Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields
Interview With Tom Daschle
Aired October 05, 2002 - 17:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak. Al Hunt and I are on Capitol Hill to question the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: He is Democratic Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HUNT (voice-over): President Bush was joined in the White House Rose Garden with two prominent Democrats supporting an amended resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The House minority leader and the party's last vice presidential nominee.
REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress.
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: In the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large bipartisan majority.
HUNT: Not present in the Rose Garden was Senate Majority Leader Daschle. Senate debate limited by a 95 to one vote began Thursday.
Tom Daschle, after four years of active duty with the United States Air Force, came to Washington in 1973 at age 26 as an aide to Senator James Abourezk. He was elected to the House in 1978 and to the Senate in 1986. He became Senate Democratic leader in 1995, as Republicans gained the majority there. But became majority leader last year, when Senator James Jeffords defected from the GOP.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUNT: Senator, your institution has taken up the Iraq resolution. Could you give us a sense of the timetable of when you'll finish, and what you think the size and shape of the outcome will be?
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I really don't know what the timetable will be. This is a very serious matter, and it's going to require some debate. People want to express themselves, and already, some senators have expressed themselves more than once. My hope is that we can do it within a week. My hope is that we can have a very respectful debate. I know that there are senators who wish to offer alternatives and an amendment. I hope we can accommodate those, and at the end of the day, have a broad coalition, Republicans and Democrats, in support of a resolution. HUNT: From what you have been told -- I think we can just say, everyone here agrees that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and Iraq a hostile country. From what you've been told, is he on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons? Has the threat he poses become more imminent.
DASCHLE: I don't want to go into intelligence data, Al, and I don't know that it's appropriate to quantify or...
HUNT: Isn't it essential (ph) to what we do?
DASCHLE: Well, I think, basically, what I think it's fair to say is that the information we're provided, through the intelligence sources, is helpful, but I don't think it's conclusive. That is, I think you can interpret it in different ways. I don't think there is any consensus with regard to the threat, today. I think it is fair to say that left untended, there is no doubt that, at some point in the future, Iraq could have the capacity to develop and to use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
HUNT: One more question about the Senate resolution. Some of your Senate colleagues told me that you were working very hard with Senator Biden and with Senator Lugar on a compromise, and they thought you really had a chance, maybe, to get half the Senate, but that your friend, Dick Gephardt, really undercut you and doom those efforts, and you're not going to have any chance to get through what you had hoped to get through. Is that correct?
DASCHLE: That's not -- I wouldn't interpret was Dick did as undercutting me. I think he has every right to make decisions with regard to how we ought to proceed as anyone else, and he's made those difficult choices, like I have to make, and there are others in the Senate and House...
HUNT: But it doomed Lugar and Biden?
DASCHLE: I don't know that it doomed it. I wouldn't be involved in continuing to try find a way to offer something along the lines of what Senator Biden and Senator Lugar have suggested, if I though it was doomed. I think there is still a chance. If these are constructive ideas to make a stronger resolution. I think there is a possibility, even today, that that could be done.
NOVAK: Senator, you've never been shy about giving your opinions on political actions of other people, and quite apart from whether it has hurt your efforts in the House, and we all recognize that Congressman Gephardt has a perfect right to take any position he wants, I would like to ask you, what do you think if that was a mistake from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, of which you're one of the national leaders, for Congressman Gephardt to come on board that soundly and that early for the Bush resolution?
DASCHLE: I don't think it was a mistake, Bob. He and I talked about this, on several occasions, in fact, that very day. So I think that it's a recognition that these are very difficult questions. The wording of the resolution today is, clearly, better than it was when it started. It's moved in the direction we wanted it to. Can we clarify it? Can we improve on it some more? I think so. I think even Dick would say that we could. But he came to the conclusion that was satisfactory. It may be, at the end of the day, it will have to do. But I think we've got a responsibility to continue to try to make it better, and that's what I intend to do, next week.
