The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill prepared for tomorrow's crucial Senate hearing and Sec. of State Baker talked to Palestinian leaders about a Mideast peace conference. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in New York tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: On the NewsHour tonight, two of the Senators, Leahy and Hatch, who will be questioning Anita Hill tomorrow lay out the road map for the Clarence Thomas hearings continued. Then has the American public lost face in Congress, the perception versus reality, three political scientists and a citizen activist join us. Finally, a documentary report on Fidel Castro's Cuba: How long will it last now that Soviet Communism has collapsed?NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: This was preparation day for Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Tomorrow Hill, a University of Oklahoma Law Professor, will go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to make her case against the Supreme Court nominee. She claims Thomas made improper sexual advances toward her when she was his assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Education Department. Hill came to Washington last night. She is expected to be the first of at least four witnesses to testify. Thomas will go last. He made no public appearances today. But several women who worked with him at the EEOC and elsewhere defended him at a Capitol Hill news conference. They said he had always shown great sensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment.

JANET BROWN, Former Thomas Co-Worker: A number of years ago I was sexually harassed on the job. Outside of my immediate family, there was no one who exhibited more compassion, more outrage, more sensitivity, more caring to what was happening than Clarence Thomas. He talked through the issue with me. He helped me think about the options. He was a true friend and a staunch supporter.

JOYCE TUCKER, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: The Clarence Thomas that I know, and I know him well, would not sexually harass anyone. I do not believe these allegations are true. I think it's sad he's in a position right now where he has to prove his innocence.

MR. LEHRER: We'll preview tomorrow's hearing with two key Senators right after this News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sec. of State Baker met with a delegation of Palestinians late this afternoon in Washington to discuss the prospects for a Mideast peace conference. Baker is scheduled to depart on a four nation trip to the region this weekend to try to firm up support for such a meeting. The Palestinians have not yet declared their readiness to negotiate with Israel. Baker said he hoped they would.

SEC. BAKER: I think it's the major, the major issue that remains to be resolved. I think that the other parties to the conference have pretty well indicated that they are prepared to attend, and it will come as no surprise to my visitors here to hear me say once again that I think Palestinians have the most to gain if we can create a process and perhaps the most to lose if thereisn't one. So I hope we make some good progress today.

MS. WOODRUFF: Iraq today denied that it was attempting to make Lithium 6, an element used in hydrogen bombs. The denial was in response to yesterday's report by the United Nations International Atomic Energy. He said evidence of such developments had been gathered by its inspectors. Iraq's news agency called the claim political blackmail, designed to justify a tax on Iraq and prolong U.N. sanctions.

MR. LEHRER: The Communist Party of Cuba opened its party congress today. President Fidel Castro was cheered by the 1700 delegates to the meeting. Its purpose is to plot the future of the party in Cuba, one of the few remaining Communist strongholds in the world. We'll have more on the story later in the program.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush administration threatened China with trade sanctions today. The President's trade representative, Carla Hills, said the action was taken after China refused to comply with U.S. demands that it open its markets to American goods. The sanctions could include steep import duties on Chinese goods coming into this country. They will go into effect within a year unless China begins to remove the trade barriers. The action is not expected to directly affect the administration's effort to gain most favored nation trade status for China.

MR. LEHRER: Yugoslavia's federal army agreed today to pull out of Croatia. The country's warring parties also agreed to negotiate a political settlement to their conflict. The agreements came during talks under European Community auspice in the Hague today. Relief convoys from the EC arrived in war torn Croatia, where fresh fighting broke out today. It was unclear whether troops in the field would abide by the latest peace agreement. Soviet President Gorbachev invited the presidents of the republics of Serbia and Croatia to come to Moscow for peace talks. A spokesman said Gorbachev will probably hold separate meetings with the rival Yugoslav leaders if they accept.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's it for our summary of the day's news. Now it's on to how the re-opening of the Clarence Thomas hearings will proceed tomorrow, is the American public's low view of Congress justified, and what's ahead for Cuba. FOCUS - BEFORE THE STORM

