The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; December 18, 2000

Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, Mr. Bush does Washington. We talk to one of the people he visited, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Dashow. Get reaction to the first Bush appointment from Lawrence Eagleburger, Donald McHenry, David Brooks and Ruben Navirette, and sample the debate over the Electoral College, which did its work today to make the Bush election official. It all follows us on some of the news this Monday. The biggest obstacle that feeding the world is not the food supply, it's just politics. Who is dedicated to opening the borders to get food to the people who need it? This program was also made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to PBS stations from viewers like you.

Thank you. George W. Bush spent his first day in Washington today as president-elect. He began the day by meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan afterward, neither would say of Bush's call for a $1.3 trillion tax cut was discussed. Greenspan has questioned the need for it. Later Bush met with Congressional leaders following that meeting, he was asked again about his conversation with Greenspan. I spent a lot of time talking to him about a variety of subjects, including energy. We must be concerned about energy. We must be concerned about shortages, and at the same time obviously concerned about conservation. We spent a lot of time talking about energy, and I understand the responsibility of the executive branch is to lay out an energy strategy, which is good for everybody in this country, and it's exactly what we're going to do, and I'm looking forward to explaining the rationale behind the strategy to the members and the leaders who are here.

Bush and the House and Senate leaders pledged to work together. Tomorrow, he's to meet with President Clinton and Vice President Gore. We'll have more on the Capitol Hill meetings right after this news summary. And George W. Bush came another big step closer to being formally elected president today. In state capitals across the nation, the members of the electoral college cast their votes. As expected, Bush received 271, one more than needed. A joint session of Congress will officially count the electoral votes in early January. We'll have more on the electoral college later in the program tonight. The Federal Trade Commission today approved the merger of Glaxo Welcome and Smith-Kline Beechem. Together, the two British firms will create the world's largest drug maker, Glaxo Smith-Kline. To end U.S. approval, they agreed to sell the rights to some of their drugs to avoid gaining a monopoly. The $72 billion deal still needs British approval. Two well-known American companies announced job cuts today to reduce costs.

The health care insurer, Etna, said it would eliminate 5,000 jobs or more than 12 percent of its workforce. And Gillette, a maker of personal care products, planned to cut 2,700 positions, or about 8 percent of its workers. It's also closing 21 factories and distribution centers worldwide. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to Bush on the Hill, Senator D'Acheau, the Bush Appointments, and the Electoral College. The President-elect goes to the Capitol, Elizabeth Farnsworth reports. This morning at the Sam Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill, President-elect George W. Bush was given an official welcome by congressional leaders of both parties. Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastard, emphasized by partisanship in his remarks. You know, I think it's quite appropriate.

We're in the Rayburn room, named after another Texan couple decades ago that was able to really get a lot of things done for the American people, and much of it on a bipartisan basis. So I think that's a good start. President-elect Bush and the four congressional leaders met for two hours. I told all four that I felt like this election happened for a reason, that it pointed out the delay and the outcome. To make it clear to all of us that we can come together, to heal whatever wounds may exist, whatever residuals there may be, and I really look forward to the opportunity. I hope they've got my sense of optimism about the possible and enthusiasm about the job. I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's okay if this were a dictator ship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long

as I'm the dictator. Afterwards, all four congressional leaders said they believed today's meeting was a good start. This is a time for a new beginning, a new atmosphere, a new tone, I believe we have a leader in George W. Bush that will provide direction toward a more cooperative atmosphere. We also, in the Congress, are talking and communicating more than perhaps we have some time in the past. It's under the national eye and having regular meetings. We are committed to working together on an aggressive schedule to consider his nominations for confirmation. I think that'll be an important part of getting off to a good start. It's an opportunity for us to wipe this late clean, to begin anew, with a recognition that we have many, many challenges ahead. And as we face those challenges, the only real choice for us is to recognize that bipartisanship isn't an option.

It's a requirement. Later at the press conference, reporters asked House Minority Leader Dick Gebhart whether he's still questioned the legitimacy of Bush's narrow victory over Vice President Gore. Mr. Gebhart, three times yesterday, he's refused to call Mr. Bush a legitimate president. I have two questions. Why? And secondly, why should the American people believe that you will work with this man when you question his legitimacy? And perhaps the President-elect would like to comment on your answer? Yes, his my answer, right? Well, a little later today, I believe, and maybe it's already happened, the electors are going to elect George W. Bush to be the next President of the United States, and I believe in January the 20th, not too many steps from here, he's going to be sworn in as the next President of the United States. I don't know how you can get more legitimate than that. The President-elect was asked whether the centerpiece of his legislative agenda, the $1.3 trillion for a tax cut, could garner enough support in Congress.

