Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153335
label
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153335
contentType
document
title
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [3]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13756-003
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153335
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3ef168bf7f870811
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
ОАЛД Number:
13756
Folder ID Number:
13756-003
Folder Title:
Princeton University 5/10/91 [OA 8323] [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
21
4
2
Ref.
JK1041
A7
1990
LAW
Vital Statistics
on Congress,
1989-1990
Norman J. Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute
Thomas E. Mann
The Brookings Institution
Michael J. Malbin
U.S. Department of Defense
Congressional Quarterly Inc.
1414 22nd Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
As the 1980s draw to a close, Vital Statistics on Congress,
1989-1990, chronicles the turmoil of the past decade in Con-
gress: the obsession with budget-related issues through most of
the Reagan years, the fracture and reconsolidation of the Demo-
crats in the House, the sharp swings in partisan control of the
Senate, and the evolving role of political action committees in
congressional campaigns. The statistics that document these
and other developments show how well Congress fulfills its role
as the branch of government most immediately responsive to
changes in society. Its approach to governing changed in each
year of the Reagan administration and appears to have followed
shifting public opinion about taxation, defense spending, and
social services.
This fourth update of the original 1980 volume is intended
for all those who watch Congress as journalists, political scien-
tists, students, lobbyists, citizens-even as staff and members of
the institution itself. A comprehensive index, a new feature in this
edition of Vital Statistics on Congress, makes it easier for
Congress watchers to find and use the wealth of information
contained within.
Norman J. Ornstein is resident scholar at the American Enter-
prise Institute for Public Policy Research and codirector of the
Times Mirror/Gallup study of the American electorate. His books
include Interest Groups, Lobbying and Policymaking (1978) and
The New Congress (1981).
Thomas E. Mann is director of governmental studies at the
Brookings Institution and was formerly executive director of the
American Political Science Association. His books include Un-
safe at Any Margin: Interpreting Congressional Elections (1978),
The New Congress (1981), and A Question of Balance: The
President, the Congress and Foreign Policy (1989).
Michael J. Malbin is speechwriter to the secretary and deputy
secretary of defense. His books include Unelected Represen-
tatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of Representative
Government (1980) and Money and Politics in the United States
(1984).
ISBN 0-87187-528-4
Vital Statistics on Congress, 1989-1990
group or a quasi-political party. It consistently has given more than 90
percent of its growing pool of money to Democrats, and it consistently
has been willing to give money to challengers and open-seat candidates.
Nonconnected PACs also have always been willing to give to
challengers and open-seat candidates. Nonconnected PACs include most
of the ideological and issue groups. The partisan shift among these
groups did not occur because existing groups changed stripes, but
because new groups formed, adding new money into the pool. The new
groups that appeared between 1982 and 1988 were predominantly
liberal-whether antinuclear, proenvironmental, prochoice, or pro-
elderly.
Business groups have not changed their political stripes: they have
all but dropped them. They give to Democrats in House races, and
Republicans in Senate races, not because they are Democratic or Repub-
lican, but because they are incumbents. Most business groups have
drastically reduced their contributions to challengers and open-seat
candidates-from 30 percent in 1980 and 23 percent in 1982 to 10
percent in 1988.
The net result of the three trends: all incumbents are well funded,
as are most Democratic challengers with a serious chance of winning.
The average losing Democratic challenger who earned 40 percent or
more of the vote raised $100,000 more than a comparable losing
Republican challenger ($439,612 to $333,865). That difference was due
entirely to PAC contributions. The average losing Democrat with 40
percent or more of the vote received $141,475 from PACs, versus only
$47,977 for a similar Republican. It would be wrong, therefore, to say
that PACs support only incumbents. Many PACs support viable Demo-
cratic challengers. Republican challengers are the ones who are left out.
Table 3-1 House Campaign Expenditures. 1974-1988
70
Table 3-3 House Candidates Who Spent More Than $500,000,
1974-1988
Election
Democratic
Republican
Total
1974
0
0
0
1976
0
0
0
1978
3
4
7
1980
15
13
28
1982
31
36
67
1984
43
34
77
1986
51
54
105
1988
82
58
140
Sources: For 1974, Common Cause, 1974 Congressional Campaign Finances, vol. 2 (Washington,
D.C., 1976); for 1976, Federal Election Commission, Disclosure Series No. 9 (House of
Representatives Campaigns), September 1977; for 1978, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Interim Report No. 5 (U.S. Senate and House Cam-
paigns), June 1979; for 1980, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity,
1979-80, Final Report (U.S. House and Senate Campaigns), January 1982; for 1982, Federal
Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Interim Report No. 3 (U.S. Senate
and House Campaigns), May 1983; for 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on
Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (U.S. House and Senate Campaigns), November
1985; for 1986, Common Cause, "Almost Half of U.S. Representatives Received 50% or
More of Campaign Funds from PACs," press release, April 7, 1987; for 1988, Federal
Election Commission, "$458 Million Spent by 1988 Congressional Campaigns," press
release, February 24, 1989.
74
Table 3-8 Campaign Expenditures for Open Senate Seats, by Election
Outcome, 1984-1988
(mean net dollars)
1984
1986
1988
Democrat won with 60% or more
3,180,975
2,057,422
2,881,666
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
Republican lost with 40% or less
1,777,581
1,699,175
282,229
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
Democrat won with less than 60%
-
3,242,445
7,491,600
-
(N = 4)
(N = 1)
Republican lost with more than 40%
-
2,580,921
2,853,842
-
(N = 4)
(N = 1)
Republican won with 60% or more
7,063,519
2,408,766
876,877
(N = 2)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
Democrat lost with 40% or less
2,666,291
531,698
549,908
(N = 2)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
Republican won with less than 60%
9,509,724
5,376,255
3,812,824
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 3)
Democrat lost with more than 40%
5,880,512
4,377,661
2,753,999
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 3)
Note: The Federal Election Commission included the following disclaimer along with its
1986 data, and Vital Statistics considers it appropriate for all years: "The small N's and
unique nature of some Senate campaigns make all measures of central tendency like
averages or medians problematic and, as a result, the Commission would not include tables
such as these in its regular release of information."
Sources: For 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final
Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), November 1985; for 1986, Federal Election
Commission computer printout, July 1987; for 1988, Federal Election Commission, "$458
Million Spent by 1988 Congressional Campaigns," press release, February 24, 1989.
84
Table 3-9 Funding Sources for Congressional Candidates in General
Elections, by Party, 1974-1988
Percentage distribution
Amount raised by
Party
candidates and
(contribu-
party expenditures
tions plus
on behalf of
Non-
441a[d]
candidates
party
expendi-
Individual
($ millions)ᵃ
PACs
tures)ᵃ
and otherᵇ
House
1974ᶜ
All candidates
$45.7
17
4
79
Democrats
23.9
22
1
77
Republicans
21.7
10
7
83
1976
All candidatesᵃ
66.1
22
8
70
Democrats
35.1
27
4
69
Republicans
30.5
17
13
70
1978ᵉ
All candidatesᵃ
93.6
24
7
69
Democrats
48.7
27
3
70
Republicans
44.2
22
11
67
1980e
All candidatesᵈ
127.1
28
6
66
Democrats
61.4
32
2
66
Republicans
64.6
25
9
66
1982e
All candidatesᵈ
189.8
31
6
63
Democrats
94.3
34
2
64
Republicans
95.4
27
10
63
1984e
All candidatesᵈ
204.0
36
6
58
Democrats
107.2
41
3
56
Republicans
96.6
30
11
59
1986e
All candidatesᵈ
235.1
36
4
60
Democrats
126.4
42
2
56
Republicans
108.7
29
6
65
1988e
All candidatesᵈ
248.9
40
4
56
Democrats
140.0
46
3
51
Republicans
108.9
31
6
63
PACS contributed on
(Table continues)
85
Table 3-9 (continued)
Percentage Distribution
Amount raised by
Party
candidates and
(contribu-
party expenditures
tions plus
on behalf of
Non-
441a[d]
candidates
party
expendi-
Individual
($ millions)ᵃ
PACs
tures)ᵃ
and otherᵇ
Senate
1974°
All candidates
$28.2
11
6
83
Democrats
16.2
13
2
85
Republicans
11.6
7
13
80
1976
All candidatesᵈ
39.2
15
4
81
Democrats
19.5
19
2
79
Republicans
18.8
11
6
83
1978ᵉ
All candidatesᵃ
68.9
13
6
81
Democrats
27.8
14
3
83
Republicans
40.6
12
8
80
1980e
All candidatesᵈ
83.5
19
9
72
Democrats
42.0
18
4
78
Republicans
41.2
21
15
64
1982ᵉ
All candidatesᵈ
127.0
17
10
73
Democrats
64.0
17
4
79
Republicans
62.7
17
15
68
1984ᵉ
All candidatesᵃ
158.0
18
7
75
Democrats
73.1
18
6
76
Republicans
84.6
18
8
74
1986e
All candidates
208.7
21
9
70
Democrats
90.2
22
8
70
Republicans
118.5
21
9
70
1988ᵉ
All candidates
199.5
22
9
69
Democrats
103.1
23
7
70
Republicans
96.4
22
11
67
86
Not as House bad
(Notes follow)
a The "amount raised' column includes the sum of what general election candidates raised
from January 1 of the odd-numbered year preceding an election through December 31 of
the election year plus 441a(d) party expenditures on behalf of those candidates. The
441a(d) expenditures for each year are given in table 3-10.
b "Other" includes contributions from individuals of less than $500, contributions from the
candidate to himself or herself, unrepaid loans, and, for the 1974 Senate races, some funds
whose sources were not identified. Because of confusion over unrepaid loans, the FEC says
that it cannot specify loan amounts or candidate self-financing and that its numbers from
1976 and 1978 are unreliable. This also affects the data for small individual contributions,
many of which need not be reported individually because those figures are derived by
dual
subtracting all other categories from the total.
erb
c The figures for 1974 are only for candidates who were opposed in the general election.
di Includes minor party candidates.
e Louisiana instituted a two-step election process in 1978 in which candidates of all parties
run against one another in a September primary. If no candidate wins 50 percent or more
of the vote at that time, the top two candidates run against each other in November. In
these data candidates in a September Louisiana primary are considered "general election
candidates" when the September balloting produces a clear winner with more than half
the total vote.
Sources: For 1974, Gary C. Jacobson, Money in Congressional Elections (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1980), chap. 3; for 1976, Federal Election Commission, Disclosure Series No.
4 (National Party Committees), Disclosure Series No. 6 (Senate Campaigns), and Disclosure
Series No. 9 (House Campaigns), September 1977; for 1978, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Interim Report No. 5 (U.S. Senate and House Cam-
paigns), June 1979, 31-32; for 1980, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial
Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), January 1982, 49-50; for
1982, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (U.S.
Senate and House Campaigns), October 1983, 33-34; for 1984, Federal Election Commis-
sion, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns),
November 1985; for 1986, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1985-
86, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), 37-41; for 1988, Federal Election
Commission, "$458 Million Spent by 1988 Congressional Campaigns," press release,
February 24, 1989; "FEC Summarizes 1988 Political Party Activity," March 27, 1989.