NOVAK: Senator, you were -- I'm sorry, Congressman Gephardt was standing at the president's side in the Rose Garden. Your party's last vice presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, was there. Why weren't you there? Were you not asked or did you turn it down?
DASCHLE: I don't think I was asked. I certainly didn't turn it down. My view was that this was a recognition of support for a resolution that I haven't signed off on, yet, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't invited.
NOVAK: You would have said no if you had been asked...
DASCHLE: Well, I don't think it'd been appropriate for me to be there to acknowledge an agreement, when I wasn't a party to the agreement, at least today.
NOVAK: Al Hunt mentioned the Lugar initiative. My understanding is that Senator Lugar is pretty well satisfied with the amendments that have been made to the resolution, and that he is no longer in opposition or trying to come up with his own proposal. If that is so, that, pretty much, kills the chances for a bipartisan alternative to the Bush proposal in the Senate, doesn't it?
DASCHLE: Well, Bob, you always have great sources, and if that's the case, it would put a different tone on the efforts to try to make improvements. I have had many occasions to visit with Senator Lugar, and that's not my understanding. My understanding is that he and Senator Biden are prepared to offer an amendment that may not be in the form of an entire substitute, but an amendment to address some of those areas within the resolution that they believe deserves improvement. So we'll see what happens, next week, when we talk to him again.
HUNT: Mr. Leader, the Bush-Gephardt deal would seem to implicitly sanction the new Bush doctrine of preemptive or preventative strikes against other countries. Is that a big deal? What are the implications?
DASCHLE: Well, I think it is a big deal, and I think that is, probably, one of the biggest reasons why you don't have a greater degree of broad-based support for the resolution, today. Preemptive strikes are something we have to take very, very seriously and carefully. Number one, what kind of a standard does it set for the rest of the world? If it's OK for us, is it OK for India? How about Russia? How about Israel? To what extent do we define when a preemptive strike is a valid action on the part of the United States? Should it be done, simply, to address the problem of weapons of mass destruction? Or should it be done for other purposes as well?
HUNT: But you don't think he can change that, do you on the Senate floor?
DASCHLE: Well, see, that's one area where I think clarification may be necessary. Our view is that it is appropriate to take a preemptive strike, if a country is developing weapons of mass destruction that may undermine our own national security.
HUNT: It also, unlike the Biden-Lugar attempt is the Bush- Gephardt deal is silent on the question of a post-war Iraq. As you know, Vice President Cheney has said that Iraq would be a model of democracy in the Arab world. We would nation-build, if you will. Do you think that's inevitable?
DASCHLE: I don't think it's inevitable, frankly, and that's also a concern. I don't know that it has to be addressed in the resolution, per se. I think there has to be a good deal of priority and attention given to it.
But keep in mind, this is a use of force resolution. I'm not sure we need to use force to create the kind of democratic institutional framework that is going to be required if the regime change takes place successfully. But clearly, that is one of the questions. How long will we be there? What will it entail, on the part of the United States? How much will it cost? Who will be involved? What kind of a framework can be established with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Those are the kinds of things, I think, have yet to be addressed satisfactory, and it's why many of us continue to ask questions.
NOVAK: Senator Daschle, you indicated that you still would like to have this resolution changed a little more, although you feel it has been improved. Specifically, what is the important change that has to be made in the resolution to make it more acceptable to you?
DASCHLE: Well, Bob, I think there's two things, in particular, that we feel very concerned about. One is this use of force for any purpose. The Gephardt resolution, the resolution adopted by the leaders involved, last week, simply provides the use-of-force resolution and makes reference to 16 U.N. articles.
Well, one of those articles is, simply, a return of Kuwaiti prisoners. Well, do we want to use use-of-force in a preemptive strike to return Kuwaiti prisoners? I don't think so. So what we'd rather do is to refine it to insure that we're talking about the same thing, the right thing. Talking about a focused effort to destroy weapons of mass destruction. We, also, want to be able to quantify the threat, and we think that reference to the fact that there ought to be a grave threat, before we take preemptive strike, is something that is very important to us.
There are issues involving oil fields and other economic issues that could be a threat, but may not warrant preemptive strikes.
NOVAK: If you cannot make those changes on the Senate floor, would you vote yes or no on the current resolution?
DASCHLE: I'm not going to come to that conclusion yet. I'm going to make our best effort to make my judgment, once that effort has been made. So that decision is a little ways off.
NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take a break. And when we come back, we will talk to the Senate Majority Leader about how the torch has passed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Senator Daschle, John F. Kennedy one time said that party loyalty, at times, demands too much. You were in New Jersey, a week or so ago, effusively praising Senator Bob Torricelli who, of course, now has bowed out. In retrospect, do you regret your praise for Senator Torricelli?
DASCHLE: No, I don't. I tell you, Al. He did a lot for our caucus. I keep reminding people that Jim Jeffords gets a great deal of credit for the fact that we're in the majority, but if there's anybody else who deserves the credit, it's the tremendous work made by Bob Torricelli over the course of four years. So his work on behalf of expanding our caucus, his work on so many issues, I think, is something that ought to be recognized, and I don't apologize for that, at all.
HUNT: Have you asked Senator Torricelli, or anyone close to him, and requested that he turn over those campaign funds that he has to the Democratic Party, the Lautenberg campaign in New Jersey?
DASCHLE: You know, I think this is an occasion where you just take it one step at a time. We've gone through a turbulent week, very difficult week. And there'll be plenty of time to talk about that. Right now, I've assured Frank Lautenberg, our new candidate, that the resources will be there, one way or the other. We'll get into the details and the mechanics of how we meet that goal in the days ahead.
NOVAK: Mr. Leader, not much is getting passed in the Senate, and I don't want to get into the finger pointing, one side saying it's the other side's fault, but I just want to take up a couple issues. One is the terrorism insurance bill. The White House says that they were told by the leading members of the Senate Banking Committee that this is in the hands of your staff and that, unless you go along with the trial lawyers on punitive damages, there won't be a terrorism insurance bill. Is that correct?
DASCHLE: Bob, do you know that the offer on the table right now from us, is exactly, word for word, the Coverdale language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with regard to tort reform? It's their language. Language they proposed, just a year ago. I find it incredibly ironic that they won't accept it now. So we're just saying, look, you want to get a deal, take the language you offered us that was good enough on elementary and secondary education. You've got it here.
NOVAK: But that's holding up the final passage of the bill.
DASCHLE: Well, that's a big part of it. They aren't willing to take yes for an answer. NOVAK: Is there also a question that you -- it's reported that you have not agreed to any kind of a final solution on the energy bill, unless there is nothing about the ANWR drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or there has to be something about global warming. Is that true?
DASCHLE: That is true. I'm just simply stating the fact. This late in the session, when just about anybody can put a veto on a bill -- they can put a hold on a bill. The only way we're going to get it passed is to ensure that ANWR is not included. We don't have the votes. The votes aren't there...
NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) global warming...
DASCHLE: ... and that there be some effort to address climate change in the energy bill.
HUNT: Senator, I just came back from your state, and I rode back in the airplane with a top Bush administration official who said, when are you going to ask Senator Daschle about why they are holding up the homeland security bill, holding it hostage to the government employees union?
DASCHLE: Well, I would say that they are ones that are trying to bust the unions. But it's not a question of unions, Al. What we're trying to do is to insure, absolutely insure, we don't go back to the bad old day when presidents could pick their political hacks and put them in government positions. We don't want to do that. We think it's important for us to have accountability and to have some rules in place.
And if you get fired because of something you did, fine, but it ought to be subject to review, if you ask for it. They don't want to do that. They want to get rid of all the political accountability that we've had in law for a long time, so that we don't go back to the days when you could hire the hacks and put them in positions of political or governmental sensitivity.
HUNT: Senator, the drought is a huge issue in your state. Before the Senate gets out this year do you expect there will be more drought aid for your hard hit ranchers and if so, will it come from unspent money in the current agriculture bill or other funds?
