From ABC News, Washington.
This week, with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts, featuring George Will.
And our roundtable with George Stephanopoulos and Bill Kristol.
This week on Capitol Hill, a rancorous and partisan debate and a historic vote approving an impeachment inquiry.
This is not about sexual misconduct any more than Watergate was about a third-rate burglar.
If the president betrayed his wife, he did not betray the country.
God help this nation if we fail to recognize the difference.
The inquiry begins. How will it end?
It is not in my hands. It is in the hands of Congress and the people of this country.
Ultimately, in the hands of God.
And this week, political brinkmanship in budget battles as Congress completes its session.
This is a crisis and it's an outrage. And this Congress is about to walk out of this town.
They got time for all kinds of bills they want that mean nothing to the future of this country.
In the wake of an impeachment vote, can Democrats succeed in changing the subject?
We'll ask Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey and two Democrats who voted differently on impeachment.
Representative Lee Hamilton of Indiana and Vic Bezio, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Impeachment and budget politics converge this Sunday morning.
Good morning. It's October 11th. Do you know where your Congress is?
Well, it's still in session having a hard time getting home to campaign for reelection.
We'll be talking about that and this week's vote to go ahead with impeachment hearings.
The Judiciary Committee is trying to figure out what to do next, Sam.
Well, Koki, actually, of course, the Senate and the House are taking the day off.
They're not in session, but the negotiators are meeting with people from the White House trying to hammer out various deals.
Let's go to Capitol Hill now and find out what the latest is from Linda Douglas. Linda?
Well, Sam, there is a mad scramble as the White House and the Congress try to agree on dozens and dozens of issues
regarding funding of the government. They're far apart on some, close on others.
But it is chaotic and each side is trying to turn the chaos into a campaign message.
The Republicans are saying, well, the president's been disengaged. He's been mired in scandal, preoccupied with his own problems,
hasn't pushed his legislative agenda, has not been involved here on Capitol Hill.
Democrats are saying it's the Republicans who've been involved in trying to get the president and start the impeachment process.
They are the ones who ignored the business of the people.
So that is a message Democrats tried to push hard in the last couple of days by saying that they want a billion more dollars
for a hundred thousand new teachers, a big education initiative that is popular with the folks back home.
Republicans are going to try to trump that saying, fine, we'll spend that money.
We just want to give it to the local governments to spend it.
Republicans are determined not to let the Democrats get the political upper hand in this debate.
Linda, with all of that, what are the prospects for them actually reaching an agreement anytime soon?
I think they will reach an agreement sometime this week.
Everyone was talking about the possibility of a government shutdown last week,
but the Republicans have made very clear they will stay here until they get agreement.
Their pollster has told them that those Republicans who have a race back home are not that vulnerable.
So they've come out and said, we'll stay here as long as it takes.
Linda, before we let you go, very quickly, there's a fight brewing as they're not over a witness list
for the House Judiciary Committee's investigation of impeachment.
Well, the Democrats want to call Kenneth Starr.
They'd like the opportunity to ask him about the methods he used in his investigation.
The Republicans are indicating maybe that's okay,
because there is some suggestion that Starr may want voluntarily to come up here and defend his work.
The Democrats also want to call Monica Lewinsky.
You can imagine they are looking forward in some way to the spectacle of having Republican members
ask embarrassing graphic sexual questions.
The Republican leaders are trying to block that,
but I've talked to a couple of Republican members who say you cannot have this investigation
without calling Monica Lewinsky.
Well, that'll be interesting. Thank you very much, Linda Douglas.
Now joining us from the White House is ABC correspondent Mike Von Friend.
Mike, what is the reaction there to what's happening on Capitol Hill?
Good morning, Cokie. The White House sees real opportunity in this fight here at the White House.
So the President is having Democratic congressional leaders over here this Sunday.
The message from the Democrats is that they're trying to prod this do-nothing Congress in the 11th hour
to finally do something about America's schools.
Cokie, the President, may well make his case directly on camera today.
Delighted to be talking about something other than his possible impeachment.
On the budget deal, this White House seems to feel that the President may win no matter what the Republicans do.
If they refuse to enact his education program,
he may have a campaign issue to blame Congress for overcrowded classrooms and crumbling schools.
If they do pass it, he may try to portray himself as a leader still able to tackle the issues that really matter.