87
88
Table 3-10 Campaign Funding Sources for General Election Candidates in House and Senate Elections, 1982-1988
Amount raised
by candidates
Percentage distribution
plus party
Trade/
Individ-
expenditures
Total party
Total
member-
uals,
Party and
on behalf of
contributions
PAC
Corpo-
ship/
Non-
Co-op and
candidate
candidate
Number of
candidates
plus 441a(d)
contri
rate
Labor
health
connected
corp. w/o
to self,
status
candidates
($ millions)
expenditures
butions
PAC
PAC
PAC
PAC
stock PAC
and other
House, 1982
All candidatesᵃ
830
$191.0
6
30
10
8
8
4
1
64
Democrats
435
94.6
2
34
7
15
7
4
1
64
Incumbents
218
59.1
1
38
10
13
9
3
2
61
Challengers
166
21.7
4
28
1
19
3
5
1
69
Open seats
51
13.9
2
28
4
15
4
4
1
70
Republicans
395
96.3
10
27
12
1
10
3
1
63
Incumbents
168
53.3
8
33
15
1
13
3
2
59
Challengers
176
24.9
14
17
7
0
5
5
0
69
Open seats
51
18.1
12
21
9
0
7
4
0
67
Senate, 1982
All candidatesᵃ
66
$128.2
10
17
6
4
4
3
1
74
Democrats
33
64.5
4
17
4
7
3
2
1
79
Incumbents
19
33.4
4
24
6
8
5
3
1
72
Challengers
11
17.4
5
12
0
8
1
3
0
83
Open seats
3
13.6
4
6
1
3
1
1
0
90
Republicans
33
63.4
15
17
9
1
4
3
0
68
Incumbents
11
25.9
9
25
13
1
7
3
1
67
Challengers
19
23.5
21
11
6
0
2
3
0
67
Open Seats
3
14.1
15
13
8
0
3
2
1
72
House, 1984
All candidatesᵃ
816
$203.8
7
36
11
9
10
4
1
58
Democrats
434
107.2
3
41
9
17
10
4
2
56
Incumbents
258
81.8
2
46
12
16
11
4
2
52
Challengers
152
16.3
6
29
1
20
4
4
0
66
Open seats
24
9.1
6
22
2
13
4
3
0
72
Republicans
382
96.6
11
30
13
1
10
4
1
60
Incumbents
154
52.1
6
37
17
2
14
3
2
58
Challengers
204
33.8
17
18
7
0
4
6
0
65
Open seats
24
10.7
13
31
14
0
9
7
1
56
Senate, 1984
All candidatesᵃ
68
$157.7
7
18
7
3
4
3
1
75
Democrats
33
73.1
6
18
4
6
3
4
1
76
Incumbents
12
22.8
3
28
10
6
7
4
1
69
Challengers
17
25.5
9
17
11
8
2
6
0
74
Open seats
4
24.8
6
9
2
4
1
2
0
85
(Table continues)
89
90
Table 3-10 (continued)
Amount raised
by candidates
Percentage distribution
plus party
Trade/
Individ-
expenditures
Total party
Total
member-
uals,
Party and
on behalf of
contributions
PAC
Corpo-
ship/
Non-
Co-op and
candidate
candidate
Number of
candidates
plus 441a(d)
contri-
rate
Labor
health
connected
corp. w/o
to self,
status
candidates
($ millions)
expenditures
butions
PAC
PAC
PAC
PAC
stock PAC
and other
Republicans
35
84.6
8
18
10
0
4
3
1
74
Incumbents
17
55.6
6
21
12
1
5
5
1
74
Challengers
13
10.0
20
15
7
0
3
0
5
65
Open seats
5
19.0
9
10
7
0
2
2
0
81
House, 1986
All candidatesᵃ
810
$234.2
4
36
11
9
10
5
1
60
Democrats
427
125.7
2
42
10
16
10
5
1
56
Incumbents
235
84.1
1
49
14
16
13
4
2
50
Challengers
147
22.1
6
29
1
19
3
6
0
65
Open seats
45
19.5
3
31
3
15
5
7
1
66
Republicans
383
108.5
6
29
13
2
10
4
2
65
Incumbents
160
67.3
4
37
17
2
13
3
2
59
Challengers
182
21.4
10
11
3
0
3
4
0
79
Open seats
41
19.8
10
24
10
0
8
5
1
66
TOTAL
PAC
Senate, 1986
All candidatesᵃ
68
$208.6
9
21
9
3
5
4
1
70
Democrats
34
90.2
8
22
5
7
4
5
1
70
Incumbents
9
28.2
7
26
9
6
6
4
1
67
Challengers
18
40.3
9
19
3
8
3
5
1
72
Open seats
7
21.7
8
22
4
8
3
6
1
70
Republicans
34
118.5
9
21
12
1
5
3
1
70
Incumbents
18
68.9
8
24
13
1
6
3
1
73
Challengers
9
20.4
18
9
5
0
2
2
0
73
Open seats
7
29.1
6
22
14
0
5
3
1
72
House, 1988
All candidatesᵃ
809
$248.6
4
40
12
10
11
4
2
56
Democrats
427
140.0
3
47
11
17
12
5
2
50
Incumbents
248
103.9
2
52
15
16
14
5
2
46
Challengers
153
23.4
6
32
1
21
4
6
0
62
Open seats
26
12.7
6
37
3
19
7
7
1
57
Republicans
382
108.9
6
31
14
2
11
3
1
63
Incumbents
164
73.8
3
39
18
2
14
3
2
58
Challengers
193
21.4
14
10
4
0
3
3
0
76
Open seats
25
13.7
11
21
7
1
8
4
1
68
(Table continues)
91
92
Table 3-10 (continued)
Amount raised
by candidates
Percentage distribution
plus party
Trade/
Individ-
expenditures
Total party
Total
member-
uals,
Party and
on behalf of
contributions
PAC
Corpo-
ship/
Non-
Co-op and
candidate
candidate
Number of
candidates
plus 441a(d)
contri-
rate
Labor
health
connected
corp. w/o
to self,
status
candidates
($ millions)
expenditures
butions
PAC
PAC
PAC
PAC
stock PAC
and other
Senate, 1988
All candidatesᵃ
66
$199.4
9
22
9
3
5
4
1
69
Democrats
33
103.1
7
23
7
6
4
5
1
70
Incumbents
15
53.1
4
29
10
6
7
5
1
67
Challengers
12
29.1
11
16
2
7
2
5
0
73
Open seats
6
20.9
8
16
4
5
3
4
0
76
Republicans
33
96.4
11
22
12
1
6
3
1
67
Incumbents
12
50.8
8
26
14
1
7
3
1
66
Challengers
15
27.7
18
11
6
0
2
2
0
71
Open seats
6
17.8
13
26
14
1
7
4
1
61
a Excludes minor-party candidates.
Sources: For 1982, Federal Election Commission, "FEC Releases Data on 1981-1982 Elections," press release, May 2, 1983; for 1984, Federal Election
Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (U.S. House and Senate Campaigns), November 1985; for 1986, Federal Election Commission,
"FEC Releases Final Report on 1986 Congressional Candidates," press release, May 5, 1988; "FEC Releases First Complete PAC Figures for 1985-86," press
release, May 21, 1987; for 1988, Federal Election Commission computer printout (interim data, May 3, 1989).
Se
Na
Dem
*******
Rep
De
Re
Table 3-11
Political Party Financial Activity, 1976-1988
(in dollars)
Contribu-
Expendi-
tions to
tures for
presiden-
presiden-
Adjusted
tial, Senate,
tial, Senate,
Adjusted
disburse-
and House
and House
receipts
ments
candidates
candidates
1976
Democratic
National committee
13,095,630
12,516,979
22,050
3,055,644
Senatorial
1,017,454
971,562
375,237
4,359
Congressional
937,717
1,011,157
423,200
500
Conventions, other
national
3,164,573
3,062,675
0
0
State/local
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Total Democratic
18,215,374
17,562,373
820,487
3,060,503
Republican
National committee
29,118,930
26,679,143
1,871,726
1,442,773
Senatorial
1,774,815
2,010,629
445,902
113,976
Congressional
12,207,055
9,243,195
2,071,525
329,853
Conventions, other
national
2,605,088
2,143,220
11,343
0
State/local
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Total Republican
45,705,888
40,076,187
4,400,496
1,886,602
1978
Democratic
National committee
11,314,008
11,455,639
64,307
68,822
Senatorial
269,981
893,773
427,000
0
Congressional
2,766,963
2,118,161
537,438
0
Conventions, other
national
3,324,519
3,428,481
403,502
0
State/local
8,688,999
8,994,213
433,337
329,765
Total Democratic
26,364,470
26,890,267
1,865,584
398,587
Republican
National committee
34,221,058
36,016,600
905,244
366,981
Senatorial
10,882,480
11,107,961
456,110
2,599,290
Congressional
14,062,070
15,695,690
1,817,424
839,421
Conventions, other
national
4,400,216
2,330,882
598,382
0
State/local
20,960,029
20,728,829
745,191
579,974
Total Republican
84,525,853
85,879,962
4,522,351
4,355,666
1980
Democratic
National committee
15,418,300
15,150,984
41,051
3,942,526
Senatorial
1,653,849
1,618,162
481,500
589,316
(Table continues)
93
Table 3-11 (continued)
Contribu-
Expendi-
tions to
tures for
presiden-
presiden-
Adjusted
tial, Senate,
tial, Senate,
Adjusted
disburse-
and House
and House
receipts
ments
candidates
candidates
Congressional
2,864,088
2,828,184
614,097
34,686
Conventions, other
national
8,147,837
6,631,517
132,200
0
State/local
9,103,520
8,754,177
384,358
375,660
Total Democratic
37,187,594
34,983,024
1,653,206
4,942,188
Republican
National committee
77,838,238
75,821,719
844,455
5,352,269
Senatorial
22,308,963
21,211,482
414,893
5,025,802
Congressional
20,287,961
34,790,731
2,005,663
1,229,110
Conventions, other
national
6,031,367
6,080,735
482,159
0
State/local
33,781,069
32,545,199
781,207
837,292
Total Republican
161,247,598
170,449,866
4,528,377
12,444,473
1982
Democratic
National committee
16,466,029
16,547,601
124,574
144,742
Senatorial
5,622,254
5,568,352
530,000
1,877,245
Congressional
6,525,419
6,461,703
563,105
197,936
Conventions, other
national
3,086,023
3,838,556
0
0
State/local
7,567,985
7,731,834
546,290
1,081,674
Total Democratic
39,267,710
40,148,146
1,763,969
3,301,597
Republican
National committee
84,140,281
85,113,252
1,700,178
232,964
Senatorial
48,879,354
47,680,853
558,327
8,707,537
Congessional
58,041,972
57,041,301
2,554,924
4,943,249
Conventions, other
national
2,967
87,246
0
0
State/local
23,984,934
24,099,337
812,787
401,213
Total Republican
215,049,508
214,021,989
5,626,216
14,284,983
1984
Democratic
National committee
46,626,873
46,611,516
925,672
2,665,184
Senatorial
8,904,115
8,713,726
420,185
3,948,650
Congressional
10,391,548
10,207,965
762,767
1,124,047
Conventions, other
national
14,036,588
13,739,121
0
0
State/local
18,522,274
18,166,202
519,120
1,274,170
Total Democratic
98,481,398
97,438,530
2,627,744
9,012,051
(Table continues)
94
Table 3-11
(continued)
Contribu-
Expendi-
tions to
tures for
presiden-
presiden-
Adjusted
tial, Senate,
tial, Senate,
Adjusted
disburse-
and House
and House
receipts
ments
candidates
candidates
586
Republican
National committee
106,151,941
104,791,503
848,794
6,817,810
0
Senatorial
81,655,723
83,642,301
563,051
6,732,151
60
Congessional
58,304,582
61,729,942
2,581,579
6,264,062
.88
Conventions, other
national
8,672,623
8,692,070
0
0
269
State/local
43,129,200
41,931,619
887,109
269,291
302
Total Republican
297,914,069
300,787,435
4,880,533
20,083,314
.10
1986ª
0
Democratic
292
National committee
17,235,406
17,372,276
20,500
343,343
73
Senatorial
13,397,809
13,533,142
583,305
6,066,372
Congressional
12,322,969
12,562,666
610,840
1,545,376
Conventions, other
national
7,618,834
7,801,818
1,000
0
42
State/local
14,008,888
14,300,052
462,504
1,021,952
45
Total Democratic
64,843,580
65,913,729
1,678,149
8,977,043
36
Republican
0
National committee
83,780,156
86,679,251
350,427
2,100
74
Senatorial
84,438,546
83,734,148
629,472
9,959,330
97
Congessional
39,796,974
40,830,736
1,655,250
4,098,389
Conventions, other
64
national
86,813
89,202
0
0
37
State/local
47,031,995
47,426,676
763,461
290,563
49
Total Republican
252,432,915
254,166,001
3,478,604
14,344.160
0
1988ª
13
Democratic
33
National committee
52,295,783
47,036,799
137,998
8,107,044
-
Senatorial
16,297,386
16,289,589
420,579
6,206,137
Congressional
12,469,354
12,481,532
666,637
2,425,633
Conventions, other
34
national
19,164,401
19,152,131
0
0
50
State/local
27,696,663
26,967,036
507,092
1,177,205
17
Total Democratic
127,923,587
121,927,087
1,732,306
17,915,989
0
Republican
'0
National committee
90,980,761
89,893,536
325,440
8,291,275
51
Senatorial
65,896,691
63,350,247
760,488
10,250,633
s)
(Table continues
95
Table 3-11 (continued)
Contribu-
Expendi-
tions to
tures for
presiden-
presiden-
Adjusted
tial, Senate,
tial, Senate,
Adjusted
disburse-
and House
and House
receipts
ments
candidates
candidates
Congessional
34,483,260
33,569,320
1,583,503
4,107,689
Conventions, other
national
9,646,685
9,610,085
0
0
State/local
62,249,430
60,532,621
718,487
64,853
Total Republican
263,256,827
256,956,304
3,387,918
22,714,353
n.a. = not available.
a Figures are net, not adjusted.
Sources: For 1976, Federal Election Commission, Disclosure Series No. 4 (National Party
Political Committees: Receipts and Expenditures), November 1977, 5-40; for 1978, Federal
Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Final Report (Party and Non-
Party Political Committees), vol. 1, April 1980, 101; for 1980, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (Party and Non-Party Political Commit-
tees), vol. 1, January, 1982, 61; for 1982, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial
Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, October
1983, 55; for 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final
Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, November 1985, 55; for 1986,
Federal Election Commission, "FEC Final 1985-86 Report on Political Parties Shows
Decline in Finance Activity," press release, May 5, 1988; for 1988, Federal Election
Commission, "FEC Summarizes 1988 Political Party Activity," press release, March 27,
1989.
96
Table 3-12 Party Contributions and Coordinated Expenditures, by
Office and Party, 1976-1988
(in dollars)
Senate
House
Contributions Expenditures
Contributions Expenditures
1976
Democrats
468,795
4,359
1,465,629
500
Republicans
930,034
113,976
3,658,310
329,583
1978
Democrats
466,683
229,218
1,262,298
72,892
Republicans
703,204
2,723,880
3,621,104
1,297,079
1980
Democrats
480,464
1,132,912
1,025,989
256,346
Republicans
677,004
5,434,758
3,498,323
2,203,748
1982
Democrats
579,337
2,265,197
1,052,286
694,321
Republicans
600,221
8,715,761
4,720,959
5,293,260
1984
Democrats
441,467
3,947,731
1,280,672
1,774,452
Republicans
590,922
6,518,415
4,060,120
6,190,309
1986
Democrats
620,832
6,656,286
968,913
1,836,213
Republicans
729,522
10,077,902
2,520,278
4,111,474
1988
Democrats
488,899
6,592,264
1,197,537
2,880,301
Republicans
721,237
10,260,600
2,650,569
4,162,644
Note: The table includes direct contributions made by party committees to congressional
candidates and coordinated expenditures made on their behalf, known as 441a(d)
expenditures because the legal spending limits are contained in U.S. Code, Title 2, sec.
441a(d). Under this provision, party committees are allowed to spend money on behalf of
our
federal candidates, in addition to the money they may contribute directly. Unlike
"independent expenditures," which are prohibited to the parties (see table 3-20 for a
definition), this spending may be coordinated with a candidate.
House candidates may receive in direct contributions up to $10,000 each ($5,000 in the
primary and $5,000 in the general election) from the national party, congressional
campaign committee, and state or local party. Senate candidates may receive in direct
contributions a total of $17,500 from the national party and senatorial campaign committee
and another $10,000 from a state or local party.
The limits on 441a(d) expenditures are as follows: (a) for Senate candidates and for
House candidates from states with only one House district, two 1975 cents times the voting
age population, or $20,000 in 1975 dollars adjusted for inflation, whichever is greater; (b)
for all other House candidates, $10,000 in 1975 dollars adjusted for inflation. State parties
are allowed to spend equal amounts on behalf of congressional candidates, and court
decisions permit state and local parties to designate a national party committee as its agent
for these expenditures.
