The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After tonight's summary of the news, David Gergen and Mark Shields assess the Democratic Presidential race after Jerry Brown's narrow victory in Connecticut. Sen. Warren Rudman discusses why he's fed up and quitting the Senate. We continue our week of conversations on future defense needs; tonight, Sen. William Cohen of Maine, a Republican on the Armed Services Committee. And we close with a Roger Rosenblatt essay. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Brown versus Clinton race for the Democratic Presidential nomination took on new meaning today. Brown edged Clinton yesterday in the Connecticut primary 37 to 36 percent. Paul Tsongas got 20 percent of the vote, despite dropping out of the race. Brown was campaigning in Pennsylvania today for the April 28th primary there. At an AFL-CIO convention he called Clinton "a right-to-work, union busting scab inviting governor of Arkansas." Clinton campaigned today in lower Manhattan for the April 7th New York primary. He attacked Brown's flat tax proposal as a disaster which triples taxes on the poor, increases taxes on the middle class and lowers taxes on the wealthiest Americans. President Bush won another easy victory of challenger Pat Buchanan in Connecticut. The margin was 67 to 22 percent. At a White House photo session this morning, reporters asked Mr. Bush to comment on the Democratic race.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let 'em sort out their business. Let 'em sort their business out. They don't need, they don't need me to tell 'em who they ought to vote for over there, but I see nothing to be unhappy about.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have more on the campaign right after this News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi has apparently had second thoughts about handing over the two men accused in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. On Monday, Libya's UN Ambassador informed the Security Council the suspects would be surrendered to the Arab League unconditionally. Gadhafi met with a team of Arab League diplomats in Tripoli last night. The AP and Reuters said he told them his ambassador was wrong and he would turn over the men only if ordered to do so by the International Court of Justice. In Washington, State Department Spokeswoman Margaret Tutwiler called for UN action.

MARGARET TUTWILER, State Department Spokeswoman: State sponsors of terrorism must know that the international community will not tolerate threats to international peace and security and is prepared to take concerted political action in the face of continuing Libyan defiance of international obligations and norms of behavior.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S., Britain and France have prepared a sanctions resolution to bring before the UN Security Council. The Council will vote on the matter tomorrow. Weapons experts from the UN today began destroying Iraqi missile production equipment. Iraq had previously resisted the action which is required under the UN Gulf War cease-fire agreement. Meanwhile, in Vienna the UN's nuclear agency ordered Iraq to demolish key parts of a huge industrial complex. UN officials said the facility is used to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq has claimed it is devoted exclusively to civilian usage. There was no immediate Iraqi response to today's order.

MR. LEHRER: Senate leaders today decided not to enforce subpoenas against the two reporters who broke the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas story. Independent Counsel Peter Fleming had sought to force Timothy Phelps of Newsday and Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio to reveal the source of their information. Senate Rules Committee Chairman Wendell Ford, Democrat of Kentucky, and the ranking Republican, Ted Stevens of Alaska, denied the request. They said it could "have a chilling effect on the media and could close a door when more doors need opening." A bipartisan group of Senators and House members today called for a vote on a proposal to reform Congress. They want to study such issues as the growth of congressional staff in committees and the inefficiency of the congressional bureaucracy. A spokesman for the group was Sen. David Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma.

SEN. DAVID BOREN, [D] Oklahoma: I think there finally comes a time in which the inefficiency of the system, the damage being done to the system, and the level of frustration that people participating in it finally reaches such a level that you get action. There are really only two things that ever force action around this place and in this Capitol Building. One is public demand for action. People are right. Congress is not performing as it should, and secondly, members, themselves, feeling very frustrated in their desire to adequately perform a public service.

MR. LEHRER: House Speaker Tom Foley said today he and Minority Leader Bob Michel agreed to set up a task force to suggest immediate short-term reforms for the House. In economic news, factory orders for durable goods edged down .1 percent last month. A Commerce Department report said the major cause was a big plunge in military equipment orders.

MR. MacNeil: An alarm was sounded today about the spread of AIDS among minorities in America. The National Minority AIDS Council said nearly half of the 210,000 documented AIDS cases in this country were blacks, Hispanics, native Americans or Asians. The Council called on Congress to reinstate $14 million for AIDS prevention programs. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus joined in that call at a Capitol Hill news conference. District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton had this to say.

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, [D] District of Columbia: There's a dual task here. There's a task for government, both at the federal level and the local level. And there is a task for civilian community leadership. The fact is that although in our community most HIV is from drug abusers, there is a terrible bigotry that has to do with homosexuality. And that is, that keeps leadership from moving out and being outspoken, and it keeps people from responding, because they believe that there is some kind of mark on them. And I think that this report besides stimulating the government has got to stimulate us to make sure there is pressure brought on the government by us from us.

MR. LEHRER: The Environment Commissioner for the European Community criticized President Bush today. Carlo Rupo Demina said in Brussels Mr. Bush was jeopardizing next June's International Environment Conference in Brazil. He said Mr. Bush's position on global warming could make the conference useless and a vacuous exercise in oratory. Yesterday the Bush administration refused to accept EC targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a cause of global warming.

MR. MacNeil: The ozone layer and other environmental matters were in the main agenda today for the seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Atlantis. The crew began their first work day after yesterday's successful launch. One of their tasks was transmitting images of light from an aurora back to Earth. The light is formed when charged particles from solar magnetic storms collide with particles in the Earth's upper atmosphere. There was another story from space today, this one of a Russian Cosmonaut stranded in orbit after the country that sent him up ceased to exist. Penny Marshall of Independent Television News reports.