MS. WOODRUFF: Once again, the Senate fight over Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas is our lead segment. Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee will provide a forum for University of Oklahoma Law Professor Anita Hill to outline her charges of sexual harassment against Thomas and for the nominee to defend his reputation. With us now are two members of the Judiciary Committee will be posing the questions tomorrow. They are: Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican from Utah, who joins us from Capitol Hill, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat from Vermont, who is in McLean, Virginia, tonight. Sen. Leahy, how are tomorrow's hearings going to be structured? What's different about the way these are structured compared with your earlier hearings?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, I think the earlier hearings were going into the questions of the educational background of the nominee, his constitutional philosophy, issues of that nature. Here we have a very specific charge made by Prof. Hill. She will speak to that charge. She'll be questioned. The Judge will state his denial and be questioned and there'll be other witnesses. But it will be on a very specific issue. It won't be the far ranging kind of hearing that we had earlier. And because of that, everybody watching and listening, and I hope that would include all 100 Senators, will have their attention focused just to this one issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Hatch, it's just a small number of Senators on the committee though who are going to be doing the questioning. Why has it decided to do it that way?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I think most people felt that it's better to limit the participants so that this is, this comes down to as short a hearing as possible, yet, covering the matters as well as we can. And I have to tell you I was one who advocated for this because this should not be a circus, this should not be a big television event for anybody. This is one of the great tragedies of our country over the last few years, because two people are damaged, both of them are victims, and all because of what really happens to be sleazy tactics on the part of somebody on the committee or their staff who violated the disclosure, one of the most august rules in the whole United States Senate, and that is leaking an FBI report which has always been supposed to be confidential because there are always accusations and unfounded charges and other things in those reports. The FBI does the job and they report it as they see it. So it's going to be a very tragic day and nobody's going to come out of this unscathed.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is the leaking of the report, Sen. Hatch, going to become part of the questioning that takes place tomorrow?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I don't know. I kind of doubt that, but it can be, and it certainly has got to be gone into at some time in the future because what has happened to Judge Thomas is terribly unfair. To be accused like this at the last minute, when everybody had a right to look at the police report, or be fully informed, as I was about it, before the vote, and nobody raised that, and I think part of the reason was these are 10 year old charges of sexual harassment where there's a statute of limitations of only 30 days. And the reason there's only a 30 day statute of limitations is for the protection of both parties so they can get them together, resolve it, hopefully stop it, and go on from there.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Leahy.

SEN. LEAHY: I think we're running into an area where it seems that we're looking more into the technicalities of was there a statute of limitations of 30 days, a year or whatever it might be. We ought to be looking at did this happen or not. I mean, sexual harassment, if it happens, is a very, very serious thing. Now, we can talk about all the technicalities of the world, but that's not the issue. Did it or did it not happen -- if I can finish. The other thing, there were only a couple of Republicans, a couple of Democrats that may have had this FBI report. It's be easy enough to just have the FBI go and ask them specifically, find out who gave out that report, do that, but let's not lose sight of what the issue is here. The issue here is whether Prof. Hill was sexually harassed or not. Now, she says she was. Judge Thomas said he didn't. And I think that what we ought to do first and foremost in in as fair and even-handed a fashion as possible ask the two of them under oath specific questions that hopefully will give us an answer as to who's telling the truth. Now I happen to be one of the people who's designated to be one of the Senators to ask questions. I'm not going in there with the idea that I am representing either one of them, or any of the other witnesses that are going. I feel that I'm representing the United States Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, and it is my duty to try to get as truthful an answer and as truthful exposition of the facts as possible.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Hatch, do you agree that that's what it comes down to --

SEN. HATCH: No, I don't.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- which story is the correct story, Senator?

SEN. HATCH: No, I don't, because I think we're going to wind up the same way we are now, with two people, one saying this happened, the other one saying it did not happen, and no one real proof one way or the other. It's just a question of belief. That is important to do that. The point I was making was not that we should worry about technicalities. The point I was making was that literally had any of these seven who were against Judge Thomas or anybody else on the committee, for that matter, had they wanted to delay for a week, they had an automatic right to, if they wanted to bring this up the fair way, they could have done it. No, they waited till the weekend before the vote and then in a sleazy political way brought this up in an unfair way that has caused us problem. And that taints this whole body; it taints the Judiciary Committee; and frankly, it's been tragic, what's happening to these people.

SEN. LEAHY: I agree.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Hatch, if you're not, if you said tomorrow is not aimed at determining who is right, which story is right, what is the goal of this hearing?

SEN. HATCH: Well, to the extent that we can do that by listening to both of them and any other witnesses, that's certainly one of the goals of the, of the meeting. Sexual harassment is a terrible, tragic thing. I've got three daughters. If somebody harassed my daughters, I'd be so doggone mad I couldn't see straight. And I've got nine granddaughters. So all of us agree on that. But it's still going to come down to, no matter what happens, an accusation and denial. And --

MS. WOODRUFF: On whom is the burden of proof, Sen. Hatch?

SEN. HATCH: There's no question that the burden of proof will be on Prof. Hill.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you see it the same way, Sen. Leahy?

SEN. HATCH: I see two people who will be testifying under oath and Orrin seems to have determined ahead of time what their testimony will be and who's going to be believable. I don't approach it that way. We will have these people testify and we'll determine based on their demeanor and based on answers to their questions who's telling the truth. That is the sole reason for having this hearing. Now, he talks about whether or not it should be done now, it could have been delayed. He could have objected to this. Any one of one hundred Senators could have brought this to a vote last Tuesday night. I think all of us realize, or should realize, both Democrats and Republicans alike, that sexual harassment is a very serious charge, it should be settled, it should be settled for Judge Thomas's sake, it should be settled for Prof. Hill's sake, but more importantly, it should be settled for the country's stake.

MS. WOODRUFF: But Sen. Leahy, the point that, one of the points that Sen. Hatch was making, that this could very likely degenerate into something even worse than it's already become, how do you keep it from degenerating tomorrow? It's going to be a highly unusual situation. Is there really a precedent for this sort of a hearing?

