McCain, Corker working for Hillary on Start 1 in 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1011/28/sotu.01.html

STATE OF THE UNION WITH CANDY CROWLEY

Interview With John McCain; Interview With David Obey and Byron Dorgan

Aired November 28, 2010 - 09:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CANDY CROWLEY, HOST: Before it is in with the new, it is back to the old. The final weeks of the 111th Congress. After giving thanks, Democrats and Republicans return to show if there is give anywhere else.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Next week, I’ve invited the leadership of both parties to the White House for a real and honest discussion.

The election is over. We’ve got to find places where we can agree.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: The list of unfinished business is long and the expectations minimal. The premiere domestic item is what to do about tax cuts due to expire on every tax-payer at end of December.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: The only place where we disagree is whether we can afford to also borrow $700 billion to pay for an extra tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, for millionaires and billionaires. I don’t think we can afford to right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: This week, it may not feel like the election is over.

Today, as the lame duck Congress takes on tough issues like tax cuts and “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, we are joined by Senator John McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCAIN: The president should not make decisions where we’re sending young men and women into harm’s way based on political consideration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: And departing Democrats, Congressman David Obey and Senator Byron Dorgan. Then President George Bush and his brother, Jeb Bush, on family and the holidays. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We’re a very close-knit group of people and it was fun to watch...

CROWLEY: Do you talk politics in those family gatherings?

G.W. BUSH: Not much. No, not really. I mean, by the time Christmas came around, I was looking for a break from politics. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CROWLEY: I’m Candy Crowley, and this is STATE OF THE UNION.

Joining me now here in Washington, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, on your maiden voyage here on the show with me. So thanks for joining us.

MCCAIN: Thank you, Candy.

CROWLEY: Before we get to domestic policy, I want to talk to you about North Korea. Try to give our audience some perspective on how dangerous this is. And I ask because it seems to me we go through this periodically. All of the sudden North Korea, you know, tests a missile, fires into South Korean at least water territory.

Is this any more dangerous than anything in the past? And what does that mean to the average American?

MCCAIN: Well, I think it’s probably more dangerous in that the North Koreans have enhanced capability, both missile and nuclear capability. But it’s also a lesson that continued appeasement of North Korea, which we’ve been doing basically under Republican and Democrat administrations since 1994, with the “agreed upon framework,” we’ve given the North Koreans over $1 billion worth of aid and assistance in the last 15 years or so, and based on the premise that we would all get together and negotiate.

It seems the purpose of everything is to get the North Koreans to the table. The North Koreans’ only claim to their position on the world stage is their nuclear capability. And they have a terrible, most repressive, oppressive regime in the world. They have hundreds of thousands of people in slave labor camps. And all of that seems to be sacrificed in the altar of, quote, “negotiations.”

So long ago, we should have put a significant pressures on the North Koreans. Even in the Bush administration we freed up a $25 million bank account and took them off the terrorist list.

CROWLEY: But they’ve been sort of immune to...

MCCAIN: So could I just finally say, the key to this, obviously, is China. And unfortunately China is not behaving as a responsible world power. It cannot be in China’s long-term interest to see a renewed conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

We’ve got to understand that China is not what we want it to be, but is not playing a responsible role on the world stage, much less in — on the Korean Peninsula. They could bring the North Korean economy to its knees if they wanted to. And I cannot believe that the Chinese should, in a mature fashion, not find it in their interest to restrain North Korea. So far, they are not.

CROWLEY: You have called it what North Korea has done as unacceptable. You have called on China to react strongly. They have said, let’s get the group of six together, not for talks on nuclear — on North Korea’s nuclear capability, but about this, let’s have an emergency meeting. Is that a good first step?

MCCAIN: I think it would be a fine first step. But does — do we really think that there has been — that this long history of confrontation that the North Koreans have practiced is going to come to a halt without significant penalties on North Korea?

CROWLEY: From China.

MCCAIN: I think it’s time we — yes. I think it’s time we talked about regime change in North Korea, and I do not mean military action, but I do believe that this is a very unstable regime. They’re now passing on to — from the “dear leader” to what we call him the “sweet leader,” whatever it is, 27-year-old four-star general.

