The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. Our sole business tonight is the opening of the 104th Congress. We have taped coverage of the major happenings, Newsmaker interviews with Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, a Kwame Holman report on reform day in the House, analysis by former House members Vin Weber and Karen Shepherd, and an introductory report by Elizabeth Farnsworth on how all of this in Washington is seen and felt in Denver, Colorado. NEW CONGRESS

MR. LEHRER: The new Republican Congress was officially born today in Washington. Its life began in earnest with the election and swearing in of Newt Gingrich of Georgia as Speaker of the House, ending 40 years of Democratic rule. In a straight party line vote, he defeated the Democratic Leader, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, who will now serve as minority leader. Afterwards, both men spoke.

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: To make real progress to improve real people's lives, we both have to rise above partisanship. We have to work together where we can and where we must. It is profound responsibility, one which knows no bounds of party or politics. It is the responsibility not merely for those who voted for you, not merely for those who cast their fate on your side of the aisle, but also for those who did not. These are the responsibilities I pass, along with the gavel I hold, will hold in my hand. But there are some burdens that the Democratic Party will never cease to bear. As Democrats, we came to Congress to fight for America's hard-working, middle income families, families who are working often for longer hours, for less pay, for fewer benefits, and jobs they're not sure they can keep. We, together, must redeem their faith, but if they work hard and they play by the rules, they can build a better life for their children. So with partnership, but with purpose, I pass this great gavel of our government. With resignation, but with resolve, I hereby end 40 years of Democratic rule with faith and with friendship, and the deepest respect. You are now my Speaker, and let the great debate begin.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: The 104th Congress -- I don't know if you ever thought about just the concept -- 208 years. We gather together, the most diverse country in the history of the world, and the folks who come here come here by the one single act that their citizens freely chose them.And I don't care what your ethnic background, what your ideology. I don't care whether you're younger or older. I don't care whether you were born in America, or you're a naturalized citizen, every one of the 435 people have equal standing because their citizens freely sent them and their voice should be heard, and they should have a right to participate, and I do want to pick up directly on what Dick Gephardt said, because he said it right, and no Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in despair and could have slid into dictatorship. The fact is every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right. But I would say to my friends in the Democratic Party that there is much to what Ronald Reagan was trying to get done, and there's much we can share with each other. We must replace the welfare state with an opportunity society. The balanced budget is the right thing to do but it doesn't, in my mind, have the moral urgency of coming to grips with what's happening to the poorest Americans. I have seldom been more shaken than I was shortly after the election when I had breakfast with two members of the Black Caucus, and one of them said to me: "Can you imagine what it's like to visit a first grade class and realize that every fourth or fifth young boy in that class may be dead or in jail within fifteen years, and they're your constituents, and you're helpless to change it?" And that just, for some reason, I don't know why, maybe because I visit a lot of schools, that got through. I mean, that personalized it .That made it real. If each of us will reach out prayerfully and try to genuinely stand the other, if we'll recognize that in this building we symbolize America, that we have an obligation to talk with each other, then I think a year from now we can look on the 104th Congress as a truly amazing institution without regard to party, without regard to ideology. We can say here America comes to work, and here we're preparing for those children a better future.

MR. LEHRER: Moments later, Gingrich took the oath of office and then administered the same oath to the rest of the House which now includes 230 Republicans, 204 Democrats, and one independent. Members then began a session which is expected to last until late tonight. They are voting on various proposals from the Republicans' Contract with America. Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: The Senate also became a Republican-led body today by a margin of 53 to 47. Vice President Gore administered the oath to 34 new Senators who came to the podium in groups of four, escorted by fellow Senators. Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas later and Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota laid out their agendas for the 104th Congress. We'll have Newsmaker interviews with both men in a few moments. President Clinton returned from Arkansas this afternoon and received a call from the new House Majority and Minority leaders officially informing him that Congress was in session. Before leaving Arkansas, Mr. Clinton attended the dedication of an elementary school which bears his name. He talked about his expectations for the new Congress.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I want them to adopt what I call a middle class bill of rights to keep the American dream alive by promoting education and strengthening family. And I hope that Congress will adapt and accept that challenge. You know, anybody can come up and say, I want to give you a tax cut and make people happy in the short run. What I want to do is reduce taxes for people to invest in the education of their children and their own training and skills so we can go forward and grow this economy. So I say to all of you, let's take the lessons of the children, let's pay attention when people are talking to us. Let's listen to all sides of the argument. Let's be good citizens and discuss the great challenges facing our country. Let's discount all the politics of personal destruction and enhance our ability to think about what is true, what is fair, and what is important.

MR. LEHRER: Now it's on to Newsmaker interviews with Senators Dole and Daschle, reform in the House, plus analysis of it and plus the view from outside Washington. FOCUS - THE FIRST 100 DAYS NEWSMAKERS

MR. MAC NEIL: We begin our in-depth coverage of today's opening day of Congress with Newsmaker interviews with the new Senate leaders. First up, Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas, the new Majority Leader. Sen. Dole, thank you for joining us. Congratulations on your election.

SEN. DOLE: Thank you, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Some people have seen today's events, particularly in the House, as something like an inauguration. Did you feel that way?

SEN. DOLE: I felt pretty good about it. In fact, we recessed the Senate to go over to the House. Having served in the House for eight years, I wanted to be sure I saw it when it happened, and I was there, and it was very, very exciting for me.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you feel -- you Republicans in the Senate -- feel a little irrelevant with all the hoopla surrounding Speaker Gingrich's swearing in?