(Notes continue)
97
Table 3-12 (continued)
Tabl
Combining state and national party contributions and 441a(d) expenditure limits, the
Comm
maximum amount a House candidate could receive from party committees in 1988 was
$86,100. Senate limits ranged from a low of $119,700 in small states to a high of $1,904,876
Corp
in California.
Labo
Sources: For 1974, Gary C. Jacobson, Money in Congressional Elections, chap. 3; for 1976,
Trade
Federal Election Commission, Disclosure Series No. 4 (National Party Committees), Disclosure
heal
Series No. 6 (Senate Campaigns), and Disclosure Series No. 9 (House Campaigns), September
Nonc
1977; for 1978, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Interim
Coop
Report No. 5 (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), June 1979, 31-32; for 1980, Federal
Corp
Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (U.S. Senate and
]
House Campaigns), January 1982, 49-50; for 1982, Federal Election Commission, Reports on
Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), October 1983,
Note:
33-34; for 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final
aInclu
Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), November 1985; for 1986, Federal Election
Source
Commission, "FEC Releases Final Report on 1986 Congressional Candidates," press release,
May 5, 1988; for 1988, Federal Election Commission, "FEC Summarizes 1988 Political Party
Activity," press release, March 27, 1989.
Table
Electic
cycleᵃ
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986'
1988
Figure 3-4 Political Party Receipts, 1975-1988
n.a. =
a All di
$ millions
for 197
300
under
was gc
250
Republican committees
went u
1976 ai
200
of the
b Adjus
150
tees.
C Exclu
100
Democratic committees
d This i
though
50
e Contr
0
election
f 1986 I
1975-1976
1977-1978
1979-1980
1981-1982
1983-1984
1985-1986
1987-1988
Sources:
Source: Table 3-11.
on con
98
Table 3-13 Number of Registered Political Action Committees,
1974-1988
e
Committee type
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
S
6
Corporate
89
433
784
1204
1467
1682
1744
1816
Labor
201
224
217
297
380
394
384
354
Trade/membership/
healthᵃ
318
489
451
574
628
698
745
786
Nonconnected
-
-
165
378
746
1053
1077
1115
1
Cooperative
-
-
12
42
47
52
56
59
Corporation without stock
-
-
24
56
103
130
151
138
Total
608
1146
1653
2551
3371
4009
4157
4268
Note: Data as of December 31 for every year.
a Includes all noncorporate and nonlabor PACs through December 31, 1976.
Source: Federal Election Commission PAC count press release, issued annually.
Table 3-14 Financial Activity of Political Action Committees, 1972-1988
(in dollars)
Contributions to
Election
Adjusted
Adjusted
congressional
cycleᵃ
receiptsᵇ
expendituresᵇ
candidates
1972
n.a.
19,168,000
8,500,000°
1974
n.a.
25,000,000ᵈ
12,526,586
1976
54,045,588
52,894,630
22,571,912
1978
79,956,291
77,412,860
34,121,356ᵉ
1980
137,728,528
131,153,384
55,217,211e
1982
199,452,356
190,173,539
83,620,190e
1984
288,690,535
266,822,476
105,330,090
1986
353,429,266
339,954,146
132,671,437
1988
369,502,748
349,611,558
147,897,641
n.a. = not available.
a All data are for full election cycle. The periods covered by each election cycle vary. Data
for 1972 are limited for the period before April 7, 1972, the effective date for disclosure
under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Until then, campaign finance disclosure
was governed by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, under which much activity
went unreported. Data for 1974 cover September 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974. Data for
1976 and for subsequent years cover January 1 of the odd-numbered year to December 31
of the even-numbered year.
b Adjusted receipts and expenditures exclude funds transferred between affiliated commit-
tees.
Excludes contributions to candidates defeated in primaries.
d This is a rough estimate and does not correspond to the total in table 3-15, which was
thought to be too low.
e Contributions to candidates for election in the year indicated, made during the two-year
election cycle.
1986 FEC data was not adjusted and may be slightly inflated.
Sources: For data on receipts and expenditures, see the sources listed for table 3-15. For data
on contributions, see the sources listed for table 3-16.
99
Table 3-15 Adjusted Expenditures of Political Action Committees,
Tab
by Category, 1972-1988
(in millions of dollars)
Type of PAC
1972
1974ª
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986b
1988
Type
Labor
8.5
11.0
17.5
18.6
25.1
34.8
47.5
57.8
70.4
Labo
Business-relatedᶜ
8.0
8.1
Busin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Corporate
d
d
Co
5.8
15.2
31.4
43.3
59.2
79.3
89.0
Tra
Trade/member-
sh
ship/health
d
d
e
23.8
32.0
41.9
54.0
73.3
81.6
Nonc
Nonconnected
2.6
0.8
e
17.4
38.6
64.3
97.4
118.4
97.0
Othe
Other⁸
-
1.1
29.6
2.4
4.0
5.8
8.7
11.1
11.6
]
Total
19.2
20.9
52.9
77.4
131.2
190.2
266.8
340.0
349.6
Note:
Note: Adjusted expenditures exclude transfers of funds between affiliated committees.
excluc
Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
a Cont
a Data for 1974 do not correspond with those in table 3-14, which reflects an estimated
electic
amount, because the data in this table were thought to be low.
b 1986
b 1986 FEC data were not adjusted, therefore these figures may be slightly inflated.
This
c This encompasses the Common Cause categories for business, health, and, in 1976,
lawyer
lawyers. This category is included here for the purpose of listing the data for 1972-1976,
before
before the specific breakdowns were devised by the FEC for the corporate and other
catego
categories, and it is based on the assumption that the majority of PACs it includes have a
basical
and tra
basically probusiness orientation. It is only roughly comparable to the combined corporate
would
and trade/membership/health groups in 1978-1982, but most of the business-related PACS
would fall into those two FEC categories (some would be scattered in the nonconnected,
cooper
d For 1
cooperative, and corporation-without-stock groups).
ideolo]
d Included in business-related.
PACs i
e Included in other figures for "other" category.
ideolo
I For 1972 and 1974 this reflects spending by ideological PACs, as grouped by the Citizens'
1978-1
Research Foundation (1972) or Common Cause (1974). After 1976 it corresponds directly to
ideolog
the FEC category by that name (which is dominated by the ideological groups).
"misce
g This is a catchall category, for which only the 1978-1982 figures are comparable to one
e This il
another. For 1974 this includes PACS grouped as "miscellaneous" by Common Cause and
the late
includes such groups as the NEA (and affiliates), environmentalists, and some cooper-
which
atives. For 1976 it includes all PACs now grouped by the FEC as trade/member-
coopera
ship/health, nonconnected, cooperative, and corporation without stock. For 1978-1982, it
ideolog
combines the FEC categories of cooperatives and corporations without stock.
include
data egi
Sources: For 1972-1976 and for footnotes, Joseph E. Cantor, "Political Action Committees:
Thus th
Their Evolution and Growth and Their Implications for the Political System," Report No.
thread
82-92, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., November
"other"
6, 1981, updated May 7, 1982, 83-84; for 1978, Federal Election Commission, Reports on
Sources:
Financial Activity, 1977-78, Final Report (Party and Non-party Political Committees), vol. 1,
1978, Fe
April 1980, 139-140; for 1980, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity,
(U.S. Se
1979-80, Final Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, January 1982,
Reports
97-98; for 1982, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final
January
Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, October 1983, 90-92; for 1984,
1981-82,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (Party and
Federal
Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, November 1985, 78; for 1986, Federal Election
and Hc
Commission, "FEC Final Report on 1986 PAC Activity," press release, May 5, 1988; for
"FEC Fi
1988, Federal Election Commission, "FEC Finds Slower Growth at PAC Activity During
Election
1988 Election Cycle," press release, April 9, 1989.
Cycle,"
100
Table 3-16
Types of PACs Contributing to Congressional Candidates,
1972-1988
(in millions of dollars)
Type of PAC
1972
1974
1976
1978ª
1980a
1982ª
1984ª
1986b
1988
Labor
3.6
6.3
8.2
9.9
13.2
20.3
24.8
29.9
33.9
Business-relatedᶜ
2.7
4.4
10.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
Corporate
-
-
-
9.5
19.2
27.5
35.5
46.2
50.5
Trade/member-
ship/health
-
-
-
11.2
15.9
21.9
26.7
32.9
38.9
Nonconnectedᵃ
-
0.7
1.5
2.5
4.9
10.7
14.5
18.8
19.2
Othere
2.2
1.0
2.8
1.0
2.0
3.2
3.8
4.9
5.5
Total
8.5
12.5
22.6
34.1
55.2
83.6
105.3
132.7
147.9
Note: Data are for all congressional candidates, except for 1972, where primary losers are
excluded. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
a Contributions, to candidates for election in the year indicated, made during the two-year
election cycle.
b 1986 FEC data were not adjusted, therefore these figures may be slightly inflated.
C This encompasses the Common Cause categories for business, health, and, in 1976,
lawyers. This category is included here for the purpose of listing the data for 1972-1976,
before the specific breakdowns were devised by the FEC for the corporate and other
categories, and it is based on the assumption that the majority of PACs it includes have a
basically probusiness orientation. It is only roughly comparable to the combined corporate
and trade/membership/health groups in 1978-1982, but most of the business-related PACS
would fall into those two FEC categories (some would be scattered in the nonconnected,
cooperative, and corporation-without-stock groups).
d For 1974 and 1976 the nonconnected category, as defined by the FEC, correlates with the
ideological group used by Common Cause for those two years. Most of the ideological
PACs are today, listed in the nonconnected group, which also includes PACs that are not
ideological. Thus the data for 1974 and 1976 are not exactly comparable to those for
1978-1982, in view of the different standards applied to the nonconnected and the
ideological groups. (Ideological PACs in 1972 were lumped into Common Cause's
"miscellaneous" group.)
e This is a catchall category, in which the earlier figures are only roughly comparable to
the later ones. For 1972-1976 the data reflect Common Cause's "miscellaneous" category,
which included such groups as the NEA (and affiliates), environmentalists, and some
cooperatives, and its agriculture/dairy category. In 1972 Common Cause included the
ideological PACS under "miscellaneous," before their separate listing in 1974; thus 1972
includes more types of PACS than the 1974 and 1976 data do. For 1978-1982 the "other"
data equate directly with the FEC's cooperatives and corporation-without-stock groups.
Thus the data for 1972 are not exactly comparable with those for 1978-1982. The common
thread is the inclusion of the major dairy PACS-ADEPT, C-TAPE, and SPACE-in
"other" in all six election years.
Sources: For 1972-1976 and for footnotes, Cantor, "Political Action Committees," 87-88; for
1978, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Interim Report No. 5
(U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), June 1979, 94; for 1980, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns),
January 1982, 127; for 1982, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity,
1981-82, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), October 1983, 92; for 1984,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (U.S. Senate
and House Campaigns), November, 1985, 101; for 1986, Federal Election Commission,
"FEC Final Report on 1986 PAC Activity," press release, May 5, 1988; for 1988, Federal
Election Commission, "FEC Finds Slower Growth at PAC Activity During 1988 Election
Cycle," press release, April 9, 1989.
101
Table 3-17 Types of PACs Contributing to Presidential, Senate, and
House Campaigns, 1978-1988
Contributions ($ millions)
No.
contrib-
Presi-
Committee type
uting
Total
dential
Senate
House
1978
Labor
215
10.3
0.03
2.8
7.4
Corporation
704
9.8
0.01
3.6
6.1
Nonconnected
122
2.8
0.001
0.7
2.1
Trade/membership/health
400
11.3
0.001
2.8
8.6
Cooperative
11
0.9
0.009
0.2
0.7
Corporation without stock
22
0.1
0
0.03
0.1
Total
1,474
35.2
0.05
10.1
25.0
1980
Labor
240
14.2
0.3
4.2
9.7
Corporation
1101
21.6
1.1
7.7
12.7
Nonconnected
243
5.2
0.1
1.9
3.2
Trade/membership/health
490
17.0
0.3
4.6
12.1
Cooperative
31
1.5
0.04
0.4
1.1
Corporation without stock
50
0.7
0.04
0.3
0.4
Total
2,155
60.2
1.8
19.1
39.3
1982
Labor
293
20.9
0.04
5.2
15.7
Corporation
1317
29.4
0.04
9.9
19.4
Nonconnected
407
11.0
0.01
3.4
7.5
Trade/membership/health
524
22.9
0.01
5.7
17.2
S
Cooperative
46
2.2
0
0.5
1.7
Corporation without stock
78
1.1
0.001
0.3
0.8
Total
2,665
87.6
0.1
25.1
62.4
1984
P
Labor
289
26.2
0.3
5.6
20.3
Corporation
1521
39.0
0.7
14.3
24.0
R
Nonconnected
517
15.3
0.2
5.8
9.3
Trade/membership/health
575
28.3
0.2
7.3
20.8
Cooperative
50
2.6
0.04
0.6
2.0
Corporation without stock
94
1.5
0.03
0.5
0.9
Total
3,046
112.9
1.5
34.1
77.3
(Table continues)
102
nd
Table 3-17 (continued)
Contributions ($ millions)
No.
contrib-
Presi-
Committee type
uting
Total
dential
Senate
House
ouse
1986
Labor
261
31.0
0.0
7.9
23.1
7.4
Corporation
1584
49.6
0.0
21.7
27.8
6.1
Nonconnected
576
19.4
0.0
8.1
11.3
2.1
Trade/membership/health
598
34.5
0.0
10.5
24.0
3.6
Cooperative
51
2.7
0.0
0.7
1.9
).7
Corporation without stock
117
2.6
0.0
1.1
1.5
0.1
Total
3,187
139.8
0.1
50.1
89.6
5.0
1988
Labor
253
34.5
0.6
7.1
26.9
.7
Corporation
1613
52.3
1.8
18.8
31.7
Contribute more +
.7
Nonconnected
623
19.6
0.5
7.8
11.3
.2
Trade/membership/health
626
39.2
0.3
10.3
28.6
1
Cooperative
51
2.6
0.1
0.6
2.0
than bined
1
Corporation without stock
121
3.0
0.1
1.0
1.9
4
Total
3,287
151.2
3.4
45.6
102.4
3
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. The Senate and House figures
include contributions made to committees that may not have been those of candidates
7
during the election cycle indicated, such as debt retirement committees, the committees of
1
retiring incumbents and senators whose terms end in a subsequent election cycle. The
5
number of committees making contributions is lower than the number registered in table
3-13.
