LEXIS-NEXIS® Academic Universe

Search Terms: Permanent, Normal, Trade

Document 36 of 96.

June 24, 2000

SECTION: CONGRESS; Pg. 1970; Vol. 32, No. 26

LENGTH: 6818 words

HEADLINE: The Four Scenarios

BYLINE: Richard E. Cohen

HIGHLIGHT:

An early guide to who will be up, and who will be down, once the
voters elect a new President and a new Congress.

BODY:

It's summertime in Washington, and Congress is spinning its
wheels, the Clintonistas are beginning to look around for moving
boxes, and the presidential campaign is in a lull. What's a hard-
core political junkie to do? An alternative diversion is catching
on: figuring out the various scenarios for the balance of
political power in 2001, when life in the nation's capital may be
much different-and much more interesting.

Insiders are already carefully weighing the consequences
of the voters' installing a new President in the White House and
a new Congress on Capitol Hill. Which party will have the upper
hand? Which legislation will pass? And what will it all mean for
the speculators' own careers?

"It's the No. 1 topic every day for members at dinner and
on the House floor," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. "Everyone
realizes there is a huge amount of political influence and
capital at stake."

Although the machinations seem to be infinite, there are
really only four probable scenarios for control of Washington
next year. They are based on the premise that either Al Gore or
George W. Bush will become President and will do business with a
Congress that is either Republican controlled or split between a
Democratic House and a Republican Senate. (Key figures in both
parties roundly agree that Republicans will retain control of the
Senate in the November elections, though the GOP's current 55-45
majority may shrink.) According to interviews with more than two
dozen members of Congress and political operatives, each of the
four scenarios has a host of uncertainties, but the basic
political outlines are foreseeable.

The status quo scenario would play out if Gore moves into
the White House and Republicans retain control of Congress.
Partisanship would be high and productivity would be low. Asked
about this scenario, key players during the past five years under
President Clinton respond with a "been there, done that." Many
dismiss this scenario as unrealistic because they believe a Gore
victory would only occur if his party as a whole made a showing
strong enough to gain the six seats needed to end the GOP's House
rule.

The most intriguing-and quite possibly the most likely-
scenario may be a Bush victory and a Democratic takeover of the
House. It would offer not only a fresh set of actors at the helms
of government, but also new tests of whether the parties can find
middle ground between their agendas of "compassionate
conservatism" and Democratic activism. Bush would have to balance
his interests against those of his party's firebrands, and
presumed House Speaker Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., would have to
deal with his own party's increasingly fractious divisions.

The two other scenarios-in which the same party controls
the presidency and the House-are more straightforward, at least
on the surface. In each case, however, the margin of the
Democrats' or the Republicans' House majority would probably be
so narrow that legislative progress would be difficult without
the support of partisan crossovers. Looming over the winning
party would be memories of the 1994 election, in which Democrats
lost control of the House and Senate following a two-year
interval in which they and Clinton failed to deliver on many of
their promises.

As is so often the case, personal qualities and
relationships-both for better and for worse-will go a long
way in determining legislative success, particularly for
the new President. "The way to have the Congress help
you in the work is to be strong politically. Then they are
obliged to do so," said Roy Neel, the president of the United
States Telecom Association and former chief of staff to Gore.

Although the public and the press may not be focusing on
the consequences of Election Day 2000, many insiders clearly are.
The following report offers an early view of the four prospective
scenarios, in no particular order, for how the White House and
Congress will do business next year.
Scenario #1
President: Republican
House: Republican
Senate: Republican
If Bush wins and Republicans retain control of Congress, it would
be put-up-or-shut-up time for the GOP. Despite the fact that it
has controlled the White House for 20 of the past 32 years and
Congress since 1995, the party has had all sorts of excuses for
its missed opportunities to permanently reshape national policy,
among them: President Nixon's self-inflicted demise, President
Reagan's occasional vacillation, and the rhetorical excesses of
House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

In contrast to the other three potential scenarios for
party control, each of which has prevailed for at least two years
during the past decade, this scenario of GOP supremacy would be
something new for virtually all of official Washington. The only
current member of Congress with such experience is Sen. Robert C.
Byrd, D-W.Va. He was a House freshman from 1953-54, when
President Eisenhower had narrow GOP majorities in the House and
the Senate.