SEN. DOLE: Oh, I don't think so. We've waited 40 years. Many of us are creatures of the House. We started there, and so we have a strong feeling of affinity for the House. We were very excited about it, and many of us worked very hard in the campaign. I think I was in 85 different congressional districts the past year and a half. We wanted it to happen. It did happen, and now we want to move ahead, and now we have the responsibility.

MR. MAC NEIL: I noticed yesterday that Sen. Cochran of Mississippi said, "Don't worry. We're part of the revolution too here in the Senate." Do you feel part of the Gingrich revolution?

SEN. DOLE: We're part of the revolution. I'm not certain that I'd name it, but I think we're part of the revolution. We think we've gotten whatever the messages may have been from the American voters November 8th. There were a number of messages. Our view is that we want to restore where we can power back to the states and back to the people, go back and read the 10th amendment, as I said today in my floor statement. So we're going to be very much a part of this Republican revolution, and it's going to be a revolution of change, but it's going to be not extreme but what we believe the American people really asked us to do in the last election.

MR. MAC NEIL: Since his, Mr. Gingrich's contract, 10-point contract, has come in some ways to symbolize this turn of events, how much do you feel it your job in the Senate to help him fulfill that contract?

SEN. DOLE: Well, we obviously have a responsibility to work together. We had our own. We didn't have a contract. We had an agenda called Seven More in '94. We had one issue for each seat we needed to pick up. We ended up picking up nine seats. But it's pretty much in line with some changes as far as tax cuts are concerned. It's not that much difference in the House Contract with America. So generally speaking, we're prepared to work with the House. In some areas, we may have differences. We may want to modify, delay. In some areas, I don't think of any right offhand, but there may be areas that we want to go beyond the contract, and I think list very quickly telecommunications legislation -- it's not part of the contract, but it's very important. We ought to deal with it -- superfund legislation, health care -- these are other issues that weren't part of either our agenda or their agenda, but issues that ought to be dealt with, in my view, in the next two years.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you see -- you mentioned -- used the word "moderate" a moment ago. Do you see it your role in the Senate, partly because of the nature of the institution, being to temper in some way the rage for reform in the House, for instance on matters like welfare?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I think it's always been the view that that was a role for the Senate. That's why we have different rules. That's why we take more time or can take more time. We may decide in some cases to be -- have a stricter view than the House, but in some cases, we may, in effect, temper, we may let the coffee cool on the Senate side. But, you know, I think in many, many areas there's going to be broad agreement, including our colleagues in the Democratic Party. We're not -- you know, in the Senate, we can't say -- Bob Dole can't say, well, we've got 53, so we're going to do this today, because everybody knows it only takes 41 to block legislation. The Democrats have 47. But I look for a lot of areas of bipartisan cooperation. Tom Daschle and I are good friends. We come from the same part of the country. He'll be a good Democratic leader. We'll trust each other. We won't surprise each other, and I think in many areas we'll be working together.

MR. MAC NEIL: You say we may let the coffee cool. It takes time for the coffee to cool. Does that mean that the hundred day rush in the House may be slowed down in the Senate? In other words, you can't by a hundred days pass everything both through the House and through the Senate?

SEN. DOLE: The coffee may get cold.

MR. MAC NEIL: The coffee may get cold.

SEN. DOLE: Not only cool, it may get cold.

MR. MAC NEIL: Yeah.

SEN. DOLE: But that doesn't mean we won't do it. It just means we have different rules, and Speaker Gingrich understands. We've had a number of meetings. We're going to try to work it out, so, you know, some of our colleagues don't feel or anybody else feels that we're just sitting here catching. We want to be, we want to be pitching too. We're good catchers, but we're also good catchers.

MR. MAC NEIL: One of the things you, yourself, have just pitched is you've introduced some resolutions which are seen as challenging Mr. Clinton's foreign policy in a couple of areas, for instance, to lift the Bosnian arms embargo and restrict the U.S. role in various ways in U.N. peacekeeping. Do you -- how much do you see it as your -- in your new situation in here now to be challenging President Clinton?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I hope it's not, you know, some new situation, and it's not that I want to challenge President Clinton. I think generally in foreign policy where we can agree we ought to work with the President, as I said in my floor statement today, but in some of these areas we think in what we call the Peace Powers Act, repealing the War Powers Resolution of 1970, the President supports that too. We think we'll have bipartisan support on Bosnia, another resolution I introduced with Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat of Connecticut, we've been working on this together. The last time we had 58 votes, pretty much bipartisan, on lifting the arms embargo, so that's not, you know, sort of a Bob Dole vs. Clinton, it's a very broad-based group of Senators from Joe Biden to Joe Lieberman to Bob Dole to John McCain and others who feel strongly about lifting the arms embargo.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you think you'll have no problem passing those two resolutions?

SEN. DOLE: I think on the Peace Powers Act we'll work it out on a bipartisan basis. We're not trying to crowd the President on Bosnia. We don't intend to bring it up immediately. We wanted to introduce it on the first day so we could underscore the importance of the issue, but we don't intend to push it right now, put it that way.

