Congress Yearns for Some Good Old Legislating

With the end of President Clinton’s impeachment trial, a scandal-weary Congress now seems as thirsty for a return to legislative work as a parched nomad is for an oasis.

For all the divisiveness of the trial, there are the makings of a honeymoon in its aftermath. Impeachment has produced a surprising confluence of interest between Republicans and Clinton: Both sides want to change the subject and get on to some serious legislative business.

And that could lay the groundwork for action on some pocketbook issues, like regulating managed health care plans, funding school construction or maybe even tax cuts.

But that mutual interest only goes so far. Beyond their shared relief at the trial’s end, there are powerful forces at work that will make it hard for the parties to reach agreement on such major issues as how to bolster Social Security and how to spend the federal budget surplus.

The impeachment ordeal has left Congress riven by divisions between and within the parties, battered in the court of public opinion and unsure whether there is strong enough leadership in the White House and Congress to make headway on solving the pressing policy questions that have been utterly eclipsed during the 13-month scandal.

“I think it’s going to be a very tough session,” said Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), a skeptic of gestures toward bipartisanship such as an upcoming House retreat to Hershey, Pa. “Bipartisanship is more than playing kissy-face at Hershey.”

Changes Could Foster Cooperation

The starting point for the post-impeachment era is a Congress vastly changed during the five months since Kenneth W. Starr’s report landed on the Capitol doorstep. And many of those changes could make Congress more amenable to bipartisanship.

* There is a new speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich, the domineering conservative firebrand, has been replaced by J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), a low-key insider who is trying to set a more cooperative tone.

* Republicans hold five fewer seats in the House since the November elections narrowed the GOP edge to a mere 223-212. That puts heavy pressure on Republicans to work more aggressively with Democratic allies in order to push through their legislative agenda.

* The budget is swimming in a surplus that gets bigger every time someone measures it. It is always easier to resolve differences between the parties in a time of plenty.

* Public approval of the Republican-controlled Congress, which soared before the party became practically synonymous with the unpopular cause of impeachment, has plummeted. A new Times Poll found that only 32% of those surveyed approve of the job Republicans are doing--down from a peak of 54% in October 1996.

Poll trends like that have forced a searching reassessment of GOP strategy. Having headed into last fall’s elections thinking that they did not need to rack up more legislative accomplishments and that they would benefit from impeachment fallout, most Republicans now have concluded that their decision amounted to a fateful miscalculation.

“Republicans need to demonstrate to the country that they can do something other than impeach the president,” said Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster.

Clinton, for his part, has a similar interest in putting some points on the legislative scoreboard if he is to rescue his legacy from the ignominy of impeachment. For that he will need Republican support.

“Clinton needs a legacy, and he can’t do it without Congress,” said Michael Scanlon, spokesman for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), one of Clinton’s most vitriolic critics. “Congress needs to do something, and we can’t do it without Clinton.”

But conciliation will require both sides to triumph over seething personal emotions: Republicans’ hostility toward a president they have said is morally unfit for the office and Clinton’s alleged fury toward those who would oust him.

House Democrats Could Be Problem

Another potential obstacle is congressional Democrats, especially in the House, who have less incentive than Clinton to compromise with the GOP. Their priority is winning control of the House in 2000, an aim that some believe is better served by running against a do-nothing GOP Congress. Clinton may be loath to cut deals with the Republicans to the exclusion of congressional Democrats, to whom he owes a profound debt for their support in his battle to remain in office.

Another stumbling block is continuing divisions among Republicans. Even if the White House wants to play ball, the scrimmage won’t happen if the GOP doesn’t have a game plan. The impeachment process heightened tensions between House and Senate Republicans. And the party is still divided over what is supposed to be its cornerstone issue: the type of tax cut it wants to push.

In assessing the prospects for legislative agreements this year, perhaps nothing is more corrosive than the rampant suspicion of political motives harbored by both sides, especially in the House, where the impeachment process exacerbated long-standing partisan tensions.

“The Democrats have made it pretty clear they are out to win the House, and any amount of success we have here takes away from their ability to do that,” said House Budget Committee Chairman John R. Kasich (R-Ohio).

As for the Republicans, Obey bristled: “You have a new leadership . . . but so far I have not seen any indication that things are going to be different.”

Against this backdrop of conflicting forces buffeting the parties, this is how analysts and lawmakers assess some of the top issues before Congress:

Social Security. The biggest test of the two sides’ interest in legislative accomplishment will be efforts to shore up the retirement system for the baby boom generation. It would be a thorny policy problem even in a more trusting political environment. But with the parties viewing each other with suspicion, most analysts are skeptical that a grand compromise can be reached. There are, however, potent political factors pushing toward action: Clinton may want a Social Security initiative as part of his legacy; Republicans may want the problem solved while there is a Democratic president to share any blame; and Vice President Al Gore may want the problem solved before he moves into the Oval Office, provided he can win the presidency in 2000. But any compromise with Republicans on the subject could alienate Democratic activists, such as labor unions, who would be key to getting Gore elected in the first place.

Tax cuts. Republicans are hoping to make tax cuts central to their effort to articulate a clear post-impeachment message for the party. But, echoing intraparty divisions that muddied the message last year, Republicans have not agreed among themselves about which taxes to cut. Kasich and other GOP leaders want a 10% across-the-board tax cut; moderate House Republicans have proposed a smaller, more targeted package of tax cuts, including reduction of the “marriage penalty.” Clinton’s budget would preempt big across-the-board tax cuts by earmarking 62% of the budget surplus to strengthen Social Security and the rest for Medicare and other spending programs.

Defense spending. Republicans hope to push a popular military pay increase as one of the first change-the-subject issues in impeachment’s wake; Democrats are not expected to fight. On the broader military budget, Clinton has proposed a big spending increase that alienates many liberal Democrats--a reminder of Clinton’s demonstrated willingness to part ways with that wing of his party.

Health care. One of the most promising areas for compromise is legislation to regulate health maintenance organizations, which died in the grip of partisan gridlock last year. House Republicans seem particularly focused on finding ways to get a bill through with Democratic support. Hastert has sent a letter to every member calling for a bipartisan bill on the topic this year.

Education. Clinton has proposed subsidizing more than $20 billion in bonds to finance school repair and construction. Republicans fought and killed the proposal last year. Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer (R-Texas) is now highlighting a proposal to provide new tax breaks for school construction bonds--a more limited initiative than Clinton’s, but one of the few education initiatives on which Clinton and the Republicans are not diametrically opposed.