 |
Around the Nation
|
|
|
Around the Nation
|
As the post-impeachment Congress returns to the smoking battlefield today, it's the lawmakers themselves who will go on trial. They face a stern test of their ability to overcome the most flagrantly partisan period in recent history and work harmoniously on the public agenda.
That challenge is especially daunting for the House, which impeached President Clinton in December on a mostly party-line vote after months of sniping between Republicans and Democrats that left many licking their political wounds - and nursing personal grudges.
Those hard feelings have not altogether abated.
"It's going to be tough. This has been a very emotional time for a lot of people," said Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.), a conservative who has worked closely with Republicans. "The healing process is going to take a little while before we're going to have any level of trust and confidence in each other."
Many House Republicans share Condit's concerns. "Clearly there's going to be antagonism by Democrats toward us," said Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)
Still, letting bygones-be-bygones is apt to be the theme at the meeting between congressional leaders and Clinton scheduled for tomorrow at the White House. How much impact that will have in the legislative trenches is open to question.
One of the most enduring images of the enmity among lawmakers occurred the day before the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton, when Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Bob Barr (R-Ga.) got into a shouting match just off the House floor.
Many Democrats to this day detest Barr and most of the other dozen House Republicans who acted as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial.
"There's still a small reservoir of goodwill for Henry Hyde, but that's about it," said one moderate House Democrat, referring to the Judiciary Committee chair from Illinois who was among those leading the impeachment drive.
"The House had a much harsher experience than the Senate," said Gary Jacobson, a University of California, San Diego, political scientist.
For that reason, senators anticipate an easier time reaching across the aisle as they grapple with such issues as Social Security, Medicare, education, a patients' bill of rights and tax cuts.
Despite frequent party-line votes, the Senate emerged from the impeachment trial with its traditional comity intact. And after spending an unprecedented amount of time together during the trial, many said the experience bonded them in ways that bode well for bipartisanship.
"We never degenerated into the hard feelings that characterized the House debate and the very mean-spirited partisanship there," Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) said in an interview.
House members on both sides of the aisle were far less sanguine about their ability to put impeachment behind them.
"There's a lot of bitterness over here among Democrats," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) "It's going to linger on with a lot of issues we'll have to deal with."
Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.), one of the House "managers" in the impeachment trial, expressed a similar concern. "I wouldn't be surprised if some are still replaying the past," he said. "But I don't think that serves anyone's interest - especially the American people's."
Looming political realities complicate matters. With a pitched battle for control of both houses of Congress taking shape, on top of a presidential election, many fear that little will get done despite the best of intentions among lawmakers.
"Even without impeachment, it would have been a very tough year," said Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.)
Nonetheless, both Clinton and Congress - especially the Republicans - have a strong, vested interest in building a non-impeachment legacy.
"You can imagine a mutual deal between Republicans and the White House to have some achievement that will make people forget about impeachment," said Jacobson.
For congressional Democrats, however, the political calculations are more complex. They, too, want to tackle the public agenda. Yet many believe they can enhance their chances of recapturing the House, and possibly the Senate, if they can hang a "do-nothing" label on the GOP majority in the 2000 campaign.
That desire helps blur the legislative outlook.
"House Democrats are in something of a conflict of interest: Do they help the president rebuild a legacy, or do they paralyze the place and hope Republican inaction will hand them a majority?" said Washington-based political analyst Charles Cook.
The one person who could help eradicate the ill-will in the House is the untested but well-liked new speaker, J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) A low-keyed, seven-term representative, the conservative Hastert is widely viewed as conciliatory.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult time in the House. But if there's a hope, it's probably him," said Gary Copeland, a University of Oklahoma congressional analyst.
WASHINGTON - They all want to move on. But it won't be easy.
As the post-impeachment Congress returns to the smoking battlefield today, it's the lawmakers themselves who will go on trial. They face a stern test of their ability to overcome the most flagrantly partisan period in recent history and work harmoniously on the public agenda.
That challenge is especially daunting for the House, which impeached President Clinton in December on a mostly party-line vote after months of sniping between Republicans and Democrats that left many licking their political wounds - and nursing personal grudges.
Those hard feelings have not altogether abated.
"It's going to be tough. This has been a very emotional time for a lot of people," said Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.), a conservative who has worked closely with Republicans. "The healing process is going to take a little while before we're going to have any level of trust and confidence in each other."
