The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight the Gingrich punishment vote in the House as seen by two leaders of the House Ethics Committee and our regional commentators; a conversation about the life of Pablo Picasso; and the free agency legacy of a baseball player named Curt Flood. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The House of Representatives voted 395 to 28 today to reprimand Speaker Newt Gingrich. It was the first time in history a Speaker was punished for misconduct by a vote of his colleagues. Gingrich also agreed to pay a $300,000 fine. The House approved the same punishment recommended by its Ethics Committee last week. The Speaker has admitted he used tax-exempt funds for political purposes in connection with the funding of his college course and a TV project. He also admitted giving the Ethics Committee inaccurate information. Gingrich was not present in the House chamber when members debated and voted on his case. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. President Clinton today pledged to work with Republicans to balance the federal budget. He spoke to reporters before meeting with his economic advisers at the White House. Mr. Clinton said the budget he will send to Congress next month includes $138 billion in Medicare savings and is a first gesture towards a bipartisan agreement. The President later spoke at the Democratic National Committee. Party leaders announced changes in DNC fund-raising procedures. Contributions from individuals and corporations with foreign ties would no longer be accepted. No contribution over $100,000 will be accepted from any source. Mr. Clinton said the changes were a good first step and urged Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Act now. Don't delay. You've got a good bill here. You've got a good forum. Resolve the differences and go forward. I also ask that we not wait. Today let us resume our call to our friends in the Republican Party. Together let's stop accepting soft money even before reform becomes law. If you will do it, we will do it. We have offered our hand time and again. Why not just say yes?

JIM LEHRER: Also at the DNC meeting the party's national committee approved Colorado Governor Roy Romer as DNC general chairman, Massachusetts businessman Steve Grossman as national chairman. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said today the U.S. economy surpassed expectations last year but warned of signs of inflation. He told members of the Senate Banking Committee low unemployment could trigger rising wages and in turn raise prices. Greenspan also said he agreed with those who say the Consumer Price Index overstates inflation. He said inflation has been slower and economic growth faster than government data suggests. In Algeria today two car bombs rocked the capital city of Algiers. A bomb exploded at the trade center, killing two people, injuring ten, and a car bomb exploded in a residential area reportedly killing another sixteen people. No one has claimed responsibility for either blast. There was also a car bombing Sunday at a village outside Algiers and an attack that together killed 78people. More than 120 have died in violent attacks in Algeria in the past two weeks. An Islamic group that wants to overthrow the government has claimed responsibility for some of them. And in Las Vegas today Elvis Presley's longtime manager, Col. Tom Parker, died of complications from a stroke. He was 87 years old. An honorary Louisiana colonel, Parker managed Presley's career from 1955 until Presley died in 1977 at the age of 42. In the 40's and 50's Parker also managed country singers Eddy Arnold and Hank Snow. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Gingrich vote, our regional commentators, the life of Picasso, and the legacy of Curt Flood. FOCUS - REPRIMAND... PLUS

JIM LEHRER: The Gingrich ethics story is first tonight. We begin our coverage with this report by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The House was prepared for some partisan pie- throwing when it convened at noon today.

REP. DOUG BEREUTER, [R] Nebraska: The chair asks and expects the cooperation of all members in maintaining a level of decorum that properly dignifies the proceedings of the House.

KWAME HOLMAN: Members were about to launch into a debate over sanctions against Speaker Newt Gingrich. An Ethics Committee investigation had found the Speaker violated House rules by using tax-exempt contributions to support a college course he taught with the intention of building support for the Republican Party. The committee also found Gingrich provided it with inaccurate information about the court. Gingrich, who agreed with the committee's findings, had little to say today but other members were free to speak, a natural opportunity to fan partisan fires. There was one brief outburst from the visitors' gallery.

SPOKESMAN: The House will be in order.

KWAME HOLMAN: But on the floor members for the most part kept their rhetoric in check. In fact, the four members--the charges against the Speaker had nothing but good things to say about each other.

REP. BEN CARDIN, Maryland: I want to comment and compliment the work of our chairman, Porter Goss, for the extraordinary work that he did, as well as the work of Steve Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, the work of the subcommittee.

REP. PORTER GOSS, [R] Florida: I take my hat off to Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, all of whom in my view bring great credit to this institution.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, [D] California: --investigative subcommittee, I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly thank Porter Goss, our chair of the investigative subcommittee, again acknowledge Ben Cardin as ranking member for his service there, as well as to say how much I learned from Mr. Schiff in the course of our service there.

REP. STEVEN SCHIFF, [R] New Mexico: I first want to join in the compliments to the other committee members and to our staff and our special counsel because even though we had many disagreements along the way and obviously still have disagreements, I think we made the best possible effort to get us here today.

KWAME HOLMAN: But then the members of the subcommittee went on to point out those disagreements.

REP. STEVEN SCHIFF: The final conclusion of the subcommittee did not change, and that final conclusion is first; that Mr. Gingrich should have sought competent legal professional tax advice before he began his procedures that involve the use of a tax-exempt foundation which under the law is called a 501C-3 organization, and second that materials were sent to the Ethics Committee in response to questions in the Ethics Committee that the Speaker should have known were inaccurate. That is the final finding, if you will, of the subcommittee.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: Unfortunately, when terms of Speaker Gingrich's dealings with the committee on a number of occasions and in his violation of the agreement under which we would go forward in bringing this issue to a conclusion, Mr. Gingrich's statements lead me to one conclusion: that Mr. Gingrich in his dealings with the committee is not to be believed. I conclude also that Mr. Gingrich gave these different answers not because it was a comity of errors but because he thought he could get away with it.