MS. MARSHALL: Blasted into space and marooned there for 313 days, Sergei Kutikaliev watched the disintegration of his motherland from his vantage point 1 million feet above the Earth's surface. Originally, the plan had been to keep him in orbit for five months. But when the Soviet space program collapsed, so did the plans to rescue him. With not much else to do, Sergei became an expert in space walking and weightlessness, harmless pursuits for a cosmonaut out of harm's way as turmoil erupted beneath him. When he left the Soviet Union, the space industry was the Kremlin's showpiece, proof, it was said, of parity with the West. But that lie was exposed along with so many others in the months ahead. While he was in space, the Communist utopia failed on Earth, the iron grip of the KGB and party collapsing in the failed August coup, President Gorbachev and the USSR consigned to the history books. Sergei's wife, waiting at their home in Russia's capital says he may have trouble adjusting to life on Earth now, not least because the income he's earned in space won't go very far in Boris Yeltsin's inflation-frenzied Moscow. It was a perfect touchdown for the cosmonaut lost in space. The man time warped by politics and cash, the team now faced an intensive de-briefing in controlled isolation. Meanwhile, someone might like to brief one of them about what he's returned to.

MR. MacNeil: Grikolev had to be given smelling salts after his return, but a Russian television report later said he was feeling "marvelous." That's it for the News Summary tonight. Just ahead, Gergen and Shields on the Connecticut surprise, one Senator's farewell to Washington gridlock, another strategy for a military in search of an enemy, and a Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - '92 - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: Just when the conventionally wise had again declared Bill Clinton the front-runner, he got beat. It was done to him yesterday by Jerry Brown in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. Why it happened and what it means are among the questions Judy Woodruff has for Gergen and Shields. But first here are what the candidates, themselves, had to say about it.

JERRY BROWN, Democratic Presidential Candidate: [Albany, New York] The media picked Clinton and they said he's already anointed, like, it's almost -- [booing] -- it kind of was starting to remind me of a secular college of cardinals -- [laughter] -- that had found their pope from Arkansas and they were going to force him down our throat until the people of Connecticut rose up and said, forget it, we want a change! [cheers]

GOV. BILL CLINTON, Democratic Presidential Candidate: [New York City] I was not surprised by it. I didn't have very much time to campaign there. It was a difficult area for me and always had been and the people were given to understand not by me, but by others that hey, this nominating process was over. I never said it was over. I never asked a single person to withdraw from this race. I think the voters in this country want candidates who are for profound change to come to be accountable to engage them. That's why I'm in New York and that's why I'm fighting for my tax program as opposed to this program. I think Jerry's tax would make things worse; my tax proposals would make things better.

MR. LEHRER: Now to Judy and Gergen and Shields. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated columnist, Mark Shields. Gentlemen, let's go back one week ago today. Bill Clinton had won 51 percent of the vote in Illinois and in Michigan. He came in three to one ahead of Jerry Brown in Illinois, two to one ahead of him in Michigan. Paul Tsongas got out of the race. Yesterday Clinton loses in Connecticut. What is going on? Are the voters that different in different states? David, what's going on?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I'm not sure we fully know. I think that the voters are defying all normal measurements and predictions in this race. What I think we do know is that yesterday appears to have been less a victory for Jerry Brown than a defeat for Bill Clinton, that Bill Clinton showed a lot of weakness in Connecticut, weakness that should set off alarm bells in his own campaign. I mean, the fact was because he had been anointed this essentially was going to be simply a rubber stamp process that appeared in Connecticut, and he went in and only got 35 percent of the vote. That has to be regarded as a bad defeat for him.

MS. WOODRUFF: But how do you square that, Mark, with what he did a week ago? I mean, what he did the week before that --

MR. SHIELDS: I think it's understandable when one thinks of the political atmosphere, the environment in which this race is being run. By a margin of 4 to 1, Americans believe our nation is seriously off on the wrong track, we're headed in the wrong direction. There's a despair in the land. There's a pessimism. There's an anxiety. There's a fury at what's going on in Washington. You take that and whoever becomes the change candidate will do well. In both Illinois and Michigan, Bill Clinton represented change to most voters, to a majority of the voters in both those states. Jerry Brown made himself in Connecticut very effectively the vehicle for people to express their dissatisfaction. He had propounded a very simple proposition to the voters: Do you like the status quo? Do you like what the political establishment's given to you? If you do, vote for the other guy. If you don't, vote for me.

MR. GERGEN: I think that's part of it, but I also think that there is a difference by region and by group in the country now, and that Bill Clinton is not playing well in the Northeast. He hasn't gotten above 36 percent of the vote in any state North of the District of Columbia. He did not do well in Maryland.

MS. WOODRUFF: Northeast.

MR. GERGEN: He did not do well in Rhode Island. He did not do well in Connecticut. He did not do well in New Hampshire. And if you look at the question of integrity, whether people think he has the integrity to be President, and the exit polls that are coming up, there are enormous differences in the Northeastern results versus the Southern results, for example.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, what's the significance of that? I mean, is that a show stopper for him?

MR. SHIELDS: I think part of it's regional, I really do. I think in fairness to Bill Clinton he was taking on in the Northeast in those earlier races Paul Tsongas, who was his most serious challenger, who was the local hometown favorite, who got 20 percent of the vote yesterday in Connecticut. And Bill Clinton, by contrast, has sort of had an emotional well spring of support from Southern voters as well. It's a more serious problem, the problem that David raises, for Clinton than George Bush's problem. George Bush, the problem that people have with George Bush is he doesn't understand how ordinary people live, he doesn't understand what they're suffering, and he has no vision. Those are serious people. Those are at least remediable by certain actions. I mean, George Bush can come up with a couple of ideas presumably and it's been awhile, but maybe he comes up with a couple of ideas, he does go and express, identifies, express empathy, or whatever. Bill Clinton, how do you overcome the charge that I am not honest, or you have doubts about my honesty? It becomes -- you have a number of character witnesses. You have to spend a lot of time and energy trying to persuade people.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you also had a very low turnout, right? Only 25 percent of the people who could have voted in the Democratic Primary turned out.

