The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (PBS) - 1992-03-13
Channel: malgent
Transcript
Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)
[0:06] Good evening. I'm Jim Lar in Washington
[0:08] and I'm Judy Woodruff in New York. After
[0:11] our summary of the day's news, we'll
[0:13] focus on the congressional check
[0:14] bouncing scandal with two key members, a
[0:18] radio talk show host, and a
[0:20] congressional analyst. Then, Gergen and
[0:22] Shields look at the potential fallout
[0:24] and other political matters.
[0:27] Part of helping the world live and
[0:29] communicate better is keeping it well
[0:32] informed.
[0:34] That's why funding for the McNeel Lair
[0:36] News Hour is provided by AT&T
[0:41] and by PepsiCo.
[0:49] Pepsi
[0:51] and by the Corporation for Public
[0:53] Broadcasting
[0:54] and viewers like you. This was the day
[0:57] of the House check bouncing scandal.
[0:59] Early this morning, the House voted
[1:01] unanimously to disclose the names of 355
[1:05] current and former members who wrote
[1:07] overdrafts at the House Bank. And the
[1:09] House sergeant-at-arms who supervised
[1:11] that banking operation resign. The names
[1:14] of the bank's 24 worst offenders will be
[1:17] released within 10 days, the rest 10
[1:19] days after that. House Speaker Tom Foley
[1:22] was asked if the scandal would cause
[1:24] members to be voted out of office in
[1:26] November.
[1:28] >> My belief is that the members of
[1:30] Congress are going to uh explain the
[1:34] circumstances and explain their own
[1:35] circum circumstances writing the checks
[1:38] and that very very few members of
[1:39] Congress if any will not come here
[1:41] because of this check writing matter.
[1:43] There may be other issues that will
[1:45] change the membership here and most of
[1:46] all redistricting retirement. So, I
[1:49] think you'll you'll have new faces here,
[1:50] but it won't be because of the bank.
[1:52] >> We'll have much more on this story right
[1:54] after the news summary. Judy,
[1:56] >> the Senate prepared to vote tonight on a
[1:58] Democratic tax plan. It would give some
[2:01] 18 million middle class families a tax
[2:03] break, but would raise taxes on the
[2:06] richest 1% of Americans. The House has
[2:09] already passed a similar measure.
[2:11] President Bush has said that he will
[2:12] veto any proposal that raises taxes. In
[2:16] economic news, wholesale prices rose a
[2:19] slight 2% in February. The labor labor
[2:22] department reported that food costs were
[2:24] up 1.1%.
[2:26] That's the biggest jump in two years.
[2:29] Energy costs declined for a third
[2:31] straight month.
[2:33] >> The United Nations is sending Cyrus
[2:35] Vance on a peace mission to Armenia and
[2:37] Azerbaijan. The former US Secretary of
[2:40] State will also visit the disputed
[2:42] Nagardo Carabach region. Vance
[2:44] negotiated the recent peace agreement in
[2:46] Yugoslavia. A Turkish shepherd today
[2:49] produced at least a temporary ceasefire
[2:52] in Gorno Carabach. We have a report
[2:54] narrated by David Simmons of Worldwide
[2:57] Television News.
[3:00] >> The Turkish prime minister announced the
[3:02] ceasefire shortly after talking to
[3:03] President Bush on the telephone. The
[3:05] American president had appealed for
[3:07] calm. Dearel warned of dire consequences
[3:10] for the region if the conflict
[3:11] continues.
[3:14] The appeals seemed to work. Isolated
[3:16] shootings were reported in the disputed
[3:18] territory of Nagorno Kalabak, but by and
[3:20] large the ceasefire held.
[3:24] Outside the Azeri city of Agdam,
[3:26] Armenian militants handed over the
[3:28] bodies of Azeris caught in the
[3:29] crossfire. Agdam's come under heavy fire
[3:32] recently and the casualty list is high.
[3:35] The bodies were taken to a nearby morg
[3:37] where relatives searched for their
[3:39] missing. The wounded and dead continue
[3:41] to flood into the Armenian capital of
[3:43] Yeravan. People arrive in the city every
[3:45] day to escape the fighting. Doctors have
[3:48] complained they're desperately short of
[3:50] food and medicine. Four years of
[3:52] fighting between the neighboring
[3:53] republics have left more than a thousand
[3:55] people dead and many more homeless. An
[3:58] earthquake hit eastern Turkey today. At
[4:00] least 300 people were reported killed.
[4:03] Turkish news reports that it was
[4:05] centered about 350 mi east of Anchora.
[4:08] It measured 6.8 eight on the richter
[4:10] scale and caused heavy damage to
[4:12] buildings in several eastern Turkey
[4:14] cities. An earthquake measuring 7.1 on
[4:17] the richter scale hit the same region in
[4:19] 1983, killing 1300 people. There was
[4:23] violent unrest in South Africa today, 4
[4:26] days ahead of a whites only referendum
[4:28] on aparate. President FW de Clerk was
[4:31] jostled by pro-apartate students as he
[4:34] campaigned for support of his reform at
[4:37] a university in Ptoria. A boss serving
[4:40] as a campaign office for his party was
[4:42] bombed along with two other party
[4:44] offices and at least 24 blacks were
[4:47] killed in savage fighting in black
[4:49] township, the worst so far this year. It
[4:52] brought the death toll to more than 200
[4:54] since the referendum was announced three
[4:56] weeks ago. In Cambodia, Cam Rouge rebels
[5:00] have reportedly launched a new offensive
[5:02] in violation of a United Nations troops.
[5:05] At least 10 people have been killed and
[5:07] 40 wounded. 22,000 UN peacekeepers will
[5:11] be deployed in Cambodia later this month
[5:14] under a ceasefire agreement. UN
[5:16] officials told the Associated Press the
[5:18] Camair Rouge were apparently trying to
[5:21] capture as much territory as possible
[5:23] before the peacekeepers arrived.
[5:26] NASA introduced its new shuttle today.
[5:28] The shuttle Endeavor was rolled to a
[5:31] launchpad at Cape Canaveral, Florida. It
[5:33] is scheduled for its first launch in
[5:35] May. Endeavor is the fourth shuttle in
[5:38] the NASA fleet. It replaces Challenger,
[5:40] which was destroyed in a 1986 explosion
[5:43] that killed seven astronauts. And that's
[5:46] it for the news summary tonight. Now,
[5:48] it's on to the Czech crisis in the House
[5:50] of Representatives and Gurgen and
[5:52] Shields.
[6:01] And the House banking scandal is up
[6:04] first. At 2:00 this morning, lawmakers
[6:06] voted overwhelmingly to name names of
[6:09] those members who wrote over hundreds of
[6:11] thousands of dollars in bad checks. With
[6:14] a general election less than eight
[6:16] months away, the stakes are high. We'll
[6:19] get four views on the political fallout
[6:21] from the scandal. But first, this report
[6:23] from congressional correspondentwami
[6:26] Hullman.
[6:28] >> At the center of the debate was this 154
[6:31] year old institution known as the House
[6:33] Bank. In his attempts to deflect
[6:35] criticism away from the House and its
[6:37] members, Speaker Thomas Foley argued the
[6:40] bank wasn't a bank at all.
[6:42] >> It didn't accept deposits. Couldn't have
[6:44] a deposit unless you remember. It didn't
[6:46] pay interest on those deposits. Didn't
[6:48] provide overdraft coverage. didn't make
[6:51] loans,
[6:53] wasn't insured by the FDIC,
[6:56] wasn't under the regulations of the
[6:58] controller of the currency, the Federal
[7:00] Reserve.
[7:03] Words can be tyrannical, and the common
[7:05] practice of calling this a bank has
[7:08] created a misimpression in the country.
[7:11] That is a serious problem by itself.
[7:14] >> But even if members accepted the
[7:15] speaker's logic, many said the people
[7:18] back home would not. I know and you know
[7:21] that people at home are outraged and I
[7:23] think they have every right to be. How
[7:25] do you explain to a working man, a
[7:28] working woman who puts their check in
[7:30] the bank and then if they overdraw that
[7:33] account, pay a fee, pay interest, and if
[7:36] there's a pattern even face a jail
[7:38] sentence for overdrawing their account?