KWAME HOLMAN: On Friday, the full Ethics Committee voted seven to one to issue a reprimand to Speaker Gingrich for his violations and fine him $300,000. The Ethics Committee's special counsel, James Cole, was asked to describe the reasons for those sanctions.

SPOKESMAN: Why not a censure?

JAMES COLE, Special Counsel: A reprimand is for a serious violation. A censure is for a more serious violation. That's not a definitive standard, particularly in my field, where sometimes in the criminal law that definitive standards are there. There wasn't personal gain to Mr. Gingrich. He didn't, as we found, we did not make a finding that he intentionally lied. If he had, I would be recommending sanction all day long--or excuse me--censure all day long.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: In regard to the $300,000--

JAMES COLE: It really relates directly to the burdens that were placed on the House as a result of not getting accurate information in the first place. If we had--if the House had, if the committee had gotten truthful answers, accurate answers, to those questions in the first place, I think it was the view of I know myself and I'm sure the members of the subcommittee that we wouldn't be here at this time. We would have resolved this matter long ago.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Ethics Committee did not dictate what source the Speaker should use to pay his $300,000 fine, a point that was debated briefly.

SPOKESMAN: In my view this payment should come from his personal resources because it is a personal responsibility.

SPOKESMAN: It's my understanding that there are at least some precedents for campaign funds, for example, being used to reimburse the government, and certainly we all know that the chief executive of the United States has a legal defense fund in which he raises money. So I'm just saying that whatever the options are to Newt Gingrich as a member of the House have not been precluded legally by the committee and, in my judgment, they shouldn't be.

KWAME HOLMAN: Texas Republican Lamar Smith was the lone member of the Ethics Committee to vote against the sanctions against Gingrich.

REP. LAMAR SMITH, [R] Texas: My conclusion is that the penalty that has been assessed by the Ethics Committee is way too severe when you look at the actual findings of the committee and when you look at the precedent that has been established by this House. Now let's look at the actual findings, and there have been two here. The first finding is that the Speaker should have consulted an attorney about tax laws; the second is that he submitted two inaccurate letters to the Ethics Committee. Now these are real mistakes, but they shouldn't be hanging offenses, especially when you consider that there was no finding of any law that was broken, there was no finding of any intent to mislead the Ethics Committee, and there was no finding that the Speaker received any personal financial gain.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Smith wasn't the only Republican who objected to the severity of the sanctions. Ethics Committee member David Hobson did too but said he was prepared to vote for them anyway.

REP. DAVID HOBSON, [R] Ohio: But the Speaker accepted the charges and a sanction against him. And I believe that demonstrates to all of us and the American public that he truly regretted his actions and sends a message that the Speaker's conduct should be held to a particularly high standard, as should every other member's.

KWAME HOLMAN: Most members chose to follow the advice of Connecticut Republican Nancy Johnson, the chairman of the Ethics Committee, who urged they try to put this matter behind them.

REP. NANCY

JOHNSON, Chairman, Ethics Committee: Today we conclude this case by imposing a heavy penalty on the leader of this House. It is a tough penalty, unprecedented and appropriate. But if our action fails today to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity to grow and learn from this solemn occasion. And that would be a tragedy.

KWAME HOLMAN: As was expected, the sanctions against the Speaker were approved overwhelmingly.

SPOKESMAN: On this vote the ayes are 395. The nays are twenty- eight, with five members voting "present." The resolution is adopted.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the views of two key members of the House Ethics Committee and its investigative subcommittee. Republican Porter Goss of Florida, Democrat Benjamin Cardin of Maryland. Congressman Goss, was justice done today?

REP. PORTER GOSS, [R] Florida: I think so. I think we had a very firm, a very fair, and a very thorough process. And I think he came up with the right penalty. I think that the Speaker acknowledged that when he admitted it, and I am delighted that we had the type of support we had from our colleagues on the floor. I think they were well informed. I think they concluded with us by and large, and if my guess is right on my arithmetic, better than 90 percent of them agreed with us.

JIM LEHRER: Justice, Congressman Cardin?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN, [D] Maryland: I agree with Mr. Goss. We're pleased that we were able to get a bipartisan support for the resolution. It's appropriate for the rules that were violated by Mr. Gingrich. We need to make it clear that what we did today is impose a sanction to a member of Congress who violated our rules. I think that, as Nancy Johnson said, they're tough--the tough sanction was appropriate for the rules that were violated.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Goss, what do you say to your fellow Republicans, Lamar Smith being one? We just heard him. Tom Delay, the Minority Whip, also followed and said the same thing; that this punishment was too harsh.

REP. PORTER GOSS: There's no question that there are a number of views about this punishment that we suggested. There are some who feel it was too harsh. There are some who feel it was too lenient. And then there was the great body who finally read the report and came to the same conclusion that the subcommittee, eventually the committee did, and I would suggest that that is the reason we have the process we do. There is a due process protection in this. We have subcommittee, and they make a decision, and then a committee makes a decision and a recommendation, and then the full body, the members are allowed to exercise their judgment. I can't think of a fairer or a better process. And in this case it actually worked pretty well I believe.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Cardin, on your side, there are Democrats who think this was too lenient; that the next stage of censure should have been--should have been--that should have been the sanction, which would have meant Speaker Gingrich stepping aside. What do you say to them?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN: I think as you have posed the question to Mr. Goss and to me, we came up the right sanction. Surely, there are Democrats and Republicans that are not satisfied with what we did, but the overwhelming majority have supported it. And I think that's the best endorsement we can. Let me make one point clear. This is not--this is a sad day for the House. We all understand that. No one wants to see one of our members brought into a reprimand and a sanction. It has effect on all of us. This is something under the Constitution we're required to do, and I think Democrats and Republicans both understand the seriousness of this matter. We are pleased that we were able to bring it to a bipartisan conclusion, and we hope that we can now get onto legislative business.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Goss, you said a couple of times now that this process worked. And you seem rather proud of that. For a while it looked like a circus. It looked like just the opposite. What happened? What happened to cause it to look like a circus, and what happened to--what happened to bring it together with this result?

