The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WOODRUFF: Good evening. I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

MR. MacNeil: And I'm Robert MacNeil in New York. After the News Summary tonight, three British political analysts explain the Conservative surprise election victory, Roger Mudd reports on how Congressmen see their own institution today, and David Gergen & Mark Shields analyze the week's politics. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Several huge explosions rocked London's financial district this evening. At least three people were reported killed. Another 40 people were reported injured. Police cordoned off parts of the central city district and ambulances were on the scene. The cause of the blast was not immediately known, but Reuters News Agency reported that a telephone call was made to British Rail offices warning of a bomb. The caller provided a code word used by the Irish Republican Army. The IRA had vowed to disrupt Britain's general election which today returned the Conservative Party to power for an unprecedented fourth consecutive term. We'll have more on the election story after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush today took a first step toward changing the nation's welfare system. He loosened federal regulations so the state of Wisconsin can reduce welfare payments. Under the plan, mothers would no longer receive additional money if they had more than two children. Mr. Bush said he hoped that other states would come forward with new welfare ideas. He spoke this afternoon at a White House news conference.

PRES. BUSH: Wisconsin legislatures passed a plan, let 'em try it, and see if it works to strengthen families and to get, break the cycle of dependency on welfare. And we sit here in Washington, D.C., some with the view that we got all the answers back here, particularly in the Congress. And that's not true, so I support the governor in his and the legislature there, Democrat and Republican, in their efforts to reform the welfare system.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Wisconsin plan will be tried in Milwaukee and three other counties for a five-year period.

MR. MacNeil: Consumer prices rose 1/2 percent in March, the steepest increase in almost a year and a half. The Labor Department said prices for food, gasoline, and clothing posted the biggest gains. Despite the March increase, inflation is running at an annual rate of 3.5 percent so far this year. Caterpillar Tractor and the United Auto Workers agreed to resume negotiations. More than 12,000 workers have been on strike against the heavy equipment makers since early November. Federal mediators said they would oversee the talks which begin Monday.

MS. WOODRUFF: The House Ethics Committee announced today that the names of all congressional check bouncers will be made public next Thursday. The worst offenders were revealed a week ago. The new list was expected to include 277 current members and 54 former members who wrote at least one bad check on the House Bank. But Ethics Committee members said they had received challenges from a hundred and fifty Congress members and that that had led to as many as twenty of them being removed from the list. Ethics Committee Chairman Matthew McHugh, a Democrat from New York, talked about the difficulty of the investigation.

REP. MATTHEW McHUGH, Chairman, Ethics Committee: Aside from deaths in my family, this has been the most painful experience in my life. I have seen people who are genuinely good public servants and who spent years of their lives working hard for the country and their constituents have their reputations smeared and damaged as a result of this. Now, it's true that members of Congress in some cases took excessive advantage of this perquisite, and there is legitimate criticism in some cases that should be leveled. But the penalty far exceeds the crime in this case.

MR. MacNeil: Jerry Brown went on the offensive today. His target was an allegation reported by ABC News that he'd allowed his Los Angeles home to be used for marijuana and cocaine parties when he was California's governor from 1975 to '82. The charges came from four men who reportedly were state police officers assigned to protect the governor. They refused to be identified. Brown appeared on a series of network news programs last night and this morning to deny the allegations. He called them "false, malicious and absurd." He had more to say after a campaign appearance today at a church in Richmond, Virginia.

JERRY BROWN, Democratic Presidential Candidate: It is a very damaging and bizarre accusation for a national record. It is part of the Gong Show of Presidential politics. It's unfair. We want to know who these people are. We're going to uncover them and we're going to prove that those people are lying and they're not telling the truth.

MR. MacNeil: We'll have more about the political week later in the program.

MS. WOODRUFF: A Pentagon report released today said Gulf War commanders ordered unnecessary air strikes on Iraq, because of faulty intelligence data. The report was a comprehensive assessment of the war which it called "an impressive military victory." But it also said that the scope of the air campaign outstripped the established system for collecting and reporting intelligence. At times, this led to unnecessary re-strikes. Meanwhile, a classified version of the assessment reportedly states that the Stealth attack jet was considerably less accurate than originally reported. The Washington Post said today that the Air Force F-117A Stealth attack jets placed laser-guided bombs on just 60 percent of their targets, rather than the 90 percent, as the Air Force said during the war. Reports said the Navy's Tomahawk Cruise missiles hit slightly more than half their intended targets, rather than 85 percent.

MR. MacNeil: Russian President Boris Yeltsin today moved to silence his hard line critics and preserve his power. In an impromptu speech to Russian lawmakers, he promised to soften his free market reforms. He also said he would give up the post of prime minister by the end of the year. The tactic appeared to have worked. Minutes after the speech, Yeltsin won lawmakers' approval of a key treaty to hold together the diverse regions of the huge Russian federation. Ethnic battles flared again today out inside Bosnia-Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav republic which earlier this week won international recognition. Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News narrates our report.

