ANNOUNCER:   CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE tonight: Congress is taking care of business. 
BUSH:   It's a good piece of legislation. 
ANNOUNCER:   But guess who's saying, I told you so? They're getting ready for a cherished Washington tradition, the August escape. So, who is in charge until fall? And we just had to say, thanks for the memories. 
TRAFICANT:   And I'm going to try and kick their ass. Tonight on CROSSFIRE. From the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak. 
NOVAK:   Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Tonight, a fond farewell to a memorable guest who is now a former member of Congress. Also, the great escape: what's wrong with President Bush getting away from Washington's heat and humidity? But first, our daily downpour of information and hot air, the CROSSFIRE "Political Alert." President Bush is threatening to veto the Senate's version of a department of homeland security. He told a North Carolina audience the bill gives him too little flexibility. 
BUSH:   I just want to make sure that Congress understands that when we do create this department, I've got to have the ability to manage the department in a way to make the homeland more secure. I readily can see that I didn't run office saying, vote for me, I promise to make government bigger. And so I'm not interested in something big. I'm interested in something that works. 
NOVAK:   Despite the veto threat, the Senate governmental affairs committee this afternoon voted 12-5 to report out its version of the bill anyhow. Maybe that's because the committee's chairman is none other than Democratic presidential wanna-be, good old Joe Lieberman. 
BEGALA:   At least Lieberman is being consistent. He's been for this department when Bush was against it. Then Bush was for it. Now Bush is going to veto it. At least Joe knows what he's for. 
NOVAK:   He's consistent, consistently partisan, I would say that. 
BEGALA:   No, no. He's looking out for our interests. Well, just hours ago, the United States Senate, by a 99-0 vote, passed a tough anti-corporate fraud bill. President Bush praised the legislation, although Bush had refused to endorse it only a few weeks ago. This new tough talk follows on the president's comments yesterday, praising the arrest of corporate officers accused of looting the Adelphia cable company. And according to leaks in the press, the Justice Department is readying indictments of top officials at WorldCom. President Bush says this is proof his administration will pursue corporate wrongdoing with vigor, unless of course it was at Enron, or Bush's old oil company, or Dick Cheney's. 
NOVAK:   You know, I know you don't let the facts bother you, but there is an Enron task force, and there are going to be indictments and convictions. 
BEGALA:   There hasn't even been a speeding ticket yet though. I mean, they ought to be going after those guys harder. 
NOVAK:   Ask Arthur Andersen. Here's a great example of your federal government at work. It has just been revealed by the Citizens Against Government Waste that buried in caves beneath Kansas City is a $1 billion stash of milk powder. Yes, it's the equivalent of 13 billion gallons of skim milk, enough to supply the whole USA for 16 months. Why? Well, Depression-era legislation revived this boondoggle, pandering to the powerful dairy lobby. Now, you, the taxpayer are paying $20 million a year just to warehouse this milk powder that we'll never need. Good going, U.S. government.  
BEGALA:   I think it's a great idea. I think also in Kansas city, we should have Arthur Bryant's (ph) Barbecue Reserve and I'll be willing to host American Strategic Beer Reserve. Maybe a few hundred million gallons... 
NOVAK:   As long as the government pays for it. 
BEGALA:   Excellent. Good idea. Well, a Bush appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission by the name of Peter Kirsanow has caused a furor by saying that another terrorist attack might result in calls for detention of certain people based on their ethnicity. Perhaps, though, he was referring to right- wing white guys. After all, the terrorists who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City were right-wing white guys, and the Olympic Park, abortion clinic and gay bar bomber is though to be a right-wing white guy. And the anthrax attacks may be the work of right-wing white guys. So, maybe he's right. Why not send all of the right-wing white guys maybe to Utah where they could eat white bread and eat pork rinds and watch Fox News. Good idea. Why not? 
NOVAK:   Let me see if I can get this straight, Paul. It's OK to be ethnic and biased and prejudiced as long as it's anti-white? Is that OK? 
BEGALA:   Yes, we can take on the white guys. Just the right-wing ones though. 
NOVAK:   As we first reported to you last night, Senator Tom Daschle represents the great state of South Dakota. And he's never been bashful about using his power as Senate majority leader to benefit that little state. Even fellow politicians, however, were stunned by his latest exploit. Senator Daschle has added to a spending bill an unprecedented amendment exempting South Dakota and only South Dakota from environmental rules and lawsuits. Certain Republicans were first outraged, and then just like politicians, they said, me too. Thirty Republican members of Congress wrote the Senate majority leader asking that their states also be exempted from the environmental stormtroopers. I say, why not exempt all 50 states? 
BEGALA:   Tom Daschle is the greatest thing to happen to South Dakota and the United States. I think you are raising this because Bush is worried Daschle could beat him in the election. 
NOVAK:   What about the issue of the exemption, the little pork barrel politics. 
BEGALA:   I'm for pork. I'm pro-pork and I'm very, very pro- Daschle. He can do no wrong. 
NOVAK:   I know you are. 
