News from CNN - Transcript

CNN

SHOW: NEWS FROM CNN 12:00

HEADLINE: State of the Union: Reaction on the Hill

GUESTS: Dianne Feinstein, Trent Lott

BYLINE: Wolf Blitzer

HIGHLIGHT:
Interview with Dianne Feinstein, Trent Lott

BODY:
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: President Bush-is he on the right course or, as some Democrats, charging, in a state of denial? That, of course, depends on what your perspective is.

Let's get some perspective from two members of the United States Senate. Senator Dianne Feinstein, of course, is a Democrat from California. Republican Senator Trent Lott is from Mississippi.

Senators, thanks very much for joining us.

Let me begin with you, Senator Feinstein. The president delivered a speech, went on almost for an hour with applause. When you listened-you were there. What was your bottom line reaction?

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D), CALIFORINA: Well, my bottom line reaction, I think, after I've thought about it overnight was that it was pretty much an election-year political State of the Union. It really didn't call for, you know, a bipartisan consensus to work together for a specific vision.

And most particularly, I thought it was very weak on the domestic front. I thought it was very weak on the economy. And I happen to be one that believes if this president were a Democrat and had the kind of deficit that this president does have, the Republicans would be all over him.

BLITZER: All right.

FEINSTEIN: And yet, we have a huge deficit, and no potential way of bringing it under control, despite what he said that within five years it would be halved. There's no way the numbers work out to half the deficit in five years.

BLITZER: All right. Senator Lott, I know you're anxious to respond to Senator Feinstein.

SEN. TRENT LOTT ®, MISSISSIPPI: Well, I thought his speech was optimistic and uplifting. He was very strong in his statement about our war on terrorism and how we're going to continue to fight that and win that battle. And he had bipartisan support in that commitment.

But he also did talk, I thought, in a positive way, about the economy. He said the State of the Union was confident and strong. And I believe that's true.

I was glad, frankly, that he didn't give us a laundry list-vote for this bill, do this, do that, the other. He focused on a few important domestic issues. Obviously, health care, education are very important. Job training, he talked about using community colleges and in my state of Mississippi, our community colleges are very strong and already a part of our job training initiative.

We do have more we need to do. But I thought he gave us a good speech and one that I was very pleased with.

BLITZER: Here's a e-mail we have, Senator Feinstein, from Dennis in Pennsylvania: "It's disgraceful to the country and disrespectful to the office of the president to have Democrats like Senator Kennedy grimacing with disgust during the State of the Union address."

You probably didn't see the TV coverage, but there were shots of Senator Kennedy listening. When the president says something he disagreed with, clearly he was making his opposition-here - he's some - here is a picture of what we saw last night.

What do you say to Dennis in Pennsylvania?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'd say to Dennis in Pennsylvania that there's a certain fractious quality to all of this. You know, just as people were standing and whistling and cheering, those that differed from the point of view that was being expressed, sometime let it show on their faces. But by and large, I think everybody was very respectful. I think we all welcomed him. He is our president.

Now, there happened to be fundamental disagreements and the Democratic Party has a different set of priorities, I think, than this president. However-I mean, I do not believe that Senator Kennedy did anything that was untoward.

BLITZER: All right. We have a different perspective from Gary in Michigan, Senator Lott. Let me throw this one to you. You won't be surprised that there are different opinions out there.

"I was insulted by President Bush's State of the Union address. It came across to me as a very partisan address and Bush seemed to be implying that he is the only leader we need and the Republican Party is the only party we need. I am looking forward to casting a vote against him in November."

Some people are criticizing the president for bringing in to his speech all sorts of divisive issues and clearly threatening to go for a Constitutional amendment, for example, if other states, if judges in other states do what was done in Massachusetts and go ahead and weaken what some might say is the law of the land, the defense of marriage law that was passed during the Clinton administration in '96 and '97 and their opposition to gay marriage.

LOTT: Lott, I have for the first time in 30 years, was actually not in the chamber. I was the designee to be in an undisclosed location last night, so I watched it on television like millions of Americans.

With regard to the person's reaction to Senator Kennedy and others - you know, you're sitting there on the floor, you don't really realize you're on TV or not. But you better be real careful. I found that out. You better be careful how you react and what you say.

With regard to - you know, some parts of his speech that were partisan in nature. But in other areas he made an extra effort to reach out and say, We did this together. I did not do this alone as the president of the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

LOTT: ...the American people. We did the education, No Child Left Behind together. We did a bipartisan vote on prescription drugs and Medicare. I voted against that, but it was a bipartisan vote.

BLITZER: Well, what do you think, Senator Lott-excuse me for interrupting-about his threat to go possibly for a Constitutional amendment in order to prevent gay marriage?

LOTT: I think he's right when you say that marriage is between a man and a woman. He wants to try to find a way to work through this without going the Constitutional right-route, but he indicated he was prepared to do that if that's what had to be done to keep the judges from imposing their will on the will of the American people. It was not an issue that he stayed on a long period of time, but it is something that people are worried about and thinking about in this country.

BLITZER: I'm going to let Senator Feinstein respond to that, but we have to take a quick break.

I'll put up on the screen, though, an e-mail that we just got in from John in Alabama on this specific point before we go, talking about marriage and the State of the Union: "How inappropriate. There are more important issues that exist in the homeland, like jobs, education, ending the war, and most of all, learning how to get along with our neighbors world wide."

We'll take a quick break. We'll let Senator Feinstein pick up that thought right when we come back.

And remember, you can still call us if you want to weigh in. We have a toll free number, 1800-CNN-1896. Or e-mail right now at wolf@cnn.com .

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: We're assessing the president's speech last night with two formidable lawmakers, senators Dianne Feinstein and Trent Lott. They're joining us from Capitol Hill. They're also taking your phone calls, your e-mail.

Senator Feinstein, let me let you respond to the question that I posed earlier, just before the break, about the president's threat, if necessary, to go for a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

FEINSTEIN: Well, if there ever was a quintessential state issue, it's marriage. That's been the tradition in this nation, and states have defined their marriage laws and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) they're carried out under state law. And I think that's appropriate.

I don't find a necessity for a Constitutional amendment on marriage, and I was really rather surprised that that was stuck in there. I thought that and use of steroids was very atypical in terms of a State of the Union message.

BLITZER: It sounded almost-some critics of the Clinton administration, Senator Feinstein, would say, almost Clintonian bringing in relatively modest issues, steroids in sports, if you will, in a State of the Union address. I'm going to talk about that a little bit more with my guests coming up later this hour.

LOTT: I'm sorry, Wolf, I thought they should have had somebody there from the Carolina Panthers there too, since they had Tom Brady there from the Patriots.

BLITZER: That was another point that was well made. The quarterback for the New England Patriots was sitting up in the gallery with the first lady. Nobody from the Carolina Panthers.

All right. Let's take another call. Frank in California, go ahead.

CALLER: Yes. I was appalled by the president's speech last night. And I'm an ex-middle class taxpayer headed to lower class under this administration.

BLITZER: What happened to you? What happened to you? You lost your job, Frank?

CALLER: Yes, the economy is bad. In 30 years of my business, this is the worst I've ever seen it.

FEINSTEIN: Let me-let me respond to that, if I might, because this is where there's a certain air of lack of reality in the speech.

The California streets (ph), so to speak, are really very concerned about the state of the economy, because we're not gaining jobs. We've got 4.7 million Americans pounding pavements today looking for jobs.

BLITZER: But the economy - but the economy, Senator Feinstein, as the president pointed out last night, is improving. Job - job creation lagging albeit. But in terms - isn't that the last factor that really gets going once the economy comes out of a recession?

FEINSTEIN: Well, that could be, that could be. But I think there are a couple of other things that are entering into this. And they're downsizing and outsourcing. And what we find is companies are producing for their bottom line.

Corporate profits will be up. But companies are downsizing and they are outsourcing their jobs.

BLITZER: Right.

What about that, Senator Lott?

LOTT: Look, we have to continue to work to improve the economy. We want more jobs creation, but look at the positive things. Production is up. That's one of the reasons (UNINTELLIGIBLE) downsizing. You could do more with modern technology with fewer people. But we have to continue to work to help create jobs.

How do you do that? Tax cuts, incentives for people to save, invest, buy products. We've done that. Low interest rates, that's positive.

I mentioned that productivity is up. More money for training and education. The president talked about that.

I think he touched all the things that we need to do and continue to do. Instead, the Democrats just complain about it. What is their proposal?

BLITZER: All right. I think it's-will get into that in a moment, but let me get a caller-another caller who wants to weigh in, Jaustin, in Florida.

Go ahead, Jaustin.

CALLER: Hello, yes. I realize that the Democrats are against President Bush a lot, but what are the Democrats (UNINTELLIGIBLE) plan for economic recovery?

BLITZER: All right. That's a good question. That's exactly what Senator Lott was asking as well.

I'll let Senator Feinstein-do you want to make permanent the tax cuts that are now the law of the land, what President Bush proposed last night? Some of them expire in the years to come. Do you think it's a good idea to go along and pass legislation that would make permanent what is the current tax law right now?

FEINSTEIN: I think it's the worst possible idea to make permanent tax cuts when you have the largest deficit in history and you have had an $11 trillion turnaround from a surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years when this president took office. And it is now projected to be a deficit of $5.5 trillion over 10 years.

I think this is the most serious problem facing-let me just finish-because it is going to implanting Social Security. It will make it less viable rather than more viable. It will impact Medicare. It is going to make it less viable rather than more viable. And in terms of an economy, if you want to produce jobs, you begin to develop the infrastructure that produces jobs.

BLITZER: All right.

LOTT: May I speak to that?

BLITZER: I'd love you to, Senator Lott, but I know you have to leave and I know our time is very short.

LOTT: An energy bill, a highway bill. We need to do those. Those will create jobs and help the economy.

BLITZER: All right.

FEINSTEIN: We had an energy bill. Terrible energy bill.

LOTT: Well, we're going to improve it and pass it.

FEINSTEIN: Oh, all right, I'll buy that.

BLITZER: Senator Lott, one quick question, before I let you go. We always know there's a member of the executive branch, a cabinet member who is left behind, doesn't come with everyone else to the State of the Union address. Commercial Secretary Evans last night did not attend. God forbid there could be some sort of terrorism, everyone important in Washington almost is in that building, the U.S. Capitol.

But last night you pointed out to your viewers a select group of Democrats and Republicans from the House and Senate also didn't attend. Is this a new development that leaders of the House and Senate are staying behind as well, in case, god forbid, of some sort of disaster?

LOTT: Since 9/11, we've been doing that. The speaker designates a person, a Republican. And Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. So there were two House members not present. A Republican, Democrat and Harry Reid and I were not there.

It is part of our continuity of government that we've been thinking about working on in case of, heaven forbid, a real disaster. But we would be prepared for the legislative branch to continue to operate, as well as the executive branch in case there should be some sort of really tragic set of circumstances.

BLITZER: I was there in Statuary Hall last night covering the State of the Union. And I got to tell you, it was very impressive to see all of the leaders of the U.S. government, all three branches, walking in to listen to the president of the United States.

I'm going to have to lead it right there. Two top influential senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Lott. Thanks for spending a little time with us here on CNN.

LOTT: Thanks, Wolf.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.