[7:41] How do you explain this behavior to
[7:43] them? They want to know why is Congress
[7:46] any different than me? If you quit
[7:49] listening to the people,
[7:52] if you start thinking you're above the
[7:54] law, if you start to believe that you
[7:57] are too good or too powerful, are too
[8:01] important,
[8:02] you're going to take a fall.
[8:05] >> Under consideration was an ethics
[8:07] committee report that determined 355
[8:10] current and former members had bounced
[8:12] at least one check during the 39 months
[8:15] under review. The committee, however,
[8:18] recommended that the names of only 24 of
[8:20] the worst offenders be released publicly
[8:23] and a letter sent to the rest. A letter
[8:26] to every member which he he or she could
[8:29] request describing the number of checks
[8:32] overdrawn,
[8:34] the time frame in which they were
[8:35] written, and where available, the number
[8:37] of times over the next month's salary is
[8:40] available to every single member who
[8:42] requests it. Now, this form of
[8:44] self-discipline
[8:46] is going to be a godsend for most of the
[8:48] individuals who wrote a couple of checks
[8:50] and want to divorce themselves from the
[8:52] agreed upon public villain. And I expect
[8:54] the line to form outside the ethics
[8:56] committee tomorrow morning.
[8:58] But for those offenders near the front
[9:00] of the list, indirect exposure borders
[9:02] on cruel and unusual punishment. Because
[9:06] based on what you have seen so far, the
[9:07] public pressure to release your letter
[9:09] will be overwhelming.
[9:11] But the pressure from the press and
[9:13] constituents back home already had
[9:16] become too much to bear. Members were
[9:18] now willing to accept nothing less than
[9:20] full disclosure of all 355 names. The
[9:24] choice is clear. We should disclose the
[9:27] names of all involved along with the
[9:29] relevant information. To do otherwise
[9:31] would to cause the stain caused by this
[9:34] scandal to spread. To do otherwise would
[9:38] to leave the lasting impression of a
[9:40] cover up. To do otherwise would erode
[9:43] even further what little respect
[9:46] the public has left for this
[9:47] institution. Scandal after scandal,
[9:50] abuse after abuse, headline after
[9:52] headline, the institution we love
[9:54] stumbles its way deeper into shame and
[9:56] dishonor. And the American people will
[9:59] no longer tolerate explanations and
[10:01] excuses and rationalizations.
[10:03] Full disclosure is the only answer. And
[10:06] that's why
[10:06] >> even though the eventual vote for full
[10:08] disclosure was unanimous, many members
[10:11] felt victimized and voted reluctantly.
[10:14] My colleagues, for four decades,
[10:17] thousands
[10:19] of elected officials,
[10:22] some who may have gone on to be
[10:24] presidents or vice presidents, some of
[10:27] whom may have gone to become senior
[10:29] officials in this administration or
[10:31] other administrations.
[10:33] People who are admired,
[10:35] people who are respected,
[10:39] people who are in fact individuals of
[10:41] very high principle
[10:43] have used this bank under the standards
[10:46] that have been applied year after year
[10:49] after year. Now the rules are changed.
[10:52] Now we're all going to be judged based
[10:54] on what the press, the public, and some
[10:57] members thought the rule should have
[10:59] been. That's not very fair in my
[11:02] estimation. It is unfair,
[11:05] but nevertheless the case that most
[11:08] members are today being held responsible
[11:11] and accountable for a flawed system over
[11:14] which they had no control.
[11:17] While this reality doesn't excuse the
[11:19] activity and behavior of members who
[11:22] clearly abuse the system, it does mean
[11:25] that members with no insufficiencies in
[11:28] their records and members with
[11:30] inadvertent overdrafts are caught in the
[11:33] same net. Last night's debate was nearly
[11:36] free of the partisan fingerpointing that
[11:38] marks nearly every congressional debate.
[11:40] But shortly before 1:00 this morning,
[11:43] just before the unanimous vote, the
[11:45] House chamber exploded.
[11:47] >> This process tonight on this floor is
[11:48] just plain outrageous.
[11:51] The hutbah, the hubris, the g of
[11:56] democratic leader after Democratic
[11:58] leader coming to the floor tonight and
[12:02] wrapping themselves in bipartisanship.
[12:05] Tonight we have Democratic
[12:07] co-sponsorship of full disclosure.
[12:10] Yet last fall, the Democratic speaker
[12:12] declared the matter closed. All this
[12:15] week, the Democratic leadership tried to
[12:18] block full disclosure. Only when public
[12:21] outrage had mounted and the Democratic
[12:23] backbenches had rebelled the Democratic
[12:25] leadership agree to full disclosure.
[12:28] >> The suggestion that we have sought to
[12:30] block this resolution is patently
[12:33] untrue. the majority, the matently
[12:36] untrue. Patently untrue. We have a task
[12:40] to repair the reputation of this house.
[12:43] We have a task to show to the American
[12:45] people that we intend to see that
[12:47] deficiencies in its operation are
[12:49] corrected. And I am determined to see
[12:51] that that happens. And I am willing to
[12:53] work with anyone on the Republican side,
[12:56] including the whip from Georgia, if he
[12:58] is serious in his offer. But he ought to
[13:01] set aside the cruel and unfortunate
[13:04] tendency to blame and to confuse in his
[13:08] desire to seek political ends.
[13:12] Names of the check bouncers will be
[13:13] released officially in two ways. The 24
[13:16] worst check bouncers in 10 days. The
[13:19] remaining 331 10 days after that. Many
[13:22] members will choose to come forward
[13:24] before then. many already have and are
[13:26] spending the weekend back home
[13:28] attempting to control the damage. Now,
[13:31] four further perspectives on the
[13:32] election year political ramifications of
[13:35] all this. Congressman Vic Fasio of
[13:37] California as chairman of the Democratic
[13:39] Congressional Campaign Committee.
[13:41] Congressman Guy Vanderjack of Michigan
[13:43] has the same job on the Republican side.
[13:45] Norman Ornstein is a congressional
[13:47] expert and resident scholar at the
[13:49] American Enterprise Institute. Rush
[13:51] Limbau is host of a syndicated radio
[13:54] talk show carried by 465 stations across
[13:57] the country. Congressman Fasio to you
[14:00] first. Charles Cook of the Cook
[14:02] Political Newsletter said to his clients
[14:05] today, and I quote, "The House check
[14:07] bouncing affair promises to be the
[14:09] biggest scandal to hit Washington since
[14:11] Watergate. More longtime careers will be
[14:14] ended and more new ones begun than by
[14:17] any scandal since Teapot Dome." End
[14:19] quote. Is he right?
[14:20] >> I think that overstates the case. I
[14:22] think there are going to be a lot of
[14:23] changes in Congress this year. I think
[14:25] we've been predicting it for quite a
[14:27] while. People have been saying 75 to 100
[14:29] new members. But how there are portion
[14:32] between the two parties, I think,
[14:33] remains to be seen. The Czech uh scandal
[14:36] is going to affect both parties. We've
[14:38] already had people on the wires today,
[14:40] leaders in both parties talking about
[14:42] how it may affect them. And certainly
[14:44] with the economy as it is today, there's
[14:46] an awful lot of feeling about the need
[14:49] for change anyway. Both parties feeling
[14:52] the anti-incumbency that flows out of a
[14:54] prolonged recession. So this is going to
[14:57] be one factor among many others that I
[14:59] think will make this a very volatile and
[15:01] interesting year. But I think our part
[15:03] is going to more than hold its own in
[15:06] this situation and do quite well.
[15:07] >> How big a factor do you think it's going
[15:09] to be, Congressman Berjack?
[15:10] >> The bank scandal is going to be a big
[15:12] factor. It's a big factor in and of
[15:14] itself, but it's also a factor of of
[15:16] what it symbolizes.
