01-19-2002
CONGRESS: The Issue-by-Issue Outlook for 2002
Congress reconvenes on January 23 to face many leftover issues from 2001.
Plenty of House-passed bills are awaiting Senate action, while other
legislation is pending in conference committees. Meanwhile, lawmakers will
confront
continuing challenges related to the war on terrorism and the economic
recession. And new legislative initiatives will also be floated, even if
some of them serve only as fodder for the November election campaigns.
What follows is the outlook for the key issues on Congress's agenda this
year, based on analysis by the staffs of National Journal, CongressDaily,
and National Journal News Service.
Appropriations, Budget
Less than a week into the new year, President Bush and Senate Majority
Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., were trading accusations over which
party is responsible for the recession, the return of the federal budget
deficit, and the failure of last year's economic stimulus talks. They set
the tone for the budget brawl that will quickly escalate once Congress
returns-and that will surely continue right up until Election Day.
Already, insiders are predicting that with each party controlling one
house, the odds are good that Congress will fail to agree on a budget
resolution this year. "It's going to be a difficult year," said
a senior Senate Republican aide. "There's a good chance we may not
have a budget. It may be impossible." In an election year, the aide
noted, each party will be "seizing on the economy to find some
political advantage."
Without a budget resolution, House and Senate appropriators will have to
rely on informal guidance from congressional leaders in dividing up the
spending pie. And looming large over any budget decisions is the federal
deficit, which could reach $179 billion in fiscal 2002, if Social Security
funds are excluded. The two parties are blaming each other for the
disappearance of the budget surplus: Democrats say that Bush's $1.35
trillion tax cut is the culprit. But the White House says that the deficit
stems from the recession, which it says started before Bush took office,
and from the war against terrorism. Moreover, the White House argues that
any economic recovery can be attributed to the effect of last year's tax
cuts in jump-starting the economy.
Bush is expected to send his budget request to Capitol Hill on February 4.
The President acknowledged on January 7, the day that he returned to
Washington from his Texas ranch, that it would not be a balanced budget.
And Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.
already has warned that federal programs not related to the war effort or
to homeland security could be targeted for large cuts.
Of course, Congress may not be willing to make those cuts when
appropriators begin working on their fiscal 2003 funding measures.
Congress is likely to want to boost spending on defense and homeland
security, as well as on its favorite programs and pork projects. At this
point, it's hard to know how much lawmakers will want to spend and how
willing Bush will be to use his veto pen.
Congress faces difficult budget decisions far earlier than usual this year
because lawmakers are expected to craft soon after they reconvene a fiscal
2002 supplemental spending bill doling out billions of dollars for
homeland security and defense. "I don't know when to expect it, but
I'd like to see it as soon as possible," said House Appropriations
Committee Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla. And ranking member
David R. Obey, D-Wis., added, "We're in a race against
time."-David Baumann
Bankruptcy Reform
Once Congress reconvenes, House-Senate negotiators are expected to pick up
where they left off late last year in trying to reconcile their chambers'
differing bankruptcy reform packages. But enactment of the controversial
legislation-which would force individual debtors seeking a fresh start to
pay more of what they owe to their creditors-is far from a done deal.
Instead, both parties may merely use the bill to amplify their differing
economic and social ideologies.
During the Clinton years, the Administration blocked bankruptcy reforms
championed by Republicans and long sought by businesses. So in early 2001,
backers of the reforms were giddy about the opportunity afforded by their
party's control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. House
Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, and then-Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott, R-Miss., declared bankruptcy reform a "top" legislative
priority and rushed legislation through their chambers.
But a House-Senate conference committee that could have put the bankruptcy
legislation on track for quick enactment was waylaid, first by the power
shift in the Senate in June, and then by the September 11 terrorist
attacks. By the time a conference was convened in November, it was clear
that the delay was more than just an ordinary legislative setback.
The controversial bankruptcy bill was never an easy sell, even when times
were flush and unemployment practically nil. But with the economy
plummeting, and with commercial bankruptcies and unemployment figures
soaring, the legislation's momentum has seriously dwindled.
The Bush Administration appears determined to maintain a low profile on
the issue. While President Bush would probably sign any bankruptcy reform
bill that Congress sent him, supporters are not looking for him to be a
vocal proponent. The economic downturn makes it politically unpalatable
for the Administration to advocate legislation that would make it harder
for individuals to wipe out burdensome debt, especially at a time when the
White House is urging consumers to spend.
Late last year, amid the fight over an economic stimulus package, a
spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D.,
suggested that progress on bankruptcy reform legislation hinged in part on
the GOP's willingness to agree to a relief package for workers displaced
by the September 11 attacks. All indications are that the ideological
battle lines will be similarly drawn in this year's debate over bankruptcy
reform.-Pamela Barnett/CongressDaily
Campaign Finance Reform
Having stalled after September 11, the drive to reform the campaign
finance system is back in gear, and it may soon result in a nasty pileup
on the House floor. Reform advocates are just two signatures shy of the
218 that they need on a discharge petition to force a House vote on
legislation that would rewrite campaign finance laws. Authored by Reps.
Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin T. Meehan, D-Mass., the bill would
principally ban unregulated, or soft, money.
Last April, the Senate voted 59-41 to approve a soft-money ban as part of
a campaign finance reform bill authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and
Russell Feingold, D-Wis. But House action was abruptly canceled in July
after members rejected the Republican-crafted rule governing the debate.
