The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, the Congress overwhelmingly rejected its own 51 percent pay raise. Senate Republicans said there was no ground for disqualifying John Tower as Defense Secretary, the U.S. accused Israel of human rights violations in meeting the Palestinian uprising. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, the pay raise that didn't happen is our lead focus. Consumer Activist Ralph Nader, former Florida Sen. Lawton Chiles and Congressional Analyst Norman Ornstein join us. Then the debut of Dan Quayle. We have a report on how the man George Bush picked as his running mate is doing these days. Finally, in our black history month series, Charlayne Hunter-Gault with a television first, an interview with Camille Cosby, wife of comedian Bill Cosby. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Bowing to strong public pressure, both Houses of Congress today killed the 51 percent pay raise for themselves, federal judges and senior officials. The votes were overwhelming in both House and Senate against the recommendations of an independent commission that would have raised their wages from $89,500 to $135,000 a year. But in the House, some members did not give up without a fight.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, [D] Illinois: Failure to raise the pay of members of Congress, the Judiciary and senior administrative officials is irresponsible. We will lose good people in Congress, the young members trying to educate their children and maintain two residences. We will lose good judges. We will lose good people who administer programs affecting the lives of millions of people. The quality of work performed by all three branches of government will suffer because we don't have the guts to say what we're worth.

MR. MacNeil: Rostenkowski was one of only forty-eight Congressman to vote in favor of the pay raise in the overwhelming 380 to 48 vote. The White House said President Bush would abide by the wishes of Congress and sign the bill. Previously, like President Reagan, Bush supported the raises. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Bush administration officials today told the Associated Press that the President will send a budget to Congress this week that would freeze military spending at the level of inflation in order to help pay for new domestic programs. The President, himself, told Republican Senators at a luncheon on Capitol Hill today that his proposal would make a strong beginning toward fulfilling his major campaign promises.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Again, I'm under no illusions that it's going to keep everybody happy. Not everybody meeting in this room or in the room meeting down the hall there, or the Democrats, your counterparts in the Senate, but it's going to have some positive comments, it will keep my fundamental commitments made to the American people in terms of not going out there and raising taxes. It will make I think a strong beginning on some of the areas that a lot of us talked about in the past campaign, the environment and education and certainly anti-narcotics where some around this table have taken the national leadership. So it's a sound beginning and again, as I say, it will not be without controversy.

MS. WOODRUFF: One other purpose of the President's visit to Capitol Hill was to try to sell lawmakers on his package of proposals to assist the ailing savings & loan industry. While he was making his pitch, federal regulators announced today that they have begun to implement one part of it by taking control of more than 200 insolvent thrift institutions around the country which are still operating.

MR. MacNeil: The ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, and other Republicans said today that a new FBI report had turned up nothing to disqualify former Sen. John Tower from serving as Secretary of Defense, but this afternoon, Committee Chairman Sen. Sam Nunn of Georgia said he still had general concerns about the nomination. Last week, the committee held up a vote on Tower's confirmation pending the FBI investigation into new charges about his personal life and links to defense contractors. The White House said today that confirmation hearings for another controversial appointee, Lewis Sullivan, as Secretary of Health & Human Services, will begin on Thursday, but the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Lloyd Bentsen, said no date has been set. After questions about conflict of interest, Sullivan decided to give up his salary as President of the Morehouse School of Medicine which he founded in Atlanta.

MS. WOODRUFF: An annual U.S. Government report on human rights conditions around the world blames Israel for many avoidable deaths and a substantial increase in human rights violations last year. The report issued by theState Department said the increase was connected to the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Shortly after the report was made public, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Benjamin Nethanyahu defended Israeli soldiers, saying they maintain standards of conduct higher than any country in the world. Meanwhile, there was more violence in the occupied territories. We have a report from Tom Brown of Worldwide Television News.

TOM BROWN: The worst unrest in weeks erupted in East Jerusalem, when large numbers of Palestinians took to the streets. They threw stones, smashing shop windows and damaging cars. The authorities showed no relaxation of their iron fist policy. They retaliated against the demonstrators with rubber bullets and tear gas, forcing the Palestinians to disburse. Underground leaders had called for a day of confrontation with the Israelis. At the same time, many merchants staged a commercial strike, pulling down their shop shutters. The Israeli Defense Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, warned that Israel would not give into violence.

YITZHAK RABIN, Israeli Defense Minister: I was, I am ready for considerable territorial compromises for the sake of peace, but even I will oppose any, any idea to give into violence.

TOM BROWN: Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Moshe Arens said he had proof that the PLO is still a terrorist organization.

MOSHE ARENS, Israeli Foreign Minister: A group of terrorists belonging to the PLO were intercepted by an Israeli Army patrol just north of our border. The incident is a clear violation of the conditions that the United States established for contact with the PLO.

