When they lost seats in Tuesday's election, House Republicans turned on the speaker, told
him to leave or face a fight.
He left.
Now the race is on to replace him.
We'll talk with one of the top contenders, Congressman Chris Cox of California.
What does it all mean for the impeachment hearings?
We'll ask Republican Lindsey Graham, a key member of the Judiciary Committee.
We'll get Democratic reaction from Minority Leader Dick Gebhardt and talk about the changes
coming to the Capitol with Senator-elect John Edwards of North Carolina, the upset winner
over Republican Locke Fairclough.
I'll have a final word on leadership, but first, Capitol maneuvering on Face the Nation.
Face the Nation with Chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer.
And now from Washington, Bob Schieffer.
Good morning again with us this morning, Congressman Christopher Cox, one of those who will try
to become speaker and joining in the questioning is always Gloria Borger.
Congressman Cox, Mr. Livingston, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee who is also
seeking the speakership, said today that he has the support of four key committee chairmen
and he's claiming something around 100 votes.
You think he's got the votes to be elected?
Not yet.
Of course, the race has only been on since Friday evening.
It's been a day and a half and one has to give credit to all of the members involved
in these leadership races for prodigious effort in such a short period of time.
But I myself have talked to over 100 members.
There's no question that the race is still wide open at this point.
I've compared notes with others, including Tom DeLay recently.
Many of the people who have committed to Bob Livingston did so earlier under different
circumstances when they thought he was going to run against Dick Armory if Newt stepped
down.
Now we've got to go back and recheck those commitments.
At the same time, I've been talking to members who are clearly willing to commit to me.
Over 90 thus far who have said they're either hard in support for me or willing to vote
for me.
So you've got 90, 90 plus.
I think it's double and triple counting, frankly, at this point because it's so early and I'm
actually encouraging members not only in the speakers race but in all our leadership races
to be deliberate about this, to take a serious look at it because what's at stake here is
not just the future of the House of Representatives but it's the future of the Congress and the
country.
Let me just ask you this.
I mean it really gets to be kind of inside baseball when people talk about who's maneuvering
to be the Speaker of the House.
But what is it that separates you from Mr. Livingston if the public out there is saying
which one of these fellows would be best for me?
How are you different from Congressman Bob Livingston of Louisiana?
Well first of all, this isn't like a typical congressional race where you've got candidate
A over here with liberal policies and candidate B over here with conservative policies.
I'm not running against Bob Livingston.
I'm running for Speaker.
And we agree on the agenda for America.
We agree about the need to improve education, to fix Social Security, to improve our national
security, to provide tax relief for everyone.
But we are different people and we have different temperaments.
We have different judgments about priorities and I have a different overall concern which
is running the House in a business-like way.
Since I've been in Washington, I started out working for Ronald Reagan in the White House.
I have seen Congress first under Democratic control, now under Republican control, run
essentially the same way when it comes to putting off big decisions to the end.
These last minute spending bills that no one has an opportunity to read are not a proper
way to run a $1.8 trillion operation.
So this is about management, not about vision or ideology?
It's certainly about policy over personalities.
It's about policy over politics.
Unless we will to do our business differently than we have done it in the past, it's not
a matter of execution.
We have to decide that we want to do that.
Unless we will, that what we wish to put on the floor are ideas, not the well-worn partisan
ruts that we've fallen into in the past, but new ways, like the Internet Tax Freedom Act
that I worked on with Liberal Senator Ron Wyden.
We won't have the kind of legislation that we can produce.
I think the 106th Congress can produce a great deal of legislation.
Let me just ask you, in one area some social conservatives say that they are opposing Mr.
Livingston, that he is not conservative enough for them on the social issues.
Is there a difference between you and Mr. Livingston then as far as social issues like
abortion or concerns?
Well, this is probably an area where we might find some practical difference.
What I would choose to do is work with a six-vote margin at a very high level of abstraction.
We can shoot for lower spending in these bills in exchange for micromanagement of policies
underneath that umbrella.