Shays and Meehan now expect that their discharge petition will force a
House debate no later than March. "I'm anticipating that we're going
to get our signatures," said Shays, who also expressed confidence
that the House will pass the legislation.
If that happens, reform advocates will then urge their Senate allies to
vote on the House-passed measure. Their hope is to avoid a House-Senate
conference committee, in which foes could try to weaken or kill the
legislation.
Shays and his allies have some reason for optimism. Congressional
Democratic leaders, having seen how badly the existing campaign finance
rules disadvantage them when a Republican is in the White House, are
lobbying vigorously for the bill. And because Democrats now control the
Senate, they are well-positioned to try to force quick action on a
House-passed reform bill. Proponents also believe that the emerging Enron
scandal could provide a boost for their cause.
Moreover, President Bush has carefully avoided issuing a veto threat
against campaign finance reform. Notwithstanding his personal popularity
since the terrorist attacks, Bush is perceived to have little to gain from
a public clash with McCain, his erstwhile presidential adversary. Bush's
strategy on campaign finance reform, as on a number of other bills,
appears to be to let Congress work its will.
Still, reform advocates acknowledge that they face a tough fight.
Influential Republican leaders, including House Majority Whip Tom DeLay,
R-Texas, remain adamantly opposed to a soft-money ban. Even if the House
passes the legislation, supporters will likely face a filibuster in the
Senate.
"It's going to be very, very tough," McCain said on NBC's Meet
the Press earlier this month. "The opponents are very powerful."
But McCain added, "I think we will prevail."
Whether or not a soft-money ban is signed into law this year, the campaign
finance issue will likely grab center stage on Capitol Hill at least once
more before this session of Congress ends. "This issue doesn't go
away," said Shays. "It only becomes more important."-Eliza
Newlin Carney
Cloning
The Senate is heading for a tangled debate on human cloning, perhaps in
March. That's when Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., has promised
a vote to Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who is pushing a cloning ban that
the House approved comfortably last year.
Brownback's bill would prohibit the creation of cloned human embryos for
birth, for use as a source of stem cells, or for use in research. He is
supported by anti-abortion groups that oppose the commercial creation and
destruction of human embryos, as well as by a small coalition of left-wing
activists who want to impose regulations on the biotechnology industry.
This coalition is bolstered by broad public opposition to human
cloning.
The anti-cloning coalition can expect support from at least 40 Senators,
nearly all Republicans. To win the votes of wavering Democratic Senators,
the left-of-center supporters are trying to garner backing from liberal
editorial boards, university intellectuals, and Washington think tanks.
President Bush's new bioethics advisory board-headed by Leon Kass, a
cloning opponent-may also provide assistance. Bush has said that he will
sign a bill outlawing cloning, but so far, he has done little to press for
the bill.
Opposing a ban on cloning are the deans of research universities, who
represent the universities' many entrepreneur-scientists, as well as
scientists' professional associations, industry-backed groups of
desperately ill patients, and the biotech industry. Most of these groups
would accept a temporary ban on the birth of human clones, but vehemently
oppose restrictions on research using human clones. This coalition has the
support of at least 40 Senators, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and
including several Republicans, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.
Industry officials are reasonably confident that they can defeat
Brownback's cloning ban, but they fear surprises, such as the November
announcement by Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., that it
had used cloning to produce several human embryos that quickly died.
Brownback's allies worry that Daschle may use the Senate's procedural
rules to arrange the March debate to help cloning supporters. If the
pro-cloning groups fear a loss, they will likely ask Daschle for a
postponement of the debate-which many Senators may well prefer, given the
wide gulf between the pro-cloning views of prestigious researchers and the
widespread public suspicion of cloning's dangers.-Neil Munro
Economic Stimulus
When President Bush earlier this month declared "not over my dead
body," he was referring to the chances of his signing a tax increase.
But if you are to believe the conventional wisdom in Washington, Bush
might as well have been talking about the chances of his signing an
economic stimulus bill.
"It's all `much ado about nothing,' " a business lobbyist said
of the renewed debate over legislation to get the economy humming again.
"There will be a lot of people at the gate, and people pushing paper,
scurrying around trying to get some tax change. But at the end of the day,
there will be no [stimulus bill]."
Indeed, most insiders predict a repeat of the final two months of 2001,
when Republicans and Democrats traded as many insults and jibes about each
other's intentions as they did proposals to enact an economic stimulus
package in the neighborhood of $100 billion. So intransigent were the two
parties that the Senate never even held a full-blown debate because of
procedural roadblocks, while in the House, Republicans actually approved
two versions of their bill in an effort to try to paint Senate Majority
Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., as the obstructionist.
With no compromise in sight, everyone left town for the holidays, thankful
that the year was finally over. At that point, the stimulus plan seemed to
be going the way of the dinosaurs, as economists, who weren't crazy about
either party's proposal, continued to assert that the economy would right
itself in 2002 anyway.
But remember, "It's the economy, stupid," and in this election
year, neither party is forgetting that. Earlier this month, Daschle laid
out a campaign to blame Republicans for last year pushing through a $1.35
trillion tax cut that has squandered projected budget surpluses and
worsened the long-term economic outlook. "The Republican agenda in
Washington today is being written by a wing of the Republican Party that
isn't interested in fiscal discipline," he said on January 4.
But Daschle's rhetoric opened him up to Bush's charges that Democrats want
a tax increase to help prevent budget shortfalls. "There is some talk
about raising taxes," Bush goaded the next day, in a speech that had
his party's conservatives cheering. Daschle denied it, but all the talk
prompted a tizzy among the handful of Senate Democrats who voted for the
Bush tax cut, especially those who face re-election this year.