MS. WOODRUFF: At the State Department today, Spokesman Charles Redman said the U.S. will raise the issue of that alleged terrorist incident with PLO representatives in Tunis. Redman said the incident would have a negative impact on the recently begun dialogue between the U.S. and the PLO.

MR. MacNeil: The Soviet Union said today that up to 15,000 troops died in the Afghan War, 2000 more than it previously reported. A foreign ministry official in Moscow also reaffirmed that the Soviets would meet the February 15th troop withdrawal deadline. In Kabul, meanwhile, soldiers of the Soviet backed Najibullah government began defense of the capital without red army support for the first time in nine years. Paul Davies of Independent Television News reports.

PAUL DAVIES: Russian built tanks patrolling the Salang Highway this morning, the armored column provided by the Soviet Union but manned by Afghan government soldiers. This is one of President Najibullah's answers to the Russian withdrawal and the gaps it leaves in Kabul's defenses. Female party members have been encouraged to join neighborhood militia units. In a move seen as an admission that not all his forces can be relied upon, the President has formed an elite special guard. These are the troops who will guard key installations and probably the President himself. The government apparently confident they will be more than a match for the rebels. Despite all the weaponry supplied by the nations, the greatest ally of the Najibullah regime today is probably the weather, the harshest winter for 16 years, making life difficult for their own forces, but almost impossible for the Mujahadeen to make a concerted move on the capital.

MS. WOODRUFF: That wraps up our summary of the day's news. Just ahead on the Newshour, rejecting the federal pay raise, Vice President Quayle's international debut and a black history month conversation with Camille Cosby. FOCUS - QUAYLE'S DEBUT

MS.WOODRUFF: First tonight the coming out of a vice president. Few politicians in recent memory have been as belittled as Dan Quayle, the man George Bush chose as his running mate last summer. Not much was heard from Quayle after the election, but now that he had taken office and begun a more public schedule, including last week's trip to Latin America, we decided to look more closely at how he's doing and so we followed along. On the surface, the Dan Quayle who clinked glasses with Duarte seemed little changed from the Indiana Senator who one day last August bounded onto a platform in New Orleans to be introduced as a surprise choice for a running mate.

SEN. DAN QUAYLE: [August 1988] It is George Bush's America that we will work for, we will work hard, and believe me, we will win, because America cannot afford to lose.

MS. WOODRUFF: But in the six months since, the formerly little noticed Senator has been through the political equivalent of a torture chamber. Only hours after the choice of Quayle was announced, controversy erupted over his background, especially his avoidance of the war in Vietnam and his qualifications to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. The questions were exacerbated by Quayle's performance in the vice presidential debate with Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.

SEN. LLOYD BENTSEN: I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Democrats assumed they had been handed a huge advantage and they tried to exploit it.

DUKAKIS CAMPAIGN AD: After five months of reflection, George Bush made his personal choice, J. Danforth Quayle. Hopefully, we will never know how great a lapse of judgment that really was.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Democrats were won. Bush and Quayle won by a comfortable margin, but Quayle had been castigated like probably no vice president in history, not just by Democrats but by Republicans and scholars of government as well. Political Scientist Thomas Mann.

THOMAS MANN, Brookings Institution: There is just no question that Quayle is poorly qualified to be vice president. Compare him with George Bush, with Walter Mondale, Nelson Rockefeller, Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson. It's partly the fact that he appears even younger than 41 years, it's partly his experience in the House in the early years was not worthwhile, he didn't make any kind of a record in the House, and only began to develop a legislative reputation a couple of years into his Senate term.

MS. WOODRUFF: Friends say the politician who had led a charmed existence before was deeply hurt by the slings of the campaign, so much so that Quayle practically dropped out of sight after it was over. It didn't help matters that even some top Bush advisers continued to express little confidence in him. Alan Ryskind edits the conservative newsletter Human Events.

ALAN RYSKIND, Editor, Human Events: As soon as he was elected, the Bush people, the senior Bush aides, were suggesting that he was going to be kept in the closet and they said that he had bombed during the campaign, they didn't like what he was doing and that he was going to basically be kept in the closet and they were savaging him to the press.

MS. WOODRUFF: Quayle's staff insists that's an exaggeration but they acknowledge he had a lot to learn and say that's why he set up meetings with policy experts like Richard Nixon and Former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick who has known Quayle for several years.

JEANE KIRKPATRICK, Former U.N. Ambassador: Well, let me just say he's more knowledgeable about a whole range of weapons issues and treaty issues and verification issues, but, yes, he got up to speed I think by reading and by listening and he did a lot of listening to people, bringing in experts.

MS. WOODRUFF: Tom Duesterberg was Quayle's top aide in his Senate office.

TOM DUESTERBERG, Former Quayle Aide: He will typically take on a problem and get a lot of briefings on it. For instance, to force himself to get up to speed on a subject, he sometimes takes on speaking obligations so that he will be, have an artificial deadline to get himself briefed on the issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: One of Quayle's closest Senate colleagues, Pete Wilson, says Quayle is more knowledgeable than many people realize.

