LOS ANGELES TIMES INTERVIEW : Dianne Feinstein : A Senator in a Hurry for a State Facing a Lot of Troubles

Dianne Feinstein does not chat. California’s senior senator is revved up and ready to fire with statistics and developed positions no matter the topic. In part, that is the result of almost continual campaigning for high office in the past few years, first unsuccessfully for governor and more recently in the bruising--but ultimately victorious--fight for the Senate seat. She also admits to be driven by the knowledge that she was elected to a seat that has only two years left in its term. Bill Clinton may have four years to jump-start the economy, but if the California economy is still in the doldrums some 18 months from now, Feinstein will be in trouble.

The challenge, however, seems to energize rather then intimidate the 59-year-old former mayor of San Francisco, who has little doubt that a Democrat-controlled federal government can solve our economic problems. She is old-fashioned enough to believe in government and, after 10 years as a San Francisco supervisor and another decade as mayor, she still sees government service as an opportunity rather than a burden.

She has said, “Basically, my life is government.” She intends this cheerfully, believing that government is “an honorable process for effecting change,” and that she, and the party she is affiliated with, are the proper catalysts of that change. But in addition to government, her life does include her husband, Richard C. Blum, an investment banker, and their grown daughter.

Feinstein hit the ground running in Washington with her swearing-in three weeks ago. She pressured the Senate party leadership into appointing her to two major committees, Judiciary and Appropriations--unprecedented for a freshman member of this still-quite-rigid club. One suspects she got the assignments because the Democratic Party needs her input and visibility to carry the state in the next election. She is quick to assert that she must give representation to all 31 million Americans who reside in California, and that they are hurting.

Evidence of her intensity of purpose was provided in the hearings the Judiciary Committee held on the nomination of Zoe Baird. Feinstein, as if determined to prove a woman could be tough on a woman and a nominee of her own party, provided the most pointed and indeed most unfriendly questioning of the hearings. Was she fair? She thinks so, but she would also probably admit to a bit of impatience as well.

Washington take heed. This is a senator on the run.

*

Question: What are the lessons of the Zoe Baird hearings?

Answer: I think one of the major lessons is when people in California are suffering because one parent or even both parents are out of work, people become . . . very sensitive to the growth of illegal immigrants, and I think that sensitivity was manifested by Ms. Baird and her husband’s hiring of two illegal immigrants.

Q: Was there hypocrisy here? Would a male appointee to this office have been questioned about child-care arrangements?

A: The part that may have some merit here is that if a male were questioned, the male might say, “My wife took care of it,” and that would quite possibly . . . have been the end of it. . . . Her husband, who is a constitutional lawyer, had been delegated the duty and was responsible and had all the contacts with lawyers.

Q: So, essentially, she was penalized for her husband’s errors?

A: One could quite possibly say that. But what happened after this is a combination of things. Zoe Baird, as attorney general, would have oversight over the Immigration and Naturalization Service. And I think the fact that she had broken this law . . . lessened her credibility as an individual who could enforce that law.

Q: The Clinton Administration got off to an obviously bad start with the Zoe Baird appointment, and now it’s followed it up with gays in the military. Do you think this is a good issue to lead with your chin on, so to speak, or do you think it represents a tactical error?

A: Well, I can’t comment on whether it’s a tactical error or not. I think it clearly has ballooned. It was no secret that the President made that commitment, just as it’s no secret that I believe he’s correct in making that commitment. I think there are people, in Washington and elsewhere, who have feelings on this matter, one of them being the military. And the military believes that they have not had an opportunity to give their side, and that there has not been an opportunity to sit down and work out that if this is going to happen, how it would happen.

Q: But you’ve been a successful politician in a city with a large gay community. Wouldn’t it have been wiser and more effective to, say, make AIDS and money for AIDS research and taking care of AIDS patients the first issue on which one dealt with this community rather than the military?

A: I think the President is going to do both?

Q: Can you do both? Don’t you waste your political capital when you go off in one direction and get people all riled up instead of committing to the war he said he was going to wage against AIDS?

A: I don’t know that the President, himself, has done it. This has taken on a life of its own.

Q: You’re now a member of what was once an exclusive club: first Californian on the Appropriations Committee since 1968, one of the first two women on the Judiciary Committee. Are there any surprises?

A: Well, the Senate is bound by tradition, and I’ve been very fortunate because I got both of my committee choices. I chose Appropriations because no Californian had been on the committee for almost a quarter of a century, and I felt I could help the state in that regard. . . . To see to it that, in a time of military downsizing, California gets its fair share (and that) the aerospace industry is not further decimated.

Q: Are you in favor of slowing down the military downsizing?

A: No, I don’t know what the President will do, except in the campaign he had proposed $75 billion cut. . . . I think it’s quite possible that some of the foreign bases can be closed. I support military downsizing. The problem that I have with it is that California has been the hardest-hit state in many respects.