Well, Mike, in the negotiations last week, I'm told that the issue of education never came up until Friday
when the President went public with it. What's that all about?
Well, I think they feel they've got a good issue in the 11th hour,
and they just think that if they can say the Congress did nothing
and that the President's trying to do something, he wins.
Okay. Thanks very much, Mike Von Friend, at the White House.
Joining us now is the House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, the Republican leader. Mr. Armey, welcome.
Well, thank you. It's nice to be here this morning.
Good to see you. Joining us, of course, as always, to join in the questioning, George Will.
Mr. Armey, just to explain to everyone, how did we get here with half of the appropriation bills still unpassed
and so many critical issues still up in the air?
Well, it's been a tough year. We've worked very hard on it.
The President, quite frankly, has been AWOL all year long.
He's about to take tomorrow his 100th campaign trip to go up to New York
for a million-dollar fundraiser for Chuck Schumer, a member of the Judiciary Committee,
which I think is a rather interesting thing, but perhaps he could stay here.
Would you say anything wrong with that?
Well, I think it does. I think obviously there's a reason to wonder if he should do that.
But more important, I have to tell you, I'm a little irritated. If I can hold this up.
The President has been vetoing education initiatives all year.
Eight hundred million dollars to local schools he has now under a veto threat.
Education savings accounts he vetoed. Teacher testing and merit pay he vetoed.
Helping kids learn to read he vetoed. Low-income scholarships he vetoed that.
Now all of a sudden he shows up. Where has he been all year?
We have said we will match you every dollar you want.
The argument isn't about how much money will go into education.
The argument is, does it go into the local communities under the control,
the authority and management of the local school boards working with the local parents,
or is it going to be managed out of Washington, D.C. by the Bureau?
Well, you say that now. You'll match them dollar for dollar.
But you haven't been saying that. You have not, meaning the Republican Congress,
moved on his initiatives all year.
Well, again, let me just say we have been moving legislation to the President
that was amply providing educational funding to the schools of America,
and he has been vetoing it.
Because it included such things as vouchers for private schools.
I mean, there were parts in there that he had ideological objections to.
Well, there may be ideological, but this I think is a fundamental problem
of the fundamental concept of fairness as defined fundamentally by the Democrats.
Fairness, they say, means we must have what we want or it's not fair.
And they need to remember there are two areas of government, the Congress and the President.
What about that, though, Mr. Armage? Do they in some ways have you over a barrel?
It was such bad luck for Republicans the last time you closed down the government.
Are you willing to do almost anything to keep that from happening this time?
First of all, the last time the government was shut down,
the President had some success with that scam, and there's no doubt about it.
And he has a record of repeating things he's gotten away with.
But this is a different time.
The American people already see a world of uncertainty out there.
They see circumstances in Cosmo that are frightening, circumstances in the Middle East,
economic conditions across the globe that are frightening to them.
If the President shuts down the government now in these circumstances,
I think he's going to find the American people are going to be very upset with him for it,
and I just don't think he'll do it.
You talk about the economic situation worldwide,
and one of the issues that's been up there is the funding for the International Monetary Fund.
And you have very strongly opposed the funding without reforms for the IMF.
First of all, where is that right now? Is it going to happen?
Well, we're in negotiations on that.
You know, the President and his team came up to us last January and said,
we need all this money, we need it now, no questions asked, no strings attached.
We engaged in a great national and international debate about the effectiveness of the IMF.
It seems to be now a growing consensus of understanding,
even given lip service by the President himself,
that the IMF has very likely done more harm in places like Thailand and Russia than they've done good.
We don't know how they do business. The reforms are necessary.
The structure of reforms, transparency so we can know what they're doing and how they're doing,
lending at lower than market interest rates is no longer an acceptable practice
because it breeds risk-taking in the world and long-term loans are not acceptable.
Now, everybody's agreed on that. We're working out the details now.
But I have to tell you, everybody understands the IMF can have American tax dollars
if the IMF is responsible and productive in the world economy,
but we will not continue to give them money to do the kind of harm they've done.
But you're going to make a deal, aren't you? You're going to make a deal.
We will see. It's a very rigorous business.
We're working hard on the language and we'll just have to see.
Would you crapshoot with the recession if, in fact, as the president suggests,
without funding the IMF, world markets will continue to turn?