DASCHLE: Well, Al, the Congressional Budget Office has said that you can't do that. It is -- somebody could make a budge point of order against us, if we attempted to do it that way. So what we're, simply, saying is that, look, let's recognize that this is a national emergency. It's a natural problem that occurs with hurricanes and earthquakes and all kinds of other things.
So we want to be able to provide assistance in a meaningful way. The problem is, of course, we're getting tremendous opposition from the White House, from the House, and I'm pessimistic, right now, upon our ability to deliver that help.
NOVAK: I just want a minute, before we have to take another break. Mr. Leader, there are -- is a tremendous backlog of appropriation bills. Again, I don't want to get into who's at fault. But do you believe this will require Congress to reconvene in a lame duck session, after the election, or will you just pass a continuing resolution to guarantee funding, after the first of the year?
DASCHLE: I think we ought to come back. I don't think that we ought to let the appropriations process go all the way through to sometime next year without additional attention, Bob. There are too many important questions involved here. So I would be opposed to moving it well into next year.
NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take another break. And when we come back, we'll have "The Big Question" for Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: "The Big Question" for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Senator, last week, we asked your Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, whether he agreed with the assessments that the war in Iraq has sucked the oxygen out of the Democratic efforts to talk about their economic issues, health issues. Do you agree that that has made a tremendous problem for you?
DASCHLE: Not at all, Bob. You know what I find when I come home to South Dakota and travel around the country, but especially in South Dakota? People are very concerned. Iraq is important, but not as important as whether or not they can pay their bills. Not as important as whether or not they're going to put a crop in the field next year. Not as important as whether or not they're going to have health care. I mean, these issues, regardless of what the news is, regardless of what dominates this show, today, is what's critical to them, and so, I am even more confident than I've been, ever before, that the economic issues are very, very important to the voters of our country.
HUNT: Senator Daschle, speaking of South Dakota, there was a poll in the "Sioux Falls Argus Leader" last weekend that said your home state voters, by 54 to 28 percent, did not want you to run for president in 2004. Why do you suppose that is, and will it have an effect on your decision?
DASCHLE: Well, I take that as a compliment. I think -- I read that as they like the job I'm doing as majority leader and, more importantly, as the senator from South Dakota. But to be honest with you, Al, I haven't really factored that in, one way or the other, because I'm not thinking about what I'm going to do next. I'm focused, almost exclusively, on what we've got to do in the next three weeks.
HUNT: Well, when you do reach a decision, come back and tell us on this show. Senator Daschle, thank you very much for being with us.
Robert Novak and I will be back with a comment or two.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HUNT: Bob, Tom Daschle was very collegiate to his friend, Dick Gephardt, but the fact is that by cutting a deal with President Bush, Dick Gephardt has taken all of the optioning out of the Daschle effort to force, what I think would have been a very constructive compromise in the Iraqi war resolution.
NOVAK: The majority leader was very careful not to come out in opposition to the war as Robert Byrd and Charlie Rangel have done. His proposed changes in the resolution were very nuanced. I bet you, he ends up voting for the resolution.
HUNT: I bet you're right. One thing that you may not agree with me on, though, I think he is, also, right in saying that the war has not taken away from the Democrats talking about the economy and stressing health care. I was in South Dakota for a few days, and those issues are still front and center.
NOVAK: But they are not issues that are really exciting people, in my opinion. But one thing I will say about Tom Daschle, he follows Teddy Roosevelt's advice, speak softly and carry a big stick. He made it clear that unless his standards are met on the energy bill, the homeland security bill and insurance terrorism bill, there will not be legislation out of the Senate. I thought he was clear on that.
I'm Robert Novak.
HUNT: And I'm Al Hunt. Coming up at 7 p.M. eastern on "CAPITAL GANG," Senate debates a war resolution, and the Democrats split. Senator Robert Torricelli drops out of his Senate race, and our "Newsmaker of the Week," Democratic presidential candidate, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont.