You see, one of the dreams that we all share, and I'm confident Democrats share the same dream that Republicans do, they want the middle-class accessible to all, and yet the tax code makes it awfully difficult for some, and so I spent a lot of time talking about that on the campaign trail because I believe it, not because I was trying to position myself against another candidate. Secondly, I talked about marginal rate reduction to serve as an insurance policy against a potential economic downturn. I was saying that a year ago, the potential economic downturn is perhaps more real today than it was a year ago, and I look forward to making my case to both of the leaders in the Republican side and Democrats side, that marginal rate reductions will help spur economic activity and economic growth. I think the case is even more solid today than it was a year ago when I started campaigning on the issue, so it's not only my views relate to the economy as well as the fairness

in the code. Are you prepared to say today that there was no room for compromise on the size and the scope of your tax cut plan? I believe the reason I stand here is because I took clear and strong positions on important issues such as tax relief or Medicare reform or Social Security reform or education reform, and I look forward to working with the members to get it done. With one thing in mind, what's best for the country? What is best for the country? That's the question that I'm going to ask, and the good news is, after my meeting with the four members up here, they asked the same question, and it's a darn good place to start. Thank you all very much. George W. Bush is scheduled to meet with President Clinton and Vice President Gore tomorrow. Now I Newsmaker interview with the Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Tom Dashl of South Dakota. I spoke with him earlier this evening.

Senator Dashl, welcome. Thank you, Jim. How would you describe your meeting with President-elect Bush today? I thought it was a good meeting. He came in some of them in a story, I think. I can't recall the last time a President has come to Capitol Hill in this manner and met with each of the four leaders separately, and then we all met together. But we had a very cordial discussion. We talked about the need for bipartisanship, about consensus building, reaching out, trying to build upon the agenda that we both shared. So I thought given the half hour, whatever length of time we had together, it was a very good meeting. Now, when was his attitude toward Judy? Did you get the feeling he saw you as an adversary? Somebody who was going to have to defeat once or twice or many times, or somebody he could work with? I thought it was really somebody that he could work with. I felt that that was the tone, certainly. He was very willing to talk about the concerns that I had, the interest that I had, the way we ought to try to work together. There was no adversarial tone at all.

It was a very conciliatory one, and I thought exactly the kind of positive approach that you'd expect for a first meeting between two people. What was your attitude toward him? The same. I really feel that the only way we're going to be able to make this work is if we do it as partners. Obviously, we are two separate branches of government, and we've got to find a way to work together. We know from the lessons of the past what works and what doesn't. I think it's important that we try to set that tone and try to give each other a little bit of leg room here to move and try to accommodate each other's agendas in a way that will allow us to try to find ways to work together. That's my goal, and he said that was his as well. Do you bury any resentment toward him over how he finally was elected president? No, I don't. I think he did what he had to do, and the Vice President did what he had to do. Obviously, I'm still disappointed with the Supreme Court decision and with the way this all worked out, but I don't question the legitimacy of this presidency. I don't question his right to the claim of the office.

We demonstrated today with the Electoral College that he has the electoral votes. That's now behind us. Now we've got to work together, put politics behind us, and get on with really governing. Did the two of you talk about the last 36 or seven days at all? We really didn't. We talked more about mutual acquaintances and our desire to try to find ways with which to accommodate each other as we tried to work together. We talked about some issues. He wanted to talk especially about energy and the importance that we put on trying to find ways with which to deal with the energy problems we're facing in this country. He talked as well about Social Security and Medicare and, of course, taxes, but nothing in any real depth, and we'll save that for another time. He said, quite openly today, though, that he was still behind and was going to push strongly his $1.3 billion across the board tax cut proposal. Are you still opposed to that?

I am. I hope that there's a difference between advocating something and recognizing that there's a got to be some give and take. I don't know of a Democrat who supports the $1.3 trillion in taxes. That's right, but I do believe that there is plenty of room for compromise. We both support marriage penalty relief. We both support a state tax relief. We both support ways with which to deal with college costs and childcare costs. There have got to be ways with which to deal with this issue together. We can find a magnitude of a tax cut that I think we could both support as well. But we've got to go in with that willingness to find ways with which to reach that common ground. Do you detect any willingness on his part to compromise on his tax cut? Well, we didn't, as I say, talk in any depth today, Jim, about what we might be able to do to resolve our differences. We simply put them on the table, recognize that there are differences, recognize that it's only in the give and take between the White House and the Congress that we're going to be able to find that opportunity for center out solutions.

That's what we've got to do is reach for the center and try to work in both directions. A former New York Governor Cuomo said on this program a few days ago that one of the sure results of the close election and also the split down the middle and the near split down the middle in the House and as well as the Senate is that Roe v. Wade is safe. That you and the other Democrats in the Senate will make really sure that no pro-life nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court gets affirmed. Is he right? Well, I don't know. I think that's it's premature to come to any conclusion. My feeling is that any nominee who doesn't reflect the extremes on either side, right or left, is likely to get confirmed. An extremist is not going to make it. Somebody from the middle, somebody who is left of center or right of center, is likely to be confirmed. We've seen that in the past and I think that's the way it's going to be in the future. I don't know that Democrats are going to put any hard litmus tests to it. I do feel that that's an important issue and we've got to address it, debate it.