MR. MAC NEIL: I see. William Kristol, the Republican strategist, sent a memo to Republican leaders today, I don't know whether you got one of them, but Republican leaders, that all GOP decisions this year should be subordinated to the '96 election and Republicans should keep on using President Clinton as a punching bag. What do you think of that advice?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I'm not certain I agree with all of it. Bill Kristol is a very bright young man and gives us a lot of good ideas, and a lot of good advice. I wouldn't want the public to think that all we were going to do in the Republican Party for the next two years is try to find fault with everything that President Clinton has done. Let's go back to the last session. The last thing we did in the last Congress was a big, big bipartisan victory that was called the GATT trade agreement. We worked together. This was a lame duck session. Not many people expected us to come together. We did. And so I think there are cases when we should be working together. There's more at stake than, you know, than any one party. Mistakes are pretty high in this country, and it's all about leadership. It's all about what we're going to do in the future. And there are going to be cases we can work together.

MR. MAC NEIL: For instance, Sen. Daschle, a Minority Leader, whom we're going to talk to in a moment, is introducing legislation on five different areas. One of them is trying to pull together the elements that he think have wide support on health reform. Is that something you can work together on?

SEN. DOLE: Well, in fact, I mentioned health reform. What I would do is go back and take a look at the bill that Chairman Lloyd Bentsen when he was chairman of the Finance Committee introduced, maybe add a few things to that. It would be a basic health care bill that would help millions and millions of Americans. It would be no new entitlement program. You don't want to start any new entitlement programs, but certainly I think there are things -- whether it's a pre-existing condition, the portability issue, the liability issue, the whole number of issues, where you don't have any partisan differences, and where we don't have any partisan difference we ought to act, and I think the American people expect us to act.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you think some form of health care reform is possible this year?

SEN. DOLE: I think so. I think if we don't reach too far and get bogged down with a lot of areas that we haven't explored, but I think the one caveat would be we just had an Entitlements Commission, Sen. Bob Kerrey, former Sen. Jack Danforth, they couldn't come to an agreement because of all the entitlement programs. We shouldn't try to go out and create more entitlement programs in any new health care proposal.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Sen. Dole, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. DOLE: Thank you, Robin. Thanks very much.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now the view from the other side of the aisle, Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota is the new Minority Leader. Mr. Daschle, congratulations on your election.

SEN. DASCHLE: Thank you very much, Robin.

MR. MAC NEIL: Do you see a place for Democrats at this revolution?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I do, obviously. I think that it takes both parties to govern. Sen. Dole has said it very well. There are opportunities for partnership here. We expect to be full partners. We want to work together with him. We think the American people want to see government work better, and we think that working in a bipartisan fashion is how you get government to work better.

MR. MAC NEIL: With Newt Gingrich's Contract with America making so much of the noise in this revolution, how much of that do you think you can support?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, we're going to want to look at the details, obviously. There are a number of things, of course, that are included in the contract that are very supportive -- supportable I should say. I think the key is whether or not they're paid for. There are a lot of estimates as to how much money many of these cost. we're not prepared to support anything that doesn't have an offset, that isn't ultimately paid for in some way or form. I must also say that I think there are some elements within the contract that we're going to look at very, very closely. I think to the extent that Republicans can be focused on mainstream issues, they're going to see a good deal of bipartisanship on our side. To the extent, Robin, however that they, they become captives of the radical right, I think we're in for some very confrontational times. I hope that won't be the case. I hope we can be bipartisan.

MR. MAC NEIL: Are you talking about so-called social issues, or are you talking about things that are actually in the contract, like welfare reform?

SEN. DASCHLE: I'm talking about things that go beyond the social issues. As I say, we don't know what the specifics are with regard to some of these contract proposals, and they could be crafted in a way that would represent radical right ideas, and if those are the way the, the legislation is presented, then frankly, we're going to have a good deal of trouble with it. In concept, there are many proposals on that list that we think could enjoy broad bipartisan support.

MR. MAC NEIL: I think you mentioned in an interview earlier today that you thought that some of the things that Speaker Gingrich has said about welfare reform fell into the category of extreme right wing attitudes. Is that what you meant?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I'm concerned about some of the proposals. We don't know exactly what he means, so it's hard for me to comment, but if it means taking children away from mothers and putting them in orphanages, if it means cutting funding, very, very needed funding from children who may be disabled, those kinds of things proposed by colleagues on the House side, Republican colleagues, would cause most of our Democrats very serious concern.

MR. MAC NEIL: What expectations do you have for your own legislation, for instance, the health care reform idea that we just discussed with Sen. Dole?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, frankly, I'm very hopeful. My message this afternoon was: Let's take those principles for which there is broad bipartisan support, and let's begin a foundation. Let's begin to work with those. Sen. Dole just mentioned a number of them: insurance reform, portability, making sure we eliminate pre- existing condition, dealing with malpractice. Those kinds of issues, I think, are issues that enjoy the kind of support that could allow us to pass reform this year. 100 percent deductibility for self-employed and small business, those issues I think could be issues that cause me to be very interested, very optimistic about our prospects for a health reform bill this year.

MR. MAC NEIL: You just heard Sen. Dole talking about the, the resolutions he's introduced on lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia, which would go against the President's current policy there, restrict the U.S. role in U.N. peacekeeping. How much do you feel in your new position bound to defend the President's policies in areas like this?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, there will be times, Robin, that we will be very enthusiastic about defending them. I don't think the President gets the kind of credit he deserves in Bosnia. Keep in mind, not one American life has been lost. Keep in mind this is a very, very difficult, complicated, and intricate situation, and I think to a large extent, the administration deserves credit for the kinds of things they've done. We're going to be looking. Obviously, there will be times when we disagree. Our caucus, in fact, will be in disagreement on some issues, but clearly, we want to be as cooperative and helpful. As I said weeks and weeks ago, our desire is not to work for the White House but to work with them. That certainly includes foreign policy.

MR. MAC NEIL: For instance, on the domestic agenda, how much will you be pushing the President's middle class bill of rights that he spoke about just earlier in this program?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think the President has a lot of good proposals in that, in that elaborate list of things that he proposed a couple of weeks ago. I generally feel very supportive of it. There are two criteria that, in my view, are critical for most Democrats as we look at legislation of this kind. First of all, will it be targeted to those who have real need, and secondly, will it be paid for? If it is paid for, if it is targeted, then I think we can do business, and I think you're going to see broad support.

MR. MAC NEIL: Does real need include, for instance, his suggestion to offer deductions of up to $10,000 a year for higher education?

SEN. DASCHLE: In my view, it would. Obviously, I think those who have children in school, especially in college, certainly ought to be given some consideration. It's getting tougher and tougher for middle class families to make ends meet. South Dakotans are having very serious problems. I talk to my own south Dakotans on many occasions, and that's really one of the biggest concerns they raise with me: How do we pay for college? We want to help them pay for college. We want to make ends meet. We want to reach out to working class families, and I think this might do it.

MR. MAC NEIL: To what extent is the Democratic hold on the presidency going to be determined by what happens in this Congress, and how do you see your role in that?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I think to a certain extent, obviously, our record will have a lot to say about our prospects for the next election, but frankly, I think good government, good, strong bipartisan accomplishment has more to do with setting a positive political stage for both parties than any posturing we might contemplate for the next 24 months, so I hope we can demonstrate to the American people that we're here to go to work, we're here really to enact an agenda that makes government work better, that recognizes the tremendous needs that working families have, that values have to be reflected more adequately in what we do, and that we can end business as usual. If we do those kinds of things, both the White House and the Congress will fare well next time.

MR. MAC NEIL: You may have heard the question I asked Sen. Dole about the observation by William Kristol, a Republican strategist, that all GOP decisions this year should be subordinated to the '96 election, and Republicans should keep using President Clinton as a punching bag. What is your observation on that?

SEN. DASCHLE: Frankly, I'm disappointed. I think that shows poor judgment. The American people are so sick and tired of politics. They want, if anything else, to end politics for now, to get on with governing, to do -- deal with the issues that we've got before us. We've been talking about a number of issues for which I think there is good bipartisan support, health care, helping the middle class make ends meet, dealing with issues that end business as usual. Those kinds of things, in my view, are, are what we really ought to be concentrating on. Punching bags are good for boxing but not good for politics and certainly not good for governing as we begin a new Congress.

MR. MAC NEIL: What is your philosophy, Senator, about how Democrats best respond to the message the voters have sent and have given the Republicans control of the Congress now?

SEN. DASCHLE: Robin, in my view, they've been given a chance, not a mandate. I don't believe that the American people said, go off to some radical right direction and try to govern from there. That isn't going to work. To the extent they stay in the middle and connect with working American families, we want to be there. If they blow that chance, if they squander that opportunity on radical right ideas, I think the American people will be disappointed and frankly, they'll be the losers.

MR. MAC NEIL: But what is the best way Democrats can respond? Is it by -- how much of it is by sounding like Republicans and -- which some people have accused the President of beginning to do - - and how much standing for things that Democrats traditionally stood for?

SEN. DASCHLE: Well, I must say I think there's a fundamental difference, and it's going to be repeated over and over in thematic ways as we deal with legislation before us. I think the Democrats' message is quite simple. We want to enable working families to help themselves. In my view the Republican message is equally as simple: You are on your own. Go out and do it yourself. Obviously, there is a fundamental, philosophical difference in those two approaches. We think the American people want to be able to help themselves, and if we can enable them to do it better, that's what I see our role to be.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, Sen. Daschle, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. DASCHLE: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, reforming the House, and how it all looks from Denver. FOCUS - HOUSE REFORM

MR. LEHRER: Next, rules changes in the House of Representatives. After the pomp and circumstance of today's swearing in and election of new leaders, the House got down to the business of changing how it does business. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Perhaps the most significant thing about House Republicans' four decades as the minority is the fact that they were forced to live for all those years under rules established by the Democrats. The Republicans' first act after taking control of the House today was to change the rules.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: The Speaker would like to ask the members to be a little quiet in your happiness, so we can get started. We have a long day ahead of us, and so if I can, I'd like to begin to go through a series of steps we need to do.

MR. HOLMAN: The rule changes were contained in the House Republicans' Contract with America, along with a pledge that they would be passed on the very first day of the new Congress if Republicans won a majority.

REP. PORTER GOSS, [R] Florida: Limiting the terms of committee chairmen, banning proxy voting, establishing truth in budgeting, reducing staff, opening up and streamlining the committee process, mandating recorded votes on spending bills. These changes today will make this a more responsive and responsible House.

MR. HOLMAN: But no sooner had all the ceremony and talk of bipartisanship ended than Democrats began challenging the openness of the process by which the rules would be changed.

REP. DAVID BONIOR, Minority Whip: Is your request an open amendment process which allows members the opportunity to offer germane amendments?

REP. DICK ARMEY, [R] Texas: I am advised by the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee, that the rule is more open than any we've ever had in the past.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: Are you saying that no amendments are in order under this request, and this is a closed rule?