NOVAK: That's all, for now. Thanks for joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired October 5, 2002 - 17:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak. Al Hunt and I are on Capitol Hill to question the majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
AL HUNT, CO-HOST: He is Democratic Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HUNT (voice-over): President Bush was joined in the White House Rose Garden with two prominent Democrats supporting an amended resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The House minority leader and the party's last vice presidential nominee.
REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress.
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: In the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large bipartisan majority.
HUNT: Not present in the Rose Garden was Senate Majority Leader Daschle. Senate debate limited by a 95 to one vote began Thursday.
Tom Daschle, after four years of active duty with the United States Air Force, came to Washington in 1973 at age 26 as an aide to Senator James Abourezk. He was elected to the House in 1978 and to the Senate in 1986. He became Senate Democratic leader in 1995, as Republicans gained the majority there. But became majority leader last year, when Senator James Jeffords defected from the GOP.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HUNT: Senator, your institution has taken up the Iraq resolution. Could you give us a sense of the timetable of when you'll finish, and what you think the size and shape of the outcome will be?
SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I really don't know what the timetable will be. This is a very serious matter, and it's going to require some debate. People want to express themselves, and already, some senators have expressed themselves more than once. My hope is that we can do it within a week. My hope is that we can have a very respectful debate. I know that there are senators who wish to offer alternatives and an amendment. I hope we can accommodate those, and at the end of the day, have a broad coalition, Republicans and Democrats, in support of a resolution. HUNT: From what you have been told -- I think we can just say, everyone here agrees that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and Iraq a hostile country. From what you've been told, is he on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons? Has the threat he poses become more imminent.
DASCHLE: I don't want to go into intelligence data, Al, and I don't know that it's appropriate to quantify or...
HUNT: Isn't it essential (ph) to what we do?
DASCHLE: Well, I think, basically, what I think it's fair to say is that the information we're provided, through the intelligence sources, is helpful, but I don't think it's conclusive. That is, I think you can interpret it in different ways. I don't think there is any consensus with regard to the threat, today. I think it is fair to say that left untended, there is no doubt that, at some point in the future, Iraq could have the capacity to develop and to use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
HUNT: One more question about the Senate resolution. Some of your Senate colleagues told me that you were working very hard with Senator Biden and with Senator Lugar on a compromise, and they thought you really had a chance, maybe, to get half the Senate, but that your friend, Dick Gephardt, really undercut you and doom those efforts, and you're not going to have any chance to get through what you had hoped to get through. Is that correct?
DASCHLE: That's not -- I wouldn't interpret was Dick did as undercutting me. I think he has every right to make decisions with regard to how we ought to proceed as anyone else, and he's made those difficult choices, like I have to make, and there are others in the Senate and House...
HUNT: But it doomed Lugar and Biden?
DASCHLE: I don't know that it doomed it. I wouldn't be involved in continuing to try find a way to offer something along the lines of what Senator Biden and Senator Lugar have suggested, if I though it was doomed. I think there is still a chance. If these are constructive ideas to make a stronger resolution. I think there is a possibility, even today, that that could be done.
NOVAK: Senator, you've never been shy about giving your opinions on political actions of other people, and quite apart from whether it has hurt your efforts in the House, and we all recognize that Congressman Gephardt has a perfect right to take any position he wants, I would like to ask you, what do you think if that was a mistake from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, of which you're one of the national leaders, for Congressman Gephardt to come on board that soundly and that early for the Bush resolution?
DASCHLE: I don't think it was a mistake, Bob. He and I talked about this, on several occasions, in fact, that very day. So I think that it's a recognition that these are very difficult questions. The wording of the resolution today is, clearly, better than it was when it started. It's moved in the direction we wanted it to. Can we clarify it? Can we improve on it some more? I think so. I think even Dick would say that we could. But he came to the conclusion that was satisfactory. It may be, at the end of the day, it will have to do. But I think we've got a responsibility to continue to try to make it better, and that's what I intend to do, next week.
NOVAK: Senator, you were -- I'm sorry, Congressman Gephardt was standing at the president's side in the Rose Garden. Your party's last vice presidential nominee, Joe Lieberman, was there. Why weren't you there? Were you not asked or did you turn it down?
