Card Promotes White House Agenda
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: It's noon in Washington, 11:00 a.m. in Crawford, Texas, 5:00 p.m. in London and 8:00 p.m. in Moscow. Wherever you're watching from around the word, thanks for joining us for this two-hour LATE EDITION. We'll get to our interview with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card shortly, but first, the hour's top story. We begin with the possibility of a major change in the status of Tropical Storm Barry. Along the Gulf Coast in the southern United States, residents are now bracing for the worst.</s>BLITZER: But turning now to President Bush, after receiving a clean bill of health and scoring some important last minute legislative victories, he's now begun a month-long vacation in Crawford, Texas.</s>BLITZER: And earlier, I spoke with Andrew Card about the president's first six months in office. Mr. Card, thanks for joining us on LATE EDITION. Good to have you back on the program.</s>ANDREW CARD, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: It's great to be with you, thank you.</s>BLITZER: You probably saw the headline in today's "New York Times" suggesting there's going to be a change of the president's focus after this first six months. He's going to become now more, quote, "compassionate," presumably less conservative. Is that accurate?</s>CARD: Well, actually, what President Bush was when he was campaigning for president is exactly what he is as president. He is a compassionate conservative. The top priority for this president has been education reform. But you know, with the passage of the bill in the House and we hope the passage of the bill out of the entire Congress after the conference committee gets together...</s>BLITZER: The patients bill of rights bill?</s>CARD: No, I'm sorry, education. With that bill passing, we will want to see it become law, get it out of conference committee, become law. And the president will talk about education all during the fall. And this will not be an issue that stops for him after a new law is in place. He will be talking about educating and leaving no child behind, attracting good teachers to teach in our school systems. So he will talk about that in the fall. He will also be talking about the sense of responsibility that we all have as citizens of this great country and citizens of the world. But this is not something new. This is what the president campaigned on, this is what he has delivered during his first six months as president. And he will continue on with that during the fall.</s>BLITZER: But is there a sense that he needs to do more in terms of reaching out on this compassionate side in order to attract support from moderates and from women?</s>CARD: He's actually doing quite well. The polls have shown this president is pretty well positioned. We're not driven by polls. Instead we're driven by what the president feels is important for the country. And he is a compassionate conservative. The agenda that he put forward to Congress is a compassionate conservative's agenda. It started off with education, moved to tax relief, bringing faith-based initiatives so that we can have real solutions to societal problems in our country by working in partnership between the government and religious institutions. He's talked about the need to reform our military, he's already delivered on the campaign commitment to bring help to the military. And so I think what you saw during the campaign is what you'll see this president delivering on.</s>BLITZER: One of the areas where he will have an opportunity in the next few weeks to demonstrate his compassionate, let's say, side, at least according to those who support embryonic stem cell research, is to announce his support for federal funding for such research. A, has he already made up his mind what he's going to do?</s>CARD: This president has worked very, very hard on this issue. He's met with lots of individuals -- ethicists, religious leaders, doctors, scientists. He had some of the NIH officials who are most knowledgeable of stem cell research and its potential. He's also talked with the Pope about stem cell research. He knows that this is a very, very big decision. The federal government right now does not fund any stem cell research with regard to embryos. And the president is being asked to consider whether or not federal funding should be used. It is not an easy decision. There are obviously the hopes of science and technology, but there are also the concerns of ethics and morality. And this president is taking the decision very seriously. He has not made his mind up. He will, I expect, make his mind up over the next few weeks and make an announcement before Congress comes back into session.</s>BLITZER: In September?</s>CARD: It's a very challenging issue, and this president is taking it very seriously. I can tell you he's read thousands of pages, and met with a lot of different people who have very strong views, and he's been very contemplative how he's considered this issue. But this president is deeply committed to the sanctity of life. And he understand the enormity of this decision, and I think that he will make an informed decision that will be good for America.