MR. GERGEN: And that may be that some of the Clinton voters stayed home because they thought it was over. And I think we have to give -- just to go back to this point, on this question of whether Clinton has integrity and honesty, on the Democratic voters coming out of the booth, 48 percent in Connecticut yesterday said no on that question. Rhode Island was 51 percent, Massachusetts 58 percent, and listen to states like this, Florida 23, Louisiana 20, Mississippi 19.

MS. WOODRUFF: So it's direct -- there's a direct relationship.

MR. GERGEN: There's a gap of some 30 points, 40 points on the question of integrity and honesty. The other part of this --

MS. WOODRUFF: But do you agree with Mark that that's something that is very difficult, if not impossible, for him to overcome with voters?

MR. GERGEN: I do. I think Mark is absolutely right about that. And I think, Mark, you know, if you're managing a campaign, you wouldn't know quite what advice to give that would be the best. I would assume the best thing to do is to get back in New York and win New York, which is now pivotal for him, set up a string of victories to show that he's quite electable, despite whatever doubts, and have these doubts dissipate. I would argue that's the best thing. That has to be the strategy.

MS. WOODRUFF: But let's talk about Jerry Brown. I mean, is this somebody who is now a serious contender for the nomination or not? Is he just, is the gadfly that people have been saying all along, or is he now somebody Bill Clinton has to really worry about?

MR. SHIELDS: He has to worry about him. Jerry Brown has exactly the same problem that David mentioned about Bill Clinton up North though. He has a ceiling. He has yet to exceed 40 percent.

MR. GERGEN: Right.

MR. SHIELDS: He has yet to have a majority anywhere and still this is a guy of enormous political skills. This is a man who was twice elected governor of California, who beat Joe Aliota, the mayor of San Francisco, Bob Moretti, the Speaker of the House, very able politician. He's a guy who's done well in a political world of elbows and knees. And he has -- has he recreated himself, yes, he has -- there's no doubt about it. I mean, it reminds me of the line Oscar LeVante once spoke of Doris Day, "I knew her before she was a virgin." I mean, Jerry Brown was, in fact, as Bill Clinton charges, raising money for the California party in large chunks. But now he has not only made a change in position; he has made that believable by limiting his contributions to $100. And he has struck a responsive cord, believe me -- his message is resonating with voters.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying he's not just a protest.

MR. SHIELDS: He is not just --

MS. WOODRUFF: He is not just a repository of the people for the people who are angry with and dissatisfied with the other choices.

MR. SHIELDS: I think, yes, I think that's the basis of his support, but he's picking up more support. In other words, Pat Buchanan was a protest. All right. Pat Buchanan's protest never grew. Jerry Brown was a protest and his protest is growing.

MS. WOODRUFF: You think he's gone beyond Buchanan.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes.

MS. WOODRUFF: I mean in terms of where he is --

MR. SHIELDS: I really do.

MR. GERGEN: But he's having the same impact that Buchanan is, and that is essentially he's bleeding the front-runner. He's bleeding the presumptive nominee of the party and he's damaging him for the fall election. Now, I --

MS. WOODRUFF: Is he a serious contender for the nomination?

MR. GERGEN: I do not believe that Jerry Brown will win the nomination of his party. He's got a huge mathematical problem now we're so late into it and given the proportional representation of the states, even if he wins states, he doesn't necessarily -- in Connecticut, he got fewer delegates than Clinton did even though he won the state. So as a delegate count, I think he has a hard time getting there, but beyond that, I think that the super delegates have a real problem with Jerry Brown and there's no way Jerry Brown will come into the convention with enough delegates out of the primary to win. He'll need the super delegates in the convention.

MS. WOODRUFF: But he is staying in until June at least.

MR. GERGEN: He could do a lot of damage. I would argue that, you know, everybody says Bill Clinton's had an easy ride from the press. I would argue that now the press, which has not treated Jerry Brown very seriously until now, has given him very much a free ride, will go in and take a look at who this fellow is and what are the contradictions in his life.

MS. WOODRUFF: But people have asked him about, for example, the tax proposal, the so-called "flat tax proposal," and the value added tax. And he seems to get around that somehow. I've seen him asked about it on a number of -- we asked him about it on this program. He seems to be getting away with it.

MR. SHIELDS: He is agile and he's touched on something there too, Judy. Even though the ability to pay and progressivity in the tax code is something that Democrats and liberals have believed and believed strongly and firmly for generations, Jerry Brown has touched something in the sense that there is a perception in the country that the rich, the very rich, have their own lawyers, their own accountants and they can figure out a way to do it. If it's all in a postcard and all you do is put in this is what I made, they've at least got to pay something. But I do want to talk to what David mentioned about New York. I think New York is a disaster for the Democrats. It's a disaster for the Democrats because New York is a state politically of client liberalism, where each distinct group in New York has its own political organization, its own set of non- negotiable demands. I'm talking about organized labor. I'm talking employees of feminists and lesbians and gays, and black voters and Hispanic voters. And each one, that's how New York has always been assembled, in this kind of coalition. Doing that on television in front of a nation is going to be a very unattractive process. I recall in 1984 when Walter Mondale and Gary Hart got into a knockdown brawl about who was going to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem I mean faster and quicker in hopes of getting the support of Jewish voters who were concerned about Israel.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying that could hurt in November?

MR. SHIELDS: I think it's a distinct possibility that both candidates will damage themselves and look like panderers in the process.