So, but, and we can, we can have a peaceful resolution to this issue. But the North Korean regime is not one that’s going to abandon the nuclear power status. They are now seeking recognition from us that they are a nuclear nation. That’s not in our interests.

CROWLEY: I want to move on to Afghanistan, but to button this up, would you...

MCCAIN: Just one other thing. The Chinese — now the United States is engaged in military operations with South Korea in the Yellow Sea. The Chinese have claimed the Yellow Sea as a special economic zone.

We have to understand that China is not behaving in a responsible fashion as a world power, and we have to make adjustments to our policies regarding China.

CROWLEY: And just to button this up, are we on the verge — is the Korean Peninsula on the verge of war or is this something that is more long-term problem?

MCCAIN: I think if past behavior holds true, the North Koreans will walk up to the edge and then step back and try to get more concessions and more money and more economic aid, and more jobs for North Koreans sponsored by South Korea. I’m not sure that the South Koreans are going to go along this time.

CROWLEY: Let me ask you about Afghanistan. New report out, the one that they give twice a year, they called military and security gains “fragile.” They said, “the efforts to reduce insurgency capacity in Pakistan has not produced measurable success.” They said, “the Taliban has sufficient capability and support to pose a threat to the viability of the government, and if the security situation erodes,” that quickly the security will erode — “quickly the stability in the region will erode.”

We’ve been there nine years. At this point isn’t it a legit question to say, you know, can we really do this? Because it seems to grow worse.

MCCAIN: I think that’s why we’re going to have an assessment next month in December, as you know. I just came back with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman. We have made significant military successes. In the clear and hold area, we have been making — thanks to General Petraeus and the brave young men and women who are serving. We are making great...

CROWLEY: Well, it doesn’t sound like we’re making progress.

MCCAIN: We are. I mean, I don’t have any doubt that we are in that area. There are two major problems right now. One of them is corruption at the highest levels of government. They have a corrupt attorney general. This latest business about the elections is really unacceptable.

And a sanctuary in Pakistan, the Pakistanis are still — and the armed military with the ISI are still having businesses with the — cooperating with the Haqqani network and other Taliban elements within Afghanistan.

You cannot allow the enemy sanctuary. These are significant problems. And they need to be...

CROWLEY: And they’ve been significant problems, though, for years. So you’ve got to kind of wonder, are we ever going to make a dent in this? And let me just ask as a last part of this, does a 2014 agreed upon deadline for the removal of combat troops by both NATO and the U.S. forces, is that helping?

MCCAIN: It’s a dramatic improvement over the 2011 date that the president had been sponsoring, which was an enormous impediment to progress because people were adjusting to us leaving in 2011. I’m very happy to see 2014.

Let me just say, if it wasn’t a corrupt government, if we didn’t have the trouble with Pakistan that we have, things would be a lot better in Afghanistan. And remember it has only been since the president announced at West Point that we would really increase the number of troops there, and General Petraeus’s appointment, with all due respect to General McChrystal, that we have really started to make some improvements.

We cannot afford for Afghanistan to return to being a base for attacks on the United States of America. And we should never forget that.

And finally, could I just mention, Candy, the Taliban are not popular. The Taliban are hated by most of the people of Afghanistan. It’s not as if they’re a popular movement. CROWLEY: But they’re scared of them, and so they don’t totally...

MCCAIN: Of course they’re scared. They’re scared to death of them. But to say that the Afghan people would welcome them with open arms is just, I mean — and think of the women’s rights issues and all of these other cruelties that the Taliban have inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan. CROWLEY: Let me ask you about “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.” It’s going to come up, you’re going to have testimony before the Armed Services Committee. You have criticized what you believe will be in this upcoming report about how the military feels, saying, no, this was about how are we going to implement it, not about how the military feels.

I know you have got a letter from Robert Gates, defense secretary, which said in part, to you: “I do not believe that military policy decisions should on this or any other subject be subject to referendum of service members.”

CROWLEY: In other words, you know, what the service members, how they would vote is sort of immaterial to what we’re trying to do. Doesn’t he have a point?

MCCAIN: Well, I think he certainly has a point. I would also certainly say that we should remember where this all started. There was no uprising in the military. There were no problems in the military with don’t ask, don’t tell. It was a critical...