BEGALA:   Well, Diogenes can put down his lantern. We may have found the one honest man in corporate America. Billionaire investor George Soros, who owned a one-third interest in Harken Energy company when Harken bought a failing oil company run by George W. Bush. David Corn, the Washington editor of "The Nation," asked Soros why Harken would want to buy Bush's collapsing energy company. Soros replied, quote, "we were buying political influence. That was it. He was not much of a businessman." Bush denied political favoritism, claiming he received the same treatment as any other failed CEO whose dad happened to be vice president. 
NOVAK:   You know, of course, he never said that. 
BEGALA:   No, I made that Bush part of. 
NOVAK:   It's hard to tell what you make up and what's real. But, you know, George Soros, just for the record, is a leftist. He is an extreme leftist, and he has no use for George W. Bush, opposed him for president. Just  ... 
BEGALA:   He's a billionaire capitalist who Bush was willing to let him use to bail out his oil company. 
NOVAK:   He was anti-Bush all the way, and you know that. 
BEGALA:   Well, that thumping sound you hear up on Capitol Hill is members of Congress patting themselves on the back for passing that corporate reform bill we discussed a minute ago. The final vote in the House was a whopping 423-3. Well, that in turn stampeded the Senate to debating and passing the bill this afternoon 99-0. And so the question is has Congress taken care of business? Well, in the CROSSFIRE tonight to debate that point, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the honorable Michigan Democrat John Conyers; and with us, the equally honorable Republican congressman from Virginia Tom Davis, who is also the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. They're both on Capitol Hill. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. 
NOVAK:   John Conyers, now that the Republicans, out of either fear or panic or good sense or whatever you want to call it, have adopted the Democratic bill from the Senate, where is your issue? Your campaign issue is just gone, isn't it? 
CONYERS:   Well, we didn't do it for campaign issue. We are trying to restore public confidence. And I'm happy that we had the kind of conference, Bob, that brought us both together in great numbers on this very important issue. This doesn't mean the job is done, but it's a darn good start. 
NOVAK:   So, Mr. Conyers, I commend your public spiritiveness (ph) and I have always considered you a public-spirited person. You would say that if you get a lot of flack from somebody sitting across from me on the table, it wasn't this a terrible retreat by the Republicans, just running in fear, you'd say that was mean-spirited, wouldn't you? 
CONYERS:   No. What I wanted to do, and I did, is commend the Republican leadership, including Tom Davis, for us coming together quickly, to put in many of the strong parts of the Senate version of the bill. And along with the House version, it gave us the toughest possible accounting bill that we could get. 
BEGALA:   Congressman Davis, let me bring you into this. First, thank you for joining us from Capitol Hill. I know how busy you are there, so thank you for your time. The Democratic Party did, in fact, put out a statement this afternoon that said, "this agreement shows complete capitulation by House Republicans." If not complete capitulation, Congressman, it certainly is an election year conversion for a party that has always said it doesn't want more regulations on business. So, now you vote almost unanimously for strong, new regulations on business. Why? 
DAVIS:   Well, first of all, I think the markets need it. It needs more transparency to restore confidence to the markets. You basically took the toughest parts of the House bill and the Senate bill and put them together. And I want to commend John, Senator Sarbanes and others who saw that we needed to put this above politics and restore some confidence in the markets. But we're always hesitant to jump into it. But I think the situation demanded governmental action and decisive action, as did the arrests yesterday of the Adelphia executives. 
BEGALA:   Well, I always applaud Republicans for coming out for more corporate regulations, because I think that is the right thing to do. I salute you for that. But now those regulations will be in large measure enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose chairman, Harvey Pitt, helped lead the fight against other reforms when President Clinton called for them back in Congress, who called for a kinder, gentler SEC, sending a signal that they wouldn't be as tough on enforcement, who met several times with former clients in the accounting industry, causing a lot of embarrassment, and who even John McCain, a leading Republican and almost your presidential candidate, thinks should resign. Do you trust Harvey Pitt to enforce this tough new law that you just voted for? 
DAVIS:   You know, I do. And they put forward some other regulations that are going to require of corporations -- to executives to certify to the SEC their numbers by August 14, which should put a stop to all the numbers game up there and give us a time certain. I think they've responded adequately to this, and I trust them to put new regulations. I'm sure if they don't that my friend John Conyers and others will be jumping all over them, but I think we're working together on this.  
NOVAK:   You know, I consider myself a one-man   with my good friend Paul Begala, because he makes so many distortions. Fact of the matter is that Harvey Pitt never, ever called for a kinder, gentler SEC. I defy him to ever find... Just a minute. If I could talk before you interrupt, I don't think there's -- you could ever find that quote. I'm sorry you don't read my column, because I show what he did say, and he didn't say that. 
BEGALA:   He said exactly that. But what I would want to ask -- what I want to ask Mr. John Conyers is, Paul Sarbanes says we ought to give Harvey Pitt a chance. It would take too long to get a new SEC chairman. Do you agree with Paul Begala or Paul Sarbanes? 
CONYERS:   Well, I have unfortunately a call originally for Mr. Pitt's resignation. But on reflection, if it's going to be hard to replace him, the least he can do is recuse himself and appoint a special counsel. I think that we may... 