MS. BATES: For many towns in Bosnia-Herzegovina, independence has meant a surge in fighting and many deaths. Almost constant shelling has left a trail of destruction. Determined to enforce their will, the Serb militias have turned their guns on Muslim towns in Eastern Bosnia. Hundreds are feared killed inthe never ending bombardment. As a result, thousands are fleeing their homes to escape the war. These Jewish families from Sarajevo, worn down by endless of explosions and gunfire, have simply had enough. Despite an uncertain future, they wait patiently for flights to take them to Belgrade and relative safety. Bosnia's embattled President Isabegelvich pleaded for international help to stem the eruption of violence. He called upon his Serbian counterpart, Slobovodan Milosovitch, to call off his troops and to put an end to the terror. Isabegelvich has always sought to avoid open confrontation with the federal army, but fury is mounting over Belgrade's support for Serbian territorial seizures. The President has ordered the formation of a Bosnian army to defend the republic. But he must know a quick settlement is unlikely. Bosnia's terrified citizens seem already to have given up hope.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush called for outside pressure on Peru today to restore democracy in that nation. He said he was very concerned at Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori's decision last weekend to suspend the constitution and jail opposition leaders. He said economic sanctions against Peru were among options under consideration. A volcano erupted in Nicaragua overnight, prompting the government to declare a state of emergency. Lava and ash shot hundreds of feet in the air. The volcano is about 40 miles North of the Nicaraguan capital of Managua. At least 800 people were evacuated from villages along its slopes during the day. And that's our summary of the news. Just ahead on the NewsHour, parliamentary returns, congressional departures, and Gergen & Shields. FOCUS - RULING BRITANNIA

MR. MacNeil: We begin tonight with a political story with a different twist. It comes from Britain. Unlike angry voters in American primaries, in recent European elections, the British electorate decided not to pummel its incumbent officeholders and ruling party. Defying pre-election polls, the Conservative Party of Prime Minister John Major came out on top. The Conservatives won almost as big a share of the popular vote as they did with Margaret Thatcher five years ago. They lost 33 seats in the House of Commons, but kept enough for a comfortable majority. The losers were the Labor Party of Neil Kinnock and the Liberal Democrats, who had hoped to win enough new seats to force a coalition government. Michael Brunston of Independent Television News reports from London on the morning after reactions there.

MR. BRUNSTON: It was his moment of triumph, of victory.

JOHN MAJOR, Prime Minister, Britain: I'm absolutely delighted with the outcome of the general election. May I say, firstly, that I feel deeply honored to have been given the opportunity of continuing the work I've started in the last 16 months.

MR. BRUNSTON: Later, a present from Mr. Major from some very small boys with police assistance, and then there was the prime minister again, no photo opportunity to be missed today, all in the greatest possible contrast to the arrival back at his West London home of the leader of the Labor Party. The word is that Mr. Kinnock and his wife, Glennis, feel that they've taken enough punishment, that only huge persuasion by others will change Mr. Kinnock's decision to step down. About his future he only said today that it would be long and wonderful.

MR. KINNOCK: It's going to be long and wonderful.

MR. BRUNSTON: And the Liberal Democrats -- applause greet their positively last appearance on their campaign battle platform in London. They'd hoped to increase their share of the vote and their number of MP's; they did neither. But party leader Paddy Ashdown and campaign director Des Wilson refused to be gloomy.

PADDY ASHDOWN, Liberal Democratic Party: I think we've got -- that we have returned to having a powerful third party in this country, and that is steady and consistent.

MR. MacNeil: This afternoon I talked with three British political analysts in London. Hugo Young is a political columnist with the Guardian and the author of a biography of Margaret Thatcher entitled "The Iron Lady." Sir Peregrine Worsthorne is a political columnist and former editor of the Sunday Telegraph. And joining us from another studio in London is Shirley Williams. She's the former Labor Party cabinet minister who helped create the Social Democratic Party in the early 1980s. She's now a member of the Liberal Democratic Party. She's also a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard University. Mrs. Williams, how do you explain this result that appears to have surprised everyone?

MS. WILLIAMS: It's a very strange result. I think up until last weekend it was fairly clearly on course for a Conservative defeat and probably a balanced parliament, a hung parliament, between the three parties. What happened at the weekend, I think, was that the message from the Conservatives that a vote for the Liberal Democrats might let in the Labor Party, combined with a feeling that a labor government might be a very uncertain outcome, led a great many disgruntled Conservatives, people who are fed up with the poll tax and the national health service reforms and so on, to go back to the Conservative Party. So what we've seen in the last three or four days is a movement back to the Conservative Party, one that neither the pollsters, nor, indeed, the analysts had for one moment expected to happen.

MR. MacNeil: Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, do you see it that way?

SIR WORSTHORNE: I think it is almost inconceivable that a neo Kinnock government could win in the middle of a recession, because neo Kinnock and Labor are a very unlikely group of people to get Britain out of the recession. I think the polls got it wrong. I think the media got it wrong. three months ago, everybody would have said -- everybody would have agreed unanimously -- it was absolute to the conventional wisdom that there was no way that Labor could overturn the Tory -- the Tories' immense majority in one fell swoop. They'd have to have two elections to do that. Then suddenly the polls started telling us that the spring was going to be sufficient and people were stupid enough to believe it and to be surprised by the result. I think the result is not nearly as bad for Labor as the media is suggesting. I think they did as well as they possibly could. So I don't think it's a surprising or a sensational result.

MR. MacNeil: Hugo Young, were the polls wrong, or did people change their minds at the last minute?

MR. YOUNG: I tend to think the polls were wrong. I'm sure some people changed their minds at the last minute. But the polls were so wrong at the very end -- I mean, the polls were wrong 24 hours before the vote -- which suggests to me that the polls have been all over the place all the way through and that although I'm sure that the Conservative pointing out that if you voted liberal Democrats you might let Labor in had an effect, I think that actually, that, in a sense, Perry is right, that somewhere below the surface this was an election which I was the very last to say so, but I know see that the Tories were really very likely to win. I disagree with Perry though when he says that it's not bad for the Labor Party. I think it's catastrophic for the Labor Party. And I think actually that the Labor Party, as we now know it, is probably finished. And what will now happen on the left of politics here is edging towards some very necessary revision of the relationships between the divided left.

MR. MacNeil: Well, tell me what you think's going to happen immediately to Mr. Kinnock. I mean, he had bravely led -- and at some cost -- led the party away from its socialist coloring more into the main stream as a Social Democratic Party. What's going to happen to him?

MR. YOUNG: Mr. Kinnock has said that he will announce on Monday what he's going to do. And everybody's reading that as saying that he's going to go. He may not go immediately. He may, in fact, say that he doesn't intend to lead labor into the next election, which is a sort of a convenient or polite way of saying he will stay until the next party conference in the autumn and allow quite a long time for a race to develop between probably three or four, even five different contenders. But I think Kinnock has served his time and he's done something which I think history will praise him quite highly for, but he cannot really fight two elections and lose them and expect to survive.

MR. MacNeil: Shirley Williams, do you think the Labor Party is finished as a party of the left and is now going to have to remake itself? Shirley Williams, could you hear me? Peregrine Worsthorne.

SIR WORSTHORNE: I think that Mr. Kinnock will almost certainly go, and by going, the process of modernization of the Labor Party will be completed. I think this is the essential condition of Labor being a serious party. And in some ways, I think it's better for Labor that they lost because I think they would have inherited a poison chalice. By losing, they are going to be able to get rid of Kinnock. And Kinnock was their great liability. Although the media like to pretend that the public might accept him as a leader in a recession, in a bad economic time, there was never a chance in hell that that was possible. Getting rid of Kinnock completes the process, which makes Labor an electable party. Now I quite agree with Hugo, Hugo Young, that there will be some kind of an adjustment between the Labor Party and the Liberal Democratic Party, there will be a new party not of the left but of the left of center. And it will be probably still called the Labor Party. It may be a -- they'll find a new -- I don't think they'll change the name even. I think this is good news for the Labor Party. I think if they'd won, they'd be in a disastrous position, rather like the last Labor government in the middle of the great recession of the late 1920s and early '30s. But I don't think it's bad news. I think they'll complete the process of modernization and be back fighting for the next election.

MR. MacNeil: Well, if that's the case for the Labor Party, what about the right wing of the Tory Party? Mrs. Thatcher said after the election this means that her policies have been vindicated, in so many words, and will continue. Is she right? Does this election vindicate her policies?

MR. YOUNG: No, I don't think it does. I mean, I think she's a figure of the past. I mean, some of her policies are still in place. Some of her policies, like the poll tax, were wrecked, were destroyed by John Major, and had they not been destroyed, the Tories would have been in terrible trouble and equally, Mrs. Thatcher, herself, would still be leader. I think that may be the one circumstance in which what Perry regards as inconceivable, namely Kinnock winning, might have actually occurred. But Mrs. Thatcher now recedes -- if the Tories had lost then a great debate would have broken out in the Tory Party about what sort of party it was. But that's now all over. And I think Major's carrying it inevitably somewhat more towards the center.

SIR WORSTHORNE: I think it's perfectly true that this is not a vindication of Thatcherism. Listening to the rhetoric of the Tory politicians in this election, they blunted all the cutting edge of Thatcherism in every particular and I don't think that the next government, the next Tory government under Major, will be remotely Thatcherized, except in one very important particular so far as the United States is concerned. I think it may make it easier for Mr. Major to be strong against a federal Europe if he wishes that to be the case. Quite a lot of anti-European federalists are now sitting on these back benches as a result of this election. And I think since he's a man of no great principles, himself, about Europe or about anything else, I think he'll respond to that pressure. I think the European Community federal path is now a dead duck. You can forget about European political and economic unity. The sooner the better in my book, but I think his election may put the kibosh on it.

MR. MacNeil: Hugo Young, do you agree with that?

MR. YOUNG: I think that the Tories are more concerned about Euro federalism and Major showed that at the Mastrik summit. I think that there are other reasons too why the federalist path is slowed down, I mean, all that's happening inside the community, the need to bring in new members, the recurrent crisis now coming once again to a head about its own finances.

MR. MacNeil: So it isn't only the British election which might - -

MR. YOUNG: No.

MR. MacNeil: -- as Peregrine Worsthorne suggests, slow down --

MR. YOUNG: The debate has begun post Mastrik really, particularly in Germany, which we had before Mastrik.

MR. MacNeil: If Mr. Major has his own mandate and is now clear of Thatcher's ideological shadow, what will we see him do apart from the European question, what will we see him do to strike out on his own, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne?

SIR WORSTHORNE: I don't think you will see him doing very much too strike out on his own because he hasn't got an own. You will see a lot of consensus government and that is rather my fear. You'll get the Tory Party and the Labor Party being almost indistinguishable in their policies. You'll get very little dynamic novelty from either side. You've got a political correct consensus developing in this country as you have in the United States. I don't find this more than cause for two, or at any rate one and a half cheers. I don't think he'll do anything. I think we're going to be with a government that is rather in a condition, a political and ideological stagnation. And we're going to look, insofar as we get out of the recession, to other countries to do it for us. So I see for a period, at any rate, British politics being rather dull, nothing being initiated, no new excitements, and possibly regression into rather an unexciting and, indeed, rather unconstructive period.

MR. MacNeil: Shirley Williams, I'm sorry we lost you there for a bit. You're back with us. What do you think, with his own mandate and out of Thatcher's shadow we will see from Major now? You just heard what Peregrine Worsthorne said?

MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I don't agree with Peregrine at all. I think that he has -- he, Peregrine, has simply dismissed the fact that there were clearly very grave doubts about Conservative policy under Thatcher which were expressed very clearly in this election, doubts particularly about her imposition of the poll tax, about her approach to questions of constitutional democracy, about her approach to the national health service, about her approach to education, not least about her very, very centralizing and somewhat dictatorial approach from White Hall towards the problems of the country. And I think many people feel that Mr. Major has reverted to a rather more noble style, he's gone back to something of a more moderate Conservative style, a one nation style. And although I personally would like to have seen a change in government, because I think a country like this one depends very deeply on an alternate government in order to retain its democracy, we have no constitutional underpinnings like the United States, almost everything depends upon a balance between government and opposition, and the fact that the one can replace the other, nevertheless, having said that, Mr. Major's form of government is likely to be more acceptable to the British people. As for climbing out of recession, I think, frankly, that neither we nor Germany nor any other country has it entirely in our power to do so and what is happening in Japan may, in fact, be the most disturbing single thing to hang over the whole of the present politics. One other thing I'd like to say very quickly, and that is that I think there is now a very serious challenge facing the question of what the opposition will be in Britain. I think we're likely in the next few years to see a very considerable realignment of the opposition, probably with constitutional reform at its heart, and also with the question of our relations with Europe. And here the question of how far we go towards, for example, a more far going membership with the community, a more active membership with the community, is still very much, I think, a live issue.

MR. MacNeil: Hugo Young, what do you see Major doing now that he has his own mandate? And how will we notice a difference, if any?

MR. YOUNG: Well, I think you have to remember this is a very conservative country, conservative with a small "c," and that's what to me this election has reminded us, that despite the apparent signs that the government wasn't going to ride out politically the recession, it has done so. The country should turn to a Conservative government with a conservative, small "c" leader, that is to say somebody who is not a radical. We've had our radical phase under Mrs. Thatcher. A lot of things are set in train. A lot of them are not completed. Reforms of all the social services, more privatizations, there's quite a lot to be done, which is pretty unexciting. But that's Major's nature and he's not that sort of person who really wants to stir the waters. His biggest idea of his own in the 16 months he was prime minister was something called a "citizens' charter," which is a series of rather sort of PR-based, public relations-based statements of well meaning intent about how to satisfy the voters and the customers better. That is not a big idea, but it's the biggest idea Major had.

SIR WORSTHORNE: It's really more a question, I think, that what won't happen as a result of Labor not being elected. The present programs for reforming the national health service and our educational system will go ahead. If Labor had won the election, the would have been put into reverse and we would have had another great upheaval. So I think it's really allowing certain policies to continue that would be the result, rather than initiating new and different policies.

MR. MacNeil: All right. Well, we have to leave it there. Shirley Williams, Peregrine Worsthorne and Hugo Young, thank you all for joining us.

MS. WOODRUFF: Still ahead, back in the U.S., congressional dropouts and the political week that was. FOCUS - UPHILL BATTLE

MS. WOODRUFF: Next tonight, should rank have its privileges? Members of Congress and the Executive Branch have been on the defensive for the last several weeks. On Capitol Hill there have been scandals involving the House bank and post office, among other things. Congress, in turn, has been trying to shift attention to the White House, ordering investigations of questionable Executive Branch spending. At his Rose Garden press conference this afternoon, President Bush addressed the furor over the perks and privileges of official Washington.

PRES. BUSH: As head of the Executive Branch, we should cooperate with the committees of Congress, and I will instruct -- have instructed our people to do just that. But as I end this press conference, I would make this non-objective note, take this note. It seems to me very funny that all of a sudden faced with the outrage of the American people not on cars, not on how much a hamburger costs in the Senate restaurant, but on fundamental problems with an institution that was manifested in so many ways recently, the Congress now starts saying, well, what's it cost -- how many calligraphers do you have making out cards for a state dinner in the White House -- and we want to respond to these questions. But I want to keep the focus where fundamentally it belongs, on the need for genuine reform, reform that is necessary because of the laxity of one party control of the House of Representatives for, what, 48 out of the last 52 years. And that's the thing that concerns the American people. They are very concerned about it. And we have made suggestions. And I'd mention some of them today, that Congress ought to live by the same laws they make you and me live by. And we've put forward legislation to do that. I happen to think the time has come for term limitations as well. I'd like to see changes along the lines suggested by Sen. Boren, a Democrat, Congressman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, in the procedures of the Senate and the House. I'd like to see that taken care of. And so we're talking about fundamental change and reform that is clearly needed and some up there, not all the Congressmen - - because I think some are addressing themselves seriously to reform, and some are saying, oh, we'll get them. They're talking about the trip I took to some Timbucktoo on a jet, let's go find out how many calligraphers there, guys mowing the grass at the White House, and we'll try to respond as fully as we can. But let's keep the sites set on what fundamentally needs reform and change.

MS. WOODRUFF: Much of the talk about change and reform comes from the members of Congress, themselves, who have their own ideas about what should be done to make Congress more effective. This week, two more prominent members announced their retirements, Republican Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota and Democratic Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado. Contributing Correspondent Roger Mudd looks at the reasons why so many members feel they've worn out their welcome in Washington.