That said, both sides might be in a bigger tizzy if the economy worsens by
summer and Congress is still playing politics. Bush can stay above the
fray and still look good, but Congress will feel the pressure to do
something to help out incumbents in November. Some say that sort of
scenario is the only way the stimulus bill can escape the partisan morass
and actually get signed into law.
And that prospect is what's keeping Washington lobbyists, who last year
tried to get numerous pet proposals tucked into the stimulus bill, in the
game. "We continue to believe that nothing has changed," said
Dorothy Coleman of the National Association of Manufacturers. "We
still need legislation to get the economy back on track." Added David
Rehr, president of the National Beer Wholesalers Association: "Our
strategy is to be the tortoise working through to the finish line, just
plodding around, waiting for an opportunity."-Bill Ghent/National
Journal News Service
Education
Having chalked up a bipartisan win on education reform last year, Congress
is in for a more partisan and emotional battle this year when it takes up
the reauthorization of the federal special-education law. During 2001,
insufficient funding for special education was a big reason that Sen.
James M. Jeffords, I-Vt., quit the Republican Party and voted against the
education bill. Now that it's an election year, the special-education
issue may become more a platform for political theater than a lawmaking
opportunity.
At the center of the debate will be money: How much will the federal
government spend on special education, and should special education become
an entitlement that isn't subject to annual budget bickering? When
Congress passed the 1975 Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, it
promised to pay 40 percent of the estimated cost of special education. The
federal government has never met that promise; currently it pays about 16
percent. Also expect fireworks as lawmakers debate whether minority
children are being disproportionately identified as disabled, whether
special-education students should be subject to the same school discipline
codes as other students, whether children with learning disabilities
deserve the same attention as children with severe disabilities, and a
host of legal issues.
Both parties are still developing their strategies, but the debate over
special education in last year's education bill offers a taste of what's
to come. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, tried to include an amendment to make
special education an entitlement, and the White House and the House
Republican leadership strongly opposed it. When the amendment failed,
Harkin blamed it on "the intransigence of the Administration."
(Harkin is up for re-election this year.) As for President Bush, his
upcoming budget proposal will offer the first glimpse of where he stands
on special education.- Siobhan Gorman
Election Process Reform
In the wake of Florida's voting debacle during the 2000 presidential
election, federal reform of the nation's election procedures seemed to be
an issue that Congress couldn't ignore. But for one reason or another,
election process reform enjoyed virtually no momentum last year until a
late spurt of activity in December.
For Republicans, the reform effort calls into question the legitimacy of
President Bush's victory. So it's no surprise that, aside from a polite
ceremony last summer when Bush received the report of a private commission
led by former Presidents Carter and Ford, the President has shown little
interest in the topic. Over the course of last year, several leaders on
the House and Senate committees of jurisdiction sought to craft
legislation, but the process was slow and frequently overshadowed by
more-pressing business. Even the nation's most prominent
"good-government" groups gave short shrift to election reform,
as they pursued their favorite cause-campaign finance reform.
Finally, on December 12, the House passed, 362-63, an election process
reform bill crafted by House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney,
R-Ohio, and ranking member Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md. The duo collaborated
closely to face down objections from both sides of the aisle. "We
reached out to many members," Hoyer said. "That's why we got so
many votes."
In the Senate the next day, a bipartisan group joined Rules and
Administration Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., and
ranking member Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in releasing the outlines of a more
stringent alternative. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D.,
told National Journal that if the bipartisan agreement holds, he plans to
schedule the measure as the first legislation of 2002. And Senate Minority
Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., responded: "I wouldn't have a problem
with that."
Senate passage of the Dodd-McConnell plan would require House-Senate
conferees to resolve several thorny issues. The Senate proposal specifies
voting standards for all states to meet by 2006, while the more flexible
House plan sets looser requirements and requires changes only if the
states purchase new voting equipment. To accommodate Sen. Christopher S.
Bond, R-Mo., Dodd included "anti-fraud" provisions designed to
make cheating more difficult. Civil-rights groups oppose such provisions,
fearing that they would hinder minority voting, and the House included
none.
Not surprisingly, state election officials have preferred the House
approach. But their chief priority is to get their hands on the more than
$2 billion in appropriations that sponsors have promised, chiefly for
voting machines. The differences between the two chambers appear
surmountable. "I'm not aware of any problems" for enactment,
said Tracy Warren, who, as senior policy analyst of the Constitution
Project, has closely monitored the bill's progress.-Richard E.
Cohen
Energy, Environment
The battle of the national energy bills, which fizzled out in the final
days of last year's session, is scheduled to reignite early this year in
the Senate. Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., is expected to open
debate on his party's omnibus energy package by late February. Meanwhile,
Senate Republicans continue to push for consideration of the pro-business
energy legislation that the House approved in August and that the White
House supports.
The Democratic bill, introduced on December 5 by Daschle and Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., attempts
to balance domestic energy production and environmental concerns. The
measure provides incentives for building a natural gas pipeline from
northern Alaska to the lower 48 states, but does not allow oil development
in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It gives the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission more power to streamline state electricity
deregulation, and pushes the White House to develop a plan for curbing
U.S. emissions of global-warming gases. Democrats also say that a
provision requiring automakers to produce vehicles that are significantly
more fuel-efficient will be added to the bill on the Senate floor.
