07-15-2000

CONGRESS: A Low Octane Response from the GOP

OK, Monday morning political quarterbacks, imagine this situation: Your
party -the GOP-narrowly clings to control of Congress shortly before the
November elections. At the top of the ticket, the Republican presidential
candidate holds a slender lead over the Democrats' candidate, the
incumbent Vice President, in a bland campaign.


Then you strike oil: As the summer's driving season begins and the
political conventions near, gasoline prices soar to nearly twice last
year's level. Democrats and their presidential hopeful are vulnerable. For
years, they have supported policies that have directly and
indirectly


driven up prices. Al Gore cast the tiebreaking Senate vote in 1993 to
boost gas taxes. And he wrote a book arguing that higher fuel taxes would
help protect the environment.


In contrast, your party fields a roster of lawmakers adept at exploiting
the issue for electoral gain. Your presidential candidate, George W. Bush,
is a former oilman who can expound for days on the economics of a gallon
of gas. Further, the Republican congressional leadership is stacked with
Texans and Oklahomans skilled in oil politics, from House Majority Leader
Dick Armey and Majority Whip Tom DeLay to Senate Majority Whip Don
Nickles.


Sounds like an ideal issue to help Republicans recapture the White House
and extend the congressional Democrats' stay in political Siberia, doesn't
it? Congressional Republicans don't seem to see it that way.


While Gore and the Democrats have moved aggressively in recent weeks to
inoculate themselves from blame and point the finger at Republicans, the
GOP has sputtered. Sure, Republicans have staged a few high-profile events
to fault Gore and the Democrats for backing policies that they say led to
the gas crisis. But the Republican Party has failed to take full advantage
of the situation by uniting behind a political or legislative plan of
attack.


Because of missteps and intraparty divisions, Republicans are poised to
blow an opportunity to score political points and advance their
legislative priorities for the energy sector. If Gore sweeps into the
White House and Democrats win control of the House in November, the
Republicans' sluggish response to soaring gas prices could be seen as a
significant strategical blunder.


The Republicans' failure to act is a symptom of a larger conflict that
often has crippled their party's ability to respond swiftly on consumer
issues during their six years in the congressional majority. In short,
Republicans are caught between their natural resistance to intervening in
the marketplace and their desire to appease their constituents.


To be sure, the run-up in prices at the pump has more to do with economics
than politics. A worldwide decline in oil production sparked the threefold
increase in oil prices over the past year. Moreover, during the past two
decades, U.S. dependence on oil imports has grown, as consumption jumped
and various regulations drove oil drillers off U.S. shores.


Early this year, these factors combined to drive up gas prices to their
highest levels in years. It is unclear which party, if any, voters will
blame. In June, a Gallup poll found that about half of Americans say
higher gas prices have affected their lives. About one-third of voters
blamed the federal government, another one-third faulted foreign
oil-producing countries, and 23 percent held oil companies
accountable.


Early on, Democrats feared that if prices continued to soar, voters would
increasingly blame the Clinton Administration, and the party's hopes for
retaking Congress would be in peril. But President Clinton, handcuffed by
his Administration's inability to boost domestic production, could only
send Energy Secretary Bill Richardson overseas to lobby major
oil-producing countries to boost exports to offset rising prices.


Republican lawmakers thought they saw an opening. They quickly derided the
foreign-policy effort as "tin-cup diplomacy" and began shaping
legislation to boost domestic oil production. At the same time,
Republicans sought to tar Gore and Richardson, once considered a top
candidate to be Gore's running mate.


In March, Senate Republicans pushed a plan to roll back the
4.3-cents-per-gallon gas tax, a tax they dubbed the "Gore Tax"
after the Vice President's tiebreaking Senate vote that imposed it in
1993. GOP leaders carped for weeks about the "Gore Tax."


But during a Senate procedural vote on April 6, nearly two-dozen
Republicans broke with their party leaders and opposed the gas-tax repeal.
The maverick GOP Senators, including several on the Environment and Public
Works Committee, contended that the proposal would devastate federal
funding for highway spending, which depends on gas-tax revenues.


A similar scenario played out in the House in early April, when members of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee blocked a gas-tax repeal.
Such a repeal is "absolutely the dumbest thing we've ever thought
of," declared Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican who is in line to
replace Rep. Bud Shuster, R-Pa., as chairman of the Transportation panel
next year.


Meantime, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., discovered that
trying to get Republicans to unite behind a far-reaching national energy
policy was like herding cats. Drafting the bill took months because
Northeastern moderates and conservative Westerners clashed over key
elements. Senate Republicans eventually introduced a comprehensive energy
package on May 16, but it has since languished.


Singed by the embarrassing losses, many Republicans hoped the issue would
quietly go away. For a while it did, as gas prices settled down. But the
issue reignited in early June, when prices soared to more than $2.50 per
gallon in several Midwestern states that are considered political
battlegrounds.


Unable to cut the gas tax or unite behind comprehensive legislation,
Republicans resorted to drilling the Clinton Administration, Gore, and
congressional Democrats for causing the crisis. Republicans charged that
the Administration lacked an energy policy and relied too much on oil
imports. "Begging with a tin cup in the Middle East is not a
policy," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the chairman of the Senate
Republican Policy Committee.


An aide to House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, R-Okla., was
equally blunt. "It is the responsibility of the Administration to
make sure that the American people have a plentiful and affordable energy
supply," she said. "Right now we don't, and that is their
fault."


Other Republicans blamed federal regulations for the price spike. Sen.
Frank Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who chairs the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, faulted various Administration bans on oil
exploration, including in Alaska's 1.5 million acre Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. Others faulted strict new Environmental Protection Agency
clean-fuel regulations for boosting the cost of producing
gasoline.


House Republicans were likewise unable to agree on a legislative remedy.
Instead, they organized a string of regional press conferences to blame
Gore and the Democrats. Republican committee chairmen also scheduled a
series of hearings to explore the causes of the gas-price increases and to
condemn the Administration. But the sessions were clumsily organized, with
three of the four hearings scheduled for the same time. Not all House
Republicans agreed with the tactic. "It's all fluff, puff, and
go," complained Young. "I don't hold hearings just for the
media."


Democrats, in contrast, reacted speedily to shield themselves from fault
and to propose legislation. Days after the consumer outcry began last
month, Gore called for a federal investigation into "price
gouging" by oil companies, whom he said had racked up "500
percent profit increases" earlier this year.


In addition, Gore unveiled a far-reaching legislative package to aid
consumers and to lay the foundation for reducing dependency on foreign
oil. "Our next-stage prosperity must be built on our ability to make
sure Americans will be free forever from the dominance of big oil and
foreign oil," Gore proclaimed. He challenged Republicans to
reauthorize the Administration's ability to tap the 560 million-barrel
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and create a similar reserve for home heating
oil in New England.


Gore got a boost on July 10, when Clinton bypassed Congress and created
the Northeastern reserve on his own. "The President should be
commended for ignoring Republican partisan blame games and acting to
protect American families and consumers," said House Democratic
Caucus Chairman Martin Frost of Texas.


Frost and other Democratic lawmakers have loyally fallen into formation
behind Gore's strategy. Hungry for control of the House and whipped into
shape by their single-minded leaders, Sen. Thomas A. Daschle of South
Dakota and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, Democrats have pushed
plans to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and boost energy
efficiency. Also, Democrats uniformly supported an investigation by the
Federal Trade Commission. "The only thing that we can conclude is
that there is gouging-something is wrong and we ought to find out about
it," Daschle declared.


Most of the Democrats' initiatives are repackaged proposals they have long
supported, such as investing in fuel efficiency and renewable energy. And
many of their proposals face an uncertain fate, since Republicans control
the agenda and little time remains in this session. But Democrats did
position themselves as concerned legislators who are in touch with
consumers' frustrations-a stark contrast to Republicans, who continued to
sputter away at finding a consensus.


"It is always easier to adopt a unified stance when you are in the
minority," noted Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., the ranking member on the
Commerce Energy and Power Subcommittee.


Boucher is right. And the congressional Republicans' slim majorities do
not make things easy for the GOP. But there's more to it. By political
doctrine, Republicans oppose government intervention in the free market.
However, as elected representatives, they are supposed to serve their
constituents' interests. The clash leaves them in control of the
legislative body but sometimes uncomfortable legislating.


"They are caught between their constituency and their
philosophy," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "If you are
ideologically committed to the free market, what do you do when the free
market breaks down?"


Some Republicans agree that the GOP operates a less reflexive Congress.
"Sometimes it's best not to legislate," said one House
Republican. That may be true. But if gas prices stay high and frustrated
voters blame Congress, they may reward the GOP's temperance with a
two-year term in the minority.


Brody Mullins is a reporter for National Journal's CongressDaily.


Brody Mullins

National Journal