MR. MUDD: The Congress is, without doubt, easier to make fun of than any other part of government. From the beginning, it has been fodder for the comedians. Mark Twain once called it "America's only native criminal class." Artimus Ward, the 19th century humorist, used to say, "I am not a politician and my other habits are also good." But for many, the jokes, the abuse, and the ridicule are starting to overwhelm. Listen to four members of the Congress assess the current morale. Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: Not very high right now.

MR. MUDD: Why not?

SEN. BYRD: Because of all of the attention that's being given to so-called "perks."

MR. MUDD: Democratic Rep. Daniel Rostenkowski of Illinois.

REP. DANIEL ROSTENKOWSKI: Well, it's at a new low; there's no question about that. I think that, you know, we're disorganized. We're trying to put programs together that we can get 219 votes on and it's very difficult. Members, you know, would like to be positive, but there's so much in-fighting. And really, I've never in the 34 years that I've been here, I've never seen so much politics as opposed to progress.

MR. MUDD: Democratic Sen. David Boren of Oklahoma.

SEN. DAVID BOREN, [D] Oklahoma: It's almost too depressing a task. I think I've never seen such a level of frustration. First of all, there's a feeling on the part of those that are serious members -- and there are a lot of people here that are serious that came here because they wanted to make a contribution. That's how they wanted to spend their lives. They came here with a lot of idealism and they had the frustration that they're working very hard every day, spending long hours, that when the day is over, they look at themselves in the mirror and say, have I really made a difference, have we really weighed in on the big issues of the day.

MR. MUDD: Republican Representative Jerry Solomon of New York.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, [R] New York: Well, the morale is very bad. I've been here since 1978 and to be perfectly frank with you, Roger, I almost feel like throwing in the towel because it's just -- all of your effort seems to go by the board and you don't seem to be able to accomplish what you were sent here to do.

MR. MUDD: What is Congress's problem? What makes it so vulnerable? There are a hundred reasons -- the ancient ways of doing business, the archaic forms of address, the arcane rules, the institutional inability to lead, the Byzantine committee structure.

SEN. DAVID BOREN: We're fragmented. We have, the average Senator, for example, belongs to 16 committees and subcommittees, most of which are all meeting at the same time. And so you're racing from one place to the next trying to do damage control and you don't have time to sit, reflect, talk together, and work out plans on the big questions about what do we do about the budget deficit, how do we revitalize our education committee, what do we do about decaying inner cities; these problems just go by the boards, while we deal with minutia.

MR. MUDD: Life on the Hill, of course, has not been made any easier by the past three Presidents; Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, who not only campaigned against Congress, but once in office regularly belittle the Congress.

PRES. RONALD REAGAN: [addressing Bush in 1988] From experience, I can tell you there will be a lot of meetings with congressional leadership in which you can use that.

PRES. BUSH: [March, 1992] It is time for Congress to either lead, to follow, or simply get out of the way.

MR. MUDD: Add to Presidential scapegoating an ailing economy for which some voters blame the Congress, further depressing its image.

SEN. BOREN: When you're really worrying about whether you're going to have a roof over your head, whether you can pay your mortgage, whether your health insurance has lapsed because you've lost your job, when you're worrying about maybe your company is downsizing, you might be the next person to lose your job, of course, you become more angry, you become more irritable, you see the problems that are out there.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, [D] Illinois: They're frustrated and they're taking it out on their public officials. And I think that - - you know, this isn't exclusively the Congress of the United States. This is everybody, every legislative body. These are the presence of the county board. Anybody that's talking about raising real estate taxes. People are just down on us because, one, they don't feel secure.

MR. MUDD: But what makes the Congress most vulnerable is the conduct of the members, themselves, their fear of talking the truth.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, [R] New York: You know, too many members of Congress go back home, they talk one game and come back down here and vote another. I think if you really want to see how this is affecting the members of Congress today, a few months ago, the Congress overwhelmingly passed a so-called "economic growth package bill." It went to the President; the President vetoed it; and when it came back, members of Congress now are becoming so nervous that a great many of them that voted for that tax increase package then voted to sustain the President's veto. That's how scared they are.

MR. MUDD: There is also their willing dependence on campaign money from the Political Action Committees, the PAC's.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD, [D] West Virginia: The American people do not understand to the extent that their elected representatives are in hawk to the special interests groups in this country. Watch how they vote when the pressure's on. And why do they vote that way? Because of the campaign contributions that they have to have if they are going to continue in public service. They spend too much time away from Washington and in Washington in the evenings raising money, running around with a tin cup in their hand, so to speak, staying away from their families, staying away from the committees, staying off the floor.

SEN. DAVID BOREN, [D] Oklahoma: The Political Action Committees right now, for example, are pouring the money in. They're giving to incumbents 15 times as much as challengers. So what happens is you have people trying to please little tiny narrow special interest groups because that's where the money's going to come from to finance the next campaign and fewer and fewer people looking at the big picture about what needs to be done for the interests of the nation.

SPOKESMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am upset that Mr. Archer has attempted to drag us into what appears to be bickering.

MR. MUDD: In addition, the Congress seems preoccupied not so much with issues as with staying in office.

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: We've got a contingent of Republicans that have only one idea and that is to take, take charge of the House of Representatives. We have Democrats that only have one idea, and that is to win the White House, and so it's in-fighting all the time. You know, I've been here since Eisenhower and never have I seen it so adversarily exhibited. I mean, it's just -- it's constant fighting.

MR. MUDD: And after decades of protecting their perks, their perquisites of office, the Congress has now embarked on what the New York Times has called "an orgy of self-abnegation."