But I think there has to be some evidence that this person has extreme views before he would be discounted or eliminated from consideration. Would an extreme view and your opinion be somebody who was very pro-life and who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well I guess it would depend on the degree to which you'd overturn. I frankly would weigh that along with a lot of other views and making up my own mind. That alone would not probably be the ultimate decision for me. I would want to look at a lot of other factors as well. That's a very important decision. One that we'll be looking at with great care and debating and deliberating and trying to assess how much a part of the ultimate decision it would be for each of us. Is the closeness of the split and the Senate going to cause you to be more wary, more careful, more combative so to speak on nominees of this president that you might not be otherwise? Well I don't look to be combative as my first line of approach here, strategy.

I think that what we've got to do is go in with the belief that we can try to find ways with which to resolve our differences before we reach a combative stage. Obviously if we have no other recourse we go into combat. That happened before, it'll happen again I'm sure on occasion, but by and large my first and far more preferable approach would be to try to find ways to work things through. I think we can do that based on the conversation I had this morning with the president elect and I'm hopeful that that will happen a lot more often than we will find ourselves in combat. Did you get the impression from him that say yes Supreme Court nominee, I know he didn't discuss that. But let's use that as an example, that before that would actually, that nominee would be sent up there that you would know about it, that they might even run these things by you, not necessarily to clear them with you, but to inform you ahead of time. Did you get the feeling he's going to operate that way?

Well I guess I didn't get the feeling that we'd necessarily get any kind of a preliminary heads up on something like that. We didn't talk about it. So it's hard for me to make that assessment Jim, but I did, I honestly felt that there was a desire on his part to ensure that we are included, to ensure that to whatever extent we can work things through prior to the time we reach hard and fast decisions on issues or on personalities or individuals that there would be an opportunity to talk. But he certainly didn't give any initial promise or commitment that we would know ahead of time before he made a decision. Did you get the feeling from him that any acknowledgement, either body language or real language, that he believes in order to get things done, he's got to have your cooperation? Well yes, I did, I think, in the body language as well as the words themselves. He indicated to me that he understood that the only way we were going to get things done if we were able to accommodate each other's positions and began working through these matters

as best we can. Obviously there were no commitments made, but our general recognition that that's the lay of land here. We're 50, 50 in the Senate, we're almost 50, 50 in the House, the only way you're going to accomplish something is if we can reach bipartisan consensus. In the Senate itself, where do you stand on your desire to get more of the power and the leadership of the Senate? Well Senator Lott and I have had some very productive discussions. We've met again just this morning. I don't know that we're able to come to any conclusion until we've reached a conclusion on everything about how satisfied our colleagues are going to be, but I think we're moving in the right direction. We both agreed not to be any more specific than that until we have reached some kind of a conclusion, but I'm encouraged and I'm hopeful that by the 3rd of January we're going to have something we can live with.

But are you still desirous of having 50, 50 splits on the committees? I am. Yes. And Senator, you've talked to Senator Lott about that? I have. And he, of course, says he doesn't want that. That's correct. So you're still talking. That's correct. What about sharing the committee chairmanship? Well what I have said from the very beginning is that we ought to explore everything without necessarily acknowledging that any one of these has a priority. I think in some cases that might work. We don't have any problem in the Senate Ethics Committee with a split 50-50. We have a chairman and a vice chairman there. That works quite well. We can take a lot of examples from state legislatures over the past several years, Jim, and find that things have worked well with a split membership. We've got to do the same here. We've got to break the mold and recognize these are historic circumstances that really require us to think innovatively and out of the box. Senator Lott has expressed a willingness and an interest in doing that.

I hope I can too. What in the final analysis, though, they stiff you and say, hey, wait a minute. We have the vice president. We have Dick Cheney. He's a Republican. He can cast any kind of tie-breaking vote. Sorry, Democrats, but we're going to run the United States Senate our way. We have a little bit of a tactical advantage, Jim, and that I'll be the majority leader for those 17 days. From the third to the 20th, and our vice president will be in the chair as the tie-breaking vote. That will be when we lay down the authorizing resolution, the organizing resolution. So they would have to oppose whatever it is that we are offering. But I hope we never get to that. That isn't my desire. Senator Lott and I both have indicated a strong determination, a willingness to try to avoid that kind of a confrontational setting right off the bat. I think we can. But clearly, if all else fails, I do think that we've got a slight advantage as we look to the future. I'm not going to rely upon it because I do want to get that commitment to a consensus before we reach the third of January.

But if you don't have a consensus, isn't this kind of a recipe for a really, really tough time in the United States Senate? Oh, it is. If we can't resolve this, I doubt that we can resolve much else. So it's very important that we set the example that we set the standard, that we show a willingness to give and take. And that's why we're working so hard at doing it. Did you mention this to President-elect Bush? We need some help here. You want me to help you? You helped me with a lot in the cotton company? No, I don't think I need help from the vice president of the president-elect at this point. I think I can handle it on my own, and I'm sure that Senator Lott feels the same way. This is between us and our caucuses, and I don't know that we need any special intervention from the White House in organizing the Senate. That's something we'll get into when we get into legislation. All right. Senator Dashow, I have a good holiday, and thanks very much. My pleasure. The President-elect Bush announced his nominees for four key positions in his administration over the weekend.

