MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us right now is Utah U.S. Senator Mike Lee. He"s also a founding member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus. Senator, Lee, thank you for joining us.

This fight, where do you see this going by the end of this week? I am concerned--I am concerned that you"re not going to make a deal in the next couple of days. Are you concerned about the clock and the fact of--or the possibility, a strong one, of a default?

SEN. MIKE LEE ®, UTAH: I"m absolutely very concerned about the possibility of us passing the August 2nd deadline without raising the debt limit. That"s exactly why, after six months of talking about this, a few weeks ago, I finally filed legislation to address the problem, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, which proposes to raise the debt limit by $2.4 trillion.

It passed in House with bipartisan support. But when it got to the Senate, Harry Reid and the Democrats shut it down, refused even to allow debate, discussion or amendments. This isn"t the process as it"s supposed to work. We are open to compromise and negotiation. But for that to happen, we need to have legislation that can actually move through...

MATTHEWS: What was the...

LEE: ... and be subjected to debate, discussion.

MATTHEWS: What was the House vote--let"s check your facts there. What was the House vote on "cut, cap and balance"? You have 240 Republican members. I though it got 234 votes.

LEE: Yes, it"s...

MATTHEWS: What"s this bipartisan thing you"re talking about? I didn"t see that there.

LEE: We had five Democrats...

MATTHEWS: It was overwhelmingly a party line vote.

LEE: Overwhelmingly, but we had...

MATTHEWS: You know that.

LEE: We had five Democrats...

MATTHEWS: It was a party line vote.

LEE: ... who voted with us.

MATTHEWS: Let"s just call it--let"s call it what it is. It was a party-line vote, sir. Let"s not start with nonsense here. It was a party-line vote in the House. Fair enough. Your party controls the House. You passed it. It wasn"t a bipartisan vote.

LEE: We have five--five Democratic votes. Last time I checked...

MATTHEWS: That"s a...

LEE: ... when you have Democrats voting with Republicans...

MATTHEWS: You"re talking to the American people on my show...

LEE: ... that"s bipartisan.

MATTHEWS: ... and are trying to tell me this horse and rabbit stew of 234, 5 of whom are Democrats, is a bipartisan vote? Anybody watching now knows that"s malarkey.

LEE: Well, look, we can argue about the meaning of bipartisan...

MATTHEWS: I"m not arguing, just speak English here. Do you believe it was a bipartisan vote in the House? Let"s start with the facts. Was it or was it not a bipartisan vote in the House on your "cut, cap and trade" (sic) position?

LEE: Chris, what I said was, it had bipartisan support. It had the support of five Democrats.

We can argue about the significance of that. But my point is, this is the only piece of legislation anyone has proposed that"s made it anywhere in Congress to raise the debt limit. What I"m saying is, we are trying to do this. We cannot be accused, we as Republicans, of simply wanting for the debt limit deadline to arrive without us raising the debt limit.

MATTHEWS: Well, OK.

LEE: We have tried to do something about it. And that process was halted.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: It was stopped cold in the Senate by those who are unwilling to acknowledge or come to terms with the fact that the American people, by a margin of 66 percent, according to CNN, support the principles of the Cut, Cap and Balance plan.

MATTHEWS: Well, let"s talk about the three things that I think have been most in dispute and they have become ideological. One of course is the need--well, on the Democratic argument, their needs to be revenues increased. You say no to that. You also say it must include a sufficient amount of spending cuts to match the debt ceiling increase. Fair enough.
And then you say it must include some kind of measure dealing with the balanced budget amendment. The problem with your proposal which passed the House with 234 votes, including the five Democrats and the problem it will be I think with the Democratic Party is basically that requires the enactment--rather, the sending to the states by two-thirds vote of both houses a balanced budget amendment before you increase the debt ceiling.
Do you realize what a monstrous, major, stark decision you"re asking the Congress to make before they even pass a debt ceiling increase? Do you think that"s reasonable?

LEE: Yes, Chris. And it is a monstrous issue.

MATTHEWS: A two-thirds vote by both houses for a change in our Constitution as a prerequisite just to raise the debt ceiling?

LEE: Yes, because it is a monstrous situation that we"re dealing with.
I don"t dispute for a minute that not raising it will cause problems. But one of
the things that"s gotten too little play is the fact that raising it without adequate permanent structural binding, spending reform mechanisms in place, could also cause problems.