REP. PORTER GOSS: There will be a lot of discussion about that. I think what happened to bring it together, this result, is that we've got four people who started out with very different perspectives on our subcommittee but with open minds. And we all walked a little bit in everybody else's shoes. We had a very brilliant special prosecutor, a special investigator, who is a prosecutor, Jim Cole, who knew how to ask the right questions and go to the right places and find information. He brought back well- screened information. We did a lot--I think full credit to the-- that we were given, in a very bipartisan way, the four of us meeting and talking--and I think Mr. Cardin will agree with this- -were not there as Republicans or Democrats, we were there on behalf of the House of Representatives, our constitutional requirement to do our job, to police ourselves. Our purpose was to search for the truth, and I think we came as close as you can. Now, I will be the first to admit that if any one of the four of us had sat down and wrote the final conclusion, it would have been different. It was a consensus that we came up with, and that is part of what this process is. How did it get to be such a circus? I would like to say--I hope Ben would agree with me on this--that from the time that we had it, which was basically last January to December 21st, we didn't have too much of a circus. We basically were able to work in I think a very professional and insulated way. And we came up with our conclusions. There were no leaks to speak of. We did make a couple of public statements during that process which we thought were appropriate because of extremely unusual events, such as broadening our original charter that we had to go after, that mattered. When the thing started to get out of hand again was when we got into what we call spin time, after we made our statement of alleged violation and people started to go out and characterize what we had done in ways that suited partisan goals or other goals, special interest goals, whatever it may have been. It got a little out of control. We had a feeding frenzy by the media, and we had probably more disinformation than information going out. And as a result, we had a lot of confused people in this country and a lot of confused colleagues at a time when other important eventswere happening in this country, including the election of the speakership. So we had a turmoil, and one of the lessons I've learned from this, and I hope Mr. Cardin would agree with this conclusion, is perhaps we can go back and adjust the process in a bipartisan way and protect against some of the things that went wrong in the process from outside of the Ethics Committee.

JIM LEHRER: How did it look to you, Mr. Cardin? What's your description of what happened and why?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN: You started your show by some of the compliments we paid to each other. That's normally done on the Hill when a bill is moving forward, but I can tell you it was genuine feeling that the four of us had for each other. The reason why we were able to conclude this matter is because of the work of the four members, two Democrats and two Republicans, in understanding each other, in coming to an understanding that we think is fair to Mr. Gingrich, the House, and to the Congress as a whole. We understand each other. When it got outside of our four, when it got to the full House and the full committee, partisan activities took over for a while. The reason we were able to get it back on track is the commitment that we had to make sure that we could conclude this matter in a fair way. I must tell you during the last four or five days--I think the chairwoman--I mentioned that before--Mrs. Johnson, played a critical part to make sure that we could get this matter completed in a fair manner. So it was--got out of hand because of partisan activities. We got it back on track. The final results are in the best interests of the Congress and the American people, I'm just very proud of the fact that we have people in Congress who want to work together as Democrats and Republicans in order to do the right thing.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Goss, where do you come down on this question of where this $300,000 should come from, from the Speaker's personal funds, his campaign funds, or wherever?

REP. PORTER GOSS: Basically, we gave it a little discussion in our subcommittee, not a comprehensive discussion. And we sort of concluded that as long as it was a legal, ethical source that he was using in an appropriate source, that it was sort of his decision. Now, there are personal preferences there, and I would agree that politically the smart thing should be personal, and I would believe under the circumstances that the Speaker may come to that conclusion. We've left him the latitude to make the choice, and I would be very, very realistic, I think, if I said that part of the judgment of the Speaker of how he has proceeded to accept his penalty and move on, it's going to be in the determination of how he deals with this matter of the payment as a penalty. So we're giving him the chance to do what I would suggest would be the right thing.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Cardin, how do you feel about it?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN: Well, I feel very strongly it should come from his personal funds. As you had a little piece before, this was a personal obligation that should come from his personal funds. Mr. Cole, our special counsel, I think said it best. If he doesn't do it right, that's Mr. Gingrich, he runs the risk of coming back before the Ethics Committee. It must be from a legal source. It must be from an ethical source. I think, more importantly, it also must be from a source that gives credibility to the fact that this sanction is personal to the Speaker and is meant, I think, to be carried out as a personal obligation.

JIM LEHRER: Congressman Cardin, Congresswoman Johnson and many others and you all alluded to it too, particularly Congressman Goss, that this thing is over now, and let's put it aside, everybody seems to be saying to each other. Is that realistic?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN: Well, the vote today was on the sanctions for the violations that were committed by Mr. Gingrich and admitted to by Mr. Gingrich. It's not a vote on the speakership. We've said that over again. Mr. Goss and I both have said that. I think in the days and weeks ahead, that's an issue that the Speaker is going to have to determine what impact this has on the speakership, as well as the members of the House. But as far as the violations that were in the statement of alleged violations, the violations as it relates to tax issues and the mis-statements to the Ethics Committee, I believe that matter is now over. With the compliance by Mr. Gingrich of the sanctions that were approved today, that should end this, and we want to get on with our legislative business.