On Saturday at an elementary school in Crawford, Texas, he announced the appointment of the first African-American Secretary of State. Many times during the course of my campaign, I said that if all went well, General Colin Powell just might be called back into the service of his country. Today, it is my privilege to make that call and ask him to become the 65th Secretary of State of the United States of America. Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in President-elect Bush's father's administration and national security adviser during the last two Reagan years. He served in the Army for 35 years, including two tours in Vietnam, the 63-year-old Powell currently serves as chairman of America's Promise, a nonprofit organization he founded to help youth. On Saturday, he talked about his view of the world. If you want to be successful in the 21st century, you must find your path to democracy, market economics, and a system which frees the talents of men and women to pursue their

individual destinies. And at the center of this revolution, America stands inspiration for the world that wants to be free, and we will continue to be that inspiration by uniquely American internationalism as President-elect Bush has stated it. Not by using our strength and our position of power to get back behind our walls, but by being engaged with the world. By first and foremost, letting our allies know that we appreciate all we have been through over the last 50 years, and we will work with our allies to expand and to make those alliances the center of our foreign policy activity. On Sunday at the Governor's Mansion in Austin, Mr. Bush announced three White House appointments, starting with Condoleezza Rice, the first female national security adviser. Dr. Rice is not only a brilliant person. She is an experienced person.

She is a good manager. I trust her judgment. America will find that she is a wise person. Rice is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of political science at Stanford University. She was Stanford's provost for seven years. The 46-year-old Rice also worked in the previous Bush administration as a Soviet and Eastern European expert on the National Security Council staff, and she was an assistant to the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Reagan's second term. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. I did not go to integrated schools until I was in 10th grade and we moved to Denver, Colorado. And there's very often a lot said about whether we've made any progress as one America. I think that you will see in the presidency of George W. Bush recognition of how important it is that we continue the last 30 plus years of progress toward one America, that he will have an administration that is inclusive, an administration that is bipartisan, and

perhaps most importantly, an administration that affirms that united we stand and divide it we fall. And I'm very proud to have a chance to be a part of it. Thank you very much. I'm proud to announce that Al Gonzalez Supreme Court Justice of Texas has agreed to become a White House Council. I understand how important it is to have a person who I can trust and his judgment and I trust serve as the White House Council. I know firsthand I can trust Al's judgment because he was my first counsel and his governor. Gonzalez is a Supreme Court Justice in Texas. Before that he served as the state's Secretary of State and was General Counsel to Governor Bush. The 45-year-old judge is a graduate of Rice University and Harvard Law School. Working with the Governor with the President-elect for three years, as his General Counsel gave him the opportunity to get to know the type of man that he is, how he makes decisions, what kind of information is important to him in making those kinds of decisions.

And in him I saw a man of unparalleled integrity and judgment and, quite frankly, Mr. President-elect, I could not pass up the opportunity to come serve with you again and I'm very grateful. Finally, as Counselor to the President, Karen Hughes, I've known Karen for a long, long time. We knew each other when the definition of a motorcade was one car. She has been at my side and I trust her a lot. She is going to help us in the White House with strategic planning. She is a woman who is frank, straightforward. She has got enormous judgment as well. Hughes was Bush's communications director during the campaign. She served as the Governor's Chief Spokeswoman for his two terms in Austin and also worked in his gubernatorial campaigns.

Before working for Bush, Hughes was a television reporter and executive director of the Texas Republican Party. I'm honored to be a part of the President-elect's team, I'm honored to serve my country. I am the granddaughter of a coal miner and every day of his life, my grandfather Parford was filled with a sense of awe, an amazement, and a deep humility and gratitude to God that we are blessed with an enormous sense of possibility here in America. I'll rip the serve you faithfully, sir, and I promise I will always give you my own varnish opinions. Now for perspectives on the Bush National Security Team and his appointments to date, we hear from two former diplomats, Lawrence Eagleberger, served as Secretary of State in the Bush administration. Donald McHenry served as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in the Carter administration and two journalists, David Brooks of the Weekly Standard and Ruben Navarete of the Dallas Morning News.