Well, you know, I don't think as a crapshoot, the president used the analogy the other days
as if you've got a fire, you don't fire the firefighters.
And my answer is if you've got a fire, you don't subsidize the arsonist.
And I think there's a very real consensus of understanding in the world today
that in recent years the IMF has done more harm than good
and very little testimony they've done any good at all.
Well, George Will has a number of questions, but we're going to have to take a break here.
George, we'll be back to you and you, Mr. Army, in just a moment.
From ABC News.
This week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.
Brought to you by GE.
From aircraft engines to appliances, we bring good things to life.
Introducing the remarkably innovative GE Profile Performance Range
with a revolutionary bridge that connects burner so you can cook any size dish.
And its true temp oven is the most accurate in America,
so you can also bake and broil like a gourmet.
It's so versatile you could get carried away.
Uh, Dad, I usually just have cereal for breakfast.
The incredible profile performance range only from GE.
This is a world only a few know well.
A world of risk and uncertainty.
Where the roads can take you to success or prosperity.
Or sometimes to no place at all.
This is the financial world.
For decades, banks and investment firms of mountainous size have ruled the land.
Yet high above the horizon, another mountain has risen.
A mountain called First Union.
With 16 million customers, the nation's eighth largest brokerage and sixth largest bank.
For a new perspective of the financial world, come to the mountain called First Union.
Or if you prefer, the mountain will come to you.
We're back with House Majority Leader Dick Armey and we left off with George Wilb.
Mr. Armey, a few moments ago you said this argument you're having with the President isn't about the amount of money.
There must be conservatives who elected this Congress out there who are rubbing their eyes and listening to their television set in disbelief.
This Congress came to power talking about the Tenth Amendment, a fundamentally new approach to government.
And you're saying that you agree with the President and the sums of money the government ought to spend.
No, again, I mean, we're perfectly consistent with the Tenth Amendment.
We're saying that we're perfectly willing to spend money on educating American people if the control of that money is in the local communities, under the local school boards, working with the parents.
We want the money to go there.
This is a transference of power, as it has been concentrated in Washington, to the local community.
The local community can use that money to buy books, to hire teachers, to repair or do maintenance on their buildings.
They can do anything they want, but they're the judge.
But in terms of the amount of money spent by Washington, either through the states or through the federal government, you have no argument with the President?
We're not going to get into an argument with the President on that when we've got the larger principle of who should control the education of the children of this country, people in their own communities, in their own homes, or people in Washington.
That's the larger principle, and I think we need to win that principle before we move on.
You're talking about the allocation of power between the federal government and the states.
Isn't it true that the President, as Koki said, really has you over a barrel?
I don't see what negotiating strength you have, because if the government shut down, you'll be blamed.
I don't see us over a barrel.
The President right now is standing in a world where he's not credible.
He says, for example, we're the do-nothing Congress.
The fact is, we're the surplus Congress, and this surplus is showing up in the lives of American people every day with lower interest rates.
We've refinanced more homes in the last two months than we've probably done in the last ten years.
People have more take-home pay out of that for their braces, for their children, any number of things.
So we've had great accomplishments in this Congress, and the President can't beat our folks on that.
So we do not feel like we're over a barrel.
Let me ask you a few impeachment questions here.
Do you think that the election results in November are apt to change the tenor of the impeachment argument?
No, I don't think so. This is a matter of duty.
The American people have a right to know that they have a respectful presidency.
The President has brought us to a situation that's a foreign to us.
We're all upset, a little embarrassed that we have to deal with this sort of thing.
We have a duty to proceed on that.
We will do our duty under the Constitution.
It's a serious matter, and elections have nothing to do with it.
Does your duty require the impeachment inquiry to go beyond the Monica Lewinsky case?
I think what the folks have to have is a latitude here to pursue anything that reflects upon the honor and the integrity of the presidency.
We must find a way to get the American people some evidence to have confidence again that this presidency is being sustained.
And your duty, therefore, I gather, is more important than a deadline so it could go beyond the Senate.
Absolutely.
I mean, again, you're talking about perhaps one of the most sacred obligations we will ever be required to undertake.
The President unhappily put us in this position, but, you know, on one hand we don't want to rush to judgment.