JIM LEHRER: On with legislative business now, Congressman Goss?

REP. PORTER GOSS: I think that we've got a great opportunity to deal with legislative business right now, and I'll tell you why. I believe that we have got a President who's very interested in his place in history and wants to leave a legacy. I think we have a Speaker who wants to redeem himself and also accomplish some great legislative progress in the next couple of years. I believe we have a Congress that wants to do, I think a public that wants us to do that, and I think we certainly have some very clear challenges, whether in the area of economics or the way we go about taking care of our needs in this country, or our foreign affairs in this country. There are challenges out there. I think we have got ourselves in a situation where we have an atmosphere which is opportunity for us. I think if we didn't do anything else, if we have to find a silver lining in this, perhaps that was the silver lining that we find today.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see the same silver lining, Congressman Cardin?

REP. BENJAMIN CARDIN: We need to get on with legislative business. We need to have more bipartisanship in this institution, and it's gotten to be way, way too partisan of an institution. I hope that the example set by the investigative subcommittee of working together in a bipartisan manner will spread to other work in this Congress. We need to deal with the budget. We need to deal with education. We need to deal with environment. I could just go on--and campaign finance reform. Let's do it in a bipartisan way.

JIM LEHRER: Gentlemen, thank you both very much. FOCUS

JIM LEHRER: Now to what our regional commentators think about the Gingrich ethics punishment and President Clinton's second inauguration and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Gingrich and Clinton stories have been major concerns here in Washington for the past several weeks. Now, how do they play outside the beltway? For some perspective we turn to our panel of regional commentators: Mike Barnicle of the "Boston Globe;" Lee Cullum of the "Dallas Morning News;" Patrick McGuigan of the "Daily Oklahoman;" Cynthia Tucker of the "Atlanta Constitution;" and joining them tonight are Robert Kittle of the "San Diego Union Tribune;"and Andrea Neal of the "Indianapolis Star." Thanks for being with us. Lee Cullum, you heard what the Congressman said about the process and about how the penalties fit the deed. What do you think? Do you think it did fit the deed?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: Elizabeth, I do. It seems to me that the reprimand plus the fine really is appropriate. I happen to be one who thinks it would be better if the Speaker paid the fine out of his own personal funds, perhaps from his book; however, when I think of others who have legal defense funds, President Clinton, for example, among others, it hardly seems fair to deny the Speaker that recourse. But certainly those who contribute need to know what they're contributing to, which is why contributions already made for campaign purposes would not be appropriate. But it seems to me that the fine and the reprimand themselves were what was called for.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, what do you think? How does it look in Boston?

MIKE BARNICLE, Boston Globe: Well, in Boston the Speaker is universally loathed, so you have to, you know, factor that into the equation, but I think a lot of people wonder how can you lead the House if you're admittedly not smart enough to hire a good tax lawyer to handle a tax question, which is what Gingrich did. And the other thing I think people wonder about is if you're a schoolteacher or a nurse or a truck driver or a newspaper columnist or anything and you establish a pattern of deception on your job that the Speaker is alleged to have established over a period of years, ordinary people lose their jobs. This fellow didn't lose his job, so it just feeds into the feeling I think that many people have that there are two sets of rules in this country, one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, what do you think, listening to the Congressman describe the process, the fact that it was thorough and fair in their view and the penalty?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: I was kind of intrigued by the discussion among the two congressmen and some of the things that you showed in the news segment because it showed a lot higher level of comity and civility, some words that we're hearing a lot these days, than I really had suspected gone on. And I suppose that's kind of encouraging. I do think that it's important to remember that, you know, although things like the Ten Commandments are pretty clear, the Ethics in Government Act and for that matter tax law, as it applies to 501C-3 organizations is a bit of a moving target. And I think it would be unfair to treat the Speaker more harshly, more--

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Excuse me. Let's remind people that 501C-3 are the tax-exempt organizations.

PATRICK McGUIGAN: Yes. For example, institutions of higher education are generally classified as 501C-3 organizations, and it would be interesting to do a content analysis of political science course at some of our universities to see if they could pass this test that's been applied by Mr. Cole. But, again, I hasten to add that Mr. Cole, himself, was very restrained in the things he had to say. He said he could not make the case that Gingrich had deliberately misled the committee and because he couldn't make that case, he did not go to certain levels of possible sanctions, censure. He stuck to reprimand. To some extent this stuff is a moving target, and it's being defined in front of our eyes, and to call a $300,000 fine imposed on the Speaker of the House meaningless is a little bit surprising to me. And this raises the bar, by the way, for things like the investigation of President Clinton. If the allegations against his administration wind up being proven, you know, what kind of sanction will we see there, impeachment, or stiff fines of some kind? I'll be interested in seeing these standards applied in those kinds of situations as we all go forward.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cynthia, does the penalty fit the deed? How does it look to you?

CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: I think the penalties were appropriate. I think that the $300,000 fine makes it very clear that these were very serious charges. Earlier, in the spin phase that was referred to by Congressman Goss, there were a lot of supporters of Congressman Gingrich comparing this to driving violations or pedestrian violations, jaywalking, parking ticket. Well, nobody gets a $300,000 parking ticket. So I think this reinforces the serious nature of the charges. But let me disagree with a couple of things Patrick McGuigan said. This is not a moving target. The laws that Newt Gingrich violated are extraordinarily clear. The Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation was set up to aid inner city youth. That's what it was set up for, and the Speaker knew that. He used funds then that were laundered through that organization for--to help televise a course to show Republican activists how to run for office. It was clear as a bell that that was wrong. And most ordinary citizens understand that that is deceit. Let me also say that what special investigator Cole said was that a case could be made that the Speaker had deliberately deceived the House. There was not perhaps clear and convincing evidence, but the Ethics Committee, ethics subcommittee, ended up not coming to that conclusion, in essence, because of a plea bargain. When they got the Speaker to agree that he had provided inaccurate information to the House, then they agreed that they would leave it at that and not come to the conclusion that this was deliberate.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Andrea Neal, listening to the Congressman, were you struck, as Pat McGuigan was, by the comity, and did you feel the process went well, and does the penalty fit the crime or the deed, let's say?

