Majority Leader Daschle Holds Regular News Conference

DASCHLE: Well, I wanted to talk a little bit about accomplishments today, as we depart for the 4th of July recess. This has been a good month. As you can see, we passed the supplemental appropriations bill, the terrorism insurance bill, anti-terrorism legislation that allows the extradition of terrorist suspects, the debt limit, of course, the defense authorization yesterday. And all of those, I might add, were done on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. We feel very good about that work that was done this month on all of this legislation, but also the fact that we were able to do it with bipartisan support in all of these cases. Having said that, there were a couple of things that we were very disappointed we were unable to do. And the first was the hate crimes legislation. We feel I think it was seven votes short--six votes short, I believe it is--in achieving cloture for hate crimes. And I'm determined to bring that back. I'm told that there are senators who are having second thoughts and would support cloture this time. But that was unfortunate. The one we don't regret at all in having not done is the permanent repeal of the estate tax. As you know, that was a--when fully implemented, it's a $60 billion a year item, $600 billion over 10 years. And we're very proud of the fact that we weren't able to do that. I will hasten to add, of course, that we did support reform of the estate tax, increasing the exemption. But we don't believe that the top 0.5 percent deserves tax relief, especially in a year when we may have a $200 billion deficit. The final thing I would say is that, as you know, this marks now the end of the first year of the Democratic majority. And we feel very good about our accomplishments as we look back over this past 12 months. This isn't a complete list. For example, I notice that the legislation reauthorizing the export administration is not on here. So this isn't--I guess, we just ran out of room or didn't want to go to a second chart. But some of the accomplishments that we've achieved include all of those post-9/11 pieces of legislation that we felt were very important: anti-terrorism passed unanimously; $40 billion response to the terrorist attacks; aid to New York and the Defense Department passed unanimously; the defense homeland security appropriations; the Patriot Act, dealing with the need for law enforcement to have additional tools; the terrorism insurance legislation; support for the airline industry; the stimulus and unemployment insurance bill; Patients' Bill of Rights, of course, was the first thing we passed out of the Senate; the campaign reform; election reform; judicial confirmations, 57 so far in the first year, more than what the Republicans did with President Reagan or more than the Democrats did with President Clinton; the clean water and brownfields revitalization legislation; comprehensive education reform; the energy bill; the farm bill; and the defense authorization bill. All that in the first year plus some. So we feel very good about the achievements, about what we've been able to do at the very narrow majority that we have in the Senate, and I look back with great pride and satisfaction that we did what we said we were going to do. We look forward to the next several months where we are going to add significantly to this list, but that's not a bad start. And we feel very good about what we've been able to do. And again, as I said on the Senate floor, the real credit goes to our legislative leaders, our chairs. They were clearly instrumental in the passage of all of this legislation. And along with that, of course, our legislative--I should say our elected leadership, and so many very active members of Congress. This was a team effort and as I look back, there were not many bills. In fact I would say virtually every bill here generated pretty broad by partisan support. I can't think of a bill that was only passed by Democrats, and so, yet again. (LAUGHTER) What's so funny about that Adam (ph)?

QUESTION: Well, just that--if you only have Democrats for it, the Republicans will filibuster and so you can't pass it.

DASCHLE: Look at how much we got done without a Republican filibuster. So that's--let's see, you didn't laugh at my joke. (LAUGHTER) You know, just cynically asked about Republican support.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: That's it, I don't know. Anyway, that's it. You might as well just ask the first cynical question. (LAUGHTER) Get it out of your system. (LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Which category, in terms of things where the Republicans would block the Democratic agenda, or things where you can pass things with bipartisan support, would you put the Sarbanes accounting bill in that you plan to take up when you get back?

DASCHLE: Good question. I think that'll pass overwhelmingly. I believe it'll pass by a large margin. Some indication of the support for the bill was the Republican willingness to allow us to go right to the bill. Originally, we were told they were going to require a debate on the motion to proceed with the cloture vote, and then they changed their mind. So I feel very good about that.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Well, let's see. It was the day before yesterday.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I'm not sure. I talked to Senator Lott several times during that week about it. I know it was on Wednesday that Senator Lott indicated that he wasn't going to--that he was quite sure that we could... (CROSSTALK) Wednesday night.