Many House Republicans share Condit's concerns. "Clearly there's going to be antagonism by Democrats toward us," said Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.)
Still, letting bygones-be-bygones is apt to be the theme at the meeting between congressional leaders and Clinton scheduled for tomorrow at the White House. How much impact that will have in the legislative trenches is open to question.
One of the most enduring images of the enmity among lawmakers occurred the day before the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton, when Reps. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) and Bob Barr (R-Ga.) got into a shouting match just off the House floor.
Many Democrats to this day detest Barr and most of the other dozen House Republicans who acted as prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial.
"There's still a small reservoir of goodwill for Henry Hyde, but that's about it," said one moderate House Democrat, referring to the Judiciary Committee chair from Illinois who was among those leading the impeachment drive.
"The House had a much harsher experience than the Senate," said Gary Jacobson, a University of California, San Diego, political scientist.
For that reason, senators anticipate an easier time reaching across the aisle as they grapple with such issues as Social Security, Medicare, education, a patients' bill of rights and tax cuts.
Despite frequent party-line votes, the Senate emerged from the impeachment trial with its traditional comity intact. And after spending an unprecedented amount of time together during the trial, many said the experience bonded them in ways that bode well for bipartisanship.
"We never degenerated into the hard feelings that characterized the House debate and the very mean-spirited partisanship there," Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) said in an interview.
House members on both sides of the aisle were far less sanguine about their ability to put impeachment behind them.
"There's a lot of bitterness over here among Democrats," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) "It's going to linger on with a lot of issues we'll have to deal with."
Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.), one of the House "managers" in the impeachment trial, expressed a similar concern. "I wouldn't be surprised if some are still replaying the past," he said. "But I don't think that serves anyone's interest - especially the American people's."
Looming political realities complicate matters. With a pitched battle for control of both houses of Congress taking shape, on top of a presidential election, many fear that little will get done despite the best of intentions among lawmakers.
"Even without impeachment, it would have been a very tough year," said Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.)
Nonetheless, both Clinton and Congress - especially the Republicans - have a strong, vested interest in building a non-impeachment legacy.
"You can imagine a mutual deal between Republicans and the White House to have some achievement that will make people forget about impeachment," said Jacobson.
For congressional Democrats, however, the political calculations are more complex. They, too, want to tackle the public agenda. Yet many believe they can enhance their chances of recapturing the House, and possibly the Senate, if they can hang a "do-nothing" label on the GOP majority in the 2000 campaign.
That desire helps blur the legislative outlook.
"House Democrats are in something of a conflict of interest: Do they help the president rebuild a legacy, or do they paralyze the place and hope Republican inaction will hand them a majority?" said Washington-based political analyst Charles Cook.
The one person who could help eradicate the ill-will in the House is the untested but well-liked new speaker, J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) A low-keyed, seven-term representative, the conservative Hastert is widely viewed as conciliatory.
"I think it's going to be a very difficult time in the House. But if there's a hope, it's probably him," said Gary Copeland, a University of Oklahoma congressional analyst.
One after another, governors who are in Washington for a four-day conference indicated their resolve yesterday to defend their share of the tobacco settlement, even though the president has included a major chunk of that same money in his own proposed budget.
The only distinctions heard from the assembled state chief executives were of tone, not of substance.
California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, said he would "very politely" ask the president not to take any state proceeds, which for California is projected to total $25 billion over the next quarter century. New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican, said she "violently" opposes any federal claim on her state's share.
"The governors feel very strongly that this is money that came through a suit brought by the states, not by the federal government," Whitman said, "It should be up to the states how they spend the money."
She dismissed arguments by the Clinton administration that the law entitles the federal government to some reimbursement.
More is at stake in the tussle between the statehouses and the White House than simply determining which government agencies will receive how many dollars from tobacco companies. For the president and for each of the governors, the tobacco settlement represents a windfall that could fund a plethora of new government programs or tax cuts.
The governors plan to tell Clinton their opinions during a two-hour meeting today at the White House, their first since 46 states and the tobacco industry reached an estimated $206 billion settlement in November. Four other states had settled with the industry earlier for an additional $40 billion. In addition, Clinton this year has called for a new federal lawsuit against the industry.