ANDREA NEAL, Indianapolis Star: The process today seemed smooth enough, but I think both the fine and the reprimand were a political solution to a political problem, and they far exceeded the seriousness of the offense. In my mind an apology from the Speaker would have been sufficiently, but clearly, Mr. Gingrich felt that to end the paralysis in Congress he needed to admit to a violation and move on. But non-profit organizations around this country do the same thing he did every day. And that is spend tax- deductible donations to support political causes. And Congress hasn't done anything to amend the tax laws which tells me that they're much more interested in going after the Speaker than they are in changing the tax laws that they seem to disagree with.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Kittle, where do you come down on this?

ROBERT KITTLE, San Diego Union Tribune: Well, I think the penalty is certainly a stiff one. But I think when the Speaker acknowledged that he had made mistakes and the House decides that this is the proper penalty, with a $300,000 fine, in effect, then the Speaker should pay it and move on. And I think the interesting thing for all of us is we question, you know, the details of this. But I don't think the American people are looking at the fine print of the Ethics Committee's findings about the Speaker. I think we see for the most part most people recognize that there's another ethical scandal going on in Washington. The President was inaugurated for a second time yesterday with an ethical cloud over his head regarding the contributions from foreign contributors, and the Paula Jones matter. Now, the Speaker of the House, in effect, the leader of the Republican Party, the man third in line for the presidency, has acknowledged ethical lapses, and I think the American people are really eager for Washington to get its House in order, to put the Gingrich matter behind it, as I think the House very effectively did today in the sense of coming to a good resolution of this, indeed, setting a very high standard of ethical conduct for the Speaker and for all the members of the House, and I think now it's time to move forward, and I think the American people are most interested in whether the Speaker is going to be able to put together a cohesive body in the House. By its nature the House is always a fractious group, 435 members elected more or less independently. They don't owe much to any of the parties in terms of their loyalty, and so the real question now that I think most Americans are concerned about is, will the House be an effective body? Can the Speaker move forward and get the House to bend toward an agenda that gets something accomplished as the President indicated in his inaugural speech yesterday, that he'd like to move forward on a centrist agenda? And I think that's really what, what we're now waiting to see, and it's what the American people are hoping for.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mike Barnicle, Bob just mentioned these two big events of the 24 hours, the inauguration and this historic reprimand of the Speaker. And he described what it looks like to him in San Diego and what government looks like to him and what needs to happen. What does it look like to you, these two events in 24 hours? How did government look?

MIKE BARNICLE: You know, I think, Elizabeth, unfortunately, that many people are too busy making peanut butter sandwiches for their kids to go off to school at a quarter of 7 in the morning to wonder whether the House is going to have a quorum today or there's going to be a level of bipartisan spirit today, things like that. I think when it comes to looking at government, I think this country has sadly had such--has had such a diminished sense of outrage and a diminished sense of hope over the last 15 years that we are now so easily satisfied and we just want our politicians basically not to get us into a war, don't cause us to fall into a recession, shut out the lights at the end of the day, don't cause any trouble, don't scare the horses, leave us alone, and we'll leave you alone until two years down the road when we vote for you, or four years down the road, depending on your term of office. And what happens out of that I think is that we've bred a series of politicians over the course of the last decade who are so inherently reliant on consultants and focus groups and polls that what we get from State of the Union speeches, from second inaugural addresses, from the actions of the House of Representatives today, we get a decidedly political opinion based on something they read in the poll, or something they heard in the focus group, rather than someone's conscience or someone's gut instinct, rather than the truth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Pat McGuigan, do you think the expectations have gone that low?

PATRICK McGUIGAN: Well, I'm afraid that in terms of popular perception I think Mike probably has a point. And, you know, maybe part of the role that we can play is to explain the intricacies of some of these laws on the one hand. And I stand by everything I said previously about the intricacies of these laws and as Ms. Neal pointed out, you know, you have 501C-3 education groups; you have lobbying organizations; and then you have Political Action Committees. Well, increasingly, the lines between those entities have become blurred, right, left, center, regardless of where they're coming from politically. That's a fact. That is a fact of how this law operates in terms of the Ethics in Government Act, especially when you have a politician involved in this kind of activity. Beyond all that, I think we can help people understand. You're hearing a lot about civility and comity. And, you know, you have bickering. Well, nobody really likes bickering. But on the other hand, there's arguments, there's disagreements about substantive policy issues, and how we resolve those issues. Arguments are central to our politics, and they have to continue. Disagreements have to continue, but bickering, that's a different issue.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're not so discouraged, it sounds like.

PATRICK McGUIGAN: No. I'm not discouraged. I do believe that there's a lot of cynicism in the country, and sometimes we in the press help to feed that excessively. I think Mike has some good points, but I also think it's something that if we all care enough to explain these laws and put situations in context, then you can say, you know, a $300,000 fine of the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States is not meaningless. You know, maybe some new definition has emerged here.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, looking at these 24 hours, the inauguration and the penalties today, how does it look to you?