On the other hand, we want to make sure that we can stand up at the end of it and say,
Mr. and Mrs. America, we have confirmed the integrity of your presidency, or Mr. and Mrs. America, we have restored the integrity of your presidency.
In 1974, with another president, the Judiciary Committee then, Peter Rodino was the chairman, called no witnesses.
They used the material from the special prosecutor, and then they had the president's lawyers come up to make the case for him in rebuttal.
Why this time are there this clamor to call witnesses from both sides, really?
Particularly when you have this lengthy report.
Let me just say, first of all, you can work all that out with the committee, but I have observed this process while, incidentally, on the other hand,
I myself am more involved with the legislation process.
But the fact of the matter, when you had the Watergate hearings, you had true bipartisan.
Everybody was trying to knock down the president's stonewall.
When you look at this process today, you've got a very partisan process.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, out of step with their own people in the caucus as a whole, have decided to join the president's ramparts on that stonewall and try to hold up.
You know, they'll have to work that out. They'll have to work that out.
We've got good, decent, honorable people there. Henry Hyde is very likely the most highly respected man in this town, and they can work it out.
But we just heard Linda Douglas reporting that Republican leaders, that would include you, don't really want to see Monica Lewinsky up there.
Would it be a circus-like atmosphere if you had Monica Lewinsky in the Republican leadership?
Yeah, and I always get a kick out of these people that are quoting what Republican leaders are doing.
I hear more interesting reports about what I'm doing than I find myself fascinated with what it is I am doing on many occasions.
Everybody that I know in the Republican leadership has said to Henry Hyde, Henry, proceed with this thing the best you can, given the obstinance of the minority, and let's get an honest, decent, fully-
But would that be a circus?
I haven't- well, these- the Democrats on the committee are bound to make everything a circus, as they've done with everything else that we've tried to do to bring any oversight to this administration.
Tell us about the endgame of these negotiations. I take it there'll have to be another continuing resolution after Monday?
I think we probably will have another, and this can be very difficult work, and we're working through it almost at times, a line item at a time, at one level.
We've got some big problems ahead of us, things like census, things like the IMF, but another continuing resolution will not be that unusual. I saw them during the Reagan era.
Well, how many days can you stay in session?
Well, how many- we can stay in session until we get the job done. We've just finally got the administration to finally come to the table.
I've been to this town and this Congress. I have had one conversation with the President of the United States in two years, and that was one I initiated.
He's not called the leadership of the House and the Senate to the White House to talk about public policy one time in two years.
Election day-
He finally shows up a month before the election and says, hey, I want to be involved in this stuff.
Election day is three and a half weeks from now. You're not going to stay in session up until election day.
Well, if that's what it takes to get this President and this White House to get to the table and do their job and get off the campaign trail.
One hundred campaign events he's been to, and he hasn't had the leadership of the House and Senate to the White House one time for a serious discussion about public policy.
Thank you, Representative Army. We'll be watching.
Coming next, two Democrats who voted differently on impeachment, Representatives Vic Fazio and Lee Hamilton.
California, Representative Lee Hamilton, Democrat of Indiana. Welcome.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good to see you. Normally, I guess we'd have a Republican and a Democrat, but you two are on opposite sides of a very important issue.
This last Thursday, you voted different ways on the final resolution to have an impeachment investigation.
Mr. Fazio, you voted against that resolution, the Hyde resolution. Why?
Well, I voted, Sam, to have a limited investigation in terms of time because I think the American people truly want us to move on to other things.
And I also didn't want an open ended fishing expedition that would have allowed the Republican Congress to bring every and anything they've investigated the president about during the last six years to the impeachment process.
It seemed to me that Henry Hyde rhetorically agreed with much of what we were asking for, but he wasn't willing to put it in writing in the resolution.
Well, have you decided how you would vote if in fact articles of impeachment are brought to the floor?
I don't think we have come to that point yet. I think Lee and I would agree that the Judiciary Committee has some work to do.
And we'll see whether or not the facts, first of all, are as they're portrayed by Ken Starr.
And then we'll also see whether or not a standard for impeachment can be agreed upon that would give us what I think would be the argument to move forward with articles of impeachment.
But personally, I'm beginning to question whether or not there is enough there to make it credible for this Congress in the time we have before the end of this year to determine that this president must go through this trial in the Senate.