Lawrence Eagleberger, I'm sure these appointments were watched in world capitals. What should people who will be in contact with the American government in the coming years make of these appointments and what should they be expecting from this Bush foreign affairs team? Well, I think you start with professionalism. They are both first-class professionals, both the new Secretary and the New National Security Advisor. And I think that's where the foreign capitals will start. I think we will see very soon that it's the best team in foreign affairs that we've seen for a very long time. Donald McHenry, same question. No, I would agree with that. They are experienced. They are very articulate. They are a quick study. I would add, however, there's another side to it, and that is that their experience is with the world which we hope has either passed or is passing, and that the world with which they will have to deal is very different from the world where they have their experience

and their expertise. Lawrence Eagleberger, how do you respond? These are credentials that were largely forged in the Cold War, Condoleezza Rice is a Soviet expert. There isn't even a Soviet Union anymore. But let's remember something, it is Colin Powell, and it is Condoleezza Rice that presided with President Bush, George Bush, over that change. They fully understand what the changes meant. They were involved in putting together the pieces after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They know what they're dealing with, and they know what the future holds. I think it's nonsense to argue that their experiences of the old worlds, it's certainly they were in the process of helping make the new world. Donald McHenry? Well, I don't disagree with that. They certainly were involved in that process. But the conflicts which they will have to face today are the problems of what was called the third world. They are with globalization, the environment, and the whole series of new activities which

will demand the attention of the foreign policy team. And it is handling those which is going to test them. I don't suggest to you that they are not capable of doing so. I'm simply saying that it's an agenda which is quite different from the one that their experience comes from. Well, Donald McHenry today on the wires, there was a survey of African heads of state, and while they were gratified in some cases, took note of the fact that Dr. Rice in general Powell were the first African-Americans to reach these heights inside a new administration. They wondered whether Africa wouldn't simply disappear from the main radar screen. What evidence would you have of what part Latin America, Asia, the Asian South Asia might play in a new administration? Well, I think these areas will demand attention simply because they won't go away. On the other hand, what we've seen in the campaign is not very encouraging, but then

campaigns are not very encouraging either. President-elect Bush tended to describe our participation in the world as where there was a strategic interest of the United States that covers a lot of sins. It's both a valid and a phrase which one questions. It's interesting that when he outlined the areas where he thought that there was this strategic interest, he left out significant portions of the world, and there is concern among those that they were left out. Lawrence Eagleberger? Well, here again, we're jumping to conclusions without any reason to jump to them at this stage. These are two very intelligent people. The president is intelligent. He recognizes this as a new world. They all do. They all recognize that the challenges are different, including the third world challenges. The developing world challenges.

I have no reason to believe that they will do anything that will be displeasing to any of these people. I think they understand the new world, and they will deal with it in its broadest consequences. But until we see them in action, I think it's nonsense to try to predict things are going to be difficult. Well, of course they're going to be difficult. No one is predicting they're going to be difficult. We're simply talking about what they bring to the table. And they don't bring to the table that kind of experience. How do you respond to that, Mr. Secretary? Well, you know, we're going back and forth like a ping pong here, but the fact of the matter is maybe they don't bring those specific experiences to the table. The fact of the matter also is they bring more experience to the table than most of what we've seen in the last eight years. And I can predict to you now that there will be a far more effective foreign policy than we've seen in the last eight years. And beyond that, I can't go at this stage until we see what happens. Well, let's talk a little bit about what's called the Powell Doctrine, setting the bar a little higher for American involvement overseas, wanting certain conditions, political

and military to exist before troops are committed in the world. This week, one European columnist wrote that if we follow the Powell Doctrine of getting only into clearly winnable situations where the U.S. has a tremendous advantage, we will only get involved in wars that are already won. When we've seen in the world incidents like Rwanda, operations like the Kosovo bombing, how does the Powell Doctrine, as it's been talked about, mesh with this world where it's not always clear what the best way forward is? Well, the answer to that is until we see the Powell Doctrine in action, I can only tell you, thank God for the fact that it's there. We have spent the last eight years bouncing around, putting troops where they didn't belong, and I think it is perfectly appropriate, and I think one of the good things about this team that we see is they are going to be far more careful before we commit American

troops into situations where we are not clear about the objective and we are not clear about how long we ought to be involved. So as far as I'm concerned, anybody that comes at this issue from the perspective of the Powell Doctrine has my blessings because I think we have done it all wrong for eight years. Ambassador McHenry? Well, I wouldn't agree that it's all been wrong for eight years. I think there have been serious shortcomings in the world. Let me give you an example. In the campaign, there was a statement that the United States should not play the world's policemen or be the only, or be the 9-1-1, and that's true, and it's very easy to say. The question is, do we either ignore the calls which come in to the United States and the rest of the international community, or do we try and build some kind of acceptable structure which is capable of responding? No, I would say the last administration did not live up to the challenge which was there,

particularly in trying to build a structure. But it remains to be seen whether this new administration is going to be any better at building those structures or simply outlining what we cannot and should not do. Let me widen the conversation now to include my journalists. David Brooks, what's politically revealing, politically significant about these appointments? Well, it reveals what sort of people George W. Bush is comfortable with. You look at the guy's life story. He could be the ultimate white man, Harvard Yale, old-line family. He was the bombastic bushkin at the Midland, Texas Country Club, and yet look who he's comfortable. Look who he's going to be spending time with, a very strong woman in Karen Hughes, a very strong black woman in Condoleezza Rice, a Hispanic guy from Houston, a black guy from the South Bronx. I think this is symptomatic of who George Bush is and maybe where his generation is. Maybe who's just comfortable with people with different backgrounds.

