The Iconoclast Of Capitol Hill

By HAYS GOREY Warren Rudman

Q. You were highly visible in the David Souter nomination to the Supreme Court. Was that to divert attention from Souter's ties to John Sununu?

A. It was to portray the accuracy of the fact that I have been advancing David Souter's interests, on my own, without his consent, for 20 years. I wanted my colleagues to know very accurately that he was very close to me, because I would hope to have some credibility with my colleagues.

Q. Souter comes across to much of the public as rather weird.

A. Weird? He has lots of friends. He has a very active social life. He lives on a farm a few miles from the capital of our state. I hardly think you have to come out of the Upper East Side to qualify for a seat on the Supreme Court. Or drive a Mercedes.

Q. People believe Sununu would block any Supreme Court nominee whose views on abortion he did not know.

A. I know for an absolute fact that neither I nor John Sununu, nor indeed the President of the United States, knows David Souter's views with any precision on the whole question of Roe v. Wade and Webster.

Q. Will it be fair game if Senators try to probe his thinking on Roe v. Wade at the confirmation hearings?

A. I don't think so. Two or three cases will be coming to the Supreme Court. That would make ((abortion views)) off-limits as far as I'm concerned.

Q. Congress is held in very low esteem. Is there a cure?

A. Yes, if we'd act with more alacrity around here in getting things done. In my opinion, that's the single most important thing we could do. We know what we have to do, we know how to do it. But there is such a terrible collective lack of political will to get things done.

Q. Is the Ethics Committee, of which you are vice chairman, in a no-win situation?

A. No. It is true that if we find someone guilty and recommend sanctions, it is very difficult because that person's a friend. This committee looks at every one of these cases individually, looks at the Keating Five individually, looks at the D'Amato case individually, and we will let the chips fall where they may. It's the institution that matters most.

Q. Why are so many members of Congress caught up in corruption? Is it the system?

A. I disagree with the premise. I've been on the Ethics Committee for six years now. There are a few bad apples around here, but in the main, people are pretty ethical. This is a far different Congress than it was even 30 years ago. That may not be the public perception, but it's a fact.

Q. Is it possible for members to serve their constituents without risking censure?

A. Certainly. We have had ample evidence in history of the tyranny of government. And when some constituent is unfairly treated by the Defense Department or by the IRS, the only people they have to turn to are their elected representatives. There is nothing wrong with members of Congress ensuring that their constituents are treated fairly. That is quite different from seeking special treatment.

Q. How responsible is Congress for the S&L scandal?

A. First, I would fault the regulators. Then I would fault Congress for not giving enough money to the regulators to do their jobs. I would certainly fault the Administration for not being quick enough to give proper guidance to the regulators. Anyone who points fingers ought to stand in a circle. There's certainly enough blame to go around.

Q. Why were you uncertain about staying in Congress, seeking a second term?

A. I had never set my sights on this job. But I came here feeling the Reagan Administration would find a way to cut government expenditures. I don't really like living here in Washington. I didn't feel I was accomplishing anything important. But when Phil Gramm and I got together on Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1985, I changed my view. I thought one person could make a difference.

Q. What about a third term?

A. I'm really torn about it. There are other things I'd like to do. I like Howard Baker's wonderful remark the day he announced he was not going to run for re-election. He said, "I was a young wealthy lawyer when I arrived here 18 years ago, and I've gotten over all three." The level of frustration is still pretty high. I think this deficit situation shouldn't take as long as it's taking. I think we all ought to be willing to take some political risks. The worst thing that can happen to us if we do something we know is right for the country is we get defeated for re-election and probably have a much better life than we have here. I think we ought to take some risks. George Bush is doing it.

Q. Finally.

A. Well, finally. Obviously the choice he had was keeping a pledge that was absolutely unrealistic and seeing the country go down the tubes, or do something and see the economy strengthened. That's no choice at all.

Q. You've got a reputation as being pretty blunt. You characterized the Republican report on the Iran-contra affair as "pathetic," for example.

A. I also quoted Adlai Stevenson and said they separated the wheat from the chaff and left in the chaff.

Q. What was the fallout politically?

A. Nothing. The Boston Globe took a poll in New Hampshire. Among Republicans I had 75% favorability.

Q. Why won't you go to black-tie functions in Washington?

A. I think they're a total anachronism. They go back to 18th century England, when the rich all dressed in fancy black tie and gown for dinner every night while the poor were starving in the street. That's one thing Gorbachev and I agree on. He won't wear a black tie either. I don't go to functions where they wear dungarees and sweat shirts either. I just don't go.

Q. Why?

A. I don't like big crowds. I don't want to go out and sit with a bunch of strangers -- you know, 2,800 of the President's "best friends."

Q. Are you invited to the White House?

A. I have been invited to a number of functions. I refused all of them, except one -- an informal dinner in the residence and then down to the theater to see Dick Tracy. I knew everybody there, and it was very informal.

Q. Why are you a Republican?

A. I guess because my father was. As it turns out, that was the right choice for me. That government's best that governs least. I think we believe that. So I'm very comfortable in the party.

Q. You are critical of the press for the way it has treated Quayle.

A. Critical in the sense that they make him out to be a simpleton.

Q. Did he bring any of that on himself with such statements as "I haven't lived in this century"? There are whole books devoted to Quayle's sayings.

A. There's no question Dan's said some things that probably were poorly stated. Jerry Ford holds the world's record for malapropisms. That does not lessen his worth as a human being or as a President.

Q. C'mon. Is Quayle presidential material?

A. I don't know. I truly don't. Some of the testing is yet to be done. He'll go through some crises as Vice President. Just because he was picked as one of 100 Senators to be Vice President doesn't add to his depth. He now has to establish that, and it's been very difficult for him because of the adverse attitude toward him by the press. I think it is very unfair to characterize Dan Quayle as some lightweight who is far more interested in playing golf than becoming expert on issues.

Q. You have said that before you could support a Dan Quayle candidacy for President, you would have to see the field. What if the field were James Baker, Bob Dole and Quayle?

A. I would probably go to Australia for a year.

Q. In 1988 George Bush had to win New Hampshire or he was through. You supported Bob Dole. Does the memory linger with the President?

A. Yes, it does. But I understand American politics. I put all that behind me.