</s>BLITZER: As you know, many of those who are deeply committed to the sanctity of life as you say, opponents of abortion rights, like Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah are suggesting he should go forward with this kind of research because these embryonic stem cells would be discarded, and indeed, his wife was on "INSIDE POLITICS," Mrs. Bush was interviewed by our own Judy Woodruff this past week. Listen to what she had to say about this sensitive issue.</s>LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Because a lot of those embryos will be destroyed anyway or disposed of anyway, so I think that makes it even more difficult. But also, there's certainly, I don't know what he's thinking, these are all my own ideas, but there's certainly a life side of it as well when you think about lives that will be, could be, saved by research.</s>BLITZER: Is he inclined to go along with what his wife is at least suggesting?</s>CARD: I'm not going to predict which way the president will go. This is a decision that he will have to make, and he knows that. I can just tell you that I have great confidence that he is weighing all of the challenges around this decision, both the challenges of opportunity that come through science and technology but also the huge moral implications and ethical challenges that are faced by governments as they consider this very, very tricky issue.</s>BLITZER: Do you believe that these embryonic stem cells potentially could help scientists, doctors, find cures for Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's? I know that -- I believe your father had Parkinson's.</s>CARD: My mother had Alzheimer's.</s>BLITZER: So you have a personal interest in this kind of science if, in fact, it could work?</s>CARD: But I also am committed to a strong sense of morality and ethics, and I know the president has listened to people on all sides of this issue. He is doing the homework so that it's not based -- a decision will not be based on ignorance, it will be based on knowledge. And he is going to look at his own conscience and his own beliefs, but he's going to do what I think is in the best interest of the country, respecting the principles that he came to office with. It's not an easy decision. I am confident that he will make an informed decision that will be right for this country.</s>BLITZER: Have you weighed in personally with the president, given him your best recommendations?</s>CARD: My job is not to offer my personal advice and counsel. My job is to make sure that he gets all of the information that he needs to make an informed decision. And I have been doing that with him.</s>BLITZER: As you know, the president worked with Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia this past week, managed to reach a compromise with him on the issue of a patients' bill of rights that narrowly passed the House of Representatives, I think the vote was 218 to 213. But a lot of Democrats remain bitterly opposed to the compromise you worked out with Representative Norwood, including Senator John Edwards, one of the cosponsors and the Democratic majority U.S. Senate. Listen to what Senator Edwards said about this compromise that was worked out and passed in the House of Representatives.</s>SEN. JOHN EDWARDS, (D), NORTH CAROLINA: We're very disappointed the other six original sponsors and the deal that he made. It's very important for us to be straight with the American people about this. No. 1, this deal, which was written in the middle of the night, by the way, takes away rights that patients already have across the country. No. 2, it maintains the privileged special status that HMOs enjoy today. And No. 3, it stacks the deck against patients when they're trying to hold HMOs accountable for what they do.</s>BLITZER: Is the negotiation just beginning now in this House- Senate conference committee, because as you know, the Senate passed by a wide margin a much different version of what the House passed?</s>CARD: Well, Congressman Charlie Norwood has been working on this issue for seven years. He's the most respected member of Congress when it comes to this issue, and he's also a very highly respected in his ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle, in both branches, the House and the Senate. And it was appropriate that we negotiate with Charlie Norwood to try to get a bill that the president could sign into law. The ultimate objective here is to get a patients' rights bill signed into law. The Senate version could not be signed into law. This bill is a good bill. It would provide patient protection to all 50 states. It would do so in such a way that fewer people would lose health insurance, and there's great concern under the bill that has passed the Senate that there would be a number of people in America who would lose health insurance. We think the negotiated arrangement between Charlie Norwood, respected by the House now, will not jeopardize as many people who have health insurance, and it also provides the flexibility for states that have those plans in place right now. It does provide a sense of understanding what the rules will be, and there will be federal rules on patient protection. But this bill is written to protect patients, not to protect trial lawyers. And the Senate bill is written more for the trial lawyers than it is for patients.