By contrast, the House-passed energy bill would provide massive tax and
research benefits to the oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power
industries. The House voted to allow oil drilling in the Alaska wildlife
refuge, and rejected provisions forcing Detroit to make more-efficient
sport-utility vehicles. The House bill did not tackle electricity
deregulation. But Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, is working on a
separate electricity bill that could serve as the House position on that
issue if the House and Senate energy bills are negotiated in conference
committee.
It's likely that Congress will also have to decide whether the nation's
commercial nuclear waste should be shipped to Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
Currently, 40,000 tons of radioactive material is being stored at power
plants across the nation. The Energy Department has signed off on the
controversial Yucca Mountain underground waste dump to permanently house
this toxic waste, and President Bush is expected to go along. But the
state of Nevada says it will oppose that decision, and its opposition, by
law, would throw the issue to Congress to decide. A vote on the
nuclear-waste issue could occur this fall.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will be busy
scrutinizing the Bush Administration's environmental policies, but it is
unlikely to win passage of any ambitious environmental legislation.
Chairman James M. Jeffords, I-Vt., began the year by warning the White
House not to ease air pollution regulations on coal-fired power plants. In
fact, Jeffords supports legislation that would require power plants to
curb their emissions of four pollutants. The Administration is
entertaining proposals to cut emissions of three of these pollutants, but
opposes Jeffords's provisions to slash carbon dioxide emissions.
Congressional oversight is likely to go into overdrive once the White
House completes its blueprint for curbing U.S. emissions of global-warming
gases. Meanwhile, Barton is proposing to begin this spring the ambitious
and conflict-ridden process of rewriting the 1970 Clean Air Act.-Margaret
Kriz
Faith-Based Initiative
Proponents of President Bush's faith-based initiative, a sweeping plan to
make it easier for religious organizations to receive federal funding, say
the ball is in Bush's court. Without a big push from the President, the
initiative-which was among the Administration's early policy
priorities-faces trouble ahead.
Last July, the House approved a version of the President's faith-based
plan on a mostly party-line vote of 233-198. Critics assailed the bill
(H.R. 7) because it included a controversial "charitable choice"
provision, which would facilitate the "entry of new ... efforts by
religious and other community organizations in the administration and
distribution of government assistance." Concerns that charitable
choice would undermine the First Amendment found a sympathetic hearing
nationwide. By August, the bill appeared to be doomed in the Senate, and
John DiIulio, the head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, had left the Administration.
Since then, Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Rick Santorum, R-Pa., have
worked to salvage the faith-based initiative, minus charitable choice, by
proposing a series of tax breaks to make it easier for individuals and
corporations to donate to religious and community charitable agencies.
Just before Christmas, the two Senators reached an agreement that was also
acceptable to House members and the White House.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., joined forces with strong critics of
H.R. 7-including Reps. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, and Bobby Scott, D-Va.-to
introduce legislation in the House that, according to Lieberman aides,
closely paralleled the compromise the two Senators pulled together.
"The key is the separation between the faith-based initiative and the
charitable initiatives," said an Edwards aide. But the 11th-hour
attempts to move the legislation before Christmas collapsed when funding
for the project got caught up in the debate over the economic stimulus
package.
Now, Lieberman's office says bluntly that Congress must act quickly on a
slimmed-down bill or the initiative is in trouble. "A lot will depend
upon the White House and how much of a priority they make it," a
Lieberman aide said. Proponents will be watching the State of the Union
address to see if Bush lends the support they need. "The President
will send some signals about whether this will continue to be a
priority," the Lieberman aide said. "[It was one] before the end
of the year, so we're optimistic."
And if the President is quiet on the faith-based initiative during his
address? "We'll return to the course before 9/11," Lieberman's
representative said, which was "to address H.R. 7."-Martin
Davis
Farm Bill
Farm-group lobbyists are putting intense pressure on Congress to finish a
new farm bill early this year, even though the 1996 version does not
expire until September 30. Plenty of farm-state lawmakers from both
parties want to oblige these pleas, but consensus between the House and
the Senate and the Bush Administration has been elusive so far.
The House voted 291-120 in October to approve a farm bill that would cost
about $170 billion over 10 years. In the Senate, Majority Leader Thomas A.
Daschle, D-S.D., and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, attempted throughout December to pass their
five-year farm bill that would cost about the same amount if projected
over 10 years. But Senate Republicans from the Farm Belt balked, and
proponents fell short three times of winning the 60 votes needed for
cloture to bring the bill to a final vote. Daschle has promised to bring
up the bill again early this year.
The Bush Administration opposes both the House and Senate bills, largely
because they would make it harder for the United States to make the case
in the World Trade Organization that other countries should reduce their
farm subsidies. Nevertheless, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., predicted
recently that by "sometime in March," Congress would pass a bill
that Bush would sign.
Back in 1996, Republicans acted on their newly won control of Congress by
passing a farm bill based on a series of guaranteed, but declining,
payments to farmers over a seven-year period. The "Freedom to
Farm" program marked a departure from the old Democratic system of
placing controls on production, and it gave farmers almost complete
flexibility in determining what crops to plant. Since then, commodity
prices have plummeted, and Congress has responded with emergency aid to
farmers in each of the past four years.
The House and Senate bills continue Freedom to Farm payments and
government marketing loans on grains and cotton that would result in
additional income to farmers, and they establish a countercyclical program
of payments to farmers when prices are lower. Both bills also include a
major increase in spending on conservation programs and an increase in
spending on food stamps. But the bills differ in their complex details.