QUESTION: Senator Sarbanes is going to be your poster boy tomorrow, doing the radio address, which is like a big thing for him; never done it before. Did you talk about how this issue has rocketed to the top of your agenda? I assume that's why you've asked him to do it, right?

DASCHLE: Well, first of all, because Sarbanes deserves--Senator Sarbanes deserves the acknowledgement of leadership that I think this reflects. He did a masterful job, and this is before WorldCom. You know, we recognized when all of this broke that we had a job to do. And I don't know that anyone has done a better job. Several of our chairs have done great jobs on this, but no one has done a better job of putting a comprehensive bill together--again, as I say, in a bipartisan way, 17 to 4 vote in the committee--to address accounting, corporate governance, transparency and resources. Those are the issues that this bill addresses in a meaningful way.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Yes.

QUESTION: ... WorldCom?

DASCHLE: Absolutely. I think that there is. In fact, I had several senators thank me, Republicans and Democrats, for bringing this up as soon as we get back.

QUESTION: Another issue is corporate responsibility (OFF-MIKE) Senator--I'm sorry--Congressman Thomas--Chairman Thomas will introduce or at least announce in a couple of minutes a bill to stem the tide of corporate inversions (OFF-MIKE) Bermuda tax havens. Are you going to let the House get ahead of you all on this issue? Are you going to try and push legislation when you come back?

DASCHLE: Well, the Finance Committee has already passed it out.

QUESTION: He said he didn't mean it to (inaudible) off the floor before the next recess.

DASCHLE: Well, you know, there's no reason why we, you know, we can't get it done this year. This isn't a race to the finish. I hope that he's right. We're going to try to do it as well. As I say, the Finance Committee, I think it passed unanimously out of the committee. And so there shouldn't be much controversy involved in getting that legislation passed as well. So I'm glad they're joining us, and we're going to work together to get it done this year.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I'm not sure what he's--I haven't seen the legislation. But we changed the laws.

QUESTION: Yes. (OFF-MIKE) amount of debt that a company can use in the U.S. to...

DASCHLE: Well, that falls far short of what we did. That's Finance Committee light, I call it.

QUESTION: By doing this, do you think that the Republicans are taking a little bit of air out of your political message on corporate responsibility?

DASCHLE: Well, we're not looking for air here, we're looking for accomplishment. We want to get the job done. And we think that the best thing to do is to address these concerns one by one, in the most thoughtful and credible way that we can. And I believe that Sarbanes meets all of those tests.

QUESTION: Senator, what's happening with the trade bill conferees, and do you think you'll have that bill done by the time you go out for the August recess?

DASCHLE: We should have it done by the August recess. I just got a call from the commerce secretary, Don Evans, and he was hoping that we could again try to appoint conferees when we get back. As you know, the Republicans in the Senate objected last night in going to conference. And so we'll keep asking for consent to go to conference. Hopefully, they'll agree when we get back.

QUESTION: For prescription drugs, Senator, can you sort of give us your reaction to the House vote last night? And give us your analysis of how this could possibly get through Congress and become law this year, given the very opposite approaches being taken.

DASCHLE: Well, you're right about opposite approaches--opposite appreciates, I might add, both substantively and procedurally. You know, for the life of me I can't understand, as important as this issue is, why they wouldn't want a debate and have meaningful alternatives presented. It is frightening to me, the length that Republicans will go to to avoid allowing options and alternatives to be debated, considered and voted on in the House of Representatives. If there was ever a more transparent motivation I don't know when it would be found, given what the House did last night. I mean, this was clearly a move to cover themselves politically. The bill is a terrible bill. It's a sham. If you have a $400-per-month prescription drug benefit--or, I should say, prescription drug bill, you only get about four and a half months of coverage. In other words, seven and a half months of a year you get no coverage if you have that kind of a bill with the House bill. You have to pay $750 to get the first $2,000 of coverage, and then you have to pay $2,900 after that to get any additional coverage. It is a sham. It is awful. But not to allow amendments and then not to move a better bill than that is something I can't understand. Having said all of that, we'll do the best we can. And I mean that sincerely. We want to get something done this year. I believe that what we ought to do is not let the perfect be the end--I mean, the good here. There's no way we'll get a perfect bill, from our perspective. But I want to avoid getting no bill, too. I want to get a bill of some sort. I'd really like to get legislation passed this year. And, you know, whether it's possible or not--you're right, the odds are against us, but I don't think we ought to try to give up.