</s>BLITZER: But as you know, in a House-Senate conference committee, the negotiations begin, additional changes will be made if there's going to be some sort of legislation. One of the things that Representative Norwood, who's your ally now on this issue, suggested on Meet The Press earlier today that he was open to possibly changing the language from the House version which suggests that "a" proximate cause of injury or death the article A could be changed to "the" proximate cause of injury, your death meaning that if there is some misdiagnosis, some mistake that they're ready -- he's ready to deal on that specific issue. Is the White House ready to change the language in the House version to what is in the Senate version. Change the article from "a" to "the"?</s>CARD: Well, obviously, the House and the Senate will take a look at every word in the bill that will eventually come to the president's desk. The White House will take a look at every single word. There is an awful lot at stake in these words. The devil is in the detail. We feel very strongly that the version that was passed by the House, negotiated between the White House and Congressman Norwood, is the right version. And we think that it is sound from a legal point of view, sound from a constitutional point of view, and the right policy for America. And that's what we'll hang to.</s>BLITZER: Well, explain to our viewers why it's so important for the White House to have the language be "a proximate cause" instead of "the proximate cause"? Because, as you know, the -- if there are several issues at stake, in terms of the death or injury of a patient, "a" -- it limits the ability for that patient to win damages in a court.</s>CARD: I think it's "the" is the word that we like, versus "a." But...</s>BLITZER: With "the" more restrictive.</s>CARD: We do not want to see kind of the deep-pocket trolling that goes on sometimes in litigation, where trial lawyers are looking for the deepest pockets to sue, rather than for a way to meet the needs of a patient. And this is one way to accommodate that.</s>BLITZER: Well, is that a potential source of a veto if it is changed from "a" to "the"?</s>CARD: Well, we'll look at the entire context of the language. There -- this is section nine of the bill, is a very interesting section of the bill, one where we have put an awful lot of time and effort into negotiating. And that's a very important provision in this bill. It's section nine, or paragraph nine, which I actually think has now become paragraph eight. But, in the context of negotiations, it was around paragraph nine. We'll pay close attention to the details. This bill is very, very important, because we want to sign it into law. The president would like to sign the patients' bill of rights into law. He wants to provide patient protection, for all 50 states, respecting the flexibility that should be there for states that have patients' protection bills already in the law. Both the version that was passed by the Senate and the one that was passed by the House offered different guidance to the states. They both interrupt some of the activities going on at the state level. We think that the negotiated arrangement between Charlie Norwood and the White House is the best way to go. This is the result of a lot of compromise that the White House worked on with Charlie Norwood. I have great respect for how Congressman Norwood conducted himself during this process. And, by the way, the White House did a phenomenal job. Josh Bolten, who's the deputy chief of staff, and his team, were terrific, spending hours and hours and hours in good-faith negotiations. We're confident that good-faith negotiations with the conference committee can produce a bill that the president will sign.</s>BLITZER: So, will you work with Senator Kennedy, for example? You've worked with him on education. He came out bitterly opposed to this compromise you worked on with Congressman Norwood. I want you to listen to what he said in anticipation of the debate that's about to begin in September. Listen to this.</s>SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: This issue is not going away. They may have had a temporary victory this afternoon, and it'll be a temporary victory. But it is not going away.</s>BLITZER: So what do you say? You're ready for more compromises with Democrats and Senator John McCain and other Republicans in the Senate?</s>CARD: I think you should ask the question of them: Are they ready to make some compromises? So far there's been very little willingness on the part of Senator Kennedy and others to compromise on this issue. The bill that has passed the Senate will not earn the president's signature. So we have to find whether or not the Democrats are willing to start to compromise, and we'd like to have bipartisan negotiation that will produce positive results. But it's important that the result be principled enough that the president can sign it into law. We do not want to cause a situation where literally thousands of people will lose their health insurance. The Senate version of the bill would put in jeopardy health insurance to a lot of Americans.