SEN. PETE WILSON, [R] California: I think initially over the years people probably have tended to under estimate him but I think that first impression is quickly blown away by observing him in the kind of fight that I've seen him engaged in on the floor of the Senate many times. He is articulate and he is highly energetic and it is obvious to anyone I think who observes him that when he speaks, it's with great conviction.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Bush media adviser, Roger Ailes, who was a Quayle advocate, concedes Quayle wasn't ready for the big leagues.

ROGER AILES, Bush Media Adviser: There is no question that Dan Quayle is on a learning curve and that he is the under study and that he will be learning in the job.

MS. WOODRUFF: For Quayle, the post election period had its bumpy moments. His prediction to a reporter that he would play a leadership role among Republicans in the Senate hasn't materialized. But the night before he took office, Quayle shared with an inaugural celebration his feelings about what he had been through.

SEN. DAN QUAYLE: Winston Churchill once said that there's nothing more exhilarating in life than to be shot at without results.

MS. WOODRUFF: Quayle not only performed swearing in ceremonies for the new White House staff, he was sent to speak to anti- abortion protesters and to a group of religious broadcasters where he laid most of the blame for the problems in the Soviet Union on its attitude toward religion.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: [Jan. 30, 1989] I think the root of the matter all comes back to a hatred of God, to a rejection of the entire concept of religious freedom.

MS. WOODRUFF: That brought out critics who said Quayle's comments were simplistic and poorly timed and it again raised speculation that the Vice President may be playing a role he insists he's not as the administration's bridge to conservatives. What was not in question was a plan to make Quayle more visible to begin to allay doubts that the Bush administration is embarrassed by him. Last week's trip to Latin America was the first major part of that plan. Quayle was only one of dozens of government leaders from around the world to attend the inauguration of Venezuela's new president, Carlos Andres Perez. Most of Quayle's responsibilities there were ceremonial, but even so the youthful enthusiasm that has served both as an asset and as a liability for him was evident in picture taking sessions with heads of state.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: Those of you who know Carlos Andres Perez, that we had a very frank, candid discussion, including the debt.

MS. WOODRUFF: Ever conscious of good visuals, Quayle also arranged to make one impromptu visit to a Caracas fruit market and another to a landmark statue of Venezuelan hero Simon Bolivar.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: He is a hero in America, the United States of America, as well as in Venezuela. I want you to know that. We are a big fan of Simon Bolivar.

MS. WOODRUFF: Some Quayle aides boasted of the warm welcome the Vice President received. Others said they thought he looked silly speaking to a crowd of people who couldn't understand English. At a news conference, Quayle handled questions about third world debt and the political situation in Nicaragua with authority and ease. But he raised eyebrows when he criticized former President Jimmy Carter for simply talking with Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: Obviously when you have former presidents meeting with heads of states that we don't meet with, it has the chance of complicating matters.

MS. WOODRUFF: Quayle was known to be even more critical of Carter in private. He also took a shot at former President Reagan in an off the cuff response about President Bush's laryngitis. Reagan used to use it to not have press conferences, but it won't be in this administration.

MS. WOODRUFF: By contrast, Quayle's eight hour visit to war torn El Salvador last Friday was all business. In several meetings, Quayle helped articulate the U.S. position on a controversial proposal by Salvadoran leftist guerrillas to postpone the upcoming Presidential elections.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: If President Duarte announces a consensus within the constitutional frame work, I am certain that there would be strong support from the administration.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the firmest impression Quayle left was a warning that the $1 1/2 million El Salvador gets from the United States each day might be jeopardized if human rights abuses don't stop.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: There are consequences of human rights violations in the future.

MS. WOODRUFF: Quayle's message was conveyed most publicly to Salvadoran military officers whom he visited at their headquarters building. Afterwards, Quayle told reporters he thought he had gotten the message across.

VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: The most important message is to make sure that there is an understanding that with democracy comes a responsibility in the area of human rights and that was the bottom line and I believe the message was well received, and it was very direct and candid.

MS. WOODRUFF: Quayle's media savvy staff was well aware that many reporters on this Latin tour were watching to see if the Vice President made any blunders. On the trip back to Washington, his aides appeared visibly relieved that there had been no major goofs. But the former chief aide to Vice President Walter Mondale, Richard Moe, says the standard that Quayle will be measured against is higher than that.

RICHARD MOE, Former Mondale Aide: For a long time the Vice Presidency was in the shadows of the American Government, but more recently because it's become more visible and because it's firmly established in the executive branch as the successor to the President, I think more is expected the vice presidents and that's particularly true in the last two administrations.

MS. WOODRUFF: Thomas Mann says Quayle knows he has his work cut out for him.

THOMAS MANN, Brookings Institution: Dan Quayle knows he has a problem. He knows that he was put in this position before his time had come. He now has to gradually rebuild his reputation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Jeane Kirkpatrick says it's very hard to predict how even the most qualified vice presidents will do.