SEN. LEAHY: No, I don't think that there is a precedent for it, but you have two well educated, intelligent people who are going to be testifying under oath. I think both of them are going to take their responsibility very seriously. One of the problems that has happened is everybody, whether it's members of Congress, commentators, everybody else, wants to stand up before we have these hearings and say, now here's what's going to happen, here's what's going to be the result. I think the American people have long ago tuned that out and I think you're going to find they're going to be listening or they're going to be watching or they're going to be reading about this and they're going to make up their own mind. I think it's going to be like many of the trials that I've been in, that Orrin's been in, and others have been in. You can't predict what a witness is going to say and how they're going to say it, but quite often, once they have said it, you know who's telling the truth.

SEN. HATCH: Well, I'd just like to say that I don't think it's a trial and I think it is important, and I know that Clarence Thomas is going to rise or fall based upon these hearings, and he knows it. It's tragic that it's come to this type of a display to determine that. And we're all going to have to watch it and make a determination what just really happened here. With regard to burden of proof, in our system of juris prudence, and I think in a fair system of juris prudence, the person who makes the allegation should have to prove the allegation, and if that person can't, then that allegation ought to fall. Now, my contention is, is that you're going to have Prof. Hill -- and I feel sorry for her, I think she's been badly used by inappropriate behavior on behalf of people affiliated with the Senate, and frankly, I feel very sorry for her as well, because she's not going to come out of this in any good shape, no matter what happens. They're both going to be tainted.

MS. WOODRUFF: Senator Hatch, I want to ask you about that, because Sen. Simpson said on the floor of the Senate two days ago she was -- he said, "She will be injured and destroyed and belittled and hounded and harassed, real harassment, not the sexual kind," and so on.

SEN. HATCH: I don't know about that, and I hope that doesn't happen, but what I'm referring to is, is that now that this charge has been made and it has been denied by two people who apparently are good people, neither of them is going to escape some sort of a cloud or a smudge on their reputations, reputations that were good reputations before this happened. See, unfortunately for Prof. Hill, when she allowed this information to come to the committee, she wanted it kept confidentially, and that confidentiality was broken by a complete violation of a rule that's so important that a Senator could be expelled for violating it.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just quickly, Sen. Leahy, we need to wrap this up. How long do you think the hearings will go on?

SEN. LEAHY: Well, I would hope that they are done in as short a time as possible, they could probably be done in a couple of days, but I think that we should take enough so at least the principals can be heard and heard adequately. This is not a trial in the strict sense of the word, but it is something where the American people should know what the truth is and there will be all these kind of red herrings and frankly I'm afraid Sen. Hatch is raising a lot of red herrings, the fact is was she sexually harassed, was it by Judge Thomas or not, let's find out that fact.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Hatch, Sen. Leahy, please stay with us. We'll come back to you in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: This has not been a terrific last few days for Senators Leahy and Hatch and their colleagues in the Congress of the United States. The war over the Senate's handling of the sexual allegations against Thomas is only the latest of the roars. It follows others about House members not paying their House restaurant bills and bouncing checks at the House bank. A CBS-New York Times poll released just today said 83 percent of those Americans polled thought members of Congress bounced the checks because they knew they could get away with it; 58 percent, or 3 people in 5, thought basic privileges extended to members of Congress, such as free travel, staff allowances, and mail services, were unjustifiable. The question we ask now is simply: Is Congress getting a bum rap from the people it serves, or its just desserts? We ask it of four people. In Seattle, Sherry Bockwinkel, campaign director to limit term limits in Washington State; in San Diego, Sam Popkin, political science professor at the University of California at San Diego, he's the author of the new book "The Reasoning Voter;" and in Washington, Linda Williams, professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, and Thomas Mann, director of governmental studies at the Brookings Institution. All right. Let's start west and move east. Ms. Bockwinkel, in Seattle, is the low public regard for the Congress of the United States justified?

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Oh, definitely, it's very justified. These people are living a lifestyle that most Americans don't enjoy. They bounce checks; they don't pay for their restaurant bills. It's no wonder that the public is outraged over these kinds of activities.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Popkin, do you agree?

PROF. POPKIN: No, I don't agree. I think what you're seeing is a swarm of piranhas when we'd be much better off with a few sharks. Congress is slightly less popular than it is used to be but Congress today is much less corrupt than when I started working in politics and campaigning 30 years ago, to say nothing of 50 or 100 years ago. The big difference today is we've got a divided government and we've got a lot of frustrated people that things aren't getting done and we've got a lot of people looking for scapegoats.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what it's all about, Prof. Williams, scapegoats?

PROF. WILLIAMS: I would say not scapegoats. I think that there may be some exaggeration in terms of how people look at Congress, but I think that we're picking up is a sense of the hypocrisy people feel that Congress engages in and a sense of unfairness, while they see their lifestyles, their living standards, being cut back, they are, therefore, becoming at the same time more aware that this is not happening with Congress. And I think we have to factor in one of the changes that Dr. Popkin mentioned, we have to factor in that people know much more now about their Congress because of the revolution in communications. So while Congress may not be more corrupt today than ever before, I think for the masses of Americans there is a lot quicker and faster knowledge of what's going on in Washington.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Mann, do you agree, people know more about Congress, and that's the reason they have such a low opinion of it?