CROWLEY: No, it (inaudible) who had a problem.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: No, it wasn’t. Because it wasn’t a problem because you didn’t have — it’s called don’t ask, don’t tell. OK? If you don’t ask them, you don’t ask somebody, and they don’t tell.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: And it’s an all-volunteer force. I understand your point of view, and I understand the point of view by the majority of the media, but the fact is, this was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency of the United States. The military is at its highest point in recruitment and retention and professionalism and capability, so to somehow allege that this policy has been damaging the military is simply false.

So the fact is that this system is working, and I believe that we need to assess the effect on the morale and the battle effectiveness of those people that I — those young Marines and Army people I met in forward operating bases that are putting their lives on the line every day.

This is an all-volunteer force. And if we want to ensure morale and battle effectiveness is maintained, that’s why people like the commandant of the Marine Corps has come out against repeal. Now, if you want to call him a racist and others, and sergeants and others that I have...

CROWLEY: We should also point out that the defense secretary and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff think it’s a good idea.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: And they have said that, and the four service chiefs, the four service chiefs have all had reservations to one degree or another. Now I have great respect for the secretary of defense...

CROWLEY: Isn’t integration required...

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: ... and I have great respect for the secretary — for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I have great respect for the service chiefs and I have great respect to the men and women who are serving, particularly the sergeants and the chief petty officers, who are the ones that make the military work.

CROWLEY: Integration of any sort has always come — whether it’s racial, whether it’s gender — doesn’t it require leadership rather than followership? And in other words, does — yes, it matters how the military feels, but don’t you need to lead when it comes to a matter of integration, which definitely was difficult?

MCCAIN: Look, we’re in two wars. We’re in two wars. I ran into a master sergeant in a forward operating base outside Kandahar, who had five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said — and a number of them came to me and said, look, we fight together, we sleep together, we eat together. I want to know the effect of our ability to win this conflict. That’s what we’re saying. I want to know the effect on battle effectiveness and morale, not on how best to implement a change in policy. I don’t think that’s a lot to ask when we have our young men and women out there serving and fighting, and tragically some of them dying.

CROWLEY: I have less than 30 seconds here. But I have to ask you about Sarah Palin. New book out that you’re going to read sooner or later. She’s going to Iowa, she’s going to South Carolina. The big game is, is she going to run for president, isn’t she going to run for president. You know her probably better than any politician who does. How do you read what’s going on?

MCCAIN: I read I think she’s keeping her options open, and I think she should. I think she is an incredible force in the American political arena.

CROWLEY: And a divisive force, would you agree?

MCCAIN: I think that anybody who has the visibility that Sarah has is obviously going to have some divisiveness. I remember that a guy named Ronald Reagan used to be viewed by some as divisive.

CROWLEY: So you sort of — do you see her as a parallel? MCCAIN: No, I think she’s doing a great job. I think she’s doing a great job. I think she has motivated our base. I think she had a positive impact on the last election, and I’m proud of her.

CROWLEY: Senator John McCain, there is never enough time. Thank you so much.

MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.

CROWLEY: I appreciate it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40392979/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.WfusDbaZPVo

Guests: Senators Dick Durbin & Jon Kyl
By Meet the Press, Meet the Press - November 28, 2010

updated 12/1/2010 4:12:42 PM ET

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, back to work for the president and Congress. But what’ll actually get done in a lame duck session? Will debate begin on the new START treaty with Russia? Who will win the battle over extension of the Bush-era tax cuts? And will the debt
commission’s ideas for slashing the deficit go anywhere? Plus, will North Korea’s deadly attack against the south engage U.S. armed forces into another combat zone after the north warns that a planned U.S.-South Korean military exercise that began hours ago could put the region on the brink of war.

With us this morning, two leaders of the Senate: Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois; and the assistant minority leader, Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona.
Then, as the post-election political battles heat up, battleground 2012 is already taking shape. Who are the potential candidates to watch? And which issues will matter most? Our political roundtable weighs in: The Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne; The Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; plus, former counselor to President Bush, Ed Gillespie; and Philadelphia mayor, Democrat Michael Nutter.

Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS with David Gregory.
MR. GREGORY: Good morning.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: Just hours ago, those planned U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises began in the waters south of the disputed maritime boundary with North Korea. Joining me now live from Seoul, South Korea, with the very latest on these escalating tensions, NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel.
Richard, what is your sense on the ground there? Is this about to get worse before it gets better?
RICHARD ENGEL reporting:
There are mixed indications. People here, in what is a very snowy Seoul, South Korea, don’t seem like they want a war. But all of the pieces are in place for a very, very dangerous situation. You have American military hardware that has been brought into the region. These joint exercises now under way, which the North Korean government is perceiving as a direct threat. And now, according to North Korean officials, North Korea has positioned surface-to-air missiles near to its coast, it has moved other kinds of longer range missiles onto launch pads. It has also stationed and gotten ready some anti-ship missiles. So it wouldn’t take much for this crisis here, which is just at a rhetoric stage for now, to escalate dramatically further, David.
MR. GREGORY: What do you think North Korea actually wants? I mean, the Chinese, who’ve stepped up now, saying there should be some emergency talks, that’s probably what the administration wanted to have happen. But how do you read North Korea and its desires here?
MR. ENGEL: Analysts we’ve spoken to here believe this has to do with domestic politics inside North Korea. North Korea clearly wants attention, it wants to re-engage in those nuclear discussions, but it also has an issue of transition that it is dealing with. The North
Korean dictator is—had a stroke, he’s ill, and he’s trying to pass on authority to his 27-year-old son. Just last September the son was promoted to a four-star general position. Now the son, according to officials here, has to prove that he is a military man, that he can handle this situation. So, if you look at it from the way it’s viewed here, people are saying this is a war designed and being carried out for the benefit of a 27-year—27-year-old “little prince.”
MR. GREGORY: Before I let you go, Richard, the country here is poised for more WikiLeaks documents, more secret government documents being released by that Web site WikiLeaks, with regard to U.S. relationships with—key relationships around the glode. How, how—globe, rather. How bad is this going to be?
MR. ENGEL: This is devastating. I’ve spoken to many senior U.S. military officials, and they believe that this is—well, they use words like treason, they use words like a major breech of American national security. And they wonder how the, the chief suspect accused of leaking
these documents to WikiLeaks, a, a private first class, could have managed to do this, to bring out hundreds of thousands of first military cables, now diplomatic correspondences, internal documents that are supposed to be just within the, within the ranks of politicians and
diplomats and embassies. How such a low-level person within the U.S. military could have passed this on to a foreign agent who is now putting them online.
MR. GREGORY: Right.
MR. ENGEL: This is a major breech, and a lot of people are wondering will there be an overhaul, a, a re-examination on how America’s protected information is kept secure.
MR. GREGORY: All right, Richard Engel for us in Seoul, South Korea. I appreciate your reporting this morning, Richard.
MR. DAVID GREGORY: Joining me now live from Springfield, Illinois, assistant majority leader, Democratic senator Dick Durbin; and from Phoenix this morning, assistant minority leader, Republican senator Jon Kyl.
Welcome to both of you. A lot to get to, both foreign and domestic. Let’s start with North Korea.
Senator Kyl, how, how does this end? And what should the president do about it?
SEN. JON KYL (R-AZ): Well, I don’t know how it ends, obviously. But what we ought to do is what we’re doing right now, and that is not backing down in terms of having very legitimate exercises with the South Korean government, which we had, had—gave plenty of advance notice of. And, and then see how it, how it plays out. Obviously, we’re not trying to provoke anything there. But with news—the IAEA from the United Nations just released a report a couple of weeks ago detailing how North Korea was proliferating nuclear technology to Iran and Syria. And clearly this is a country that needs to be dealt with, and I think we need to focus a lot more on it.
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator Durbin, how? The New York Times on Saturday had this headline, “China Addresses Rising Korean Tensions, but With a Warning to the U.S.” They want to tamp down what’s happening, they now want emergency talks, but they’re the real power player here in terms of leverage over North Korea. Do they ultimately have to deal with North Korea, rather than the United States?
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I spoke with Secretary of State Clinton last night about this, and we both agree that China can play a very valuable role here in trying to bring under control a situation which is very volatile. At this point in time we need to make certain we stand as one
nation, strong in our alliance with South Korea, determined to stop this effort by North Korea to provoke aggression. This sort of thing, I think, really calls on us to be more bipartisan, more constructive in our efforts in Washington.
MR. GREGORY: But should, should any attack on South Korea be viewed as an attack on the United States, Senator Durbin?
SEN. DURBIN: I’m not going to go any further than what the president has said. We have a strong alliance with South Korea. We will stand by them. It is a treaty obligation that goes back over 50 years.