And for those who say this is a racist country or patriarchal country, I think it's very difficult to explain how this Republican conservative is so personally comfortable with these sorts of people. Ruben Navarete, is it not just the faces and the colors on the faces, but the jobs that we should be looking at? I think we should be looking at both. I think this is a great day for Texas and for Governor Bush, now President-elect Bush. Just echo some of the sentiments that have already been said, I think that this is a wonderful country and I think these disappointments prove it. And this is an individual in President-elect Bush who does feel comfortable tapping folks from around the spectrum, taking opportunity wherever he finds it. And as he said, and as was echoed by General Powell and others, this is really this notion that this is what America is all about. If you work hard, play by the rules, sacrifice, you can accomplish anything you want. And I think he did more in a couple of days than, frankly, some liberal policies have done over decades toward advancing that notion. Well, eight years ago, then President-elect Clinton promised a cabinet that looked like America and he was often criticized, he was given kind of a rough ride for using that phrase.

In the year 2000, these two administrations later, can you have a cabinet anymore that doesn't look like America? The too late for that? I don't think you can. Yeah, I think it's turned over now. I mean, I was talking earlier to somebody saying, you'd have to go back pretty far to find somebody who made their first four appointments. And right out of the bat, in their first four appointments of a new administration, not a single white male, think about that for a second. Republican Democrat, independent, whatever, Bill Clinton didn't accomplish it, no other president in recent memory to my recollection, accomplished it. It is a new world out there. And I think it'd be very difficult to come forward now and diversify your staff by bringing in one white male from Harvard, one white male from Yale, and saying, well, here you have diversity. But take those days are gone. We used to have news conferences around the appointment of a White House council. Oh, yeah. Well, it's an important job because it's who you spend the time with. The people he appointed didn't protest their way into office. They were raised to say, you're going to work hard.

You're going to achieve your way to the top. So it's not the Jesse Jackson model. It's more the Du Bois model that you've got to work twice as hard, maybe, to get as far as a white male. But you're going to do it. And these people, you know, are Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are known for their tremendous work ethic. It's one other thing which I think Larry Eagleberg didn't quite describe. And that is the extreme caution of the foreign policy views of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. The reporting and the books out of the Gulf War described Colin Powell as very hesitant to want to roll back the invasion of Kuwait. They describe Secretary Eagleberg as someone who's much more aggressive in wanting to do that. And I think, aside from the wonderful statements about, you know, where we are, where we are as a multi-cultural nation, the extreme caution to use force is something that has to be worrying Americans and our allies. Lawrence Eagleberg, let me bring you back in. How do you respond to David Brooks's point? Well, I think he's got a point. But I think when we look at the future now, I think we need to understand that at least from my perspective, we have spent eight years bouncing troops around where they shouldn't

be going, I think that we will find in the Powell approach to this sort of thing. Not that he is opposed to the use of force when it's necessary, but they'll want to identify the objective, how many forces are necessary and how long we will be there. So I think while it is probably clear that he will, not probably clear it is to me, perfectly clear that we will be far more reluctant in this administration to use forces the way they have been used in the last eight years, I think it would be wrong to say that we will never use them. I think what you can count on is a far more intellectual, far more intelligent and far more strategic approach to that question. Donald McHenry, it was more of a big to-do when you were appointed UN ambassador than I think arguably it would be today. What does that tell you about how far we've come in the last quarter century?

Oh, I think there's no question that there's progress along these lines. I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to overdo it. If you take Condi Rice and Colin Powell, these are, as I started off by saying, these are experience, very sharp people who can hold their own, I would simply note that it's no accident that General Powell was appointed. The president was very dependent upon him, leaned on him, in fact, in the campaign and used his association with Powell as a part of getting elected. Final thoughts, Ruben Navarete? What should we know about Al Gonzalez? Well, I think just in a broader sense, the only thing that perhaps would have been more significant than say this nomination to White House Council is, should there come a time for instance when you have an opening on the Supreme Court and President Bush has a chance

to make an nomination? The smart money says that he'll choose a Hispanic, he'll make history by putting a Hispanic on the Supreme Court. That'll be a big deal. That's a huge deal. You know, I take issue with the idea that these things might not matter or we never held press conferences for White House Council before. There are folks all over America who are looking at Al Gonzalez and looking at Colin Powell and seeing a face for their children, seeing a future for their children. I think it's a wonderful thing and to top it off, you have these very qualified people. We've ended up in this discussion about what qualified means now and I think Governor Bush has scored a hole in one by putting forward people who both diversify his cabinet and bring forward a certain level of quality. Gentlemen, thank you all very much. Coming tonight, the Electoral College and the Gwen Eiffel. As a presidential electoral, you have taken an oath that you will vote for the candidate of your party. The Secretary of State's office will now distribute the ballots for electing the president and vice president of the United States.