[15:19] Long time ago, Lord Actton said that
[15:21] power corrupts, but absolute power
[15:23] corrupts absolutely. And 38 consecutive
[15:26] years of power by one party over any
[15:29] institution isn't healthy. This, as you
[15:32] quoted at the beginning of Charles Cook,
[15:34] is a potential Watergate. And it didn't
[15:37] just happen and start with the uh bank
[15:40] scandal. It began with the resignation
[15:41] of a speaker in disgrace and has just
[15:45] been building ever since. We saw the
[15:46] anti-incumbent mood, the anti- Congress
[15:49] mood uh in the last election. It's been
[15:51] building ever since. The bank scandal is
[15:53] kind of a sore that uh is a symptom of
[15:57] an infection that goes through the whole
[15:59] system and people want the system to be
[16:01] changed. They want it put under new
[16:02] management.
[16:03] >> New management meaning Republican
[16:05] management.
[16:05] >> It's the only way to put it under new
[16:07] management. It's an interesting thing.
[16:08] The speaker tried to pretend that it was
[16:10] putting the sergeant-at-arms under new
[16:12] management by kind of the scapegoat of
[16:14] Jack Russ resigning just before we voted
[16:16] last night and then putting in his place
[16:19] someone who is in the speaker's inner
[16:21] sanctum and who is at least uh quoted by
[16:24] the media or attributed by the media to
[16:26] having been one of two people
[16:28] participating in the cover up of the
[16:30] post office scandal of theft and
[16:32] embezzlement and selling cocaine. I
[16:34] mean, we got one scandal after another,
[16:36] restaurant, bank, post office, and
[16:38] everything else. Obviously, it needs to
[16:40] be put under new management. And the
[16:42] only way to do that is make sure that a
[16:43] majority of those new 100 faces that
[16:46] will be here in the next Congress are
[16:48] Republicans.
[16:48] >> So, it's a Democratic scandal,
[16:50] Congressman.
[16:50] >> Absolutely not. And and I think we see
[16:52] in in Guy's response a kind of an effort
[16:54] to build a crescendo here because people
[16:58] want to talk about the house and its
[17:00] problems and avoid frankly the subjects
[17:03] that we really need to be talking about.
[17:05] The scandal of the health care system in
[17:07] this country, the prolonged recession,
[17:09] the high rates of unemployment, and the
[17:11] real reasons why we've been elected to
[17:13] come to Washington to work on the
[17:15] public's problems. I mean, this kind of
[17:17] smear and innuendo about Wernner Brandt
[17:19] is typical of the effort to keep this
[17:22] problem snowballing.
[17:23] >> Where's the What do you mean the smear
[17:24] on Warner Brandt?
[17:25] >> Warner Brandt was named last night to be
[17:28] the acting sergeant-at-arms because Jack
[17:30] Russ, who had a great deal to do with
[17:32] the problem of this bank, finally
[17:34] resigned. But there's been no evidence
[17:36] that he covered up anything. It's an
[17:38] innuendo because somebody may have
[17:40] alleged it someplace an effort to keep
[17:43] the ball rolling.
[17:45] to focus on the problems of the
[17:48] peripheral activities of the House and
[17:50] not on the issues the American people
[17:52] want us to be dealing with.
[17:53] >> We've talked about the other issues on
[17:55] other programs, but we want to I'm
[17:56] determined we're going to talk about the
[17:57] bank.
[17:58] >> We definitely will. I hope so.
[17:59] >> Okay. So, let me ask you very directly,
[18:01] Congressman Fasio. Do you believe that
[18:04] the members of the House of
[18:06] Representatives who bounce these checks
[18:08] should be put out of work by the voters?
[18:11] >> I think there are some people who abuse
[18:13] the privilege of the bank. They
[18:14] certainly abused their colleagues who
[18:16] were their uh members of the cooperative
[18:19] check cashaching service with them. Many
[18:21] of the members of Congress of both
[18:23] parties who are out there doing their
[18:25] miaulpa today as they should honestly
[18:28] laying out the facts for their peers,
[18:30] their constituents don't deserve to be
[18:32] thrown out of office and won't be
[18:34] because in fact they were victimized by
[18:36] a mess at the bank which really did not
[18:39] permit them to know when they were
[18:41] overdrawn and when they needed to make
[18:43] restitution. They are victimized just as
[18:46] anyone would be by a system they didn't
[18:48] understand. Congressman Vanjac, what is
[18:50] your view of what the what kind of
[18:52] punishment the voters should in should
[18:54] inflict on these people?
[18:55] >> Let me say that. Let me say I agree with
[18:57] my good friend Vic that there will be
[19:00] innocent congressmen, Democrat and
[19:02] Republican, high principal people who uh
[19:05] through the sloppy way in which the bank
[19:08] was run uh will have the stigma of
[19:11] having a check bounce. That does not
[19:13] minimize the problem. For example, the
[19:15] Democrat resolution naming 24 Uh that
[19:19] means that one fellow
[19:20] >> committee's resolution, a bipartisan
[19:22] group
[19:22] >> supported by the Democrat leadership all
[19:24] out. Uh that would not have revealed the
[19:27] name of a fellow that uh bounced $714
[19:31] checks over $200,000 uh overdrawn under
[19:35] that resolution. He was a non-abuser and
[19:38] his name never would have been released.
[19:39] Thank goodness the Republicans in this
[19:41] instance put enough pressure on the
[19:43] Democrat leadership to finally at the
[19:46] 11th hour get them to agree with us that
[19:48] full disclosure was required by the
[19:50] outraged American public.
[19:52] >> Mr. Limbau, on the question of outrage,
[19:55] somebody said today that uh this scandal
[19:58] was like handing gasoline and matches to
[20:00] the radio talk shows all over all over
[20:02] the country. Is that correct? Well, I I
[20:05] I really don't think it is in a sense it
[20:08] gives us an issue, but I think the thing
[20:09] that needs to be said about that, Jim,
[20:10] is that radio talk show hosts, radio
[20:12] talk shows don't invent emotion. We It
[20:15] It was there. I mean, the public is is
[20:17] is angry as they can be about this. And
[20:19] and there's a one good reason for it.
[20:21] This is easy to understand. This is
[20:23] something they can't do. This is the
[20:25] epitome of arrogance. This is the
[20:27] epitome of condescension. And it just
[20:29] won't do, Congressman Fasio, to sit
[20:31] there and say that the people don't care
[20:32] about this, that they want you to sit
[20:34] there and do the work of the country.
[20:35] You haven't been doing the work of the
[20:37] country. When the work of the country
[20:38] gets done, it's it's it's by accident,
[20:40] not by design. And it always seems to be
[20:43] wrong, and it seems to be screwed up.
[20:45] And the people seem powerless to do
[20:46] anything about it. It takes a simple
[20:48] issue like this where you guys can go in
[20:51] and float loans to yourself interest
[20:53] free. You sit there and say it's not
[20:55] taxpayer money. It is all taxpayer
[20:57] money. That's the point. you guys are
[20:59] our employees and you treat people in
[21:01] the country like we are your employees
[21:03] and you're the boss and it just won't do
[21:05] anymore. And I think that there's going
[21:07] to be much more of a a change this fall
[21:10] uh than than you or Speaker Foley seem
[21:12] to think. I think the people out there
[21:14] are genuinely upset about this and and
[21:16] this is the one issue that could be the
[21:18] one that causes a massive shift in
[21:20] seats.
[21:20] >> Why this one? Why is this so important?
[21:23] >> Because Jim, this goes to the root of
[21:25] life. These are people who exempt
[21:26] themselves from laws they passed. These
[21:28] are people who tell us that the tax cuts
[21:31] we got in the 80s are responsible for
[21:33] the deficit. The deficit is the
[21:35] responsibility of the US Congress. They
[21:37] spend the money and they tell us that
[21:40] it's our fault because we got tax cuts
[21:42] that we didn't deserve. That the
[21:43] prosperity of the 80s was not justified
[21:46] and not warranted. And so here comes
[21:48] some people who say we need a pay raise.
[21:50] We need a pay. They don't need a pay
[21:51] raise. They can go to the bank and get a
[21:52] pay raise anytime they want interest
[21:54] free. and they don't have to pay it
[21:55] back. And the problem here is that we
[21:58] found out about it and the Democratic
[22:00] leadership in this Congress had no
[22:02] desire for any of this to happen. The
[22:04] thing to keep in mind is that none of
[22:05] this last night would have happened had
[22:07] not the Democratic leadership cave.