My guess is that they're going to want an accomplishment, too, at the end of the day. You know, we have our ends of the spectrum--well, I would say that ours isn't even an end to the spectrum. Our bill doesn't go anywhere near where a lot of our colleagues would like us to go. But they're so far to the right on this issue that it is a challenge to see how we can reconcile our differences.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) What about Senate Republicans here? I mean, I realize that you're far apart from House Republicans, but can you even get it together in your own chamber to get it...

DASCHLE: Well, we'll find out. All we can do is try. And I'm going to try beginning the 15th or so of July. That's how we're going to move forward. We're going to see what happens. If we don't get it, there's nothing I can do except to say we tried. And we'll try and try until we get this job done.

QUESTION: On the same topic, how are you going to meld the differing Democratic ideas on this bill? Do you think the Finance Committee is capable at this point, or are you looking to bring it straight to the floor?

DASCHLE: Well, I told the Finance Committee they have a window, and I'd love to have them pass out a bill and give it to us, and then we'll take it up. If that fails, we'll have to go to the floor with another vehicle.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: The 15th. We only have a couple of weeks, if we're really serious about getting this done. You couldn't possibly get this done if we wait until September. And so we know we're going to take up the corporate accountability legislation, the Sarbanes legislation. We know we have to take up appropriations bills. We know we're going to take up Homeland Defense Department-creation legislation. So, you know, the only thing you got left is that two-week period in there, and we're going to try to see what happens.

QUESTION: Senator Daschle, Republicans have said they're likely to bring up...

DASCHLE: That's another thing...

QUESTION: Are you any closer to (OFF-MIKE)?

DASCHLE: Well, Senator Reid (ph) and I and others have been talking to all of our Democratic colleagues. There still are Democratic colleagues who have not given us a definitive position on the issue. And so we're going to be going back to those undecided colleagues over the week coming up. But I really don't know the degree to which we're going to get Republican support. It sounds as if Senator Murkowski will be making a motion to go to the floor on the 9th. And we'll find out just how many Republican votes and opposition there are. But, you know, we won't know until the votes are counted how this is going to play out.

QUESTION: It sounds to me like you're saying that Senator Ensign needs to step up his work.

DASCHLE: Well, I don't know how much Senator Ensign's been doing, you know, so I can't advise him to step it up. Maybe he's doing a lot. I just don't know where the votes are yet. I don't know whether that's produced any vote.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) at the Sarbanes bill, have you worked out a strategy with your other chairmen about amendments have been offered?

DASCHLE: We have not. We're talking about that now.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) choice between getting Sarbanes done in a week and getting into a debate on these other corporate issues, like pensions and stock options, which would you prefer?

DASCHLE: Well, I hope it's not--that may be a false choice. I think we can do a lot of work in a week. And we're going to try to get it done. I mean, I don't want to preclude senators from offering amendments. But at the same time, I do want to get the legislation--I want to finish it.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Right.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) come down as leader and say, ``I'll give you a couple of days to do this and then we just have to pass (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: No. We're going to talk about that over the next several days. Our staffs have already begun that conversation, but we haven't come to any conclusion. As I say, I know that there are a lot of good suggestions out there about corporate governance that don't fall in the purview of the Banking Committee that legitimately could be considered. I don't want this to be, you know, just a loaded semi of every idea that has every come along. I want this to be as focused as we can on corporate governance and expect that we will have to come back on, maybe, on several occasions and take these issues before the Senate. So this isn't the last opportunity senators are going to have.

QUESTION: I want a clarification on the corporate inversions. Do you feel like that is something that needs to be done right away also?

DASCHLE: Well, I'd like it to be done this session of Congress right away. I don't think it has to be done on the Sarbanes bill if that's what you're asking. But, we'd like to get it done.

QUESTION: Senator, on corporate governance, a lot of those good suggestions that have been out there in the past have been knocked aside by special interests. How big of a role do you think it'll play in this debate, and how many of a role had they played in the past?