I frankly don't think the votes are there, and I don't think they'll be there in the House either.
Mr. Hamilton, you voted for the final resolution. You're a good Democrat. Why would you do that? I want the process to continue to go forward.
There was not all that much difference between the two resolutions. With regard to scope, they were almost identical.
There was a reference in the Democratic resolution to an end date, but there was a means to extend it.
I thought the rhetoric far outstripped the language of the resolutions.
I was not at all comfortable with shutting off the process, and a no vote on the Hyde Amendment or proposal, I think, shuts the process down.
Look, my goal is this. I don't think the president's conduct reaches an impeachable offense.
You've made that judgment already. I've already made that judgment. On the basis of the evidence we now have, the evidence could change.
I think Vic is right. There are not the votes in the United States Senate today to convict.
I'm getting worried about American leadership in the world and in the country.
I want to put this thing to an end, and I think the way to do it under existing circumstances is to strike a deal.
Now, it can't be done right now because the election is pending, but I think it can be done after the election, and I think that's what we ought to strive for.
Mr. Fazio, 434 out of 435 members of the House voted that day.
Did any of them deny or did any of them say there was no credible evidence that the president committed felonies?
I think a number of people think there isn't going to be produced that kind of credible evidence.
I think what the Democrats were saying is let's try to begin this process by determining what is an impeachable offense and then look at the evidence that's been submitted to see whether any of it's relevant before we begin an open-ended process.
If there was a difference of opinion, and I agree with Lee, it's been overstated because it's frankly three weeks before an election and people wanted on the Republican side a party-dividing vote.
But I really believe that that standard is going to be very hard to reach, and I don't think those who believe the president's inevitably going to have articles sent to the Senate are correct.
It could well be a bipartisan vote against sending those to the Senate by the end of December.
Mr. Hamilton, when you say that in your judgment there's no grounds of an impeachable offense, are you saying that perjury has not been demonstrated or that perjury is not an impeachable offense?
I don't think there's an impeachable offense in the context of the Constitution because what you do not have here, an abuse of authority, the president's lying or misleading statements relate to sexual misconduct.
I think an impeachable offense has to be an offense against the constitutional system.
It has to be a public responsibility.
And I just don't think you have an impeachable offense here.
And I disagree with Mr. Armie, I think.
I think overwhelmingly the constitutional lawyers in this country agree with that point now.
Let me move on to a subject that you want the country to move on to.
Could I just ask one more impeachment question before we move on?
Yes, you said that the rhetoric outstripped the differences.
And the fact is that there was some Democrats who desperately wanted to vote for the Republican, the open-ended thing, and there was a sense that the White House would not agree to that.
You went to the president right toward the end.
Did you ask to release Democrats to vote for that?
Koki, I think there were Republicans who were afraid that they would allow the Democrats to get out from under this argument. They wanted a party line vote.
There were Democrats.
They say the contrary.
They say they would have liked a lot more Democrats voting with them.
Well, I think we could have had the same kind of bipartisan vote we had during Watergate had Henry Hyde's rhetorical agreement with our arguments been put in writing.
But they wanted those Democrats, 50 of them perhaps, who have tough election races this year, to have to take this vote so they would be vulnerable to the charge that they didn't want to further this investigation of the president.
And I think many of them decided to vote for the final Hyde Amendment because they didn't want that onus to be on them.
But there was overwhelming agreement that it had to be done with.
Is that your reading of it, Mr. Hamilton, or was it more partisan from the Democratic side?
I think many Democrats voted against the Hyde resolution because they felt it would offend their core voters.
And at the end here, a very strong motivating factor for all politicians, with everybody anticipating a light turnout, is what do you do to placate or to appeal to your core voters?
That's what the Republicans are doing is they push forward on impeachment.
I think that's what the Democrats did when they voted no.
Neither of you is running again.
Both of your districts are considered marginal districts.
How is it going to play in your districts?
I don't know that.
I think you're in a very uncertain period.
My guess is that by the three weeks from now, the voters are going to be more focused on the things you were talking with Mr. Armie about a few minutes ago, education, health care, than they are on this business of impeachment.
I think there's no question that the Republicans have assumed that if this were a referendum on Bill Clinton, that they would be far ahead.
I think that's not necessarily the kind of approach they should take.
