NJ: I have to start with a question that's been on the minds of many. What happened to your legendary red-rimmed glasses? At a conference a few weeks ago, from what I remember, you weren't wearing them, were you?

Daschle: (laughs) No, I have different sets of glasses, and sometimes I wear different ones. In fact, today I'm not wearing them either. But I wear them off and on. So, that really consumed some of your time?

NJ: That was one of the first questions people asked me when I got back.

Daschle: (laughs) Well, my wife really likes them, so I try to humor her as much as I can.

NJ: To more serious questions. Last January, you gave Congress a 24-month window to pass a health care reform plan and said that it would only be possible if the next president makes it a No. 1 or No. 2 priority. Do you still stand by that?

Daschle: More or less. I don't know that I meant to be quite that definitive, but I believe that in order for this to pass, it requires strong presidential leadership first of all. And secondly, I think it does require the momentum that comes from the agenda the president laid out in the early months of his first term. It's much harder as you get closer to re-election mode and a presidential campaign.

NJ: Do you think Obama is able to make it a high priority with his plate full of other time-pressing issues?

Daschle: Yes. He has said to me personally -- and he's spoken to the country on many occasions, saying that this was one of the most important issues in his administration. He has said that he wants his mark historically to be, in part, one related to health reform.

NJ: In terms of a deadline, though, do you still give Congress one more year?

Daschle: I don't know that it has to be finished in the first year -- that's what I was referring to. I think that it's possible to say that if you are at a point where you are in conference by the end of the year, and it spilled over into next year, that it would still be doable.

NJ: But you think they'll be able to do it?

Daschle: I do.

NJ: You've mentioned before that one of the keys to reforming health care will be putting those who support the status quo on the defensive. Could you pinpoint who those people are right now and what it would take to put them on the defensive?

Daschle: I've been very pleasantly surprised so far by most of the important health sectors and the degree to which they continue to be supportive of meaningful health reform. I'm talking about PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], I'm talking about AHIP [America's Health Insurance Plans], I'm talking about the hospitals, doctors. Most of the provider groups and most of the service-related groups are generally supportive, and I think that's a very good sign. At least so far, no one has split off to say they are going to continue to support the status quo and fight reform. And as long as that environment persists, I think we can stay on the offensive.

NJ: What about Congress?

Daschle: I also feel reasonably good about the way Congress is moving. We've had quite a bit of activity already. You've had an announcement on the House side that the three primary committees involved with heath reform are going to be working together. You've got the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who has taken it upon himself to be the convener of principals who share his support for meaningful health care reform. There may be many differences, but those discussions go on.

NJ: But then what do you make of congressional Democrats refusing Obama the $634 billion "down payment" he wanted set aside for health care in their budget? Do we need the funding or not?

Daschle: We do. But I don't take it as a significant setback that a number wasn't delineated. I think that it's always better to have a number, and I think before the conference agreement is completed, I would assume that you're going to have a number.... But I think what the Budget Committee wanted to do is to keep open its options for how that's done and how many appropriate offsets can be found.... I've had conversations with Senator [Kent] Conrad, and I have no doubt about his commitment to health reform.

NJ: How involved are you in talking with President Obama and members of Congress about reform efforts?

Daschle: It's really just personal. I don't have any official role or formal role. They are friends of mine, and we care about -- have a mutual interest and passion for -- an issue that is important, and so we talk occasionally. I don't want to overstate how much contact I have. But it is an issue that I care deeply about, and I want to stay engaged and be helpful in whatever way I can.

NJ: You've worked for the past several years with Alston & Bird as a policy adviser, providing similar services to those of a lobbyist. Did you expect that work to interfere with your nomination for secretary of Health and Human Services?

Daschle: First of all, I draw a distinction between consulting and lobbying. Lobbying in my view involves actually making contact with people either in the legislative or executive branch and arguing your case and attempting to persuade them of the value of a particular position. I think that's an honorable role, and it is something that is done quite frequently, obviously.

Consulting is different. Consulting is simply providing your advice and your understanding of circumstances, but drawing a very hard distinction between the actual persuasion and the contact involved with lobbying and simply the more distant and the more general approach to public policy that you offer with regard to consultation.

Since I left the Senate I have made that distinction an important one for me and what I'm able to do. I don't lobby on behalf of clients. I don't talk to members of Congress with regard to client interests. And I'm more comfortable doing that. As I say, a lot of good people are involved in lobbying, and I don't see anything wrong with that. I just -- in my case, I'm more comfortable just consulting and drawing that distinction and staying with it.

NJ: Do you think it's wrong for lobbyists to work for the administration and not wrong for those like you who profited after being a senator by doing very similar things?

Daschle: I think it is important that there be some appreciation for the influence that people can have in government as lobbyists either before or after public service. But I do think as well that people who are advocates for public policy and professionally involved in advocacy should have the opportunity to be part of governing as well.

So I wouldn't draw quite as hard a line as the administration has in that area, but that's the decision they've made and I accept it completely. But I think people who are passionate advocates ought to continue to have the opportunity to serve in public life in spite of the fact that they may have been professional advocates at some point in their career.