Leaders of Congress Seek Followers, Amid Panic on the Hill : Government: The budget debacle exposes legislative disarray, with members more inclined to follow constituents than party.

Is anyone minding the store in Washington? In the wake of budget gamesmanship, much of the nation has been wondering who’s in charge. Although the chief focus has been on President Bush’s erratic behavior, the leaders of Congress also deserve much of the blame for the deadlock and the crisis of confidence.

The continuing saga of efforts to cut the federal deficit took new, bizarre twists last week. Bush and Congress decided to reopen the federal government after a weekend shutdown, but they left open the prospect of another crisis next week if agreement has not been reached on a new budget. Then the President seemed to change his views on major tax issues every few hours. House and Senate Democrats disagreed internally about what to do, as did Republicans.

All this comes less than a month before state and congressional elections, which will have a lot to say about the nation’s direction during the 1990s. If the faltering national economy were not such a serious problem, the Washington follies might seem amusing.

As several recent public-opinion polls have shown, the budget follies have exacerbated the anti-Washington mood that has been sweeping the nation. Bush, of course, is not on the ballot Nov. 6. Instead, members of the Democratic-controlled Congress may be most at risk in this year’s election. That helps to explain the sense of panic pervading Capitol Hill. Campaign insiders have been nervously counting down the days, worrying what new calamity awaits incumbents.

Despite some improvising to blur their actions, Democratic leaders could not escape the fact that they had publicly endorsed, amid effusive self-congratulation, the now-maligned budget deal at a White House Rose Garden ceremony barely two weeks ago. Their handshake with Bush and Republican congressional leaders followed more than four months of closed-door negotiations between the leaders--including House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.)--and top White House officials.

Those talks had become necessary because Congress could not muster the votes to pass a budget on its own. The once-routine process of drafting spending and tax measures in committees and sending them to the full House and Senate, in effect, had collapsed. But rank-and-file lawmakers, who had been barred from the subsequent “summit” negotiations, initially revolted with a primal scream that they could not be taken for granted.

Congressional barons hope that they can put the pieces back together and complete a budget acceptable to Bush in the next few days. Whatever the outcome, however, the budget conflict has exposed the difficulties and frustrations facing congressional leaders in an era of chaotic internal procedures and often-independent members who are more inclined to follow their constituents than their party.

The leaders, who are elected by each party’s caucus, represent the best that the institution offers. In leading their rambunctious flock, they face a difficult time under any circumstance. Those woes have been compounded by disputes among national Democrats over their direction and their dismal performance in recent presidential elections. The new Democratic team also encountered difficulties because of the way each of them was elevated to his post in 1989. In a sense, they are still feeling their way.

Foley took charge under particularly inauspicious circumstances--the resignation, under fire, of Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.), following charges of ethical misconduct. After a quarter-century in the House, Foley is well-attuned to its legislative demands and its mood but he has generally eschewed partisan wars. Gephardt, his new partner, had little formal leadership experience but his years as a prominent idea-merchant in the House and his 1988 presidential campaign prepared him for the political demands. Mitchell, a former federal prosecutor and judge, had the least congressional experience of the three but has shown a shrewd political instinct and a willingness to define differences with Bush.

During the budget summit, the Democrats set several goals and achieved some success. They forced Bush to renounce his “no new taxes” pledge and spotlighted GOP tactical splits. They also began to develop the “tax fairness” theme as part of the emerging Democratic position that Republican rule in the 1980s had widened the gap between rich and poor. But the Democratic leaders found themselves faced with the dilemma that has increasingly plagued Washington’s “divided government”: At some point, Congress must govern--and in these perilous times, those choices are often painful.

Some Democratic troops have said that their party should let Bush and his party run the show. But Democratic chiefs have not been willing to stand aside; they have accepted the view of Richard G. Darman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, that mushrooming federal deficits must be controlled. That explains their initial decision to endorse such controversial measures as a 10-cent increase in the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline and higher costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

When the House, inspired by the opposition of Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) shot down the deal in the early morning of Oct. 5, the Democratic leaders found themselves straddling an abyss and facing an arduous challenge. They had thrown in their fate with Bush in seeking a budget deal but they had to find a way to place more of a Democratic imprint on the product without threatening stalemate.

Their response last weekend was to gain passage of virtually the same outlines as the earlier summit package but to allow House and Senate committees some freedom to modify the details within that framework.

Because nearly any choice made to cut the deficit by $500 billion over five years is bound to harm some major constituency group, the likelihood is that Congress will not make many significant changes from the earlier agreement. In that sense, the effort to provide “cover” for other lawmakers may be a case of protecting institutional pride more than establishing new policy directions.

The Democratic leaders are not likely to face any internal challenge to their continued rule. (GOP leaders also appear secure, although House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel of Illinois, who has clashed with Gingrich, may decide to make a graceful exit by retiring in 1992; the stature and toughness of Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole of Kansas have made his leadership more durable.)

But the budget exercise is likely to turn congressional leaders in one of two directions. Key committee chairmen--like House Ways and Means boss Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.), who has suffered embarrassing defeats in the past year on issues like capital gains and insurance for catastrophic illnesses--may be emboldened to reassert their prerogatives and find ways to make Congress operate in its more traditional fashion. If that happens, congressional leaders will be largely grateful and relieved that they will no longer have to carry such a heavy load.

The other option is that continued government gridlock and divided rule will force an even greater burden on the leaders to make the legislative process work. The recent leadership-dominated handling of other major bills, such as clean air, campaign finance and crime measures, have offered further evidence of the crumbling of the committee system.

Given recent experience, there is little ground for belief that the era of dominant leadership is at an end. When Gephardt argued unsuccessfully for House passage of the original budget deal, he pointedly pledged, “I hope we do not summit any more.” Twelve hours later, he and the other leaders had returned behind closed doors dealing with Darman.

The long-term threat of this course may be an eventual rebellion of the committee chairmen and back-benchers. Or, at some point, the voters may take matters into their own hands.