LEE CULLUM: Well, Elizabeth, of course, I thought the inauguration was very impressive, as inaugurations always are. I do want to second a bit of what Mike Barnicle is saying, though. I hear more and more people say that they feel that it's not going to get any better. They fear that the people they want to see in government are simply not going to be drawn to government. And I heard a man say in California over the weekend, an avowed Republican, that the politicians had better watch out, or they're going to turn American politics into professional sports. It's going to go the way of professional sports, which, of course, are attracting widespread disgust. I want to agree with Pat McGuigan how--I am optimistic. I remember the turn of the last century, which produced Theodore Roosevelt and finally Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. I think that can happen again once over the hurdle into the new century of the new millennium. I certainly hope so.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lee Cullum, we have just a little time left. These 24 hours, how do they look from Atlanta?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Cynthia.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Cynthia. I'm sorry. Cynthia.

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, remember that yesterday was also the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many people in Atlanta were as preoccupied with celebrating his birthday as with keeping an eye on the inaugural events. And of course, the President referred to Dr. King in some of his remarks. I think that it is good to keep in mind, as depressed as we may sometimes become over the state of national affairs, politics, our politicians, that, in fact, the inaugural does represent something which is wonderful about the foundation of America, and that is peaceful transition. But it is also true that the American people are increasingly skeptical and cynical, I think, about their politicians. I also think that the process of ethics investigations has also been unfortunately debased by both Democrats and Republicans, who've used it to partisan advantage. I don't think we got that impression during Watergate. I think we got the impression that Senators who are Democrats and Senators who are Republicans were genuinely concerned about the country. And now you think it's just partisan politics.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Thanks, Cynthia, and thanks to all the rest of you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a Picasso biography and the Curt Flood legacy. FOCUS - PICASSO

JIM LEHRER: Now, Pablo Picasso, as portrayed in a new biography. Paul Solman of WGBH-Boston has that story.

PAUL SOLMAN: It was pretty chaotic the other morning at John Richardson's place in Manhattan.

JOHN RICHARDSON, Picasso Biographer: It's a terrible mess at the moment.

PAUL SOLMAN: Not only was his 5,000 square foot apartment in the final throes of renovation, they were also trying to make it presentable enough for a high society party that evening, a sit- down dinner for 80 to celebrate the publication of Richardson's latest book, volume two of his biography "A Life of Picasso." John Richardson met Pablo Picasso in the late 1940's, when Richardson helped build and run a private museum in the South of France. He then went to a job in New York with auction house Christie's and obviously picked up a few knickknacks, himself, as we saw in his studio. The new book begins in 1907 with the most famous painter of the 20th century at age 26, about to make an artistic breakthrough. One of the most famous paintings of the 20th century, this picture of prostitutes, known as "The Damsels," or "Demoiselles D'Avignon."

PAUL SOLMAN: You begin this second book and actually end the first with the painting the "Demoiselles D'Avignon." What's he doing there? What's the big deal about that painting?

JOHN RICHARDSON: The "Demoiselles" is important because it dealt kind of a death blow to the Western European tradition of figurative art. I mean, it went off on a whole new tack, and anything was permissible. I mean, he wanted to shock people in seeing things anew, and so it's not just a very shocking subject, the whorehouse, shocking subject; it's though he's shockingly painting them. The women are hideous. They're daunting, frightening, and that's what he was after in that painting. And that's what the breakthrough is about.

PAUL SOLMAN: Is it hard for people today to see this "Demoiselles D'Avignon" and get the feeling that Picasso was trying to give at the time? I mean, because for a lot of us it's a fairly familiar image.

JOHN RICHARDSON: It's so familiar that we tend to take it for granted, but when it was painted in 1907, none of Picasso's friends could take it. I mean, they were horrified. Derain said that--so not only his painter friends--said that Picasso would be found hanging behind the painting, that I mean, this was the act of a mad man. And this was generally--Matisse came, roared with laughter at it, and this was the result it had on people. And I think Picasso was so appalled by, I mean, he'd shocked people in a way too much for the painting to be exhibited, to be shown, to be accepted.

PAUL SOLMAN: This is the painting that helped kick off the movement known derisively in the beginning as Cubism, the main artist theme of Richardson's new book. And to this day people wonder what Cubism is all about.

JOHN RICHARDSON: One of the things Cubism is about is that traditionally distance lent enchantment to the view. I mean, things had to go away from the onlooker. And what the Cubist wanted to do was to bring things within reach of the onlooker. You feel sometimes that the painter is behind the canvas, shoving things out at you to make them more palpable, to make them more real, to give you a greater experienceof their realness. And I think that's what they were trying to do. Also, another thing was that they would show different sides of an object or a person so that you felt that you could see round things. One of the things that Picasso did, and it starts with Cubism, is this double profile. I mean, you can see it there as a--there's a sort of wide profile with the eye looking, if you blot out that part of it, so already you have two separate images. You have a full face and you have a side--you have a profile view.

PAUL SOLMAN: Actually, two profiles because I guess there's a black profile too.

JOHN RICHARDSON: There's a black profile too. It's incredibly ingenious, but it looks at first sight very, very simple, but it's enormously ingenious the way these sort of profiles match. They make a full face.

PAUL SOLMAN: And it's to his friend, John Richardson.

JOHN RICHARDSON: Mon ami, John Richardson, yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: A prized possession, I take it?

JOHN RICHARDSON: It is a very prized possession, yes. I've got a whole lot of others. And he was very, very generous with his work, with his drawings. There's another one.