PROF. MANN: I don't think so. Congress has never been loved by the American people. Will Rogers said politicians are our only native criminal class, and that's how people think of that institution. It's always seen as, as less reputable than the presidency or the Supreme Court. Its ratings go up and down, depending on what news is coming to the public at any particular time.

MR. LEHRER: But why Congress, why is Congress felt, held in such low regard?

PROF. MANN: It's a complex institution. It involves 535 elected representatives, a slice of America, some are ne'er-do-wells. The process is complicated. We don't produce results in a manner that would suggest things are working well. When we do, by the way, in the 1960s, when the President and the Congress worked together, ratings of Congress went up. At the time of the vote on the war in the Gulf, after that debate and the vote, the popular standing of Congress went up from 25 percent to 50 percent. The general problem is that Congress has been under siege for two years, in siege in Washington, because the political community has lost confidence in it. It's a result of many things, the stalemate between the President and the Congress, the fact that we've gone through four elections that have been largely uncompetitive, the problem of money in politics, the focus on scandal, all of that has conspired I think to have the media increasingly focus attention on the foibles, the problems, the shortcomings of the institution. It's no wonder, is it, that people feel that members of Congress have improperly bounced checks? What have they been seeing on television and reading for the last couple of days?

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Bockwinkel, is that, is that what you're getting in Seattle, only the down side, the bad side of members of Congress and the things that they do and you never hear anything good?

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Oh, no. It's, it's extremely difficult for the people to even get any information about what Congress members are doing. That's what the issue is here. When you look at what these long-term entrenched career politicians are doing, they are protecting their own turf. I mean, look at the leader of the House. The Speaker of the House was the person who did not want to let out the bounced checks, the dead beats, those that owed money. Why? Because he's protecting all those members. Why? Because he's got a 30 year long relationship with these people. When they give themselves these pay raises, a Senate pay raise that they gave themselves under cover of night, about what was it, four weeks ago, it equaled $22,500. That's what the average family of four lives on for an entire year. They're so out of touch with the American public are doing that they're arrogant and their arrogance is spilling over into stupid, senseless, bouncing checks, restaurant bills unpaid, pensions and perks. Did you know that they have an ambulance on duty 24 hours a day at the Capitol Building and a couple of days ago a 70 year old woman needed help and did they dispatch their 24 hour ambulance to help this woman, the Congress, the Congress's ambulance, the people's ambulance, to help this woman? No! She had to wait for somebody else to come because the Congress wasn't going to allow anybody to use their things.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Popkin, that's a very severe indictment we just heard. Speak directly to the question about whether her charge that Congress is out of touch and arrogant and all they're interested in doing is protecting their own jobs.

PROF. POPKIN: Well, I think I should point out that term limitations are at least improvement over throwing our priests into a volcano or sacrificing somebody over a cliff into the ocean to make things better, but it's not going to do any more good. The fact is in America we all love our own Congressman and we hate our Congress. We love our Congressman because what our Congressman does the national interest and what all the other Congressmen do is selfish, pork barreling for their constituents.

MR. LEHRER: Well, actually, the CBS-New York Times poll that I quoted at the beginning reflected that very thing, that these same people were asked about their individual members of Congress and over 50 percent thought they were terrific. It's the other people's members of Congress that are so lousy. Explain that.

MS. BOCKWINKEL: I can tell you --

PROF. POPKIN: Well, the fact is we understand what our Congressman is doing and we don't pay enough attention to the news to follow all of the cacophony that results when we have our Congressman from San Diego compromising on water quality with people from the Atlantic, or people from the welfare districts compromising with people from the farm districts, or people from the regions compromising. And it's worth remembering that this is the only country I know of in the democratic family of nations where a representative who spends all of his extra time working on legislation instead of going home to barmitzphas and christening bowling alleys and dedicating swimming pools is said to have Potomac fever. And it's treated as a disease. And that says something about the distrust you have in a country so diverse, and the communications revolution that Prof. Williams referred to really exacerbates this. You've now got television programs about Congress in fifteen or twenty languages. You've now got the Family Channel, the Christian Channel, the Woman's Channel, the Disney Channel, the Playboy Channel. You've got MacNeil-Lehrer; you've got the networks; you've got Larry King; you've got Headline News. You've got an extraordinary proliferation of communication, including, I might add, 20,000 newsletters published in Washington which represent 20,000 groups that can be mobilized at the drop of a hat.

MR. LEHRER: But Prof. Williams, your point was that this was a good thing, right, this communications revolution that people are getting more information?

PROF. WILLIAMS: Well, I think that actually it is a good thing, that at least even if the information is not enough in detail or in-depth that it is a good thing that people are now more able to see what their Congressmen are doing. For example, even 10 years ago, most Congressmen could write the seniors in high schools a letter and the constituents would be happy, and do a little constituent work, and that was as much as many people knew about their Congressmen. I think there is a growing sense of what is going on in Washington and that part I think is very good. And I think that some of the things that have happened, we do have to remember that they are things that most average Americans really don't enjoy. I would hate for us to become though so questioning of Congress until it turned into a de-legitimation of the institution, itself.