Bush would be eager for some early accomplishments, but
he would have his hands full with congressional Republicans, who
have been hindered by feuding factions and inconsistent
legislative acumen since winning the majority in 1994. And
Republican members of Congress have grown accustomed to fighting
with a Democratic President. "This will be hard for House
Republicans," said a GOP lawmaker with close ties to the Bush
team. "Republicans need to get used to having a Republican
President."

Both House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., are expected to remain at
their posts. In the House, Republicans seem generally happy with
the way the low-key Hastert has led the party in the wake of the
tumultuous Gingrich years. In the Senate, the assumption that
Republicans will retain control has dampened speculation about
possible leadership shuffles, although Majority Whip Don Nickles
of Oklahoma; Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
Chairman Phil Gramm of Texas; and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska are
occasionally mentioned as potential challengers to Lott.

Thus far, Bush has steered clear of congressional
Republicans, who are hoping that he will work harder to help
elect more of their candidates in November. His campaign has not
staged a single photo opportunity in Washington with Hastert or
Lott. When Bush visited with House Republicans in late May, he
sneaked out a side door of the Capitol Hill Club to avoid meeting
with the assembled reporters and photographers.

In addition, Bush is leveling equal-opportunity attacks
on Congress, reminiscent of candidate Clinton in 1992. Speaking
in Knoxville, Tenn., this month, Bush endorsed changes in the
congressional budget process, called for a commission to
eliminate pork barrel spending, and challenged the Senate to
approve nominees for top Administration posts within 60 days.
"There is too much argument in Washington and not enough
discussion," he said. "Too much needless division, not enough
shared accomplishments....There is blame enough to go around."

Nevertheless, following a Bush victory, Hastert and Lott
and a few lieutenants would probably meet with him in a well-
orchestrated session to pledge their allegiance-and defer to his
legislative plans. Neither congressional leader threatens Bush as
a public figure, and neither has much experience in handling
legislation for a President of his own party.

The situation was quite different 12 days after the 1992
election, when Democratic congressional leaders made clear to
President-elect Clinton which issues were-and were not-among
their favorites during a three-hour dinner meeting in Little
Rock, Ark. In his book The Agenda, Bob Woodward recounted a
separate meeting at the White House in early 1993 with a similar
group of leaders. "Some of the Democrats present had adopted a
condescending tone toward Clinton and spoke of their real-world
experience, leaving a thinly veiled threat that said, 'Don't
tread on us or you'll be sorry,' " Woodward wrote.

In the glow of victory, Republicans would face an early
dilemma in determining how much of an electoral mandate they had
won. That judgment would influence their choice of an early
agenda-both its contents and how hard Bush would press. "A lot
will depend on the presidential vote numbers," said Rep. Rob
Portman, R-Ohio, who worked in the previous Bush White House as
legislative affairs director. "Governor Bush wants to govern....
He will be interested in getting things done. He's not in this to
get re-elected."

Some skeptics contend that the nation's political and
economic climate, combined with Capitol gridlock, will minimize
the prospect of significant legislative action following the
election, even if Bush, a political outsider, wins. "There will
be no Bush revolution," said Stanley E. Collender, managing
director of the federal budget consulting group at Fleishman-
Hillard. "Regardless of who is elected President and controls
Congress, and assuming the economy stays the same, there won't be
any great demand for anything from Washington.... Republicans
would want to produce something, but they can't agree on what."

Bush's team would strive for this elusive agreement early
on by making quick and subjective choices. One model would be to
emulate Reagan by enacting a few major initiatives in the first
few months. "I would be bold out of the box. I am convinced that
people will follow if you lead," said Rep. J.C. Watts of
Oklahoma, who chairs the House Republican Conference and has
worked closely with the Bush campaign. "Never underestimate the
effectiveness of the bully pulpit."