</s>BLITZER: Let's move on and talk about taxes. That's been one of the success stories of the Bush administration. These first six months that the president did sign into law a very impressive $1.3 trillion tax cut, checks are now going out to American taxpayers. But it now appears that you have to borrow some $51 billion to pay for those checks that are being mailed out to American taxpayers and that the budget surpluses that were projected earlier are simply not going to be there. Is this going to be a, looking back, a political error that the Bush administration made?</s>CARD: This was not only -- first of all, it wasn't a political initiative. This was an initiative to return money to the taxpayers. It was also an initiative to stimulate our economy. Every economist that I've talked to has said that this is the right kind of stimulus at the right time.</s>CARD: So, this tax relief package is good for America just from its stimulative effect on the economy. Beyond that, we have huge surpluses. In fact, our surpluses are still there. We are not going to get into the Social Security trust fund.</s>BLITZER: What about the Medicare trust fund?</s>CARD: The Medicare trust fund, there are two funds to Medicare, A and B. The A fund that you contribute to, not one dime that goes into that account will be used for any other purpose than Medicare. The other trust fund account, B, which is really not a trust fund account, it's an ongoing appropriation from the government, will still be an ongoing appropriation for the government and health care contributions...</s>BLITZER: So that won't be lockboxed, as they say, the second part of Medicare?</s>CARD: The second part of Medicare would not be lock-boxed. But, Medicare will increase in its funding and medical services under Medicare will continue to be provided. But, we also need to have reform in Medicare. And that's one thing the president talked about in terms of reforming Medicare. But, this tax relief package is right for America. It was right for the economy. And it's also right for bringing discipline to the federal fiscal system. Congress right now is working on budgets that will have to be signed before the next fiscal year begins. It's very important that they respect the fiscal discipline that the House and Senate have already adopted as they put together the department appropriations. The president will be a good watch dog for the American taxpayer during this process.</s>BLITZER: Let's go through a few issues because I know your time is limited. On the whole issue of drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge up in Alaska.</s>CARD: I have a tough time with that too,</s>ANWR. BLITZER: As it's called, ANWR, it passed, drilling passed in the legislation of the House of Representatives. Once again, the Senate Democrats are threatening to filibuster, if necessary, to prevent that kind of drilling up in Alaska. That would require 60 votes to break a filibuster. Do you have those 60 votes in the Senate?</s>CARD: First, I think it would be a mistake for the Senate to filibuster over that issue. This is a long-term energy program that requires that we look at all aspects of energy, conservation, as well as new resources and getting those resources to marketplace. The president presented a balanced energy plan to Congress. It was not a plan designed for a year or for two years, but it's a comprehensive plan to look out over the next 10, 15, 20 years. We need to make sure our country is doing all it can to encourage conservation. And it's doing all it can to make sure that we have clean energy to run our power plants, and natural gas is a clean energy to run power plants. And we don't have enough natural gas in this country. We need to find more, and I think the ANWR area, which is a very small footprint on this huge, vast area -- after all, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge is about the size of South Carolina. And we're talking about drilling on an area that is smaller than most airports and with new technologies that are environmentally friendly, I think it's the right thing to do. I think it would be a mistake for the Senators to be shortsighted as they look at the energy policy for Americans.</s>BLITZER: But, you don't have 60 votes to break a filibuster, do you?</s>CARD: We'll see. I think it will be an uphill battle. But, the important thing is that there be an honest debate about the energy needs of this country.</s>BLITZER: Let's move on and talk about some overseas issues, as you know, we're seeing live around the world on this program. The United States is threatening not to participate in a UN conference against racism in South Africa at the end of this month, if there is language in the draft resolution which condemns Zionism as racism or other language attacking Israel. Will the U.S. participate in that conference if such language critical of Israel is included in this draft resolution?</s>CARD: First, the United States would like to participate in that conference on racism. Secretary Powell would like to participate. I know that the entire government would like to participate. But we will not participate if the anti-Israeli, the Zionism language is included in that proposal, and we'll be taking a hard look at it. We will work with all our friends around the country to make sure that that language is not there. But, we are not looking to participate in any effort that would discriminate against Israel. And we don't think that it is the right language to be in that provision.