DASCHLE: Well, you know what's encouraging to me, is the number of calls I have gotten in the last week from corporate CEOs and heads of large corporations. It's encouraging in the sense that they have called urging us to take action because they are as appalled, if not more so, than we are. I've had numerous conversations with very prominent and high-profile CEOs who are very concerned about what this has done to the perception of the corporate sector in our society, and I think they want to see action as badly, if not more so, than many of us.

QUESTION: Action with teeth?

DASCHLE: Action with teeth. Absolutely.

QUESTION: Is it a market issue as well (OFF MIKE) investor confidence?

DASCHLE: I think it is a market issue, absolutely. I think you see that--I was surprised, frankly, that the market didn't react more negatively than it did the day after WorldCom's announcement. But nonetheless, I do think that there is a growing number of CEOs that are not only alarmed, but they are motivated to be very supportive of what it is we are trying to do.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Well, I get very concerned as each one of these work periods slip by how much we're expecting that at the end of the day, somehow at the end of this session, we're going to magically be able to bring all of this work together. I don't think that will happen. And so, we become--I think we put many of these bills in jeopardy if we aren't able to reach agreement on conferees soon. I had suggested weeks ago that we begin an informal discussion of many of the issues between the two houses, and some of the Republican leadership objected to that, saying that was impossible and were quite critical of the idea. Well, we've now lost several weeks of opportunity for us to resolve these things one way or the other. I don't know why they objected, frankly, but that's certainly their right. We just have a lot of work to do in an increasingly complex agenda here on the Senate floor. And with what limited time we've got left it makes our job even harder.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I would. I've always favored it. I'd like to see it soon.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Well, as I said a moment ago, I think, given the strong encouragement that I've been getting from corporate CEOs in recent days, it appears that they recognize every bit as much as we do that we need not only to enforce the laws that exist, but to strengthen many of them don't or strengthen many of them that aren't working. And so, I think that that's in essence what the corporate--what the responsible corporate leadership appear to be telling us. So, no, I'm not concerned at all that this is anti-corporate. If anything, it's very pro-corporate. And, you know, I think we have to be concerned about rushing to judgment and making decisions prematurely, hastening to come to some conclusion before we have adequately and thoughtfully considered all of this.

But I think in the case of this first bill, this Sarbanes bill, we've done exactly what the corporate sector would--I think, would hope we could, and that is address this in a thoughtful way and come up with the suggestions that are incorporated in the proposal.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Well, there are an increasing number of competitive races out there from our vantage point. I have been saying for the last couple of months that I thought 13 races were competitive. The three that we've talked a lot about in our caucus, of course, South Dakota, Minnesota and Missouri, all of which, by the way, look very good to us right. And then you have 10 Republican races that are very competitive. The four open seats: Texas, Tennessee and the Carolinas; plus the New Hampshire, Maine, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Oregon races are all extremely competitive. We would add to that now Kentucky. We were just given a poll yesterday that showed that the Kentucky race is also closing and there's a great deal of additional enthusiasm for that race. So I think that there is, as I say, a growing number of competitive races that make us feel quite encouraged as we go into the final phase of this campaign. The only state that I'll be spending a lot of time in this coming week is South Dakota. I always like to be home over the 4th. And so I'm going to be doing that. But I'll be traveling. I've been in quite a few states in recent weeks. And I'll keep that schedule, beginning the week after the 4th of July weekend.

QUESTION: Senator Daschle, could you shed some light on your meeting yesterday with the (OFF-MIKE) anthrax case, whether you're satisfied with the progress or where it stands?

DASCHLE: I am satisfied with the progress. Obviously, I wish we would have completed the investigation by now, but that's probably too much to ask. I am very grateful for the effort made. About 200 FBI personnel are involved in the anthrax investigation, and clearly they're making progress. It's not appropriate for me to report specifics, obviously, but they are making progress and I am confident that this investigation ultimately is going to be successful. I can't give you a time frame, but having had the briefing I had yesterday, I'm encouraged, and I'm more optimistic than I was before the briefing. I would also say that, in some cases, this investigation has involved exposure to danger that makes me all the more appreciative of the work being done. There are those involved in this investigation who are required to take Cipro because of the exposure potentially to anthrax that they have already experienced. And so, I just hope that we can bring it to a close sometime soon.