[22:11] Norman Ornstein, is the outrage
[22:13] justified in your opinion at the at the
[22:16] 355 current and former members?
[22:18] >> No, I don't think so, Jim. There clearly
[22:20] are some people who are misreants in
[22:22] this process and they ought to be bared
[22:23] for public consideration and they're up
[22:25] every two years for a vote and uh and
[22:27] their constituents can decide. But uh
[22:29] having tried to douse the fire after
[22:31] handing the gasoline and the matches to
[22:33] Mr. Limba, he said this is something
[22:35] that people find easy to understand. One
[22:37] of the reasons they find it easy to
[22:38] understand is that it is grossly
[22:39] oversimplified and distorted not by just
[22:42] by radio talk show hosts. It's been true
[22:44] of the press from the beginning. Most of
[22:46] the stories here say that it is a bank.
[22:48] Basically, people think it's a bank just
[22:50] like every other. People think that it
[22:52] is directly the taxpayers's money at
[22:54] stake. For these people, this great
[22:56] perk, I as a a private citizen have a
[22:59] now account in a bank and my paycheck
[23:01] gets electronically deposited
[23:03] immediately there where it immediately
[23:04] begins earning interest. I've got
[23:06] overdraft protection as a lot of people
[23:08] do. If I go over, I pay a small fee. I
[23:11] earn far more in interest. I have FDIC
[23:14] insurance protection. This was a
[23:16] depository had been set up in 1830
[23:18] originally. It did not have any FDIC
[23:21] protection. It involved the only money
[23:24] that was there was the money that had
[23:25] come from the paychecks of the members
[23:27] of Congress. The floats were floats that
[23:30] people in Congress were using from their
[23:32] own colleagues money. They did not earn
[23:34] interest on their money. Uh it would go
[23:36] into this account and would sit there
[23:38] not earning interest often for weeks at
[23:40] a time. They basically got screwed in
[23:42] this process. Why coffee management if
[23:44] it was such a bad deal Norm why did they
[23:46] do it? If you came into the Congress
[23:48] basically what you were told even though
[23:50] it wasn't entirely accurate was this is
[23:51] the way we do things. The same as if you
[23:53] uh came to work for the public
[23:55] television station and they said we
[23:56] don't do direct deposit of paychecks.
[23:58] We've got our own depository here and
[23:59] the money goes there and this is the way
[24:00] it works. And most people just did that.
[24:02] They are in fact innocent victims for
[24:05] the most part. And it's a much more
[24:06] complicated issue even than that. We
[24:08] talk about checks being bounced for
[24:09] $10,000. What if you bounce a check
[24:11] where you write one for $10,000, say for
[24:13] a mortgage payment or uh to put in
[24:15] another account, and in fact you had
[24:17] $9,990
[24:18] in the bank. Another time you write a
[24:21] check for $10 and you got zero in the
[24:22] bank. They're they're the same at one
[24:25] level. At another level, obviously, the
[24:26] way this information is going to come
[24:28] out, you will look like the uh biggest
[24:31] uh bozo in the world or deadbeat in the
[24:33] world because you bounced the check for
[24:34] $10,000. Many people because you had uh
[24:37] a system that had statements that were
[24:39] far less sophisticated and timely uh
[24:42] than you have in a regular bank
[24:44] unknowingly made errors here. We may
[24:46] have 24, we may have 55 or 60 who use
[24:50] this system, some cynically for their
[24:52] own advantage. Let the voters decide on
[24:54] them. Others are going to get caught up
[24:55] in this wash because basically a lot of
[24:58] press people see this is a great story.
[24:59] Why should we let shades of gray and
[25:01] facts get in the way? And what concerns
[25:03] me the most, frankly, is not just the
[25:05] current members. They can, they're big
[25:07] boys and girls. They can take care of
[25:08] themselves. They'll get out there and
[25:09] they'll make their case one way or the
[25:11] other. What concerns me is that this is
[25:13] part of a pattern where the where
[25:14] scandal becomes the news no matter what.
[25:16] It gets hyped no matter what. In some
[25:18] cases, it's real. In some cases, it's
[25:20] hyped beyond belief. It's distorted
[25:22] beyond belief. Who in his or her right
[25:23] mind is going to run for office under
[25:25] these circumstances? We're going to get
[25:26] demagogues. We're going to get
[25:28] multi-millionaires. And we're going to
[25:29] get the Mother Teresas of the world if
[25:32] we can find any. And when they come to
[25:33] Congress, we'll find a scandal
[25:35] manufactured for them.
[25:36] >> Mr. Lamar,
[25:37] >> Mr. Ornstein, I with all due respect,
[25:39] you are a brilliant political scientist,
[25:40] but all of that is irrelevant. We are
[25:43] talking about an attitude that is
[25:46] exhibited by these members. Who cares if
[25:48] it wasn't really a bank if you want to
[25:49] get technical that way? There are so
[25:51] many questions. You're talking about
[25:52] $10,000, $20,000. Where do people making
[25:55] a hundred and some odd thousand taking
[25:57] home 75 get the money to repay these
[25:59] loans? Where is the IRS and their
[26:01] concerns in any of this? I mean, there's
[26:03] far more here than just a minor little
[26:06] scandal. And if you want to talk about
[26:07] scandals, the Democrats live off of
[26:08] them. The Democrats can't win the White
[26:10] House without them. Here's Tom Foley,
[26:12] who says we're going to have to inspect
[26:14] the the October surprise, whether Reagan
[26:16] and Casey made a deal with the Iranians
[26:18] on hostages because we have no evidence.
[26:21] And because we have no evidence, we've
[26:22] got to look into it. And this is a
[26:23] bipartisan business. This scandal stuff,
[26:25] but his this this whole line from Mr.
[26:28] Ornstein misses the point that it's
[26:30] attitudinal. Jim.
[26:31] >> All right. Let me ask you this question,
[26:32] Mr. Limbau. Do you have any sympathy at
[26:35] all for any of the members of Congress
[26:38] who might be involved in this as as
[26:40] outlined by Norm Arnstein that somebody
[26:42] might have made one inadvertent mistake
[26:45] or two or three inadvertent mistakes?
[26:47] Are you concerned that they might also
[26:49] get it in the next? uh somewhat. But I
[26:52] think that what really is needed here is
[26:53] a total reform of the way the House does
[26:55] business. The very fact that this bank,
[26:57] which was set up to cover first month's
[27:00] expenses after you won elections 150
[27:02] years ago, had evolved to the point that
[27:04] it got to last night is a sure sign that
[27:06] the whole thing is a mess and needs to
[27:09] be reformed. And sometimes a total sweep
[27:11] is what's necessary.
[27:12] >> Norm, what about that point? I mean,
[27:14] that the point that Mr. I was making
[27:15] there is that uh it's all well and good
[27:18] to say these individuals may not be as
[27:20] guilty as other individuals etc. But
[27:22] there isn't that a kind of a lousy way
[27:24] to run a railroad up there.
[27:25] >> It absolutely is. And some changes
[27:27] occurred. The bank has been closed. It
[27:29] should have been closed a long time ago.
[27:30] They should have put in a commercial
[27:31] bank with money machines and all the
[27:32] rest of it. And I'm sure we'll move in
[27:34] that direction. And we need serious
[27:35] administrative reform. And I think now
[27:38] we're going to get some. It should have
[27:39] happened a long time ago. They ought to
[27:40] be criticized for it. And frankly, I
[27:42] think we also need some reform in the
[27:43] ethics process because Congress has
[27:46] given the constitutional responsibility
[27:47] to police itself and it has to take that
[27:49] responsibility seriously in terms of
[27:51] ultimate decisions. I don't think we can
[27:53] go any longer with having current
[27:54] members make these decisions because
[27:56] they're damned if they do and damned if
[27:57] they don't. We need a central house
[27:59] administrator who is a professional
[28:02] person like a city manager. Uh we have
[28:04] something that's not quite comparable to
[28:06] that in the White House, which is a
[28:07] fairly recent innovation and they ought
[28:08] to do it in the Congress as well. And I
[28:10] think we're being pushed very strongly
[28:11] in that direction. It's overdue. We need
[28:13] to take a look at other aspects of the
[28:14] institution. But that is one element
[28:17] here. Clearly ought to be done. Maybe
[28:20] the scandal adds some additional
[28:21] pressure to do that. But frankly, we're
[28:23] focusing not so much on that. That's an
[28:25] afterthought now. It's the feeding
[28:27] frenzy that we've seen come up. And
[28:28] frankly, it's not just partisan. I felt
[28:30] the same way about the John Tower
[28:31] business. I think we've hyped the
[28:33] October surprise beyond belief. We're
[28:35] into scandal everywhere now. And it is
[28:38] corrosive in the system. Not because
[28:40] it's taking place. Frankly, it's there.