Corn and soybean growers, dairy producers, environmentalists, and
anti-hunger advocates were dissatisfied with the House bill. For its part,
the Senate bill includes controversial provisions on trade with Cuba,
dairy prices, and water rights. The issue of raising or lowering loan
rates on grains and cotton is also controversial.
Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., are sponsoring a
Republican alternative farm bill that includes a new program of farmer
savings accounts under which the Agriculture Department would match
farmers' contributions. The White House likes that approach, but the
Cochran-Roberts proposal would not reduce farmers' tax obligations, as
previous such proposals have. And House Agriculture Committee Chairman
Larry Combest, R-Texas, has said he would not accept the proposal as a
replacement for a countercylical income-support program.-Jerry
Hagstrom/CongressDaily
Health Care
Health care will be high on the priority list as Congress and President
Bush return their attention to domestic matters this year. Proposals
addressing the uninsured and Medicare are both expected to generate much
discussion. More and more people are losing their jobs-and their health
insurance-because of the recession. And seniors, a formidable force in an
election year, continue to press for adding a prescription drug benefit to
Medicare. Still, both are expensive problems, and congressional aides
doubt that their bosses can come up with the kind of money that's
necessary to address these issues on the scale that many had wanted to
last year.
Bush is expected to include money in his fiscal 2003 budget proposal for a
Medicare prescription drug benefit, but the amount will likely be
considerably less than the $300 billion that some advocates were hoping
for last year. In 2001, Bush recommended spending $156 billion over 10
years for a prescription benefit and other Medicare reforms. By contrast,
the Senate voted last year as part of its budget resolution to allow up to
$300 billion in spending over 10 years. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,
R-Ill., used that number recently when he addressed a group of health care
lobbyists. Hastert said the issue will be "critical for
Republicans" in 2002, according to one lobbyist who was
present.
Nevertheless, the looming budget deficit will make adding universal drug
coverage to Medicare much harder this year, so the debate may focus
increasingly on providing a narrower benefit. In addition, lawmakers might
try to force pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower their prices and to
ensure that more-affordable generic drugs get to the marketplace in a
timely manner.
Meanwhile, the need to do something about the growing number of Americans
without health insurance will probably be the subject of much
election-year bickering. The economic stimulus package approved by the
House last October-and backed by Bush-would have provided tax credits to
help uninsured people buy health insurance on their own. By contrast,
Senate Democrats proposed a stimulus bill that would have helped uninsured
workers continue their employer-sponsored health insurance through COBRA,
the 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, and that would
have allowed states to expand Medicaid to cover unemployed workers who
don't qualify for COBRA.
Another health care issue left over from last year-patients' rights
legislation-isn't as affected by the budget troubles because it would
chiefly regulate the marketplace. The Senate approved a broad bipartisan
patients' rights bill last June. In early August, the House passed a
narrower Republican-backed bill after Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga.,
defected from a bipartisan coalition and struck a deal with Bush. Norwood
himself expressed some second thoughts about the deal in early September,
and a few days later, the terrorist attacks postponed any conference
committee action for the rest of the year.
Although Senate Democrats have denounced the House-passed patients' rights
measure, the two sides really aren't that far apart; the main sticking
point involves how much leeway to give patients to sue their health care
plans. The real question is whether lawmakers want a campaign issue or a
bill.-Marilyn Werber Serafini
Homeland Security
Congress is likely to act early on several homeland security initiatives
that were not finished late last year, including bills addressing
bioterrorism, border security, terrorism insurance, and seaport security.
In addition, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge plans to offer new
proposals to proposals to provide resources for local fire, police, and
medical teams and to boost border security, bioterrorism preparedness, and
intelligence-sharing.
The House and Senate easily approved bioterrorism bills in December, and a
conference committee is expected to convene as soon as Congress returns.
Both bills would expand the national drug and vaccine stockpile and invest
in new laboratories for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
States would get grants for bioterrorism planning, and hospitals would
receive help to prepare their facilities to respond to bioterror attacks.
Conferees will tackle the few differences that remain between the bills
regarding food safety, water protection, and funding for state and local
preparedness.
In the area of border security, the House just before Christmas approved a
version of a bill honchoed by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. The legislation
would upgrade visa processing, establish a better database of dangerous
foreigners, boost the hiring and training of border officials, improve
coordination with Canada, and bolster efforts to track foreigners in the
United States. The Senate bill was put on hold at the 11th hour by Sen.
Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., whose own border security funding proposal failed
to pass the Senate. With leaders of both parties on board, Kennedy hopes
to work with Byrd and pass the bill shortly after Congress returns.
Additionally, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, and Sen. Joe Lieberman,
D-Conn., have offered a bill to merge the Border Patrol branch of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service with the Customs Service and the
Coast Guard. To help internal tracking efforts, Sen. Richard J. Durbin,
D-Ill., plans to introduce a bill to make driver's license information
more reliable.
Meanwhile, President Bush has signaled that he wants to sign a terrorism
reinsurance bill to create a federal backstop for private insurance
companies against future terrorist acts. The House reinsurance bill,
approved in November, allows the government to loan money to insurers once
the industry loses $1 billion. But it contains a number of controversial
tort-reform measures, so few Democrats supported it. A pending Senate
proposal is similar, but it does not require that the loans be paid back
and contains fewer tort-reform provisions. The White House and industry
lobbyists prefer the Senate version. The biggest hurdle may be inertia:
This year, there may be less pressure to act.
Seaport security has also made Congress's agenda. The Senate has approved
a bill that would spend about $1 billion over four years to bolster port
security. The legislation would evaluate port-security threats, require
ports to develop security plans, provide additional screening equipment,
and mandate background checks and increased training for port personnel.
The Transportation Department has backed the bill, and similar legislation
is moving through the House.
Finally, before the White House or Congress considers funding for local
emergency-response personnel, they'll have to decide whether to channel
the money through the Justice Department or the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. State and city governments are also fighting over who
should receive the money. Of course, firefighters and others care more
about getting the money fast than about the bureaucratic course the funds
take. "If the federal government wants to consider the fire service
as its resource when terrorist incidents happen in this country,"
said Garry Briese, executive director of the International Association of
Fire Chiefs, "then the federal government has the responsibility to
step up to the plate." -Siobhan Gorman, Marilyn Werber Serafini,
Louis Jacobson, and Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Minimum-Wage Increase
Early last year, increasing the $5.15 per-hour minimum wage was a top
Democratic priority. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. David E.
Bonior, D-Mich., introduced bills that would raise it by $1.50 over two
years. Republicans seemed resigned to a minimum-wage increase, but many
wanted to keep it smaller and to add tax-break sweeteners for businesses.
And President Bush seemed interested too, so long as states were given the
flexibility to opt out of the wage hike.
After September 11, these proposals mostly got shelved, although some
proponents unsuccessfully lobbied to include a minimum-wage increase in
last fall's failed economic stimulus package. Now Kennedy has gotten a
commitment from Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., to put a
minimum-wage increase on the Senate's agenda this year. But the Senate has
plenty of other business to tend to.
Rick Berman, the executive director of the Employment Policies Institute,
a Washington think tank that opposes a minimum-wage increase, believes
that a hike is unlikely this year. The service and tourism industries are
already hurting because of the September 11 attacks and the poor economy;
a minimum-wage increase would only further harm those industries, Berman
said. "Right now," he said, "I would say that there is
nothing to jump-start the debate."
But Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's director of legislation, is more
optimistic. The fact that this is an election year helps the bill's
chances, he points out, because a minimum-wage increase is something that
members could tout during their campaigns (and, of course, could use to
curry favor with organized labor). Indeed, the last time a minimum-wage
bill passed was during another election year, 1996. "The need grows
each year," Samuel said. "Minimum-wage workers are falling
farther and farther behind."
Whether Samuel's logic holds true depends on congressional moderates.
Liberal Democrats desperately want a minimum-wage increase, while
conservative Republicans oppose it. Yet it's the moderates who must decide
whether the issue is a desirable achievement to bring home to voters.
-Mark Murray
National Security
The stakes are high. So is the pressure for change. But the obstacles may
be even higher. If there ever was a year that could shake up the armed
services, 2002 is it. Even before September 11, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld was working furiously to transform the military for a new kind of
conflict, and there is nothing like a war to shock bureaucracies into
accepting change.
Certainly, a big budget increase, probably about $20 billion, is on the
way. But the U.S. military is so massive, and was already so overstretched
before September 11 by global deployments and hampered by aging equipment,
that $20 billion would serve mainly to take the pressure off existing
programs. The yet-larger defense increases that some studies suggest-$40
billion a year and more-seem implausible in the face of looming budget
deficits and the public's focus on the glaring gaps in homeland security,
rather than on traditional defense. But making sharp cuts in traditional
forces to fund new-wave weapons is politically unpalatable, even in the
most peaceful of times, let alone in war. The bottom line? Expect enough
new money to defer hard choices, but not enough to kick-start radical
change.
The Bush Administration and Congress can drop generous dollops of funding
in a few critical areas, especially those proven in Afghanistan: smart
weapons, robotic spy planes, Special Forces. But the Pentagon last October
chose a lead contractor for the Joint Strike Fighter, a three-decade,
3,000-plane program that will require a projected $3.3 billion commitment
in fiscal 2003 alone. Driven by the need to replace aging aircraft, ships,
and other systems, programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter lock up much
of the military budget on relatively traditional weapons. That stability
is good news for defense contractors and their congressional districts,
but it leaves little room for a Rumsfeld revolution.
Even missile defense, a top Administration priority, has run up against
real limits. A combination of technical, managerial, and budget problems
has forced the cancellation of the much-touted "Navy Area"
anti-missile system, a two-year delay in the critical Space-Based Infrared
System-Low for detecting rocket launches, and a 70 percent cut in funding
for the Space-Based Laser. Such problems will give Senate Democrats plenty
of chances to take swipes at specific programs, although they have little
room to challenge missile defense as a whole in the wake of last year's
post-September 11 compromise on the issue, a deal that gave President Bush
his full budget request.
Meanwhile on the ground, an unprecedented call-up of the reserves and
National Guard for missions at home and abroad has strained troops, their
families, and their employers to the limit. Congress will be hard-pressed
to ignore these citizen-soldiers' needs, especially since Guard and
Reserve benefits were last reformed 10 years ago, after the Persian Gulf
War. But advocates for military veterans and retirees doubt that
Congress's concern for those serving today will bring money to their
causes in the absence of a budget surplus.-Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
Social Security Reform
Congress is unlikely to approve legislation this year to overhaul the
giant Social Security program and strengthen its long-term finances,
according to a wide range of sources. While some action is conceivable-if
President Bush makes a real, rather than rhetorical, push for a deal, and
if he and the Democrats swallow their political differences over Social
Security in an election year-it's not likely, observers say.
"On this, I'm a firm believer in the conventional wisdom, and the
conventional wisdom is that Social Security revision is not going to
happen in 2002," said John Rother, director of policy and strategy
for AARP, whose members include millions of seniors. Added Dallas
Salisbury, who heads the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute:
"It is highly unlikely that anything will be enacted" this year.
Even Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, an ardent supporter of Social
Security privatization, doesn't expect action in 2002.
On Capitol Hill, lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum voice
similar sentiments. "It would be pretty hard to take up Social
Security in 2002," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn. "I doubt
very much there'll be a final bill, on account of the stock market
collapse, the elections, budget problems." And Sen. Jesse Helms,
R-N.C., noted: "When Social Security comes on the screen, every
politician starts shaking."
The Social Security system is currently building substantial surpluses.
But as the baby boomers start retiring in eight years, surpluses will
decline. By 2038, the system will be unable to pay full benefits. To
correct this problem, Bush and many Republican lawmakers favor allowing
workers to divert part of their Social Security taxes into personal
accounts invested in stocks and bonds. The theory is that on retirement,
this will leave them with far more funds than if the money were left in
Social Security. In December, a presidential commission drafted some
models for privatization. But many Democrats believe that such schemes are
too risky. They and their labor allies say the stock market is far too
unpredictable, and they argue that using part of the Social Security tax
to fund private accounts will force basic benefit cuts.
Rother predicted that Bush is not going to make Social Security reform a
top priority this year, in part because of the war. Former Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., and Richard Parsons, the co-chairmen of the
presidential commission, said that Bush told them he wants a year of
public discussion on Social Security in 2002, and action in 2003.
Even if proponents pushed Social Security reform this year, Rother noted,
"there's no money left" in the federal budget surplus pot to
help build up funding for the program and/or create private accounts.
"Last year's market fall took a lot of the glow off the theory that
private accounts would be an easy and painless solution," he said.
Moreover, Rother said that Republicans fear Democratic election-year
attacks that Republicans are substituting risky stock investments for
guaranteed Social Security benefits. And when attacked on Social Security,
Tanner said, "Republicans always curl up in a fetal
position."-Spencer Rich/National Journal News Service
Technology, Telecommunications
High-speed Internet pipelines, digital copyright protections, and consumer
privacy are among the complex technology issues facing Congress this year.
And, following a brief post-September 11 hiatus, expect the affected
industries to resume their big-bucks lobbying campaigns, regardless of
whether it seems that the bills will actually make it to the finish
line.
The giants of the telecommunications industry will once again flood the
airwaves with their warring "Tauzin-Dingell" television and
radio commercials. The ads will likely run until March, when the House is
expected to vote on the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act,
co-sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman W.J.
"Billy" Tauzin, R-La., and ranking member John D. Dingell,
D-Mich.
The legislation would lift certain restrictions in the 1996
Telecommunications Act to allow the four Baby Bell companies to offer
long-distance data services without fully opening their local
telecommunications pipelines to competitors. House leaders postponed a
floor vote scheduled for December after several members raised objections.
Still, the bill has enough votes to win House approval, according to
Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson, who called the measure "the single best
way to help jump-start the high-tech sector of our economy."
But the bill's prospects for Senate passage appear bleak, due in part to
formidable opposition from Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., the chairman
of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. "He thinks
it's a fundamentally flawed policy," said Hollings spokesman Andy
Davis. Hollings believes that the complex broadband deployment debate
cannot be resolved, Davis said, by "simply extending the Bell
monopolies."
Hollings argues that tougher enforcement of current law is crucial to
improving competition in the broadband market. His bill, the
Telecommunications Fair Competition Enforcement Act, includes stiffer
penalties for the Baby Bells when they fail to open their local lines to
competitors, as required under the 1996 law.
Meanwhile, Hollings says another key to boosting the broadband market is
to provide better copyright protection for online content. He is drafting
a bill to create "watermark" encryption standards that would
allow movies, music, computer games, and other digital content to be
downloaded for personal use, but not illegally distributed. Hollings's
copyright bill faces tough opposition from software manufacturers and
other key players in the high-tech industry who fear the bill is too
stringent. "We have to protect intellectual property, but this is
going to take it to such extremes that there will be no ability to share
information without almost being guilty of being a copyright
violator," said Harris Miller, president of the Information
Technology Association of America.
Miller said his group would also oppose any legislative attempts to
protect consumers' online privacy. New federal privacy laws, he argued,
would stifle industry innovation and the incentive for self-regulation.
Nevertheless, he expects Congress to take a close look at the issue this
year. "I think we're going to see some activity ... and it could end
up being a fairly bruising battle," Miller said.
Other technology-related priorities for lawmakers include crafting
compromise legislation to provide intellectual-property protections for
database owners, and working with broadcasters to complete their
transition to digital television so that valuable spectrum space would be
freed up for wireless services.-Molly M. Peterson/National Journal News
Service
Trade-Negotiating Authority
Following the House's narrow approval of legislation in December, a bill
restoring presidential trade-negotiating authority could come to the
Senate floor early this year and garner 75 votes, according to Senate
aides from both parties. The legislation is designed to ease the
negotiation of trade deals by forcing Congress to hold quick, up-or-down
votes on agreements that the Administration strikes with international
trading partners. In the Senate, the bill will probably be linked to
expanded assistance for American workers hurt by U.S. trade practices, and
to a measure promoting trade with Andean countries. House Republicans may
balk at these provisions but may have to accept them to get the bill to
the President's desk after a lapse of nearly eight years.
