Start of Debate Also Begins War to Win Voters

With the opening of debate over the Republican legislative agenda, the two parties have begun a complex chess game that largely will determine the shape of the 1996 presidential campaign--and perhaps American politics for long thereafter.

In the weeks ahead, congressional Republicans, the White House and congressional Democrats will put forward agendas that reflect not only their policy preferences but the electoral coalitions they hope to attract.

Through hard-edged stands on issues like crime and welfare, promises of sharp reductions in federal spending and resonant symbols of political reform such as term limits, Republicans are hoping to cement the loyalty of the angry, predominantly male and overwhelmingly white middle-class voters who fueled their victory in 1994.

The “contract with America,” which outlines the GOP agenda, “is a document that takes us from 1994 to 2004,” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who helped to devise it. “If we succeed we may hold the government for a decade or more.”

The White House and congressional Democrats are advancing competing proposals intended to fracture that coalition by framing the Republicans as servants of the rich, extremists on social issues and phony populists whose agenda would actually strengthen big business at the expense of ordinary Americans.

House Democratic leader Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri set the tone Wednesday when he declared that Republicans want “to give the benefits of our society to the wealthiest Americans and have excluded middle-income Americans.”

This broad struggle to define the opposition and win the allegiance of swing middle-class voters for the next election will shape the cut-and-parry of daily legislative fights in the months ahead. “The proto-realignment of 1994 needs to be confirmed and deepened by bigger Republican wins in 1996,” Republican strategist William Kristol wrote in a memo this week. “All GOP decisions this year should be made strictly in the context of--even subordinated to--that goal.” At least for the next several weeks, the policy debate between the parties will revolve primarily around the 10-point contract, which House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) theatrically brandished during his inaugural remarks Wednesday.

Prepared through exhaustive polling and focus-group research conducted by Luntz, the contract combines the priorities of traditional Republican constituencies with proposals that attempt to plug into some of the strongest new currents coursing through the electorate.

For the historic backbone of the GOP--the business community--the Republican blueprint offers an array of tangible benefits.

On the tax front, the GOP proposes to halve the tax on capital gains and accelerate depreciation of business capital investments.

On regulatory policy, it offers a broad assault on federal environmental, occupational-health and other federal programs that impose compliance costs on private firms. It promises wide-ranging changes in the rules governing private litigation--including limits on punitive damages that juries can impose and a requirement that the loser in a lawsuit pays the court costs of the winner--that would make it more difficult for individuals to sue large corporations.

It also suggests increased revenue for defense contractors by calling for a reassessment of funding levels for the military.

At the same time, the contract aligns the GOP with several distinct anti-Washington populist movements increasingly vital to Republican political fortunes.

It promises a vote on a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms--the top priority of the term-limit movement that has demonstrated powerful political appeal from coast to coast. It bows toward the nascent “parents rights” movement that has attracted strong support from religious conservatives by urging that parents be given greater authority to “remove their children” from school programs they consider offensive.

And it endorses the potentially expensive demands of a militant “property rights” movement that the federal government reimburse landowners for any regulation, such as environmental rules, that reduce “the value of property.”

Viewed from another angle, the contract attempts to identify the GOP with four potentially powerful themes: reforming the political system, through term limits and a raft of internal congressional reforms approved Wednesday; rolling back government by passing a balanced-budget amendment and promising substantial reductions in federal spending; defending the middle class, through a $500-per-child tax credit, and enforcing social order and common standards of behavior by toughening penalties against criminals, discouraging out-of-wedlock births and limiting access to welfare.

To a large extent, the Democratic agenda and the party’s choice of rhetoric is being driven by the political necessity of preventing Republicans from seizing these labels as their own.

On political reform, for instance, Democrats are working overtime to portray the new Republican majority as hypocritical and unwilling to curb the influence of wealthy special interests. Even as House Republicans enacted a series of internal reforms Wednesday, Democrats castigated the GOP for refusing to allow amendments to cap outside income or ban gifts to lawmakers from lobbyists.