You look at the warnings that we have received from Moody"s and Standard & Poor"s, they talked not just about the failure to raise the debt in time. They also talked about the failure to address the underlying problem.

We believe that the identifying--identifying conditions we have put in place in Cut, Cap and Balance are the right conditions. Now, if the Democrats in the Senate don"t agree with that, then they can and should bring that up in the debate process and have a healthy, open amendment process in the Senate so that we can come to compromise.

Instead, what we have are a small handful of legislative leaders from parties and both houses meeting behind closed doors under cover of darkness to sort of pre-cook a deal, which will then be brought forward at the last possible hour, effectively extorting members of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Well, you know why they"re doing that.

LEE: ... and the American people into supporting it at the last minute.

MATTHEWS: Well, the problem...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The problem is, if you leave this vote up to the 80 or so Tea Party freshmen, there would not be any deal, because they would insist on your terms. Isn"t that true?

LEE: Chris, Chris...

MATTHEWS: They don"t want a compromise.

LEE: We"re the only people who have offered any terms and legislation that...

MATTHEWS: But you don"t want to compromise.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: That"s nonsense, Chris.

MATTHEWS: What good is an offer and a proposal if--where"s the compromise here?

LEE: That is absolute nonsense.

MATTHEWS: Where are you willing to compromise, Senator?

LEE: First of all...

MATTHEWS: Are you willing to compromise on a balanced budget
amendment? Are you willing to compromise on a balanced budget amendment? Are you willing to compromise on revenues? Are you willing to compromise on the level of spending cuts? Where are you willing to compromise? Just tell me where. I will listen.

LEE: I would say yes in all of those things, yes in the sense that we"re willing to consider different balance budget amendment proposals.

Yes, we"re open to different negotiating positions as far as the amount of
immediate cuts and statutory spending caps that we have to have, in addition to the fact that this so far was in and of itself a massive compromise.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: It was difficult to convince this many Republicans in both houses...

MATTHEWS: You know what you just said, sir?

LEE: ... to get on board with an idea to raise the Obama debt limit, unlike every Democrat in the Senate, who voted against it...

MATTHEWS: Everybody who wants to play this tape--you know you just said.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: ... when Bush was requesting a debt limit increase.

MATTHEWS: You know what you just said? You said, A., you"re willing to compromise. Then you said you insist a balanced budget amendment, you insist on new revenues. That"s not compromise.

LEE: No. What I"m saying is, within those parameters, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

MATTHEWS: Well, then you"re--then you"re not negotiating.

LEE: Well, I am negotiating.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The Democrats oppose a balanced budget amendment. The don"t agree with you, so how can you reach a compromise?

LEE: But, Chris, that"s nonsense. We have got 23 Democrats in the Senate who have said repeatedly that they support a balanced budget amendment.
We don"t yet have consensus on who supports which plan, but that"s why we need debate and discussion. That"s why I have been talking about this for six months.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: That"s why we filed this bill in time to have debate and discussion.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: It was shut down by the Democrats in the Senate.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about an ideological question. You want a balanced budget amendment. The one that has been out on the table is a 20 percent of GDP spending cap, basically reaching at some point 20 percent, and then a two-thirds requirement on any revenue increase.

Do you like that idea? Is that your proposal?

LEE: Yes, I do. I have proposed it.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK.

Now, if you do it that way, if you do it right now, we have a $15 trillion GDP. Right now, we"re spending 3.75. That would reduce it to 3.0. Do you think that reduction in federal spending at this point right now, if this thing of yours, this mechanism were in effect right now, would be good for the economy? A cut right now of spending of $750 billion, would that be good right now?

LEE: No, Chris. And if you had read our legislation, you would know that this is not what it would do.

The balanced budget amendment the Republicans are behind...

MATTHEWS: Of course I read it.

LEE: ... would take many years to implement. It would take two or three years to ratify and five years to...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But if it were in effect now, I said, if it were in effect now.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: I know. But if it were in effect now, this nirvana of a 20 percent federal
GDP percentage going to federal spending, and a requirement of two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate to get a tax increase, would that be good for the economy if it were in effect now?