QUESTION: Can you give us some examples of the kind of dangers that they have encountered and are they closed (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I'd rather not go into any details, because I--these investigations are very sensitive and I certainly wouldn't want to go beyond I think what I've said. I think it's important for them to have the element of the--understanding that much of this in public in the wrong hands would be unhelpful, and I don't want to compound their many challenges.

QUESTION: Paul O'Neill said this morning that, thanks to passage of the debt limit last night, they've spared the administration having to make the choice between default and using shaky or potentially fraudulent accounting devices. What do you think about that comment? (LAUGHTER)

DASCHLE: Well, potentially fraudulent--I have a lot of trouble with that. (LAUGHTER) Just the sight of the treasury secretary going to jail for using fraudulent devices is a scenario--let me say indicted for the use of fraudulent devices is not something I would wish on any administration. But I am troubled by that frankly. I think it shows how irresponsible the House was putting the treasury secretary in that position by not acting when they should have. To wait until they, you know, till well past the 11th hour to act and to put the treasury secretary in a position to publicly announcing that he would have even considered potentially fraudulent actions is reprehensible. It's extraordinarily disconcerting.

QUESTION: Did you hear Mr. Armey's (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: To whose leadership?

QUESTION: Yours.

DASCHLE: To my leadership.

QUESTION: Yes.

DASCHLE: (OFF-MIKE) Mr. Armey. (CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Republicans also say that by passing the debt limit they removed some of Democrats leverage, who were seeking a higher price tag on the supplemental and for '03. Are they correct?

DASCHLE: Well, you know, we've given the opportunity to the Republicans now on several occasions to pass two things: One, a cap, and, two, the disciplinary tools that we use to keep budgets in check. And they have refused. I'm not sure what else we can do to ensure that we follow through with the effort that it will require at the end of the year to ensure that we don't further exacerbate the budget and the deficit that we already have. You know, the House Appropriations Committee acted yesterday, as you probably know, to pass a discretionary cap on their own of $768 billion for discretionary accounts. I think that's laudable. You know, what we don't now have are the disciplinary tools, beginning October 1, that allows us to ensure that we do that beyond just asserting that that will be the cap.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Don't you mean the Senate appropriations?

DASCHLE: What did I say?

QUESTION: House.

DASCHLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the Senate Appropriations Committee. So I'm troubled by that. What you're going to see, of course, is that I think a lot of the Republicans are voting against us on these efforts so that they can pass further tax cuts without having to worry about points of order. And that will just blow a huge hole in the deficit, and will cause extraordinary

difficulties in the next fiscal year. So we'll keep attempting to make the effort, but I'm going to say I think that there ought to be real concern for the irresponsibility demonstrated by the Republicans for not putting in place these disciplinary measures.

QUESTION: Do you plan on taking (OFF-MIKE) resolutions to the floor when you get back to set these disciplines in place?

DASCHLE: Well, we've attempted to pass them. We attempted to do it on the supplemental. And, of course, we didn't have the requisite 60 votes. But we'll keep trying.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I do. I voted for it. I believe that it is important for Congress, as an equal branch of government, to assert its responsibility and its authority. And I think it's critical that we try to find a way to reach the balance that would be required. I'm not wedded to the exact Dayton-Craig language, but I do believe that having language in the law that would allow us adequate oversight is essential. And I'm going to encourage the conferees to continue to work to see if we can find that balance and that compromise.

QUESTION: Getting back to the WorldCom business, the more and more we hear these stories, and the potential effect on investor conference. And then you take the whole down situation we're in right now, do you think this is a reflection on the administration, its policies toward the economy or toward business?

DASCHLE: Well, I think there has been a laissez faire attitude in this administration that--while certainly I don't think we can place the blame for the administration, but I do believe that we can say that it helped create the kind of environment that exists today, an environment that all that is required is self-policing. Well, we well know that self-policing in and of itself doesn't work; that you do have to have, as Jon Corzine said the other day, cops on the corner, you do have to have a prospect of some oversight, some knowledge that there are enforcement mechanisms in place when self-policing, in and of itself, doesn't work.

QUESTION: Do you agree with Mr. Gephardt's assessment that it's more the blame of the Republican control of Congress over the last eight years?

DASCHLE: Well, I think that--the Republicans came to Congress saying, ``There's too much government regulation, there's too much government involvement in the corporate sector. And what we need now is to remove government in all of its presence from any oversight responsibilities.''

And piece by piece, they dismantled the regulatory environment that we had, and in large measure created this sense of laissez faire, of just total unwillingness on the part of enforcement or regulatory agencies to play a role. And I think that is the price we are now paying for the difficulties that we've experienced.

QUESTION: And that's your campaign issue?

DASCHLE: Well, I think the American people are very concerned about it, and they should be. And I think they are going to be asking, ``So, what is the position of either party?'' And I would think that they could clearly discern a significant difference. We're not in favor of government intrusion, but we are in favor of a regulatory environment that assures confidence, that assures that when laws are broken, they are enforced and people go to jail. I think that's what's been missing over the last couple of years.

QUESTION: Can you talk (OFF-MIKE) Do you see this overarching issue playing in any specific race, or are they still--all politics is local, state by state? Do you see a state where this would play?

DASCHLE: I think it's going to play in all the states. I think that if I were going to, at this point, report to you on what I hear when I go home or when I go around the country, I hear a lot of concern for corporate governance today; far more than I did six months ago--far more. It is amazing how this has skyrocketed to the level of concern that it has. In fact, I hear more about it today than I do about homeland security questions and concerns, which I was hearing, of course, the last six months of last year. I hear a lot about prescription drugs. People are very concerned about that. In my state I hear a lot about the problems of the drought. But I would say that prescription drugs and corporate governance are probably the two most--the two issues with the greatest traction, with the greatest interest, with the highest degree of concern today. And I think we've got to address them.

QUESTION: So you don't have to do Social Security after all?

DASCHLE: I'm sorry? (LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: That's always going to be an important issue, too.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) tell us who they are?

DASCHLE: They called it confidence (inaudible)

QUESTION: Are they people that you have not talked to before?

DASCHLE: In some cases, yes.

QUESTION: So you're actually getting a call from some (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: That's exactly right.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: We have never had that conversation. For the life of me, I don't know where he got that. I mean, literally, we have never had that conversation, so there is no truth to that. And I'm sorry that Senator Lott is living under that impression, because it's just not accurate. You know, basically we just want one thing. We want the same understanding about Democratic nominees in a Republican administration that Republicans have had with Democratic administrations; that for the life of this administration, for the next three years or two years, two and a half years, that we have the ability to appoint the Democratic nominees. That's all we're asking. It doesn't have anything to do with any one individual or any two individuals. All we're saying is let us appoint the Democrats. And at least to date they've refused to do that. Now Senator McCain has compounded that now with his hold on all nominees. But that wasn't my doing, that was Senator McCain's strong interest in changing the membership of the FEC.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Well, they played an active role. I mean Senator Lott encouraged them to work with us and we had been working, and I thought in good faith. But now because of Senator McCain's hold, they're unwilling to do anything. So if they're unwilling to do anything, I'm not in the position to do anything. So we're at a standstill again.

QUESTION: Well, Senator Daschle, last night you actually had an opportunity to do this (ph). Senator Lott was just going to ignore Senator's McCain's hold and...

DASCHLE: Well, that was also amazing.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: I mean, I was dumbfounded when I--Senator Lott came to the floor and announced that there were no objections to moving 14 judges. Well, we actually checked with Senator McCain's office, and they clearly indicated that there was a great deal of opposition to moving any judges and so...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: The door's open. (LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

DASCHLE: Listen, if somebody has an objection, I think--and then he had come to me personally to state his objection, so I would be complicit with Senator Lott if I were to--having had him expressly come to me about that, say, ``Well, that doesn't matter.'' But I knew that that was not the case. So we had to respect any senator, Republican or Democratic. But having said that, of course, that wasn't the only issue. We haven't resolved this agreement. And so because we haven't resolved this agreement, even if he hadn't objected, we'd have the problem of the agreement itself. Have a good break everybody. We'll see you when we get back.

END