LaHood predicted that Bush and Republican leaders would
exert "tremendous pressure" to give the President virtually
everything he might want. "We have to put our money where our
mouth is," LaHood added. He said the issues that would be likely
to come up during this prospective honeymoon include tax cuts as
part of a debt-reduction plan, Social Security reform, and
building a missile defense system.

Others, however, have warned about the dangers of
Republicans' biting off too much at the start. "It's a mistake to
move too quickly," said Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, who noted
that Republicans should pay heed to Clinton's early failures on
gays in the military, the proposed BTU energy tax, and sweeping
health care reform.

Instead of tackling big, hot-button issues, Republicans
should work on measures that would attract moderate Democrats and
build confidence, urged Boehner. Among the first-year issues he
listed were education reform, missile defense, fast-track trade-
negotiating authority for the President, and only the start of a
Social Security overhaul. "The goal should be to build a solid
working majority," said Boehner.

Many Republicans have been impressed by Bush's Social
Security initiatives. Still, like Boehner, several Republicans
also suggested a cautious approach on this issue, especially
given the certainty that Democrats would pounce on any GOP
misstep. "I can't see an overhaul in the first six months," said
House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., a longtime
Bush ally. "That takes time."

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, who chairs the National
Republican Congressional Committee, said the public understands
that changes are needed in Social Security and, in public opinion
polls, "conceptually, the Bush plan wins." Davis added, "Is there
some risk? Absolutely.... But people understand that we have a
leader."

Among the issues that Bush and congressional Republican
leaders would want to postpone action on is abortion, with the
possible exception of their proposed ban on "partial-birth"
abortion. "Bush would focus on economic policies until we are
forced to deal with social issues," said a House Republican
leadership aide, who added that Hastert agrees with that
approach.

"If Bush goes too far right, he'll lose moderate
Republicans. I think he understands that," said a Bush adviser
with previous White House experience. "You just can't assume
Congress is going to go along with you, even if your own party is
in power." A former top GOP congressional leadership aide noted:
"The moral of the decade is you destroy your presidency when you
become purely partisan. Bush is projecting ... a desire to reach
out and make the system work."

But this tack could ignite tensions with conservative
Republicans, including House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas,
who sought to define the conservative agenda in a series of
speeches early this year and who has not been particularly close
to his home state's Bushes.

Even if lawmakers don't entirely agree with Bush's
legislative choices, a President's skillful, engaging personality
can go a long way toward getting Congress to cooperate. For
example, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan had some common traits
when they became President: Both had previously served as a
governor and were new to Washington. But Reagan, an ideological
entrepreneur with a background in Hollywood, scored more triumphs
on Capitol Hill in his first six months than did Carter, a former
naval engineer and peanut farmer. Yet in 1981, Reagan's party had
only a slim Senate majority and Democrats retained nominal
control of the House, whereas Democrats held a huge majority in
each chamber four years earlier under Carter.

Bush has won plaudits from members of both parties in
Texas for his leadership skills and personal relationships. He
developed a close bond with the powerful Democratic Lt. Gov. Bob
Bullock, who died last year, and Republicans in Austin joke that
Bush dealt with the Legislature as though it were nonpartisan.
"He puts clear targets on the wall, and he gets everyone in both
parties (with) an interest in that target to work on that goal,"
said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who served six years in the
state's House, two of them during Bush's first two years as
governor.

At the same time, Gov. Bush has had mixed success in
getting results. The one time that he tried to build public
support for an initiative-on his tax reform proposal in 1997-he
failed. The Democratic-controlled Legislature rejected his
proposal and replaced it with a property-tax cut. Still, Bush won
praise for privately persuading legislative leaders to at least
support his broad goal of tax reform. "He was secure enough, some
say cocky, that he encouraged other ideas," Brady said. "He
rarely had to draw a line in the sand, because he had convinced
people of the need for reform."

But would House and Senate Democrats be willing to
cooperate with Bush if they were in the minority? Some of them
probably would retire in the wake of an election wipeout. Others
would turn inward and seek to recast their own party: New
Democrats would try to move it to the middle, while organized-
labor allies would head leftward.

In the wake of a Gore defeat this November, Gephardt
would see an open road for another bid for his party's
presidential nomination, in 2004. First, however, he would have
to decide whether to remain as his party's House Minority Leader
and the de facto head of the opposition. Well-placed Democratic
sources said that if Democrats remain in the House minority,
Gephardt would eventually step down as leader in the run-up to
another presidential bid. "He would want to remove the stink,"
said a senior House Democrat.

Senate Democrats, presumably still led by Minority Leader
Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota, would hold significant
influence in the Republican victory scenario. The minority party
generally has considerable leverage in the Senate because the
chamber's freewheeling rules make majority power less conclusive
than in the House. In contrast to 1981, when stunned Senate
Democrats suddenly found themselves in the minority and largely
stood aside in the face of the Reagan steamroller, the current
batch of Senate Democrats has become more skillful at
obstructionism. A Senate leadership aide said that if Republicans
hold complete political control next year, Daschle would expand
his role to become the final obstacle to "blocking bad
legislation."

In general, the Senate probably would find itself
responding to and refining House measures. Most tax, entitlement,
and annual spending bills begin in the House, and the breakdown
of the committee system and other aspects of the legislative
process have lately made it increasingly difficult for the Senate
to initiate complex legislation. With a President of his own
party, Lott seems temperamentally suited to play a reactive role.
Scenario #2
President: Republican
House: Democrat
Senate: Republican
A Democratic takeover of the House, combined with a Bush victory,
is the scenario many Washington prognosticators are predicting
these days. At a time when the nation seems comfortable and
politically passive, it would be ironic to have a jarring switch
in who runs both the White House and the House. The only 20th-
century election in which a party took control of the House even
though it did not win the presidency came in 1916, when President
Woodrow Wilson narrowly won re-election.

This scenario revives not-so-fond memories of the early
1990s, when House Democrats-including then-Majority Leader
Gephardt-clashed repeatedly with then-President Bush, especially
on budget issues. Those days also were marked by nasty Senate
battles over Bush nominees and House scandals caused by internal
mismanagement. The public hostility that resulted helps to
explain why Bush was defeated for re-election in 1992,
notwithstanding his 91 percent popularity after the Gulf War
campaign, and why House and Senate Democrats were routed from
their majorities two years later.

Some insiders contend that a new stab at divided
government might actually succeed. Still, with Bush running as a
conservative outsider and House Democrats positioned as liberal
insiders, it would be difficult to figure which of their
competing agendas-if either-had public support. At bottom, the
appeal of this scenario for political insiders is its utter
unpredictability. Consider the three following, seemingly
plausible options for how it might play out:

Bush control: "Bush would not miss a step," Portman said.
"It would be the same as if Republicans controlled the House. He
would approach boll weevil Democrats in a genuine way and give
them stuff.... It would be hard for conservative Democrats to
deny tax relief." Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, a leader of
liberal Democrats, fears that Portman's prediction may prove
accurate. "The potential on our side is for lots of divisions,"
said McDermott. "A skillful President has enormous power. He
would be surrounded by skillful people at the White House who
would make it work."

Bush surrender: "Bush's record in Texas has been that he
went along with Democratic ideas after he floated his own. He's a
go-along guy," said a savvy, though perhaps optimistic, House
Democratic insider. "With DeLay's firm hold, it will be hard to
move the Republican Conference to the middle.... House Democrats
would pass their agenda, and Bush would have to react to it."
Such a course of action might remind some House Republicans of
their unhappy experiences when the senior Bush abandoned his 1988
"no new taxes" campaign pledge and reached a budget deal with
majority Democrats two years later.

