Capitol’s Freshmen Make Voices Heard : Congress: Not content to sit quietly by, they have taken a stand on deficit reduction--and changed the working dynamics on the Hill.

WASHINGTON — If there was any doubt about it before, there is none now: The largest crop of freshmen lawmakers in a half-century has made it clear to both their own leadership and President Clinton that business is not as usual on Capitol Hill.

Congressional pressure, largely from these newcomers, forced President Clinton this week to make an abrupt tactical reversal on his economic plan, putting deficit reduction ahead of increased spending. It was the clearest evidence yet that a new dynamic has taken root on Capitol Hill.

For the first time in 12 years, the Democrats have the power to enact an economic agenda. At the same time, the public is in the mood for change, particularly after Ross Perot struck a surprisingly resonant chord with a presidential campaign based primarily on deficit reduction. Toward those ends, voters have sent Washington its first Democratic President in 12 years and 110 new House members--64 of them Democrats.

“We are clearly the people who are the most sensitive to how the public is responding. We’re going to be in the front lines in two years,” running for reelection, said first-term Rep. Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.). “Meanwhile, Ross Perot is out there. His presence is being felt in everything we do.”

If the new lawmakers have a credo, Deutsch said, it is this: “Just because you are a Democrat doesn’t mean you are an economic fool.”

Of course, it remains to be seen whether enthusiasm for deficit reduction will subside, once the specifics of Clinton’s program and the pain it will entail are completely understood. Then, skeptics predict, public approval ratings will plummet, chastening today’s bold deficit-cutters and enabling entrenched interests to beat them back into submission.

“Wait until you are 30% in the polls,” said Kenneth Duberstein, who was President Ronald Reagan’s chief congressional liaison and who appeared Wednesday at a forum on government gridlock sponsored by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Committee on the Constitutional System and the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank.

However, it appears for now that the fiscally conservative freshmen have been able to form what constitutes a working majority with the moderate and conservative Democrats, who have been preaching the deficit-reduction religion for years.

Such influence for new lawmakers is a far cry from the days when tradition dictated that they had to fall in line with the leadership of their parties, waiting respectfully a decade or two to make their mark. The late House Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas used to advise newcomers: “If you want to get along, go along.”

A White House official acknowledged that the new political realities on Capitol Hill are “a lot different than people thought. . . . We’re feeling our way along,” navigating between those who want more cuts and those who want fewer.

With no Republican support for Clinton’s economic plan on the horizon, every Democratic vote counts. The Democrats can afford to lose the support of no more than 41 of their members.

On Wednesday, a group of 24 moderate Democrats--calling themselves the Congressional Mainstream Forum--weighed in, asking that the entire economic package be wrapped into a single vote. The current schedule--worked out in a quickly crafted compromise Tuesday--calls for a vote on a budget resolution in early April, followed by a second vote on new spending. While the budget resolution sets the broad outlines of tax increases and spending cuts, the enactment of those painful measures will not actually occur until a separate vote later this year.

“If Congress acts quickly on the spending package alone and deliberates the tougher choices on spending cuts and revenue through the summer, we risk losing public support for the entire plan,” said Reps. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.) and Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.) in a joint statement.

Clinton apparently misunderstood the depth of the change on Capitol Hill--and risked making a serious political misstep--when he proposed that Congress pass a $16-billion economic stimulus package before committing itself to spending cuts and tax increases that would begin to bring the deficit under control.

“What we were concerned about was that there were a lot of (senior Democrats on the Appropriations Committee) who want this money,” added Howard Paster, Clinton’s chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill, who spoke on the same panel with Duberstein.

Paster sought to squelch any suggestion that the reversal was a setback for Clinton, and insisted that he is particularly attuned to the sentiments of the congressional newcomers.

“Clinton and Gore are part of the class of ‘92, and identify closely with them,” he said. “The 100 freshmen in the House--Republicans and Democrats--had common themes in their campaigns. . . . The simple fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton’s economic plan is the only game in town for those who want to change the direction of the economy.”

Times staff writer David Lauter contributed to this story.