Election 2008 Democrats | Republicans | General Election: Heads-to-Heads | Latest Polls

---

October 14, 2007

Boehner & Hoyer on SCHIP, NSA Wiretapping

Fox News Sunday

BRIT HUME, GUEST HOST: I'm Brit Hume in for Chris Wallace, and this is "Fox News Sunday."

The White House and Congress face off over children's health care insurance. Do house Democrats have the votes to override the president's veto? We'll ask their majority leader, Congressman Steny Hoyer.

Then nearly one year into the Democrats' majority, what are Republican plans to take back control? We'll ask their minority leader, Congressman John Boehner.

Good morning again from Fox News in Washington. With us now, the Republican's top man in the House, minority leader John Boehner.

Congressman, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: Brit, it's good to be with you.

HUME: SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, if I have that right -- it's been around for some years. Republicans have supported it. The president is willing to expand it some. The Democrats think that the funding needs to be much larger, $35 billion. Republicans, or at least -- the president says he'd go for $5 billion.

The president has vetoed their $35 billion expansion. Where do the votes stand on the Democrats' effort to override the veto?

BOEHNER: We will have the votes to sustain the president's veto. Listen, Republicans and Democrats came together about 10 years ago to create the Children's Health Insurance Program because if you're poor and you have children, you're on Medicaid.

But the working poor and their children didn't have access to high quality health insurance. And so Republicans and Democrats came together. We created this program. And now we have to reauthorize the program.

Over the 10 years we've had the program, here's what's happened. We have 500,000 eligible children who have not been signed up for the Children's Health Insurance Program, and yet there are 700,000 adults on the program.

As an example, in Minnesota, 87 percent of the people enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program are adults; 66 percent in Wisconsin. And what Republicans are saying is, "Let's work together. Let's reauthorize the program. But let's make sure that poor kids come first."

What we don't want is what usually happens here in Washington. You create a new program, and all of a sudden it becomes something far different than what it started out to be.

HUME: OK. So the Democrats want to expand it to the tune of $35 billion. The Republican figure is $5 billion.

BOEHNER: I don't think the issue is really over money.

HUME: Well, OK. But if it's not over money, then how far are you willing to go to enlarge it in terms of the amount you're going to spend?

BOEHNER: Well, what we believe is that we ought to be insuring poor children first.

HUME: Right.

BOEHNER: If states want to expand this program, let them expand the program, but let's -- this is a children's health insurance program. Let's make sure we do poor kids first.

HUME: So you're saying...

BOEHNER: But the second problem in this bill is that if you look what the Democrats are trying to do, they're trying to create a much larger share of health coverage in America run by the government.

Most people don't want government-run health insurance. Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of health insurance that we have in America.

And we want to continue to foster a spirit of innovation when it comes to health care in America. This is a plan that we'll see over the next coming months where we put the patients back in charge of their own health care.

HUME: All right. The Democrats believe with a couple of weeks to work on it and to publicize the issue and with the title of the program, Children's Health Insurance, as you pointed out, that this will be, even if the Republicans succeed in sustaining the president's veto, a painful and politically burdensome vote. What do you say to that?

BOEHNER: This bill was designed not to pass. This bill was designed to play political games, exactly what the American people are tired of.

When they designed the bill, they knew it was going to be vetoed, and the president did veto it. The veto message came from the White House back to Congress. We could have had the veto override vote right then and there, and we could have sat down and began to resolve the differences here. But oh, no, that's not what happened.

They decide we're going to wait for two weeks, we're going to turn up the political pressure and play more political games while this program continues to sit out there.

HUME: You won't dispute, though, that it is a painful vote for Republicans to vote to sustain this veto.

BOEHNER: It probably isn't the fight that we'd want to pick, but it's a fight they decided to pick.

But remember when we had welfare reform back in the mid '90s? We were called heartless, and mean, and awful. And yet since then, some 60 percent of the people who were on welfare are off.

Two million American families now are in the mainstream of American society.

HUME: That bill, though...

BOEHNER: That's a program that worked.

HUME: Yes, but that bill was popular. This bill is...

BOEHNER: No, no. That bill -- we were being demonized the same way. How about when we went to expand health care coverage for Medicaid recipients -- or Medicare recipients, seniors, when we were providing the prescription drug penalty -- or prescription drug program?

And remember all the noise that we got? We were making an empty promise to the American people. They vilified us. But the program has been wildly successful among seniors.

And so when Republicans stand on principle, it's like what I told my kids growing up -- I tell my staff, I tell me colleagues -- if you do the right thing every day for the right reasons, good things will happen.

HUME: All right. You've suggested that a compromise is within reach. Are there any discussions? Have you reached out to Steny Hoyer, who will be here with us shortly, and said, "Let's reason together? Let's have a conference?"

BOEHNER: The Democrats have spoken to no House Republicans about working out this bill before or since, even though 28 Republicans who actually voted for this bill sent a letter to the leadership, Democrat leadership, last week saying, "Hey, let's sit down and resolve this."

And I think the differences are resolvable, but we're standing on our principle that poor kids ought to come first.

HUME: There's a Democratic-introduced measure to reauthorize this Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was a temporary continuation which was passed, I guess, last August.

This reauthorization of the measure is somewhat different. Some very strong claims have been made against it, including by you. Specifically -- specifically -- why do you find fault with this bill that the Democrats have introduced?

BOEHNER: Well, let's go back to earlier this year when there was a decision made by the FISA court that our...

HUME: That's the court that rules on...

BOEHNER: On foreign intelligence surveillance activities.

HUME: All right.

BOEHNER: And they ruled that certain types of communications were off-limits to this program. And over the summer the Democrats were trying to pass a bill in the House that didn't close this loophole, what we call the terrorist loophole.

HUME: What's that?

BOEHNER: It would prohibit us from listening to known terrorists or suspected terrorists -- their phone calls...

HUME: Overseas.

BOEHNER: ... overseas if the communication happened to come through the United States.

HUME: In other words, if it was a call into the United States or the phone or e-mail communications was routed through the United States.

BOEHNER: Yes. You could have had two people sitting in Pakistan, but a call could be routed or the e-mail could be routed through the United States.

HUME: Well, I'm given to understand that the bill has within it -- this Democratic bill has within it a provision for blanket warrants that will last up to a year on foreign terrorist suspects overseas.

BOEHNER: We have never, never required our intelligence people to get a warrant on foreign-to-foreign communications of any sort.

HUME: But what's so burdensome about it if you can get a warrant that lasts up to a year?

BOEHNER: Well, how big is the blanket? Is it for one individual or is it for all individuals?

We were in a position earlier this year where we were having to pull analysts off of their jobs to write these FISA court warrants. And what we're trying to do here is protect the American people. It's no accident that we've not been attacked since 9/11.

HUME: Right.

BOEHNER: And this bill and this issue is very important to protecting the American people. And why our friends across the aisle won't sit down and work with us to try to resolve the differences are beyond me.

Now, there are a number of Democrats who want to sit down and work this out with us, and I think Steny may be one of them.

But he and others in the Democrat Party are being yanked by the left, by the ACLU and others. And at the end of the day, the goal has to be what do we need to do to protect the American people.

HUME: The other issue that has risen in connection with this bill has to do with granting an immunity from legal action, from lawsuits, to companies which, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, cooperated with very aggressive government surveillance activities undertaken in the fear that another attack might have been right then on the way.

Democrats say that they're open to that, but they want to know more about who got listened to at the time and what actually happened before they grant the immunity. That sounds reasonable. Is it?

BOEHNER: I'm not sure that we need to get into all the paperwork and all the background details of what went on after 9/11.

But after 9/11, our country and our intelligence officials went to telecommunication firms and other third parties and asked them to participate in a program to help secure and bring safety to the American people, and they did.

And because they did voluntarily, I believe that they deserve immunity from lawsuits out there from typical trial lawyers trying to find a way to get into the pockets of the American companies.

HUME: Where are the votes on this bill now? If this bill came to a vote in the House in its present form, what do you think would happen?

BOEHNER: It's going to be a close vote. I think there are a lot of - - almost all Republicans -- and there are a number of Democrats who want to work together and resolve these differences.

HUME: Let's go now to this question of the Foreign Affairs Committee which approved this legislation that would describe the mass killings during the conflict way -- what, 90 years ago or longer, between the Turks and the Armenians in World War I as genocide.

Now, the U.S. government says yes, it was a mass killing, even indeed a massacre, but the word genocide is extremely sensitive to the Turks who, in the aftermath of the action by that committee, recalled their ambassador.

Is there any real thought this measure will ever pass the House, in your view? BOEHNER: Listen, there's no question that the suffering of the Armenian people some 90 years ago was extreme.

But what happened 90 years ago ought to be a subject for historians to sort out, not politicians here in Washington. And I think bringing this bill to the floor may be the most irresponsible thing I've seen this new Congress do this year.

Turkey is a very important ally in our war against the terrorists. They are in a very strategic location in the world. They've been a great ally of ours.