MR. LEHRER: Is that -- do you smell that coming?

PROF. WILLIAMS: I think that right now people are questioning and they're willing to change personnel and that that is what the term limits is about. They think that there is a change of personnel. If these kinds of things continue to happen, however, I do think that we stand in danger of really de-legitimizing one of America's most critically important institutions.

PROF. MANN: I think Barbara's right. American national government and the Congress, which is Article 1, the first branch of government, is, is threatened now. There are a lot of little truths that have come out in recent weeks about perks, some of which are anachronisms, most of which are harmless, but there is a big lie. And the big lie is that members of Congress are out of touch with the ordinary American. Let me tell you that members of Congress are more in touch with Americans than business executives, than media celebrities, than interest group lobbyists in Washington and state capitals. Their job is to stay in touch. In fact, it's because they stay in touch that we have the kind of policy deadlock, and we have a kind of a problem --

MR. LEHRER: You mean, they're overrepresenting the people.

PROF. MANN: -- that they are hypersensitive to public opinion.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Williams.

PROF. WILLIAMS: Well, Tom, I really disagree with you on that. I think that our Congressmen are increasingly out of touch and I think even if we go back to the way we do campaigns now it doesn't even bring them more into touch, the sort of airport style campaigns. I think they are increasingly out of touch and that the American people are reacting to that. But I think that Congress does have to accept a good deal of the blame for why there are such negative views of what it's doing at this point. So I would like to see it not perhaps go so far that we throw out whatever good with the bad, but I don't think that we can deny that we seem to have a Congress that's increasingly out of touch I would say.

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Bockwinkel, in Seattle, you agree with Prof. Williams, right?

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Oh, most definitely. I, I try calling my Congressman and I don't get a return phone call. If I try and call him and say, I don't agree with a bill that you're pushing, I don't get a return phone call.

MR. LEHRER: Now why is that important? Explain, put that in the context of a member of Congress's duties, to not answer your phone calls.

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Well, he is supposed to be responding to the constituents in his state. Now my Congress has not lived here for twenty-three and a half years. When he comes, he stays in a hotel and his son graduated from high school back in Washington, D.C. Now how can he represent my needs from this community? And so when I try and call him and give him the input about what the sense is of our community, I don't get the courtesy of even an aide returning my phone call! So they're so out of touch, they simply don't give us any --

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Popkin, put that in a context. In other words, how does a member of Congress decide whether, how much time he or she should spend home and how much time he or she should spend in Washington?

PROF. POPKIN: I think you're talking to somebody from the district probably farthest from Washington, except for Alaska and Hawaii, and a lot of these people have to keep their children where they're going to be doing their work. It's interesting that Ms. Bockwinkel considers being in touch being in Seattle as opposed to fighting for legislation. And that speaks to some of the dilemmas that are facing these people today. They get accused of Potomac fever if they learn their way and I'm --

MR. LEHRER: Ms. Bockwinkel. Let's give her a chance to respond to that. Which way do you want it? Do you want -- well, you respond.

MS. BOCKWINKEL: I believe it's more the beltway mentality that they grow into and that they prefer to be out there wheeling and dealing with the lobbyists and special interests that contribute heavily to their campaigns. Why would he want to talk to me when I can't donate $5,000 to his campaign? I can't help him. Those lobbyists and those special interests that are pushing the bill that I was against are giving him money for his campaign. It's like political bribery.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Popkin.

PROF. POPKIN: I think that there was a very interesting point made by one of the interest groups during the fights before the Thomas hearings, where they said, we can't get to the Senators unless we first can get to the people. Now, disarming Congress, put a lot of amateurs in Congress, isn't going to disarm the NRA or any of the other groups that use this new communications to stay in instant touch with their constituents around the country. I think it's true that there's an enormous number of interest groups in this country, but to think that their power comes from the money they give the Congressmen instead of their hold over the voters is really quite naive, if not perhaps even dangerous.

MR. LEHRER: Prof. Williams, back to this point of being out of touch, the criticism that the Senate has gotten in the last few days for the way it handled the sexual harassment allegations against Judge Thomas has now been reversed in that though they may have blown it or they may have mishandled it at the beginning, but the public spoke, and within 24 hours, they turned on a dime and are now having these hearings, because of the communications revolution that you're talking about. Everybody heard Anita Hill on CNN live. As a consequence, the Senate of the United States did a flip flop.

PROF. WILLIAMS: I think that was an example of the Senate being out of touch. I think that they should not have seemed as surprised as they did that so many women were very concerned about this issue and I think that that, in fact, is evidence of how out of touch they were and how much it took in terms of actual almost protest politics to regular lobbying type politics to really get them to listen. And I'd like to say one thing about whether or not they're more in touch than some other elements of American society, such as business, for example. They are empowered actually to be more in touch, so that we should expect them perhaps to be more in touch than the business community. That is, after all, their job. And yet, there are not enough, I would auger.

MR. LEHRER: That's a good point, isn't it, Prof. Mann? That's their job, is to stay in touch.