NOVAK:   Recuse himself... 
CONYERS:   Me may -- Tom and I may meet each other halfway on that. Why? 
NOVAK:   Recuse himself on what? 
CONYERS:   Recuse himself from the investigations that are going on that involve the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, the secretary of the army -- isn't that enough? 
NOVAK:   OK, we're going to -- we're going to talk a lot more about that a little bit later. But when we get back, we'll ask our guests if they really want to follow John Conyers down that grim path to look into the president and vice president's long-ago business dealings. And later, is war any reason to put off a vacation that, after all, isn't really a vacation? And our "Quote of the Day" doesn't come from a member of Congress, not a member anymore.
CONYERS:   No, Bob, I am not calling for a special prosecutor. I am calling for a special counsel which can be appointed by any secretary or head of SEC, like Mr. Pitt. It's quite a difference. 
NOVAK:   What is the difference? 
CONYERS:   Well, the difference is that the special prosecutor operates independently from the Department of Justice, the special counsel is appointed by, for example, Director Pitt, and would work as a special deputy for him. But it would relieve Mr. Pitt from the allegations of all the people he represented in the business world that would likely be coming up under review. It's a good way to get some of the partisanship out of the investigation. 
BEGALA:   Congressman Davis, let me suggest another way he could get the partisanship out of the investigation, at least so far as President Bush and his conduct at Harken Energy is concerned. He was as a director, supportive of what turned out to be a very controversial deal to spin off a subsidiary to insiders in the company in a way that hid the true losses of the company and the Securities and Exchange Commission later said that that was not appropriate. But Bush won't release the Securities and Exchange Commission records. I think it's because Securities and Exchange Commission never interviewed Bush, never interviewed the CEO, never interviewed any officers or any directors of that firm. But why doesn't Bush just release them? What's the harm of calling on the SEC to release all the records of when Bush was investigated for insider trading? 
DAVIS:   You know, Paul, this was a long time ago. You had people at the SEC who were career investigators look at this. They found no wrongdoing at the time. Some of these documents have been -- the American people want to look ahead. They want a president that's going to solve their problems, not go digging into the past. We've had a lot of that over the previous years. It's really time... 
BEGALA:   And you supported it, sir! 
DAVIS:   No evidence of wrongdoing... 
BEGALA:   With respect, Congressman, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but with resect, as I said to you, the Securities and Exchange Commission never interviewed Bush, never interviewed the CEO, never interviewed any officers or directors. That's why Mr. Conyers thinks we need a special counsel, don't you? 
DAVIS:   No, they had career investigators look at this. I don't know what they did and what they didn't do, and neither do you... 
BEGALA:   Yes, I do, I know they never interviewed any of those people, because they admitted that to the "Dallas Morning News," sir. It's been in the newspapers. 
DAVIS:   But we don't know who they interviewed at this point, and there may not have been a need to interview him given the evidence that came forward at the time and the third parties they interviewed. 
NOVAK:   The career -- the career person who was there was not a Republican, Mr. McClukus (ph) said that it was a perfectly good investigation and there was no need... 
BEGALA:   Maybe so. So release the records. 
NOVAK:   But Mr. Conyers, I want to quote something that you said. John Conyersm Jr., Democrat of Michigan. And I think this is a very interesting quote. We're going to put it up on the screen. You said -- Mr. Conyers said, quote: "I'm personally outraged that we would decapitate the commander in chief at a time when we are at war abroad. Republicans sacrificed the national security by doing so. To be spending time of this House to smear our commander in chief when brave men and women are risking their lives for their country shocks the conscience." You said that on December 19, 1998, about Bill Clinton. Isn't that a little embarrassing now that you're going out for some kind of witch-hunt against George W. Bush? 
CONYERS:   Well, no, it's perfectly consistent, Bob. You see, what I'm trying to do is take it away from the partisanship and have a special council appointed by Mr. Pitt himself. Don't you see, that's not partisanship. That's ending partisanship. 
NOVAK:   Well, see I thought the... 
CONYERS:   Don't you think that helps? 
NOVAK:   I though the independent counsel they named against President Clinton was supposed to be outside the partisanship, outside of the Janet Reno partisanship and something that was independent. Wasn't that the idea? 
CONYERS:   Well, yes, sir, that was. But the way that happens is the attorney general goes to the court. The court appoints a three- judge court, appoints the special prosecutor, which happened, as it turned out, to be Kenneth Starr. But what we do in this situation is much less dramatic. The director, Harvey Pitt, merely appoints a prominent attorney investigator to do these investigations for him so that we can't accuse anybody of partisanship. That, I think, is just the opposite of what you may be implying. 
BEGALA:   Mr. Conyers, I want to thank... 
CONYERS:   I'm a real nice guy that wants bipartisanship. 
BEGALA:   That you are. Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, a Democrat, thank you very much for joining us. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, Tom Davis, a Republican of Virginia, both distinguished leaders on Capitol Hill, thank you both for joining us. In a matter of days, the top members of all three branches of our government will be on vacation. Coming up, is anybody going to miss them? Up next, a "Quote of the Day" from someone we're all going to miss a lot. Stay with us.