If we choose instead to start with the capillary and ignore the jugular, then we're going to
find that we can't do anything.
So what are you saying here?
On social issues, you would pay more attention to social issues than Mr. Livingston or not?
I think what you do is you move it up to a bigger picture item.
We have balanced the budget here for one year, but it hasn't been balanced for a generation.
If you want to fritter that away, then put everything off to the last minute to focus
on details rather than on the big picture.
We have to persuade people on issues.
You can't jam it down their throats.
Let me ask you this.
And so what I suggest is that early in the session we have agreement between the House
and the Senate, something that we haven't done nearly enough of in four years on everything
from the schedule to our priorities and most importantly on big picture items like the
spending bills.
But one of the things that always slows down the Congress is at some point the social conservatives
in the past in the House have tended to do things like tack on abortion riders to things
like United Nations dues and things of that nature.
Would you be more inclined or less inclined than Mr. Livingston to use that sort of thing
as a device to attach abortion riders?
Yes, that kind of thing happens when the rest of the committees of Congress are not producing
legislation.
The appropriations bills provide a last minute opportunity because they're a train leaving
the station, but nobody, I don't believe Bob Livingston, Chris Cox or anybody in Congress,
no matter what their position on these issues, thinks that that's the right way to run the
railroad.
Alternatively, and I think in a superior way, what you do is you make a commitment to move
legislation or at least to give it a hearing so that the Congress can work its will on
these subjects.
And it's the way that the Congress used to work when Democrats were in control and I
think we inherited some of those institutional norms that you could just bottle up legislation
and not let the Congress work its will.
On campaign finance reform in the last Congress we saw that the House actually passed a bill,
the Congress in the end worked its will.
I think it's much better to take these issues head on and to find out what's doable.
The six vote margin, there's no room for error.
What do you think should happen now with the impeachment hearings?
Well, there's no alternative to the present course.
Over 400 members voted for an impeachment inquiry.
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans was that the Democrats wanted
a deadline at year end and practically that is what Henry Hyde has agreed to.
We may well be wrapped up in the Judiciary Committee before that time.
But a majority of Americans now say they don't want impeachment, they want some kind of censure
compromise.
Is that what you're looking towards, some censure compromise right now?
The process is under the control right now of the Judiciary Committee where it belongs.
What do you prefer though?
I have enormous confidence in Henry Hyde and when the Judiciary Committee finishes its
work they will refer it to the House of Representatives or not.
If they do so at that time I will be able then to read the record, which I shall do,
and I am inclined to give enormous weight to the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee.
Would you at this point say, and we have just a few seconds here, say that there are the
votes in the House at this time to vote for an article of impeachment?
I think that's premature.
I think people ought to be given credit for taking this issue seriously and that they'll
review the record and certainly the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee.
All right.
Well thank you very much Mr. Cox.
Best of luck in your campaign.
We're going to go now to Storm Lake, Iowa where Congressman Lindsey Graham is standing
by. Congressman Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, was a key player in all of
this, what we've been talking about.
He's also a key member of the Judiciary Committee.
Now you have come out for Mr. Livingston, Congressman Graham, as I understand it.
What's the difference between Mr. Livingston and Mr. Cox that we just talked to here?
Well I think you saw a very talented Chris Cox.
The reason I support Bob Livingston is I told him I would six months ago when he first indicated
he wanted to be speaker down the road and the road is now here.
I don't feel a need to back up on Bob.
I need to keep my word.
But if Chris wins I think we'll be well led either way.
You saw a very articulate fellow that wants to produce.
I think it's important for me to keep my word to Bob Livingston.
I think he can produce.
But Chris hit the nail on the head.
If we don't produce in this Congress we're going to lose in the year 2000 and we can
and we should.
HMO reform, there's yards difference not miles difference between the Republican and Democratic
bills.
I've worked on both.