PROF. MANN: Absolutely. And they do it well, perhaps sometimes too well. They are so inclined to respond to sentiment locally that they're not in a position to lead. Remember, the founding fathers said Congress was to refine and enlarge public views, not simply to reflect local opinion. They have to help shape opinion and help us find our way through some of these problems, and it's difficult to do so.

MR. LEHRER: So Ms. Bockwinkel's congressional representative, his or her job is not necessarily to come from that Washington to this Washington, and both the way she wants them to?

PROF. MANN: If that's all they do, then we have no way of creating the public interest, the common good. Their task, and they are uniquely qualified to do it and do it so much better than every other democratic society, is to listen to, reflect that public opinion, but then bring it into the assembly, help shape it in conjunction with those other representatives. It's a real tough task and they do a pretty good job.

MR. LEHRER: Do not you agree with that, Ms. Bockwinkel, you're not sold?

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Oh, oh, I just think it's absolutely -- they are so out of touch, they aren't doing a good job.

MR. LEHRER: But what about his point? What about his point though that their job is not necessarily to come here and vote the way you want them to, their job is to use their, listen and then use their best wisdom for the common good?

MS. BOCKWINKEL: Well, they are an elected official setting policy but this is a government of the people, for the people, by the people, and they are supposed to be representing my community interest, not special interests, and the PACs, and the Political Action Committees, that are now swarming all over Washington, D.C. I think that the Congress members are outnumbered by lobbyists about 100 to 1. Let's get some citizens out there.

MR. LEHRER: Well, we hear you and so have -- we've been listening, as have Senators Leahy and Hatch. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's right, Jim. And we do return now to the two Senators we spoke with earlier, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah. Sen. Hatch, what do you think? You've been listening to these folks. What do you think in particular about Ms. Bockwinkel's point that members of Congress in general are out of touch, they spend too much time in Washington, they're not adequately listening to what their constituents want them to hear?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I have to tell Ms. Bockwinkel that the difference between the pressures and the amount of work when I got here in 1976 and the pressures and the amount of work today are astronomically different. And I have to say that the vast --

MS. WOODRUFF: Different, you mean a lot more?

SEN. HATCH: A lot more, yes. I have to say that the vast majority of members of Congress are very good people. They work very hard. They try very hard to meet the community needs, including hers, and I think by and large they do a great job. There are a considerable minority here who do not do a good job, who really don't care, who are politicians, who are really the type of people that she's describing, and I have to say that every organization has these kind of dichotomies, but by and large, the people I've known here, and the ones that I work closely with are very understanding people in both parties, work very hard, are very sincere, are really trying to do what's right, are not captives of special interest groups, generally support the positions and legislation that they were elected to support.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Leahy, what about this point that members of Congress spend too much time in Washington? Ms. Bockwinkel said, you all preferred to wheel and deal with a lobbyist who was contributing to your campaign, rather than going back to the district and listening to the people who elected you.

SEN. HATCH: Well, I don't know who represents her, but I know in my case, I'm back in Vermont several times a month. She spoke of having a hard time of reaching a member of Congress. I have a listed home phone number. I've never found any Vermonter that's had any difficulty to pick up the phone and calling me at home when I'm there, on the weekends stopping me in the street or talking with me. I suppose it depends upon the individual. She also talked about term limitations and we have them; it's called an election. And I know when I came here to the Senate, 100 member Senate, I was the junior most member of the Senate. After two and a half terms, there were only 18 people in the Senate, 19 people in the Senate, who'd served their longer than I have in two and a half terms. So there certainly is a lot more turnover than people seem to think. But the question is, if you have a member of Congress who is not accessible, a member of Congress who is not willing to listen to the people, not the fat cats, not the lobbyists, but the people elected, well, then pull them out next election. That's the easiest way to, easiest way to do that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Hatch, what about this argument, the point that Tom Mann made that he believes that you, many members of Congress are too inclined to do what the constituents want, rather than thinking about the good of the entire country, which, of course, is the opposite point from the one Ms. Bockwinkel just made? How do you as a member of Congress decide where you fit on that spectrum between being very responsive to your constituents, on the one hand, and on the other hand, thinking about what's good for the country?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I'm very fortunate. I come from a state that I think where most people agree with what is needed and what they would like us to do, and we try to do what is right and I think they have the national interest at heart, and I think most Senators would claim that. On the other hand, you have a people's body, the House of Representatives, which has to be tremendously responsive to individual districts throughout the country, 435 of them, and you have the national body, which is the Senate, where we are United States Senators. Yes, we're concerned about our own state interest, but we have to be concerned about the national interest as well. I think she would be a lot better off, I admired her feistiness, I admired her standing up, and I admired her finding fault with the excesses and the wrong things about Congress, and they're there. But I think she'd be a lot better off if she was a little bit more concerned about the arrogant control of Congress. For instance, the House of Representatives has been controlled by one party and really one philosophy for 53 of the last 59 years, as I recall, and arrogance does arise in that kind of a control.

MS. WOODRUFF: So you're saying the Democrats are at fault?

