Friday, January 7, 2000

GLORIA BORGER, host: I'm Gloria Borger. Good evening, and welcome to WASHINGTON WEEK. Tonight's top story: politics. In about three weeks, they're actually going to start voting in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the candidates are going at it.

Susan Feeney, are they behaving themselves?

Ms. SUSAN FEENEY (Dallas Morning News): Not anymore, Gloria. With the clock ticking, the frenzy is in full swing, and it's getting quite personal now. Not since 1988 have we had such a raucous contest on both sides.

BORGER: That story and more tonight on WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW.

Announcer: This is WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW for Friday, January 7th, 2000.

Now here's guest moderator Gloria Borger of US News & World Report and CBS News.

BORGER: Our stories tonight: A government agency says your employer is responsible for safety in your home office, and then backs off the policy. How did that happen?

After an international custody fight, a six-year-old boy could be his way--o--on his way home to Cuba soon.

And politics: The races are tight, and the primaries are almost here. The candidates are debating non-stop. We'll look at what they're saying and what the voters think. Here to sort through these stories are the reporters and columnists covering them: Mara Liasson of National Public Radio; Martha Raddatz of ABC News; David Broder of The Washington Post; and Susan Feeney of the Dallas Morning News.

This week's presidential debates and top issues that stood out among the candidates' presentations

GLORIA BORGER, host: Susan, you've been up in New Hampshire lately, where it's getting crazier and crazier. We're getting down to the wire now. How is the nature of the campaign changing now that we're just less than a month away?

Ms. SUSAN FEENEY (Dallas Morning News): Well, not only is the temperature up, but I think the races are crystallizing in an important way. What we essentially have are two two-person races. On the Democratic side, Bill Bradley and Al Gore are really not so different on policy, but we see a very different approach from them. Bill Bradley is busy painting Al Gore as a Washington animal who is thinking small when the country wants everyone to think big. Al Gore, on the other hand, scoffs that this is not an exercise, an academic exercise, in picking issues as you like them, but that the presidency is something you should dig in, and it's an issue, issue every day sort of battle.

And on the Republican side, George Bush is reading the same polls that we're all reading, which is to say, this week he's coming much strongly against John McCain. Now he's doing that in two ways, really. One is to go after McCain on an array of things, but also, taxes has become--become quite to the fore. It's the issue that Republicans have found to be their most reliable. And John McCain--he's getting more scrutiny than he ever has, just because he's had success.

BORGER: Let me bring David into this. Debates, debates, debates--there's going to be five debates in six days. They seem to be getting less and less civil, or more and more interesting, depending on how you look at it. Let's watch Bill Bradley, Mr. Nice Guy, for a moment take on his opponent, Al Gore, in a debate this week.

Former Senator BILL BRADLEY (Democratic Presidential Candidate): (From Wednesday) I think you're in a Washington bunker. And I can understand why you're in a bunker. I mean, there's Gingrich; there was the fund-raising scandals; there was the impeachment problem. And I think that the major objective in the last several years in the White House has been political survival.

BORGER: David, how are the voters in New Hampshire reacsh--reacting to all this?

Mr. DAVID BRODER (The Washington Post): Richard Moran, our polling director, and I watched that Wednesday night debate with a group of nine mostly uncommitted Democrats in New Hampshire. They didn't like Bradley's attack very much. They don't want to hear about White House scandals or bunkers. The interesting thing is that they're kind of ticked off at both these fellows because they don't believe that there are any serious policy disagreements. They think they're exaggerating their differences for personal gain. And several of them said, you know, why don't they just sit down--that would not be a bad ticket if these guys would just stop sniping at each other.

Ms. MARA LIASSON (National Public Radio): Well, one of the things that--that almost makes you physically uncomfortable when you watch this is how intensely they dislike each other. I mean, although they try to be civil, I mean, it's clear these guys absolutely despise each other.

BORGER: Yeah.

Ms. LIASSON: And the sarcasm on Bradley's part and the aggressiveness on Gore's part...

BORGER: I agree.