[28:43] It's always been there to some degree in
[28:45] politics. Most every historian would
[28:47] tell you that there's less of it now
[28:48] than there was 50 years ago. But we are
[28:50] ignoring a lot of other things. And
[28:51] we're not going to get good people to
[28:52] serve. Raj, how do you respond to that?
[28:55] >> Uh what I don't think that any of that
[28:57] has anything to do with whether or not
[28:58] we're going to get good people to serve.
[28:59] Uh just because you can't go cash a
[29:01] check that you for money you don't have
[29:02] at a bank means that people aren't going
[29:04] to run for Congress to be elected. Uh I
[29:06] I think that that that is a a straw dog
[29:09] that is thrown out. Although we're not
[29:10] going to get good people. I would say we
[29:12] don't have good people now uh on
[29:14] balance. Nothing is getting done. This
[29:16] government is in gridlock and has been
[29:18] since Ronald Reagan won the White House
[29:20] because members of Congress, the
[29:21] leadership of the Democratic side don't
[29:23] want any political victory or
[29:24] legislative victory by the White House.
[29:26] So everything gets stonewalled. We don't
[29:27] have any leadership going on in the
[29:29] country right now. I think on on balance
[29:31] and that's one of the reasons we have
[29:32] these problems. That one of the reasons
[29:33] we have with these problems, Congressman
[29:35] Fasio?
[29:35] >> Well, I think the country has been in
[29:36] political gridlock and I think one of
[29:38] the things you're seeing in 1992 is the
[29:40] feeling that we're now moving to change.
[29:42] We're going to have a significant
[29:44] election for president this year. The
[29:46] the issue is in doubt and Congress is
[29:48] attempting to stand firmly on principle
[29:50] and that's one of the reasons it's hard
[29:52] to get, for example, a tax bill through
[29:54] that this president will sign because
[29:56] he's unwilling to raise taxes on upper
[29:58] income people like Rush Limbbo. But that
[30:01] doesn't necessarily mean that this
[30:03] Congress won't provide by the end of
[30:05] this year a record that Democrats will
[30:07] want to run on. I think we're going to
[30:08] send some things to the president that
[30:10] he really ought to sign. Whether he will
[30:12] or not is another question. But the
[30:14] Republicans think the sing a single
[30:16] issue silver bullet for them this year.
[30:19] Is this is this one and related issues
[30:22] that they would like to bring into it to
[30:23] show a pattern of corruption as they
[30:25] would have it. I really think I agree
[30:27] with Norman on this. We've got to work
[30:29] to reform aspects of the system. We have
[30:32] to have a chief administrative officer
[30:34] who can run a post office, run a
[30:36] restaurant, and thank God the bank is
[30:38] closed. So that doesn't need to be run
[30:40] anymore. But those are things that I
[30:42] think we can work out in a bipartisan
[30:44] way. There was a lot of talk about that
[30:45] last night from both sides of the aisle.
[30:48] And I sense that there is really a
[30:49] willingness to get away from the four
[30:52] house officers who've been elected by
[30:54] their peers in theory, but who now will
[30:57] have to come to the speaker to be
[30:59] appointed with the corroboration of the
[31:01] caucus. In other words, he'll take
[31:02] responsibility for making sure that
[31:04] these people can do the job, have the
[31:07] ability to not only protect the
[31:09] institution's reputation, but to do the
[31:11] public business in Congress. Congressman
[31:13] Vanerjack, I take it from what you said
[31:14] earlier that you're not interested in a
[31:16] bipartisan solution to this right now,
[31:19] right? I mean, there is a there's an
[31:20] election and the Democrats are to blame.
[31:22] >> We have no chance for a bipartisan
[31:24] solution. They selected their new
[31:26] sergeant-at-arms last night, swore them
[31:28] in with absolutely no consultation with
[31:30] the Republicans. Norm said that uh uh
[31:33] the members are told when they come,
[31:34] this is the way things are done. And
[31:36] that's exactly the point. This is the
[31:39] way things were done. And it the way
[31:41] things were done was incumbent
[31:43] privileges and perks without an interest
[31:45] of the people. Rush is absolutely right.
[31:48] This is the kind of scandal that people
[31:50] do understand. And yes, there are
[31:53] innocent people that will get caught up
[31:54] in it and the media won't treat them
[31:57] fairly. However, the public does
[31:59] understand what came out on the floor
[32:01] last night. A member walks in. He's
[32:03] $10,000 overdrawn. He writes out, and
[32:06] the bank knows it. He writes out another
[32:08] check for another $5,000 and it's cash.
[32:11] No questions asked. You were right when
[32:14] you said it's a lousy way to run a
[32:15] railroad. It was a lousy way to run a
[32:17] bank. The only way to correct the
[32:20] management of the house procedurally and
[32:23] rule-wise and committee-wise that people
[32:25] understand the bank and the restaurant.
[32:28] But this sickness, this cancer permeates
[32:31] the whole operation of the house because
[32:32] of 38 consecutive years of one party
[32:34] rule. Congressman Fasio, how are you and
[32:36] others going to respond to that specific
[32:39] charge that not so much the individual
[32:41] members what they may or that this kind
[32:43] of operation was allowed to go on?
[32:45] >> This uh kind of operation has been
[32:47] reforming over a long period of time,
[32:49] but it was deeply ingrained and it does
[32:52] need to change and the rank and file of
[32:54] the Democratic Party is just as anxious
[32:56] for this. A number of members, including
[32:59] myself, have been demanding that we have
[33:00] a chief administrative officer. We're
[33:02] going to get one now. I don't think
[33:03] there's any question that's going to
[33:05] occur. It can permeate up through the
[33:07] ranks in both parties. It doesn't take a
[33:09] vigilante group to try to stir the
[33:12] Congress to action. It's coming and in
[33:14] my view, it is still an issue that the
[33:17] Republicans would like to divert our
[33:19] attention to. The institution is not
[33:21] corrupt. The members are not evil. The
[33:24] system does need attention and it's not
[33:26] going to get it by heightening the
[33:28] partisan warfare. It's only going to be
[33:30] accomplished if we sit down and work
[33:32] together on these problems, which I am
[33:34] committed and I think many members of
[33:36] the Democratic leadership are committed.
[33:37] >> I agree with Vic. Incidentally, the
[33:39] members are not evil. But when Tony
[33:40] Quell was forced to resign in disgrace,
[33:42] a wash in illegal contributions from
[33:45] corrupt SNLs, he said, "I am not a
[33:48] corrupt person, and I don't believe he
[33:49] was or is, but he said this is a
[33:52] corrupting system of which we are all a
[33:54] part."
[33:54] >> Corrupting system, Norm. Well, you know,
[33:56] I I I think uh the problem we have is
[33:59] that that is the widespread perception.