They're beginning to get a backlash, a more motivated Democratic base than had previously been thought possible.
And as we turn now to trying to repair our schools and put teachers in the classroom and reduce classroom sizes,
as we mentioned, a failed Congress that didn't deal with HMO reform, didn't deal with tobacco issues,
I think more and more they're going to see that there is something about the two parties that makes it worthwhile having a real election on the issues.
Mr. Hamlin, you spent much of your time in Washington worrying about foreign policy.
Today, NATO is moving in its somewhat arthritic way to authorize the use of force against Serbia for what they've done in Kosovo.
Should force be used?
Probably.
It depends on the results of the negotiations.
This is going to be a very critical week, and you're going to have to have a very delicate balance between diplomacy and force.
NATO tomorrow night will probably take the final step, the activation order, which would permit force to be used.
And Mr. Holbrooke is right in the final stages of negotiation.
But if we do not get from Milosevic what we want, ceasefire, access to the refugees, negotiation on the future of Kosovo, force should be used.
Should that be effective, involve not just air power but NATO troops on the ground in Kosovo?
I think air power is certainly contemplated and will be used in phases, increasing in intensity, if we do not get what we want.
What is being looked at with regard to ground troops at the moment is not ground troops for the purpose of fighting a war, but for monitoring an agreement.
I think more likely that will be under OSCE auspices, but some NATO forces will be involved.
Before we let you go, let's talk about the budget battle underway now from the standpoint of when is it going to end.
Mr. Feasio, you're going to have another continued resolution on Monday, I suppose. When do you get out of town?
Well, I don't know. I think we're here until we get the educational issue dealt with.
You know, we've had a lot of other issues before this Congress that have come to know.
Mr. Armie says, as you saw, that the president has vetoed all of the education initiatives.
He vetoed the Republicans' initiatives, which amount to vouchers for kids who want to go to private schools and for cutting federal aid to local school districts.
And what we're saying is the public wants the federal government to be involved in rebuilding or constructing 5,000 schools and putting 100,000 new teachers in the classroom.
We'd like in the first three grades to have no more than 18 kids in every classroom.
We think that would do more to improve the educational attainment of the future generation than anything else we could do.
We're here until that issue is dealt with.
So, Mr. Hamilton, neither running again. I suppose it doesn't matter to you from the standpoint of trying to get reelected.
But this week, next week, what's your prediction?
I think we'll wrap it up this week, probably.
You know, a funny thing, the leadership of the Congress is never in a big hurry to get home.
They all have safe seats.
But there are a lot of members out there who really need to get home.
And you're only, what, three weeks away from an election.
Which is why the president's in a pretty good position to drive a hard bargain right now.
You don't think the impeachment inquiry is going to hurt Democrats at the polls in November?
I did a couple of weeks ago. At the moment, I think it's beginning to turn around.
I think there's a feeling of unfairness about the way the Republicans in this Congress have handled the affair.
And I think it's beginning to turn a Democratic base that is pretty normally willing to stay home into a more active one.
Why am I not surprised that that's the way you answered?
You may turn out to be right, will you?
Thank you very much, Mr. Faisal, Mr. Hamilton, for being with us today.
Next, our weekly roundtable with ABC News analyst Bill Kristol and George Stephanopoulos.
We'll be right back in a moment.
Well, like it or not, the House of Representatives has embarked on a full impeachment inquiry.
And the Judiciary Committee is now meeting, trying to figure out where to go next, what to do about witnesses, all of that.
George Stephanopoulos, Bill Kristol, welcome.
And Bill, what now? What should happen now?
Well, the staff will do their work for the next three weeks.
And then the Congress will come back right after Election Day and the Judiciary Committee will begin hearings, I think.
And I think they will move fast.
Henry Hyde has said he wants to do it by New Year. He will do it by New Year.
I think Republicans are going to defuse Democratic attacks about voting for a long, drawn-out process by committing over the next three weeks to get it done fast.
The irony may be that after the election, the Democrats will want to lengthen it out, because the Democrats are the only ones who really want witnesses.
They want Ken Starr up there. They want Linda Tripp to be cross-examined.
They want to do an investigation of the investigation.
So I think after the election, we could be in a whole new game.
Well, George, I know that your old stomping grounds, the White House, people down there do not want a quick inquiry.