Sources: For 1978, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Final
Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, April 1980, 144-152; for 1980,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (Party and
Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, January 1982, 102-110; for 1982, Federal Election
Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (Party and Non-Party
Political Committees), vol. 1, October 1983, 96-105; for 1984, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1983-84, Final Report (Party and Non-Party Political Commit-
tees), vol. 1, November 1985, 79-85; for 1986, Federal Election Commission, "FEC Final
Report on 1986 PAC Activity," press release, May 5, 1988; for 1988, Federal Election
Commission, "FEC Finds Slower Growth at PAC Activity During 1988 Election Cycle,"
press release, April 9, 1989.
103
Table 3-18 Political Action Committee Contributions to House
Ta
Candidates, 1978-1988
Percentage distribution
Amount
Incumbent
Challenger
Open seat
contributed
Co
Committee type
(dollars)
D
R
D
R
D
R
1978ᵃ
La
Labor
7,462,424
60
3
17
0
19
0
Co
Corporate
6,158,069
35
28
2
16
7
12
No
Nonconnected
2,064,062
12
13
4
39
6
25
Trans
Trade/membership/
h
health
8,571,697
36
27
2
14
9
12
Co
Cooperative
674,698
66
16
2
1
9
6
Co
Corporation without
st
stock
95,390
48
13
7
4
17
11
Total
25,026,340
42
19
7
12
11
10
1980ᵇ
Labor
8,883,834
69
4
16
0
10
0
La
Corporate
11,662,361
36
32
1
20
1
9
Co
Nonconnectedᶜ
2,831,209
21
15
5
41
4
12
N
Trade/membership/
Tr
health
11,215,269
39
32
2
17
3
8
h
Cooperative
985,177
59
26
2
3
3
7
C
Corporation without
C
stock
387,740
47
30
2
11
2
7
S
Total
35,965,590
45
24
5
15
4
7
1982ᵈ
Labor
14,557,589
53
4
28
0.1
14
1
La
Corporate
18,136,407
32
45
1
9
3
9
C
Nonconnected
6,886,695
29
19
16
18
8
10
N
Trade/membership/
T1
health
15,901,781
34
42
4
8
4
8
1
Cooperative
1,650,239
52
33
4
1
6
3
C
Corporation without
C
stock
771,847
51
32
5
3
5
4
S
Total
57,904,558
39
30
11
7
7
7
(Table continues)
N
Pe
104
Table 3-18 (continued)
Percentage distribution
Amount
Incumbent
Challenger
Open seat
contributed
Committee type
(dollars)
D
R
D
R
D
R
1984e
Labor
18,686,078
71
5
17
0.2
6
0.2
Corporate
22,908,071
43
39
0.5
11
0.7
6
Nonconnected
8,641,416
41
15
8
24
4
9
Trade/membership/
Summary
health
19,805,084
47
36
3
7
2
5
Cooperative
1,965,801
61
31
2
2
1
2
1988- PAC funds more lik
Corporation without
stock
885,512
62
27
2
4
1
3
be gren to the following
Total
72,891,962
52
26
6
8
3
4
in the order they are
1986f
likely to given
Labor
21,946,955
60
7
19
0.1
13
0.4
Dem. Incumber
Corporate
26,358,751
45
42
1
3
2
7
Nonconnected
10,713,993
35
21
13
9
12
10
Trade/membership/
Rep. Incumbe
health
23,003,124
46
38
3
3
4
7
Cooperative
1,847,860
54
37
1
1
4
3
Dem.
Challenge
Corporation without
stock
1,373,922
53
32
2
4
4
7
Rep.
Challenge
Total
85,244,605
48
29
8
3
7
6
1988g
Labor
25,753,300
64
7
19
0
9
0
more $ given
Corporate
31,069,925
50
42
1
3
1
3
Nonconnected
10,720,895
45
22
13
6
8
5
open seat candida
Trade/membership/
than Rep. Challe
health
27,880,942
52
36
3
2
3
4
Cooperative
1,936,543
59
33
2
0
4
2
Corporation without
stock
1,839,135
57
31
2
4
2
4
Total
99,200,740
54
29
7
2
5
3
Note: General election candidates only. D indicates Democrat; R indicates Republican.
Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
(Notes continue)
105
Table 3-18 (continued)
a Contribution figures are for all 1978 House candidates, but most went to general election
candidates. The total number of candidates was 797; 31 percent of those were Democratic
incumbents, 17 percent Republican incumbents, 14 percent Democratic challengers, 25
percent Republican challengers, 7 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 7
percent Republicans running for an open seat.
b The total number of candidates was 738; 34 percent of those were Democratic incum-
bents, 19 percent Republican incumbents, 13 percent Democratic challengers, 23 percent
Republican challengers, 6 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 5 percent
Republicans running for an open seat.
c PACs not connected to other organizations also gave more than 1 percent of their House
contributions to challengers who were neither Democrats nor Republicans.
d The total number of candidates was 830; 26 percent of those were Democratic incum-
bents, 20 percent Republican incumbents, 20 percent Democratic challengers, 21 percent
Republican challengers, 6 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 6 percent
Republicans running for an open seat.
e The total number of candidates was 816; 32 percent of those were Democratic incum-
bents, 19 percent Republican incumbents, 19 percent Democratic challengers, 25 percent
Republican challengers, 3 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 3 percent
Republicans running for an open seat.
f The total number of candidates was 810; 29 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
20 percent Republican incumbents, 18 percent Democratic challengers, 23 percent Republi-
can challengers, 6 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 5 percent Republicans
running for an open seat.
g The total number of candidates was 809; 31 percent of those were Democratic incum-
bents, 20 percent Republican incumbents, 19 percent Democratic challengers, 24 percent
Republican challengers, 3 percent Democrats running for an open seat, and 3 percent
Republicans running for an open seat.
Sources: For 1978, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78, Final
Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, April 1980, 149-150; for 1980,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (U.S. Senate
and House Campaigns), January 1982, 65-66; for 1982, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns),
October 1983, 47-48; for 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity,
1983-84, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), November 1985, 53; for 1986,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1985-86, Final Report (U.S. Senate
and House Campaigns), March 1988, 53; for 1988, Federal Election Commission computer
printout, May 3, 1989.
106
Table 3-19
Political Action Committee Contributions to Senate
Candidates, 1978-1988
lection
ocratic
ers, 25
Percentage distribution
and 7
Amount
Incumbent
Challenger
Open seat
contributed
ncum-
Committee type
(dollars)
D
R
D
R
D
R
ercent
ercent
1978ᵃ
House
Labor
2,831,336
38
9
33
1
20
1
icum-
Corporate
3,616,388
15
37
6
20
7
15
ercent
Nonconnected
732,993
10
19
11
37
4
18
recent
Trade/membership/
health
2,751,980
19
31
9
17
10
13
cum-
Cooperative
202,600
22
21
13
10
20
13
rcent
rcent
Corporation without
stock
25,578
16
35
7
16
12
15
ents,
Total
10,160,875
22
26
15
15
11
11
ubli-
icans
1980b
cum-
Labor
3,428,404
65
9
14
1
11
1
:cent
cent
Corporate
6,445,566
25
14
1
47
2
11
Nonconnected
1,690,574
22
6
2
53
2
14
Final
Trade/membership/
980,
health
3,816,424
37
17
3
32
5
7
nate
Cooperative
325,050
65
11
1
11
6
6
sion,
Corporation without
;ns),
stock
214,853
40
18
3
27
5
7
vity,
986,
Total
15,920,871
37
13
4
33
5
8
nate
uter
1982c
Labor
4,830,051
56
7
27
0.3
9
1
Corporate
8,275,630
26
41
1
17
1
14
Nonconnected
3,150,309
28
20
15
23
6
7
Trade/membership/
health
4,857,841
37
39
4
10
2
8
Cooperative
427,526
52
19
12
2
1
14
Corporation without
stock
262,140
45
33
3
6
2
11
Total
21,803,497
36
29
10
12
4
9
(Table continues)
107
Table 3-19 (continued)
Ta
Percentage distribution
a Ci
can
Amount
Incumbent
Challenger
Open seat
inc
contributed
seat
Committee type
(dollars)
D
R
D
R
D
R
b Th
9 p
1984d
can
runi
Labor
4,600,719
28
6
46
0.1
20
0.03
Th
Corporate
11,398,143
20
57
2
6
3
11
17 p
Nonconnected
5,079,528
20
28
28
10
9
6
can
runr
Trade/membership/
di Th
health
6,003,397
27
48
9
4
6
6
25 p
Cooperative
450,942
31
49
10
1
8
1
can (
Corporation without
runn
stock
368,185
33
39
11
4
7
5
e The
26 pe
Total
27,900,914
23
41
16
6
8
7
can C
runni
1986ᵉ
I The
20 per
Labor
7,129,594
23
8
43
0
26
1
can cl
Corporate
18,953,704
13
49
7
6
5
21
runni
Nonconnected
7,466,771
15
26
25
5
16
12
Source
Trade/membership/
Final I
health
1980,
9,424,448
19
42
13
3
8
15
Senate
Cooperative
632,380
23
40
20
2
7
8
Report:
Corporation without
Octobe
stock
973,804
16
47
15
4
7
11
1983-8
Federa
Total
44,580,701
16
37
18
4
11
15
and H
printou
1988f
Labor
6,778,094
47
6
31
0
14
2
Corporate
18,340,192
30
39
3
10
5
14
Nonconnected
7,678,148
33
22
18
8
10
9
Trade/membership/
health
10,090,145
34
36
5
6
6
12
Cooperative
550,057
40
29
8
3
5
14
Corporation without
stock
1,011,831
41
32
6
5
6
10
Total
44,448,467
34
30
10
7
8
10
Note: General election candidates only. D indicates Democrat; R indicates Republican.
Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.
(Notes follow)
108
Table 3-19 (continued)
a Contribution figures for all 1978 Senate candidates, but most went to general election
candidates. The total number of candidates was 68; 16 percent of those were Democratic
incumbents, 16 percent Republican challengers, 19 percent Democrats running for open
seats, and 18 percent Republicans running for open seats.
b The total number of candidates was 66; 27 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
9 percent Republican incumbents, 9 percent Democratic challengers, 27 percent Republi-
can challengers, 14 percent Democrats running for open seats, and 14 percent Republicans
running for open seats.
.03
C The total number of candidates was 66; 29 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
17 percent Republican incumbents, 17 percent Democratic challengers, 29 percent Republi-
can challengers, 5 percent Democrats running for open seats, and 5 percent Republicans
running for open seats.
di The total number of candidates was 68; 18 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
25 percent Republican incumbents, 25 percent Democratic challengers, 19 percent Republi-
can challengers, 6 percent Democrats running for open seats, and 7 percent Republicans
running for open seats.
e The total number of candidates was 68; 13 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
26 percent Republican incumbents, 26 percent Democratic challengers, 13 percent Republi-
can challengers, 10 percent Democrats running for open seats, and 10 percent Republicans
running for open seats.
f The total number of candidates was 66; 23 percent of those were Democratic incumbents,
20 percent Republican incumbents, 18 percent Democratic challengers, 23 percent Republi-
can challengers, 9 percent Democrats running for open seats, and 9 percent Republicans
running for open seats.
Sources: For 1948-78, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1977-78,
Final Report (Party and Non-Party Political Committees), vol. 1, April 1980, 147-148; for
1980, Federal 'Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1979-80, Final Report (U.S.
Senate and House Campaigns), January 1982, 63-64; for 1982, Federal Election Commission,
Reports on Financial Activity, 1981-82, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns),
October 1983, 45-46; for 1984, Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity,
1983-84, Final Report (U.S. Senate and House Campaigns), November 1985, 52; for 1986,
Federal Election Commission, Reports on Financial Activity, 1985-86, Final Report (U.S. Senate
and House Campaigns), March 1988, 52; for 1988, Federal Election Commission computer
printout, May, 3, 1989.
109
Table 3-20
Independent Expenditures in House, Senate, and
Presidential Election Campaigns, 1977-1988
(in dollars)
For
Against
For
Against
Democrats
Democrats
Republicans
Republicans
Totalᵃ
1977-1978
House
28,725
31,034
70,701
5,298
143,162
(N = 55)
(N = 7)
(N = 83)
(N = 5)
(N = 164)
Senate
102,508
36,717
26,065
1,985
168,125
(N = 13)
(N = 6)
(N = 22)
(N = 5)
(N = 48)
President
4,442
0
1,726
0
6,168
(N = 2)
(N = 1)
(N = 3)
1979-1980
House
190,615
38,023
410,478
45,132
684,727
(N = 91)
(N = 32)
(N = 205)
(N = 6)
(N = 321)
Senate
127,381
1,282,613
261,678
12,430
1,684,102
(N = 24)
(N = 15)
(N = 58)
(N = 5)
(N = 89)
President
123,058
737,796
12,537,522
65,040
13,746,444
(N = 2)
(N = 3)
(N = 3)
(N = 2)
(N = 15)
1981-1982
House
241,442
862,654
492,404
66,296
1,662,796
(N = 84)
(N = 39)
(N = 164)
(N = 14)
(N = 276)
Senate
127,451
3,182,986
298,410
483,750
4,094,597
(N = 25)
(N = 28)
(N = 46)
(N = 9)
(N = 90)
President
568
1,394
91,765
0
93,727
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 2)
1983-1984
House
560,727
118,171
633,646
26,847
1,339,391
(N = 159)
(N = 37)
(N = 194)
(N = 43)
(N = 373)
Senate
326,031
410,428
1,807,981
2,082,207
4,626,647
(N = 33)
(N = 26)
(N = 31)
(N = 11)
(N = 81)
President
806,417
486,998
15,830,043
343,835
17,467,293
(N = 2)
(N = 4)
(N = 1)
(N = 1)
(N = 7)
1985-1986
House
2,385,685
227,286
1,313,578
120,037
4,046,581
Senate
988,382
632,412
3,342,790
348,006
5,311,590
1987-1988
House
1,465,554
278,723
919,929
148,705
2,812,911
(N = 280)
(N = 22)
(N = 246)
(N = 12)
(N = 534)
Senate
831,064
617,066
2,809,517
143,441
4,401,088
(N = 42)
(N = 25)
(N = 55)
(N = 19)
(N = 110)
President
567,900
3,352,264
10,054,116
146,439
14,120,719
(N = 7)
(N = 10)
(N = 6)
(N = 6)
(N = 21)
(Notes follow)
110
Table 3-20 (continued)
Note: An independent expenditure is defined as an "expenditure by a person for a
communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
that is not made with the cooperation or with the prior consent of, or in consultation with,
or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or any agent or authorized committee of
such candidate" (11 C.F.R. 109.1[a]).