Q: Are you making a special plea to the Clinton Administration? He did so well as a candidate in California--are you telling him that he has a special obligation to do something for its economy?

A: Oh, I think his success as President will be conditioned by California to a great extent. It’s very much the largest state in the union, it needs help, and this is why an economic growth package is so important. . . . I think that the California economy still needs a jump-start.

Q: Are you going to put Clinton’s feet to the fire? What specifically are you demanding that he do for California’s economy and how much leverage do you have?

A: Well, what I’m trying to do now is get in to make an appointment, and I’ve had that pending for a week or so. To see the President to talk about the California economy and to talk about my concerns, too, on the Mexican-American free-trade agreement--how that would affect the economy--and on the need for the economic growth strategy.

Q: Do you think you might come out against the free-trade agreement?

A: I will come out against the trade agreement unless the President negotiates a side letter which provides some steps in the achievement to improve Mexican wages. In my view, you cannot have Mexican wages at 60-70 cents an hour and American wages at $10 an hour and not lose manufacturing jobs. There are already 30 different manufacturing plants in Mexico that are automobile-related. Already, we’ve lost 500 plants and about 1,500,000 jobs to Mexico.

Q: You must feel an urgency that other members of the Senate don’t feel coming from a state that has been hardest-hit and facing reelection in two years.

A: Yes, that’s right, I do feel an urgency. I recognize the seniority issue here. And that’s why I’ve struggled to get on committees where I can be helpful to California and, over the next couple of years, be able to develop the relationships to enable me to be productive here. Nothing is going to happen overnight. Even with people with 30-years seniority back here, nothing happens overnight.

*

Q: But something can happen with the President being told by an outspoken California senator that she wants to be reelected, and he’d better move on some of these issues because you don’t have that much time.

A: That’s exactly why I’m trying to get the appointment (with the President).

Q: We’re in a city here only slowly rebuilding after the effects of the riots. The mayor, and most big-city mayors, has complained that he’s not getting enough in the way of federal support. Are you moving on this issue?

A: Let me tell you, I think that the mayor’s right. Let me tell you the way it was in the late ‘70s and the early ‘80s. There was revenue sharing.

Today, California is a donor state. We contribute $13 billion more in tax revenues than we get back in any kind of services. We’ve lost revenue sharing. The Economic Development Administration, which helped fund and build the Port of Oakland and the produce market in Los Angeles, has been slashed way back. . . .

Every single program that had a federal partnership helping the cities is gone. I believe very strongly that one of the ways to move the economy, to improve the urban city centers, is to restore a practical partnership between the cities. Californians don’t ask for anything they don’t provide. The fact is we’re a donor state. We provide a lot more than we get back. And that’s why I wanted to be on the Appropriations Committee, to make that argument.

Q: Are you finding the lobbying pressure, the special interests that we heard so much about in the campaign, manifesting itself in ways that surprise you?

A: Frankly, no, I am not. I have not been lobbied by any for-profit group since I’ve been here. I’ve been lobbied by a lot of non-profit organizations: health organizations, hospital organizations, school groups.

Q: There was an item in The Times this week saying that the Wine Institute provided you with 13 cases of wine for a reception. Is that sort of par for the course?

A: It is my understanding that things that are a commodity produced in the state can be provided under the Senate rules.

Q: Was it good wine?

A: I didn’t have any.

*

Q: Are the women in the Senate acting as a unit? Do you feel that you’re represent a new force? Are you getting along?

A: We met the other day. We will meet from time to time. We will probably use our force, so to speak, on those issues where we think if we come together as a whole, we can be the most beneficial. So we’ll use it sparingly, but I hope wisely.

Q: Are you finding any resistance from this male Establishment?

A: Well, the Senate is very much a body that is steeped in the protocol and history and this is the way we do things. So I am trying--because in the time I’ve been here, I’ve heard a lot of stories about what makes people effective and what makes them ineffective. So I am trying very hard to take the positive course which has been outlined as enabling us to be effective and that’s to work with the leadership, work with my committee chairs, be diligent, do my homework, be on time, not keep people waiting, don’t be a prima donna, prioritizing my shots--not my shots, let me correct that--prioritizing my issues, so that I can be effective.

Q: You know that there’s a strongly felt sense of urgency in this state. The President meet with a lot of people in the last week, and yet the senior senator from a state that has 31 million people is going to have to wait a week to see him. Shouldn’t he respond a little more promptly?

A: Well, having said that, I believe that the President and the White House are swamped. I know I’m swamped. As a matter of fact, today the White House did call to see what my issues were so they could be prepared, and I told them. So I am optimistic that, hopefully, I will get an appointment before too long. You know, my opening sentence is going to be: Mr. President, I must tell you California is in trouble and needs help.