MR. GREGORY: All right.
Senator Kyl, let’s move on to the very contentious issue of this START treaty that you’re in the center of. This is the nuclear arms reduction treaty that the administration has negotiated with Russia, that the president said is a priority for this lame-duck session. You seem to be
the key player here as the opponent here in the Senate. You’ve said, over the past couple of weeks, “I think there is no chance that the START treaty can be completed in the lame-duck session.” Is that still your view?
SEN. KYL: It is, and it’s more a view of reality rather than policy. If the leader of the Senate, Senator Reid, were to allow a couple of weeks for full debate and amendment of the resolution of ratification, then theoretically there would be time. But he has made it clear that he has
a different agenda in mind. And I, I think clearly they’ve got to set some priorities here. Are they going to deal with the funding of the government for the remainder of the fiscal year? They’ve got to do that. Are they going to deal with the issue which is on everybody’s mind, that you mentioned earlier, and that is to ensure that we don’t have a big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of the country. These are higher priority items. And if we do those things and then potentially deal with some of the other political issues that Senator
Reid has said he wants to deal with, in that event then there would not be time to do a START treaty as well.
MR. GREGORY: Well, but, Senator Durbin, here’s the issue. Do you—can you get around Senator Kyl? Do you have the votes? You need nine...
SEN. DURBIN: Well...
MR. GREGORY: ...votes among Republicans. Can you get there without him?
SEN. DURBIN: I can tell you that when it comes to this issue, we respect Jon Kyl. I think he’s worked as hard as any other senator, maybe more than any senator, to understand this issue and to be an important part of the policy decisions that we face. But here is the reality. We live in a dangerous world. The failure of the United States Senate to ratify the START treaty immediately is going to pose a danger to the United States and its security. And let me give a historical analogy. It wasn’t that long ago that a Republican president appealed to Congress on a bipartisan basis—it was President George W. Bush after 9/11—to rewrite the architecture of our intelligence agencies with a new Department of Homeland Security. Senator Susan Collins, the chairman of the committee at that time and a Republican, Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, got together and did it. They constructed this new scenario that has made us
safer as a nation and they did it during a lame-duck session. There is no excuse for us to, to ignore this responsibility and to say we’ll wait several months.
MR. GREGORY: Well, Senator...
SEN. DURBIN: While we wait there will be no one—there’ll be no inspectors on the ground in Russia to make sure that their nuclear weapons are safe and treaty-compliant.
MR. GREGORY: The issue is, is, Senator Kyl, what do you need all the time for? The New York Times reported this on Friday about your role, “Privately, administration officials expressed anger and bewilderment at Mr. Kyl, contending that they had given him virtually everything he
sought. Arms control advocates have been more vocal. `My conclusion is’ that `he’s acting in bad faith,’ said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. `He asked for more earlier in the fall and they’ve delivered.’” Is this anything other than trying to snub the
president, Senator?
SEN. KYL: Of course. Let me reiterate what I said before. Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, can bring the START treaty up anytime he wants to, but he has a different agenda. He’s made some promises to some political constituencies. He wants to do the Dream Act in order to appeal to certain segments of the Hispanic community. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to appeal to the gay and lesbian community. To appeal to the unions, he wants to do the so-called firefighters federal unionization bill. In addition to various political commitments that he’s made to do legislation in the lame duck session, we have to fund the government for the remaining 10 months of the fiscal year. We have to deal with some expiring provisions like...
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator, you’re not being responsive. What’s your...
SEN. KYL: May I just finish, David?
MR. GREGORY: Well, what’s your issue?
SEN. KYL: David!
MR. GREGORY: Well, what’s your issue with the treaty?
SEN. KYL: As I told you, my issue is that you can’t do everything. I was stating it as a matter of reality, not a matter of policy. How can Harry Reid do all of the things we’ve talked about, deal with the expiring tax provisions and, in addition to that, deal with the START treaty, which by itself could probably take at least two weeks?
MR. GREGORY: How long did the last START treaty take to ratify?
SEN. KYL: We...
MR. GREGORY: How much debate?
SEN. KYL: We, we have three weeks to go before the Christmas recess, and there are, in my opinion, a lot of amendments that have to be raised on this treaty. And as a result colleagues are going to offer those amendments. Is Harry Reid just going to shut it off and say, “We only
have three days”?