PAUL SOLMAN: That--Doramar is--

JOHN RICHARDSON: Doramar was his mistress from 1936 to 1944. And here you have very much the same thing. You have, if you blot out this side of it, you see you have, you can see her buttocks, you can see her back with the rib cage and so on. And then you also see the front. So you've got the back and the front in which it's blended into one, and you also have the same thing with her face. I think Picasso had such extraordinary ability, I mean, he could- -he could draw the figure completely figuratively and completely accurately, but he could take any liberty he wanted. He also had this extraordinary imagination. And he regarded art as having a magic function and somehow he was a magician.

PAUL SOLMAN: When you say a magic function, what do you mean?

JOHN RICHARDSON: He regarded himself as something of a prophet. He could foresee things in his work. He could use his work to influence events. He could--he could put a curse on people through is work, he felt. I mean, for instance, his first wife, Olga, when she--he wanted to leave her and she wouldn't--she wanted a separation, she wanted half his worldly goods, he started painting her in the most terrifying way, in the most reproachful images, I mean, as if to put a hex on her.

PAUL SOLMAN: Did it work?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: So she didn't get half the estate?

JOHN RICHARDSON: She didn't get half the estate, and she became extremely happy, poor wretch, and she--but she went on loving him until she died. It's untrue to say that--people like to think of Picasso as going from one woman to the other and being rather unkind to women, being misogynistic towards women, but, in fact, the women adored him, I mean, even when they were left, with the exception of Francoise Gilo, they remained in love with him until their dying day.

PAUL SOLMAN: The current myth of Picasso is very much along these lines--woman hater, bad guy, I mean, general no-goodnik.

JOHN RICHARDSON: That's a lot of nonsense. Whatever you say about him--you say he's a mean bastard--he was also an angelic, compassionate, tender, sweet man. The reverse is always true. You say that he was stingy. He was also incredibly generous. You say that he was very bohemian, but also he had a sort of up-tight, bourgeois side. I mean, he was a mass of antitheses. And that is one of the sort of amazing things about him, that he was able to contain these totally different qualities, defects, what have you.

PAUL SOLMAN: Did he do things that you, yourself, disapproved of?

JOHN RICHARDSON: The only thing which I find reprehensible is I was very close to Jacqueline, his second wife, and Jacqueline was ill when they--well, soon after they met, Jacqueline fell ill, and she should have had an operation. And--

PAUL SOLMAN: What was wrong with her?

JOHN RICHARDSON: It was some kind of female problem. I think she should have had a hysterectomy. And Picasso wouldn't let her have a hysterectomy. And I'd say, you must have it for God sake, and I remember once she came to dinner and she fainted, and I took her up and put her on my bed and said, listen, have this, have the operation. "No, no, no, Pablo wouldn't like it. Pablo doesn't want me to have it." And then finally one day she collapsed completely, had to be taken off to the hospital, and she had the operation.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now this is a portrait of Jacqueline, right?

JOHN RICHARDSON: That's a portrait of Jacqueline, and it's a portrait that--it's a big ink wash drawing that Picasso gave me, and as you can see, she's very--she looks rather dramatic, rather sad, rather sick, which, indeed, she was a few days after this was done.

PAUL SOLMAN: Did you ever tell him that Jacqueline needed an operation? Did you ever confront him?

JOHN RICHARDSON: No. Nobody dared confront him. If you ever confronted Picasso over anything like that, over any personal matters, if you were critical of him, you were out.

PAUL SOLMAN: Do you have other friends you have a relationship like that with?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Certainly not, but I mean I have no other friends with whom I had a relationship as with Picasso.

PAUL SOLMAN: Because he's a genius, and you don't want to offend him.

JOHN RICHARDSON: Yeah, well, also, I mean, I liked the man, and I wanted access to him. And I wasn't going to, you know, say something dumbly critical and have the door barred in my face in the future. I mean, I used to spend a lot of time with Picasso in the 50's and early 60's, and he was a marvelous, funny, nice guy to be around, but you'd find by the end of the day, even if you'd just had lunch with him and gone to the beach with him, had dinner with him, somehow by the end of the day that you had--were totally nervously exhausted; that everybody around him had suffered from nervous exhaustion; and he, at the age of eighty or eighty-five, would go off into his studio, strutting off into his studio, and would work all night on your energy.

PAUL SOLMAN: Do you ever think he became too quick and easy, too facile?

JOHN RICHARDSON: Picasso said facility was the enemy and that he always had to struggle against, and he said, "Sometimes I feel as I'd like to tie one arm behind my back to make things more difficult for myself." And he always--that's why in the end there is nothing facile about his work. I used to sit and watch him sign editions of lithographs and prints. You know, there would be say 50 in an edition. He'd sometimes do four, five, six editions. And each time he signed his name, he held his pencil in a very ugly, clumsy way, he signed it as if he'd never signed it before. He didn't do like you and I probably do, dash off a signature. It was done very, very intently and as if you'd think he's burning his name into the paper. And I think that is part of his mastery. I mean, it was this complete concentration. He was focused on what he was doing, whether it was the smallest inscription in a book or a silly little drawing, it's always done with an enormous amount of concentration. And that I think is probably what genius is all about. FINALLY - AGENT OF CHANGE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight a man who changed the game of baseball and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Curt Flood, who died yesterday at the age of 59, was a star center fielder in his day. A three time all-star--error free fielding during his 12 years with the St. Louis Cardinals. But he will be most remembered for his challenge to the way the business of baseball operated. In 1969, the Cardinals' owner traded Flood to the Philadelphia Fillies, but Flood in an unprecedented step refused to go. Instead, he began a legal fight that would ultimately change baseball and American sports forever. In the 1994 PBS series "Baseball," Flood described how he felt when told he was being traded.