[34:01] A part of it is going back to what Rush
[34:03] said earlier. There no doubt is enormous
[34:05] frustration out of a feeling that the
[34:07] the real work of government isn't
[34:09] getting done, that we are not dealing
[34:10] with major problems. And that's
[34:12] certainly the case. But we've got to
[34:14] look at the other side of this, too. One
[34:15] of the reasons that we're not going to
[34:16] get things done, we haven't, and and
[34:18] it's going to be a problem in the
[34:19] future, is that if the public out there
[34:21] thinks that the government is completely
[34:23] filled with bozos, misgreants, felons,
[34:26] and worse. They're not going to give any
[34:30] room for leadership. They're not going
[34:32] to say, "You're going to make a tough
[34:33] decision. It's going to hurt us. We have
[34:34] to give you a leap of faith to let you
[34:36] do that." And people in politics now are
[34:38] so antsy. They want to do what the
[34:39] public wants, and they misperceive what
[34:41] the public wants. And we aren't going to
[34:42] get much. on your talk show and other
[34:44] talk shows. Are are you which way are
[34:47] you going to spread the word that it is
[34:49] a corrupt system or it's a good system
[34:52] run by corrupt people at this point?
[34:54] >> Well, I I'm I'm not going to spread the
[34:56] word that it's corrupt. I'm I'm simply
[34:58] going to take each individual occurrence
[35:00] in Congress and comment it on on it as I
[35:02] see fit. Uh I think a good illustration
[35:05] of this Jim on a on an unrelated issue
[35:07] is that the press is now reporting uh
[35:09] that the economy is coming back because
[35:11] consumer spending is coming back.
[35:13] Consumer spending is leading it. All the
[35:14] reports are that consumer spending is
[35:15] up. What's Congress done to inspire
[35:17] that? What has any presidential
[35:19] candidate done to inspire that?
[35:20] Absolutely nothing. But everybody says
[35:22] we need Congress to fix the economy,
[35:23] president to fix the economy. The people
[35:25] are the ones that control the way things
[35:27] happen in this country. And when that
[35:29] process is interrupted by corruption in
[35:31] Congress, we point it out.
[35:33] >> All right, we'll leave it right there.
[35:34] Gentlemen, thank you all for very much.
[35:37] >> Still ahead, Gurgen and Shield. But
[35:40] first, this is pledge week on public
[35:42] television. We're taking a short break
[35:43] now so that your public television
[35:45] station can ask for your support. That
[35:47] support helps keep programs like this on
[35:50] the air.
[35:58] For those stations not taking a pledge
[36:00] break, the NewsHour continues. On March
[36:03] 17th, white South Africans will vote in
[36:06] a national referendum on aparate. A no
[36:09] vote would put an end to President FW D
[36:12] Clerk's move toward a multi-racial
[36:14] government. The referendum has inflamed
[36:16] passions on both sides of the issue and
[36:19] unleashed a spiral of violence that
[36:21] today left at least 24 people dead in
[36:24] Black Township. Judy Allet of
[36:27] Independent Television News reports.
[36:29] >> Residents this morning described it as a
[36:31] massacre. The victims, mainly women and
[36:34] children, sleep in their beds when they
[36:36] came under fire. Local AMC members say
[36:39] they warned the police in Carter was
[36:41] threatening to attack them. But instead
[36:44] of protecting the squatter camp, they
[36:46] stood by and let the impies run riots.
[36:50] It's against this background of
[36:52] increasing violence that President SW
[36:54] Durk begins the final leg of his
[36:56] referendum campaign. Anxious to avoid a
[36:59] repeat of a tear gas attack earlier this
[37:02] week. His bodyguards keeping the crowd
[37:04] at a distance. His message to white
[37:07] voters throughout the past three weeks
[37:10] has been that the only way to stop the
[37:12] conflict in South Africa is to
[37:14] negotiate. And though he recognizes that
[37:17] many South Africans fear that violence
[37:19] has increased since his reform process
[37:21] began, the alternative a no vote could
[37:25] only lead to disaster.
[37:27] >> Yeah. inside South Africa.
[37:31] Any effort to turn the clock back and no
[37:35] majority will be that
[37:39] will cause fa.
[37:43] >> It's a concern that Nelson Mandela
[37:45] addressed at a breakfast in Johannesburg
[37:47] this morning. He's already come out in
[37:49] support of a yes vote, which he says
[37:52] would be the only way South Africa could
[37:54] avoid civil war. Black fears are a
[37:58] reality,
[37:59] fears of a turmoil and civil war in the
[38:03] country because they know that if the
[38:06] Conservative party comes into power and
[38:08] carries out its policy as it has now
[38:11] declared,
[38:12] federal war in this country is
[38:14] unavoidable.
[38:14] >> For those who support the no vote, it's
[38:16] a vision of a country after reform
[38:19] that's even more frightening. The
[38:21] Conservative Party campaign is based on
[38:23] threats of black domination over whites,
[38:26] which it says will inevitably lead to
[38:28] communism and disaster.
[38:30] >> I don't vote for communism. I don't vote
[38:33] for Mandela and Slov.
[38:34] >> No black men. No bless men. You can't
[38:37] trust it. And power she is absolutely
[38:40] ridiculous.
[38:41] Even the more moderate in the
[38:42] Conservative party have been forced by
[38:44] the referendum to share the same
[38:46] platform as militant right-wing leaders
[38:48] like the AWB Eugene T Blanch. Until now,
[38:52] the CP has been careful to distance
[38:54] itself from any formal threat to youth
[38:57] violence. If President the Clerk
[38:59] continued with his reforms, but in the
[39:01] last three weeks of campaigning, the
[39:04] leader of the CP has joined the call to
[39:06] fight if the referendum result should go
[39:08] against him. There will never be
[39:11] peaceful domination of a black communist
[39:15] government over the white nation.
[39:20] >> Today in Johannesburg, local and Carter
[39:22] leaders also pledged their support for
[39:24] the alliance. Though Chief Brutazy has
[39:27] officially distanced himself from the
[39:29] grouping, the right-wing leaders used
[39:31] the opportunity to persuade whites there
[39:34] was a future for South Africa without
[39:36] the clerk style of reform. the fact that
[39:38] we are here together.
[39:42] People the electorate in South Africa
[39:46] will now realize that they will not be
[39:49] murdered and killed by black people if
[39:53] the no vote will win the referendum.
[39:56] >> Despite the talk of peace, the campaign
[39:59] against the yes vote has already
[40:00] disintegrated into violence. Last night,
[40:03] a national party bus and two offices
[40:05] were bombed. No group has so far claimed
[40:08] responsibility, but the police say they
[40:10] suspect it was the work of the right
[40:12] wing. There's also been a significant
[40:15] increase in the past for Fortnite in
[40:17] violence between black factions in the
[40:19] township. On top of the 18 in Ladi
[40:22] today, more than 200 people have died
[40:25] since the referendum campaign began.
[40:28] There's also growing evidence, says the
[40:30] ANC, that some right-wing members of the
[40:32] security forces are involved. The next
[40:35] four days leading to the referendum will
[40:37] be a time of increased tension. And
[40:40] whether President Z Clerk wins or loses
[40:42] the vote, South Africa will still have
[40:45] the problem of what to do with the
[40:46] whites who reject non-racial reform.
[41:00] Finally, our own Friday night political
[41:02] analysis team of Gergen and Shield. that
[41:04] is David Gurgen, editor at large at US
[41:07] News and World Report and syndicated
[41:09] columnist Mark Shields. Gentlemen, let's
[41:11] start with the subject that Jim was
[41:13] discussing just a few minutes ago, the
[41:14] check bouncing scandal uh in the House
[41:17] of Representatives. Mark, why did it get
[41:19] to this point? Why wasn't it handled in
[41:23] some way before now?
[41:24] >> Uh I I think there was a a misreading on
[41:27] what the uh public outcry would be. I
[41:30] think that uh
[41:31] >> on the part of
[41:32] >> on the on the part of the leadership uh
[41:34] the people responsible for it. I guess
[41:36] they'd have to uh ultimately
[41:38] responsibility for the conduct of the
[41:40] house rest with the speaker. Uh but I I
[41:42] I think that it does it has been almost
[41:46] like a match with the frustration toward
[41:48] Washington in general toward the
[41:49] gridlock. It is cumulative. It is a
[41:51] sense of uh the the remoteness uh the
[41:55] sense of invulnerability of the Congress
[41:57] of elected Washington. And the irony is
[42:00] that it has far more symbolic
[42:01] significance than it does substantive
[42:03] because this this is this is small
[42:05] potatoes. David could probably tell you
[42:07] more about the the perks of the
[42:09] executive branch that than most can
[42:11] where they have,200 airplanes and uh
[42:13] non-military airplanes for the use and
[42:15] and all sorts of other special
[42:17] privileges cars taking people to and
[42:19] from their office every day. But but it
[42:21] does have it has a real uh relevance. I
[42:24] think Rush Limbaugh was right when he
[42:25] said this is something that people in
[42:27] their own life understand because if you
[42:29] bounce a check Judy or I do or anybody
[42:30] else in the audience does uh we hear
[42:32] about it and it costs
[42:34] >> unless you have as as Norm Ornstein said
[42:36] than the check overdraft protection or
[42:38] whatever it is but most people
[42:39] >> Well, Norm is a distinguished political
[42:40] scientist is entitled to that.