SEN. HATCH: No, no, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, is that it is a very good thing to not keep one party in control all the time. When Reagan became President and the Senate went under control of the Republicans, it was a healthy thing for a while. Now it's back in the hands of the Democrats. I'm not saying that's unhealthy. All I'm saying is that when you have 53 of the last 59 years and most of the last 50 years, one party controlling the House of Representatives where all money bills have to originate, my gosh, I have to tell you, not many Presidents --

SEN. LEAHY: Judy, I --

SEN. HATCH: If I could just finish this one thought, not many Presidents are really going to get their way, or be able to do their agenda if they're Republican Presidents, and we've had Republican Presidents for the last, for most of the last 24 years.

MS. WOODRUFF: Sen. Leahy.

SEN. LEAHY: Well, of course, that's, that's assuming everybody speaks monolithically in either party. The fact is when President Reagan came in, he got every single spending bill he ever asked for. And he also got the huge budget deficits that he also asked for. In fact, I think he only vetoed one bill and that's because it didn't spend as much money as he wanted to. But I'm sure that having listened to Orrin on that, he's going to be out there next year in the Presidential election saying, well, gee, we had three times in a row Republican Presidents, it's about time to change. [laughter] The fact is we have elections and people should take 'em seriously. And if members of Congress aren't willing to come home, I'm willing to defend their positions, feeling like somebody else, but I also don't think that you should have members of Congress who take a poll in the morning so they know how to vote in the afternoon. You have to put what you consider your best judgment and the national interest first and foremost.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Sen. Leahy, Sen. Hatch, we thank you both. Thank you. FOCUS - HOW MUCH LONGER?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, the fate of Communism in Cuba. The Communist Party Congress opened there today. It is the first such meeting in six years. It has its work cut out for it, given what's been happening to Communism elsewhere in the world. The question is: Can it survive on a tiny island nine miles off the Coast of Florida? Cuban President Fidel Castro insists there is no turning back now. But BBC Correspondent Peter Godwin says in this report there is a price being paid for going it alone.

MR. GODWIN: He likes to be called the maximum leader. An adoring welcome from little Fidelisters. This is the Castro cult and it's reached truly epic proportions. The bearded one is larger than life and despite current problems, he's still a national hero for millions of his subjects, the closest thing to a Communist monarch. From the most tender of ages, Cuban children are force fed Fidel. These five year olds are cutting their teeth on a poem in his praise.

POEM RECITED BY CHILDREN: [Translated] Fidel the bearded one is always first. Fidel, the nimble, in his fatigues, Fidel is always present at work and when the bullets fly though his boots had wings.

TEACHER: [Speaking through Interpreter] [Speaking to Class] What is Fidel like?

STUDENT: [Speaking through Interpreter] Good.

MR. GODWIN: But is it only Fidel who holds the revolution together?

PROF. OSVALDO CARDENAS, Former Cuban Ambassador: It's very difficult for a man that has been so long in power, that has gone through so many things, that has been so successful in his life not to believe that he's God. Definitely there is a tremendous respect, he has a tremendous authority. I don't think that there is any alternative to him today in Cuba. I think he's very important for a Cuban revolution. But, nevertheless, I don't feel that he is the Cuban revolution.

FIDEL CASTRO: [Speaking through Interpreter] What are we going to do? Are we going to give up?

AUDIENCE: No!

FIDEL CASTRO: [Speaking through Interpreter] Reject the revolution?

AUDIENCE: No!

FIDEL CASTRO: [Speaking through Interpreter] Renounce socialism?

AUDIENCE: No!

FIDEL CASTRO: [Speaking through Interpreter] Surrender?

AUDIENCE: No!

MR. GODWIN: In Havana docks, signs of 30 years of Soviet friendship. Although 70 percent of Cuba's imports, including most manufactured goods, come from the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, most supplied on the cheap. The Cuban revolution has never paid its way. Annually, it's received more than $5 billion in aid from Russia. But not anymore. From this year, Cuba has to pay for all imports at world market prices. Moscow's subsidies have ended. Trade with a new friend, China, is increasing, but nowhere near enough to rescue the Cuban economy. Like a post modern cathedral, the Soviet embassy dominates Havana's diplomatic quarter. Its urbane ambassador, Yuri Petrov, wields more influence than anyone else in Cuba after Fidel, himself. Petrov admits that economic troubles back home mean that for Cuba, the gravy train is over.

YURI PETROV, Soviet Ambassador: [Speaking through Interpreter] All trade is in hard currency. Our main difficulty will be fulfilling our obligations with all the changes in my country.

MR. GODWIN: Castro is embittered by what he sees as a betrayal by his former Communist partners. He's well aware of the awful reality of the collapse of the Communist trading community Comecon, as he told this impromptu press conference.

FIDEL CASTRO: [Speaking through Interpreter] Economically it's disastrous. Our economy relied on Comecon but that trade has disappeared. Those countries turned to the West hoping for large trade credits. They've forgotten about the Third World. They've forgotten Cuba exists, still blockaded by imperialists.