CURT FLOOD: I often wondered what I would do if I were ever traded because it happened many, many times, and it was "part of the game." And then suddenly it happened to me. I was leaving probably one of the greatest organizations in the world to at that time what was probably the least liked, and by God, this is America, and I'm a human being. I'm not a piece of property. I'm not a consignment of goods.

MARGARET WARNER: For more now on Curt Flood and his legacy we're joined by sports author and commentator, John Feinstein. Welcome back, John.

JOHN FEINSTEIN, Author: Thanks Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: First, before we talk about Curt Flood explain this so-called reserve system that he took on that he just described here.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Well, basically what it did was it tied an athlete not just in baseball but in all sports, but it started with baseball, to a team for life. The only obligation was really on the player. The owner owned your rights, could trade you, and you could only play for that team for your entire life. The example, if you work for a law firm and somebody offered you triple the money, you just go to that other law firm, but in sports you couldn't lead because your obligation was to the owner of the team forever.

MARGARET WARNER: Your only recourse would be to just walk.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Your recourse would be to not play. You played for that team, or you didn't play at all, and if you didn't accept the contract that you were offered, even if it was for less money, you didn't play.

MARGARET WARNER: So how did Curt Flood's challenge develop and how did it unfold?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Well, when he got traded, as he said in that clip, he decided that he didn't want to go to the Fillies, and he asked Bouey Kuhn, who was the commissioner of Baseball--Major League Baseball at the time--to declare him a free agent. There was really no such thing as a free agent at the time. Kuhn, who worked for the owners, naturally turned him down, so he went to the union which was run by Marvin Miller at the time, and said, I want to challenge this legally, and Miller told him, you have very little chance to win, but we will support you if you want to do this. He ended up losing in the Supreme Court in 1972 on the basis of baseball's antitrust exemption in a close vote, five to three. His career was already over by then. He tried to come back with the Washington Senators in 1971, played 13 games and retired, but he fought it to the Supreme Court and that's what got the union involved and eventually led to the decision in 1975 by an arbitrator that created free agency.

MARGARET WARNER: And so what impact has that had now on baseball and all sports?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Sports has completely been turned up side down because now players when they sign a contract, their only obligation is f or the terms of that contract, whether it's one year or two years or five years. At the end of that contract, they can leave and go to another team just like anybody in any other business. Some fans don't like this because they say the players don't have loyalty and that you can't tell the players without a scorecard anymore, but in 1994, less players changed teams in Major League Baseball than in 1934. The only difference was that now the players have a right to decide where they play, as opposed to the owners deciding where they play.

MARGARET WARNER: And of course the owners get much huger salaries now.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: It's gone through the roof. I mean, there's obviously--what Curt Flood was making in the 1960's would today be well into the millions and back then he made less than $100,000 a year.

MARGARET WARNER: Now you mentioned he did pay a very high personal price for this. Was he ostracized, or did his game just fall apart? What happened?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: His career essentially ended. He was only 31 years old when he was traded. He sat out the 1970 season because he wouldn't play for the Fillies. He did sign with the Washington Senators in 71 but his skills had deteriorated during the year off, and because of what he had done too in the legal battle, and it really ended his career. He's a prime example to me of someone who was a leader who took chances, who put himself at risk. And today's athletes don't even understand in most cases what Curt Flood did for them. Most of them, if you walked into a locker room today, probably couldn't tell you who Curt Flood was?

MARGARET WARNER: Why wasn't he offered a job as say a coach if he was such a great fielder?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Because he was ostracized by Major League Baseball. In fact, some players and former players testified against Curt Flood at the time because they thought that losing the reserve clause would ruin Major League Baseball. The irony is that Joe Garagiola, who became a close friend of his through the Baseball Assistance Team, in his last days was one of those who testified against Curt Flood in the 1970's.

MARGARET WARNER: Now there also are some quotes from him in later years that suggest he saw himself not just as breaking ground for players but for black players as part of the struggle. Where did it--for blacks in the sport--where did he fit into that?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: Remember, that Curt Flood came up in Cincinnati in the 1950's and played in St. Louis in the 50's and 60's, which were not at that time exactly a great place for an African-American to be, and he learned from that and developed as a person through much of that, from everything that I've read, and he felt that the Supreme Court decision was racial; that the reason that Andy Messersmith and Dave McNally got the ruling in their favor three years later was because they were white players. Now, remember, the Supreme Court back then, the only African-American was Thurgood Marshall. It was a relatively conservative court. Nixon was at the height of his popularity and yet it was still only a five-three vote, so maybe he had a point.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think it has anything to do with why he didn't go on to any other kind of career in baseball?

JOHN FEINSTEIN: There's no question that he was left out of the ferment of the game, if I can say that word, but the union did stand by him. Marvin Miller and Richard Moss to this day, who ran the union then, and Don Fear who runs it now, have said before and say now that he was a hero and should be a hero, and unfortunately what will happen now is in--now that he's dead people will start to notice what a hero he was. I think that he belongs in the Hall of Fame because he was a very good player, and even though his numbers don't merit it, he went beyond it off the field.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, thanks, John, very much.

JOHN FEINSTEIN: My pleasure. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, the House of Representatives voted to reprimand Speaker Gingrich for admitted ethics violations. He also agreed to pay a $300,000 fine. Democratic officials announced the party would no longer accept campaign contributions from individuals and corporations with foreign ties, and Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan warned Congress that the current low unemployment figures could lead to inflation. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.