Shortly afternoon today, electors for the state of Florida cast their official votes for president, confirming the result of more than a month of court battles. Texas Governor George W. Bush got all 25. Enough to become the 43rd president of the United States. The president-elect's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, presided over the vote. Mr. McKay, will you please announce the results? There are 25 votes for George W. Bush for president of the United States and 25 votes for Dick Cheney as vice president of the United States, Mr. Governor. Thank you very much. The party loyalists who make up the Electoral College gathered in Tallahassee, 49 other state capitals, and the District of Columbia today, each elector cast one vote. When Americans cast votes for president on November 7, they were actually choosing electors. Some ballots mentioned the candidates by name, others stated, a vote for the candidate will actually be a vote for their electors. Election scholar Curtis Gans explains.

You are voting for, you know, the candidate, but you're also voting for a number of electors who are pledged to the candidate who are selected before the election by each party and, you know, approved by each candidate. These are the people who actually elect the president. The Constitution provides for electors to be a portion based on a state's congressional representation. One hundred of them represent two from each state as with U.S. Senators, then there's one elector for every member of state's sense to the House of Representatives, 435 and all, Washington, D.C., which is not a state, chooses three electors. To gain the White House, a candidate must win the popular vote in enough states to collect a majority or 270 electoral votes. When Bush finally declared victory on December 13, he was able to claim 271 electoral votes. That's one more than the minimum needed.

On January 6th, a joint session of the new Congress will meet and the president of the Senate, in this case, Vice President Al Gore will oversee the final count. So what is the future of the electoral college? Democratic Congressman Bill De La Hont of Massachusetts thinks it should be abolished and Republican Senator Wayne Alliter of Colorado thinks it still works. Congressman De La Hont, why should it be abolished? Well, Grant, I believe it's an anachronism, and clearly it does not embrace that very fundamental American value of one person, one vote. The reality is in America today that in a presidential election, each citizen's vote does not count. The vote of an elector does count, and I think it's time that we change that system. Senator Alliter, that sounds like a very powerful argument in the notion that every vote should count.

Why should the electoral college stay as it is? Well, the electoral college is a reflection of the great compromise of our forefathers when they created the Senate and they created the House of Representatives. And this, as served us very well for close to two centuries, and I think we ought to continue. This certainly helps out those states that have a lower population. If we had a popular vote driving the election, our candidates would just be campaigning in large urban areas would ignore most of the country. Well, you mentioned that the forefathers were the ones who came up with this idea in the Constitution. Is it outdated? No, I don't believe it's outdated at all. I think the Constitution was there and it served us well in times of crisis and times of conflict. It served us well during this election and we should respect the Constitution. Congressman Delahont in order to change the electoral college down to abolish it as you would like to see happen, you basically would have to amend the Constitution. Once you start tinkering with the Constitution, isn't there a danger you do more harm than

good? Well, that danger always exists, Gwen, but I think it's important to note that we've amended the Constitution to encourage and expand the suffrage, the right to vote. We did it with the 15th Amendment to the Constitution. We're finally slaves, now black Americans have a right to vote. And with the 19th Amendment, we conferred the franchise on women and with the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, we eliminated the so-called poll tax which, in fact, disenfranchised poor Americans. So this is nothing, what I would submit is that to amend the Constitution in this particular case, to abolish the electoral council, would, in effect, be the final step in the process of making the government of the United States more democratic. Well, Congressman, let's continue on that point and talk about political reality for a moment.

Congress tried to do this in 1969, it passed the House, but died in the Senate, they tried to do it again in 1979, this time it didn't get the votes that needed in the Senate. Why is that changed? Why is this the time? Well, I would suggest it's the time because we have an example in this particular election where on January 20th, George Governor Bush, President-elect Bush, will be sworn in as the next President of the United States and yet we will have the then form of Vice President of the United States who was a candidate having won the popular vote by more than 300,000. And I think that sets up an example of why we should at least prospectively consider the tension that exists in terms of the mandate given a President when he fails, when he actually fails to secure a plurality or a majority of our plurality rather of the popular

vote. Senator, do you see that point that perhaps people are now questioning the veracity of the selection because the popular vote was so different from the electoral college vote? Does that raise a problem or a red flag in any way for you? Well, this is not anything new in history. We knew what the rules were going into the election. And I think what's the important thing is we stuck with those rules throughout the election. The example I would just point it out about the attempt to amend the Constitution past the House, but a majority of it failed in the Senate is just reinforces my point that the House was made up to represent the more populated areas. The Senate represents the more rural and less populated states. And as a practical point, I don't see the senators from the smaller states as far as population is concerned voting to decrease their influence. And when it goes to the state legislatures, which requires three-quarters of the state legislators, legislatures to amend the Constitution, I don't see that number of states that are small

states wanting to vote to decrease their influence in a national election. This is a system that served us well. We should continue with it every individual will continue to have his right to vote. What we do is we localize the election so it's ran in each state specifically. I'd hate to think of a national election board or I'd hate to think where we have this ran through a national bureaucracy. It's a manageable situation. It was managed in the state of Florida. And if we go to a nationwide recount, for example, I don't see us coming to any real, ready conclusion. If we can localize it to each state, then each state has its rules and it's a more manageable problem when you're running into situations like we had in this election. Congressman Dellahan, Senator Allen, makes an interesting point, which is that there were a national popular vote that was as close as this one.