JEANE KIRKPATRICK, Former U.N. Ambassador: Some very strong men have had, who have been vice president, have had no impact virtually at all on the administration when they served as Vice President. Lyndon Johnson is an example. It's hard to imagine a stronger, more knowledgeable vice president, but he was basically frozen out of policy discussions in the Kennedy administration.

MS. WOODRUFF: Most observers agree it's not in George Bush's interest to shut Quayle out or in Quayle's to be anything but a loyal vice president.

THOMAS MANN: Dan Quayle has demonstrated he's much too smart to be put in any kind of adversary position with George Bush because his whole political future depends upon the good will of President Bush.

ROGER AILES, Bush Media Adviser: Dan Quayle will do what a good vice president does or what you do with your boss or I do with my clients and that is, listen, they're in charge, and I can express my differences and my opinion, but once the person is made by the person in charge, I either carry out the orders or get out.

MS. WOODRUFF: The White House is expected to announce this week that Quayle will head up a presidential commission. It won't say yet what its purpose is. Asked how he would advise Quayle, Dick Moe says he's not sure taking on specific assignments is the best course.

RICHARD MOE: Don't get pinned down in a particular area but keep your interests broad. As Mondale used to say, don't trivialize me, don't immerse me in something that is too narrow, but you have to maintain a presidential scope in terms of your interest.

MS. WOODRUFF: Even Quayle's closest friends say it will take time for him to be ready for the job the vice president is supposed to be ready for, filling in for the president in the event something should happen to him.

SEN. PETE WILSON, [R] California: God forbid is the right word. If it happened tomorrow, is he ready? He's ready. Will he be more ready with six years, seven years, eight years under his belt? Of course. Who wouldn't?

MS. WOODRUFF: Ironically, one of the nicest things said about Quayle's performance in Latin America was from someone he was not permitted to meet with, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. Ortega told reporters that Quayle had acted in an intelligent and respectful fashion, and he said we should recognize that. FOCUS - RAISING IRE

MR. MacNeil: We now focus on the controversial federal pay raise question. By a vote of 380 to 48, the House overwhelmingly rejected the 51 percent salary increase for Congressmen, federal judges and top members of the executive branch and then the Senate moved quickly to ratify the House vote. President Bush is set to sign the rejection before midnight tonight. We'll examine the political fallout from today's action with a veteran Congress watcher, a leading consumer advocate, and a former Democratic Senator, but first here's an excerpt from today's debate in the House.

REP. CRAIG JAMES, [R] Florida: There was never any doubt how the citizens of the nation felt. Millions of us were opposed to this dishonest pay increase from the very beginning. It is and always has been dirty money. Allowing this absurd increase to go into effect without a vote would have constituted an ethical atrocity that this body would not have been able to live down.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, [D] Illinois: Let's just stop the breast beating and finger pointing. Let's each of us decide and live with the consequences. You know how hard you work and you shouldn't be embarrassed to say it. You work hard here and you work hard in your districts, and the hardest thing you do is tell your family that they must sacrifice year in and year out. Sure, there are perks that come with the job, but you all know well as I do that perks can't make up for the birthdays, the ball games, theholidays and the meals that you miss. When was the last time you skipped a town meeting for a school play? If you can't remember, ask your spouse. You maintain two households, but you're never home. My colleagues, you deserve a pay raise. The public servants and the executive branches deserve a pay raise. I am proud to be a member of this great institution, proud of this service and proud to vote in favor of a pay raise and I hope you join me.

REP. THOMAS TAUKE, [R] Iowa: This issue isn't over. We know it's going to be back for the reasons that have been articulated by many members relating to judges, relating to the ethical issues surrounding this House of Representatives, relating to the service of people in high levels of government, but I hope that as we address it again in the future we can do it in a way which assures accountability and at the same time recognizes our unique role as public servants with the responsibility for leading the charge against the deficit.

REP. TONY COELHO, [D] California: There are some who will portray our actions here as a triumph as a will of the people. This is no victory. It is a loss for the concept of leadership. We must not get into the habit of sacrificing the merits on the altar of popular passions. What will happen the next time when we need to ask the American people for revenues to stop our deficit or, yes, to spend more money for education or to clean up nuclear bomb waste leaking into our soil, our water, and our homes? No one should walk away from this debate satisfied with the outcome as to our own pay or what this means for our ability to make tough decisions later on. The score is easy to read, Ralph Nader 1, national interests 0.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now to sort through the ramifications of today's vote are consumer advocate Ralph Nader who mobilized public opposition to the pay raise, former Democratic Sen. Lawton Chiles of Florida, and Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Nader, Congressman Coelho says you won, the national interest lost.

