ASHINGTON - Vice President Al Gore calls it a ''do-nothing'' Congress. But these days, it is anything but.
Republican leaders have been very busy, in fact, holding numerous votes and a string of news conferences in recent weeks aimed at a central goal: drawing distinctions between the Clinton-Gore White House and a future President Bush. And that was certainly the case yesterday, when the Senate voted 59-39 for the gradual repeal of the federal estate tax.
Eliminating the tax, currently imposed on people who inherit estates exceeding $675,000, has been a Republican priority for years. Clinton repeatedly has promised to veto the legislation at hand, saying it unfairly benefits the rich.
And yet this year, with the Republican National Convention on the horizon, GOP leaders are more than happy to see their bill die - both to underscore the parties' differing views on taxes and to suggest it is really the Democrats who ''do nothing'' in Washington.
The bill passed yesterday would phase out estate taxes over the next decade, eliminating $104 billion in federal revenues in the first 10 years and another $750 billion after that. The House already passed a similar bill by an overwhelming margin, with the help of Democratic support.
''This becomes exhibit A - or exhibit X - in the difference between a Bush presidency and the one Gore aspires to,'' said John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Senate majority leader Trent Lott. ''If Bush were president, these bills would become law.''
That sentiment among Republicans extends beyond the estate tax bill. With nearly every movement in Congress these days colored by election-year politics, the Republican-controlled legislative calendar increasingly is crowded with bills designed to make a political point as much as to be passed into law.
Next week, the Senate is expected to tackle the repeal of the marriage penalty tax - another bill doomed to face a veto if it reaches the White House. The marriage tax bill - which would adjust the tax code for some 25 million working married couples who currently pay more than they would if they were single - passed the House this year but was later blocked in the Senate. On Wednesday, the House passed the measure a second time, 269-169, under a procedure guaranteeing it will not be blocked in Congress again.
The House bill would cut marriage penalties by $182 billion over 10 years. Next Monday, the Senate is expected to pass a broader version of the same bill, guaranteeing a $248 billion marriage tax cut over 10 years.
But Republicans quietly admit the marriage tax itself is not the point. If anything, they seem eager to prompt a veto. Although Clinton had offered a compromise, agreeing to sign the marriage tax bill if Republicans pass his proposal for prescription drug coverage for Medicare, Republicans in the Senate have declined to negotiate. In the House, a vote on a similar drugs-for-tax-cuts proposal was defeated this week, 230-197.
''I don't think there's a nexus between the marriage penalty and prescription drugs,'' House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said in explaining the failure of the Democratic proposal. ''They're at risk of being do-nothing Democrats.''
The defense is critical for House Republicans, who are waging a fierce battle to retain control of Congress while supporting Bush. The legislative body has come under recent attack from Gore, who revised the legendary presidential slogan of Harry S. Truman to criticize the ''do-nothing-for-people Congress.'' In particular, Gore has questioned a Republican-backed version of managed health care reform that would grant limited patient protections, instead of guaranteeing an array of patient rights as would the Democratic proposal.
Republicans see an opening in Gore's attack, however: They have actually advanced some narrow proposals of their own, including the marriage and estate tax bills, both of which enjoy broad support among the electorate as the economy continues to flourish. Both are catchy-sounding and seem much simpler in theory than accountants say they are in reality.
If Clinton vetos the bills in the days before the Republican convention, which begins July 31 in Philadelphia, Republicans ''will be able to show that it's not that they're not doing anything,'' said Stephen Slivinski, a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a free-market oriented think tank in Washington.
''They can say to their base, `We are doing something; it just happens to be what we think is right, not what Gore thinks is right,' '' Slivinsk i said.
At the same time, he added, this week's legislative push is a clever maneuver to revive the debate over taxes, which failed to generate much momentum during the primaries or in the early stages of the general election. The issue one of the few areas in which Gore and Bush clearly disagree.
Democrats argue that Republicans would jeopardize the federal budget and the future of Social Security by slashing taxes too dramatically, Democratic opponents of the pending tax bills have used the votes to point out that the Republican leadership is insensitive to the lower and middle classes.
The proposed estate tax repeal, Democrats argue, would affect only a wealthy 2 percent of the population. But that aspect of the law is misunderstood by voters, who have overwhelmingly approved eliminating the law in national polls.
''What is it about the priorities of Republicans that they are out there trying to protect the interests of the very wealthiest individuals in our society rather than trying to deal with the hard-working Americans that are at the lower end of the economic ladder?'' Senator Edward M. Kennedy said Thursday in opposing the estate tax bill.
Senator John F. Kerry, who also opposed the bill, lodged a formal complaint using a parliamentary procedure. He offered an amendment to use $5 billion of the estate tax bill to help fund an affordable-housing program. But the Kerry amendment was defeated.