I've been a sponsor of both versions and we can get there to have HMO reform that protects
people, lets them pick their doctor, lets them hold an avenue to hold HMOs accountable.
So we can produce on education.
We can produce on Social Security long term.
I need to keep my word to Bob Livingston but let me tell you the fact that Chris Cox is
in this race is good for the Republican party.
We have choices.
We have talented people offering their services.
In any organization you find yourself in that situation you can't help but win.
We're on the right track with talented people offering their services.
Can I go back to the impeachment inquiry for a minute since you do sit on the Judiciary
Committee.
Do you believe right now that there are the votes in the House for impeachment?
That's a good question.
I think it depends on what the evidence comes out to be.
It's important to me and I've been saying this for six months that we judge the President
based on the evidence and not on spin machines and that we set a standard that will serve
the nation well 50 years, 100 years from now that whatever we do with Bill Clinton that
the result makes some sense in terms of the rule of law.
We don't need to make the President the king.
If the President lied under oath to a federal grand jury there's 115 people sitting in jail
right now based on our estimates for lying to a federal court.
You cannot let anybody in the country including the President commit perjury at a federal
grand jury level and say there's no consequences.
Having said that Gloria, once we look through the evidence and see if there's any serious
criminality if this is just about sex with an intern and being caught off guard and
making false statements but not really having a criminal heart about it then that's one
thing but if it's really about grand jury perjury then we've got to say given the context
of that situation is the political death penalty warranted and the political death penalty
is final impeachment.
You can commit a felony in this country and the death penalty is not allowed for every
felony only a very few.
I think impeachment should be reserved for the most serious type cases and grand jury
perjury makes you a candidate for impeachment.
I think an article of impeachment based on grand jury perjury would be warranted.
It would be historically the right thing to do.
Then the House and the Senate more likely the Senate would have to sit down and say
even though that occurred in the context in which it occurred is it good for the country
to go ahead and issue the political death penalty.
That process has yet to occur.
Henry Hyde is on the right track.
We're going to get the evidence sifted through and we're going to find the facts based on
the law and common sense not political expediency.
And we will leave a record that will make some sense.
All right Congressman thank you so much.
When we come back we'll talk to the Democratic leader in the House.
This portion of Face the Nation is sponsored by Charles Schwab providing people technology
and support to help you gain financial control and by the document company Xerox.
Keep the conversation going.
Share the knowledge.
People people today's agenda the information age.
What happened to the industrial age.
That was last century.
How is it in the days.
You built it.
You sold it.
No more living in the past.
Today it's not just what you make it's what you know that matters.
He always gets so proactive around the millennials.
All I know is they need help communicating down there.
Look he just quit and years of knowledge are going out the door with him.
Isn't there a way to capture what he knows.
Over there she's got thousands of documents on the network.
Finding the one she needs should be simpler.
He's got half a good idea over there.
She's got the other half.
We get the picture.
What are we supposed to do about it.
Make it simpler for people to exchange ideas.
Share documents have conversations.
Right so they create knowledge they can use.
They'll need a digital office.
With new software.
New hardware.
Relax I've got us a partner down there.
The daily make.
Not anymore they don't.
Oh.
Keep the conversation going.
Share the knowledge the digital document company Xerox.
I had questions about investing and nobody would answer my questions.
And then one day my friend was telling me about stocks and that she wanted to start
a stock group.
We go to the meetings we talk about everything with you know children and parenting and politics
and then we talk about which stocks look good.
And I come home and say okay let's let's do this with the girls money let's invest in
this stock this looked the best to me.
And we learned about it on Schwab dot com.
Right.
So you can go to college.
And joining us now for his first reaction to all of this the Democratic leader in the
House Dick Gephardt many people say Mr. Gephardt that you enjoyed having Newt Gingrich as the
face of the Republican Party you're going to be sorry to see him go.
The Republicans decide who their leaders are.
We don't I don't.
What I want is for us to work together in the House to solve the people's problems.