MR. GODWIN: Sugar, this is Cuba's life blood. The island is the biggest exporter in the world. Most goes to the Soviets, who in return have provided Cuba with 1/4 million barrels of oil a day at heavily subsidized prices. Despite this help, Cuba's sugar- based economy has shrunk for the last five years running. Foreign currency reserves have slumped to an all time low. Now economists are keeping a death watch. This man speaks with some authority on the Cuban economy. He was Castro's main trade negotiator with the Soviets. But nine months ago, he gave it all up and defected from Comecon's Moscow headquarters. Now, he lives in Miami, making a living by selling jeans. His prognosis for Cuba is extremely bleak.

RAMON GONZALEZ, Former Deputy Head, Comecon: Unless a miracle happens, and I don't believe in miracles, the situation is very bad and even could get worse than before. In my personal opinion, in the one and a half or two years, the economic situation will be almost in the frontier of a collapse.

MR. GODWIN: But Castro thinks he can work such a miracle. The golden goose is foreign tourism, the quickest way to earn a hard buck. Although it's the Caribbean's biggest island, Cuba attracts only 4 percent of the region's tourists. That's about to change. New hotels are rising like mushrooms after rain. Here the dollar is king. But dollar worshippers created a sort of tourist apartheid in egalitarian Cuba. In special dollar shops, foreign tourists can buy things most Cubans only dream about. It transforms locals into second class citizens. But tourism could well be the trojan horse which subverts Castro's hold. It's already breeding an increase in the black market.

SPOKESMAN: We don't have any alternatives to tourism right now. We have to develop it because we have economic difficulties that compel us to do it. We have to develop it in a very large way, make enormous investment, and this will have and is having already negative impacts on the Cuban society.

MR. GODWIN: As cues lengthen, life grows tougher for ordinary Cubans. They spend hours every day cuing for necessities. Prices are kept low but almost everything is now rationed and quotas are decreasing, unrationed items almost unheard of. Shelves are often empty even of the goods supposedly available. A family of three in theory is now allowed only a single chicken and two cans of beef a month. But as the economic crisis bites, many shops remain virtually empty. Since the revolution, much of Havana has gone to seed. Now things are about to get dramatically worse. Not even the elite is exempt. Warming up for their dance performance, this is the national folk loria troop, treading the boards at their Havana headquarters. But later today they'll shed their leotards for the most robust business of potato picking. This is the second thrust of Castro's economic strategy. It's called the special period in peacetime, a drastic survival course for socialism. It's one of the most astonishing austerity programs ever attempted. Under the program, millions of urban Cubans are being sent to the fields to boost food production. The dancers say they're volunteers, but refusing to volunteer could be extremely detrimental to their careers. Millions of city dwellers are in rural hostels to prove their dedication to the revolution but it doesn't make economic sense and it can at most be a temporary measure. Unless food production is boosted, however, there simply won't be enough to go around.

DANCER: [Speaking through Interpreter] It's hard work, that's for sure, but we have to do it so as to help our people.

DANCER: [Speaking through Interpreter] Our hands are our rifles. The agricultural struggle continues.

MR. GODWIN: In order to save the revolution, Castro is prepared to take his country backwards. This is one of the new oxen training stations that have sprung up across the country. The aim is to domesticate at least 400,000 bulls to take the place of tractors in the fields as the tractors run short of fuel and spare parts. It's all part of the return to pre-industrial farming methods. Very drastic treatment, indeed, for the island's economic woes. On the roads too more cutbacks, buses already crowded to bursting are stopping less frequently. Transport in Havana is a daily penance for the city's commuters. Once again, under the special period, the solution is low-tech and low energy. This is the first batch of 700,000 bicycles imported from China. Put together by Cuban high school students, these bikes are becoming an increasingly familiar sight; millions more are on order. The bikes are being handed out at subsidized prices, first to young people, but then to almost everyone. Today's novelty will be tomorrow's necessity. Cuba's leaders continue to put a brave face on the crisis. Vilma Espin is married to Fidel's brother, Raoul. She grew up with the revolution. Now she's among the top five of the Cuban leadership. Espin may look like a middle American matron, but her heroes are Ho Chi Minh and Lenin.

VILMA ESPIN, Member, Council of State: [Speaking through Interpreter] The solutions we are finding are truly revolutionary, creating national unity. Everyone knows we must solve our problems ourselves. We can't wait for other countries. They have their own problems.

MR. GODWIN: Communism's castaway, marooned in the cold war, Cuba is soldiering on alone, determined to defend its revolution. Cuba is keeping up its barriers, trying to hold back the tide of history.

MR. LEHRER: Cuban authorities banned all foreign journalists from today's party congress session. They also imposed a domestic news blackout on the event. There was some pre-meeting speculation that Castro might consider some democratic reforms to help improve the economic situation, but the state run radio said today, "We love our revolutionary work too much to dishonor it with the most minimal vacillation." RECAP

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the main stories of this Thursday, Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill prepare for tomorrow's critical Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her charges of sexual harassment and Sec. of State Baker met with Palestinian leaders on the proposed Mideast peace conference. He said Palestinian representation was the last major obstacle to convening the meeting. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Judy. We'll see you tomorrow night with full coverage of the special hearings on the Anita Hill charges against Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.