The Federal Election Commission's data on 1975-1976 independent expenditures were
not completed or verified. On October 9, 1980, the FEC released the following information
164)
about independent expenditures during the 1975-1976 election cycle: $2,033,207 was spent
3,125
independently for or against 144 candidates; $1,646,540 was spent for or against presiden-
II
48)
tial candidates; $198,787 was spent for or against Senate candidates; $187,880 was spent for
or against House candidates.
5,168
The Federal Election Commission's 1985-1986 data did not include information on
=
3)
presidential campaigns.
a The totals include expenditures made on behalf of, or in opposition to, candidates who
4,727
were neither Democrats nor Republicans. In 1980, $479 was spent on behalf of one such
321)
candidate for the House, $271,978 was spent on behalf of seven presidential candidates
(including $199,438 on behalf of John Anderson), and $11,050 was spent in opposition to
4,102
two presidential candidates. In 1977-1978, $7,404 was spent on behalf of fourteen
II
89)
candidates for the House and $920 on behalf of two Senate candidates. (In 1981-1982, there
6,444
were no independent expenditures for or against candidates who were neither Democrats
Il
15)
nor Republicans.) The "N" figures in "Total" column refer to total number of candidates.
Because there may have been independent expenditures for and against the same
candidates, the total may be less than the sum of the candidates in each column. No "N"
2,796
figures were available for 1985-1986 data.
276)
Sources: For 1975-1978, Federal Election Commission, "FEC Releases Information on Inde-
4,597
pendent Expenditures," press release, October 9, 1980; for 1979-1980, "FEC Study Shows
=
90)
Independent Expenditures Top $16 Million," press release, November 29, 1981; for 1982,
3,727
"FEC Issues Final Report on 1981-1982 Independent Spending," press release, October 14,
=
2)
1983; for 1983-1984, "FEC Reports 1983-84 Independent Spending Activity," press release,
October 4, 1985; for 1986, Federal Election Commission, "Final FEC Report on 1985-86
Independent Expenditures Shows Change in Spending Patterns," press release, March 31,
39,391
1988; for 1988, Federal Election Commission, "Independent Expenditures of S21 Million
II
373)
Reported in 1988, FEC Study Shows," press release, May 19, 1989.
26,647
II
81)
67,293
=
7)
46,581
11,590
12,911
= 534)
01,088
II
110)
20,719
11
21)
follow)
111
pu
Table 4-6 Majority Party Chairmanships of House Committees and Subcommittees, 84th-101st Congresses, 1955-1990
No. of
No. chairing
% chairing
No. chairing
% chairing
majority
standing
No. with
standing
all
No. with
all
Party
party
committees
two or more
committees
committees
two or more
committees
in
members
and sub-
chairman-
and sub-
and sub-
chairman-
and sub-
Congress
majority
in House
committees
ships
committees
committeesᵃ
ships
committeesᵃ
84th
(1955-56)
D
232
63
18
27.2
75
22
32.3
90th
(1967-68)
D
247
111
32
44.9
117
38
47.4
92d
(1971-72)
D
254
120
25
47.2
131
31
51.6
94th
(1975-76)
D
289
142
24
49.1
150
28
51.9
96th
(1979-80)
D
276
144
19
52.2
149
28
54.0
97th
(1981-82)
D
243
121
16
49.8
125
26
51.4
98th (1983-84)
D
267
124
23
46.4
127
33
47.6
99th
(1985-86)
D
253
129
27
51.0
131
37
51.8
100th
(1987-88)
D
258
128
28
49.6
132ᵇ
42
51.2
101st
(1989-90)
D
260
134
26
51.5
137
38
52.7
a Includes standing committees, subcommittees of standing committees, select and special committees, subcommittees of select and special committees,
joint committees, and subcommittees of joint committees.
b Includes task forces when committee has no other subcommittees.
Sources: Brownson, Congressional Staff Directory; Congressional Quarterly Almanac.
121
122
Table
4-7 Majority Party Chairmanships of Senate Committees and Subcommittees, 84th-101st Congresses, 1955-1990
Average no.
Average
of standing
no. of all
committees
committees
No. chairing
% chairing
and sub-
No. chairing
% chairing
and sub-
No. of
standing
standing
committees
all
all
committees
majority
committees
committees
chaired by
committees
committees
chaired by
Party in
party
and sub-
and sub-
majority
and sub-
and sub-
majority
Congress
majority
in Senate
committees
committees
members
committeesᵃ
committeesᵃ
members
84th
(1955-56)
D
48
42
87.5
1.8
42
87.5
2.0
90th
(1967-68)
D
64
55
85.9
1.8
58
90.6
2.1
92d
(1971-72)
D
55ᵇ
51
92.7
2.6
52
94.5
2.9
94th
(1975-76)
D
62ᵇ
57
91.9
2.4
57
91.9
2.9
96th
(1979-80)
D
59b
58
98.3
1.8
58
98.3
2.1
97th
(1981-82)
R
53
51
96.2
1.9
52
98.1
2.3
98th
(1983-84)
R
54
52
96.3
1.9
52
96.3
2.5
99th
(1985-86)
R
53
49
92.4
1.9
49
92.4
2.0
100th
(1987-88)ᶜ
D
54
47
87.0
1.8
47
87.0
2.0
101st
(1989-90)
D
55
46
83.6
1.9
46
83.6
1.9
a Includes standing committees, subcommittees of standing committees, select and special committees, subcommittees of select and special committees,
joint committees, and subcommittees of joint committees.
b Includes Harry Byrd, Jr., elected as independent.
C Figures for the 100th Congress were compiled after the death of Sen. Edward Zorinsky (D-Neb.) but before the appointment of his successor and the
redistribution of his chairmanships.
Sources: Brownson, Congressional Staff Directory; Congressional Quarterly Almanac.
sed
34
41
36
36
34
34
30
35
Congressional Staff
35
and Operating Expenses
5
14
:8
2
9
2
9
Congress is made up of a great deal more than elected senators and
3
representatives. With more than 31,000 employees in 1987 (table 5-1 and
6
!!!
figure 5-1), the legislative branch is larger than the departments of State,
1
Labor, or Housing and Urban Development. In comparison, the second
6
most heavily staffed legislative branch in the world is the Canadian
0
5
Parliament, which gets by with a staff of fewer than 3,500.1
5
Congress's employees include more than the personal and commit-
7
tee staffs of representatives and senators. Also included are major
research agencies, such as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of
the Library of Congress, and support personnel, such as mail carriers,
ttee
police officers, barbers, hairdressers, television technicians, computer
ach
one
specialists, printers, carpenters, parking attendants, photographers, and
in
laborers.
out
The development of this large congressional establishment is a
ion
ntil
twentieth-century phenomenon. At the turn of the century, represen-
tatives had no personal staff, and senators had a total of only thirty-nine
ave
personal assistants (see table 5-2 and figure 5-1). Committee staffs
consisted of a few clerks (see table 5-5). By contrast, 11,659 persons
nal
served on the personal staffs of representatives and senators in 1987, and
more than 3,000 people were employed by congressional committees.
The enlargement of Congress's support staff reflects both the
expanding role of the government in the United States and the
changing role of the individual legislator. As government has done
more, the congressional workload, in terms of both legislation and
constituency service, has increased, and the staffing needs of Congress
have expanded accordingly. The most dramatic staff growth has taken
125
Vital Statistics on Congress, 1989-1990
place since World War II, the personal staffs of the House and Senate
post-
having increased more than fivefold and sixfold, respectively, since
size
1947. One reflection of the increased demands on legislators for constit-
repo
uency services and the members' encouragement of those demands for
pow
reelection purposes is the dramatic expansion of congressional staff
com]
working in constituency offices. Two-fifths of the personal staffs of
Gove
representatives and one-third of those of senators now work in district
gene
or state offices-a dramatic increase since the early 1970s (see tables 5-3
pand
and 5-4).
The explosion in congressional staffing is also evident on the
four
standing committees: House committee staffs increased twelvefold and
siona
Senate committee staffs more than fourfold between 1947 and 1987 (see
(OTA
table 5-5). Committee staffing has grown steadily since the turn of the
facto
century, but the most dramatic increases occurred in the 1970s. House
of t1
committee staffs were two and three-quarters times as large in 1979 as
Cong
they were in 1970, and Senate committee staffs doubled over the same
tion.
period.
John
The enlargement of House committee staffs after 1970 is to a
sity f
significant degree a result of the reform movement that swept the
auth
chamber. The sentiment for diluting the powers of committee chairmen
of th
extended to their nearly exclusive authority to hire and fire committee
Offic
staff. Reforms allowed a much larger number of subcommittee chairmen
sibili
and ranking members to hire their own staffs. The 1975 surge in
same
committee staffing in the Senate reflects the passage of Senate Resolu-
of G
tion 60, which authorized each senator to have a personal legislative
num
assistant for each committee assignment. The modest reductions in
Senate committee staffs in 1977 were caused by the committee reorga-
cong
nization that went into effect that year, which among other things
play
reduced the number of Senate subcommittees and shifted employees
ment
hired under Senate Resolution 60 to personal staff payrolls.
influ
The 1980s have not been a repeat of the 1970s. Personal staffs have
throu
continued to grow, but at a greatly reduced rate, and committee staff
role
numbers have leveled off. Senate committee staffs underwent a one-shot
with
14 percent cut after the Republicans gained control in 1981 and
make
promised to reverse the previous decade's trends. Note, however, that
numl
more than one-half of the cuts came from one committee, Judiciary (see
for n
table 5-7). As significant as the cuts were, the Senate still had almost 70
could
percent more committee staff in 1987 than in 1970.
it is
Tables 5-6 and 5-7 rank the standing committees according to their
patte
current staff size. Each committee except the Senate Judiciary Committee
had a significantly larger staff in 1987 than it had in 1960. Most
Toda
committees employ well over fifty persons, a far cry from the
cong
126
Congressional Staff and Operating Expenses
ate
post-World War II era of small, intimate, informal committee staffs. The
nce
size of a committee staff does not appear to be related uniformly to the
tit-
reported power or desirability of an assignment to that committee. The
for
powerful Senate Finance Committee, for example, is modestly staffed
taff
compared with the less influential Labor and Human Resources and
of
Governmental Affairs committees. Of course, some committees that are
rict
generally considered less desirable assignments may well have ex-
5-3
panded their staffs to attract new members.
A significant part of the congressional staff works for Congress's
the
four major research agencies (see table 5-8). Two of these, the Congres-
and
sional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Technology Assessment
(see
(OTA), were created in the mid-1970s, their creation reflecting a basic
the
factor underlying the growth of congressional staff. The expanded role
use
of the government in domestic and international affairs had made
9 as
Congress increasingly dependent on the executive branch for informa-
ame
tion. A growing distrust of the executive, which festered during the
Johnson and Nixon administrations, convinced Congress of the neces-
o a
sity for congressionally controlled sources of information. Congress thus
the
authorized these new agencies and simultaneously expanded the roles
nen
of the Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting
ttee
Office (GAO). The GAO has multiple functions, including audit respon-
nen
sibilities with limited relevance to its role as a congressional agency. The
in
same is true of the Library of Congress. Thus table 5-1 includes a subtotal
olu-
of GAO and Library of Congress staff, which is an estimate of the
tive
number of employees with a direct congressional function.
in
Although the numbers in these tables describe the growth of
rga-
congressional staff, they do not reveal the many roles staff members
ings
play in the legislative process. The infinite variety of staffing arrange-
yees
ments that exists in members' offices and on committees and the
influence exercised by various staff members become apparent only
lave
through close examination of individual offices and committees. The
staff
role played by staff within individual offices may also change over time
shot
with the ebb and flow of political tides. President Reagan's ability to
and
make Congress focus on budget issues, for example, greatly reduced the
that
number of bills Congress passed (see chapter 6). That meant less chance
(see
for members to use their staffs as policy entrepreneurs, unless the staffs
it 70
could come up with programs that did not increase the budget. In short,
it is difficult, if not impossible, to generalize about staffing roles and
heir
patterns solely on the basis of gross figures.
ittee
The costs of running Congress have grown along with the staff.
Most
Today's Congress is well over a billion-dollar enterprise. Even though
the
congressional costs may appear puny when compared with those of the
127
Vital Statistics on Congress, 1989-1990
executive branch, they have grown at a dramatic pace. In the years
between 1946 and 1988, legislative branch appropriations increased
3,127.9 percent. Over the same period, the consumer price index went
up "only" 516 percent (see table 5-9). As recently as the mid-1960s,
the cost of operating Congress was less than one-ninth what it is to-
day. We may now be seeing some signs of legislative self-control: in
the years between 1976, when Congress first approached the billion-
dollar threshold, and 1988, legislative branch appropriations went up
only 84 percent, while the consumer price index increased by 114
percent.
The figures summarizing legislative branch appropriations include
much more than the cost of House and Senate operations. The appropri-
ation also includes the expenses of such agencies as the Library of
Congress, the Government Printing Office, the General Accounting
Office, the Botanic Garden, and the Copyright Royalty Commission.