MR. GERGEN: Absolutely. The one thing that's going for Bill Clinton in New York is he can begin to put back together his coalition of blacks and working class whites. There are not many blacks who voted in Connecticut. They'll be voting in numbers in New York. That will help them a good deal.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, two questions, one about George Bush. Yes, he won in Connecticut, one of his home states, but he lost a third of the Republican vote. Is that something George Bush should be concerned about, or is that just a blip on the screen?

MR. GERGEN: George Bush is very lucky that Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown are battling it out this way, because they're taking all the headlines and taking the spotlight off his question.

MS. WOODRUFF: As we heard him say on the news a moment ago.

MR. GERGEN: That's right. I mean, he's -- well, the optics of this are all going to be on Clinton bleeding at this point. I think the President is continuing to demonstrate some weakness he has to worry about. I would think this opens the door even more to the possibility of an independent candidate, of someone like H. Ross Perot.

MS. WOODRUFF: And that's who I wanted to ask you about.

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I just think one of the misreading by the Bush people of the Republican electorate, Pat Buchanan got one out of four Republicans who self-identified as liberals in Connecticut yesterday, who are perhaps disgusted and disappointed at the kind of campaign that Bush has run moving over to the right, thinking that the Buchanan threat was an only an ideological one. I think there's a dissatisfaction with the President that runs right through the party. I think the Ross Perot thing is -- David Gergen wrote one piece in his magazine and the thing has taken off since. No, really, it's touch up, and there is a dissatisfaction factor among voters in both parties.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is he a -- could he be a factor if he gets these signatures that he needs all over the country?

MR. GERGEN: He could be a very serious factor. He already -- he is regarded as a folk hero in some parts of this country. I hope we can have a chance to come back and discuss him at great length, because I do think he's someone in any other year you'd have to say this is never going to work, this is outlandish. And this year, given this volatility, given this much voter discontent, you have to look at the Ross Perot candidacy with a great deal of seriousness.

MS. WOODRUFF: Isit clear who he would hurt more?

MR. GERGEN: It's not clear. I would assume he would draw initially from Republicans in states like Texas, where he's quite well known and quite popular. And that is a pivotal state for Bush, one that the Republicans are counting on being in their column, the third largest state electorally in the country. I would assume Ross Perot would do very well in parts of California, particularly in Southern California. But, you know, the truth is with this much disaffection in the country, he could also draw a lot of Democratic votes as well.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, David Gergen, thank you both.

MR. GERGEN: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the NewsHour, Sen. Rudman's disillusionment, Sen. William Cohen on future defense needs, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: Warren Rudman is next tonight. That's Rudman of Gramm-Rudman, Rudman of Iran-Contra hearings, Rudman, the friend of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the Warren Rudman who is the Republican Senator from New Hampshire. Yesterday he, like the guy in the movie "Network," said he was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore, anymore being a member of the United States Senate. His decision to leave after 12 years came as no surprise to those who witnessed his frustration on the Senate floor March 12th during a debate on the tax bill.

SEN. WARREN RUDMAN, [R] New Hampshire: [March 12] I've had many of my Democratic friends, as well as most of my Republican colleagues, ask me what are you going to do this year, you haven't announced your intentions, you have a reasonably good rating, are you going to run for re-election, and people tie it to all sorts of things, you know, making lots of money and having more free time. And that's all important, but it is really unimportant. I didn't plan to say this this morning, but I'm going to. The thing that has really been troubling me for the last three or four months to try to determine whether to spend another six years of my life in this place with so many fine and wonderful people is: Is it worth it? Can you do anything? Can you accomplish anything? Can you make the country better? Are you part of the solution, rather than part of the problem?

MR. LEHRER: Senator Rudman is here now for a Newsmaker interview. Senator, welcome.

SEN. RUDMAN: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: You're really angry, aren't you?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I guess that's a proper description, angry, disappointed, frustrated.

MR. LEHRER: Angry at whom or what?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I think to be perfectly frank about it, I am angry at the entire government and to some extent I am unhappy with the American people for wanting to simply look at the simplistic answers people are offering them and not recognizing that the entitlement programs which are the genesis of this just have to be adjusted and they're going to have to take their fair share of reduction in those benefits if we're going to save America. And, of course, both political parties are absolutely petrified of doing it, because if one does it, the other is surely going to take political advantage. So I'm really not angry at the American people, but I'm disappointed in them in that they don't seem to want to focus on this issue. And I'm, frankly, disappointed with the Congress, with both administrations I've served under, for not addressing it four square and telling the American people we're heading towards third class status at the end of this decade unless we do something about this particular problem of the deficit. It's been my concernsince I got to the Senate and I leave it with the same concern.

MR. LEHRER: Why is it that the leaders, political leaders of this country, will not do what you say they should do?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, let me give you a good example. In 1985, you will recall, because I remember your covering it in detail, before Gramm-Rudman was ever introduced the Senate Budget Committee chaired by then Chairman Pete Domenici brought a resolution to the floor and we had to wheel Pete Wilson into the Senate on a gurney. And I think we passed it 50 to 49. It was a substantial addressing of the problem. Several weeks later, Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan got together under a tree of some kind down at the White House and cut a deal and cut the legs out from under Republicans. And the Republicans lost the Senate that year. We were accused of wanting to take people's Social Security and take away their Medicare and so forth and so on. And people are politically petrified by the issue and no one is willing to come together in a bipartisan way and tell the American people if we don't fix it, they will be the big losers in another four or five years.

MR. LEHRER: You made a point, even in that little clip that we showed from March 12, you're talking about the fine people in the United States Senate. Well, there's you and 99 others. Most Americans, if you were to stop them on the street, they would identify you as among the top 100 most powerful people in the United States of America. If you were determined to do something about it, why couldn't you do it?

SEN. RUDMAN: Because, essentially, we could not get the votes to do it. We passed Gramm-Rudman overwhelmingly.