And we were conducting 50 recounts that the same thing we just went through in Florida. Wouldn't that be even more chaotic? Well, good. I'm not suggesting in any way to change the rules. I'm not saying that there should be a national bureaucracy. Nobody is proposing that particular concept. Obviously, recounts would be called in those states where the parties felt that there was a particular issue. And the argument that only in these cases where you have electors that are faithless and that obviously has not occurred that frequently in our history, you might very well have an outcome that is unacceptable to the people. What about the smaller states, the Senator Allen was saying, is the system as it now stands biased toward them or if you abolish the electoral college, would that be a bias against them?

I don't think it would be a bias against them. I honestly believe that today, in the modern era, campaigns are focused on demographics, on constituencies, issues are national in nature. We don't have the kind of tensions between the states that we had in the beginnings of the Republic. I mean, today, we talk about issues that impact the elderly example, whether they live in Massachusetts or whether they live in Colorado. We have terms like soccer mums. Now soccer mums, I'm sure, reside in Denver as well as in Boston, Massachusetts. So that today we have the advantage of instant communication. We live in a different world and it's time that this particular anachronism in terms of our electoral system be eliminated and abolished. Senator, the idea of a direct vote sounds so appealing to so many people if they're voting direct for dogcatchers and for mayors and for governors, why not for the president of the United States?

Well, the comment that I would make again is that you're dealing with a smaller electorate when you run for dogcatcher or when you're running for the state legislature or even governor in the state. Certainly our modern technology has given us plenty of opportunities as far as giving everybody an opportunity to vote, but it's not infallible. And we saw that in this election and I would just continue to make the point again that we'd be much better served to leave the state legislatures in control to make the rules. I predict that the Congress will be more than willing to provide money for upgrading the election systems in this election, which was a big part of the problem. I think state legislators will be willing to vote for that type of expenditure. I think that when county clerks and recorders go to their county commissioners and ask them for more money to upgrade their departments. I predict that they're very likely to have an affirmative answer in light of what happened in this election. Senator Allard, and Congressman Delohant, thank you both very much. Thank you, Ben.

Again, the major stories of this Monday, George W. Bush was in Washington as president elect, meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and congressional leaders. On the news hour tonight, Senate Minority Leader Dashow said Bush was very conciliatory and told Democrats he wanted to win their cooperation. We'll see you online and again here. Tomorrow evening, I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Modern practices have made American farmers the world's most productive. Who helps put the people who grow the food in touch with those who need it? Helping people with a state planning so that those they care about get more than a simple will can provide. See how we earned it.

Salomon Smith-Barge. And by the corporation for public broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Focusets of the news hour with Jim Lara are available from PBS video. All 1-800-328-PBS-1. Good evening, I'm Jim Lara.

On the news hour tonight, Mr. Bush does Washington. We talk to one of the people he visited, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Dashow. Get reaction to the first Bush appointments from Lawrence Eagleberger, Donald McHenry, David Brooks, and Ruben Navirette, and sample the debate over the electoral college, which did its work today to make the Bush election official. It all follows us on some of the news this Monday. The biggest obstacle that feeding the world is not the food supply, it's just politics. Who is dedicated to opening the borders to get food to the people who need it? This program was also made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions

to PBS stations from viewers like you. George W. Bush spent his first day in Washington today as president-elect. He began the day by meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan afterward, neither would say of Bush's call for a $1.3 trillion tax cut was discussed. Greenspan has questioned the need for it. Later Bush met with congressional leaders following that meeting, he was asked again about his conversation with Greenspan. I spent a lot of time talking to him about a variety of subjects, including energy. We must be concerned about energy. We must be concerned about shortages, and at the same time obviously concerned about conservation. We spent a lot of time talking about energy, and I understand the responsibility of executive branches to lay out an energy strategy, which good for everybody in this country is exactly what we're going to do.

And I'm looking forward to explaining the rationale behind the strategy to the members and the leaders who are here. Bush and the House and Senate leaders pledged to work together tomorrow, he's to meet with President Clinton and Vice President Gore. We'll have more on the Capitol Hill meetings right after this news summary. When George W. Bush came another big step closer to being formally elected president today, and state capitals across the nation, the members of the Electoral College cast their votes. As expected, Bush received 271, one more than needed. A joint session of Congress will officially count the electoral votes in early January. We'll have more on the Electoral College later in the program tonight. The Federal Trade Commission today approved the merger of Glaxo Welcome and Smith-Kline Beachham. Together, the two British firms will create the world's largest drug maker, Glaxo-Smith-Kline. To win U.S. approval, they agreed to sell the rights to some of their drugs to avoid gaining a monopoly. The $72 billion deal still needs British approval.

Two well-known American companies announced job cuts today to reduce costs. The health care insurer Etna said it would eliminate 5,000 jobs or more than 12 percent of its workforce. In Gillette, a maker of personal care products, planned to cut 2,700 positions or about 8 percent of its workers. It's also a clip.