MR. GREGORY: I’m sorry, Senator, my question is, how long did the last START treaty take to, to get through Congress?
SEN. KYL: It’s not comparable to this START treaty. The last START treaty was a three-page document. It was agreed to by virtually every—in fact, I think the vote was unanimous, or maybe there was one dissenting vote. That’s not going to be the case with this treaty, in
which there are a lot of issues.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin.
SEN. DURBIN: Well, I can just tell you that we’ve—people across America, who subscribe to cable, ask for refunds when they turn on C-Span and see the Senate sit there day after day doing nothing, lurching from filibuster to filibuster. Come on, let’s be reasonable, let’s be
constructive, let’s be bipartisan. We can get these things done. Let’s roll up our sleeves and do it. Senator Kyl has raised legitimate issues, but the fact is, we can do all of the things he mentioned, debate them and vote on them in a responsible way before we break for Christmas. To do otherwise is really to create a dangerous situation. I agree with
Senator Richard Lugar. It is time for us to step up as a nation and face the reality that we will be safer with the START treaty. And I might say to Senator Kyl, consider the situation in Iran. They just announced yesterday that they were going to fire up their nuclear reactor. If it’s
for peaceful domestic purposes, all well and good. But if it’s part of an agenda to build a nuclear weapon, it’s a danger to the world. Russia has helped us in dealing with this threat in Iran. To ignore and push aside the START treaty at this moment does not help our relationship with Russia in this critical issue of an Iranian nuclear program.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Kyl, I just want to zero in on one point to which I don’t feel like I’ve gotten an answer to, which is, substantively—and by the way the old START treaty took a matter of days, you say it’s not comparable, but that is the reality that it doesn’t take three weeks necessarily. But what, substantively, are you not getting from the White House that you want, to say, “Yes, I can support this”?
SEN. KYL: First of all, let me quote The Washington Post, which directly addressed the question that you asked. “No calamity will befall the United States if the Senate does not act this year.” And in response to the charge that somehow we need to do this for the urgency of needing verification, the Associated Press did a fact check on that allegation and said, “The urgency is political. Even the administration concedes the security risk is not immediate.” So there is not a time pressure to do this now as opposed to two months from now. But specifically to your question, there are a series of issues that relate, first off all, to provisions of the treaty itself and how it deals with missile defense and conventional prompt global strike and some other issues. Secondly, you have the question of modernization, which is the thing that Senator Durbin pointed out that I had been primarily focused on. And third, you have questions extraneous to the treaty but within the context, which is, is this all that’s standing between us today and the administration trying to negotiate even deeper, further cuts, which it’s indicated that it wants to do in its march toward global zero, something that a lot of
us disagree with. So there are a lot of considerations, and if you would like just one or two very specific, one of the things the administration has done with regard to building our nuclear complex back up, replacing the old Manhattan era 1940s buildings, for example, facilities, is to
create two new buildings which are going to be necessary, one in Tennessee, one in New Mexico. And these buildings are very costly. But what they’ve done is to stretch out the cost so that it doesn’t show up in the 10-year projections now to be completed by the year 2023 and 2024. That’s too long. We need those facilities before then. And, as a result, there probably will be amendments or at least an effort to try to get the administration to fund those a little earlier. Every year we delay is a cost of $200 million, money that could be saved if we can get those facilities constructed a little bit earlier.
MR. GREGORY: All right, let me—I want to move on to some of the domestic agenda and some of the showdowns on matters like taxes and spending. But first, we were coming off of this holiday weekend and there was so much drama around the TSA screening procedures, the invasive pat-downs at the airport.
Senator Durbin, is this debate over? I mean, does the administration need to, to come up with a better way to secure Americans at airports from potential plots involving airplanes?
SEN. DURBIN: Listen, we want to respect people’s privacy. But the bottom line is, when you get on an airplane with your family, you want to know this government has done everything in its power to keep us safe. Look at what happened. After all of this furor about the pat-down and the screening and so forth, a grand total of about one percent of passengers across America during this Thanksgiving holiday season basically objected to the process that they were being offered. One percent. And we were tied in knots over this. It is not an easy
assignment to TSA to say, “Keep us safe, but don’t go too far.” I think they’re trying to strike the right balance. Congress needs to continue to ask questions, but the bottom line is we want to be safe when we get on airplanes. We do not want an air disaster because we have gone too far in bending towards some public opinion poll.
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator Kyl, critics have pointed out two things. One, longer security lines are an area of vulnerability for passengers if terrorists were to strike at the actual security line. You know, and this is indelicate, but, I mean, there are also ways to hide explosives on one’s person that even these more invasive security procedures are not
going to deal with. Is there a better way?
SEN. KYL: I think there are some other things that can be done in ddition to what’s being done now, and that is to focus more on the erson than on the weapon. This is what other countries do. They, they profile, not on the base, of course, of race or ethnicity or religion, but on the basis of who looks like they may need a second screening. There are questions asked in other countries that tip people off, who are experienced questioners of people that need an addition screening. We need to share better intelligence. The Customs Department, for example,
has much better intelligence than TSA, and they need to share that with them.
There’s an opportunity for pre-screening for a lot of people that don’t need to be screened every time because they submit in advance to an eye scan or fingerprint, have their backgrounds checked and so on. In other words, there are a lot of things that could be done to reduce the impact. There are about 60,000 people every day, traveling, that get this pat-down procedure. One that—just one other thing, Dick mentioned Susan Collins. We were in the Netherlands right after the Christmas bomber from last year came over. And, and what they do there is use a scanner which uses a mannequin, a woman and a man figure, not a stick figure, but like a mannequin, so that the image that comes up is not of your body or
my body, but just of a mannequin...
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
SEN. KYL: ...but it shows whatever we have on the body. It’s just a matter of software, and TSA says they’re looking at it. And I think there are a lot of other things we can do that might enable them to back off of patting down, you know, the old saying, “little old ladies and kids.”
MR. GREGORY: All right, let me get to a few other issues.
Senator Durbin, President Obama will finally sit down with Republican leaders, incoming Speaker Boehner and McConnell—as well as Senator McConnell, when he comes back to Washington. He’s in Washington, but when he meets with them this coming week. How should he approach this meeting, and specifically on the issue of, of Bush tax cuts and whether they’re going to be extended? Is he, is he in a mind to compromise at this point?
SEN. DURBIN: I think—I don’t want to speak for the White House, but I think their position is one, at least, that I share initially, and that is that we ought to say to the vast majority of America’s middle income and working families, “Your tax cuts are going to be protected
permanently.” That, I think, is the starting point to say to America, “Let’s move forward in a positive way.” There are a lot of areas of debate, and I’m sure Senator Kyl will raise some of his concerns as well. But we need to do this in a way that is responsible. I’m a member of the deficit commission. It’s one of the toughest assignments I’ve ever had. It worries me—this one basic thing worries me. All of the cuts that we are proposing in the deficit commission for the next 10 years equal the Republican proposal in tax cuts. In other words, if the Republicans go forward with tax cuts they want, Senator McConnell’s package, and we make all of the spending cuts that are proposed in the deficit commission, we’ll still have the same basic debt and deficit. We’ll still be borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar that we spend. We’ll still be
indebted to China.
MR. GREGORY: But, Senator Durbin, I understand the position, but what’s the reality? Do you see the president and Democrats here agreeing to an extension of Bush-era tax cuts at the upper level and the middle class level for at least a year, on a temporary basis?
SEN. DURBIN: Well, I think we need to sit down. We haven’t done that yet. And maybe this meeting with the president will kick it off. But I want to put a couple of other things on the table. We do have unemployment running out. By Christmas, two million Americans will lose
their unemployment benefits because they expire, 127,000 of them here in my home state of Illinois. I also want to make sure the earned income tax credit, the child care tax credit, and the making work pay tax credit are part of this conversation. We should be focusing on what it takes to move this economy forward. We should not be worried about the discomfort of the wealthy, but the fact that there are many people struggling to survive every day now because they have no job and no means to keep their family together in very difficult times.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Kyl, are we seeing the, the outlines of a negotiation strategy here, which is, if Republicans are going to extend jobless benefits and insurance for those without a job, that maybe there’d be some negotiating room on tax cuts?