RALPH NADER, Consumer Advocate: How mistaken he could be on two scores. First of all, the American people won. Over 85 percent of them thought that this Reagan salary proposal was ill timed, was too big, didn't reflect the severe deficits and critical program cutbacks of the times. It was trying to be pushed through Congress without a recorded vote. I think secondly Congressman Coelho was mistaken because the gap between the political rulers and the rule to pay their salary and the concept of public service and the measure of a decent standard of living on all scores, public service obligations, the obligation to keep close to the people, share some of their concerns and anxieties, and a decent standard of living, $89,500 a year, plus generous pension, health, life insurance, $3,000 housing allowance, and many perks following a 48 percent increase in their pay since 1981 to date is enough.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Chiles, did the public interest win?

LAWTON CHILES, Former Senator: Well, it's hard for me to say who won. I can tell you there's never a good time for the Congress to try to raise it's salary. It's always a bad time. And Congress lets a long long period of time go by in which the salary does not sort of catch up, and then it gets so tough finally they try to make a major move and, again, I think it's always a mistake that they're afraid to, you know, sort of take a vote. So it's done sort of where there isn't a vote. This is the easiest issue in the world to a demagogue and my good friend, Ralph, not to say he's demagoguing it, but how can you explain to people that make twenty-five or thirty thousand dollars a year that eighty-nine thousand dollars a year isn't all the money in the world? I found out a long time ago you couldn't explain that so I voted against most of the salary raises, but fortunately I was able to do that because I had some outside income. You know, what I think -- I rode up here on a plane this morning. The pilot on that plane was making a lot more than members of Congress made and I'm very happy for him because I want him to do a good job and be happy and get me here safely. Members of the Congress are handling, you know, over a trillion dollars a year of our money. Don't we want sort of the best and don't we want them to be concentrating on that job and not worrying about that they're going to go out and make speeches so they're going to get additional money? The way you ought to look at it the public is paying now. I think they're paying the wrong way. They're paying now for the honorariums, for the speeches that are made. They're paying through the nose and they would be better off if they'd pay a reasonable salary. It's too bad Congress can't find a way to face up and do that or to have somebody face up so they can do that.

MR. MacNeil: Gentlemen, Mr. Nader, we've argued the merits of this before with you and with others. Can we turn our attention to a wider issue here. What do you, Ralph Nader -- you said 85 percent of the American people in polls said they were against this -- what does it say about the public regard for Congress at the moment, outside the individual merits of the issue?

MR. NADER: I think it's a low regard because especially in the last 10 years Congress has been doing its job worse and worse. It looked the other way and the savings & loan debacle grew and grew and it never paid attention to it and now the taxpayer is going to be saddled with tens of billions of dollars. It looked the other way during the nuclear weapons plant debacle and now the taxpayer is going to have to pay over $100 billion to deal with it, not to mention many cancers. It hasn't had good oversight. It hasn't stood up to the vested interest. It's still wallowing in the political campaign mess, the honorarium mess, the revolving door ethical breaches, and many other problems and that's I think partly why the Congress is held in low repute. Now this tidal wave of protest which scored its great victory for the people today should be transformed into a similar tidal wave of Congressional reform to enact the kind of changes that some members of Congress have been proposing for many years and above all, and most immediately to make sure that from now on any Congressional raises should be subject to a record roll call vote, not a ducking the vote for 30 days and then taking the dough, and having any raises go into effect after the next election as James Madison recommended so that the people can have a referendum of sorts on what they did in the Congress.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Chiles, do you think the public has a low regard of Congress and thinks that over the last 10 years it's been doing its job worse and worse as Mr. Nader just suggested?

SEN. CHILES: Well, I think that the Congress if you ask them to rate constitution as an institution always gives low marks. If you ask people to rate their Senator or their Congressman, you get, as you see those referendums held every two years and every six years, you get a totally different flavor. Part of that I think is because of the Congress, itself. When an issue like this one comes up, this is an easy one to demagogue. So anybody that wants to run from the House, that decides he wants to run for the Senate or is looking for an issue to get out in front in, boy, get on the pay raise or other things that take on Congress as an institution. Too many of us would run against the Congress every time and that gives the Congress, itself, a low rating. Now if you ask me, from the time I came to the Congress in 1970 till I left in 1988, what do I think happened as an institution, in some ways I saw better people come. I think the Congress in a lot of ways worked harder. Certainly the pressure of the office and all of the sort of the time and problems grew tremendously during that time, the sort of frustration level, tremendously during that time.

MR. MacNeil: Let's bring Norm Ornstein into this as our Congress watcher. The Wall Street Journal says in an editorial today Congressmen have discovered with this issue the American public doesn't like them very much. Is the public attitude to Congress different now from what it's been in the past?

NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: It's no different probably than it's been for 200 years and the pay raise issue has been there for 200 years. Whenever it's come up, as Sen. Chiles said, it's never a good time, and with this issue, with the outcome now, with a no win situation, the public has basically believed and continues to believe that Congress is filled with scoundrels, thieves and worse. Now you don't have the public saying the public has spoken and Congress has listened, they've rolled back this pay raise. The public is saying they're scoundrels, they're thieves, they're cowards and worse. So we don't have a more positive view of the institution. And one of the difficulties here is that over the long run here there are two kinds of rewards that bring people into public service, psychic rewards, the satisfaction that you get from doing your job, and people believing that you're doing something worthwhile, and financial rewards. What get now is a diminishment of financial rewards and the psychic rewards are probably lower than they've ever been and this campaign has made it worse.

MR. MacNeil: But, so you're saying it's always been this way, it's not a new phenomenon right now.

MR. ORNSTEIN: This is an issue that came up when the first decision was made about how we would set Congressional pay and what it would be and when we moved to go from $6 to $7 a day almost 200 years ago the letters that came into Congress, the reaction in editorials could be almost word for word for what we have right now, it's not the right time, people are suffering, we've been asked to make sacrifices, you're feathering your own nests. The same thing happened when we moved to go from $7 a day to $1500 a year, the first yearly salary in 1816.

MR. MacNeil: And there were Ralph Naders whipping them up then?

MR. ORNSTEIN: There were lots of people out there then and in 1816, a number of people including Daniel Webster lost their seats. It hasn't happened much since the people lose their seats, how to deal with this issue as well has been a no win situation with controversy ever since the beginning. Whenever Congress goes to vote itself, the attitude is they're feathering their own nests. We can't vote on our own pay raises. Why should they make those decisions? Whenever Congress moves to take it out of their hands as much as possible and go with a kind of commission or have a president play a role, it's why don't they stand up with guts and vote their own salaries. So they can't win.

MR. MacNeil: Ralph Nader, how credible is a collective public discussed with Congress, and you just listed a bunch of reasons why you think that is so when the public has just returned a Congress with something like 99 percent return on incumbents, now surely there's something that doesn't jive there.

MR. NADER: Yes, first of all, I do think that Mr. Reagan should be given some responsibility for this salary raise debacle. He's the one that proposed it on January 9th. In answer to your question, we have a problem of campaign finance, we have a problem of enormous advantages of incumbency which increasingly are reducing the likelihood of members of Congress being defeated. 99 percent were returned in the House in '88, 98 1/2 percent were returned in 1986. What has happened and why the salary increase is so symbolically important to many people about what's going on in Washington, is it's only one instance of how Congress is institutionally ducking votes, abdicating its responsibility, transforming the co-equal branches of government into something like a parliamentary system and it's overall a part of a lack of accountability to the members because they don't have to increasingly register their vote on what they consider hot or controversial issues and this cuts across the grain of many people who think that Congress is there to vote and members were sent to vote and to be held accountable in the next election.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Chiles, do you think -- you're outside it now, you can speak without fear or favor, do you think that Congress has been systematically ducking issues and the Congress is reacting to that?

SEN. CHILES: Well this issue is one that Congress many times tries to find a way to duck because we've talked about --

MR. MacNeil: But on general issues?

SEN. CHILES: No, I don't think that's true on general issues, but on this issue, what I think you see is happening, I think you are going to see and you are seeing more and more Congress has to be a rich man's club. I was fortunate that I could vote against the pay raises because I had some outside income. If anybody speaks to me about they want to run for the House or something, I say you'd better get yourself a financial base before you go to Washington.

MR. MacNeil: So you're buying, excuse me interrupting, you're buying Ralph Nader's point that the gap between the governors and the governed is growing and this pay increase would have symbolized that?

SEN. CHILES: But for different reasons. I think one of the reasons that it's growing is because in effect you're not, we're not paying through the front door, in effect, what we should be paying. If you look and rate Congress's salary with cost of living increases that have been granted to people in the military, people on COLA retirements or anything else, you'll see that Congress is way way behind in that. I don't think it's healthy to sort of have it be a rich man's club. I think part of the drive towards making sure that you get re-elected is because you really have to get that federal retirement, make sure that you get that federal retirement, because you're losing your ability to earn on the outside if you stay in the Congress, so you're working hard to get re-elected. I think you'd better cut out the honorariums, pay a decent salary.

MR. NADER: I must disagree. I think the record shows that members of Congress have gotten a 48 percent pay increase since 1981. That's way ahead of inflation. Their generous pension and other benefits have expanded as well in the last decade. 99 percent of the American people earn less and they can't understand why members of Congress, or those who are vocal, say they can't quite make it on 89.5 plus benefits. There are many members of Congress raising families and making it on 89.5 but they're not willing, given the internal sanctions, the House and the Senate, to come out publicly and say it.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Nader, we have only a minute or so left. I want to ask Norm Ornstein, is this going to be one of those storms that just blows over and gets forgotten, or is this some further wound, if that's the word, in the public perception of Congress which is going to affect things in the future?