They are very upset about this resolution, and the speaker should not bring this issue to the floor.

HUME: What do you think will happen?

BOEHNER: It should not be brought to the floor, and the speaker ought to make sure it isn't brought to the floor.

HUME: All right.

BOEHNER: And at this point in time, I'm not sure it will pass.

HUME: OK. One last thing. You've been in the minority now long enough, I'm sure, to find it disagreeable. You were in the minority before. What is your plan to restore your party to the majority quickly?

BOEHNER: Two things. I think that Republicans need to get back to the principles of being Republicans. I think when it comes to the issue of fiscal responsibility, to some extent over the last three or four years, we lost our way.

And so when it comes to holding the line on spending, getting rid of wasteful Washington spending, we've got to show the American people that we learned our lesson.

And secondly, I think we've got to be the party of solutions. The American people don't care who's in charge of Congress. I think they're tired of all the partisan bickering and all the noise here, and they want solutions.

And I think that you'll see our party come forward with solutions on health care and how we get high quality health insurance to all Americans.

How do we ensure that we've got good access to health care? What's our answer to global climate change? How do we get to energy independence? I think we as a political party need to provide solutions to those concerns that Americans have, but those solutions...

HUME: A new contract with America?

BOEHNER: No, but solutions built on Republican principles. HUME: Right.

BOEHNER: How we promote our new ideas and our solutions -- we'll get to decide that over the course of the next year.

HUME: All right. Minority leader John Boehner. Always good to see you, sir. Thanks for sharing part of your day with us.

Up next, a view from the other side of the aisle with the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, right after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUME: Joining us now, the House majority leader, Congressman Steny Hoyer.

And welcome back to you as well, sir.

REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD), MAJORITY LEADER: Thank you, Brit. Good to be here.

HUME: Let's talk SCHIP a little bit. You heard Congressman Boehner say well, that Republicans are open to a compromise, that the money really wasn't the issue, that safeguards were imposed that would keep the program from being, you know, a program for adults and people way, way over the poverty line, that something could be worked out.

HOYER: If I heard him say all that...

HUME: If that's the case -- well, OK. If that's the case, why go forward with what appears to be a certain-to-fail veto override? Why not negotiate and try to get a bill that can be passed and signed?

HOYER: Well, we think this is a compromise. As a matter of fact, an overwhelming number of Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted for it.

And Senator Grassley, the former chairman of the Finance Committee, Republican leader; Senator Hatch; Senator Corker from Tennessee; Senator Roberts from Kansas -- none of them for too much government spending, none of them for socialized medicine, all believe the president is wrong on this, as John Boehner is wrong on this.

In fact, what this program does is exactly what the president said he wanted to do when he was campaigning in 2004. He said he wanted to add millions of children currently eligible but not included under the child health insurance program to the program.

That's exactly what this bill does, and it's a compromise. This was not the House bill, as you know, Brit. The House bill was substantially more expansive, about 2.5 times as much.

We've cut it way back, focused on children. And he's wrong on adults. In fact, we've penalized states. They get less money for the inclusion of adults. This is focused on children of families who are not poor enough to be on Medicaid...

HUME: Right. HOYER: ... and not wealthy enough to afford insurance.

We believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans want this legislation to pass, which is why we're moving forward on it.

HUME: Nonetheless, however, there's no evidence that we can see yet that you've moved any Republican votes, certainly not enough to give you the two-thirds you'd need to override the bill, send it to the Senate for a similar vote.

That being the case, right or wrong, doesn't the president now have some leverage with which to forge a further compromise with...

HOYER: Well, you know, leverage is a funny thing. We're in a democracy, and the American people ultimately are going to rule on this. Some 72 percent of Americans believe we ought to pass this program as it's now provided.

Sixty-one percent of Republicans think that's the case, and almost 70 percent of independents think that's the case.

HUME: Are you prepared to predict here and now that you will have the votes to override?

HOYER: No, I don't think I'm going to predict that now, because I think the Republicans are reflecting. This is a defining moment for the Republican Party, in my opinion.

They're going to say whether they are, in fact, a compassionate community or whether they're going to unthinkingly follow the dictates of their party and their president for a -- against a program that the overwhelming majority of their constituents are for, to include children in America and access to affordable quality health care.

HUME: Well, if they do all those nefarious things you just described, and they vote to sustain the veto, as it now appears they will, what then? Does that mean that the program then dies, Republicans get the blame...

HOYER: Absolutely not.

HUME: ... Democrats get the issues? Or do you go back to the table and forge something different??

HOYER: This is not about assessing blame on Republicans. That would be not a bad thing perhaps, but irresponsible. This is about including four million additional children under health care coverage.

We think that's what we ought to do and, therefore...

HUME: So you don't think it will die if the veto is sustained.

HOYER: No, it's not going to die. We're going to go back and we're going to pass another bill.

HUME: All right. HOYER: And we think we're going to pass it with equally strong Republican participation.

HUME: All right. So in the end, you think a compromise will be reached and the program will be reauthorized.

HOYER: In the end, I think we're going to add four million children to health care, as the president said he would do in 2004, and his veto did not keep that promise.

HUME: Let's talk about the renewal of the FISA authority that's got everybody stirred up this week and I just discussed with Congressman Boehner.

HOYER: Yes.

HUME: It appears there are two sticking points. One is the requirement for the warrants never before required even though they can be year-long warrants...

HOYER: Right.

HUME: ... for the interception of conversations or e-mails from overseas. Any give on that?

HOYER: Brit, we believe that this bill needs to accomplish two things. First of all, it needs to facilitate the intelligence community ability to intercept communications which may prove dangerous to our people and to our country.

We're absolutely committed to doing that. We believe that the legislation we're proposing does, in fact, accomplish that, and we believe that Admiral McConnell, who heads up our national intelligence directorate, shares that view.

Secondly, we have an obligation -- we swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States -- to defend the Constitution and protect our country.

We believe our bill also accomplishes the objective of protecting Americans' constitutional rights. We think both objectives are critically important for us to achieve and that we can do so and make them compatible.

So what happened here is the technology changed...

HUME: Right.

HOYER: ... as you know.

HUME: Right.

HOYER: And now foreign-to-foreign communication may well go through an American switch on American property.

HUME: Right. HOYER: Therefore, the defense community, the intelligence community, said, "Well, maybe there's a problem on interception."

HUME: Right.

HOYER: Came to the Congress.

HUME: Congress acted last August.

HOYER: And we acted last August.

HUME: And the administration and the Republicans like the measure that you passed last August.

HOYER: Yes. Most Democrats voted against that measure because it did not protect the constitutional rights. What we said in...

HUME: Constitutional rights of who?

HOYER: Of Americans.

HUME: To avoid what, exactly?

HOYER: To avoid having their Fourth Amendment right to privacy undermined.

HUME: Well, how would the...

HOYER: Well, let me explain it to you.

HUME: OK.

HOYER: Foreign-to-foreign communications, not covered by our Constitution, ought not to be covered by our Constitution, under FISA was not covered. This...

HUME: But even if the communications were routed through the United States?

HOYER: Yes, even though they route it through -- no, because it was routed through the United States, there was a question raised.

HUME: Right.

HOYER: So we fixed that problem. We fixed that problem and said blanket warrants...

HUME: Is that what the blanket warrants are addressed to?

HOYER: If you're going after Al Qaida, it's not one person. If you're going after Al Qaida, you have the ability to go after Al Qaida.

But it says if an American becomes a U.S. target, then you have to have a warrant, and we believe that's what FISA originally contemplated. That's what FISA ought to now contemplate. Essentially, Brit, the argument is this. The administration does not want any oversight of the Congress or the courts. It does not want the courts involved in anything that it does.

That's all this is about, because as you know, they have 45...

HUME: Well, you're not going to get a strong argument on that.

HOYER: Well, I don't know. You've got 45 days to act here before you have to get the court. And all the courts' procedures review does is say whether or not the intelligence community is pursuing procedures that will, in fact, protect Americans while facilitating the interception of foreign communications.

We believe that a large number of scholars on both sides of this issue believe this bill does, in fact, what we should be doing.

HUME: What about this question of immunity from lawsuits and other legal actions for companies that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11...

HOYER: That's going to be...

HUME: ... helped the administration with its...

HOYER: That's going to be an issue for discussion. And I want to say that I've talked to Peter Hoekstra, who's the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, talked to Roy Blunt on this issue.

Obviously, we want to accomplish the objective of facilitating our intelligence-gathering and protecting America.

On immunity, you saw in today's paper or yesterday's paper the Qwest CEO saying his company was penalized because they weren't sure that what the administration was asking was legal.

HUME: I remember that, yes.

HOYER: So what we really need to do, Brit, is find out what we're talking about.

HUME: So you're open to...

HOYER: We're open to discussion.

HUME: ... adjustments on that measure possibly?

HOYER: Yes. We're open to discussions on that matter, but what we need to know is, from the administration, what did you do, what did you ask the companies to do, how did they respond.