[42:43] David, is it is it more important uh uh
[42:46] because of this the symbolism of it or
[42:49] are people just enraged because of the
[42:51] fact that members went out and and had a
[42:54] privilege that most people don't have?
[42:56] >> Julia, a time when the country is
[42:57] hurting when people are having a hard
[42:59] time living from paycheck to paycheck
[43:01] and they see that Washington isn't
[43:02] working, that it's paralyzed. They now
[43:05] see arrogance that goes with it. You
[43:07] know, some 30 years ago that Jack
[43:08] Kennedy wrote a book about profiles and
[43:10] courage and what we have now are
[43:11] profiles and privilege. Mark's right.
[43:13] There's prof there are perquisites that
[43:16] are shared in the executive branch. But
[43:18] people can relate to this if they have
[43:19] in their own lives to uh you they bounce
[43:22] a check 25 or $35 bill that they get for
[43:25] doing that. They can't get credit in the
[43:27] future. And here they see the members
[43:29] living off living off the fat of the
[43:31] land voting pay pay raises for
[43:33] themselves in the debt of the night.
[43:34] they see abuse in the house post office.
[43:36] I think this is going to cut very
[43:38] deeply. There's a lot of arrogance and I
[43:40] think frankly uh we haven't uh seen the
[43:44] end of this yet. There are a lot of
[43:45] questions to be asked still. What
[43:47] happened to the money in the cases of
[43:50] the worst abusers? Was it was that money
[43:53] was that money misused
[43:54] >> there? You know, this city is rife with
[43:56] rumors now. I think those questions have
[43:57] got to be asked by the press.
[43:59] >> What do you mean used for what are you
[44:00] suggesting? Well, the the assumption I
[44:03] think on the on the part of most of the
[44:05] members, those who bounced only a few
[44:07] checks in the overdraft were were were
[44:09] uh were trivial in effect. I think th
[44:12] those will not cause a political
[44:13] problem. I think they can explain that
[44:14] and I think that goes for most of the
[44:16] members. But in some cases, there were
[44:17] very large checks involved and people
[44:20] are asking I think have a right to ask
[44:22] was that money used only for personal
[44:24] purposes or did it in fact go into
[44:27] campaigns which would have been illegal.
[44:28] Might it have been used for gambling
[44:30] purposes? Might it have been used for
[44:32] some sort of investment ring? How was
[44:33] the money used? You remember the uh
[44:35] question that Dethroat uh or the point
[44:38] that Dethro made to Bob Woodard back in
[44:40] the Watergate scandal was follow the
[44:42] money. And I would suggest here that we
[44:44] in the press and others have a
[44:45] responsibility to follow the money.
[44:47] Let's see if in fact all the money went
[44:49] just for personal purposes or whether it
[44:51] went farther. I'm not sure we know the
[44:52] end of that story yet.
[44:53] >> Is that going to be something that's
[44:54] pursued?
[44:55] >> I I think it will be pursued. I think
[44:56] David is right. and and in following the
[44:58] money. I mean, when I say it's symbolic
[45:00] rather than substitive, people are angry
[45:02] and it's understandable. The rage is
[45:04] misdirected. However, the rage ought to
[45:07] be at a campaign system, finance system,
[45:09] which is truly corrosive. And if we're
[45:11] talking about privilege, we're talking
[45:13] about a system that's rigged for
[45:14] incumbents of both parties. Uh where
[45:17] political action committee money goes by
[45:18] a margin of 12 to1 uh to incumbents over
[45:22] challenges. uh where uh funds overall in
[45:24] the last cycle went six to one. $6 for
[45:27] every $1 challenge you could raise. So I
[45:28] think I think the money is
[45:29] >> I'm not saying there's a direct tie
[45:30] between
[45:31] >> No, I'm not saying there is, but I'm
[45:32] saying I'm saying that the the money is
[45:34] important. Uh but the the real scandal
[45:37] to me is is the political money in
[45:38] Washington rather than rather than
[45:40] somebody being overdraw as Congressman
[45:42] Bob Dornan, the conservative from Orange
[45:44] County said that he was overdrawn. He
[45:46] told the press today that he was
[45:48] building a grotto in his backyard and he
[45:50] paid his neighbor in a check. And uh uh
[45:53] now you know that's that's that's
[45:55] Congressman Dun. Yeah.
[45:57] >> Mark, who is hurt? Uh are are all
[45:59] incumbents hurt? Is it the ones who've
[46:01] committed the most egregious overdraft?
[46:04] Uh is everybody vulnerable?
[46:06] >> I I think I think there's several
[46:07] factors that come. First of all, it's
[46:09] one's constituency. The relationship one
[46:11] has with his constituency. Is it one of
[46:13] trust or a member his or her
[46:15] constituency? Is it is there one of
[46:16] trust? Is it a constituency that that is
[46:19] suburban sort of uh high ethical
[46:22] considerations constituency? Is it is it
[46:24] a member who has emphasized economy and
[46:26] government to claimed against Washington
[46:28] and special privilege and is caught in a
[46:30] in the mind of hypocrisy hypocritical.
[46:32] >> So yeah, so I think you've got but I I I
[46:34] do think that it it uh to the degree it
[46:37] has a partisan edge to it which I don't
[46:38] think is is total by any means. It works
[46:40] for the out party against the in party.
[46:44] >> Mark, I mean, sorry, David, do you agree
[46:47] that it that it works that way?
[46:48] >> Mark is absolutely right. It does work
[46:50] for the out party. The out party here,
[46:52] the Republicans, for weeks, we've been
[46:54] saying that the economy was working in
[46:55] favor of the Democrats, and that's
[46:57] absolutely true. The Republicans are
[46:59] charged with management of the economy
[47:01] because they have the White House. The
[47:03] Democrats control the Congress solidly.
[47:05] It's the Democrats who've been running
[47:07] this bank. The question is why did the
[47:09] Democrats let this go on so long? So
[47:12] >> we had a report from the GAO two years
[47:14] ago that there was mismanagement of this
[47:15] bank. Mr. Russ was asked to to clean up
[47:18] two years ago. He failed to do that. Why
[47:20] was he allowed to stay on his job so
[47:22] long? What in the world is this shooting
[47:24] all about that only a couple of weeks
[47:26] ago when he Mr. Russ was shot in a very
[47:29] mysterious circumstance? The police have
[47:30] said it's unusual. what this this story
[47:32] this this story is very suspicious and
[47:35] it does I think the Republicans now have
[47:37] an issue about Democratic arrogance and
[47:39] leadership and frankly you know
[47:41] >> David I want to interrupt because even
[47:43] though there were some Republicans who
[47:44] were among the the big over overdrafters
[47:47] at
[47:47] >> well we don't know who his big
[47:48] overdrafters are and I have no doubt
[47:49] there will be Republicans included in
[47:51] that group and I think they will be
[47:53] >> already said today Vin Weber said he
[47:55] overdrew what uh 125
[47:58] >> well I think we'll have to know we'll
[47:59] have to wait and see and I and I would
[48:00] assume that ratio in terms of people
[48:02] abusing it is about the same as the
[48:03] ratio in the people in the Congress. But
[48:06] the point is it was it was the Democrats
[48:08] who run the Congress and it's Congress
[48:09] that's under fire now. And it's for that
[48:11] reason I think Mark is right there. The
[48:13] Republic the Democrats are more
[48:15] vulnerable on this.