I wrote a letter Friday before I had heard that Newt was not going to run a speaker and
I asked each Republican member to work with us to solve the problems that people really
worry about health care education social security.
These are the issues we need to cooperate on.
We have a copy of that letter and I understand they're going to be releasing it after the
broadcast where you say among other things you think there can be some cooperation on
on HMO.
But let me ask you this.
You said earlier this week that you thought Newt Gingrich had damaged the institution
of the House of Representatives.
What do you mean by that?
That's strong talk.
Bob I've been clear about this throughout.
I have no personal animosity with Newt Gingrich.
We got along personally but I did not agree with his issues.
I did not agree with what he wanted to do on issues and I certainly didn't agree with
the way he ran the House.
It was too partisan.
It was too ideological.
They did not work with Democrats ever to bring about solutions to problems.
And I just think that is not the way to run the House of Representatives.
I think it is a bipartisan, almost nonpartisan organization.
Always has been.
You cannot run it in a way that says my way or the highway.
Either you do what I want to do on health care education or we're not going to do it.
Well a lot of Democrats.
I mean Sam Rayburn didn't exactly go over and coddle up Republicans when he was the
Speaker of the House.
Bob as I remember the history he worked with Republicans.
He put together coalitions.
He got things done.
I think that the election is a mandate on a Congress that did not get things done that
people really want done.
Now you know the candidates who were running.
You know Mr. Livingston.
You know Mr. Cox.
I'm not going to ask you to endorse either of them.
It would clearly be the kiss of death but on any of these candidates do you see any
hope that these folks would be more willing to work with Democrats?
Well I hope they will be.
That's what I'm really saying.
I don't know.
The proof comes later when we really see.
But let me say this to you.
There's only a six vote majority.
I intend to try to work with moderate Republicans these next two years to get things done that
the American people want us to do.
People really want a better education system.
They want better educated people.
They want a patient's bill of rights.
They want Social Security to be stable and sound.
And there's no reason that Democrats, a large group of Democrats, cannot work with moderate
Republicans to get these things done.
When Newt was Speaker he was able to hold his people together.
We did not communicate.
We didn't work together.
We couldn't get their votes on these things.
Maybe now we can.
Well what happens next with the impeachment process though?
Do you think that this gets the President off the hook right now or do you think you're
going to wind up with a censure for Bill Clinton?
Gloria, I've thought all along that we need to get this over with.
That's why I had.
How?
By doing it.
By getting on it and doing it.
Doing what?
This committee has not spent one day on the standards of impeachment.
They should have done it four weeks ago.
They need to get to work starting tomorrow.
We're finally going to have a first hearing, a first working session.
Where should it wind up though very quickly?
I don't know the answer.
We shouldn't prejudge it but we should get it over with.
It should be restricted to the Star referral, to the material that Ken Star sent, not going
off into all these other matters.
But get it behind us and let's move forward.
Let's solve the people's problems.
People are crying out for the Congress to deal with their concerns, their kitchen table
everyday problems.
Mr. Leader, thank you so much for being here with us this morning.
When we come back we'll talk to Senator-elect John Edwards of North Carolina.
North Carolina Senator-elect John Edwards, who of course scored that upset victory over
Republican Locke Faircloth.
Well congratulations to you Senator.
We are seeing something that a lot of people thought was not going to happen very much
anymore.
We saw Democrats get elected in the South.
Blanche Lambert Lincoln down in Arkansas held that Democratic seat.
Fritz Hollings staved off the challenge there in South Carolina and you beat the Republican
in North Carolina.
I thought one of the interesting things in our exit polls, you got more black voters
than Harvey Gant an African American got against Jesse Helms the last time during a presidential
election year.
How did that happen?
Well I think the issues that we talked about, health care reform, the public school system,
protecting and preserving social security, I think those issues work across the spectrum
and I think that African American voters responded strongly to them as did all North Carolinians.
Your senior senator is Jesse Helms.
Have you heard from him?
Has he congratulated you?
He has.