</s>BLITZER: So, if there's any criticism, condemnation of Israel or Zionism, whatsoever in that resolution, the U.S. will boycott that conference?</s>CARD: Well, I don't like the term boycott. We would like to see the conference respond to the real concerns of racism. And if they're going to attack Israel, it's inappropriate. We don't think we should be a party to that.</s>BLITZER: Let's move on and talk about a potential presidential veto. It would be his first if Congress goes ahead and bars Mexican trucks from moving forward across the Mexican border, according to the NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement stipulation. If Congress goes ahead and says Mexican trucks can't have that access to U.S. highways, the president might veto that legislation.</s>CARD: He certainly might. Hopefully the conference committee will find an accommodation so that they are not in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The North American Free Trade Agreement is between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Canadian trucks are welcome in the United States. U.S. trucks are welcome in Canada. We think that there is discrimination if they don't allow Mexican trucks to come to the United States under the provisions of that agreement. And first of all, we respect the need for safety, and we're confident that the trucks will be safe on America's highways.</s>BLITZER: Do you think the Mexican trucks are as safe as the Canadian trucks coming in?</s>CARD: I think that they will be, yes.</s>BLITZER: And don't represent a danger to American drivers?</s>CARD: I am confident that Mexican truckers who are going to do long-haul carries in the United States would comply with the safety expectations of this country.</s>BLITZER: And just to nail it down, the president would veto that bill if it comes out of the Congress as it's now threatening to come out of?</s>CARD: Well, we want...</s>BLITZER: If it bars the Mexican trucks?</s>CARD: He would like to look at the language in the conference committee. The conference committee has two versions right now, a version that the House passed and a version that was passed by the Senate. They're very different. They have the same result of denying access for Mexican trucks to the U.S. market, which is discrimination. And we'd like to see that addressed in the conference committee. Let's hope conferees will meet their responsibility and comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement so that the Mexican economy, the U.S. economy and the Canadian economy can be further integrated.</s>BLITZER: We're going to talk shortly with two senators about possible military base closings throughout the United States. Is President Bush ready to start closing a bunch more bases in the Southeast, elsewhere in the United States, given the reduced military necessity for those bases?</s>CARD: The president has called for Secretary Rumsfeld to put together a plan for representing the Defense Department as we are now in the 21st century. We have a strategic plan for the military that is outdated, and Secretary Rumsfeld is taking a look at the needs and obligations of the 21st century, and that plan will be, I think very, very important. Included in that plan will be an effort to take a look at excess military installations. We will consult with Congress -- in fact consultations started last week with Congress -- on how we would have a system to take a look at the inefficiencies in our installations and trim them back. The president has not received a report from Secretary Rumsfeld on exactly what that legislation would look like, but I think it's realistic to say that we're going to have to have some mechanism to be more efficient in the use of our military installations.</s>BLITZER: We are all out of time, but the president is going on vacation for a month to Texas, his ranch.</s>CARD: It's a working vacation.</s>BLITZER: The vice president's going to his ranch in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. What about Andy Card, where's he going on vacation?</s>CARD: I'll be spending a lot of time in the office at the White House, but I do hope to get up to Maine. I've got a place on a small lake in Poland, Maine, that I love to get to, and I want to be there with my children and grandchildren, but I'm not sure I'll get there very many days.</s>BLITZER: Is that where Poland Spring water comes from?</s>CARD: Right where Poland Springs water comes from.</s>BLITZER: Sounds like a good place.</s>CARD: Great place.</s>BLITZER: Enjoy yourself.</s>CARD: Thank you.</s>BLITZER: Thanks for joining us.</s>CARD: OK.</s>BLITZER: And up next, two key senators join us to talk about the battles ahead on Capitol Hill for President Bush's agenda. We'll talk with the Armed Services Committee chairman, Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan and Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama. LATE EDITION will continue right after this.