MR. LEHRER: But aren't they your own votes?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, of course, but the bottom line is that many people are afraid to cast those votes, because they are concerned about their political futures. And I understand that. I've never been as concerned about that as some possibly.

MR. LEHRER: But there's a perception in the land that that's what is the real problem, that we are now governed by a political class, the people who are only interested in being and holding office, not necessarily doing anything. That's the big wrap on President Bush; he ran for President to be President, not to do anything.

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, of course, I think the wrap is probably right to some extent. But in fairness to the members of the Congress, when they have tried to do courageous things, such as in 1985, we lost a whole number of United States Senators who cast very courageous votes to challengers who hung the title around their neck as wanting to hurt the elderly, which was patently false, but believed.

MR. LEHRER: Do you read the results of the Democratic Primary and the protest votes in the Republican Primaries thus far as people saying, we've had enough, we're ready to be led, you're ready for some strong leadership, we're ready for the truth, we're tired of all this other stuff?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I don't know if that's really so. I know that's what popular wisdom seems to say, but I'm not sure that that's right. I believe if President Bush is elected to a second term, the machinery and the mechanisms are in place to start addressing this problem. But I do not think a first-term President dare risk it. Ronald Reagan didn't; George Bush hasn't; and members of Congress who face re-election every two years have been loathe to do it. And members of the Senate on only one occasion in the last 11 years have been able to do it. And that was by a one vote margin in 1985. The issue is the growth of the entitlement programs. That is the issue. They are now roughly 45 to 50 percent of the budget. They'll be 60 to 65 percent of the budget. The annual deficit is 400 billion this year. It will rise to seven or eight hundred billion at the end of the decade. And foreign governments will be in a position of controlling our economy by setting down terms and conditions, a la the third world, as to how they will loan us money. That's the issue. So you say to people, well, look, let's get together and do it. But you can't get consensus, because people are concerned about their own political future. And, frankly, Jim, I'm just tired of it. I'm just tired of it.

MR. LEHRER: But it's not enough to say you're juyFBtired of it, is it, Senator? I mean, don't you feel an urge to do something about it too?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I have. I came to the Senate in 1981 on a platform of, really on the deficit. That's what I talked about, worked with Phil Gramm and Fritz Hollings and felt very good about it, in 1985, ran for re-election and hoped we could continue to do things. But frankly, even Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was abused, not only by the Congress, but by administrations who wanted to move things around here and there. And, you know, when you say you've got to do something about it, with all due respect, 12 years is a fairly long time. And I have tried for 12 years. And I will predict it will be fixed. But the question is: Will it be fixed in time, before interest rates skyrocket again and the country goes back into a double dip recession? That's my concern.

MR. LEHRER: Did you ever think about running for President, yourself?

SEN. RUDMAN: It has crossed my mind, but when I look at what you must go through to be elected President, I decided that I would not put my family and friends through that. It is nothing -- the whole process has become the kind of a marathon that I've never been interested in running.

MR. LEHRER: But it's the marathon part of it?

SEN. RUDMAN: Yeah. I guess a lot of people would like to be President, but a lot of people don't want to run for it. I guess I'm in that category.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think you'd be a good President?

SEN. RUDMAN: Oh, who knows. I may be too blunt. I think that bluntness, with all due respect to the electorate this year, is appreciated in some places, until the bluntness crosses somebody's particular turf or entitlement. And then that bluntness can be a, can be a hazard.

MR. LEHRER: So you think the American public has divided itself or has been divided into just a series of special interest groups and there's no way to unite the country anymore?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I don't know if that's true or not, but so far, no one's been able to do it. Let me give you a very specific - -

MR. LEHRER: Has anybody tried though to really, to unite the country? Can you give me an example of a national politician in recent times who hasn't appealed to the worst, but has appealed to the best in the country and said, let's get together?

SEN. RUDMAN: I think the last person who tried to do that was John Kennedy. But he didn't live long enough to really know if he would have succeeded. But I want to come back to what you said a few moments ago.

MR. LEHRER: Sure, go back.

SEN. RUDMAN: The greatest example of what I'm talking about was that you will recall clearly about two years ago there was great publicity -- in fact, you even covered it on this program -- about catastrophic health --

MR. LEHRER: You bet.

SEN. RUDMAN: -- and how it was bankrupting people. And people were losing their homes and their cars and moving in with their children. We passed a very meaningful catastrophic health bill. And it was a good bill. But it was unique in that it means-tested for the first time a program to be paid for by the group that would have it, meaning the retired elderly. Do you remember the pictures of Dan Rostenkowski in his automobile in Chicago, with people rocking the car back and forth?

MR. LEHRER: We ran them several times.

SEN. RUDMAN: They wanted to literally kill him. Why? Because they might have to pay a few hundred dollars more. Well, the fact was that the people who would pay a few hundred dollars more would be the very people who could afford it. But everybody in that group felt that they were being put upon and that the National Treasury should pay for it. And guess what?

MR. LEHRER: You caved.

SEN. RUDMAN: We repealed it.

MR. LEHRER: But does that say? What does that say? Does that say more about the people who pelted his car, or about you all?

SEN. RUDMAN: I think it says something about both.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

SEN. RUDMAN: But there has been a failure of communication in this country to tell the American people how serious this problem is. That's what I did on the floor the other day. That's what I tried to do. I did that yesterday in New Hampshire. It seems like a week ago. It was only yesterday that I had a press conference to announce I would retire from the Senate. I spent half of that on this very issue and people have to continue to do it. Now, this week we will introduce a series of entitlement reforms. I don't think they'll pass this year, but they will lay down the marker hopefully for next year.

MR. LEHRER: You know, if you, a person could get very, very gloomy listening to you, Senator, about the --

SEN. RUDMAN: They ought to.

MR. LEHRER: -- political future of this country.

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, they ought to, because I think it is a very - - well, the economic future and the political future are tied together.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

SEN. RUDMAN: If we do not address this issue, there is not a sane economist in the land who will not tell you that the ability of this government to function, to borrow money, and to form and to carry out its basic decisions in behalf the people will be seriously impaired at the end of the century. I will just give you one statistic that tells it all. By 1997, that slice of the federal budget which all people think of as government, the government as we know it will be under 5 percent. 60 some odd percent will be entitlements.

MR. LEHRER: And debt?

SEN. RUDMAN: 18 percent will be service on the national debt, a small percentage of maybe 14 percent for defense. That will leave a tiny sliver for everything we call government, education, health, highways, crime, foreign affairs and so forth. We've got to stop this, or else we're going to destroy this nation.

MR. LEHRER: Well, whose job is it to stop it?

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I think --

MR. LEHRER: We keep coming back to that.

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I think it's the job of the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States. But so far, I must say, and with some amount of sadness, that people have not been willing to take political risks. Some of us have. We have had such votes on the floor in the last 11 years. I think the high point of the number of votes we got was 13.

MR. LEHRER: Something very interesting, in all the praise for you after your announcement yesterday from your own colleagues in the Senate, they said, Rudman is one of a kind, "He tackled the tough issues." He neverducked the hard ones. And I read those and I thought that's a sad commentary saying that you are unique as a United States Senator, because you tackled the hard issues and duck the hard ones. You would think that's what all the Senators would be doing.

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I think a number of people do on occasion. But I have tried to do it as much as I could when I could. But I have to say something in fairness to my colleagues. I come from a very interesting state. New Hampshire is a state of some very independent-minded people. In 1986, I said to the elderly in New Hampshire what I am saying to you and convinced many of them to vote for me, even though they understood that I wanted to put some caps on Medicare and Medicaid and tax Social Security of upper income taxpayers. My state is unique. Maybe other states aren't like that. But, frankly, I'll tell you what I think we ought to do.

MR. LEHRER: Do it.

SEN. RUDMAN: I told some of my colleagues today, why don't you forget it's an election year, let's do the right thing. And the worst thing that can happen to you is you'll be defeated. And then you go back to a life of incredible luxury with lots of time and all you'll do is lose an election; you won't lose your life. It wasn't taken too seriously.

MR. LEHRER: You know, that's what Paul Tsongas said.

SEN. RUDMAN: Well, I admire Paul Tsongas and said so in my floor speech. Paul Tsongas told the truth. I said that day on the floor that he'll probably lose. And, of course, he did. The truth is not pretty in America today about our economy. The government and politicians are to blame for a good part of it. We have led the American people to truly believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch. We really have been unwilling to tell them that this year we are going to borrow 25 percent of what we are going to spend this year; 25 percent will be borrowed. Now, that is outrageous!

MR. LEHRER: And down the road, you think eventually we're going to be borrowing everything from foreign countries, is that right?

SEN. RUDMAN: We won't be able to, because you see at that point we will have to do something. The problem is we have time to do it now and still save this republic as we know it and keep our position in the world and be strong. But if we wait another five or six or seven years to do it, this debt burden is going to be equal to the Gross National Product. It's going to be staggering.

MR. LEHRER: Finally, since your announcement yesterday, have you had any second thoughts?

SEN. RUDMAN: None whatsoever. I want to make it clear I have a high regard for the people in the institution, but I will tell you the whole country has become so oriented to what each group receives from this government that we've had gridlock set in. And it's not the fault of the Congress alone or the President alone. It's the fault of all America to really believing that government can solve every problem. I've watched these Presidential candidates campaign. I have heard no one address the fundamental issue that faces the country. And that is, how do we get this budget into balance. And if you can't do it, none of the things that they're talking about are going to happen. Why? There will be no money to do any of these things. That's the fundamental problem.

MR. LEHRER: Senator, thank you and good luck to you, sir.

SEN. RUDMAN: Thank you, Jim. Thank you. CONVERSATION - PEACETIME POWER

MR. MacNeil: Next tonight, the second in our conversations this week about the defense needs of the United States in a post cold war world. With us is Sen. William Cohen, Republican of Maine. He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a lawyer, and an author, whose works include poems, novels, and a study of the Iran- Contra investigation. Sen. Cohen, welcome. After what we've just heard -- could you hear Sen. Rudman?

SEN. COHEN: Oh, indeed, I heard Sen. Rudman.

MR. MacNeil: I can't just plunge into the defense thing without asking you, are you as gloomy and frustrated as your colleague, Sen. Rudman?

SEN. COHEN: Well, Warren is perhaps my closest friend in the Senate, certainly, and he and I share not only the good moments but the bad as well. And I would say that his expression of pessimism is shared by a good many people. I would only contradict Warren in the sense that the message that he has given to his colleagues and the one he shared with us today at noontime is, in fact, something that we're going to take action on, at least within the group that he spoke to. I think that there is the kind of courage within the Senate, provided it's stirred, and I think Warren is the person who is capable of leading that particular charge in the final months of his service to this country. I would want to say on this program, and do want to say, that I think that he has made a contribution, a greater contribution in a shorter period of time of service than perhaps anyone that I've ever known. And we're going to greatly miss his service and his leadership in the Senate.

MR. MacNeil: Let's turn to defense, the defense of this country. Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defense, wrote recently that the challenge, he put the challenge this way, "Recognizing the critical importance of America's world role and preserving the ability to fulfill it effectively." Just to begin with, do you quarrel with that way of defining it?

SEN. COHEN: No.

MR. MacNeil: So what is America's world role?

SEN. COHEN: Well, first of all, the particular article he wrote was perhaps in response to a draft statement that was conceived within the Pentagon, itself, perhaps, but never signed off by Dick Cheney, himself. And I think it's been not only mischaracterized but caricaturized in the sense that it epochs Americana, or that we're a global super power. And the image that was created is that we are some sort of Rambo or Terminator II standing astride the globe, daring any dictator to make our day by going for his gun. that clearly is not the role that I foresee for this country, nor Dick Cheney foresees, nor the President of the United States. What I think Dick Cheney is saying is that we do have global interests. We have an interest in virtually every part of the world. Not all of those interests are vital. Not all of them will call for military responses, but, nonetheless, we are the world's largest exporter of goods. We do depend on having access to resources all over the globe, and so the things that take place and occur in the regions that are quite a bit of distance away from the homeland, nonetheless, can have a dramatic impact upon our economy and upon our political structure as such, so I think that is what Dick Cheney is saying that we have global interests, not all of them vital, but many of them important. And we should act in a way that we can preserve whatever options are necessary in the future and not shrink back to a continental United States as some of those on the left and some of those on the right are now advocating and try to zip out the rest of the world.

MR. MacNeil: To fulfill the role, this role, does the United States need to keep the super power status militarily that it created for the cold war?

SEN. COHEN: No. I think we can have a substantially reduced military force. And I think the base force concept is something that makes good sense, common sense. It can be perhaps reduced a bit more beyond what is proposed by the Pentagon as such, but I think the concept, itself, of having a base force structure makes good sense for the United States. I think, for example, we will see over a period of time not in the immediate future, but sometime after 1994/95, you will see perhaps further reductions of troops in Western Europe. I think we're going to see a more Europeanized NATO organization. And we should welcome that. We shouldn't resist it, nor should we rush it. I think what we have to do is take it step by step and see that kind of reduction take place and unfold in a way that helps to consolidate the kind of political integration that seems to be underway and doesn't move with such rapidity that we undermine that consolidation and integration to the great detriment of the stability of Western Europe. So I think we can achieve those reductions over a period of time, but I think the pace of the reductions currently foreseen by the administration really makes sense at this time.

MR. MacNeil: There's another point here. Sec. Cheney said in that same article, and he said it repeatedly recently, the great mistake after the two world wars was to dismantle the military believing the threat had gone away. But many believe that the threat that this great military force was designed to meet has gone away.

SEN. COHEN: Well, first of all, I think that we, we ought to hold up the lamp of history just long enough to find out what path led us into two world wars during the first part of the century, the first half of the century, and what paths we've taken since that time to maintain political and strategic deterrents and stability in most of the regions of the world. And I believe that, obviously, with the end of the cold war, the Soviet Union no longer poses the kind of threat that it did prior to that time, obviously. But it doesn't mean that the world is without threats. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, you can pick up a newspaper every day and find that there are still antagonisms, there is still some jockeying between the Ukraine, between Russia, between other republics. There is a rambling around of nuclear weapons. We're not sure of who has control of them. We do know that Russia will probably emerge as the leading and strongest republic with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. And so while there's no immediate threat certainly and the likelihood of a threat coming from the Soviet Union or what used to be the Soviet Union is remote, nonetheless, one or two republics could try to exercise some military force in a blackmail type of scenario.

MR. MacNeil: But what you're supporting and what the Secretary of Defense seems supporting is really a major change in American history, isn't it? Because every time before this the analogy was like the Western where they'd get the posse out when there were outlaws to fight, and then when the outlaws went away, or were all dead, then the posse would disassemble. And now for the first time, is this not right, you're saying and the Secretary's saying there should be a permanent big posse?

SEN. COHEN: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, what is being missed here is the President in his budget agreement last year called for reductions of some $350 billion in the five-year defense plan. He's added another $50 billion to that. Sen. Nunn just pointed out to the Senate Budget Committee given the arrangement we currently are operating under by 1995, you will see a reduction of some 10 divisions in the army, some 10 air wings in the air force, and about 95 ships being taken out of the force structure in the navy. We're going to see a million people eliminated from the defense, armed services, itself, defense industry I should say, and the private sector. So we're talking about major reductions currently underway. And so I don't think you can say that we're still trying to maintain the same type of force structure. It's going to be much reduced from that of what it was just a few years ago. Secondly, you're assuming that the Soviet Union, what used to be the Soviet Union, is the only threat in the world. And it's not. You can point to the South Korea and the North Korean situation being very volatile still today and frankly, you can go to various parts of the world, Iraq, that we just had a war in last year, Iran is trying to increase its military capabilities, and other areas in which there are potential dangers. So I think we're trying to downsize the military in a way that will give us some flexibility in the future, if we have to respond, that we'll be in a position to do that.

MR. MacNeil: Is the Gulf War the model for future U.S. military intervention?

SEN. COHEN: Well, I think that that's perhaps as good a model as one can have where the United States went to the United Nations and persuaded and convinced our allies that they should be engaged in stopping Saddam Hussein from gaining control over the oil reserves or a large part of the oil reserves of the world. Yes, I think that was a good model.

MR. MacNeil: But in that model, the U.S. supplied most of the force and the other countries that benefited paid for it, almost paid for the full amount, as I understand the commitments they've made. The figures the Pentagon gave us today were about $54 billion committed. The cost was $61 billion, they say. Is that going to be the model for the future, that the U.S. supplies the force and the bodies and other countries pay?

SEN. COHEN: No, I don't. In that sense, I don't think that will be the situation, because we're downsizing our forces. We're going to have to turn more responsibility for NATO over to the Europeans that will come over the next five or six or seven years. We're going to see a reduction of our forces in the Asian regions. I think we're going to see a significantly reduced American force, a structure as such. And so you'll not have the same situation. Secondly, I think we're going to continue to try to engage in a multilateral type of action when it's called for. And in that sense, the situation in the Persian Gulf is a good model. But we will not have the capability that we had for the Persian Gulf in the future. And we have to take that into account.

MR. MacNeil: Is the United States, given some of the stuff Sen. Rudman was just discussing, but the other economic realities, and increasing competition economically from the rest of the world, is the United States going to be able the rest of this decade to afford to play so influential a world role?

SEN. COHEN: Well, I think it's important that we continue to play a role and an influential one, yes. And the question can we afford it, I think we're going to have to afford it. There are some people who raise the argument that we can't be the world's policemen. And I agree. But neither can we afford to become a prisoner of world events. There is no way in which the United States can withdraw its military presence totally from regions where we have interests and bring them back to the United States and still hope to remain engaged in influencing diplomatically at least policies that would affect our interests. So I think that we have to say that by reducing our force structure to the lowest level it has been as a percentage of GNP since World War II, the beginning of World War II, that we have to be able to afford a force structure that's going to protect our interest. And I think the Pentagon is moving in that direction. I think in several years' time we'll have an opportunity to see whether the Europeans have become more politically and economically integrated and can shoulder a much larger burden than they currently are. We also have to be cautious. And when you ask whether or not the United States should share that kind of burden that we did in the Persian Gulf, would you rather have the Japanese become militarized and take over that burden, would you prefer to see a United Germany become more militarized and take over that burden? I think what we've got to do is to encourage the collective action, wherever possible, but still maintain the option that when our vital interests are at stake, we have the capability of protecting those interests.

MR. MacNeil: Does it disturb you as a Senator who sits on a couple of very influential committees here that for several years now sizeable majorities of the American people have told pollsters, opinion surveyors, that they think the economic strength of this country is more vital to national security than military strength?

SEN. COHEN: Well, I think economic strength obviously is an important part of it, but you can have a very strong economy and a weak military capability and find that a Saddam Hussein can cut off that economic viability by simply strangling the pipeline on oral reserves, for example. I think you have to have both. And I believe by downsizing our military capability, modernizing it, making it lighter and certainly more mobile, but with smaller forces, that we can, in fact, achieve both.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Senator Cohen, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. COHEN: Thank you. ESSAY - FOR THE PEOPLE?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, another view of the relationship between people and government. It comes from essayist Roger Rosenblatt, editor at large of Life Magazine.

MR. ROSENBLATT: Two observations from two very different sources at very different occasions meet at a point. After recent shooting murders at Jefferson High School in New York City, a student, Charles Norbin, age 18, said, "I don't have faith in no one. We can't depend on someone to protect us. We've got to protect ourselves." Elsewhere in New York, a week later, high society philanthropist Brook Aster was given a 90th birthday party at which Osborne Elliott, former dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism told the audience, "For more than decade, New York and the rest of America's cities have been abandoned in a totally bipartisan way by the White House and Congress alike." The point at which these two observations come together is unhappily this - - many Americans from both sides of the tracks have no faith whatever in political institutions to guide their lives, to improve their lives, or as in places like Jefferson High School, even to protect and save their lives. This is what folks used to call a sorry pass. But the relationship between the people and their government has fallen a lot lower than a sorry pass. The situation is downright dangerous, affecting the rural and small town America no less than the cities. And the danger centers in a truth so awful as to sound ridiculous, preposterous. Political institutions seem to have no will or power to deal with the basic and essential problems of our lives. That sounds crazy I know, but people feel they are receiving little help for the problems which they need the most help, crime, poverty, education, health. All appear out of the reach or the interest of government, big or small, that was constituted to address them. What has happened then to a government for the people? That is the question asked by Mr. Elliott and Mr. Norbin. We can't depend on someone to protect us. Why not? Why should a high school student in one of the great cities of the world in the most powerful country in the world enter school every morning in fear of his life? The typical solution to the Jefferson High School shootings have been proposed by the city. Install metal detectors in the troublesome schools to keep out the guns and the knives. But where is the detector for the metal, that is, the courage of America's politicians and political institutions? Where is their metal, when it comes to not only protecting the lives of schoolchildren, but in working to ensure that they learn something in school and that they lead healthy lives? Aren't those the things that government was designed for? Here we are again, in the hurly burly festival of another Presidential campaign season. The season has the characteristics of another TV season or another baseball season. The structure of the events is well in place. The participants operate within the structure, a caucus here, a debate there, one politician goes up in the standings, one goes down. There is always a dark horse and an unsavory presence and an unlikely hero and all the rest. Yet, where is the felt connection between this process, this most important process, and the people who are increasingly worried about the basics of their lives? Not the frills of their lives, not the luxuries, their lives. Civics lessons assure us that Americans have always preserved and cultivated a stand-offish relationship with their government. The tensions created by that push and pull have often worked to the country's advantage by striking a shifting balance between government's intrusion into the lives of Americans and the preservation of individual freedom. That is not what is happening today. I don't know that we have ever experienced a greater sense of distance, of impotent distance between the government that is by the people and the one that is supposed to be for the people. A great many Americans do not feel that the government is on or even close to their side anymore. Whether rich or poor, they do not feel it. What they are beginning to feel is rage, deep, rooting rage. Another student at Jefferson High, Sean Cameron, was quoted as saying that people are not thinking about what the good kids are trying to do. We are the forgotten kids in here. Here too, Sean. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Wednesday, Bill Clinton stepped up his attacks on Jerry Brown's flat tax plan after Brown's surprise victory in yesterday's Connecticut Democratic Primary. Brown counterattacked, calling Clinton "a union buster." Administration officials said they would push for UN sanctions against Libya after Moammar Gadhafi backed away from an offer to surrender two suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with a defense conversation with policy analyst Richard Barnett, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.