REP. DICK ARMEY: Perhaps at this point I might address the Speaker and express my wonderment as to whether or not the gentleman is going to, going to make his objection.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: Given that the gentleman has informed the House that he's requesting two completely closed rules, two gag rules I might add, on the first day of the Congress, I object.

MR. HOLMAN: House Democrats wanted to offer an amendment to prohibit House members from accepting gifts from lobbyists and to cap members' outside income and book royalties. Republicans said that last item was a politically motivated slap at Speaker Gingrich who briefly accepted a $4 1/2 million book contract, then rejected it under pressure.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: This would not matter so much if the Republicans had offered us real reform, but their package leaves out the single most important effort that could stop the influence of special interests, a ban on gifts from lobbyists. Last year, the Republicans ran from reform and blocked passage of the gift ban bill in the Senate after we had passed it here. This year, they're going even further. With this closed rule, with this gag rule, they have prevented a gift ban from being offered as a separate amendment, and I really regret that.

MR. HOLMAN: Republican David Dreier defended the majority's position.

REP. DAVID DREIER, [R] California: I've got to say that it is absolutely preposterous to claim that what is clearly the most open rule on an opening day in recent congressional history is closed! Now, in the past, we have regularly seen basically a single up or down vote, but as Speaker Gingrich said in his remarks earlier, we are going to be today casting votes on eight different provisions, providing members with the opportunity to look at virtually every aspect of the preamble of our Contract with America.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans and Democrats then engaged in a stark exercise of role reversal as Democrats complained about the new majority's restrictive rules of debate.

REP. JOHN BRYANT, [D] Texas: Well, Mr. Dreier, you also stood at that desk over there every single day, and you condemned closed rules as being a violation of the democratic process, and you promised that if you were in charge, we would never again see closed rules. And where are we today? The first day of this session with Congress, when you're finally in charge, and the very first rule you bring to the House is a closed rule. I would just have to say, Mr. Dreier, and to Mr. Solomon, it is a curious thing to see on the first day of the House these two gentlemen who took up so much of our time talking about closed rules to be the author of a closed rule on the first day of this Congress.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, [R] New York: Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as it might consume just to say to members on that side of the aisle how refreshing it is to see members now from the Democratic Party standing up and fighting for those minority rights that we fought for for 40 years on this floor! We welcome you into this debate, and we're going to open up this House today! [applause] Thank you.

MR. HOLMAN: Introduced to the battle were members of Congress who had become members just minutes earlier.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, [D] Texas: If we want to send a real signal that we're really changing Washington, we need to ban gifts from lobbyists and special interests. As members of Congress, we should not be using public office for private gain. We are here to make change, not to protect the old order.

REP. LINDSEY GRAHAM, [R] South Carolina: I come from South Carolina, a state that a few years ago sent about 18 people to jail because they took shirts, they took shoes, they took golf trips, and they sold their vote. If you want to out-reform me, I challenge you to do so, but everything in its time. Forty years you've had control of this body to do that. What the American people need to know, and I want you to know at home is that what we're talking about doing the first day is to change the way this institution operations.

MR. HOLMAN: Republicans won their first fight over the rules.

REP. ROBERT WALKER, [R] Pennsylvania: On this vote, yeas are 251, nays are 181. The resolution is agreed to.

MR. HOLMAN: And as evening fell, the House moved toward debate and likely passage of the Republicans' eight institutional reforms. And it seemed likely the new majority would fulfill another promise, to make the first day of the new House one of the longest.

MR. LEHRER: Now the House reforms as seen by two former members. Karen Shepherd served one term as a Democratic Congresswoman from Utah. She was defeated in her re-election bid last November. Vin Weber, a Republican from Minnesota, served six terms. He's now the co-director of Empower America, a Washington-based public policy organization. Vin Weber, what kind of start did the revolution get off to today, in your opinion?

MR. WEBER: They got off to a marvelous start. What they needed to do was demonstrate to the American people, No. 1, that they were not connecting business as usual; No. 2, that they were working hard, very simple; No. 3, that they were changing things. They have done, or by the end of this very long day will have done all of those things. Now the Democrats have done a good job of trying to make a case on a couple of issues too, but I think at the end of the day the House Republicans have accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think, Karen?

MS. SHEPHERD: I think Vin is right. I think they have accomplished looking like they've done a lot but in many ways there is less there than meets the eye, because many of the things that are being voted on are things which have been voted on before. We voted on base line budgeting, for example, and we voted on the Congressional Accountability Act and passed it. And I have real - -

MR. LEHRER: The Accountability Act is the one that makes Congress -- moves Congress under the same laws and rules that everybody else has to play by.

MS. SHEPHERD: Right. The act that would require -- would level the playing field, so business has the same rules as the Congress does.

MR. LEHRER: What about the claim that the Republican from South Carolina made just now on the tape, on Kwame's tape, was that we are changing -- he said, we are changing the way the House does business, is that, in fact, what is happening here today, from your perspective?

MS. SHEPHERD: We need to wait till the end and see how many of these things pass. I worked long and hard on many of these issues for two years, and it was hard to get Democratic votes, and it was hard to get Republican votes for themselves. If, for example, they eliminate proxy voting, if they do, in fact, limit the terms of chairs, those two things will have profound meaning --

MR. WEBER: Absolutely. Let me just amplify that. You take the two things Karen mentioned, eliminating proxy voting so that everybody has to cast their own votes in committee. Term limit --

MR. LEHRER: The way it used to work -- explain how it used to work.

MR. WEBER: It used to work that you could have just the chairman sitting there with a bunch of people on the minority side casting votes, and at the end of the day, the chairman held in his hand enough proxies so that he won every vote even though there's nobody in the room, except him maybe. That's not the way it's going to work after they ban proxy. The other item that Karen mentioned, term limiting committee chairmen, this is the end of an era. We aren't going to see any more chairmen who build empires over ten, twenty, thirty years of power. And then I'd add a third one to that which is the sunshine rule that they're going to invoke, which says no committee can mark up legislation in private. I was on the Appropriations Committee when I was in Congress. We never marked up a single appropriation bill that I was involved in in full public view. It was all done behind closed doors.

MR. LEHRER: Why is that -- why is that important?

MR. WEBER: Because you can make deals behind closed doors that if you were subjected to the public scrutiny, you just wouldn't do it.

MR. LEHRER: You wouldn't want the folks back home to hear you making that deal.

MR. WEBER: You wouldn't scratch the guy's back next to you if your constituents were watching you do it.

MR. LEHRER: But won't things just move in behind another set of closed doors? I mean, if you don't do it in the hearing, you'll just do it in the room before you go into the hearing?

MS. SHEPHERD: It makes it a lot more complicated, but I do think that what we're dealing with always with reform is how the public views Congress. And as you know, they view them very, very badly, so the perception of how we deal is extraordinarily important. And if the eliminate proxy voting, they're going to have to change the schedule. That means that members will actually be able to be present when the meetings are held. If they stop holding floor debate at the same time committee meetings are held, then that means that members can be in their place in their committees and in their place on the floor if they need to be, all those things will change perception, and I think open meeting will have the same effect.

MR. LEHRER: But it is only perception? Will it -- will all of these things -- just -- the things that you -- there are other things involved in this --

MS. SHEPHERD: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: -- the rules thing. But just talk about the eight things -- the three or four things that you all just talked about. Is it going to affect what actually comes out in terms of legislation?

MS. SHEPHERD: I believe it will. I honestly think that when a member has to openly and publicly be accountable for what they're doing and what they're saying, and they have to explain it openly and there can't be any real subterfuge, that goes very far. I mean, obviously, it's a political process, and obviously, if I help Vin in Minnesota, he's probably going to help me a little bit in Utah. That is what the founding fathers actually designed the system to do, but we all ought to be very concerned about not spending too much money. Well, the outcome of that closed appropriations meeting that Vin was talking about is that earmarks funds, spent money that wasn't accounted for.

MR. LEHRER: And you could have it all kinds of ways, right?

MS. SHEPHERD: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: You could help your district in Minnesota and still go back and take credit for that but then say, hey, I'm in favor of cutting --

MR. WEBER: And how did all this money get spent, gee, I don't know.

MR. LEHRER: [laughing] And you're sitting there on the Appropriations Committee.

MR. WEBER: And as to your point, I suppose, of course, members are going to talk behind the scenes and outside the committee room, but -- and remember, another thing we're going to do, we're going to televise in the House now committee hearings. All you have to have is one member coming forward saying, I don't like the deal that's going on here, and the whistle is blown. So I don't -- I don't think I'd be cynical about the change. I think it's going to be a real change, a real reform, and it's going to be, it's going to be good for the country, regardless of which party is in control of the Congress at any given time.

MR. LEHRER: What about this argument that's still going on as we speak about, because the Democrats clearly, their strategy today was to clearly bring up every five minutes, if they could, the idea of adding a ban on gifts from lobbyists and a cap on book royalties and all of that, is that a good strategy, and why won't the Republicans go along with it?

MR. WEBER: The Republicans had to put together a set of rules that met their promise, which is a Contract with America, and that's what they did, and they're going to enact it. I have to say the Democrats had a pretty good strategy. They said, well, look, what can we call for that will be popular with the American people, that will probably be a good reforming system, that the Republicans aren't going to bring up on the opening day, and they scored some decent points on that, however, I don't think in the long run, it's going to make much difference. I believe that the House Republicans will eventually address the issue of lobbying reform. The Congressperson from South Carolina that you had on the tape indicated that later, and I think that they'll deal with the gift ban later on. They just didn't deal with it today.

MR. LEHRER: What do you think about that?

MS. SHEPHERD: I think there are some very clear credibility problems with what was happening today that will become more apparent as time passes. One is that the Contract for America had nothing in it about the gift ban, this flow of money that goes from lobbyists to members of Congress, nothing in it about campaign finance reform, another flow of money that goes from lobbyists to members of Congress, nothing in it about health care reform, even though health care is still, I think, according to the CNN Poll yesterday, No. 70 -- 72 percent of the people think this is a high priority issue, and you want to wonder if that's not in the Contract for America because the natural constituency of Republicans doesn't want it there. They may cook the books. They haven't been clear about whether they'll do that or not. If they're going to have a balanced budget amendment, then will they have to change all the accounting principles in order to make it look like they really did balance the budget, and will they have to take projections of increased revenue in order to make it work, and finally term limits is a little bit of a credibility problem because they seem to be falling apart on that. And that's something Americans really care about. Now, I think the thing that reform is connected to and the American citizens mind is the credibility of Congress. It's not the Democrats or the Republicans. It's Congress, and is it credible? I think the Democrats blew the credibility issue. We were not seen as credible as leaders of Congress. That's why we lost. And I think the Republicans have a chance here to be credible, but they do have those four problems, and if they don't solve them, I think --

MR. WEBER: We have to argue about something here before we go. Let me just say the Contract with America was not meant to be the totality of this congressional session's achievements. What they said was this is what we're going to do in the first 100 days. Of course you don't have everything in it. You don't have welfare -- they do have welfare reform -- you don't have health care reform, you don't have campaign finance reforms, some of these things. It doesn't mean they aren't going to be dealt with. What they said was, look, if you want to know what we're going to do immediately, we'll pledge in a very aggressive way to enact a very ambitious agenda within 100 days of taking office. They don't pack up and go home then. That's when we take up some of the other issues that Karen mentioned, but give 'em credit. This is the most ambitious opening to a Congress in any of our lifetimes.

MR. LEHRER: Vin Weber, on the pomp and circumstance side of what everybody who watched today saw, it had a kind of a feel of a presidential inaugural as far as Newt Gingrich was concerned. Is that a correct reading of what's happening?

MR. WEBER: I was up there quite a bit today, and I think that was exactly the feeling. You know, what you've seen is a remarkable transformation in the internal culture of the Republican Party in a very short period of time. My party has been a presidentially- focused party, again, almost all my lifetime, because we haven't controlled the Congress. Overnight, Republicans, not just in Washington, but all across the country, are really more interested in Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, congressional Republicans, than they are in the question who is going to be our nominee in '96, that - - it's never been that way in the Republican Party before.

MR. LEHRER: You mentioned Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole, but isn't it really Newt Gingrich right now?

MR. WEBER: Well, because the control of the Senate -- we had the Senate for a while in the 80's, we haven't had the House for 40 years. Many people thought we would take control of the Senate before this election. Nobody really thought we were going to take control of the House, except Newt Gingrich, and so, of course, it's a more stunning achievement, and his role in bringing it about is more direct, so, yeah, he is at center stage, but Bob Dole equips himself quite well, and he's a full partner in the process.

MR. LEHRER: Newt Gingrich running things from your perspective right now?

MS. SHEPHERD: I think he's going to be a very strong speaker. I think he's going to concentrate power in the speaker's office, and I think he cares a lot, obviously, about getting things done, and getting -- his phrase is there will be a more workable House. I hope that he can count on Democrats to go along with that a little bit, and I hope they do. It seems to me that this Congress --

MR. LEHRER: You hope the Democrats go along with it?

MS. SHEPHERD: A little bit, yeah, because there's really more reason to cooperate built into this Congress than there was into the 103rd Congress that I was part of, where the Republicans didn't cooperate for one minute at all, and were, you know, primarily obstructionists. But now they don't have quite enough of a majority to really do it by themselves, and we would look very, very, very bad as Democrats if we were obstructionists. So there is some motivation here for the people's work to get done, and I think Dick Gephardt said that quite clearly today.

MR. WEBER: Well, Newt's speech today was a good speech in terms of reaching out to the Democrats. I think that Dick Gephardt gave a good speech too, but consider some of the things that Newt Gingrich said. He gave the Democrat Party publicly almost exclusive credit for the civil rights revolution.

MR. LEHRER: The liberal Democrats.

MR. WEBER: The liberal Democrats. And that's a remarkable admission for a leader of the other party to make. He mentioned many times Dick Gephardt by name, paid tribute to Tom Foley, and a number of other Democrats. I think it was a good speech in setting the tone and a very good speech in terms of reaching across the aisle and laying the basis for bipartisanship when there's agreement. But let's recognize there is also honest disagreement which we shouldn't try to sweep under the table.

MR. LEHRER: Is -- do you agree with Karen Shepherd that, that it's in both sides' interest right now to get along and try to find some middle ground and make things work?

MR. WEBER: It's in both sides -- I agree with Karen -- it's in both sides' interest to restore the credibility of this incredibly important institution we call the Congress of the United States.

MR. LEHRER: That's the No. 1 priority?

MR. WEBER: No. 1 priority.

MR. LEHRER: And everything --

MR. WEBER: For the country.

MR. LEHRER: For the country. And did you see something today that you thought that would make you think this is going to happen?

MS. SHEPHERD: Well, what people were saying publicly was Richard Gephardt said publicly, what Newt Gingrich said publicly, both spoke very formally a wish to do that. My fear is -- my worry is that in some ways there are two Newt Gingriches. There is Newt Gingrich who is not the speaker and the things he says when he's not got his speaker's hat on, and then there's Newt Gingrich the speaker, and I just hope the other one is kind of put in a closet for a while.

MR. WEBER: Well, we've only had a few hours to judge Newt Gingrich the speaker, so let's reserve judgment, but he's an incredibly able guy, and he's able to change and grow, and I think you'll see a different perspective from him as speaker than as leader of the minority opposition.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We have to go. Thank you both very much. FOCUS - PUBLIC REACTION