More broadly, both the White House and Democratic congressional leaders said they intend to push lobbying and campaign-finance reform bills--issues for which they had little enthusiasm when they held a majority. Republicans have indicated that they are in no hurry to consider those reforms.

During the next several months, Democrats are likely to exert the most energy challenging Republicans for the mantle of defending the middle class. “That is going to be the center of the debate,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, President Clinton’s pollster. “The question will be whether the policy battles get drawn out in a way that helps voters understand the differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches.”

Leaving nothing to interpretation, Clinton last month labeled his tax-cut and job-training reform program a “middle-class bill of rights.” Unlike GOP plans, which offer benefits throughout the income ladder, the tax-cut proposals from Clinton and Gephardt are targeted at the middle class. Democrats limited their proposed tax reductions partly to minimize their cost--but mostly to portray the GOP, which carried white, working-class voters last fall, as principally concerned about the rich.

In many respects, the complex interaction between the parties’ political and policy agendas will play out most clearly over social issues, from abortion to welfare reform. On these emotional disputes, both parties find it difficult to square the demands of their most fervent supporters with the preferences of the swing voters in the electorate’s center.

On some questions, Republicans face the more difficult balancing act. Republicans have made clear that they want to delay action on potentially polarizing issues critical to some of their core constituencies, including repeal of the assault-weapon ban fervently sought by the National Rifle Assn. and further restrictions on abortion that anti-abortion and religious conservatives support. To create maximum Republican discomfort, Clinton at almost every opportunity reaffirms his commitment to the assault-weapon ban, which is broadly popular in the country.

On the other hand, many of the GOP proposals could pinion Clinton between public opinion and bedrock Democratic constituency groups. For one example, billions of dollars in crime-prevention spending was the price for African American legislators’ support of last year’s anti-crime legislation. Republicans in both chambers are talking about shifting the funds to prisons and law enforcement. If Clinton fights the proposal, he could look soft on crime. If he does not, he risks alienating inner-city legislators whose districts were counting on the prevention money.

In the months ahead, divisions within Republican ranks may shape the policy debate as much as these conflicts with Democrats. While House Republicans are talking revolution, some Senate Republicans and other party leaders are cautioning that the GOP risks overplaying its hand.

In his memo this week, Kristol counseled that Republicans must move carefully across the broad range of issues if they want to avoid a backlash and consolidate their political gains.

* CONGRESS IN SESSION: Related stories, pictures and graphics on A14, A15, A16.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

New Rules for a New House

In its first day on the job, the new Republican-controlled House of Representatives adopted a number of significant rule changes, all of which are to take effect immediately.

* House Committee: Three full standing committees eliminated (District of Columbia, Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Post Office and Civil Service); 25 subcommittees scrapped.

* Legislative Service Organizations: Funding eliminated for LSOs, ranging from the Congressional Black Caucus to the Arts Caucus; estimated annual savings $5 million.

* Committee Staff: 622 staff positions eliminated for estimated annual savings of $35 million; 97 additional slots eliminated as part of LSO funding cut.

* Leadership Term Limits: Tenure of committee chairmen limited to three consecutive terms, or six years; House Speaker limited to four terms, or eight years.

* Commemorative Legislation: No House resolutions allowed to commemorate events such as National Asparagus Day.

* Absentee Voting: Proxy voting, the practice of allowing one House member to cast a committee vote for another member, prohibited.

* Open Hearings: All committee hearings open to public unless they involve confidential personnel matters or national security.

* House Audit: A comprehensive outside audit of House finances to be conducted by a major accounting firm.

* Budget Terms: Any increase in spending to be considered an increase, even if less than needed to offset projected inflation.

* Tax Increases: A three-fifths House majority required to increase income tax rates; no retroactive tax increases.

* Congressional Accountability: In addition to the above rule changes, the House is expected to approve legislation that would make Congress subject to a number of laws from which it has been exempt, ranging from the Civil Rights Act to the Family and Medical Leave Act. The measure requires Senate approval to take effect.