SEN. KYL: Sure. All of the things Dick mentioned are things that have to be done, and that’s what I was trying to say earlier. We have a lot on our plate to, to do before Christmas rolls around here. And all of these things need to be, need to be done. But let me make something very clear. Nobody is talking about tax cuts. We’ve had the rates in existence now for 10 years. All Republicans are saying is keep them in place, don’t raise taxes on anyone. The job creators in this country are the ones that would be hurt the most by an increase in taxes. And so our position is, let’s extend all of the current rates for some period of time. Obviously, we’d like to do it permanently, but if it’s three or four years, that’s fine, too. I think there is an opportunity for us to sit down and negotiate a resolution of this that’s good for the economy
and, and frankly, good for everybody else.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Kyl, could, could you, could you support doing it for the middle class tax cuts, extending those first and then maybe coming back after the first of the year and taking up the question of upper earners?
SEN. KYL: Our position, the Republican position is, and I think we’re pretty unanimous on this is that there should be no tax increase on anybody, particularly in this time of very difficult economic difficulties for people in all parts of the country, and especially for the job creators, the small business folks, who would get hurt the most by a tax increase. They’re the ones who create the, the job opportunities and, frankly, represent about 25 percent of all of the workers in the country. They don’t need their taxes raised and, frankly, that can be done in this lame-duck session if we have the time to do it, we sit down and work it out, and focus our priorities there rather then on some of the other things that I mentioned earlier.
MR. GREGORY: But that’s a no, you would not, you would not vote for a middle class tax cut extension if did not include, did not include upper earners?
SEN. KYL: We don’t believe taxes should be increased on anyone. Those so-called upper earners that you’re talking about are the very small business folks that I’m talking about.
MR. GREGORY: All right. Final question, Senator Kyl and Senator Durbin, you can comment on this. Senator McConnell’s talked about the number one goal of Republicans being to ensure that President Obama is removed from office after his first term. Is that really the accomplishment that you think about Republicans achieving here as they have more power in
Washington?
SEN. KYL: Senator McConnell was talking about a political goal. Obviously, President Obama has as a political goal his re-election, so there’s no big surprise there. What I talked about at the very beginning when you first talked—asked me about what could be done before Christmas was the agenda that the American people want us to focus on. Keep the government operating, deal with the unemployment extension that Senator Durbin talked about, deal with the, with the tax system, make sure we don’t have a tax increase, as we’ve been talking about here. Those are the things that, that we need the most, and I think if we do work in a spirit of good will, we can achieve it. But I would just note, here’s a headline. It doesn’t look like Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, is going to be too encouraging of Dick Durbin and I sitting down together and trying to work these things out.
MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin, you know this president well. You encouraged him to run for the presidency. As he faces the after-effects of a very difficult midterm election, what is your feeling about what political recovery looks like for him?
SEN. DURBIN: Well, I can tell you that the, the president’s meeting with the leaders, Democrats and Republicans, in the White House on Tuesday. It’s the beginning, I hope, of a very constructive approach. I don’t know what Senator McConnell’s message was from the last election on November 2nd. He said publicly that his goal now was to make sure Obama
was not re-elected as president. I don’t think that’s the message. I think what the American people said was, “Be reasonable. Be constructive.” Let’s try to focus on the big issues that count, getting eight million Americans back to work, dealing with two wars and the men
and women who are fighting them, their families at home; doing things that are basic to make sure this country moves forward in a positive way. Reliving and rehashing the political food fights of the past, not acceptable. And this notion that we don’t have enough time in three
weeks to take up three or four issues, the American people basically look at us and say, “For goodness sakes, we go to work every single day. We have to get work done every day. Why won’t the Senate do the same thing?” I think we can, but we need a much more positive and constructive approach. The president is going to bring us together on Tuesday in an
effort to initiate that, and I think that was truly the message of the last election.
MR. GREGORY: All right. We are going to leave it there. Senators, thank you both very much.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.