Indeed, these agencies' budgets comprised 46 percent of the 1988
legislative branch appropriation (see table 5-10 for a breakdown of the
components of the congressional budget).
Table 5-11 traces one of the perquisites of office available to
members of Congress-use of the frank to send materials pertaining to
the official business of Congress through the U.S. mails. In 1987 the cost
of the congressional franking privilege was $91.5 million, nearly double
the cost in 1981. Until 1981, the main reasons for the growing use of the
frank were a more liberal law, permitting members of Congress to send
mail (including newsletters and questionnaires) addressed to "occu-
pant," and the increased value that legislators attach to communications
with their constituents. The explosive growth since 1981 is a reflection
of grass-roots lobbying. In other words, the first wave of growth was
stimulated by members, the second by constituents.
Tables 5-12 and 5-13 summarize the allowances available to repre-
sentatives and senators for operating their offices and outline the
changes in those allowances since 1970. In the past, expenses for such
things as postage, stationery, office furnishings, equipment, and travel
were governed by strict individual spending limits. The House in 1978
and the Senate in 1973 consolidated their office expense allowances into
one account to give members greater flexibility in using their expense
allowances. Because Congress is a labor-intensive enterprise, however,
the largest share of the congressional allowance is for staff.
128
Congressional Staff and Operating Expenses
ears
NOTE: In the source notes to the tables in this chapter, two kinds of
ased
frequently cited legislative appropriations documents are abbreviated
vent
as follows:
'60s,
; to-
1) House LBA Hearings for 19xx = U.S. Congress, House of Represen-
1: in
tatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative
ion-
Branch Appropriations, Hearings on Legislative Branch Appropriations for
: up
19xx. 2) Senate LBA Hearings for 19xx = U.S. Congress, Senate,
114
Committee on Appropriations, Hearings on Legislative Branch Appropria-
tions for 19xx. The year in the citation is the fiscal year covered by the
ude
appropriation hearing, not the calendar year that appears in the table.
pri-
/ of
ting
ion.
988
the
NOTE
: to
1. Micháel J. Malbin, Unelected Representatives: Congressional Staff and the Future of
Representative Government (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 10.
g to
cost
ible
the
end
ccu-
ons
ion
was
ore-
the
uch
vel
978
nto
nse
ver,
129
Table 5-1 Congressional Staff, 1979-1987
T
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
So
House
M
Committee staffᵃ
2,027
1,917
2,068
2,146
2,136
A
Personal staff
7,067
7,487
7,606
7,528
7,584
Leadership staffᵇ
162
127
135
144
138
A
Officers of the House, staffᶜ
1,487
1,686
1,728
1,818
1,845
C
Subtotal, House
10,743
11,217
11,537
11,636
11,703
19
19
Senate
H
Committee staffᵃ
1,410
1,150
1,176
1,178
1,207
C
Personal staff
3,593
3,945
4,059
4,097
4,075
U
Leadership staffᵇ
91
106
120
118
103
Officers of the Senate, staffᶜ
828
878
948
976
904
Subtotal, Senate
5,922
6,079
6,303
H
6,369
6,289
o
Joint committee staffs
138
126
123
131
132
Support agencies
M
General Accounting Office
5,303
5,182
4,960
5,042
5,016
(30% of GAO) working
directly for Congress
(1,591)
(1,555)
(1,488)
(1,513)
(1,504)
Library of Congress
5,390
4,799
4,815
4,809
4,824
(Congressional Research
Service)
(847)
(849)
(853)
(860)
(860)
Congressional Budget
Office
207
218
211
222
226
Office of Technology
Assessment
145
130
130
143
143
Subtotal, support
agencies
11,045
10,329
10,116
10,216
10,209
(Subtotal, Only CRS in
Library, 30% of GAO)
(2,790)
(2,752)
(2,682)
(2,738)
(2,733)
Miscellaneous
Architect
2,296
1,986
2,061
2,073
2,412
Capitol Police Force
1,167
1,163
1,148
1,227
1,250
whatdo arch. than b a
Subtotal
3,463
3,149
3,209
3,300
3,662
Total
31,311
30,900
31,288
31,652
31,995
(Total, only CRS in Library
and 30% of GAO)
(23,056)
(23,323)
(23,854)
(24,174)
(24,519)
Includes select and special committee staffs. Figures therefore do not agree with those in
table 5-5.
Includes legislative counsels' offices.
C Doorkeepers, parliamentarians, sergeants-at-arms, clerk of the House, Senate majority
and minority secretaries, and postmasters.
(Sources follow)
130
Table 5-1 (continued)
Sources: For 1979, Report of the Clerk of the House, July 1, 79-September 30, 1979; Report of
the Secretary of the Senate, April 1, 1979-September 30, 1979; U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Work Force Analysis and Statistics Branch, Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics,
monthly release, October 31, 1979, 6. For 1981, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch Appropriations, Hearings on Legisla-
tive Branch Appropriations for 1983, pt. 1, 24-28; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on
Appropriations, Hearings on Legislative Branch Appropriations for 1982, 117, 253, 266; Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee Funding, 97th Cong., 1st sess.,
1981, Committee Print 2; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1981-March 31,
1982, 1-23. For 1983, House LBA Hearings for 1985, pt. 1, 23-27; Office of the Clerk of the
House; Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee Funding, 98th
Cong., 2d'sess., 1984, Committee Print 3; Senate LBA Hearings for 1984, 47, 276; Office of the
U.S. Capitol Police. For 1985, House LBA Hearings for 1987, pt. 1, 22-27; Report of the Clerk of
the House, October 1, 1985-December 31, 1985; Senate Committee on Rules and Administra-
tion, Senate Committee Funding, 99th Cong., 2d sess., 1986, Committee Print 2; Senate LBA
Hearings for 1986; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1985-March 31, 1986; Office
of the U.S. Capitol Police. For 1987, House LBA Hearings for 1989, pt. 2; Office of the Clerk of
the House; Senate LBA Hearings for 1988; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1987-
March 31, 1988; Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1989
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989), 252; Office of the Architect of
the Capitol; Office of the U.S. Capitol Police.
131
Figt
Num
Table 5-2 Staffs of Members of the House and the Senate, 1891-1987
8,000
Employees
Employees
Year
in House
in Senate
39 hundred 7,000
1891
n.a.
one yeas
1914
n.a.
72
1930
870
280
ago.
1935
870
424
1947
1,440
590
6,000
1957
2,441
1,115
1967
4,055
1,749
1972
5,280
2,426
1976
6,939
3,251
5,000
1977
6,942
3,554
1978
6,944
3,268
1979
7,067
3,593
1980
7,371
3,746
4,000
1981
7,487
3,945
1982
7,511
4,041
1983
7,606
4,059
1984
7,385
3,949
1985
7,528
4,097
3,000
1986
7,920ᵃ
3,774a
1987
7,584
4,075
n. a. = not available.
2,000
a Senate figures reflect the period immediately after Gramm-Rudman mandated staffing
cuts. House figures are for the entire fiscal year, thus averaging post-Gramm-Rudman
staffing levels with previous, higher levels.
Sources: For 1891 through 1976, Harrison W. Fox, Jr., and Susan W. Hammond, Congressional
Staffs: The Invisible Force in American Lawmaking (New York: Free Press, 1977), 171. For 1977
1,000
and 1978, Judy Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-78," Congressional Research
Service, Library of Congress, August 24, 1979, reprinted in U.S. Congress, House, Select
Committee on Committees, Final Report, 96th Cong., 2d sess., 1980, 540. For 1977, 1978, and
1979 House, Report of the Clerk of the House. For 1979 Senate, Report of the Secretary of the
0
Senate. For 1980, House LBA Hearings for 1982, pt. 1, 25; Senate LBA Hearings for 1981, pt. 1, 26.
1
For 1981, House LBA Hearings for 1983, pt. 1, 24-28; Report of the Secretary of the Senate,
I
October 1, 1981-March 31, 1982. For 1982, House LBA Hearings for 1984, pt. 1, 25; Report of the
Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1982-March 31, 1983. For 1983, House LBA Hearings for
1985, pt. 1, 24; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1983-March 31, 1984. For 1984,
Soure
House LBA Hearings for 1986, pt. 1, 22; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1984-
March 31, 1985. For 1985-1986, House LBA Hearings for 1987, pt. 1, 23; Report of the Secretary
of the Senate, October 1, 1985-March 31, 1986. For 1987, House LBA Hearings for 1989, pt. 2;
Senate LBA Hearings for 1988; Report of the Secretary of the Senate, October 1, 1987-March 31,
1988.
132
Figure 5-1 Staff of Members and of Committees in Congress, 1891-1987
Number of employees
.987
8,000
jees
ate
7,000)
19
2
0
House
4
members' staffs
0
6,000
5
9
6
1
5,000
4
8
3
6
4,000
5
1
9
9
7
3,000
Senate
members' staffs
4a
5
2,000
fing
House
man
committee staffs
ional
1977
1,000
arch
Senate
elect
committee staffs
and
F the
0
, 26.
1891
1914
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
75
80
85
87
nate,
Date
f the
47
57
67
; for
984,
Sources: Tables 5-2 and 5-5.
984-
tary
t. 2;
31,
133
Table 5-3 House Staff Based in District Offices, 1970-1988
Percentage of total personal
Year
Employees
staffs in district offices
1970
1,035
n.a.
1971
1,121
n.a.
1972
1,189
22.5
1973
1,347
n.a.
1974
1,519
n.a.
1975
1,732
n.a.
1976
1,943
28.0
1977
2,058
29.6
1978
2,317
33.4
1979
2,445
34.6
1980
2,534
34.4
1981
2,702
36.1
1982
2,694
35.8
1983
2,785
36.6
1984
2,872
38.9
1985
2,871
38.1
1986
2,940
43.6
1987
2,503
40.9
1988
2,954
39.6
n.a. = not available.
Sources: For 1970-1978, Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-78." For 1979-1988:
Charles B. Brownson, Congressional Staff Directory (Washington, D.C., Congressional Staff
Directory, annual editions).
134
Table 5-4 Senate Staff Based in State Offices, 1972-1988
al
Percentage of total personal
Year
Employees
staffs in state offices
1972
303
12.5
1978
816
25.0
1979
879
24.3
1980
953
25.4
1981
937
25.8
1982
1,053
26.1
1983
1,132
27.9
1984
1,140
28.9
1985
1,180
28.8
1986
1,249
34.1
1987
1,152
34.2
1988
1,217
33.7
Sources: Brownson, Congressional Staff Directory.
988:
taff
135
Table 5-5 Staffs of House and Senate Standing Committees, 1891-1987
Employees
Employees
Year
in House
in Senate
1891
62
41
1914
105
198
1930
112
163
1935
122
172
1947
167
232
1950
246
300
1955
329
386
1960
440
470
1965
571
509
1970
702
635
1971
729
711
1972
817
844
1973
878
873
1974
1,107
948
1975
1,460
1,277
1976
1,680
1,201
1977
1,776
1,028
1978
1,844
1,151
1979
1,909
1,269
1980
1,917
1,191
1981
1,843
1,022
1982
1,839
1,047
1983
1,970
1,075
1984
1,944
1,095
1985
2,009
1,080
1986
1,954
1,075
1987
2,024
1,074
Note: Figures for 1947-1986 are for the statutory and investigative staffs of standing
committees. They do not include select committee staffs, which varied between 31 and 238
in the House and between 62 and 172 in the Senate during the 1970s. For this reason, the
numbers do not agree with those in table 5-1.
Sources: For 1891-1935, Fox and Hammond, Congressional Staffs, 171. For 1947-1978,
Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-78." For 1979-1980 Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate,
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Inquiries and Investigations, 96th Cong., 2d
sess., 1980, Committee Print 2, March 5, 1980. For 1981-1986 Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate,
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee Funding, annual committee
prints. For 1981 House, House LBA Hearings for 1983, pt. 2, 107. For 1982 House, House LBA
Hearings for 1984, pt. 2, 77. For 1983-1984 House, Office of the Clerk of the House. For 1985
House, Report of the Clerk of the House, October 1, 1985-December 31, 1985. For 1986 House,
Report of the Clerk of the House, October 1, 1986-December 31, 1986. For 1987 House, Report
of the Clerk of the House, October 1, 1987-December 31, 1987; Senate, Committee on Rules
and Administration.
136
1891-1987
Table 5-6 Staffs of House Standing Committees, 1947-1987
Employees
Committee
1947
1960
1970
1975
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
in Senate
House Administrationᵃ
7
4
25
217
273
252
267
275
228
41
Appropriations
29
59
71
98
129
127
160
182
188
198
Energy and Commerce
10
45
42
112
160
151
158
162
153
163
Education and Labor
10
25
77
114
121
121
121
119
127
172
Budget
b
b
b
67
86
93
97
109
124
232
Ways and Means
12
22
24
63
99
91
94
99
108
300
Foreign Affairs
10
14
21
54
82
84
85
97
101
386
Banking
4
14
50
85
97
87
93
90
99
470
Government Operations
9
54
60
68
85
84
87
86
80
509
Public Works
6
32
40
88
81
86
84
84
83
635
Post Office and Civil
711
Service
6
9
46
61
66
74
87
83
85
844
Judiciary
7
27
35
69
80
75
82
81
81
873
Science and Technology
b
17
26
47
87
74
78
78
78
948
Merchant Marine and
1,277
Fisheries
6
9
21
28
91
82
81
79
77
1,201
Interior
4
10
14
57
75
70
73
73
71
1,028
Armed Services
10
15
37
38
48
49
56
64
70
1,151
Agriculture
9
10
17
48
66
62
70
67
69
1,269
Small Business
b
b
b
27
46
54
53
53
62
1,191
Veterans' Affairs
7
18
18
26
34
34
32
32
44
1,022
Rules
4
2
7
18
47
43
47
45
43
1,047
District of Columbia
7
8
15
43
41
41
46
42
42
1,075
Standards of Official
1,095
Conduct
b
b
5
5
15
9
19
9
11
1,080
Internal Security
10
46
51
27
b
b
b
b
b
1,075
1,074
Note: Committees are ranked in order of their staff size in 1987.
a After 1972, figures include employees of House Informations Systems, the House of
standing
and 238
b Representatives' central computer facility.