The House approved what Republicans call "trade-promotion
authority" on December 6 by a 215-214 vote after a lot of cajoling,
horse-trading, and even tears. Just the same, Senate Finance Committee
Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., easily moved a similar
"fast-track" bill out of his committee just a week later on an
18-3 vote.
Aides expect a Senate vote in early March. After that, the legislative
calendar becomes more crowded and politicized as the November election
draws nearer. In addition, President Bush is to decide by early March on
recommendations from the International Trade Commission regarding the
illegal dumping of steel by foreign producers. Bush's willingness to
launch an investigation into these practices bought some good will among
House members from steel states. Senators from these states may want to
see how far Bush will go to aid the ailing steel industry before they give
him negotiating power.
Some GOP aides have speculated that Senate Majority Leader Thomas A.
Daschle, D-S.D., could delay Senate consideration of the trade-negotiating
bill in a bid to frustrate the Republicans' agenda, and to curry favor
with labor unions and other traditional Democratic allies who oppose the
legislation. Still, Daschle voted for the bill in committee, and he voiced
support for the issue in his January 4 speech on the economy. Furthermore,
a Republican aide noted that this bill is the No. 1 priority of the
business community, whom Daschle cannot afford to alienate
completely.
Although the Senate is expected to ultimately approve the trade
legislation, the debate could be lengthy and contentious. During the House
debate, textile-state members won concessions from Republican leaders to
revise textile provisions in a law enacted during the previous Congress
that expanded trade with African and Caribbean countries. House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and ranking member Charles
B. Rangel, D-N.Y., as well as Baucus and Finance ranking member Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, are among the key lawmakers who oppose opening up that
law. Nevertheless, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., a defender of the textile
industry, might mount a spirited but unsuccessful fight on the Senate
floor to do so. "Ten Senators could be a real pain, but they can't
stop" the trade-negotiating authority legislation, said one
aide.-Stephen Norton/CongressDaily
Transportation
Lawmakers will surely be keeping a close eye on the Transportation
Department's implementation of the new aviation security law approved by
Congress in the wake of the terrorist attacks and signed by President Bush
on November 19. John W. Magaw, whom Bush recently appointed as head of the
new Transportation Security Administration, vowed during his confirmation
hearings to "make every effort" to meet the law's deadlines.
Expect plenty of high-profile hearings and press conferences-perhaps even
more legislation-as Congress monitors Magaw's progress on that
pledge.
Another important transportation issue confronting Congress this year is
the future of Amtrak. In November, a body created to monitor the financial
performance of the passenger rail service announced that Amtrak will not
meet its operational costs by the end of 2002. That finding triggers a
process under which Congress must now consider plans to restructure
Amtrak. In addition, the law governing Amtrak is due for reauthorization
this year. And finally, there are serious worries that Amtrak might run
out of cash soon; in fact, it lost $1 billion last year.
It's quite possible that Congress will radically restructure the rail
service to improve its financial condition. Indeed, there is talk of
reducing Amtrak's national scope and making it a regional service; others
have advocated privatizing it. But one House Republican aide doesn't
expect much to happen this year. "Amtrak is a politically thankless
task to take on-and an expensive one," the aide said. "Congress
tends not to address tough issues in an election year."
Last year, Amtrak-friendly lawmakers-such as Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr.,
D-Del., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas-proposed improving the rail
service's infrastructure with a 10-year, $12 billion bond proposal and
also a $1 billion-plus spending bill to upgrade security. But that
legislation didn't go far. Nevertheless, these members will continue their
push. They argue that this country must upgrade its passenger rail system,
especially after the September 11 attacks harmed the nation's aviation
system and exposed weaknesses in the transportation network.-Mark
Murray
Welfare Reform
In the midst of a growing budget deficit-not to mention an election
year-Congress must reauthorize several key welfare programs in 2002,
including the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block grant, the
child care block grant, and the food stamps entitlement program. Sounds
like a tall order that gets taller still, given that there's been little
discussion to date about the reauthorizations, except among think-tank
types, and given that President Bush hasn't offered many
suggestions.
The biggest battle is expected to occur over money, just as new federal
funding is getting harder to come by. More and more former welfare
recipients are expected to be returning to the dole because of the
recession, but the recession safeguards set out in the 1996 welfare reform
law aren't working well. Adjusting welfare benefits for inflation would be
costly. Should states hit hardest by the recession get more welfare money?
Or should Congress redistribute welfare block grants so there's less of a
disparity between states? Either option could spark a battle between the
states and complicate the reauthorization. Another potentially sticky
question that's splitting Republicans is whether legal immigrants should
get more benefits.
TANF, the core cash-assistance program of welfare, must be reauthorized by
September 30. If that doesn't happen, Congress could pass a one-year
extension of the current law and get back to the reauthorizations in 2003.
Welfare policy experts suggest that Congress should have enough time to do
the job this year.
In addition to the cash-assistance program, Congress must renew the child
care block grant, which has been subsidized largely by money that states
have shifted from their cash-assistance programs. If large numbers of
former welfare recipients return for cash help during the recession,
states may have to shift some of their child care money back into TANF.
That would go against what some welfare-minded members of Congress-both
Democrats and Republicans-have already said: that they want this round of
reauthorizations to focus on providing support for the working
poor.
The food stamp program, meanwhile, must also be reauthorized, but it will
be considered as part of farm legislation. The food stamp program has been
criticized for failing many eligible people. Participation has declined
sharply over the past few years, and experts say that the program hasn't
been administered well.-Marilyn Werber Serafini
National Journal