Ms. LIASSON: ...I mean, it's really palpable. I wonder if these debates, which, of course, everybody says is such a good thing, is really going to do the ticket any good in the--in the long run.

Ms. FEENEY: Mara, in one of the earlier debates, where Tim Russert was the Democratic moderator, I asked him afterwards, you know, `When the camera is off and these two guys are sitting there, are they friendly? Do they chat? Do they ask about each other's wives?' He said, `No. Complete game face. They were two competitors sitting down.' And that seems pretty clear to us on camera, too.

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): One of the things I--I noticed, David, this week, more than anything, because I talked to a lot of senior military officers, was the litmus test question on gays in the military. Now--now Bradley and Gore both said they wanted the policy changed, the current `don't ask, don't tell' policy; they wanted open homosexuality in the military, people able to admit that they are homosexual or acknowledge that they're homosexual. But Al Gore said something that went way beyond what Bradley said, and I--I don't think that point has really been made too much this week. Al Gore basically said he would require a potential appointee to the Joint Chiefs to say he, too--he or she, too, supported having openly gay people in the military.

Mr. BRODER: And--and the Gore people realize...

Ms. RADDATZ: Yeah.

Mr. BRODER: ...that that was a--at least one step too far, and today I think they're trying to sort of ratchet back by saying that the vice president would not inquire into their private beliefs. All he wants to be sure is that somebody in the Joint Chiefs of Staff would carry out the policy as set by civilians.

Ms. RADDATZ: Which is what the...

Ms. LIASSON: Well, which is why ...(unintelligible) do, though...

Ms. RADDATZ: ...which is what the military does.

Mr. BRODER: Yeah.

Ms. RADDATZ: That's exactly what the military does.

BORGER: And then this is clearly going to be something that Republicans are going to be--right, and...

Mr. BRODER: As they did last night.

BORGER: ...and already have.

Ms. LIASSON: And--and, you know, that wasn't the only mistake that Al Gore made this week, or at least that his campaign made this week. You know, Donna Brazile, who's his campaign manager, ga--gave an interview to bloomberg.com, where she criticized the Republicans for--I think the--the quote was "They'd rather take pictures with black children than actually feed them or clothe them."

BORGER: Feed them.

Ms. LIASSON: And she cited J.C. Watts and Colin Powell as, in effect, window dressing, black members of the Republican Party who are just symbols.

BORGER: Not a good idea.

Ms. FEENEY: Good girl.

Ms. LIASSON: Not a good idea, because...

BORGER: Not a good idea.

Ms. FEENEY: Don't want to say...

Ms. LIASSON: ...because Colin Powell is the single-most popular man in America.

Ms. FEENEY: In fact, it brought a very sharp rebuke from Colin Powell.

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah. That's right, and Al Gore has now apologized. Yeah.

Ms. FEENEY: ...and--that's right. And l--Al Gore had to speak to Colin Powell on his own behalf. Donna Brazile--there's been much apologizing all around.

Ms. LIASSON: Right.

BORGER: The--somebody else who's having sort of a bad week this week was John McCain. There were stories, starting with the Boston Globe this week, that he intervened on behalf of a wealthy contributor with a regulatory agency, asking the agency to make a decision--not to decide one way or another, but to make a decision. This is Mr. Reform.

Mr. BRODER: That's a problem for John McCain, because he has successfully portrayed himself up to this point as being not only an outsider, but kind of the moral scourge of that Washington insiderism. Now it turns out that he wrote a letter, very similar to what members of Congress routinely write to administrative agencies, saying, `Get off your duff and make a decision. I've got a constituent who cares about this--this issue, who also, incidentally, happens to be a contributor.' Nothing unusual in Washington standards. But suddenly people look at him and say, `Gee, he's not that much different from all these other people.'

Ms. LIASSON: Right. Well, which to his credit he has never said he was. He's not a pious, holier-than-thou character. He's always said, `The system taints all of us; you know, everything looks terrible. I can't guarantee I've never done a favor for a--for a contributor.' But the fact is he did have a bad week. He was on the defensive in the debate. And also, the other thing is he's had an incredible run of press coverage that--that was so lofty and s--and so positive, and this is a contrast.

Ms. FEENEY: Well, it was inevitable.

Ms. RADDATZ: You could really see it on his face, couldn't you, last night. Yeah.

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah. It was inevitable.

Ms. FEENEY: Absolutely. Well, he complicated it. If nothing wrong was going on, he went and quickly canceled a fund-raiser that that particular contributor was going to have for him.

Ms. LIASSON: Well, he didn't have to.

BORGER: Well, he--he also should get some kind of award, because he said to reporters--I happened to be up in New Hampshire that day, the day the story broke, and he kept saying to reporters, `See? This is really why we need campaign finance reform...'

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah, right. That's right. Right.

BORGER: `...because--because I'm tainted, we're all tainted.'

Ms. LIASSON: Right.

BORGER: And, you know, there were...

Mr. BRODER: But he was off balance. When we watched last night with the Republican debate with a similar group of Republican voters, even those who had come into the room saying, `I'm kind of inc--interested and inclined to support this fellow McCain,' all of them felt that this was not the kind of performance--and I think that opening tough question that he got about this FCC letter really threw him off balance for the evening.

BORGER: I--I--I think that leads to a question about whether this race is really, in a way, so far more about character than it is about ideology. Ma--it's the...

Ms. LIASSON: Well, sure.

Ms. FEENEY: Without question.

Ms. LIASSON: Absolutely.

Ms. FEENEY: I would say so, and I think that is a fallout from the whole last year and more of the president's scandal and Monica Lewinsky.

Ms. LIASSON: Well, I think it's also because the differences inside the parties and between the parties are so narrow now. They're fighting over a very small chunk of turf. There is no big ideological debate. The big issues have been settled about taxes and the deficit and the role of government.

Ms. FEENEY: Cold War. Absolutely.

BORGER: Well--well, the issue of taxes, though, in the Republican Party, at least, has not...

Ms. LIASSON: Well...

BORGER: ...been settled, and--and--and this week...

Ms. LIASSON: ...not enough. No.

BORGER: ...George Bush came out and started attacking John McCain--Right?--on--on that tax issue.

Ms. FEENEY: Absolutely. It was my favorite scuffle of the debates, where they're debating whether George W. Bush's tax-cut plan eats up the entire deficit or just most of the deficit.

BORGER: Right.

Ms. FEENEY: And it sort of degenerated into `Yes, it does,' `No, it doesn't,' `Yes, it'--`it doesn't'--sort of a school yard fight about it, but it is a very important issue in New Hampshire. We can't lose sight of that, that virtually every Republican race--David, you can say how many years--it comes down to a question of taxes. It's an important issue.

Ms. LIASSON: I...

Mr. BRODER: I have to say I'm--I'm not sure it's as important this year as it has been most of the time.

Ms. FEENEY: They think it is, at any rate.

Mr. BRODER: The Republic--Republicans that we listened to last night talked about the same two issues that the Democratic group had talked about: health care and schools. Those two things are very important to them.

Ms. FEENEY: Which are Republican issues. Right.

Ms. LIASSON: And which Republican has a healthier plan?

Mr. BRODER: Yes.

Ms. LIASSON: Not that I've heard about.

Ms. FEENEY: Not Republicans.

Ms. LIASSON: I mean...

Mr. BRODER: That's right, and they're not very comfortable with that.

Ms. LIASSON: That's right.

Mr. BRODER: The other thing, Susan, I have to say...

Ms. FEENEY: Interesting, yeah.

Mr. BRODER: ...though this will offend your Texas sensibility, is they are getting tired, some of them, of hearing about the wonders that Governor Bush has performed in Texas. And, you know, they say, `That may be true in Texas, but we live in New Hampshire.'

Ms. FEENEY: Well, Texans have their own sensibility, David, absolutely.

BORGER: I--I just want to also ask everyone here whether you think George Bush got himself in a little bit of a pickle...