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: Well, I talked to the Speaker this morning. Get rid of all the perks. I mean, don't lower the perks to a degree, because as long as you keep the perk, it's a perk. Get rid of them.

MR. MUDD: You said it to him?

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: Well, you know something, Roger. Yes, I did. I don't have a car to park in the garage. I don't use the gym. I don't get my haircuts here and if I do, I get one a year. And when I get it, I go out in the audience and I say, this is a $3 haircut and most of the people will say, it's not worth it. But the fact of the matter is, as long as the people are down on us and, you know, we can do without 'em , get rid of 'em.

MR. MUDD: Would you think that just flatly all perks ought to be abolished?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: I think for the most part perks ought to be abolished. There are many of us that don't accept those perks today. But, again, Congress has just built itself a situation where they sort of put themselves ahead of the American people. And they shouldn't do that.

MR. MUDD: Now, looking at your wall, that's what we call the "ego wall," now, all those photographs came from the framing shop in the House carpentry office, didn't they?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: Yes, they did.

MR. MUDD: Is that a perk?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: That's a perk.

MR. MUDD: That's free to you, isn't it?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: That's a perk that's free to me.

MR. MUDD: Should you pay for that yourself, do you think?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: Yes, sir, and many of us have in many ways.

MR. MUDD: Did you pay for those?

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: I've paid for many of those pictures, yes, I have.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Perks should be done away with where there are real perks. When I said "so-called perks," I mean in relation to the real problems that confront the institution and the real problems that confront the nation. Perks, these are buzzwords. There are perks -- if you're talking about free haircuts, we don't have 'em. But haircuts that we buy for less than the average citizen out there pays for it is a perk. We ought to do away with that and we're doing away with it.

MR. MUDD: As President pro tem you have a car and a driver, do you not?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Yes, I do.

MR. MUDD: Is that a perk?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Some people may think so.

MR. MUDD: Do you?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Well, it may be, but let's take a look at that. President pro tempore is a constitutional officer. He's fourth in line for the Presidency of the United States. He has a lot of work to do and I consider that to be a necessity. I think if the American people could be made to understand that most members of Congress are honest, they're hard working. They reflect the kind of people who send us here. The people out there still retain their old values. Most of here do. I don't go to the restaurants and eat. I bring my little brown bag every day. I don't go to the gyms and exercise. I get my exercise working, mopping the floors at home, vacuuming the floors at home. I work and I study. I don't watch junk television. I don't go to the junk movies. I don't play golf. I don't play tennis. All that's all right for those who like it, but I work. There are a lot of people here just like me.

MR. MUDD: Everybody has their personal list of congressional high points, the House impeachment hearings on Richard Nixon.

SEN. NUNN: What guarantees do we have that war will be brief?

MR. MUDD: The Senate's debate on declaring war against Iraq. But woven in and around the high points are dozens of base and embarrassing moments that have further eroded the public's confidence in government. What else explains the public opinion polls that revealed for the first time less than half of the citizens now approve of their own Congressman.

WOMAN ON STREET: He's not looking out for us; he's just looking out for his own welfare, you know. He's trying to enrich his life.

MR. MUDD: What else explains the spreading belief that life on Capitol Hill may not be worth living? Dozens of members have said they will not seek re-election, including Republican Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire.

SEN. WARREN RUDMAN, [R] New Hampshire: [March 25, 1992] So you say to people, well, look, let's 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. MUDD: Where to begin to explain what David Boren calls the downhill slide of Congress? Begin just after Watergate when the congressional reform movement swept away much of the power held by the leadership and the committee chairman. That, in turn, caused party discipline to atrophy, which resulted in 535 individual members practicing the politics of personal survival.

REP. ROSTENKOWSKI: I think we've all become independent contractors. Members of Congress now have their own PAC's. They don't belong to the Democratic Party. We haven't the team effort exhibited in what we're trying to do. Members will not support a program that has long range ramifications. The people, the American people, are not satisfied with long range plannings. They're impatient. And so what we do is here we do the quick fix.

MR. MUDD: In the opinion of some members, the televising of Congress has done little to raise the level of discourse, but has, instead, put on national display endless hours of mindless quorum calls and incessant bickering.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON: A great segment of the American people now have been able to see Congress in action. And I think they're beginning to realize that there are serious problems down here. And I can tell from my correspondence which you can see on this desk that I'm getting letters from all over the country from people who are really upset and disturbed at what they see, at the partisan bickering which leads to no answers and no results.

MR. MUDD: Most recently, the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill show put on by one of the Senate's most learned committees, the Judiciary Committee, was by most every account mishandled and showed a dozen Senators at their windiest. Add to that what seems to many on Capitol Hill to be a mood of pervasive, self-indulgence.

SEN. DAVID BOREN: The underlying disease is that we're misorganized, we have become bloated over a long period of time in terms of our own bureaucracy, in terms of more and more benefits to members. Everything is geared toward incumbency, toward keeping people here, toward the re-election, toward getting patronage. People want subcommittees so they can add three or four more of their friends to their staff for that subcommittee. And it's a sign of power. And what happened with the House bank, well, this is just sort of one step from that to say, yes, and we ought to have our own bank and yes, we ought to have our own medical clinic and yes, we ought to have our own this and our own that.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: The people perceive this institution as an institution in which we're all highly paid and we don't do our work. And that's true.

MR. MUDD: It's true that you don't do your work?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: We don't spend enough time on the job. We're well paid. We ought to be here five days a week at least three weeks out of every month, and we ought to have votes every day. There's a lot of oversight work to be done here. There's plenty of work to be done.

