CNN "State Of The Union With John King" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

KING: Joining us now, here in Washington, two top senators, Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey -- he's also the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee -- and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, a leading Republican on the committees that deal with intelligence and health care.

Gentlemen, a lot to talk about this morning. I want to get to the political climate in the wake of the big election in Massachusetts, but some specifics that you will face as senators in the days ahead.

I'll start with you, Senator Menendez. The president wants Ben Bernanke to get a second term as the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Will you vote yes?

MENENDEZ: Look, I've had concerns, as I expressed in the Banking Committee, with Chairman Bernanke, about consumer protection, of being ahead of the curve on the economy, and particularly on mortgage foreclosures. I think he's learned from those lessons.

I give him credit for making some significant moves to, along with President Obama, from stopping us from going into a deep depression. So, yes, I will support Chairman Bernanke, and I believe that his confirmation will be assured.

KING: Are you on the same page?

HATCH: Yes, in all honesty, there are some things I don't agree with that have been done, but I think he basically has -- has all of the ability to do it. I'd be terrified of having him replaced by this administration. You never know what you're going to get.

This man knows what he's doing. Yes, can he improve? You bet your life. But I'm going to vote for him. KING: Another tough vote you'll have this week is on raising the debt ceiling. And as part of that, there is an amendment that would create a new statutory powerful commission, like the Congress does when it's debating whether to close military bases.

A panel would look at the deficit. It would say, what do we have to do; what program might we have to cut; what taxes might we have to raise? And then you would get to vote up or down on the commission's findings.

Will you support, Senator Hatch, creating that commission, even though -- many Republicans are worried about this -- in the end, it is likely to have, in that package it recommends, some tax increases?

HATCH: Well, I suspect that the main thing that will come out of any kind of commission like that will be tax increases. I don't see -- I don't see the stomach in the administration or friends on the other side to do any cutting, to do any paring down of government.

KING: But it's a bipartisan commission, and there are Republicans on it as well to recommend those cuts.

HATCH: Well, I have a rough time supporting it, to be honest with you, because I think it would just wind up being another excuse, rather than facing the tough problems that we all should be facing right now, that the president should be facing. And he ought to be putting pressure on the Congress to face these problems, and we ought to do something about it, rather than push it off again to another commission that never seems to work anyway.

KING: Do you think -- you support the president now that he has gone behind this commission?

MENENDEZ: Well, John, I'm looking at the one that he proposed by executive order, which would basically do the same thing, have the same competition... KING: It's not buy-in, though?

MENENDEZ: ... but would allow some amendment to be offered to it because, you know, up or down votes on what a group of people decided is, in some degree, a -- you know, giving up the responsibility that you had to the people who elected you.

So I do think what the president is right on is trying to work on this, you know, debt reduction. He inherited, you know, a $1.3 trillion deficit. You know, President Bush inherited a $236 billion surplus. It went from that, from a surplus to a $1.3 trillion deficit that President Obama inherited.

So he understands that in fact we need to deal with this. The commission may be the way. I'd like a commission that gives me some flexibility to make adjustments.

KING: So you'll vote no?

MENENDEZ: I haven't made that final conclusion. I'm looking at, in fact, which of the two might be the best way to ensure that we reduce the deficit.

KING: Another big thing that happened this week, and it directly affects you as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but will affect the election climate overall, was this Supreme Court ruling, essentially opening the doors again for labor unions and big corporations to flood money into campaigns.

The Congress had tried to stop that. There was a suit, of course, that went to the Supreme Court.

What is your sense of what this means in the election environment we are now in, that all the big money can come back in?

And what should the president or the Congress do to stop it, if anything?

MENENDEZ: Well, it's a dark day for democracy in our country. It's a dark day for the average citizen. The last thing we need is big oil, big health insurance companies, big banks being able to spend unlimited amounts of money from their treasury to influence the result of elections.

And I hope that our Republican colleagues, who joined us 20 years ago in having a reform effort that was clearly reform, to stop the special-interest money coming in directly in that way, will join us again in limiting the influence.

The last thing that the average citizen needs, who already feels that these big, moneyed interests already have too much influence in Washington, is to add more money.

And even a foreign corporation -- there's no differentiation in the Supreme Court's ruling -- a foreign corporation could spend money and influence who is sitting in the United States Senate and House of Representatives. I don't think that's in America's interests, and I hope our colleagues on the Republican side will join with us to curtail the essence of the court's decision.

KING: Would you join with him in writing new legislation?

HATCH: Well, all these corporations can do that now. But what the senator fails to mention is that, in the last two-year election, the unions put up over $1 billion -- they finally admitted that -- about $70 million in monies they had to disclose; the rest of it were -- happened to be monies that were used to -- to elect -- to basically get out the vote for Democrats.

But, also, as vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial committee, in the last two years before President Obama's election, I have to say, we raised about $90 million for Republican candidates for Senate.

HATCH: The Democrats raised $150 million and they got it mainly from businesses. If anybody thinks that businesses are Republican, especially big businesses, they ought to think twice because most of them are Democrat, and they are going to give all kinds of money. And look, it comes down to free speech. Do these people have a right to participate in the political process? And the answer is yes. I think the unions should. I think the corporations should, and the fact of the matter is, there are ways that we can curtail offensive action if we want to.

KING: So there won't be a law passed this year, then.