Clinton administration officials, aware that disputes over tobacco money could sorely test state and federal relations, say they are holding out the possibility of compromise. In effect, the administration appears to be maneuvering to obtain yet another tobacco settlement, this time between the federal and state governments.
Clinton's newly proposed budget assumes that the federal government will receive more than $18 billion from the tobacco settlement over four years starting in fiscal 2001.
But a senior administration official said Clinton is seeking guarantees that the billions of dollars from tobacco companies will be spent on programs for public health, anti-smoking campaigns, child development and economic aid for tobacco farming regions.
The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted that federal taxpayers spend on average 57 cents out of every dollar allocated for Medicaid, the health program for low-income families and the disabled. That program, also funded by states, was a key element in many of the lawsuits against the tobacco companies as states sought to recoup the public costs of caring for people with smoking-related diseases.
With the federal and state governments sharing the cost of Medicaid, the administration official asked, "shouldn't the federal government have at least some assurances on how the (tobacco settlement) money gets spent?"
Some in Congress say the federal government should butt out. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Bob Graham (D-Fla.) have introduced a bill that attempts to bar the federal government from seizing any settlement money. The administration opposes the bill. But most of the members of the National Governors' Association are expected to support it, said Delaware Gov. Thomas Carper, a Democrat and the group's chair. The group discussed the issue in a closed-door luncheon here at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, a few blocks from the White House.
Most governors are already laying plans for spending the money.
In Nevada, Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn has proposed spending half of his state's annual settlement proceeds on state university scholarships for high school students who graduate with a B average or better. Guinn said his idea would complement current federal anti-smoking efforts. "The more education you have, the less smoking there is," he said.
Several states are drawing up plans for endowments to fund public health and anti-smoking programs. Some Southern states are targeting aid for tobacco-growing regions, which could be hard hit by the settlement and other public efforts to curb smoking. But Virginia Gov. James Gilmore said he also wants to hold about 40 percent of his tobacco settlement money in reserve for the state to spend on whatever it sees fit. The federal government, Gilmore said, "should not be able to recoup that money, or even tie strings to it."
Anti-smoking advocates are seeking to persuade government agencies that the first priority for settlement money should be tobacco control and related public health initiatives. Some say it is an uphill battle.
"The money's being spent like it's from a Brink's truck that dropped open and put a bunch of cash into City Hall or the statehouse," said Paul Billings, deputy director of government relations for the American Lung Association. "There is no accountability."
Vice President Al Gore and Federal Communications Commission Chair Bill Kennard are making the pitch today at an advertising conference in New York.
Their challenge responds to a report, issued by the FCC last month, that said advertisers often bypass or pay less money to minority-owned radio stations or stations targeting black or Latino/a listeners.
At the conference, Kennard plans to suggest that the industries develop a voluntary code guided by, among other things, the principal of "fair competition," said FCC and administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Diversity of voices and views is a pillar of our democracy," Gore says in remarks prepared for delivery to the conference via satellite. "That is why we must ensure that our airwaves provide opportunities for all Americans."
The challenge is intended to be a "starting point" for the industry to consider, the officials said.
Thus far, the advertising and broadcasting industries have been open to but noncommittal about developing such a code. The American Advertising Federation is assembling a panel to examine its feasibility.
Gore, who supports Kennard's approach, will call on advertisers and advertising agencies "to make voluntary commitments demonstrating that they understand the value of diversity and the economic logic of serving minority consumers," according to his prepared remarks.
The FCC report, written by the Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy, an advocacy group based here, recommended that industry adopt a code of conduct that requires decisions about buying ads to be based on market research.
It's unclear what specifically Gore and Kennard would like to see included in such a voluntary code.
Gore also plans to announce the creation of a new interagency working group to examine advertising practices and their impact on minority broadcasters' and minority advertising agencies' ability to compete and thrive.
The FCC, the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department, the Commerce Department and the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy will be part of the working group.
The group is likely to conduct additional research - as Kennard has suggested - on why advertisers are bypassing minority radio stations, the administrative officials said.
Anecdotal data in the FCC's report suggested that, in some cases, media's buying processes were guided by ethnic or racial stereotyping. But the report didn't pin down reasons why some minority stations were being passed up by advertisers.
Many factors could be responsible, the report acknowledged, among them audience demographics, ratings or whether a station is owned by a company operating many radio outlets.
02-22-99
| Previous Article | Next Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |