. DREIER: I just criticized Tom DeLay, Charlie. I just criticized Tom DeLay. Rep. RANGEL: No you didn't. Because... Rep. DREIER: I just critici--i criticized him for his statements that he made on the independence of the judiciary. Rep. RANGEL: Well, that's not exactly a profile in courage, you know, I mean, saying that. The truth of the matter is... Rep. DREIER: Well, you said that I didn't criticize, but I did. Rep. RANGEL:...that the man should come forward, not just because of Republicans, because you're right. Democrats, some Democrats, like this. I regret when the Democrats take power that young people see the way the Republicans act and Democrats think that this is OK to do. But the Congress that I came to, we respected each other. We had an Ethics Committee. We worked together, and we didn't retaliate against judges and we didn't retaliate against members of our own party that was critical of our conduct. Rep. DREIER: Then let's work together, Charlie... Rep. RANGEL: So what you... Rep. DREIER:...to rebuild that effort. Let's work together to rebuild that effort so we can get to the point where we don't see politicization for...

7 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Rep. RANGEL: Well, why doesn't the Rules Committee allow Democrats to debate some of the issues to have amendments? Rep. DREIER: And we do. Rep. RANGEL: Why do you have closed rules? Rep. DREIER: Let me just tell you... Rep. RANGEL: It's ridiculous the way... Rep. DREIER:...Charlie... Rep. RANGEL:...the Republicans are just... Rep. DREIER:...let me tell you, of the 14 rules that we brought to the House floor, 10 have passed by a voice vote. You know, it's amazing to hear. We extended the offer on the bill this week. And I know this is inside baseball, Bob, but on the bill this week, we extended an offer to the minority to the Democrats to offer a substitute. They did not even submit a substitute to us. We're going to begin this week. We're going to have an energy bill, and I can tell you we're going to have a wide range of amendments dealing with our goal of energy selfsufficiency, reducing the price of gasoline for our constituents. So we are having deliberative debate. Rep. RANGEL: No, while you may call it inside... Rep. DREIER: Unfortunately, we've seen politicization... Rep. RANGEL:...baseball, but the public knows one thing. The way you treat Democrats with this drunkenness of power, the only satisfaction that we get is that you treat moderate Republicans the same way. Tom DeLay is called the hammer. He loves it. He says that his supporters should have arms and he takes no prisoners. This attacks the integrity not just of the Congress but how we look with foreign countries. You're trying to do the same thing with Social Security. Rep. DREIER: You know, Charlie, you know that baseball is very important here. Rep. RANGEL: The president is going to 60 countries... Rep. DREIER: Charlie, baseball is very important here... Rep. RANGEL:...you know, you... Rep. DREIER:...and we've all become Nationals fans which is a big key for us in this town now. Rep. RANGEL: You can change the subject if you want, David, but the truth of the matter is that you're getting involved with religion and politics. You're getting involved with the Schiavo case and making it a moral issue. You're threatening judges. You're bringing religion into this election of new federal judges. And I think the American people--unless you people

8 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, come forward and put your real issues on the table, that it's not just Republicans who's got to suffer but the integrity of the United States Congress... Rep. DREIER: We're going to wrap it up here and I'm just going to say... Rep. RANGEL:...and that's wrong. Rep. DREIER:...congratulations to you, Bob, in your budding new career anchoring the "Evening News." SCHIEFFER: Thank you. Rep. DREIER: We're very proud of you. SCHIEFFER: Thank you very much. Rep. RANGEL: You'll do anything to avoid answering the question, won't you, David? Rep. DREIER: Well, Bob's asking the questions. SCHIEFFER: Congressmen, thank you very much for joining us. Rep. DREIER: If he wants to ask me another one, I'll answer it. SCHIEFFER: I'm sorry. We do have to take a break. We've run out of time. I'll be back in a moment with Jan Crawford Greenburg of the Chicago Tribune. (Announcements) SCHIEFFER: And joining us now Jan Crawford Greenburg who is the legal correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. Jan, thank you very much for coming. We want to talk about this whole thing that's coming to a head in the Senate and that is: Will the Republican leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, try to outlaw the filibuster and what does that mean to folks who are just watching television this morning out there? Is it just something that's, as we just talked about, inside baseball in Washington or what are the real consequences? Let me just start by trying if I can in layman's language to talk about what they are talking about. The Senate operates by what we call a unanimous consent rule. That means that if one senator objects, then you cannot put something on the agenda and vote for it. All right. To overcome that and override that, you have to have 60 votes--not 50 votes but 60 votes to override that. That's basically what we're talking about here is: Do you do away with this rule that says you have 60 votes before you can vote on anything or can you just push it through with a straight majority? So I would ask you, Jan: Why does Senator Frist want to do this first? Ms. JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG (Chicago Tribune): The Democrats have been very successful in the last several years at blocking key nominees that the president has put up to go on the Federal Appeals Courts. They have filibustered 10 of those Federal Appeals Court nominees in the last two years. They're promising more filibusters of nominees in the future,

9 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, and they are certain to filibuster if the president nominates a controversial conservative to the US Supreme Court. They are certain to filibuster that nominee as well. SCHIEFFER: OK. Ms. GREENBURG: That is what's at issue here. SCHIEFFER: So here's what Senator Frist is trying to do. He's trying to get 50 votes, and then he can get that to break the tie, the vice president, to rule that filibusters are out of order, that you no longer need... Ms. GREENBURG: Right. SCHIEFFER:...60 votes to bring these judges to a vote. Ms. GREENBURG: That's right. He's trying to end the filibuster for judicial nominees. SCHIEFFER: OK. Here's the next question: Does he have the votes to do that? Ms. GREENBURG: Republicans that I spoke to yesterday and Friday say that it's not clear whether Senator Frist today--this weekend--has the votes but that he has told close associates in recent days, he believes he can get those votes in the next two weeks as some of these more controversial, conservative nominees go before the Senate Judiciary Committee and are voted out of committee and head to the Senate floor. The next two weeks are critical. He has told associates he believes he can get those votes. That said, there are several key Republicans who have not announced publicly which way they will vote. They're in the middle on the fence, could go either way. And some Republicans believe Frist may not know for sure until he actually forces this issue on the Senate floor. SCHIEFFER: OK. We know he's going to lose Senator McCain. Ms. GREENBURG: We saw that on your program last Sunday. SCHIEFFER: Senator McCain says he won't go along with it. Who else says they won't go along on his side? Ms. GREENBURG: We know he's not going to get Olympia Snowe from Maine, Senator Chafee from Rhode Island. Now keep in mind, as you said, we have 55 Republicans in the Senate right now. You can change the rules and end the filibuster with 50 because the vice president can come in and break the tie. So Senator Frist can lose five Republicans. He loses six, he doesn't get this. He's lost the three. So now we're looking to the three or four more that's in the middle: Senator Hagel, Senator Collins, Senator Warner, perhaps Senator Smith from Oregon, perhaps Senator Specter, although most people believe he ultimately will side with Frist. Those are the ones that are going to be getting the pressure, the arm-twisting the next week, the next two weeks from Senator Frist. And they're going to be getting the pressure from the left not to join. SCHIEFFER: OK. Let's say that Senator Frist gets the votes, he changes the rules; a filibuster no longer works. All you need is 51 votes to confirm basically a judicial appointment. What does that mean?

10 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, Ms. GREENBURG: That means all these nominees that have been filibustered for the last two years have been renominated, they will be judges. The Senate will confirm them. There's always been a majority of senators supporting them. They now can come up for a vote, be voted onto the bench. But it's much bigger than a handful of Federal Appeals Court nominees. This battle is very much about the future of the United States Supreme Court. I think most people believe that the chief justice, William Rehnquist, will step down at the end of this term. As you know, he's suffering from thyroid cancer. This summer, big Supreme Court battle over who will be the next chief justice of the United States. If Senator Frist is successful in ending filibusters for judicial nominees, it will make it much easier, obviously, for the president to get his nominee confirmed to be chief justice of the United States. That is the big issue here. That's what's been driving this issue for the last three years. It's been about the Supreme Court. SCHIEFFER: A lot of this, of course, is going to be about abortion... Ms. GREENBURG: Right. SCHIEFFER:...and about whether you can put someone on the court who's ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Some people say to me, though, it's broader even than that. Ms. GREENBURG: I think it's much broader than that. Obviously abortion is an issue. It's very important to key elements in the Republican Party and in the country. But there are other issues that are driving this debate over judges now, particularly this week, the courts reaching out and deciding issues that are social values and moral values, we've got affirmative action, religion in public life, gay marriage. All of these issues are very important, particularly to the Republican base, and they believe and they have urged Senator Frist that if he does not come in here now and does not get this rule changed to end these filibusters, that the courts that a liberal minority of senators can block the president's nominees in a way that the Constitution never considered. SCHIEFFER: It's widely believed that Senator Frist wants to run for president, and many people say that his strategy at this point is to run to the right of the other prominent Republicans who are thinking of it, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, of course, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska who is conservative yet more moderate, I think. Is that a part of this? Ms. GREENBURG: This is a big issue for the Republican base. This is pure ideological warfare. And they believe that this is a test for Senator Frist. Does he have the leadership skills? Can he pick up the phone and call Senator John Warner and say, `Do you like being chair of the Armed Services Committee? If you do, I expect for you to be with me on this vote.' They see this as a test of his leadership. And it's critical, they believe, the base believes, to him being in play for the nomination in SCHIEFFER: Jan, thank you very much for being with us. Ms. GREENBURG: You're welcome. SCHIEFFER: I think you've clarified that, a lot of it for me, in fact, so I appreciate it. I'll be back with a final word in just a minute. (Announcements)

11 Face the Nation (CBS News) - Sunday, April 17, SCHIEFFER: And finally today, talk about a movie we've seen before. Way back in the '70s when I was a young reporter new to Washington, the unlikeliest man about town was a flamboyant Korean named Tungsun Park. He hobnobbed with everyone from Frank Sinatra to half the members of Congress. It turned out to be more than hobnobbing, of course. He was eventually charged with 36 counts of conspiracy and bribery in a scandal that involved paying off members of Congress to support South Korean projects. He escaped trial when he told it all to Congress and a grand jury, but several members and former members of Congress were indicted and ethics rules were overhauled. Then Tungsun Park disappeared; frankly, I thought he was dead. But when I picked up the paper last week, there it was, the name Tungsun Park. He is 70 now, far from dead, and right in the middle, of all things, the UN oil-for-food scandal, the program that was set up to give humanitarian aid to poor Iraqis and instead allowed Saddam Hussein and corrupt businessmen to pocket literally billions of dollars for themselves. The authorities accused Park of collecting millions to lobby UN officials and investing in companies owned by UN employees. Douglas MacArthur once said, `Old soldiers never die. They just fade away.' So, too, apparently, these insider wheeler-dealer influence peddlers like Park. Unlike the old soldiers, once they fade away from view, they just keep on keeping on. The good news is that, after all these years, the government is again on his trail. The bad news is they're still not sure exactly where he is. Here's my tip: Find a large pile of money and stake it out. Eventually, old Tungsun will show up. That's it for us. We'll see you next week right here on FACE THE NATION.