MENENDEZ: I hope Orrin will join us. Look, it's not about the unions. I believe the same limitations that existed on union before this case was decided should continue to exist. The reality is corporations have spent, the Chamber of Commerce has spent on limited amounts of money under the present system, but not directly from treasuries. Should share holders not have a say about how much money is being spent from their company for campaigns and elections? This is going to be about who stands on your side. If Republicans want to stand with big moneyed interests and the special interests to influence elections, versus with the average citizen, so be it. But Democrats are going to stand with the average citizen and try to curtail this.

HATCH: The point I've been making is that the big business interests have been Democratic. The big union interests are all Democratic. In all honesty, they don't have trouble raising money. They don't have trouble spending money. Their problem is they are on the wrong side of the issue. That's what is killing them.

MENENDEZ: I don't think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Democratic.

KING: We will agree that the two of you disagree on this one. Let's move on to health care. Senator Menendez, this was the president's signature initiative. He wanted in the speech to Congress last year to sign it in 2009. He wanted this to be a big Democratic victory. That didn't happen. The election in Massachusetts obviously takes away one of your votes. You don't have 60 votes in the Democratic caucus anymore. The question is will Democrats try to work out a compromise between the existing Senate in the House bill, or will they say Massachusetts sent us a message, forget that, let's go back to the drawing board and start over. What is your position and the position you believe all those Democratic candidates out there you are trying to help in this election should take? Figure it out or start from scratch?

MENENDEZ: Well first of all, we tried working with our Republican colleagues. As a matter of fact, three of the months that went by was working with a bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans to try to come to health care reform that could be agreed upon in a bipartisan fashion. And so three of those months were lost in that effort. At the end of the day, they did not want to achieve such a goal. So I believe that we need to move forward. Clearly if you are a family without health insurance and you get ill, you are on the face of bankruptcy. If you are a family with insurance, you see skyrocketing premiums.

KING: Based on the existing bills or start over and say Senator Hatch, you were Ted Kennedy's friend, let's come in with a blank piece of paper and do something that we can all agree on?

MENENDEZ: Well, you know, when we hear about slow down and start over, it really means don't do anything. Republicans have come to the conclusion that the president's failure not only in health care but across the board is their way to political victory.

KING: Your leader this morning said start from scratch. Could you give Senator Menendez and the president of the United States, given your experience on this issue, including with your friend, the late Senator Kennedy, that if you will come in with a blank piece of paper, I will promise to try to get a bill by the end of this year?

HATCH: I've offered that from the beginning.

KING: This year?

HATCH: I have offered that from the beginning. The fact of the matter is, they did a health committee bill.

KING: That's what happened before.

HATCH: Everything they did was lacking...

KING: In this political environment, would your party stand with you if you said, let's go back and let's do preexisting conditions. Let's do some other things. Maybe we can get them to give us tort reform and let's take out of stuff that we don't agree on and try to get something done. Would you do it this year?

HATCH: I don't know one Republican who does not want health care reform. I don't know one Republican who would not try to work together with the Democrats. We weren't involved in this process. We weren't even asked. It was an arrogance of power. They had 60 votes. They felt they could put anything through they wanted to. And they found out that they couldn't.

Now look, you bet your life, we would have to start over. There are a lot of things we can agree on right off the bat. I have to say big spending issues is where it breaks down. Their answer to everything is let's spend more money and let's get more of the health care in the federal government into a single payer system, socialized medicine, if you will. That's what they want. That's what they have been pushing for. Let's push people into Medicaid. Let's push people into Medicare, when both of those programs are in deep financial insolvency.

KING: I need to get this to Senator Menendez. In the wake of the election, the White House has said they're going to have David Plouffe come back from the outside, the campaign manager they had in 2008. He is going to travel the country. He's going to get more involved in campaigns for governor and Senate. Implicit in all that is that your committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee missed the boat in Massachusetts, didn't see this stunning upset coming, and they believe if you listen to them, that they somehow need to almost circumvent what you are doing so it doesn't happen again. Was the failure at your committee and do you need this help or is that meddling?

MENENDEZ: Look, we welcome the White House beefing up their political operation and the political atmosphere. Secondly, we didn't start under my term with 60 votes. We had 60 votes. Clearly we did everything we could in Massachusetts. I think the big takeaway from Massachusetts, however, is that in fact there is enormous economic angst in the country, both people who have lost their jobs, have a family member who lost their jobs. They house is worth less than their mortgage. And that economic angst came out to play in this election. It is something that I expect the president to deal with in the State of the Union speech, and something we will deal with as we deal with the jobs package that talks about helping small business so that they can build on their existing businesses and create jobs, helping to look at some of the infrastructure of the country, so people can get to work right away and have long term job opportunities, helping states and localities to make sure that critical employees are being able to be kept employed, not only for our economy but for the services they provide.

I hope Republicans will join us in meeting the economic challenges instead of just simply saying no. No doesn't create a job and no doesn't give health care to anybody or stop the insurance companies from arbitrarily and capriciously denying people. KING: We will continue the conversation as to what has turned into an even more interesting midterm election year unfold. Senator Hatch from Utah, Senator Menendez of New Jersey, gentlemen, thanks for coming in.

And coming up next, 50 states in 50 weeks. Even before the big vote in Massachusetts, our travels offered so many clues of the shifting political tide.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source