I mean, all this talk about we're going to cooperate, wrong.
And in a sense, I don't blame the president. Someone walking up the steps to the scaffold should not go docilely.
They are going to make every effort to obstruct this committee, just as many people argue they do.
Sam, you've been building that scaffold for seven months, and it's just not going anywhere the book way.
That scaffold is getting higher and higher.
Let me make my argument, which is they see this as a process in which if they can delay and if they can obfuscate the question of what does the evidence actually show, hey, time is on their side.
But in the end, they may need – and this is going to be a big decision for the president – does the president testify to the past two or three weeks?
Does the president testify? Is that a good thing to have happen?
Well, the president, no matter what the separation of powers might dictate, no matter what dangerous precedent might be set, this president will do whatever is best for Bill Clinton.
There is no other calculus in this man at all. The public interest never intrudes. So I think he will if necessary.
But the country wants it over. We understand that. And I think George is right. There may be a change as to who wants to drag this out.
But the fact is the Democratic Party, the longer it's dragged out, becomes the party trying to establish permissible perjury and innocuous lies, and that's just not a good political agenda.
Well, you have written this week the Democrats are doomed, Bill. Now, is that because of this or because wishful thinking on your part?
Some of both. Some of both. No, they are. They're Bill Clinton's party.
And the irony is if the Republicans don't succeed in impeaching or convicting Bill Clinton, then he's around for the next two years as the leader of the Democratic Party.
Why were the Republicans able to come back after Wardgate? Because Nixon was gone.
Ford was president. They did OK in 76, a close defeat. 78, 80, Reagan, new bud.
Think of the Democratic convention in 2000, Bill Clinton up there, and with someone having to sort of pledge loyalty and fealty to Bill Clinton,
I think it's a huge problem for the Democrats after this November if Bill Clinton remains as their president and they're the party that has, beginning this week,
that's why this week was important, by a party line vote in the Judiciary Committee and a near party vote in the House, they've become Bill Clinton's defenders.
But wait a second, wait a second. All but five members of the House of Representatives voted for an impeachment inquiry.
I know, but you're very funny about that, George. They go between saying we all voted for an inquiry and saying, oh, it's all ridiculous.
Wait a second. If I'm running for Congress, if I'm a Democrat running for Congress in a district right now, I can go home and say I voted to have an inquiry on the president and I voted to punish him.
I will vote to punish him and I voted to make it fast. That is where the American people are.
And that's why I think Bill is very right about the long-term prospects for Democrats. But in the short term, they have some good talking points going into this election.
Well, I'll just tell you this about the president. I don't go as far as you do, George, about saying he has no public interest ever in his mind.
I think he does from time to time, certainly. But he will testify if necessary because once again, Bill Clinton on television, particularly if some of the Republicans remember the Iran-Contra investigation,
Colonel North in his uniform, he told untruths, but it didn't matter because he was a Marine we all loved. Bill Clinton on television is just gangbusters.
And the Congress does not have a great record on hearings and coming across well in hearings.
But if the president is going to do it, he is going to have to make one big change. He will have to be a little more forthcoming about how he describes how he misled the grand jury.
Why? Before the grand jury?
Because the Democrats will demand it. The Democrats will say you have to be more straight on this.
This is why when you think about what happens after November 3rd, I think there are a lot of tough choices for Bill Clinton and the Democrats.
And I think if you watch the hearings on Monday, the Republicans have Henry Hyde, an attractive and responsible figure, and their counsel, David Shipper, a former Democrat, an old-fashioned Democrat.
That's not a bad image to present to the country. And I think, frankly, politically it's a better image than John Connors and Barney Frank, fine men though they are, who, I mean, I think in middle America, the Republicans might do okay on this impeachment inquiry.
Before we get to November 3rd, we've got a Congress to get out of town, and they are bollocksed up as they usually are at the end of a session, trying to figure out how to spend people's money.
And George Will, you seemed a little bit appalled today at the Majority Leader Army saying, well, we're not arguing about money.
Less than four years ago, the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, breathing fire and reciting the 10th Amendment, saying we have a post-new...
The 10th Amendment, which sends powers to the states.
That's right. Saying fundamentally we have a post-New Deal style of politics in mind, a fundamental reassessment of the federal government.