Not a standing committee.
ason, the
Sources: For 1947-1975, Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-78." For 1979, House LBA
Hearings for 1981, pt. 2, 136. For 1981, House LBA Hearings for 1983, pt. 2, 107. For 1983,
47-1978,
Office of the Clerk of the House. For 1985, Report of the Clerk of the House, October 1, 1985-
Senate,
December 31, 1985. For 1987, Report of the Clerk of the House, October 1, 1987-December 31,
ong., 2d
1987.
Senate,
mmittee
ouse LBA
For 1985
House,
:, Report
n Rules
137
Table 5-7 Staffs of Senate Standing Committees, 1947-1987
Committee
1947
1960
1970
1975
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
Judiciary
19
137
190
251
223
134
141
141
Labor and Human
138
Resources
9
28
69
150
155
119
125
127
Governmental Affairs
127
29
47
55
144
179
153
138
131
126
Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
8
52
53
111
96
78
90
93
93
Budget
a
a
a
90
91
82
79
81
83
Appropriations
23
31
42
72
80
79
82
82
81
Foreign Relations
8
25
31
62
75
59
63
61
60
Energy and Natural
Resources (Interior)
7
26
22
53
55
50
56
57
57
Environment and Public
Works
10
11
34
70
74
56
56
56
56
Finance
6
6
16
26
67
50
53
54
54
Armed Services
10
23
19
30
31
36
41
48
49
Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs
9
22
23
55
48
39
39
38
39
Agriculture
3
10
7
22
34
34
34
34
35
Rules and Administration
41
15
13
29
37
31
30
28
27
Small Business
a
a
a
a
a
a
26
24
26
Veterans' Affairs
a
a
a
32
24
22
22
25
23
Aeronautics and Space
Sciences
a
10
12
22
a
a
a
a
a
District of Columbia
4
7
18
33
a
a
a
a
a
Post Office and Civil
Service
46
20
31
25
a
a
a
a
a
Note: Committees are ranked in the order of their staff size in 1987.
a Committee not in existence.
Sources: For 1947-1975, Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-78." For 1979-1987, U.S.
Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee Funding (this
annual committee print lists the number of positions authorized for each committee; the
number actually employed at any one time may be less).
138
Table 5-8 Staffs of Congressional Support Agencies, 1946-1987
1987
Congres-
Congres-
sional
General
sional
Office of
138
Library of
Research
Accounting
Budget
Technology
Year
Congress
Service Onlyᵃ
Officeᵇ
Office
Assessment
127
126
1946
-
-
14,219
-
-
1947
1,898
160
10,695
-
-
93
1950
1,973
161
7,876
-
-
83
1955
2,459
166
5,776
-
-
81
1960
2,779
183
5,074
-
-
60
1965
3,390
231
4,278
-
-
1970
3,848
332
4,704
-
-
57
1971
3,963
386
4,718
-
-
1972
4,135
479
4,742
-
-
56
1973
4,375
596
4,908
-
-
54
1974
4,504
687
5,270
-
10
49
1975
4,649
741
4,905
193
54
1976
4,880
806
5,391
203
103
39
1977
5,075
789
5,315
201
139
35
1978
5,231
818
5,476
203
164
27
1979
5,390
847
5,303
207
145
26
1980
5,047
868
5,196
218
122
23
1981
4,799
849
5,182
218
130
1982
4,803
849
5,027
218
130
a
1983
4,815
853
4,960
211
130
a
1984
4,802
858
4,985
210
139
1985
4,809
860
5,042
222
143
a
1986
4,807
860
5,019
222
143
1987
4,824
860
5,016
226
143
a Legislative Reference Service through 1970.
U.S.
b Before 1950 the GAO was responsible for auditing all individual federal transactions and
(this
keeping a record of them. Legislation in 1950 transferred these responsibilities to the
the
executive branch. The staff reductions through 1965 result from this 1950 change. See
Frederich C. Mosher, The GAO: The Quest for Accountability in American Government (Boulder,
Colo: Westview Press, 1979), 124.
Sources: For Library of Congress and CRS 1946-1986, Library of Congress, Annual Reports of
the Librarian of Congress. For GAO 1946-1965, Annual Reports of the Comptroller General of the
United States. For CBO 1975, Joel Havemann, Congress and the Budget (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1978), 109. (Data are as of October 1975. The CBO's director took office on
February 24, 1975.) For OTA 1974-1976, Appendixes of the Budget of the United States, fiscal
1976 (p. 18), 1977 (p. 18), 1978 (p. 40). For GAO 1970-1978, CBO 1976-1978, and OTA 1977-
1978, Schneider, "Congressional Staffing, 1947-1978"; for 1979-1987 see sources in table
5-1.
139
Table 5-9 Legislative Branch Appropriations and the Consumer Price
Index, 1946-1988
Appropriation
Increase
Consumer
Increase
Year
(dollars)
(percent)
Price Index
(percent)
1946
54,065,614
-
58.5
I
1947
61,825,020
14.4
66.9
14.4
1948
62,119,714
0.5
72.1
7.8
1949
62,057,678
-0.1
71.4
- 1.0
1950
64,313,460
3.6
72.1
1.0
1951
71,888,244
11.8
77.8
7.9
1952
75,673,896
5.3
79.5
2.2
1953
77,670,076
2.6
80.1
0.8
1954
70,925,361
-8.7
80.5
0.5
1955
86,304,923
21.7
80.2
-0.4
1956
94,827,986
9.9
81.4
1.5
1957
120,775,798
27.4
84.3
3.6
1958
107,785,560
- 10.8
86.6
2.7
1959
136,153,580
26.3
87.3
0.8
1960
131,055,385
-3.7
88.7
1.6
1961
140,930,781
7.5
89.6
1.0
1962
136,686,715
-3.0
90.6
1.1
1963
150,426,185
10.1
91.7
1.2
1964
168,467,869
12.0
92.9
1.3
1965
221,904,318
31.7
94.5
1.7
1966
197,965,307
- 10.8
97.2
2.9
1967
221,715,643
12.0
100.0
2.9
1968
282,003,322
27.2
104.2
4.2
1969
311,542,399
10.5
109.8
5.4
1970
361,024,327
15.9
116.3
5.9
1971
443,104,319
22.7
121.3
4.3
1972
564,107,992
27.3
125.3
3.3
1973
645,127,365
14.4
133.1
6.2
1974
662,180,668
2.6
147.7
11.0
1975
785,618,833
18.6
161.2
9.1
1976ª
947,185,778
20.6
170.5
5.8
1977
963,921,185
1.8
181.5
6.5
1978
1,009,225,350
4.7
195.4
7.7
1979
1,124,766,400
11.4
217.4
11.3
1980
1,199,061,463
6.6
246.8
13.5
1981
1,285,943,826
7.2
272.4
10.4
1982
1,365,272,433
6.2
289.1
6.1
1983
1,467,318,263
7.5
298.4
3.2
1984
1,644,160,600
12.0
311.1
4.3
1985
1,599,977,138
-2.7
322.2
3.6
(Table continues)
140
Table 5-9 (continued)
Appropriation
Increase
Consumer
Increase
Year
(dollars)
(percent)
Price Index
(percent)
1986
1,783,255,000
11.4
328.4
1.9
1987
1,635,190,214
-8.3
345.7
4.4
1988
1,745,201,500
6.7
360.5
4.4
1946-1988
-
3,127.9
-
516.2
Note: Appropriations include supplementals, except for 1986; appropriations are for fiscal
years, but the consumer price index is for calendar years.
a From fiscal year 1946 through fiscal year 1976, the fiscal year began on July 1. Beginning
with fiscal year 1977, the start of the fiscal year was shifted to October 1. During the
transition quarter of July 1-September 30, 1976, the amount appropriated for legislative
branch operations was $207,391,365. This amount is not included.
Sources: For 1946-1976, U.S. Congress, House, Committee on House Administration, Studies
Dealing with Budgetary, Staffing, and Administrative Activities of the U.S. House of Represen-
tatives, 1947-78, 95th Cong., 2d sess., 1978. For 1977-1979, Congressional Quarterly Almanac
(Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1977-1980). For 1980, House LBA Hearings for
1981, pt. 1, 10-11; Senate LBA Hearings for 1981, pt. 1, 15-23; Public Law 96-304 (July 8, 1980);
Public Law 97-51 (October 1, 1981). For 1981, House LBA Hearings for 1982, pt. 1, 15-23;
Senate LBA Hearings for 1982, 268; U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations,
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority and Outlays-Fiscal Year 1983, 97th Cong., 2d
sess., 1982 (unpublished committee document), 3; Public Law 97-12 (June 5, 1981). For
1982-1986, House Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of New Budget
Authority (unpublished committee documents). For 1987, Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
vol. 42 (1987). For 1988, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 43 (1988). For consumer price
index, all years, Economic Report of the President, January 1989.
141
142
Table 5-10 Legislative Branch Appropriations, by Category, 1982-1988
(dollars)
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986b
1987
1988
Senate
228,034,108
239,008,000
255,855,800
285,930,000
308,834,000
307,658,014
337,314,000
House of Representatives
380,386,325
367,871,263
419,783,800
439,398,100
455,431,000
463,907,200
513,786,500
Joint itemsᵃ
84,472,000
102,448,000
128,933,000
96,415,188
155,804,000
103,136,000
94,981,000
Architect of the Capitol
83,173,000
143,768,000
82,021,000
85,180,850
112,191,000
101,633,000
107,306,000
Botanic Garden
2,351,000
1,897,000
2,158,000
2,080,000
2,197,000
2,062,000
2,221,000
Congressional Budget Office
13,226,000
15,094,000
16,723,000
17,541,000
18,455,000
17,251,000
17,886,000
Congressional Research Service
31,605,000
33,851,000
36,700,000
39,833,000
38,963,000
39,602,000
43,022,000
Copyright Royalty Commission
487,000
469,000
210,000
217,000
227,000
123,000
129,000
General Accounting Office
236,000,000
252,665,000
271,710,000
299,704,000
339,639,000
304,910,000
329,847,000
Government Printing Office
129,851,000
121,829,000
125,700,000
122,704,000
122,268,000
94,956,000
89,521,000
Library of Congress
195,123,000
209,185,000
228,715,000
228,242,000
242,829,000
183,670,000
191,998,000
Office of Technology
Assessment
12,169,000
13,084,000
14,831,000
15,692,000
17,000,000
15,532,000
16,901,000
Railroad Accounting Principles
Board
-
-
50,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
-
-
Note: Includes supplemental appropriations, except for 1986.
a Includes such items as joint committees, Capitol police, and official mail costs.
b Figures for 1986 are prior to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequestration.
Sources: For 1982-1986, House Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority. For 1987, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 42
(1987). For 1988, Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 43 (1988).
Table 5-11 Costs of Official Mail, 1971-1987
Average unit
cost of
Appropriations
franked mail
Year
(dollars)
(cents)
1971
11,244,000
8.0
1972
14,594,000
8.0
1972 supplement
18,400,000
1973
21,226,480
8.97
1974
30,500,000
9.9
1975
38,756,015
11.4
1976
46,101,000
13.2
Transition periodᵃ
11,525,000
1976 supplement
16,080,000
1977
46,904,000
13.4
1978
48,926,000
11.4
1979
64,944,000
12.8
1980b
50,707,000
13.4
1981
52,033,000
12.4
1982
75,095,000
13.9
1983
93,161,000
13.1
1984
117,277,000
12.8
1985
85,797,000
12.6
1986
95,700,000
12.6
1987
91,423,000
18.4
Note: See table 6-8 for number of pieces of franked mail.
a Reflects change in the fiscal year from July 1 to October 1.
b
Lower figure reflects decrease in bulk mail rates.
Source: Office of the Clerk of the House.
143
Table 5-12 Allowances for Representatives, 1977-1989
144
Category
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
Clerk-hire
$238,580
$288,156
$336,384
$366,648
$394,680
$406,560
$431,760
Postage
$211
b
b
b
b
b
b
Stationery
$6,500
b
b
b
b
b
b
Travel (round trips)
33
b
b
b
b
b
b
Telephone/telegraph
$5,200 for
b
b
b
b
b
b
equipment;
15,000
long-distance
minutes
District and state offices rental
2,500 sq. ft.
b
b
b
b
b
b
Furnishings (one-time)
$27,000
b
b
b
b
b
b
Official expenses
$7,000
$50,000-
$66,200-
$588,850-
$105,513-
$105,513-
$108,400-
130,000
248,601
279,470
306,509
306,509°
306,500
Constituent communications
(begun in 1975)
$5,000
b
b
b
b
b
b
Equipment lease
$9,000
b
b
b
b
b
b
a Each member was entitled to an annual clerk-hire allowance of $431,760 for a staff not to exceed twenty-two employees, four of whom must fit into five
categories: (1) shared payroll-employees, such as computer experts, who are shared by members; (2) interns; (3) employees on leave without pay; (4) part-
time employees; (5) temporary employees-employees hired for a specific purpose for not more than 90 days.
b As of January 3, 1978, previous individual allowances for travel, office equipment lease, district office lease, stationery, telecommunications; mass
mailings, postage, computer sevices, and other official expenses were consolidated in a single allowance category-the official expenses allowance.
Members may budget funds for each category as they see fit. The official expenses allowances for individual members ranged from $108,400 to $306,500 for
the 1989 calendar year. The average allowance for 1989 was $148,475.
c Each member is entitled to a base official expenses allowance of $67,000. In addition, there are three variables that determine the total amount allotted for
official expenses: (1) transportation costs, (2) telecommunications costs, and (3) cost of office space. The amount allotted for travel is computed as follows:
64 multiplied by the rate per mile multiplied by the mileage between the District of Columbia and the farthest point in the member's district. The
minimum amount allotted for travel in 1987 was $6,200 per member.
official 64 multiplied expenses: by (1) the transportation rate per mile multiplied by the mileage between the District of Columbia and the farthest point 111
minimum amount allotted for travel in 1987 was $6,200 per member.