DASCHLE: I don't think I was asked. I certainly didn't turn it down. My view was that this was a recognition of support for a resolution that I haven't signed off on, yet, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't invited.
NOVAK: You would have said no if you had been asked...
DASCHLE: Well, I don't think it'd been appropriate for me to be there to acknowledge an agreement, when I wasn't a party to the agreement, at least today.
NOVAK: Al Hunt mentioned the Lugar initiative. My understanding is that Senator Lugar is pretty well satisfied with the amendments that have been made to the resolution, and that he is no longer in opposition or trying to come up with his own proposal. If that is so, that, pretty much, kills the chances for a bipartisan alternative to the Bush proposal in the Senate, doesn't it?
DASCHLE: Well, Bob, you always have great sources, and if that's the case, it would put a different tone on the efforts to try to make improvements. I have had many occasions to visit with Senator Lugar, and that's not my understanding. My understanding is that he and Senator Biden are prepared to offer an amendment that may not be in the form of an entire substitute, but an amendment to address some of those areas within the resolution that they believe deserves improvement. So we'll see what happens, next week, when we talk to him again.
HUNT: Mr. Leader, the Bush-Gephardt deal would seem to implicitly sanction the new Bush doctrine of preemptive or preventative strikes against other countries. Is that a big deal? What are the implications?
DASCHLE: Well, I think it is a big deal, and I think that is, probably, one of the biggest reasons why you don't have a greater degree of broad-based support for the resolution, today. Preemptive strikes are something we have to take very, very seriously and carefully. Number one, what kind of a standard does it set for the rest of the world? If it's OK for us, is it OK for India? How about Russia? How about Israel? To what extent do we define when a preemptive strike is a valid action on the part of the United States? Should it be done, simply, to address the problem of weapons of mass destruction? Or should it be done for other purposes as well?
HUNT: But you don't think he can change that, do you on the Senate floor?
DASCHLE: Well, see, that's one area where I think clarification may be necessary. Our view is that it is appropriate to take a preemptive strike, if a country is developing weapons of mass destruction that may undermine our own national security.
HUNT: It also, unlike the Biden-Lugar attempt is the Bush- Gephardt deal is silent on the question of a post-war Iraq. As you know, Vice President Cheney has said that Iraq would be a model of democracy in the Arab world. We would nation-build, if you will. Do you think that's inevitable?
DASCHLE: I don't think it's inevitable, frankly, and that's also a concern. I don't know that it has to be addressed in the resolution, per se. I think there has to be a good deal of priority and attention given to it.
But keep in mind, this is a use of force resolution. I'm not sure we need to use force to create the kind of democratic institutional framework that is going to be required if the regime change takes place successfully. But clearly, that is one of the questions. How long will we be there? What will it entail, on the part of the United States? How much will it cost? Who will be involved? What kind of a framework can be established with Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Those are the kinds of things, I think, have yet to be addressed satisfactory, and it's why many of us continue to ask questions.
NOVAK: Senator Daschle, you indicated that you still would like to have this resolution changed a little more, although you feel it has been improved. Specifically, what is the important change that has to be made in the resolution to make it more acceptable to you?
DASCHLE: Well, Bob, I think there's two things, in particular, that we feel very concerned about. One is this use of force for any purpose. The Gephardt resolution, the resolution adopted by the leaders involved, last week, simply provides the use-of-force resolution and makes reference to 16 U.N. articles.
Well, one of those articles is, simply, a return of Kuwaiti prisoners. Well, do we want to use use-of-force in a preemptive strike to return Kuwaiti prisoners? I don't think so. So what we'd rather do is to refine it to insure that we're talking about the same thing, the right thing. Talking about a focused effort to destroy weapons of mass destruction. We, also, want to be able to quantify the threat, and we think that reference to the fact that there ought to be a grave threat, before we take preemptive strike, is something that is very important to us.
There are issues involving oil fields and other economic issues that could be a threat, but may not warrant preemptive strikes.
