<i>FTN</i> Transcript - Dec. 10

Bob Schieffer, CBS
News Chief Washington Correspondent: We begin this morning in Tallahassee, Florida, where former Secretary of State James Baker, who heads up the Bush forces, is standing by. Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us this morning.

James Baker, Bush campaign adviser: Thank you, Bob.

Schieffer: Let me begin with the hardest question. Justice Stevens said yesterday in his dissenting opinion that preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud over the legitimacy of this election. If George Bush is declared president, isn't it going to be awfully hard now for him to govern?

Baker: I don't really think it is, Bob. I think that there's been a lot of talk to that effect with respect to both candidates, but my own view is, the country's strong; it's going to come together behind whoever, whichever one of these men is determined to be our 43rd president, whether it's Vice President Gore or Governor Bush. And I'm quite aware of what Justice Stevens said, but I think Justice Scalia put the other side of that coin out there in his concurring opinion when he said to count them now, before you knew whether or not they were legal votes, would do the same thing.

So, I really don't think that the legitimacy question is one that we need to worry about. It may take a little longer than it normally does for the country to get together behind the new leader, but I think it's going to happen. The one thing I worry about, frankly, having been through a number of transitions, is that the time for transition has been cut almost in half.

Schieffer: Well, let me ask you, though. Mr. Secretary, you made some very tough comments about the Florida Supreme Court when it issued some of the rulings that went against you. At one point just last week, you said this just shows what happens when we turn to the courts.

But now, do you think that Democrats and Al Gore are justified in making the same kinds of comments about the U.S. Supreme Court, because this was a 5-4 decision? Some people are saying the court may have politicized itself with this decision.

Baker: Well, Bob, let me explain to you this way. When I criticized going to the courts, I did it only in the context of an effort by a candidate, after an election had been certified, to try and overturn the results of that election. I said, and I believe this, never before in modern history have we seen that happen.

Now we're in the United States Supreme Court because that action was taken here in Florida. And we're in there on constitutional grounds which we have, of course, every right to do, and no one would question that. And the comments - you said I made tough comments about the Florida Supreme Court; I'd like for you to quote one of them that was not grounded on a legal - on criticism of their legal findings and their legal holdings.

And by the way, the criticisms that I expressed abot the Florida Supreme Court were the very grounds for the United States Supreme Court overturning the first decision of the Florida Supreme Court. I was criticizing them on legal grounds. I think I have every right to do that, representing Governor Bush as a lawyer and a spokesman.

Schieffer: All right, let me ask you this. Now if the Supreme Court should rule that the recount can go on, will you oppose extending the deadline for counting those votes?

Baker: Well, I don't know what you mean by extending the deadline. I'm not at all sure that there is a firm deadline in the Florida Supreme Court's 4-3 decision.

Schieffer: Well, let me just ...

Baker: Of course we ...

Schieffer: ... Let me just interrupt you there, so you'll understand my question. In other words, if they say the recount will go on, then will the Bush forces be willing to allow the recount to go on until it's done, or will you come back and say December 12 is the deadline, or December 18, or some of these numbers we've heard?

Baker: We're going to follow the dictates of the United States Supreme Court. You can rest assured on that. I know I might not be able to speak for Governor Bush on some other things, but I'm confident that he will respect the judgment of the United States Supreme Court. Just bank it.

Schieffer: All right.

Baker: But I want to remind you that the Electoral College is supposed to meet, Bob, on the 18th of December. That's only one week from Monday, where it is supposed to meet to elect the new president. You can't extend that deadline. It's in the Constitution, or at least it's in federal law. And you can't extend the December 12 deadline, Bob, that is laid out in Title 3, U.S.C. 5, that says, if you don't have your electors selected by six days before the date set for meeting of the Electoral College, you're not entitled then to the presumption that their selection is conclusive, if the issue should ever go to the Congress. So we can't extend those by what we do.

Schieffer: All right. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being with us.

Baker: Yes, sir.

Schieffer: We turn now to David Boies for the other side of the story. And Mr. Boies, if I heard Jim Baker correctly, he was saying December 12 and December 18 are deadlines. Do you believe that the court could extend those deadlines to count those votes, if they ruled that the votes should be recounted?

David Boies, Gore lawyer: I think the Supreme Court has a lot of power. I think certainly the December 12 deadline is a lot easier to extend than the December 18 deadline. To some extent, both sides have already said this is going to go beyond December 12. In fact, the Florida Legislature is talking about possibly taking some action on December 13 or December 14. So I think the December 12 deadline is important, but it is not nearly as critical as the Dcember 18 deadline.

Schieffer: Let me ask you this. Justice Scalia in his opinion yesterday said, rather remarkably, the fact that the court issued this stay suggests that the majority of the court believes Bush has substantial probability of success. I mean that about does it for you, doesn't it? I mean, where do you go from there?

Boies: Well, I think it gives us a hill to climb. I think that you've got five justices there that have decided that there is a substantial probability that Governor Bush is right on this issue. And we have to go in and try to show them that, based on the briefs, and they didn't really have complete briefs what when they made that decision - and hopefully based on the oral argument, which they have set aside an hour and a half, which is a long oral argument in the United States Supreme Court, that we can convince them that we are right and that those votes ought to be counted, and that the United States Supreme Court should not in effect become a supercourt to decide Florida election law.

Schieffer: Justice Scalia also said that counting the votes before the court ruled on whether that was a legitimate thing to do could somehow damage the accuracy, or make it harder to get an accurate count. Is there any light there for you, because is he saying well, if we rule, then we might say go ahead with the count?

Boies: Yes, I think he is saying that. I don't want to overestimate the chances that we will necessarily change his mind on the merits, but I think he is saying that 'I've got an open mind on the merits. I'm prepared to listen to argument, but I simply don't want that count to go forward until we've determined that it's a legal count.'

Schieffer: Do you think there is any chance this court might somehow just kick this over to Congress?

Boies: I don't see that. I don't see how they can. I think that would create more of a problem even than what has happened already. As you know, our belief is that this is a matter of settled Florida election law, and that nobody ought to be stepping in to change that law in the middle of the game.

Congress set November 7 as the date for selecting electors. Everybody's rules were supposed to be in place on November 7. Florida's rules were in place and had been applied consistently for decades - and now what we're seeing is an attempt to change those rules after the election has taken place. We think that that is wrong as a matter of law - and we also think it's wrong as a matter of policy.

Schieffer: While there is no way to predict, do you have any idea how quickly the court might be expected to issue its ruling on this after the arguments on Monday?

Boies: I really don't. I do think they're going to act promptly, but how fast they act is something that I simply don't have any way of predicting.

Schieffer: Mr. Boies, I want to thank you very much for joining u this morning.

Boies: Thank you very much.

Schieffer: And now in our studio, the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott. Senator Lott, thank you for being with us.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.): Nice to join the herd.

Schieffer: You just heard two very good lawyers there. I want to ask you this question: Whatever this court decides, is it best that this be settled in the court, rather than somehow have it kicked back to Congress?

Lott: Well, I would hope that it is settled some way, without it eventually winding up in the lap of Congress next year, well into January. I'm not particularly excited that this has wound up being a very extended legal process. But once the Supreme Court rules, I assume that that will bring some finality to it. And hopefully, we'll know what that is going to be by Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning.

Schieffer: Well, this court could rule for Al Gore and say the votes ought to be recounted. If that should happen, should the Florida Legislature then step in?

Lott: I think they probably will. I'm sure that they would prefer not to have to step in, but they do have a role to play. And I think they're prepared to do that.

Schieffer: And you'd support that?

Lott: Well, I wouldn't oppose it. You know, I'm trying not to pre-judge any action by anybody, either the candidates, George W. Bush or Al Gore, or the courts, or the legislature, because in the end, it could still wind up with us having to make a final decision on it.

Schieffer: But it sounds to me like you do not want that to happen.

Lott: I don't want that to happen. We have an important agenda for the American people we need to tend to, and every day that this is delayed is making that a little more difficult.

Gloria Borger, U.S. News & World Report: Senator Lott, some of your colleagues, though, see to be judging the judiciary. I know you don't want to do that, as you just said. But when the Florida Supreme Court ruled 4-3 for Al Gore, your colleague in the House, Tom DeLay, called it, and I quote, "judicial aggression." Was that wise?

Lott: Well, again, I think it would be advisable for as many people as can to keep the rhetoric calm. And while you might get aggravated with one court decision or the other court decision, that frankly makes the point that I've been saying. It's unfortunate that this election has been turned into a protracted legal battle in all the different courts.

Obviously, I was very disappointed in that decision. I wasn't really that surprised. I was surprised it was 4-3. But for, you know, Pat Leahy to begin questioning the U.S. Supreme Court, if that's what he was doing, or for Tom DeLay to be questioning the Florida Supreme Court, I don't know that it adds anything positive to this process.

Borger: Well, you're in the middle of some very delicate bdget negotiations, for example. When Tom DeLay talked about shutting down the government in the middle of everything else we're going through, was that wise?

Lott: Well, as a matter of fact, the way the press reported it, you would think he called for shutting down the government. That's not what he said. He said the president wants to do that.

Borger: Well, but is it helpful to you? Is it helpful?

Lott: I think that the better part of valor is for us to find a way to complete our work. We're trying to do that, and we should get that completed next week. And none of us should be saying anything that makes it even more difficult.

Borger: If you get another decision from the Supreme Court that's five to four, should the American public start to believe that, in fact, the courts in this country are as divided as everybody else - the politicians, for example?

Lott: Well, I think the American people will be prepared to accept what the United States Supreme Court decides. I hope that it's not 5-4, but that is a decision. A lot of key decisions in the history of this country and of that court has been five to four. If that's what the decision comes down to, then so be it. I think the American people will accept that.

Borger: But ...

Schieffer: Let's talk about ...

Lott: I mean, at least two, if it's five to four, at least two will have been Republican appointees, so it won't be a partisan decision.

Borger: But it will be seen as ideological.

Lott: Well, you know, we still are dealing with human beings. And, again, that's part of my problem with the fact that Vice President Gore's legacy is this is the first presidential candidate to contest a certified vote in the courts. I'm not sure that was wise from day one.

Schieffer: All right. Let's talk a little bit about the Congress. Here you have, for the first time in modern times, a Senate split evenly 50-50, that is if George Bush becomes president. Democratic Leader Tom Daschle says he wants equal representation on all of the committees. He wants some sort of power-sharing arrangement. I know you met with him last week. You're going to meet with him again. Where is all of that, and how do you feel about that, Senator Lott?

Lott: Well, you have to deal with the realities of where we are, and different times call for different procedures. We are going to work together. We're going to reach across the aisle. We're going to try to find a way for me to work with Tom Daschle, and Republicans to work with Democrats and vice versa. We are going to have to have more sharing of, you know, office space and committee allowances and all of that sort of thing.

But in the end, the important question is what do we have to do in order to deal with the agenda the American people expect us to deal with. I mean, how can we move an education bill? How cawe have tax relief that would be positive to keep the economy growing? How can we have Medicare reform? The answer is, it must be done in a bipartisan way.

Schieffer: Let me just ask you quickly about that. And that is, if I hear the news coming out of the Bush camp is they're not ready to back off this enormous tax cut that candidate Bush has proposed. Do you think anything like that is possible with a Senate divided 50-50?

Lott: Actually, I do. First of all, I think that there will be the money there to reach that goal. I think that, looking at the economy and how it is reacting, some of the problems we have now, including the fact that we have an energy problem looming in this country. But all things considered, I think that a fair, across-the-board tax cut would be positive to keep the economy growing.

Now, will it be every word or, you know, the absolute total amount? Certainly, that has to work through the process. But I think that there will be a major tax bill next year. Look, a lot of the taxes we did this year were bipartisan. The votes on a marriage penalty tax, eliminating the telephone tax, the death tax had Democratic votes for every one of them. We can do that.

Schieffer: All right. Senator Lott, we have to leave it there. Thank you very much. We're going to get another side of this story when we talk to Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL)

Schieffer: With us now, the Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. Senator Daschle, thank you for coming. You just heard what Senator Lott said. He still says that he thinks it possible, even with a Senate split 50-50, to push through a big tax cut, a tax cut of the size that candidate George Bush was talking about. Do you think that's possible?

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.): I don't think that's possible, Bob. Obviously, we can agree on tax cuts. Democrats have supported them and they've proposed them. But I think we also have to look at paying the debt and continuing the fiscal discipline that we've identified in the last several years. That's critical for us.

So, while we are willing to work with them, I don't think that we'll ever go to the magnitude that George Bush has proposed. It would destroy the fiscal opportunities we have to retire the debt in the not too distant future.

Borger: Well, what kind of signal would that send from the Bush administration to Democrats in Congress?

Daschle: Well, Gloria, I think that the signal it would send is that they really aren't prepared to work with us. What we have said is that we want to reach bipartisan consensus, not only in the way we make up the Senate, but also in the way we deal with the issues.

We ought to take up the issues that had a bipartisan majority when we left this Congress: a patients' bill of rights, good prescription drug benefits, the opportunities for campaign finane reform. Those are the kinds of things that I think we could reach good bipartisan consensus on early in the next Congress.

Schieffer: Senator Lott talked about how you're going to share power in the new Senate when it's split 50-50. Now I know you have asked for equal representation on the committees. Clearly he's not there yet. He said, 'We're talking about sharing a larger staff with the Democrats and office space and things of that sort.' What happens if you don't get equal representation on the committees?

Daschle: Bob, let me just say, equal representation would absolutely guarantee bipartisanship. It would assure that there is an effort to reach across the aisle. A one-vote margin would, I think, encourage chairmen to simply try to find unanimity on their side without reaching across the aisle.

We have an Ethics Committee that is 3-3. It has worked very, very well over the years. Every state legislature that has had equal representation in their sessions have had equal representation on committee. So, I'm hopeful that we can accomplish something in the not too distant future to accommodate that real desire, I think, to reach that bipartisan consensus.

Schieffer: But you seem to be saying, if you don't get that, it's going to be almost impossible to do anything.

Daschle: Well, no. I think it is going to be very difficult. The odds are always against us when you have situations like this. But I think Senator Lott wants to try, I certainly want to try to find a way to accomplish as much as possible in the next Congress, given these very difficult circumstances.

Borger: Speaking of one vote margins, let's talk about the Supreme Court for a moment. Do you believe that the decision that was reached yesterday, that 5-4 decision, was ideological?

Daschle: Well, Gloria, I disagree with that decision, but I respect it. I think we have to ...

Borger: Was it ideological?

Daschle: ... Well, I think we have to accept the rule of law in this country, and I think that it's very important for us to assure that we have confidence in our judicial system. So, I'm not going to go about attacking the Supreme Court. I don't want to attack the Florida Supreme Court. I think we've got to live with the results and go on. I disagree with it; I accept the results.

Schieffer: Let me ask you this. If this court should rule for George Bush, would it then be time for Vice President Gore to concede?

Daschle: Well, I'll leave that to Vice President Gore. What I have said all along is that, most of us, in fact all of us, support his effort to try to get a full and fair count. That's all we're asking, Bob. I think it would be difficult to go beyond that, but I will leave that to him, and I'll support whatever decision he ultimately makes.

Schieffer: But you think it would be awfully hard for him after that?

Dascle: Well, you heard David Boies this morning talk about the hill that we have to climb, but clearly, I think it's so incumbent upon everybody to assure that we get that fair and full count.

Borger: Do you think that Republicans in Congress would have a harder time accepting a President Gore than Democrats in Congress would have accepting a President Bush?

Daschle: That's a good question, Gloria, and I wonder sometimes, but I don't think we ought to be asking that question. I think the question ought to be, what should we - what should we expect once we get this behind us, and I think what we should expect is a real effort to put the campaign behind us, to put the election behind us, to work together to try to reach real bipartisan consensus.

Borger: But what if there's a recount eventually and it shows that Al Gore won the popular vote in Florida?

Daschle: Well, I think that further undermines the ability that a President Bush would have, and I think that we've got to try to enhance that ability; we can't detract from it. We've got to ensure that he has the opportunity and the responsibility to govern, and work on a bipartisan basis to make that happen.

Schieffer: Senator Daschle, we have to stop there. Thank you so much.

Daschle: My pleasure.

Schieffer: We'll be back with a final word in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL)

Schieffer: And finally today, some random thoughts as this presidential election continues to sort itself out.

Number one: The country will survive. The only nation ever to hold a presidential election during a civil war has a tradition and respect for the law that is so strong, it will find a way to get past this.

Number two: Don't worry about all this rush to get on with the transition. Transitions were no big deal until the government started paying for them. Jack Kennedy put together his entire administration in his Georgetown home. The prospective cabinet members were ushered in the back door, interviewed in the living room, and those who made the cut were then brought to the front porch and introduced to reporters who waited out in the front yard. Not only efficient, but cheap; Kennedy's daddy paid for the whole thing.

Three: Never try to figure out why people do what they do. In the famous 1824 race that was thrown to the House of Representatives to decide, John Quincy Adams needed the vote of the state of New York to secure the majority required to win the presidency. But the New York delegation was split, and how Representative Stephen van Ressenlaer voted would determine which candidate got New York's vote. Poor van Ressenlaer didn't know what to do and bowed his head in prayer. As he opened his eyes, he saw a ballot on the floor with Adams' name on it, took it as a sign from the Lord and voted for Adams. That swung New York behind Adams and gave him the presidency.

I have seen no sigof divine intervention this time - but the way this is going, maybe we'd best be on the lookout.

That's it from here. We'll see you next week on Face The Nation.

END