Mushy moderation: "Moderates in each party will control
from the center out," predicted Rep. James P. Moran, D-Va., a
leader of the House's New Democrats. He sees the House's recent
vote to grant permanent normal trade relations to China as "a
precursor for many members looking for bipartisanship" on issues
pressed by the business community, including better training of
workers, environmental protection, expanded trade, and a stronger
national defense. Moran obviously prefers a Gore victory but said
Bush shares many of the New Democrats' goals. And Moran warns, "I
hope that the Democratic platform won't be full of knee-jerk
responses" on issues such as Social Security.

Add to these variations the question of how the
Republican-led Senate might act. Bush could try to adopt Reagan's
1981 tactic of using Senate Republicans to launch his program and
then depend on a conservative coalition in the House to make
effective use of that chamber's rules to force votes and passage
of his agenda.

Such an approach could be strengthened if the Senate's
bloc of roughly a dozen centrist Democrats forms an active
partnership with Bush. The Senate centrists have been organized,
in part, by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, chairman of
the Democratic Leadership Council. "If you have a moderate
Republican President working with 48 or 50 Senate Republicans,
they can reach the 60 (votes required to break a Senate
filibuster) if it's moderate policy," said Patrick Griffin, a
veteran Washington lobbyist who served as Clinton's chief
legislative assistant from 1994-96.

Other Democrats note the limitations of the precedent
Reagan set with his success in 1981. Like most precedents, it's
instructive, but it doesn't fully apply to other cases. Back
then, Democrats were reeling after having lost the White House
and the Senate, as well as 33 seats in the House. If Democrats
control the House next year, they would be resurgent and,
presumably, less willing to defer to the new President.

Moreover, in 1981, House Democrats counted more than two
dozen conservative Southerners in their ranks who had seen their
local party base implode with the 1980 election of the popular
Republican President and were only too eager to back his
proposals. Because of major changes in Southern politics since
then, only a handful of members with such views would retain
seats in a House Democratic majority. "It's a totally new world,"
said Rep. Charles W. Stenholm, D-Texas, who was a second termer
and an ardent Reagan supporter in 1981.

If any common theme emerges in politicians' discussions
of this scenario of divided government, it is their talk of
potential consensus-building. In fact, a source close to Gephardt
said, "My sense is that (Bush and Gephardt) could develop a
working relationship."

Gephardt has said that, as Speaker, he would work with
House Republicans, if only because he would command such a narrow
majority. His advisers added that he would reach out to Bush if
he had that opportunity. "It will be in our interest to try to
pull (Bush) toward our direction," said a top aide.

Added former House Democratic Caucus Chairman Vic Fazio,
now a partner in the government relations firm of Clark &
Weinstock: "My sense is (Gephardt would) want to keep his troops
together and join the compromise, rather than be left out in the
cold with some of his troops in mutiny (working with Bush)."

Other Democrats even suggest that Bush's style would
encourage such cooperation. "(Bush) came over to my office when I
was in the state Legislature and reached out," said Rep. Ciro
Rodriguez, who served three years in the Texas House while Bush
was governor. "From that perspective, he's real likeable. My
gripes with the governor are that he doesn't have the priorities
that are key." But Rodriguez voiced his fear that if Bush becomes
President, "You've got a whole bunch of Republicans up here who
won't allow that (cooperation) to happen."

Republicans also foresee bipartisanship, although they
expect that Bush ultimately would find himself doing business
with centrist House Democrats, not with Gephardt. "After a month
or two of trying to work with Gephardt, if that fails, then Bush
would go to the (Democratic) members," said a veteran House
Republican.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, suspects that pressure from the
Democrats' liberal wing would deny Gephardt the flexibility to
make deals with Bush. "Gephardt is not a dishonest person," said
Barton. "I just think President Bush would have to adopt a trust-
but-verify attitude with Gephardt." Other Republicans don't even
give Gephardt the benefit of the doubt. "Gephardt would practice
hard-core partisanship" against Bush, said John P. Feehery,
Hastert's spokesman.

But Hastert and the remainder of the current House GOP
leadership team would have little to say about such matters if
they lose the majority in November. They probably would be
discredited, and House Republicans would look for new leaders,
several GOP lawmakers have privately speculated. "The Bush people
would want (House Republican) leadership who can pick off
moderate and conservative Democrats. It would be difficult for
our current leadership to do that," LaHood said.

It's less evident, however, which Republicans would be
suitable to fill that bill. Among the names that have been
circulated are Boehner, Californians Christopher Cox and Dreier,
and Watts. But like other potential candidates, each appears to
have drawbacks: Boehner lost his post of Republican Conference
chairman to Watts in 1998; Cox made halfhearted bids when the
speakership was up for grabs twice that year; Dreier strikes some
colleagues as not sufficiently engaged in the party; and Watts
has received mixed appraisals for his leadership performance. In
any case, about the last thing that any House Republican wants to
do right now is to make known his or her interest in the Minority
Leader post.
Scenario #3
President: Democrat
House: Republican
Senate: Republican
Ask politicians in either party what they think of the prospect
of Gore serving as President with Congress remaining under
Republican control, and most react as though they are suffering
from a queasy stomach.

"It sure smells like gridlock," said Leon E. Panetta, the
former House Budget Committee chairman who also served as
Clinton's first budget director and second chief of staff.
Although there would be differences in the way Clinton and Gore
handle the presidency, "the die is cast so deeply, it would play
out the same way." Panetta added, "(There will be no) conversion
of Saint Paul that is suddenly going to take place."

Republicans tend to agree. "It would be a rehash, with
the same issues and outcomes," said Michele Davis, spokeswoman
for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. "There would be no
fresh start.... Gore has no agenda other than to oppose
Republicans. We would do more of the same." Added G. William
Hoagland, the Senate Budget Committee's veteran staff director:
"It would be almost better, from my perspective, if Democrats
controlled one or the other chamber. There would be some active
legislating.... Otherwise, it would be a long four years."

Such comments reflect the familiarity and disdain between
the two camps. But the problem isn't simply that Democrats are
convinced that congressional Republicans are inept legislators in
the majority, with little interest in finding common ground, or
that the GOP brass dislikes and mistrusts Gore. These two camps
have been fighting across the aisle with each other for so long-
and with so little to show for their efforts-that they barely
care to acknowledge each other. "This would not be good for the
country," said LaHood, even though his own party would retain its
House majority. "Everybody would be looking to the next
election."

Bill Galston, Clinton's former domestic policy adviser
who is serving as an unpaid campaign adviser to Gore, said even
if the animosity subsides after the election, it will remain
difficult to break out of familiar patterns and take advantage of
new political opportunities. The result would be "the political
equivalent of Groundhog Day," Galston said. "Year after year,
Republicans put down legislative markers on budget questions and
others that are out of tune with what the majority of the
American people want to see happen. Year after year, the
President is negotiating with a Republican Congress from a
position of strength. It's like one of those cartoons in which
Wile E. Coyote keeps getting zapped."

Because of the President's central role in the policy-
making process, the initiative for any thawing of the icy
relations probably would rest with Gore. But despite Gore's eight
years of service in the House and another eight years in the
Senate-all but two of them serving with the majority party-few on
Capitol Hill see much evidence for such a turn.

It's hard to find Democrats, never mind Republicans, who
speak enthusiastically about Gore's legislative service or
contributions. In contrast to Clinton, said a veteran House
Democratic aide, Gore is "not skilled at reading other
politicians" or in acting as a deal-maker with other members.
Another senior Democratic congressional aide, whose boss is a
leading party conservative, said that Gore "always comes across
as being fairly aloof and distant" and not as sensitive as
Clinton to members' political needs. "This leads to being a
loner."

Gore's politically savvy daughter Karenna Gore Schiff, a
recent Columbia Law School graduate, has spoken in similarly
blunt terms about her father's political limitations. In a recent
interview in which she explained why she had urged him to
participate in more town meetings that might break down his
customary reserve, she told Vogue: "My father is not a
schmoozing, back-slapping personality. He's an introvert."