We just can't give blind immunity for anything that was done. We need to know what was done, was it appropriate, consistent with our national security, and if it was, then certainly retrospective...

HUME: So you're going to have to have an investigation of these companies before you do that?

HOYER: Well, we certainly -- I don't know that an investigation of the companies is what we're...

HUME: Are you going to turn Congressman Waxman loose on them?

HOYER: That would be a good thing to do in any event to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to do.

But having said that, that's not what we're talking about. I've talked to Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the Senate committee, talked to Mr. Reyes, who chairs the House committee.

What they want and they've asked the administration to do is give us the documentation of what you asked for and what was responded before we talk about immunity.

By the way, Brit, so you know, we are giving prospective immunity in this bill, which is to say if the companies follow the rules, they won't be subject to suit.

HUME: All right. Let's talk about this bill relating to the Turks, the Armenians and the word genocide.

HOYER: Yes.

HUME: The bill has been reported. It's not yet been acted on. Will it come to the floor, in your judgment?

HOYER: Yes. I schedule the bills, and I'm telling you it will come to the floor. It will come to the floor before November 16th.

HUME: And where do you think the votes are right now?

HOYER: I think we'll pass this. It passed out of committee 27- 21, closer than I think it would have been.

The administration has expressed to me and to others concerns because the Turks have indicated that it will have adverse effects.

HUME: Well, it already has. Just on the strength of the committee action, the Turks recalled their ambassador, which is a -- you know, it's more than a mild form of protest about this.

If it's that sensitive at this moment, why do it now?

HOYER: OK, Brit. That's a good question. I've been in the Congress 26 years. I've been for this resolution for 25 years. I've talked to the Turkish ambassadors, Turkish government, Turkish parliamentarians, over a quarter of a century.

Never once in that quarter of a century has anybody in the Turkish government said to me, "OK, this is the right time." In other words, there would be no right time.

But the fact is our government is absolutely convinced a genocide was committed, not by the Erdogan government or the present Turkish people, but almost 100 years ago, 1950, during the course of the...

HUME: But why is it a good idea to say it now?

HOYER: Because if we forget what has happened, if we paper over what has happened, then we are at risk of letting it happen again. As a matter of fact, unfortunately, in Darfur...

HUME: I mean, do you think it's an urgent issue, something that happened between Turks and Armenians in World War I?

HOYER: Brit, do I think it's an urgent issue? I think the issue of genocide is a very urgent and present issue. It's happening in Darfur now. It happened in Bosnia not too long ago. And the world sat by and watched.

Yes, I think it's an urgent issue.

HUME: Well, but nobody's arguing that it wasn't a mass killing or even a massacre.

HOYER: No, it was a genocide. And I understand some people are arguing that well, let historians look at it. Historians have looked at it. Nobel writers have looked at it. And there is a conclusion that, in fact, this was a conscious effort to eliminate a race of people.

HUME: And I don't think anybody in the administration would dispute that that happened.

However, do you think it's worth making this expression of this at this time, all these years later, at the expense of souring relations with a country who has helped us, is vital in the Mideast and in Iraq in particular?

HOYER: Well, I think Turkey's help to us is vital. More vital is the United States' help to Turkey, Brit.

Over the last half a century, the relationship between the United States and Turkey has far more advantage to Turkey than it has the United States. Are we both advantageous to one another? We are.

Speaker Pelosi and I met with the Turkish ambassador just a few days ago and said to him, "We are friends. We are allies. We believe this is a historical observation. It is not about your government. It's not about the Turkish people. It is about a historical event that happened that we need to remember to preclude its happening again."

I hope the Turkish government will reflect upon this. Very frankly, as you well know from reading today's paper, the Turks, in my opinion, have a much more critical issue on their agenda, and that is what they perceive to be, the PKK, a group that...

HUME: Kurds.

HOYER: ... that the U.S. government adjudges to be a terrorist organization, that the PKK has sanctuary in Western Iraq and is attacking Turks and their military in Turkey.

I think that's a real concern to them. I think we need to work with them to preclude that from happening, very frankly. And I think that's a much greater concern.

You know, the Turks have a provision in their constitution that has resulted in writers being imprisoned, parliamentarians being imprisoned, anybody who would deign say that maybe the Turkish government 90 years ago made a mistake.

You know, we can't constrain ourselves by that, nor should we.

HUME: Congressman Hoyer, pleasure to have you.

HOYER: Good to be with you, Brit.

HUME: Thanks for spending part of your Sunday with us.

HOYER: Thank you.

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006