MSNBC "Hardball With Chris Matthews" - Transcript
Interview
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEWS: Well, it looks like, Congressman Shadegg, that the--the
whole thing"s been GPSed out by the Democrats. It looks like there"s going
to be a meeting tomorrow, followed by some sort of recognition you that
didn"t get together as two parties, and a decision by the Democrats to go
it alone and go through the up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate, with a
majority vote being sufficient.
Is that the way you see it, you Republicans?
REP. JOHN SHADEGG ®, ARIZONA: Well, let"s hope not.
I hope that what we do tomorrow is make real progress on areas where
we can find agreement. I think there are areas where we can find
agreement. I think there are areas, such as preexisting conditions, there
are areas such as increasing competition and bringing down costs where we
can find agreement. And, hopefully, that"s what this meeting will be
about. That"s what the American people want.
I hope we can get away from the politics of saying, well, this party
doesn"t have any ideas, or that party wants it their way or no way at all,
because what the American people want us to do is get this problem solved,
and--and deal with the fact that health care costs are going up faster
than all other costs in our economy.
And I think that"s what tomorrow ought to be about.
MATTHEWS: So, why should--OK.
My question to you, before I get to Congressman Van Hollen, is, why
should the Democrats modify their bill according to your specifications,
unless you people are willing to vote for it if he does--if they do, do
that?
SHADEGG: Well, I think we shouldn"t really be beginning with any
bill. I, quite frankly, think it"s pretty clear the American people don"t
want the House or Senate bills. Fifty-six percent of them say they don"t.
But there are things on which we can agree, and there are things on
which Republicans ought to be willing to agree with Democrats on.
Republicans are certainly willing to agree that we should cover everyone
with a preexisting condition, that nobody should be left out.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SHADEGG: I think Republicans are willing to embrace so-called
universal coverage. I have introduced legislation virtually every year I
have been here to cover every single American.
So, there are things that we can agree on. Neither side should start,
I don"t think, with preexisting conditions--that is, conditions for the
discussions.
MATTHEWS: OK, preexisting conditions. I get it. I know what you
mean. I know what you mean--in terms of the debate.
SHADEGG: Right.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congressman Van Hollen on the question.
It seems to me that, if you listen to Pfeiffer down at the White
House, the spokesman for the president, it"s pretty clear that they see
themselves probably heading towards an up-or-down vote in the Senate based
on majority rule, not on some 60-vote deal. What do you think they"re
headed towards down at the White House?
REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D), MARYLAND: Well, first, Chris, look, I
agree with John. We want to see how this goes tomorrow. The president has
invited people down to the White House in good faith to have what our
Republican colleagues, our Democratic colleagues, and the American people
have been asking for, which is a big public discussion on health care.
I think it"s unfortunate that Mike Pence called it a setup. I mean,
this is going to be in the full light of day. People are going to be
watching. I think it"s important that we find out exactly what people want
to accomplish and what their different ideas for getting there are.
And the president has put a proposal on the table. It will be
interesting to see what our colleagues on the other side have to say, for
example, on what John just raised on--on making...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
VAN HOLLEN: ... sure we prohibit the insurance companies from denying
people care based on preexisting conditions.
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: That"s in the president"s plan.
MATTHEWS: So, what"s the set...
VAN HOLLEN: That"s not--that"s not in the Republican plan.
MATTHEWS: But isn"t it a setup in the...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Isn"t it a setup in the sense that your party and the
president are starting with a big plan, which the president released this
Monday, which is a conclusive, almost trillion-dollar plan to provide
health care for the 30 million-plus who aren"t covered, and that"s what you
want to start with as your model and then make modifications in it?
Congressman Shadegg and, I believe, the other Republicans" view is,
start from scratch and put together a compromise proposal. Isn"t that the
big difference, Congressman Van Hollen, in approaching this debate
tomorrow?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, no. As John said, I mean, they have put plans on
the table. And the question is whether they measure up to the task that
the American people know we face when it comes to rising health care costs,
trying to bring down the deficit, and...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
VAN HOLLEN: ... trying to bring down the costs, because, no, it--it
is true they have put some things on the table. But the Congressional
Budget Office has looked at their plan and said, you know, after 20 years,
there...
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: ... are only three million more Americans covered,
because--no, but, Chris, the point is that the president says, here"s how
we"re going to get there.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: And he"s invited our Republican colleagues to say, do you
do we agree on the goals? And, if so, what"s your proposal?
MATTHEWS: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Congressman Shadegg, it does seem to me there"s a
difference. You want to go in there with a Veg-O-Matic, like Ed McMahon,
and start all over again, chop it up, and decide what pieces you like on
both sides of the aisle. The president says here"s basically what I
believe in. I"m willing to accept some modifications in it.
It just seems there"s a total difference in approach at--sitting at
the table at 10:00 tomorrow morning.
SHADEGG: Let"s--let"s talk about the difference in approach. Let"s
talk about one of the biggest issues confronting the American people on
health care.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SHADEGG: And that"s preexisting conditions.
In point of fact, the Congress, in 2006, passed legislation to address
the problem of preexisting conditions. It passed the House by a voice
vote. It passed the United States Senate by a U.C. I happen to have
written the bill.
It was--it"s a bill that said every single state should create a
high-risk pool to cover people with preexisting conditions. I have an
older sister who"s a breast cancer survivor.
And it said, look, you create a high-risk pool. The federal
government will help you create that pool and will help fund that pool.
And, with that, we can then cover every single American with a preexisting
condition.
If we already passed that once, and the only default was, we didn"t
force the states to do it, why don"t we do that now, require the states to
do it, and if any state doesn"t do it, create a federal high-risk pool, and
solve that one problem? I don"t see how that"s...
VAN HOLLEN: But--but, Chris...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK.
SHADEGG: I don"t see how that--I don"t see how that--
(CROSSTALK)
SHADEGG: -- on this issue.
MATTHEWS: Congressman Van Hollen.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Congressman Van Hollen, respond to that proposal.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: This is a great example.
The way they--first of all, the president has included in the bill -
if you look in the thing he put on the Web site, there"s a provision to
create high-risk pools, exactly what John said. Many states have already
created those. We should continue to create incentives.
SHADEGG: And--
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: But--but the fact of the matter is, the reason the
Congressional Budget Office looked at their plan and said, after 20 years,
you"re only going to get three million more Americans on it is because,
even with those high-risk pools, two things happen.
Number one, premiums keep going up. You can have a high-risk pool,
but if the premiums are through the roof--
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: -- you can"t afford it.
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: And, number two, under their--
SHADEGG: Chris--
VAN HOLLEN: -- plan, an insurance company can still tell you no.
MATTHEWS: Look, this is a good debate. Let"s have it...
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: An insurance company can still tell you no.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, I hope we have this debate tomorrow.
VAN HOLLEN: This is why we need a debate.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: We"re going to have it tomorrow, from--from 10:00 in the
morning to 4:00 in the afternoon at Blair House. Then we will be on
tomorrow night, Keith and I, to talk about it.
But let me ask you this about this question.
SHADEGG: The premiums in the bill I passed are already capped, Chris.
MATTHEWS: OK.
VAN HOLLEN: No.
MATTHEWS: Congressman Shadegg, are you with the other Republicans who
are putting out the word in negotiations with the White House that the
president of the United States should not have a lectern tomorrow? Are you
with that effort?
SHADEGG: Should not have a lectern?
MATTHEWS: Yes, he should sit at the table at the same level as you
guys? Is that important to you?
SHADEGG: Well, I think--I think, quite frankly, this whole
discussion should have been at the table with the same level.
I think, in part, the reason the president is doing this is because he
left the writing of this bill to the Congress. I think he may have thought
it was going to be a bipartisan process, but, down at this end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, it was not a bipartisan process.
We were not allowed, Republicans were not allowed--
MATTHEWS: Yes.
SHADEGG: -- in the room in the Commerce Committee to write any of
this--of this bill. When it went through markup in the committee, the
Democrats accepted a number of amendments, and then Mrs. Pelosi ripped
those amendments out of the bill before it went to the Rules Committee.
If this is going to be a discussion, it would be better if he sat at
the table. But he"s the president of the United States. I"m not going to
dictate to him--
MATTHEWS: OK. Well, here"s what--
VAN HOLLEN: Chris--
MATTHEWS: Here"s what I think Republicans are afraid of.
And then I will let Congressman Van Hollen speak.
This is--this was about optics, I think, the question whether the
president should look elevated or not on television tomorrow. Here"s a
scene from the White House summit held one year ago, an exchange between
President Obama and the man he beat for president, Senator McCain.