Senator Helms and I spoke the morning after the election.
What I was going to add is actually Senator Helms has been, we've known each other in
the past and he's been very kind to my family and he called the morning after the election,
offered his help and was extremely gracious and I told him I'd like to come sit with him
and talk with him and get his advice.
How do you expect you'll work with him for the people of your state?
You do come from two very different places politically.
Well we do but I have enormous respect for him.
I think he's a ferocious advocate for his position which is something I respect.
I think he's principled.
He and I have different views on substantive issues but that's to be expected and I suspect
we'll vote differently on a lot of issues but there are issues that are important for
the people of North Carolina that I suspect we're going to agree on so I don't think we'll
have any difficulty working together at all.
Do you get any sense where the South is trending?
Senator Faircough there was the first Republican incumbent to lose in the South I think since
1986.
Well the truth is I'm not a political strategist.
You know this is my first run for public office so I'm probably the worst person to ask that
question.
I think that what happened here in North Carolina and I suspect happened in other places around
the country is that what voters were saying to us is talk about things that matter to
us.
Talk about things that matter in our lives.
Don't talk to us about politics and don't talk to us about negative television ads.
Instead give us something concrete and talk about things like social security, the public
school system, public education, reforming health care.
I think they really wanted to hear us talk about issues that matter to them and I think
they also wanted to hear concrete proposals about how we intend to deal with those issues.
Was impeachment an issue that seemed to matter to them at all?
Well I think what happened with the President is a serious issue and people here in North
Carolina take it seriously.
On the other hand I think people here are very independent minded and I think what they
did is exactly what they should have done which was to sort of judge me, judge Senator
Faircloth independently on our own merits and make a determination about who they thought
would best represent him on the floor of the United States Senate and I think the result
of that was that impeachment and what's happened with President Clinton really had very little
to do with the result that happened on election day.
Do you think your background as a trial lawyer will help you or hurt you when it comes to
dealing with HMO reform?
Oh I think it will help.
I mean I think the fact that I've seen what happens to real people in their lives when
insurance companies don't treat them right will help me and I think I also understand
in some depth the results of that kind of treatment.
I think it will help and I think I'm capable of being thoughtful and independent about
the insurance company's positions but I think we really need substantive meaningful health
care reform in this country.
I don't think there's any question about that.
Well Mr. Edwards we want to thank you very much.
Congratulations on your election.
We'll look forward to seeing you when you get here to Washington.
Thank you very much.
I'm honored to be with you.
We'll be back in a moment with a final word.
Departure of Newt Gingrich.
Great leaders see the larger picture and the greater possibilities of the offices they
hold.
Franklin Roosevelt saw the larger possibilities of the presidency and he used them to rescue
a nation in economic depression.
Ronald Reagan understood that being president was more than running the government and because
he did he was able to put a smile on the face of a nation that had been down in the dumps
too long.
Lesser men do not always see the bigger picture but come to see themselves as larger than
the offices they hold.
Newt Gingrich made that mistake in the beginning.
He had big ideas and big plans for his party and they were not all bad but vision gave
way to self-importance.
It was all right for him to take ethical shortcuts because he was a speaker after all not some
no-name congressman.
He began to complain about respect, accused the president of sliding him because he once
got a bad seat on Air Force One and said that was one of the reasons he shut down the government.
It all came crashing down on him last week when Republicans lost seats in Tuesday's elections
and turned on him.
They threatened to throw him over the side just as he had threatened to throw an earlier
generation over the side if they didn't step aside when he wanted to become speaker.
So he's out of there.
The man who saw himself as a transformational figure in American politics may turn out to
be no more than a figure in transit.
So long Newt.
We hardly knew you.
Well that's our broadcast.
Thanks for watching.
We'll see you next week on Face the Nation.
This portion of Face the Nation was brought to you by IBM.
Solutions for a Small Planet.
This broadcast was produced by CBS News which is solely responsible for the selection of
today's guests and topics.
It originated in Washington D.C.