And I"m asking you, if it were in effect right now, as it reaches its fruition, is that good for country, to be strapped into a position where, except for terrorism, which seems to be the only expense you guys see as a likely possibility or a likely need to change, everything else is locked in.

I"m saying, is it good right now if we were locked into a spending level of $3 trillion--of $3 trillion? I"m just asking you, because that"s what you want to happen.

LEE: Oh, what I want to have happen.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you want us to be strapped into a $750 billion federal spending cut right now or not? Just--because that"s what you"re pushing and insisting as the--as the absolute requirement or no debt ceiling increase, you"re saying; we need this balanced budget amendment.

LEE: To be phased in gradually over the course of several years.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: But if it were phased in now, would it be good for the country?

LEE: No. And we"re not suggesting to implement it tomorrow.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: We were never suggesting that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, then doesn"t that answer your question of why a Democrat might oppose it? Because they know, wherever you go, that"s where you are going to be. Remember that old rule?

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: Chris, if you"re going to have me on your show, let me answer your question.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, you don"t answer--you answer inconsistently. You say a bipartisan support out of the House, and it turns out it was a horse and rabbit stew of five Democrats and 229 Republicans.

And then you tell me that you"re for compromise, but you"re not willing to compromise on a debt, balanced budget amendment, or on revenues. So you"re not really being consistent in what you"re saying. And you can play this tape back until your head hurts, and you"re not being consistent here, sir.

LEE: Chris, what I have said is, I"m open to compromise on the details of an amendment. I"m open to compromise on the size of the cuts.

MATTHEWS: Details of an amendment which all the Democrats oppose.

LEE: I"m open to compromise on the nature of the statutory spending caps.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

LEE: You"re using an absolute red herring here in saying that if this amendment...

MATTHEWS: No. You are setting the standards for what you accept the compromise on. You say it has to be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

LEE: What"s wrong with setting a standard, Chris?

MATTHEWS: OK. OK.

LEE: If we had standards in place years ago, we wouldn"t be in this mess, where you have $15 trillion in debt.

MATTHEWS: OK, let"s again apply your goal. How many days do you think we having on the outside to get this debt ceiling through, on the outside, before we have a problem? How many days?

LEE: I don"t know. Maybe 10 days.

MATTHEWS: OK. In 10 days, you want to change the United States Constitution by two-thirds vote in both houses. That"s what you"re demanding.

LEE: Yes, if possible. We can"t change the Constitution just in Congress, but can submit it to the states. Let"s the states fight it out.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Two-thirds vote by both. And you think you"re being reasonable by saying you want a two-thirds vote in the House, which is Democrat--Republican--and the Senate, which is Democrat. You want the Democratic Senate, by two-thirds vote, to pass a constitutional amendment or you want the House to come down?

LEE: Yes, that"s exactly what I"m saying. And I have been saying this for six months, ever since the day I was sworn in.

MATTHEWS: Well, that"s not a compromise.

(CROSSTALK)

LEE: If they want my support, then this is what they will do.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Sir, you can call it that you want. You know, you can call that everything you want. You know what you can"t call that? A compromise.

LEE: OK. Well, that"s--that"s--that"s great to know, but, look, the bottom line is, we have to change the way, fundamentally and permanently, in a binding fashion, the way Washington spends money...

MATTHEWS: OK. OK. Your way or the highway.

LEE: ... because there is no way we can afford this.

I"m not saying my way or the highway.

MATTHEWS: I hear you.

LEE: I"m saying within these certain parameters, there"s room for negotiation.
Now, you and I may or may not agree on what the general parameters ought to be, but I"m saying, within the general parameters, I"m willing to compromise, I"m willing to--negotiation.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: I"m open to negotiation. Now, you may not like that because you might not like my parameter.

MATTHEWS: OK.

LEE: But I"m telling you, I have been elected to the United States Senate and this is what I"m willing to go for.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you.

LEE: Now, if you move to Utah, then you don"t have to vote for me next time, but this is what the voters in my state are telling me overwhelmingly.

(LAUGHTER)

LEE: You know what? Utah"s a great state. I love Utah.
But thank you very much for coming on, Senator.

LEE: Come and join us. We would love to have you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, I will go out to--I will go out and ski with you.

Thank you so much, Senator Mike Lee.

LEE: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source