And I think, if you watch it, you will understand why the Republicans
are sensitive about this kind of higher plane for the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I"m going to start with
with John McCain, because--and--and he and I had some good debates
about these issues.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: But--and I mean what I say here. I think John has also been
extraordinarily consistent and sincere about these issues. And I want to
see if--if you--John, you have got some thoughts as well.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: Well, Thank you. Mr. President, thank
you for doing this. I think it"s very important.
Your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One. I
don"t think that there"s any more graphic demonstration of how good ideas
have--have cost the taxpayers an enormous amount of money.
OBAMA: The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me.
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: Of course, I have never had a helicopter before. So...
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: You know, that format, Congressman Van Hollen, makes the
president of the United States look like the principal of the school, and
John McCain, who lost...
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: ... a pretty good election to him, like a third-grader.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Do you think it"s a fair format, to have the president
standing up there like God, and the--or a principal, at least--and the
Republicans sitting there like pupils?
VAN HOLLEN: Look, I think it"s a--a good exchange for people to
have.
(LAUGHTER)
VAN HOLLEN: You had the president appear...
MATTHEWS: You"re not answering.
VAN HOLLEN: ... at the Baltimore--at the conference...
MATTHEWS: You"re not answering.
VAN HOLLEN: Well, look, I don"t know if it"s fair or not, and I don"t
even know what format they...
MATTHEWS: Well, why don"t you know? It"s a reasonable question. Is
it fair?
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: No, I don"t--I think it--is that a--was that a fair
exchange? Of course. And the Republicans had the opportunity to focus on
the issues they cared about. He said to our colleagues, you tell me what
your top priority is.
And, you know, the--the ball was in their court. I mean, just
because the president has a good response to it doesn"t mean it"s unfair.
Let me just say, on these hearings, we had a lot of hearings. The
American people know we had hearings in the House, hearings in the Senate.
We had markups in the House, three committees in the House, two committees
in the Senate. We had an extended period over the summer when you had
three Republicans and three Democrats in the Senate.
Senator Grassley changed his mind. He--he--he took the position
for many, many months that, in order to make health insurance reform work,
you need everybody in the pool. And then he totally changed on that.
SHADEGG: Chris, I thought you were in the House. I thought we were
talking about the House process.
VAN HOLLEN: We"re talking about the whole process. That"s why we"re
having the process at the White House.
SHADEGG: We"re talking about the House process.
VAN HOLLEN: The House process, you know we had--we had hearings.
We had markups. The Senate had a process.
SHADEGG: And in the markups--you tell me, Chris, how often it
happens that you that go to a market, the Democrats agree to amendments in
the markup, and the speaker then pulls those amendments out between when it
leaves committee at the markup and when it gets to the Rules Committee, and
before it comes to the floor. How fair is that?
VAN HOLLEN: John, look, we--we--we had--we had a number of
amendments, as you know, that were adopted during that amendment process in
the House. Amendments were adopted in the Republican side.
SHADEGG: I"m just explaining to you, we had--not on the floor, we
didn"t. We didn"t have a single amendment on the floor.
VAN HOLLEN: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
SHADEGG: And, in committee, she pulled them back out.
MATTHEWS: We have to do this tomorrow, Congressmen. I"m...
VAN HOLLEN: So, here"s--so, here"s the opportunity to go down to
the White House and talk about all the things you say you didn"t get that
you want to get in.
MATTHEWS: OK. That"s right.
SHADEGG: And I think we should. And we are.
VAN HOLLEN: So, that"s good.
MATTHEWS: Tomorrow morning, the opportunity arrives. OK. Tomorrow,
on national television, on MSNBC, you will be able to see that debate.
Of course, I think one way to save time tomorrow is everybody,
including the president, don"t give an opening statement. And that--that
takes up the whole morning. I have been through those babies.
Anyway, thank you, Congressman Chris Von Hollen--Van Hollen--
SHADEGG: I"m there.
VAN HOLLEN: Great. Thanks.
MATTHEWS: -- who happens to be my congressman, my wife and I"s
congressman, and my kids" congressman. And he"s a good one.
And U.S. Congressman John Shadegg, who I understand is a real
intellectual conservative. And I have always respected that position. I
mean it.
SHADEGG: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source