MR. MAC NEIL: Now we turn to a new feature we're introducing as part of our regular coverage of the new Congress's activities. Elizabeth Farnsworth is in Denver with a preview.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The events of the 100 days that began today in Washington will be required viewing for some people here in Denver. We've asked them to watch the new Congress with us, to sit in for people all around the country who will be assessing how Congress is doing as the Republicans try to implement their Contract with America. Since Denver is the capital of Colorado, people here are accustomed to watching political power struggles. The balance of power in the capitol building is identical to that in Washington, a so-called new Democrat is governor, and the state legislature is heavily Republican. The state's delegation to the House of Representatives is also split, four Republicans and two Democrats. For the last 15 years, Colorado has had one Democratic and one Republican Senator. Democrat Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the country's first native American Senator, is now serving his first term. Veteran Republican Senator Hank Brown shocked just about everybody in the state last month when he announced he would not run for re- election in 1996. The people of Colorado tend to be skeptical when it comes to government. In a statewide poll taken by the University of Colorado's School of Public Affairs just before the election, 36 percent said they had little or no confidence in state government. And 57 percent felt that way about the federal government. 49 percent said they could not mention a state official they thought exemplified honesty and integrity. That skepticism carries over into Coloradans' views of the Republicans' Contract for America. Restaurant owner Sam Arnold supports a lot of the elements in the contract. He likes what he sees as the pro-business agenda. But he is not convinced the Republicans will be able to accomplish all they've promised.

SAM ARNOLD, Restaurant Owner: I've lived quite a few years, and I've heard a lot of promises, and like, I think, most businessmen, I'm dubious. I'm afraid it's going to be business as usual, but maybe not. Maybe this time it'll really change. I hope so.

SAM ARNOLD: [talking to patron] I hope that you'll enjoy the buffalo. We specialize in buffalo.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Arnold wants visitors to his restaurant to eat traditional western foods. He wants Congress to clean its plate as well, to clear away the regulations that he thinks overburden small business. But Arnold hopes that in other areas, Congress will take its time to digest the issues before it acts.

SAM ARNOLD: I just hope that they really seriously do it but with a long view of what will be best for the country, not a short view of what sells. You don't want simplistic answers for very complex questions.

ANN PADILLA, Business Owner: I am asking you for creative ideas, new ideas.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Ann Padilla, whose agency supplies personnel for Denver area businesses, shares Arnold's concerns. But she thinks some of the contract is right on the money.

ANN PADILLA: The exciting thing about it is the possibility that we can have a budget -- a balanced budget amendment. I think that that's an exciting thing, and it's a very necessary thing. I, as a business owner, I can't understand that we don't have a balanced budget.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Businesses like Padilla's are thriving in Colorado. After hitting rock bottom in the 1980's, the state economy bounced back. After three consecutive years of job gains, monthly unemployment figures fell to a record low in 1994. New residents have been pouring into the state, making Colorado the fourth fastest growing state in the country. The growth spurt has been accompanied by growing pains, as the state tries to deal with increased congestion and pollution. Although the population is expected to keep expanding, there are signs that the economy is cooling off. Eric Duran is a financial analyst for a company which has been very successful in providing loans for first-time home buyers. He wonders whether what he wants for himself out of the new Congress is really good for the country overall.

ERIC DURAN, Financial Analyst: I do have hopes about the tax cuts. That's kind of exhilarating and exciting, because one of the cuts is for families that have a child under 12, I guess, can get a $500 deduction. So that's kind of exciting, but at the same time I kind of have this fear that right now we have this tremendous deficit that we've been cutting into, and, and it may not be the best time for these tax cuts and to make these changes.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Colorado has its share of social problems, ranging from gang violence and an escalating murder rate in Denver to uninsured workers and lack of affordable housing statewide. Building more prisons and getting people off of welfare are popular political issues. Shirley Oquendo is a critical care nurse at Presbyterian St. Luke's Hospital. She worries that the contract is too hard on poor people but agrees that the current system of welfare does not work.

SHIRLEY OQUENDO, Nurse: I think that sometimes it's a cycle, and it's a cycle in families, that mom and dad was on welfare, they had not gone anywhere in their lives, I am not going to go anywhere. There's a feeling of hopelessness, and so the cycle repeats.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The Rev. Sandra Wilson is worried that the Republicans will aggravate, rather than solve, America's problems. She says rich people are sometimes bad parents too but the Republicans aren't talking about putting wealthy kids in orphanages. And she is nervous about Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

REV. SANDRA WILSON: I'm fairly frightened by the overzealousness of the Speaker of the House. I fear that -- that he represents a side of America that is convinced of its, of its rightness, and that it holds the corner on all truth. And my fear is that there will not be any space for any other truth to seep in.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Wilson thinks that a change in party won't resolve America's complex and systemic social problems. But financial consultant Tom Conway thinks that change in party will make a difference.

TOM CONWAY, Financial Consultant: For the past 40 years, we've had increasing, escalating government, increasing spending, and it's gotten to the point right now when we take a look at the deficit, that it's unwieldy. We can't handle it anymore. So I'm looking forward to a different Congress to cut the spending, and this seems to be what the, what the Republican Party's promising. Now we'll see if they can do it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: This is just a preview of what Mr. Conway and some of his fellow Coloradans are thinking about the Contract with America. They'll be with us again tomorrow night as we continue to look at the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. And these people will be joined by 15 other citizens, including a rancher, an artist, a laid off worker, and a mother who schools her five children at home. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: In the day's other news, the man accused of killing two workers at abortion clinics in Massachusetts was indicted for carrying a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony. A federal grand jury in Boston returned the two-count indictment against John Salvi. He's also been charged with shooting at a clinic in Norfolk, Virginia, where he's currently being held without bail. Russia's President, Boris Yeltsin, called a halt to the bombing of Grozny today. Before that order was issued, Russian jets continued to strafe the capital of the breakaway region. Poor weather apparently hampered the bombing. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. Our special coverage of the first days of the 104th Congress will continue tomorrow night. We'll see you then. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.