Few voters take such factors into account when they
decide to split their ballot. And, as the final section of this
piece will discuss, Gore's limitations would not necessarily
cripple his dealings with a Democratic-controlled House. But his
limitations in working with a Republican Congress would have
consequences for other key players.

For Gephardt, a Gore win that leaves Republicans in House
control might be the most dispiriting scenario. Not only would he
have lost his immediate goal of becoming Speaker, but the 59-
year-old lawmaker's prospects for another presidential bid would
decline considerably. If Gephardt steps down, Gore might be faced
with a weaker leader trying to hold together the disparate House
Democrats.

As for House Republicans, who would be relieved that they
had retained their majority, the top leaders probably would
remain to serve another term. But the dim outlook for
accomplishing their goals could hasten retirements, especially
for the more ideologically inclined Armey and DeLay.

With a Republican House, a Bush election victory would
shift the policy-making focus to the White House, but a Gore win
might raise the stakes in battles for House committee
chairmanships that will become vacant because of the GOP's three-
term limit on such posts. Although personality will play a large
role in those contests, a Gore presidency would shift the
prerequisites for the new Republican chairmen so that they are
better equipped to challenge the Administration and launch their
own legislative alternatives. That might also raise the premium
for chairmen who are more ideologically driven than consensus
seeking.

The fact that members in both parties discount the
possibility that this status quo scenario will ensue may be
wishful thinking. In a way, however, it also reflects their harsh
conclusions about Gore, Hastert, and Lott. Congressional
Democrats, who are upbeat about their own election prospects,
believe that Gore can be elected only as the beneficiary of a
Democratic tide created by others. Most Republicans, by contrast,
apparently believe that Bush is their party's salvation and see
little likelihood that their Hill leaders can do more on their
own to advance the GOP's national interests.
Scenario #4
President: Democrat
House: Democrat
Senate: Republican
Under the final scenario, Democrats would be challenged to avoid
a repetition of their disastrous performance during the first two
years of the Clinton presidency. They would have several strikes
against them: They would have fewer members in both the House and
the Senate than they had in 1993 and 1994, and they would have a
President who lacks Clinton's leadership skills.

Some House Democrats already appear to be feeling the
heat that would come with winning the majority. "In some ways,
this may be the toughest for Democrats," said McDermott. "There
will be some tensions on our side. Some of us will press for more
than a press release.... We will want to enact things." And Moran
suggested that if Democrats don't produce, "we are likely to lose
the majority again and to lose it for a long time."

Key to the Democrats' success would be whether they have
learned the lessons of pragmatism during the past six years. "The
most important thing that you can do to retain power is to
govern," advised Panetta. "A Democratic President and a
Democratic House have an obligation to try to deliver." More than
a few House Democrats claim that they have learned such lessons.

"We've learned useful things from watching the
Republicans ... (such as) not to be so partisan or to ram things
through or to centralize power in the leadership, as Republicans
have," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, a leading
Democratic lawmaker. "I've been impressed by Dick Gephardt's
reported statements that we need to reach out to Republicans and
restore civility." The Democrats' overriding goal, Waxman added,
will be to enact legislation.

Likewise, Fazio added that "Democrats have learned a
great deal about how they have to behave. They are far more
pliable to compromise than they were in the '80s and early '90s."
As a result, Fazio added, Gephardt will have more running room in
crafting legislation.

Another Democratic member said that, in contrast to the
Republicans' conservative firebrands who have shaken up the House
during the past half-dozen years, liberal Democrats have more
political experience and would be more disciplined team members.

House Democrats are planning a hefty-and familiar-agenda.
"We will begin next year with a fairly full plate of issues:
patients' bill of rights, prescription drugs, campaign finance
reform,... the longer-term Medicare and Social Security issues,"
said Gephardt's veteran chief of staff, Steve Elmendorf, who
foresees the possible wrap-up this year of only the patients'
rights measure. Other House Democrats also place minimum-wage,
gun-safety, and school-financing measures high on their party's
agenda.