NOVAK: If you cannot make those changes on the Senate floor, would you vote yes or no on the current resolution?
DASCHLE: I'm not going to come to that conclusion yet. I'm going to make our best effort to make my judgment, once that effort has been made. So that decision is a little ways off.
NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take a break. And when we come back, we will talk to the Senate Majority Leader about how the torch has passed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Senator Daschle, John F. Kennedy one time said that party loyalty, at times, demands too much. You were in New Jersey, a week or so ago, effusively praising Senator Bob Torricelli who, of course, now has bowed out. In retrospect, do you regret your praise for Senator Torricelli?
DASCHLE: No, I don't. I tell you, Al. He did a lot for our caucus. I keep reminding people that Jim Jeffords gets a great deal of credit for the fact that we're in the majority, but if there's anybody else who deserves the credit, it's the tremendous work made by Bob Torricelli over the course of four years. So his work on behalf of expanding our caucus, his work on so many issues, I think, is something that ought to be recognized, and I don't apologize for that, at all.
HUNT: Have you asked Senator Torricelli, or anyone close to him, and requested that he turn over those campaign funds that he has to the Democratic Party, the Lautenberg campaign in New Jersey?
DASCHLE: You know, I think this is an occasion where you just take it one step at a time. We've gone through a turbulent week, very difficult week. And there'll be plenty of time to talk about that. Right now, I've assured Frank Lautenberg, our new candidate, that the resources will be there, one way or the other. We'll get into the details and the mechanics of how we meet that goal in the days ahead.
NOVAK: Mr. Leader, not much is getting passed in the Senate, and I don't want to get into the finger pointing, one side saying it's the other side's fault, but I just want to take up a couple issues. One is the terrorism insurance bill. The White House says that they were told by the leading members of the Senate Banking Committee that this is in the hands of your staff and that, unless you go along with the trial lawyers on punitive damages, there won't be a terrorism insurance bill. Is that correct?
DASCHLE: Bob, do you know that the offer on the table right now from us, is exactly, word for word, the Coverdale language in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act with regard to tort reform? It's their language. Language they proposed, just a year ago. I find it incredibly ironic that they won't accept it now. So we're just saying, look, you want to get a deal, take the language you offered us that was good enough on elementary and secondary education. You've got it here.
NOVAK: But that's holding up the final passage of the bill.
DASCHLE: Well, that's a big part of it. They aren't willing to take yes for an answer. NOVAK: Is there also a question that you -- it's reported that you have not agreed to any kind of a final solution on the energy bill, unless there is nothing about the ANWR drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or there has to be something about global warming. Is that true?
DASCHLE: That is true. I'm just simply stating the fact. This late in the session, when just about anybody can put a veto on a bill -- they can put a hold on a bill. The only way we're going to get it passed is to ensure that ANWR is not included. We don't have the votes. The votes aren't there...
NOVAK: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) global warming...
DASCHLE: ... and that there be some effort to address climate change in the energy bill.
HUNT: Senator, I just came back from your state, and I rode back in the airplane with a top Bush administration official who said, when are you going to ask Senator Daschle about why they are holding up the homeland security bill, holding it hostage to the government employees union?
DASCHLE: Well, I would say that they are ones that are trying to bust the unions. But it's not a question of unions, Al. What we're trying to do is to insure, absolutely insure, we don't go back to the bad old day when presidents could pick their political hacks and put them in government positions. We don't want to do that. We think it's important for us to have accountability and to have some rules in place.
And if you get fired because of something you did, fine, but it ought to be subject to review, if you ask for it. They don't want to do that. They want to get rid of all the political accountability that we've had in law for a long time, so that we don't go back to the days when you could hire the hacks and put them in positions of political or governmental sensitivity.
HUNT: Senator, the drought is a huge issue in your state. Before the Senate gets out this year do you expect there will be more drought aid for your hard hit ranchers and if so, will it come from unspent money in the current agriculture bill or other funds?
DASCHLE: Well, Al, the Congressional Budget Office has said that you can't do that. It is -- somebody could make a budge point of order against us, if we attempted to do it that way. So what we're, simply, saying is that, look, let's recognize that this is a national emergency. It's a natural problem that occurs with hurricanes and earthquakes and all kinds of other things.
So we want to be able to provide assistance in a meaningful way. The problem is, of course, we're getting tremendous opposition from the White House, from the House, and I'm pessimistic, right now, upon our ability to deliver that help.
NOVAK: I just want a minute, before we have to take another break. Mr. Leader, there are -- is a tremendous backlog of appropriation bills. Again, I don't want to get into who's at fault. But do you believe this will require Congress to reconvene in a lame duck session, after the election, or will you just pass a continuing resolution to guarantee funding, after the first of the year?
DASCHLE: I think we ought to come back. I don't think that we ought to let the appropriations process go all the way through to sometime next year without additional attention, Bob. There are too many important questions involved here. So I would be opposed to moving it well into next year.
NOVAK: OK, we're going to have to take another break. And when we come back, we'll have "The Big Question" for Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: "The Big Question" for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. Senator, last week, we asked your Republican counterpart, Trent Lott, whether he agreed with the assessments that the war in Iraq has sucked the oxygen out of the Democratic efforts to talk about their economic issues, health issues. Do you agree that that has made a tremendous problem for you?
DASCHLE: Not at all, Bob. You know what I find when I come home to South Dakota and travel around the country, but especially in South Dakota? People are very concerned. Iraq is important, but not as important as whether or not they can pay their bills. Not as important as whether or not they're going to put a crop in the field next year. Not as important as whether or not they're going to have health care. I mean, these issues, regardless of what the news is, regardless of what dominates this show, today, is what's critical to them, and so, I am even more confident than I've been, ever before, that the economic issues are very, very important to the voters of our country.
HUNT: Senator Daschle, speaking of South Dakota, there was a poll in the "Sioux Falls Argus Leader" last weekend that said your home state voters, by 54 to 28 percent, did not want you to run for president in 2004. Why do you suppose that is, and will it have an effect on your decision?
DASCHLE: Well, I take that as a compliment. I think -- I read that as they like the job I'm doing as majority leader and, more importantly, as the senator from South Dakota. But to be honest with you, Al, I haven't really factored that in, one way or the other, because I'm not thinking about what I'm going to do next. I'm focused, almost exclusively, on what we've got to do in the next three weeks.
HUNT: Well, when you do reach a decision, come back and tell us on this show. Senator Daschle, thank you very much for being with us.
Robert Novak and I will be back with a comment or two.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) HUNT: Bob, Tom Daschle was very collegiate to his friend, Dick Gephardt, but the fact is that by cutting a deal with President Bush, Dick Gephardt has taken all of the optioning out of the Daschle effort to force, what I think would have been a very constructive compromise in the Iraqi war resolution.
NOVAK: The majority leader was very careful not to come out in opposition to the war as Robert Byrd and Charlie Rangel have done. His proposed changes in the resolution were very nuanced. I bet you, he ends up voting for the resolution.
HUNT: I bet you're right. One thing that you may not agree with me on, though, I think he is, also, right in saying that the war has not taken away from the Democrats talking about the economy and stressing health care. I was in South Dakota for a few days, and those issues are still front and center.
NOVAK: But they are not issues that are really exciting people, in my opinion. But one thing I will say about Tom Daschle, he follows Teddy Roosevelt's advice, speak softly and carry a big stick. He made it clear that unless his standards are met on the energy bill, the homeland security bill and insurance terrorism bill, there will not be legislation out of the Senate. I thought he was clear on that.
I'm Robert Novak.
HUNT: And I'm Al Hunt. Coming up at 7 p.M. eastern on "CAPITAL GANG," Senate debates a war resolution, and the Democrats split. Senator Robert Torricelli drops out of his Senate race, and our "Newsmaker of the Week," Democratic presidential candidate, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont.
NOVAK: That's all, for now. Thanks for joining us.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