Ms. FEENEY: Oh, yes.

BORGER: ...last night when he put his hand up and he swore...

Ms. LIASSON: Yes.

BORGER: ...not no new taxes, like his father, but he swore tax cuts.

Ms. FEENEY: Both. He threw in both of those there, took it much further.

Ms. LIASSON: Oh, he said not only no new taxes; he said, `Not only am I going to pledge no new taxes, but also tax cuts, so help me God.' Both.

BORGER: He's on a roll.

Ms. LIASSON: I think that's--I mean, that could be a problem, but clearly he's betting that the deficit is gone, the surplus is so big that he can afford to do this.

BORGER: Do you think he did it on purpose?

Mr. BRODER: Oh, he did it on purpose.

Ms. RADDATZ: But he...

Mr. BRODER: It was clearly part of--of his--of his plan. But I--I have to say that the tax issue just is not that big a deal this year, in part, ironically, because so many Republican governors have already cut taxes in their states. People don't feel that same pressure to get the gov--the federal government out of their pocketbook.

Ms. FEENEY: What do you think the Bush people are banking on, that they're putting so much emphasis on that?

Ms. RADDATZ: Still a Republican Party, right?

Ms. FEENEY: Yeah.

BORGER: Well, it's their--it's their--it's their one big issue, and it's their--it's their big political issue to use against John McCain and to say that, you know, McCain is to the left of us and Bush can portray himself as the conservative.

Ms. RADDATZ: Can we take it a little bit out of New Hampshire? Everything they're saying in New Hampshire...

BORGER: No. Yes.

Ms. RADDATZ: ...how is that playing in the rest of the country?

Ms. FEENEY: It doesn't matter at the moment.

Ms. RADDATZ: What is--i--it--it doesn't matter at the moment, but--but certainly this comes back to haunt you. I mean, the gays in the military is going to come back to haunt you.

Ms. LIASSON: Oh, absolutely.

BORGER: Sure.

Ms. RADDATZ: Are--are they playing it right there wi--with things they're saying, or will it--what--what do you see after New Hampshire?

Ms. FEENEY: After New Hampshire--to the candidates right now, New Hampshire is the world and the planet, and you worry about the rest later.

Ms. LIASSON: Clearly, Al Gore, though...

BORGER: OK. Yeah.

Ms. LIASSON: ...is setting himself up for some problems in the general election.

The case of six-year-old Elian Gonzalez

GLORIA BORGER, host: I--I--I want to move to Martha now and another kind of political story, because it is a political story, about this little boy, Elian Gonzalez, who's been in this country for some time now. His mother tried to take him out of Cuba. She--she died in the process. He's living with his relatives. He's become a pawn in an international custody fight. The INS this week says yes, he can go home. Today his relatives went to court.

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): His--his relatives went to court. They went to state court, which is what US officials are most worried about; although, I wouldn't say they're terribly worried about the courts at this point. They're worried about state courts because state judges are elected in Florida, and that's where they think politics might play in this again. The relatives can also go to the federal court and they can challenge the INS decision on a--on the basis of immigration. But in the state court, they're going for custody. They're looking at child welfare. Generally, a state court can grant a temporary restraining order that will last from 24 to 72 hours.

The court aside, though, Miami has been really overtaken...

BORGER: Yeah.

Ms. RADDATZ: ...by thousands and thousands of protesters. They were trying to shut down the airport on Monday. They slowed traffic. There were many, many arrests yesterday. And that's what's got everybody nervous. And I--I--I think what they're most nervous about at--at this point--I think they still believe--the US officials still believe that this boy will be sent back to Cuba. It might not be a week from today when it's supposed to be, but how do you get him back? And this is all the negotiations with the father. They so hoped the father would come over here, because if the father came over here and said, `Look, I'm talking without being coerced into this. I want my boy,' I think they'd have a hard time not returning that boy. But who goes to get him? I mean, the US marshals...

BORGER: So what are the options? You can have the father come and get him, you can...

Ms. RADDATZ: Which doesn't look likely at this point.

BORGER: ...escort him home.

Ms. RADDATZ: You can escort him home. That would certainly be the easiest politically for the US, to have the father come and escort him home. But if not, I mean, can you imagine the pictures of US marshals showing up at the door?

BORGER: Oh.

Ms. RADDATZ: And--and--and surely, this child is going to be crying. He's been in the country for two months. He's been showered with gifts, with puppies, with `We love you,' all this attention. And--and I'm sure if you ask this boy today, and the relatives keep saying, `Where do you want to live?' naturally, he's going to say, `Well, this seems like a great place here.' But he is in contact with his father, and the INS found that he had a loving relationship with his father and they believed he wasn't being coerced into those statements.

Mr. DAVID BRODER (The Washington Post): Is there any reason or any evidence that the father is being coerced? I mean, should we take these statements at face value?

Ms. RADDATZ: Well, I--I certainly think the INS did not take them at face value, that the father wasn't being coerced. They were alone with him. They spoke to him one-on-one. They asked him about his relationship. I think you also have to think, `Well, let's see; if he's being coerced, does he--does he really not want his child here, even if he doesn't like Cuba, even if he has a problem with Fidel Castro? Would he rather his child be over here?' He's not the one who got in a boat and--without permission. And his ex-wife did not have permission to take the child out of the country. So it's parental rights, and that's what it's boiling down to.

Ms. MARA LIASSON (National Public Radio): So, Martha, what about the reports, though, that he knew she was going to take him and he, himself, had applied for--for permission to emigrate to the United States? Are those just rumors?

Ms. RADDATZ: I--I think those are all rumors at this point. I definitely--the--the--the story--I heard this circulating yesterday as well, that he had applied for the lottery to come over here.

Ms. LIASSON: Right. Right.

Ms. RADDATZ: It would be impossible to know that at this point, because the lottery's all very secret, and it goes straight to US officials. There's--there's nothing on the envelope. And you normally don't talk about that in Cuba. So it's not something he would be spreading around.

Ms. SUSAN FEENEY (Dallas Morning News): Yeah.

BORGER: This is also political football, obviously. In New Hampshire, it's been raised time and time again, the Republicans saying he shouldn't go home and the Democrats have...

Ms. FEENEY: A little--a little ...(Unintelligible).

Ms. LIASSON: Al Gore finally weighed in, though, and he--and he did a pretty good tap dance, and he now says that the father should come to the United States, he should be free of coercion and he should announce on--on US soil what he--where he wants to live with his son.

Ms. RADDATZ: That's right.

Ms. LIASSON: And that is very similar to what Republicans are saying.

Ms. RADDATZ: And--and Bill Bradley, of course, originally said, `I think he should stay here,' but now he's saying the INS should decide this. So he has definitely backed off this. But it has been political, although I don't think they've been asked real tough questions about this: Why do you think should stay here, given that he has a father and both sets of grandparents in Cuba? This is his great-aunt and uncle who he's staying with.

BORGER: Well, they want the father to come here and live...

Ms. LIASSON: Right. Yes.

Ms. RADDATZ: Yes, exactly. They want the father to come here.

Mr. BRODER: Martha, let me ask you...

Ms. RADDATZ: But if it doesn't happen, then what?

Mr. BRODER: ...let me ask you one other thing. I've read in a couple stories that there were larger foreign policy considerations behind this. What is happening? Is there some context for this in terms of US-Cuban relations?

Ms. RADDATZ: I--I think there certainly is, and particularly in the beginning. I mean, this was just wild in the beginning. Remember, this happened Thanksgiving Day. The INS immediately said, `It's the state courts that should decide this.' The State Department went completely wild about this, saying, `Are'--you know, `Are you crazy? You can't give this over to the state. We've got other concerns.' The State Department says, basically, they're out of it now. But I think there's a lot of back-door stuff going on, trying to smooth this out.

Ms. FEENEY: Well, with the...

Ms. LIASSON: Because they want to ro--improve relationship with Cuba.

Ms. RADDATZ: Certainly. Certainly.

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah.

Ms. FEENEY: Yeah. So with the anger at the administration, both, I think, on foreign policy grounds and on the question of just this child alone, is Gore going to have to pay the price for this, do you think, in the Florida primary or wherever we end up?

Ms. RADDATZ: Well, I--I don't know who's going to win in the foreign pr--in the Florida primary on this, because nobody has taken a--a...

BORGER: Governor Jeb Bush...

Ms. RADDATZ: Yes.

Ms. FEENEY: Governor Bush.

BORGER: ...has written a letter to the Immigration Service...

Ms. FEENEY: Absolutely.

Ms. RADDATZ: Yes. Yes.

BORGER: ...complaining about this.

Ms. RADDATZ: Yes. I--I--I--I don't know whether Gore will have to pay a price or not. I mean, certainly, they're in a--in a difficult position on--on where to walk this line, and I think Gore, as--as you said, did a very good tap dance on this today.

OSHA's declaration that employers are responsible for at-home employees' health and safety

GLORIA BORGER, host: Well, here's another story about a difficult position the government has been in.

Ms. MARA LIASSON (National Public Radio): A delicious story.

BORGER: It's a delicious story and it's about Washington bureaucracy. And I'm just going to say, take it away, Mara. You'll fill us in about it.

Ms. LIASSON: Well, OSHA, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration--this is an incredible snafu that can only happen in Washington. They posted an advisory on their Web site way back in November. It was in response to a query from a Texas company that wanted to set up home offices for its workers. And the advisory said, `Well, if you do this, you are responsible for the health and safety--any health and safety violations that might occur in these home offices.' When you hear the word `responsible,' read `liable.'

Ms. SUSAN FEENEY (Dallas Morning News): Right.

Ms. LIASSON: OK. That means that the 20 million telecommuters that exist in the United States today, their employers could conceivably be liable for any kind of health and safety violation that happens to them at home. Well, you can imagine...

Ms. FEENEY: Whoa.

Ms. LIASSON: Finally this thing comes to light from The Washington Post this week. All hell breaks loose. The White House reads about it for the first time in the paper. And the reactions that I can repeat on family television are basically, `What genius thought of this?' This is exactly the wrong message, way off base for an administration that says it's in tune with the struggles of suburban families trying to balance, you know, work and family. In any event, the first thing the White House tried to do, the administration tried to do, was explain itself. Alexis Herman, the Labor secretary, said, `Well, the letter says we're not planning to do inspections of homes or anything like that.'

Finally they gave up, and within 24 hours, they absolutely walked this policy back; `Forget it; the letter is invalid; this is not our policy.' But as you can imagine, it's not over. Republicans are going to hold hearings. Already critics are accusing the administration of doing this to help Al Gore with the unions, because, of course, you can't really organize telecommute--commuters, but...

BORGER: What? What?

Ms. LIASSON: ...this would not help Al Gore. He wants the votes of telecommuters. But in any event, it was a huge brouhaha, and I have to say--this is the best part about this--this isn't the first time something like this happened. Back in 1993, the beginning of the Clinton administration, the Labor Department told a minor-league baseball team in Georgia that they had to fire 14-year-old Tommy McCoy, who was their bat boy, because he couldn't work on any night games because it was a violation of child labor laws. Well, you can imagine the uproar against that. Secretary Robert Reich had to completely overturn that policy and announce officially that child labor laws do not apply to bat boys. So...

Ms. FEENEY: But i--is this the sense that our laws and our government can't keep up with the new economy and the changes, that they're just too old and outdated?

Ms. LIASSON: Well, I think it's a--it's a--it's about ham-handed bureaucrats. Now what Alexis Herman says is she wants a national dialogue on the changing workplace. And--and...

BORGER: A task force.

Ms. LIASSON: Yes, and on...

BORGER: Oh, good.

Ms. LIASSON: And on...

Ms. FEENEY: A blue-ribbon panel.

Ms. LIASSON: But it--but it's--clearly, that is the impression it gave, and that's why it was such a problem.

Ms. MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC News): Mara, it's--it's unclear to me whether it really is over. I mean, this letter was withdrawn, Congress was going to hold...

Ms. LIASSON: Oh, no, it's not going to be--no, it's not going to be over. Yeah.

Ms. RADDATZ: I--it--and it's not over as far as Congress is going to hold these hearings. But are the hearings specifically about how this happened in the first place...

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah.

Ms. RADDATZ: ...or whether there will be a policy?

Ms. LIASSON: No, the s--the hearings are about how this happened. The--the Labor Department now says, `This is not our policy.' The policy has--the advisory has been withdrawn. But they want to know, how did this happen? And don't forget, Alexis Herman says she didn't know about this. She didn't know it was on her very own Web site.

Ms. RADDATZ: Which is incredible and--which is incredible.

Ms. LIASSON: This--this advisory, even though it had been in the works for two years, was not vetted by her office.

BORGER: Well, also, this advisory was apparently written to clarify existing policy, so you can...

Ms. LIASSON: Yeah, the existing policy, not to make a new rule. That's right.

BORGER: OK, so you take away the advisory, you still have the existing policy.

Ms. LIASSON: Right. Right. That's right.

BORGER: So...

Ms. LIASSON: The existing policy is...

BORGER: ...policy is that I can't type on my little laptop in a--in an unlit room without an exit sign on the door to my office?

Ms. LIASSON: No. Right now, it's not--the existing policy is--is--is--is up in the air. In other words, if employers are not liable, well, who is? Or maybe there are no repercussions for health and safety violations at home. I have to tell you, there was a huge round of black humor about this. Everybody was saying, `Do I have to put a flashing exit sign over my bedroom door? Do I have to paint my little dog yellow because I might trip over him?'

Ms. RADDATZ: Your husband have to be trained in CPR.

Ms. LIASSON: Yes.

BORGER: You know--well, and it--it's--it's also sort of surprising to me that the White House registered sort of shock at this. Alexis Herman registered shock at this. I mean, who are the bureaucrats reporting to at the Department of Labor?

Ms. LIASSON: Well, in this case...

BORGER: I mean, there's got to be one of these...

Ms. LIASSON: Well, it was pretty high. He was an a--the--the--the--the person who put the advisory out was the assistant secretary of Labor in charge of OSHA. Now that's pretty high up. But these things do happen. As I mentioned, it happened before with the bat boys. Occasionally bureaucracies run amok...

Mr. DAVID BRODER (The Washington Post): I think...

Ms. LIASSON: ...and cause a lot of political problems.

Mr. BRODER: I think the explanation is clear. You know, we've had a parade of politicians going on to "Saturday Night Live."

BORGER: Right. Yeah.

Mr. BRODER: I think "Saturday Night Live" has now infiltrated the g--the government.

BORGER: I think. I...

Mr. BRODER: Nobody serious could have possibly signed off on that--on that kind of a document.

BORGER: Well, and then--and the--and the way you know that is that the great bureaucracy, which takes no--all the time in the world to work, took about--What?--24 hours...

Mr. BRODER: Yeah.

Ms. LIASSON: Oh...

BORGER: ...to pull this back?

Ms. LIASSON: Absolutely. By the end of the day.

BORGER: And so...

Ms. LIASSON: They woke up in the morning, they read the paper, they tried explaining it for the--for the first eight hours; by the next morning, it was--it was dead.

BORGER: Government should always work like that.

Ms. LIASSON: That's right.

Sign-off

GLORIA BORGER, host: Well, I have one little bit of news to add to our roundtable today, and that is that this week, we welcome a new addition to the WASHINGTON WEEK family. Time magazine's Mike Duffy and his wife, Dimitra Lambrose, are the proud parents of little Jake, who joins his brothers, Nico and Luke. Congratulations to all of you, and may you never run out of disposable diapers.

As always, we look forward to hearing from you, our viewers, and you can reach us by e-mail through pbs.org. And finally, Gwen Ifill is going to be right back here next week. Until then, thanks for joining us. Good night.