[48:16] >> They're more vulnerable. But I think
[48:17] Judy's absolutely right too, David, that
[48:18] that the key is if you've got
[48:21] Congressman Bill Danmire, the the Orange
[48:23] County conservative today admitted that
[48:25] he had overdrawn several times.
[48:27] Congressman Dan Meyer has been someone
[48:28] who's committed to fiscal responsibility
[48:30] running against the Congress. It's going
[48:32] to be tough for him then to take
[48:34] advantage of it. It's also going to come
[48:35] down to what district on district by
[48:37] district basis whether in fact the out
[48:39] party can organize uh a and put forward
[48:43] an attractive alternative to the
[48:44] candidate who's already there. You don't
[48:46] beat somebody with nobody. So even
[48:48] incumbents who have overdrawn will be
[48:50] reelected. And it's also true, Mark, I
[48:53] think that it may be that some are
[48:55] Republicans are are are will say this
[48:57] privately that in Republican districts,
[48:59] voters may be less forgiving than in
[49:01] some Democratic districts. So the Dem
[49:03] Republicans, there are going to be some
[49:04] Republicans hit by this. There's no
[49:05] question about that. But you can begin
[49:07] to see Republicans are now beginning to
[49:09] see a connection. Let's say Bill Clinton
[49:11] is the candidate of the Democratic party
[49:13] and there are these questions about
[49:14] personal integrity and character and
[49:16] that sort of thing. An ABC poll came out
[49:18] overnight saying that now 41% say
[49:21] they're not satisfied that he has a per
[49:23] integrity to be president, the honesty
[49:24] to be president. I I was staggered by
[49:25] that number because it it's so much
[49:27] higher than I would have assumed. But if
[49:28] you have that situation at the top of
[49:30] the ticket and this question of
[49:31] arrogance of power with regard to House
[49:33] members, you can begin to see something
[49:35] as potent for the Republicans to use
[49:37] against the charges that they've
[49:39] mismanaged the economy.
[49:40] >> Especially, David, when you're 30
[49:41] million jobs short of the 30 million
[49:43] promised to create, right? I mean, it's
[49:45] a wonderfully diversionary issue and you
[49:47] people your people always have been a
[49:48] lot better with petty cash. I mean, you
[49:50] really have I I've trusted you a lot
[49:52] more over the years.
[49:53] >> David, you don't want to get Well,
[49:55] >> I don't think that is worth responding
[49:57] to, but I just think that that
[49:59] Washington is paralyzed and now both
[50:01] parties are going to pay a price.
[50:02] >> All right. Well, gentlemen, we were
[50:03] going to spend a few minutes tonight
[50:04] talking about the presidential campaign.
[50:06] David, you did manage to slip it in
[50:07] there at the end, but that's going to
[50:08] have to wait until next week. Mark
[50:10] Shields, David Gurgen, thank you both.
[50:13] Again,
[50:21] the major stories of this Friday, as
[50:23] we've been talking about, the House did
[50:25] vote to reveal the names of 355 past and
[50:28] present members who bounce checks at a
[50:30] congressional bank and the United
[50:32] Nations appointed former US Secretary of
[50:34] State Cyrus Vance to make peace between
[50:37] Azerba and Armenia. Good night, Judy.
[50:40] >> Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for
[50:42] tonight. will be back Monday night with
[50:43] the last in our series of Nobel Prize
[50:46] winning economist James Buchanan. I'm
[50:48] Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good
[50:50] weekend. Funding for the McNeel Aaron
[50:53] NewsHour has been provided by PepsiCo
[51:07] Health.
[51:10] Part of helping the world live and
[51:12] communicate better is keeping it well
[51:13] informed. That's why funding for the
[51:16] NewsHour is also provided by AT&T
[51:19] and by the Corporation for Public
[51:21] Broadcasting and viewers like you.
[51:30] The McNeel Ler NewsHour can be heard on
[51:32] OPB radio 550 on the AM dial at 11:00
[51:36] tonight. Now stay tuned for Washington
[51:39] Week in Review.
[51:42] Heat. Heat.
[52:04] Video
[52:24] cassettes of the McNeel Error NewsHour
[52:26] are available from PBS video. Call
[52:29] 1-800328
[52:32] PBS1.
[52:38] This is PBS.
[52:48] Funding for the McNeeler NewsHour has
[52:50] been provided by ODS Health Plan, the
[52:53] group medical plan that meets the needs
[52:55] of more than 600,000 Oregonians by
[52:58] providing a broad range of medical and
[53:00] dental coverage and responsive service.
[53:03] Hello, I'm Lewis Rukiser inviting you to
[53:05] join me for the next edition of Wall
[53:07] Street Week. My guest will be the man
[53:09] who runs the top performing growth
[53:11] mutual fund of the past 5 years. He's
[53:14] Bill Burer, a veteran money manager
[53:16] whose philosophy has been remarkably in
[53:18] tune with the times and who has some
[53:21] fascinating ideas about exactly which
[53:23] songs will be paying off next.
[53:26] >> It's Where You Belong tonight at 8:30.
[53:34] Tektronics, a worldwide supplier of test
[53:37] and measurement television systems
[53:39] equipment and computer graphics. The
[53:41] Tektronics Foundation, a corporate
[53:43] producer, has made a major contribution
[53:45] to the Oregon Public Broadcasting
[53:47] Program Fund.
[53:50] 70% of the goods produced in the United
[53:53] States right now are competing actively
[53:57] with goods produced in other countries.
[53:59] The world may be shrinking, but
[54:01] competition for consumers is growing.
[54:03] How can America's business community
[54:05] keep pace with our global rivals? Join
[54:07] host Lloyd Dobbins as we begin our
[54:09] report on economic survival, the global
[54:12] marketplace, on quality or else. It's
[54:14] where you belong. Monday night at 8.
[54:47] Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
[55:04] Hey,
[55:08] hey, hey.
[55:17] Thank you.
[55:47] I love coffee, tea, and od.
[55:51] >> Oregon Public Broadcasting offers a warm
[55:54] thanks to the Portland area business
[55:56] community and the vendors who made the
[55:58] 1992 edition of Coffee, Tea, and OPB
[56:01] possible. And to the dozens of
[56:03] enthusiastic volunteers who devoted
[56:06] their time and energy to this second
[56:08] annual event. And thanks also to the
[56:11] more than 10,000 OPB supporters who took
[56:14] time to have a cup and a smile with
[56:16] Oregon Public Broadcasting.
[56:22] We're cooking up a feast at OPB and
[56:25] you're invited to hang out in the
[56:26] kitchen as the who's who of TV chefs
[56:29] whip up their finest dishes just for
[56:31] you. Saturday afternoon from 2:00 to
[56:34] 7:00, the menu includes dim sum,
[56:36] cajinjun, old-fashioned chicken, fat
[56:39] fish, Elmo's favorites, and for dessert,
[56:43] chocolate of course. So grab an apron
[56:46] and join us for an afternoon with the
[56:48] chefs Saturday here on OPB. It's where
[56:51] you belong.
[56:54] >> Hello, I'm Juliet Proud
[56:56] >> and I'm Bobby Short
[56:57] >> and we want to invite you to the big
[56:59] band ballroom bash.
[57:15] ation safety board tested the metal and
[57:17] say they can't rule out the possibility
[57:19] that it is from the missing plane, but
[57:21] the NTSB says don't rewrite the history
[57:23] books yet. It believes the
[57:25] investigator's evidence is
[57:26] circumstantial and any number of people
[57:28] could have been on that island in the
[57:29] last 55 years. Gillespie claims no
[57:32] similar plane has landed near the
[57:34] island. His team is not ready to give
[57:36] up. They've planned a return trip for
[57:38] July 1993 to search the deep water just
[57:41] off the reef.
[57:43] >> Organization believes that a
[57:45] navigational error forced Earheart to
[57:47] crash land 350 mi off course.
[57:50] >> Is it one theory? She was a US spy.
[57:52] >> That's one. Yeah, there are others too.
[57:53] any books on the subject.
[57:55] >> That's our report for now.
[57:57] >> Good night.