Not only have many of these proposals passed the GOP-
controlled House during the past year, they also have passed with
votes from virtually all of the Democrats and at least a few
dozen mostly moderate Republicans. Gephardt's team seems
confident that such measures would retain bipartisan support if
they return to the floor next year. But this assumes that
Democrats would not change their bills and that Republicans would
not change their votes.

It's certainly possible that White House-led Democrats
would modify their agenda once they gained House control and that
Republican moderates would be under heightened pressure from
leaders of their party to toe the line. After all, Gingrich and
his fellow House Republicans were rather successful in enforcing
party discipline when they were in the legislative freezer from
1993-94.

The dynamics between Gore and Gephardt would be key to
the Democrats' performance. As Speaker, Gephardt clearly would
have something to prove. While Majority Leader in 1994, he was
unable to resolve differences among House Democrats on Clinton's
health reform package, and the measure never reached the House
floor. Gore, meanwhile, would face the choice of either deferring
to Gephardt's unfinished agenda in order to make a quick start or
flexing his new presidential prerogative by adding his own
imprint.

Some suggest that both men would choose a middle ground.
"Gore and Gephardt have been working together quite well over the
last couple of years," Galston said. "Democrats would have an
incentive to maintain a united front."

In finding a balance between the views of congressional
Democrats and his own instincts, Gore would need to avoid the
pitfalls that Clinton experienced in his first year. For
instance, Gore would do well to set the pace so that the White
House and Congress deal with just a few key issues at a time, not
an entire agenda at once. In offering his own plans, Gore could
argue that he has a mandate from the American people to continue
Clinton's work, but he would be aware that he does not possess
Clinton's political dexterity. "Gore has to work harder for every
first down than does Clinton, who is very talented at the Hail
Mary pass," said a former Clinton White House official who is
close to Gore.

With Gore and Gephardt in control, Senate Republicans
would face a major decision on whether to fight or to make deals.
This decision would depend, in part, on how many seats they hold
and whether the GOP's ideological center has shifted as a result
of the election. "Lott is a creature of politics," said a senior
Senate Republican aide. Assuming he survives any potential
challenges to his leadership post, Lott probably has the
temperament to work with House Democrats and a President Gore.
But he probably would be a less-than-ideal national spokesman for
his party.

As for Senate Democrats, they might actually be
positioned to move House-passed legislation-with support from a
few moderate Republicans. "We'd be in fat city," said Senate
Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev.

House Republicans under this scenario would be
devastated. Among their first decisions would be choosing a
Minority Leader. Without Bush as President, they would have
little need to cooperate with the White House; instead, they
probably would return to full-blown bomb-throwing mode. DeLay
might seem tailor-made to take the lead, but it's difficult to
know whether he would be interested and whether he could transfer
his strong base of House GOP support to the minority. Some
Republicans-perhaps for competitive reasons-privately say that
DeLay would be finished. Apart from the inside baseball, the
choice of a Republican leader in the House also would interest
Democrats. "That will affect the tone," said a senior lawmaker.

At bottom, Republicans in both chambers would turn their
focus chiefly to the next election and plans to run against the
Gore Gephardt team. They might pass the time by mulling over
their success in 1994, when they gained 52 House and eight Senate
seats.

Under each of the four scenarios, in fact, the midterm
election in 2002 will quickly shape up as a fierce battle. Both
parties will hope to break out from the unusually narrow
congressional majorities that have held since 1994. In the
Senate, the likelihood would increase that GOP control will be up
for grabs. In the House, members will contend with the many
complications of redistricting across the nation, including the
shift of seats to faster-growing states. Both chambers could face
numerous retirements.

It's far too early, of course, to know the campaign
dynamics for the 2002 election. After all, this year's contest is
still taking shape. But for the political community, time flies
when you're having fun.

Staff Correspondents James A. Barnes and Alexis
Simendinger contributed to this story.

LOAD-DATE: June 23, 2000

Document 36 of 96.


Search Terms: Permanent, Normal, Trade
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: