CNN "Erin Burnett Outfront" - Transcript - Ryan-Murray Budget

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

TAPPER: Still, the president says he will sign the bill if it passes through both houses of Congress and lands on his desk but will it get that far?

One Republican who wants to prevent this bill from becoming a law, Congressman Tim Huelskamp.

Congressman, thanks for joining us.

You likely heard the warning today, quote, "If you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."

So, I presume you're for more deficit reduction. Why are you against it?

REP. TIM HUELSKAMP (R), KANSAS: Jake, let's go honest here. This is a spending increase. The only way you can concede that it is a deficit reduction measure is somehow believe that eight to nine years from now, Congress is going to maintain the cuts.

What they're trying to undo is the agreement, a 10-year agreement and replace with it another one, at higher levels of spending. At the end of the day, they aren't maintaining sequester. It's more spending, which is in my mind, why it's bipartisan. Both sides have agreed to raise spending. And it's also going to increase fees and taxes and I think at the end of the day, it's not good for the American economy or the American people.

TAPPER: I spoke earlier with your fellow Republican, Congressman Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman who crafted this bill, along with Democratic Senator Patty Murray.

Here's what Congressman Ryan told me. I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: We have laid out our vision very clearly, Jake, our budget which balances the budget and pays off the debt is our vision. It's ultimately where we want to go. But we know in divided government, we're not going to get that.

So, the question that we're asking is, can we get a step in the right direction? I clearly think this is a step in the right direction. Others would like us to go farther in that right direction. I don't begrudge them of that. I want to go further in that right direction, but I think this is a step in the right direction. And that's why I think this is very important that we do this and also just show that we can make this government work a little bit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Congressman, his basic argument, it's divided government. There is a Democratic-controlled Senate, a Democrat controlling the White House, and it's better to go along with this and let the government work a little bit rather than not at all.

Your response?

HUELSKAMP: Well, Jake, the sequester is the law of the land. It is a small limited amount of cuts. Actually, conservatives opposed it because we didn't think it was robust. It wasn't targeted enough. It didn't deal with entitlement reform, and what we could have with doing nothing is all of the sequester.

This is actually a step backward, not a step forward. And that's why conservatives are upset because it is making promises about cuts sometime in the future with spending increases today, which is what usually happens often in Washington in December. The Washington winter wonderland of spending increases and calling it a deficit reduction package.

I understand if you cannot get it done but to say it's a great thing, it's a deficit reduction package I think is very misleading.

TAPPER: Well, I think "The Wall Street Journal" editorial page called it the least worst option even those who people are saying that it should pass are not saying it's a great deal.

Paul Ryan's argument is, this is the best that can be done right now. You know that appropriators, both Democrats and Republicans and a lot of people who are on the military related committees who -- obviously the Pentagon and those in the defense industry really hate those sequester cuts, that there was going to be something of a rebellion and Ryan's argument is this is the best we can do right now.

Do you disagree? Do you think you could have negotiated a better deal with Patty Murray?

HUELSKAMP: Doing nothing maintains the sequester. The negotiation here is to undo the limited spending cuts of the sequester. And if the leadership was really committed to the sequester which they claim to have been for three years, or two and a half years, they have said the crowning achievement of Republican control of the U.S. House are these limited cuts. That's what they're trading away.

Actually, it was just a couple months ago where the Democrats were demanding a clean CR and Republican moderates were demanding a clean CR. What the conservatives said, OK, we agree. Pass a clean CR across the floor and hopefully we can agree to a CR, continuing resolution spending levels for the remainder of the fiscal year. But this is actually a step backwards in my opinion.

TAPPER: Last question. Paul Ryan seemed to indicate some optimism. He thinks there will be the votes to pass this deal. He said we will. We feel good about that.

At the end of the day, even without your support, do you think that votes are there to pass this?

HUELSKAMP: When you increase spending in Washington, that's usually the bipartisan deal. So, my guess is it will pass. It just depends how many Americans are finding out about the spending increases in Washington and they're not focused on Washington this time of year. They're worried about holidays, worried about Christmas and doing other things. But this happened last year at this time where they went through part of the sequester.

Usually bad deals happening in Washington in December. And another one seems likely to happen tomorrow.

TAPPER: All right. Well, speaking of Christmas, Christmas to you, sir.

HUELSKAMP: You, too, Jake.

TAPPER: Congressman Huelskamp, Republican of Kansas, thank you so much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source