MR. MUDD: So why isn't it being done?

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Mainly because of the money chase.

MR. MUDD: Over the past two or three years, the Congress has been pummeled by one ethical or moral lapse after another; the forced resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright, the formal denunciation of Republican Sen. Duremberger for reprehensible financial misconduct, the reprimand of Democrat Barney Frank of Massachusetts for misusing his office to help a male prostitute, the resignation of Republican Buzz Lukens of Ohio, following new allegations of sexual misconduct, the forced retirement of Democratic Senator Brock Adams of Washington, following allegations by at least a dozen women of improper and unwanted sexual advances, the Senate Ethics Committee's investigation of the so-called "Keating Five," five U.S. Senators caught up in the savings & loan scandal, accused of allowing Charles Keating's political contributions to influence their behavior, and finally, the House bank scandal, spreading fear and panic among members who find themselves unable to explain how they can run the country, but can't keep their own bank account straight. The congressional response so far has been a lot of hand wringing, the appointment of a bipartisan task force, the tightening up of some selected perks, and the launching of a full scale investigation of the perks at George Bush's White House. But the jokes keep coming, even from within. Republican Congressman Fred Grandy of Iowa said the other day, "It's a shame the way 90 percent of the members keep ruining it for the rest of us." FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MS. WOODRUFF: And now to discuss the Congress, the President, and maybe the primaries, we have our Friday night regulars, Gergen & Shields. That's David Gergen, editor at large at U.S. News & World Report, and syndicated Mark Shields. Mark, why are so many prominent members of Congress stepping down? I mean, you saw Roger's really comprehensive piece. What can we add to what we heard there?

MR. SHIELDS: I think there's a whole host of reasons, Judy. First of all, you've got some Congressmen who've been redistricted into districts that are no longer hospitable for retiring, that you've also got the fact that this is the last year that someone can convert their campaign funds to personal use, which I think is a minor consideration.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is that what they're all doing?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, those who have it can avail themselves of it. They could pay taxes on it. But I think the overriding reason, above all of this, is it isn't fun anymore. It really isn't fun anymore. I mean, people who run for Congress are just like the rest of us, only maybe a little bit different. They want to be liked. All of us want to be liked. They want to be respected in what they do. They don't want their family abused. And increasingly, the job of a member of Congress has become a job where one is subject to abuse, that it isn't fun. There is gridlock between the Executive and the Legislative. You don't get things done. You don't feel you're really making a difference. And I think the money thing by itself, I think Sen. Byrd, if anything, understated, the constant tip cupping, where you're spending so much of your time, as Jerry Brown puts it, with the top 1 percent of the people who have the ability and the capacity to give a thousand dollars, and they usually give it with some influence or some interest in mind.

MS. WOODRUFF: And as Sen. Byrd said, they're doing that instead of spending time on the people's business.

MR. GERGEN: The hardest problem -- I think exactly what Mark has just said and what Roger said in his piece -- it comes down in my judgment to the fact it's not fun because they're in paralysis and they recognize they're sent here to do things for the country and they're not making progress. And to me -- and I think Mark agrees basically with this thesis -- it basically -- they're in paralysis because we've had a divided government so long and a divided government is not working.

MS. WOODRUFF: You mean a Republican dominated White House.

MR. GERGEN: We have had for most of our adult lives now a Republican controlling the White House, the Democrats controlling the Congress, and most people in this country, 2/3 of the people in this country consistently say they think that's a good idea, they'd like it that way. For instance, in the last election in Ohio in 1988, Sen. Metzenbaum was up for re-election. 35 percent of the people who voted for Sen. Metzenbaum, a liberal Democrat, also pulled the lever for George Bush, a conservative Republican candidate for the Presidency. Now, it's because citizens at large somehow think this works. We're now learning not only does it not work, it's an enemy of progress. Nothing -- you know, you're far better off to have one party basically running both institutions I think and I think it becomes less important which party -- at least that if somebody's in charge, somebody's accountable. There's nobody accountable in this system.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, we've gotten what, fifty some odd and counting who've already said now they're not going to run for re- election?

MR. SHIELDS: Yes.

MS. WOODRUFF: I mean, how much further is this going to go? I mean, some really prominent members -- Sen. Wirth -- we've heard the name --

MR. SHIELDS: Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado, Vin Weber.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- Sen. Conrad, Congressman Vin Weber.

MR. SHIELDS: Vin Weber, the conservative, respected conservative, able conservative, from Minnesota, had written 125 bad checks and he said very candidly he was going to through a vicious, negative, highly personal campaign. He thought he could win it but he just questioned whether the game was worth the candle, I mean, whether going through that -- he's got two small children -- whether putting the family through that for another whole eight months was really going to be worth it.

MR. GERGEN: That's absolutely right. When Sen. Dixon went down in Illinois in the primary here a few weeks ago, that hit many people on the Hill like Tim Wirth like a tidal wave because they recognized then that nobody is safe this election year. And what they're hearing from consultants in many instances is if you want to win this year, you can't run on your record; you have to run by gutting your opponent, by running a terribly tough, negative campaign. And people like Vin Weber, and I think Tim Wirth, who shares the kind of respect Vin Weber has in the conservative Republican side, Tim Wirth is very respected on the Democratic side, and very respected in this town, and good people are now leaving the Congress because of the atmosphere that's out there and because the voters are so whipped up and so angry they think the way to channel that anger is to go after the other guy, to gut him.

MR. SHIELDS: I would add just one thing to that, and I think it is part -- the Congress is not separate from the nation. There is a pessimism abroad in the nation. There is a sense that our economic destiny is beyond our control, that America's preeminence is slipping away from us, and that -- what is different this time - - there is not a sense that if we just change things, it's going to be better; if we get rid of these bums, it's going to be better in the future. And I think that the pessimism has infected the congressional process, the political process, but it's reflective of the entire population. Right now, close to 60 percent of Americans believe our nation's in a state of permanent decline and that's reflected in our politics and in the gridlock that David described. The gridlock was not -- has been there, but it wasn't as obvious in 1988 when things appeared to be going pretty good in the country.

MR. GERGEN: I think that's right and what's ironic is that Tim, who Wirth has announced this week that he would not seek re- election, was part of the class that came in just after Watergate. He was part of that reform class that came in, idealistic, determined to change the system. And now the reformers of an earlier generation are leaving. They bang their head against the wall and they've had too hard a time and say, I've had enough.

MS. WOODRUFF: At his press conference today, President Bush complained about the perks in the Executive Branch being equated with the perks in Congress. And he said, I mean, is he right? Is there a difference between a member of Congress getting a cheap haircut and their having 12 gardeners at the White House?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I could tell you this as a journalist. I mean, it is far more approachable as the House of Representatives than any other institution. I mean, you go up there. Members are there. They're available. They're available to people. You go over to the White House and even the third assistant director of communications has got four assistants in front of him or her. You've got to get by nine guards to get near him. I think there is a certain imperial Presidency that has grown up and the perks, I don't think people think of the perks in the same way, probably toward the President. No one wants to deprive the President of medical help, certainly not this President, of any medical attention, and nobody wants to say that the President shouldn't have a place to live and all the rest. We expect that of a President. But I think Dick Darman, the Management & Budget Director, giving up his car and his driver this week was a symbolic act.

MS. WOODRUFF: And Sec. Jim Baker, the Secretary of State, giving up --

MR. SHIELDS: The discovery -- discovering other --

MS. WOODRUFF: -- a personal plane -- I mean, a government plane to go off on personal trips.

MR. GERGEN: Well, given the craziness up Congress, they need more doctors up there to deal with all that, but I didn't quite understand that business about the President and the doctor --

MR. SHIELDS: We want the President to be healthy.

MR. GERGEN: Yes, I would agree with that. There is no question - - and Mark's made this point many times before -- he's been making this equation many times before -- is that there are large perquisites in the White House and the Executive Branch. There's no question that some of them have been abused. Witness John Sununu and his plane flights. We had a story this week about the --

MS. WOODRUFF: Vice President Quayle, golf trips.

MR. GERGEN: I don't know why somebody doesn't call that off, because the taxpayers should not be paying extra money for him to go out and play golf.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Vice President said yesterday it was entirely within the rules and regulations.

MR. GERGEN: It is entirely within the rules and regulations. It's not what people expect. It is not important what people traditionally think of as the public trust, and that's what's gotten people -- I mean, at the very time when people here in Washington are starting to lecture poor people in this country about welfare reform --

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GERGEN: -- and all the abuses that are going on in the system here among people in the upper crust, it does -- those moral lectures simply do not go down well with a lot of people in this country.

MS. WOODRUFF: There's been -- just in connection with this -- there have been several stories this week about so-called "disarray" inside the White House and it may be that some of this that you've been talking about may be part of this. Today the President emphatically said this is not true, the stories are wrong. Is there more there behind the scenes going on, Mark, David?

MR. SHIELDS: Judy, the President of the United States fell to 39 percent favorable, he's got over 50 percent unfavorable in the polls; his chief of staff is under siege and attack and criticism; tension between his campaign and his White House staff, indecision in the White House, everyone of those stories was written in the spring of 1980 about Jimmy Carter. Everyone of them is being written about George Bush right now. I mean, there is, there is tension, there is friction. When things don't go well, they don't go well. And it's feeding upon itself and I think there is - - I return to what David has said -- there is not -- it comes to the President. He has yet to chart a course. This is a man who's won a succession of primaries undefeated by ever expanding margins and he's watched his favorable/unfavorable ratings in the country since Christmas drop by 21 percent. And I think it's just -- it's a lack of leadership and I think if we had that leadership, I think there'd be a lot less bickering going on.

MS. WOODRUFF: So when the President says there's nothing to it, David?

MR. GERGEN: There is something to it. I just would say this. They had lots and lots of problems when they first made the chief of staff from John Sununu into Sam Skinner. Things were chaotic at that time. The morale was terribly depressed. We talked about it one night here on the show. I think it's modestly better than it is. I think things have settled some down but it has not settled down enough. I just want to come back to one point, lest we leave this -- Mark, my impressions -- and we've been here both a long time in this city now -- my impression is the quality of people in Congress in the Executive Branch, but I'd say with particular reference to Congress, the quality of people is better than it was 20 years ago and I think there are a lot of people in this town who are now anxious to have a better performance. I hope the American people don't read into this it's all hopeless. I don't think it is.

MS. WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there. We didn't get around to the Democratic Presidential candidates, but we will next time. We'll let you have something to say. Mark Shields, David Gergen, thank you both. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the major stories of this Friday, a suspected terrorist car bomb exploded in London's financial district, reportedly killing at least three people and injuring fifty. The Irish Republican Army had threatened to disrupt the British general elections. Prime Minister John Major's Conservative Party won an unprecedented fourth consecutive term in those elections yesterday. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Robin. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night with a discussion of the competing plans for reforming the nation's welfare system. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.