Mr. Armie sat there and said, well, it's not the amount of money, it's just who spends it. Now that's not, it seems to me, what conservatives in this country are talking about.
Particularly when it's out of the surplus, folks. I would like to point this out. The money we're talking about here is coming from the surplus that both parties have said is going to be saved for Social Security.
So for the Republicans to claim that that surplus is their doing is a little breathtaking. In 1993, when I think the Democrats and President Clinton started us further down the road to fiscal responsibility, they did it with no Republican votes whatsoever.
The surplus is produced by Mr. Fica. That is, by the Social Security tax, which under the unified budget is generating a number of revenue to disguise the continuing deficit.
That is correct, George, but the way since Lyndon Johnson, who wanted to try to disguise the spending for the war, we have looked at the unified budget, it is fair to say that in the first 30 years we've had a surplus.
Conservatives hate the fact that the budget was balanced under President Clinton. Stipulate. I think people in the White House, when they saw the Majority Leader get up with a sign saying Clinton record on education, they don't care what's underneath it then.
They're saying we are winning this debate. And again, you know, there has been some good to come out of the Indian scandal. One second, Sam.
Of course.
There's more.
Take whatever time you require.
More funding for low income energy, more funding for child care, more funding for teachers coming out of this week. Bill Clinton is driving the legislative agenda.
And he does seem to have the Republicans over a barrel.
Let me just make this point. It is true that until Friday in the negotiations, the President's people had not raised education as one of the big sticking points. Friday was all about it.
But you know why? Because the Republicans until Friday had their own agenda, but they had caved on everything else by Friday. So when it got to Friday, you had to have a new one to put out there.
Sam, look what the Republicans have accepted. When they say it's not about the amount of money, it's just who spends it, the Republicans have accepted a false idea, which is that the best predictor of a school's performance is the amount of money you spend on it.
No, no, but let me jump in here.
I have been critical of this Republican Congress. I was critical of the budget deal of 97, which actually laid the groundwork for all of this when they decided they didn't want to fight Clinton on money. They wanted to get along with him.
But just two points. The reason we have surplus is that defense spending is down $100 billion in current dollars in this decade. That's going to stop.
Defense spending is going to go up and I think will become an issue in 99, 2000. But secondly, to be fair to the Republicans, it is, I think, more important to fight about how the money is spent than about the total amount of money spent.
It's not a trivial fight to say should money go for vouchers to low-income parents or should it go to the Education Department bureaucrats. It's not a trivial...
I mean, I do think there's something shallow about a Republicanism or a conservatism that just says less money. And to be fair to the Republican Congress, which doesn't deserve us to be that fair to them still, I mean, there's something to the point that they are really fighting about the content of public policy, not just how much money.
All of this is leading to the election, obviously, all of these debates. And the election is very soon. And we're beginning to see the impeachment battle playing out in the elections. One Democratic challenger went on the air this week with an ad about impeachment. Let's take a look at that ad.
October 8, 1998. Congressman Rick White votes to continue the impeachment proceedings against the president. Rick White's vote on impeachment will drag us through months and months of more mud and politics.
I'm Jay Inslee. What the president did was wrong. He should be censured, but not impeached. Rick White and Newt Gingrich shouldn't be dragging us through this. Enough is enough. It's time to get on with the nation's business.
Well, we will come back and talk about that ad and what will be happening in the elections when we come back in just a minute.
The first time the game should an impeachment. George Stephanopoulos. Good idea for a Democratic candidate to focus on impeachment.
Democratic challenger. I think yes. If he's able to link his opponent with Newt Gingrich, the least popular politician in America and say I'm for punishing the president, which is what he did. I think that's where the American people are.
Wouldn't it be wiser just to move on to another subject altogether and talk about these issues? For an incumbent. Yes, not for a challenger who's running against a Congress that seems obsessed with impeachment.
Well, obsessed with impeachment because eventually they're going to have to come to grips with the issue. I think the idea that a felony would not be an impeachable offense if the evidence shows the president's committed it is kind of absurd.
Murder, ladies and gentlemen, it's a felony, not against the state, against an individual. No, no. Perjury is a felony. If the president committed it, Congress will have to come and the public will have to come to grips with that and decide to give him a pass or say that you've got to be removed.
Bill Clinton as president has done more damage to the Democratic Party than Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan put together. He has undone Franklin Roosevelt.