MR. ORNSTEIN: At this point at least, the history of this sort of issue in the past is that when it's in front of the screen, the radar screen has it right there, there's emotional reaction, when it's passed, it's passed.

MR. MacNeil: Ralph Nader says it's going to provide the impetus for a general public demand for reform, Congressional reform.

MR. ORNSTEIN: Ralph hopes that's going to be the case. I'm afraid and I think sadly that it's going to have the opposite reaction. The expectation was that there is such a strong demand for reform of the honorarium system that coupling an elimination of honoraria for speeches with a pay increase would satisfy the public. What they found in all of our surveys is the public doesn't care about honoraria, much less know what they are. What they're concerned about is not having special interests pay money to members of Congress that's having to come out of the taxpayers' pockets and it's going to stiffen the resistance here.

MR. MacNeil: For tonight we leave it there and I thank you all, Norman Ornstein, Ralph Nader, and Sen. Chiles. SERIES - BLACK HISTORY MONTH

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight Charlayne Hunter-Gault has another in her series of conversations for Black History Month. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On television, Bill Cosby's wife is a dynamic career woman, an adept mother of five and a beautiful, loving wife. There's been a lot of speculation about how much the real Mrs. Cosby inspired that image. The real Mrs. Cosby who is herself involved in producing television programs has never been on television but she agreed to her first television interview in order to share some of her thoughts, not only about the image she is said to have inspired, but also about the images and institutions that inspired her in black history. The conversation started today with the reasons behind what the New York Times recently called an American milestone, the Cosbys' $20 million donation to Spellman College, the largest individual gift ever to a black college.

CAMILLE COSBY: We did it because we want to make people happen. We wanted to give a gift not only to Spellman, not only to the African American community but give a gift to the world, because when you educate African Americans and present them to the mainstream of society, then you are giving a gift to the world. This academic center that is going to be constructed, and it is very exciting, is going to be as far as I know the only comprehensive repository of international African women's research and resources, and people from all over the world will have one place that they can go to do their research and to study women that have been successful with their lives.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In fact, it's called the Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Academic Center. Why is black higher education so important to you?

CAMILLE COSBY: The black institutions are very important because, No. 1, they create an environment of belonging. I think that many of the African American students on the predominantly white institutional campuses do not feel that they belong there and as a matter of fact, they are told that they don't belong there. Secondly, they are surrounded by professional role models. They see African American historians and scientists and mathematicians and artists, et cetera. Then the schools believe in an institution based on excellence. They're committed to excellence I should say.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It's been said that black colleges are in many ways symbols of ambivalence among black people, that you know, on the one hand, well, that they represent kind of the conflict between assimilation and separation, and in fact, a lot of people thought that the last chapter had been written on predominantly black colleges when integration started because there was access that had not been there before. How do you see that?

CAMILLE COSBY: Well, the propaganda has always been that whatever is black or whatever is African is not right or isn't good or isn't capable. These students who graduate from these institutions matriculate at the graduate schools at the prestigious white institutions and they do very well in these graduate programs, and there was a friend of ours who once told us that an "A" thinking person is going to be an "A" thinking person anywhere and these people at these prestigious white institutions are always surprised about the success of these students who graduated from these predominantly black institutions. And they are very important. I mean, it is very important for the African American community to have a sense of pride about these institutions and to support them. It's also our investment in the community and the returns are great, because these people go on and they're able to live above the maddening crowd. That is a real good investment. It's better than municipal bonds or Treasury bonds or whatever, you know. It's best because you're investing in human beings.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Your own children attend these institutions.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes. We have a son who's in one of the institutions now and our daughter did attend Spellman at one time.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: He's at Morehouse.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes, he's at Morehouse, and we have two younger children who are focusing on some of the black institutions. As a matter of fact, their mother and father are helping them to focus on those institutions. Years ago when I was studying for my masters, I decided to do a report on eight of these institutions and I went to one of them was Tugulu College in Mississippi. Now as you probably know, Charlayne, it's a very small campus. They have rundown buildings. This institution, rather, has rundown buildings. When I was there the gas pipes were leaking, you know, and the dormitories just looked terrible, but I remember Dr. George Evans, who was so wonderful. He was the president of Tugulu at the time and he informed me that this institution graduated many many science students and when they graduated they went on, it was some unbelievable percentage such as 80 percent of the graduates went on to graduate school and did go to study the sciences and I'm talking about the hard sciences, the physical sciences. But the environment was so, you could tell, was so poor, you wondered how in the world could all these students come out of this environment and learn something but it doesn't matter. As long as you want to learn, you're going to learn and of course, the professors have dedicated themselves to the young people so it was just a very positive learning environment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You've also established a foundation in honor of your grandmother.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Tell me about her and about it.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes. Clara Elizabeth Carter, and she is my maternal grandmother and I loved her and still do. She is deceased now. I still do. She taught me so many things. She taught me No. 1 that you cannot or should not love unconditionally. When you're wrong, you're wrong and she let you know you weren't too lovable that day and I know she did that to my mother because she did that to me and my brothers and sister and I certainly treat our children in the same manner, that you must demand respect, the relationship has to be reciprocal, whether you're talking about friendship love, whether you're talking about marital love, whether you're talking about parent/child love, it has to be reciprocal. She taught that. She also taught me a love of the earth because she had 11 babies. Seven of them survived, the others died at childbirth, but she raised those babies and my grandfather was with her, raised those babies off the land and they owned their land and that's another thing the African Americans have gotten away from, owning their land, but there is a lot of value in that and I learned that at a young age, that you must own your land. My grandmother was just a very special person and I wanted to name this foundation after her and the foundation, the function of a foundation will be to monitor and disburse the funds for the construction of the Camille Olivia Hanks Cosby Academic Center. Now I would like to also say something about the name of the center because I don't want people to misconstrue this, but it was Bill Cosby who gave the center that name. I am not going around naming buildings after myself. So I would like to say that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Did you grow up with black history lessons in school?

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes, because I grew up in the South and I think that the African Americans in the South are taught their history probably more than the African Americans in the North, because the environments are more segregated, we were exposed to more African American professionals, we had African American teachers and doctors, pharmacists, et cetera.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You think that made a difference in your life?

CAMILLE COSBY: It certainly did because I always felt that I could have a sense of pride. Certainly that came from my mother and father. I have tried as well as Bill, both of us have tried to instill that in our children, but now because of the times we are constantly countering all of the negativisms pertaining to African Americans.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You mean, even your children --

CAMILLE COSBY: Our children, exactly, because they're exposed to the same things that everyone else is.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you do that?

CAMILLE COSBY: Well, you try to surround them with positive African American images such as Bill and I collect African American art and our children live with these images on the wall and the most important thing is for the children to know that art does not belong to one group, although that is a propaganda within our society. And these artists, I mean, art originated from Africa, so our art is still the oldest form of art and we want them to know that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You said you've been collecting for a long time.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes, for many years.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You made a conscious effort to collect black art.

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes. Bill and I were married in 1964. I would say that we began to collect around 1966. And we started with Charles White and of course he created these beautiful huge black and white images of African Americans, and no one could avoid looking at those images because they are huge. I mean, they are life size.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: People have often speculated that the Cosby family on television is really a mirror of the Cosby real family. How do you feel about that kind of speculation, and how do you feel about that image as the image of a black family?

CAMILLE COSBY: Yes, I am aware that people assume that the Cosby family is an extension of our family. Now, granted, Bill Cosby could not do this, could not create those stories without being a husband and a father and having the experiences of a husband and father. There are many similarities and sometimes I have to chuckle because I know that he's pulling from specifics within our family.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You only chuckle?

CAMILLE COSBY: Yeah, chuckle a little bit once in a while. I won't say what else, but I think that what is significant about that show is that Bill is projecting Claire to be a self-defining woman and everyone within the family must adjust to this self- defining woman. As a matter of fact, she's a role model for her daughters and for her son because she is a self-defining woman. The daughters are constantly struggling to self- define. Theo must adjust to these self-defining woman. And I see that certainly as an extension of ourselves, and all kinds of changes must occur when the woman is self-defining, so it's rather significant because of that. And I think that perhaps he did pull that from me because I perceive myself to be self-defining woman.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What is the significance of Black History Month for you?

CAMILLE COSBY: When I think about Black History Month, I think about the exclusion of African Americans from history. I know that because of that exclusion that all of us are walking mountains of misinformation, that African Americans are walking mountains of exclusion and that our history, it's important for us to know our history and to know that our history is the most ancient form of history, that science and math and art evolved from Africa, and in February, they begin to focus on our history, but not really all of the history. Very seldom do I read about African Americans relating to Africa, African Americans relating to South America, African Americans relating to Central America, or to the Caribbean. The networks are very guilty about this as well because only in February do they allow, allow African American actors to present something of substance on television. The rest of the year you have to fight to do something with integrity. I just don't think that our society is going to change and include our history in these history books. I do believe that it will continue to practice exclusion because it behooves the powers that be to continue to do that so that they can then manipulate and control people who do not know what their history is and not only the African Americans in terms of being ignorant about their history, but white Americans as well are ignorant about their history. It's very important for African Americans to think of themselves as being Americans, that they, indeed, belong here and their history, our history is so interconnected with the European history and interconnected with the native American history as well -- but the bottom line is that we must remember that we are Americans, this is our home. This is our country and we have contributed a lot to the history of this country. RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the House and Senate overwhelmingly rejected a 51 percent pay raise for themselves and for federal judges and top administration officials. Senate Republicans said a new FBI report found no grounds to disqualify John Tower from becoming Secretary of Defense, but Democratic Senators said they still had concern, and a State Department report accused Israel of human rights violations in handling the Palestinian uprising. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Judy. That's the Newshour tonight and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.