The amount allotted for telecommunications is computed as follows: 15,000 times the highest long-distance rate per minute from the District of
Columbia to the member's district. The minimum amount allotted for telecommunications in 1987 was $6,000 per member. If the member has elected to
use WATS or a similar service in his office, the 15,000-minute multiplier will be reduced by one-half.
The amount allotted for office space costs is computed as follows: 2,500 square feet multiplied by the highest applicable rate per square foot charged by
the administrator of the General Services Administration to federal agencies in the district for rental of office space.
The official expenses allowance may not be used for:
1. expenses relating to the hiring and employment of individuals, including, but not limited to, employment service fees, transportation of
interviewees to and from employment interviews, and cost of relocation upon acceptance or termination of employment
2. items purchased from other than the House stationery store that have a useful life greater than current term of the member and that would have a
residual value of more than $25 upon the expiration of the current term of the member
3. holiday greeting cards, flowers, and trophies
4. personal advertisements (other than meeting or appearance notices)
5. donations of any type, except flags of the United States flown over the Capitol and items purchased for use as gifts when on official travel
6. dues other than to legislative support organizations as approved by the Committee on House Administration
7. educational expenses for courses of study or information or training programs unless the benefit accrues primarily to the House and the skill or
knowledge is not commonly available
8. purchases of radio and television time
9. parking for member and employees at district offices, except when included as an integral part of the lease or occupancy agreement for the district
office space.
Each member may allocate up to $40,000 from the clerk-hire allowance to supplement the official expenses allowance. A member also may allocate up to
$40,000 from the official expenses allowance to supplement the clerk-hire allowance, provided that monthly clerk-hire disbursements not exceed 10
percent of the total clerk-hire allowance.
Sources: For 1977 and 1979, Committee on House Administration, Studies Dealing with Budgetary, Staffing and Administrative Activities of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 1946-1978. For 1981, 1983, and 1985, U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Handbook. For 1987, "Salaries and Allowances: The
Congress," Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1987 update. For 1989, Office of the Clerk of the House.
145
Table 5-13 Allowances for Senators, 1972-1989
146
Category
1972
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
Clerk-hire
$311,577-
$508,221-
$592,608-
$645,897-
$695,244-
$716,102-
$754,000-
588,145ᵃ
1,021,167ᵃ
1,190,724ᵃ
1,297,795ᵃ
1,396,947ᵃ
1,438,856ᵃ
1,636,000ᵃ
Legislative assistance
n.a.
$157,626b
$183,801b
$200,328b
$215,634b
$243,543b
$248,000b
$1,215-1,520
C
c
C
c
C
C
Postage
Stationery
$3,600-5,000
c
c
c
c
C
C
Travel (round trips)
20-22
C
c
c
C
c
C
District and state offices rental
n.a.
4,800-
4,800-
4,800-
4,800-
4,800-
4,800-
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
8,000
sq. ft.ᵈ
sq. ft.d
sq. ft.d
sq. ft.ᵈ
sq. ft.
sq. ft.ᵈ
Furnishings, state offices
n.a.
$22,550-
$22,550-
$22,550-
$22,550-
$30,000-
$30,000-
31,350
31,350
31,350
31,350
41,744
41,744e
Official office expense account
n.a.
$33,000-
$33,000-
$36,000-
$36,000-
$36,000-
$33,000-
143,000¹
143,000¹
156,000¹
156,000
156,000
156,000⁶
n.a. = not applicable.
a There is no limit on the number of employees a senator may hire. He must, however, use only the clerk-hire or legislative assistance allowance to pay
staff salaries. The clerk-hire allowance varies according to state population.
b In addition to clerk-hire, each senator has a legislative assistance allowance worth $248,000 in 1989. This allowance is reduced for any committee
chairman or ranking minority member of a committee. It is also reduced for any other senator authorized by a committee chairman to recommend or
approve any individuals for appointment to the committee staff who will assist that senator "solely and directly" in his duties as a member of the
committee. The reduction requirements were waived for the 99th and 100th Congresses.
c This allowance is one of the allocations of the consolidated office expense allowance. Before January 1, 1973 senators were authorized individually
controlled allowances for six expense categories as follows: transportation expenses for the senator and his staff; stationery; air mail and special delivery
postage; long-distance telephone calls; telegram charges; and home state expenses, which include home state office expenses-telephone service charges
incurred outside Washington, D.C.; subscriptions to newspapers, magazines, periodicals, and clipping or similar services; and home state office rent
(repealed effective July 1, 1974).
Effective January 1, 1973, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1973, provided for the consolidation of these same allowances to provide flexibility to
senators in the management of the same, dollars provided for their expense allowances. No limit was imposed on any expense category by this
senators Effective in January the management 1, 1975, the of the same dollars provided for their expense allowances. No limit was imposeu
authorization. The allowance was designated as the consolidated office expense allowance. Effective January 1, 1977, the Legislative Branch Appropriation
Act redesignated the consolidated office expense allowance as the official office expense account.
d Effective July 1, 1974, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1975, provided a formula for the allowable aggregate square feet of office space in the
home state of a senator. There is no limit on the number of offices that may be established by a senator in his home state, but the designated square foolage
may not be exceeded. The cost of office space in the home state is not chargeable to the official office expense account.
e An aggregate furniture and furnishings allowance is provided through the General Services Administration for one or more state offices in either federal
or privately owned buildings. The $30,000 minimum allowance for office space not greater than 4,800 square feet is increased by $734 for each authorized
increase of 200 square feet of space.
The expense account may be used for the following expenses (2 U.S.C. 58[a], as amended):
1. official telegrams and long-distance phone calls and related services
2. stationery and other office supplies purchased through the stationery room for official business
3. costs incurred in the mailing or delivery of matters relating to official business
4. official office expenses in home state, other than equipment or furniture (purchase of office equipment beyond stated allocations may be made
through 10 percent funds listed under item 9 below)
5. official telephone charges incurred outside Washington, D.C.
6. subscriptions to newspapers, magazines, periodicals, or clipping or similar services
7. travel expenses incurred by a senator or staff member, subject to certain limitations
8. expenses incurred by individuals selected by a senator to serve on panels or other bodies making recommendations for nominees to service
academies or federal judgeships
9. other official expenses as the senator determines are necessary, including (a) additional office equipment for Washington, D.C., or state offices; (b)
actual transportation expenses incurred by the senator and employees for official business in the Washington metropolitan area (this is also allowed to
employees assigned to a state office for actual transportation expenses in the general vicinity of the office to which assigned but is not available for a
change of assignment within the state or for commuting between home and office).
The total reimbursement expense for the calendar year may not exceed 10 percent of the total official office expense account.
Beginning with fiscal year 1981, each senator was also allowed to transfer funds from the administrative, clerical, and legislative assistance allowances to
the official office expense account.
Sources: For 1972, Senate LBA Hearings for 1980. For 1979-1985, U.S. Senate, Congressional Handbook. For 1987, "Salaries and Allowances: The Congress." For
1989, Office of the Secretary of the Senate; Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
147
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540
Congress:
Issues for the 102d Congress
IP 444C
While no one can predict with certainty the state of key legislation that will
dominate the action of the 102d Congress, this Info Pack discusses in general
terms some of the important matters to be considered. The enclosed material
is intended only as an overview of and introduction to these issues. For those
who want to follow congressional issues more closely, and wish to read more
than just the daily newspapers and weekly news magazines, we have enclosed
a copy of a CRS report, The Congressional Scene. This is a list of more
specialized publications which cover congressional matters in detail.
The article cited below is not reproduced in this Info Pack, but may also be
of interest as a forecast of issues facing this Congress:
"Legislative Outlook," Congressional Quarterly Weekly
Report, V. 49, January 19, 1991, pp. 149-168.
Members of Congress who want further forecasts, review, and analysis of
congressional activity may contact CRS at 7-5700. Additional CRS reports may
be identified by looking in the current Guide to CRS Products (for congressional
use only) under "Congress" and in the latest Update under "Government and
Politics."
Constituents may find additional information on this topic in a local library
through the use of Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, Public Affairs
Information Service (PAIS) Bulletin, and various newspaper indexes.
We hope this information will be helpful.
Congressional Reference
Division
1/91
Washington Post, January 2, 1991, P. A4
Anxious Congress Returning to
Face Threat of War, Recession
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Only a year after ushering in the
1990s with high hopes for a new
Foley recently said he thought an
carry the promise of jobs and eco-
era of peace and prosperity, an anx-
authorization of some kind would
nomic stimulation, has again be-
ious Congress returns to Capitol
pass but by a divided vote, which
come a legislative buzz-word.
Hill Thursday to face the threat of
could send a weaker signal than
The federal budget, which dom-
war in the Persian Gulf and reces-
Bush might want. Mitchell has been
inated so much of the session last
sion at home-with no clear plan of
warning that a U.N.-style open-
year, is expected to pass swiftly this
action on either front.
ended authorization would probably
year, so long as it is not blown apart
fail.
Rarely has the opening of a ses-
by war in the Persian Gulf. Its con-
sion been marked by so much un-
Since Bush is scheduled to meet
tours are already established by the
certainty and apprehension, a dra-
with congressional leaders Thurs-
five-year, nearly $500 billion deficit
matic contrast to the opening of last
day on the gulf situation, leaders of
reduction plan approved by the
year's session when the joy over
both parties have been sending go-
101st Congress shortly before it
waning of the Cold War prompted
slow signals to the White House.
adjourned Oct. 28, leaving little
dreams of a "peace dividend" for
Senate Minority Leader Robert J.
spare cash for what is expected to
Dole (R-Kan.) and several Demo-
be an intense battle over spending
long-neglected domestic needs.
In what may be a metaphor for
cratic leaders warned over the past
priorities. Bush is scheduled to
the opening of the 102nd Congress,
week that they believe the country
present his budget Feb. 4, and con-
lawmakers do not even know what
will not support war against Iraq
gressional hearings are expected to
until more efforts are made to
begin shortly thereafter.
they will be doing after the noon-
Even the threat of another
time opening ceremonies that cul-
reach a peaceful settlement, and
partisan dust-up over taxes may be
minate in the swearing-in of mem-
House Majority Leader Richard A.
fading in the form of an unspoken
bers who were newly elected or
Gephardt (D-Mo.) said Congress
deal under which the Democrats
reelected last fall.
may consider a resolution calling for
would hold off on plans to push a tax
In a normal year, Congress would
continued sanctions instead of mil-
increase on million-dollar incomes if
immediately go back home until just
itary action.
Bush relents on plans to push for a
before the president's State of the
Congress's domestic agenda,
big cut in capital gains taxes.
Union address, scheduled this year
which was still being assembled by
But the budget agreement spells
for Jan. 29. But with Iraq facing a
House and Senate leaders before
trouble in dealing with a sick econ-
U.N.-ordered deadline for with-
the Christmas and New Year's hol-
omy.
drawal from Kuwait by Jan. 15, con-
idays, presents another reflection of
Political pressure for action
gressional leaders have put both
the dramatic turnabout since last
to stimulate the economy is expect-
houses on alert to return on short
year.
ed to revive the push for a Social
notice to consider what could
Among the top priorities cited by
Security tax cut that began last
amount to an authorization for
Foley, Mitchell and Gephardt in
year. Other than that, however, the
war.
interviews over the past 10 days
budget's tough fiscal constraints
Invoking Congress's war-declar-
were energy policy, which slipped
virtually rule out the kind of big
ing powers under the Constitution,
off the congressional screen more
stimulative tax cuts and expensive
House Speaker Thomas S. Foley
than a decade ago, and anti-reces-
jobs programs that Congress nor-
sion initiatives, which were last
(D-Wash.) and Senate Majority
mally employs to ease the pain of
seen during tough times in the early
Leader George J. Mitchell (D-
recession and hasten recovery.
1980s. "Infrastructure," such as
Maine) have said President Bush
Moreover, any energy initiatives
highway-building programs that
must seek congressional authori-
that carry a big price tag, or threat-
en the stability of an already shaky
zation before ordering offensive
economy, are likely to be ap-
military action against Iraq. The
proached with caution, forcing Con-
White House has suggested that
Congress move on its own in accord
with the U.N. Security Council res-
olution.
©
1991 The Washington Post Company. Reproduced by the Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service with the permission of the copyright claimant.
1
"Anxious Congress Returning" (continued)
A FULL PLATE ON CAPITOL HILL
Here are some of the major issues
Energy: After more than a decade of
that the 102nd Congress will face
neglect, energy policy, including resource
when it convenes Thursday:
development and conservation, will be
Persian Gulf: As the Bush
back on the front burner because of the
administration and Congress anxiously
threat to oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.
await the Jan. 15 deadline imposed by
Civil rights: Thwarted last year by a veto that they
the United Nations Security Council for
could not override, Democrats will try again this year
Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, Congress's role in the
to reverse or modify recent Supreme Court decisions
war-or-peace debate remains unclear. Democratic
that make it harder for workers to win job
leaders are insisting that President Bush seek and
discrimination suits. Also, members of both parties,
obtain congressional authorization for any military
angered by the administration's handling of last
assault, but the administration appears wary of a
month's dispute over college scholarships for
rancorous, protracted debate that would send a
minorities, say they will introduce legislation to protect
message of domestic division to Iraqi President
the stipends.
Saddam Hussein.
Health: Democratic leaders plan to
Budget and taxes: Weary after its almost year-long
begin a major push for new initiatives in
battle of the budget last year, Congress hopes to wrap
health care delivery, including long-term
up work on the fiscal 1992 budget as quickly, and
care for the elderly and protection for
painlessly, as possible. Operating under the five-year,
the uninsured, with some lawmakers exploring
nearly $500 billion deficit-reduction plan approved at
Canada's health care system as a possible model for a
the end of last year, it will be arguing mainly over
broader overhaul. But fiscal constraints are a problem,
priorities within the pay-as-you-go limits of the budget
and swift action is not expected.
plan. Bush's hopes for a major capital gains tax cut
Financial institutions: Stung by the
and Democrats' dream of a tax increase for the super-
cost of the savings-and-loan bailout and
rich could wind up in a draw.
nervous about the shakiness of the
Anti-recession initiatives: As the nation's economy
banking and insurance industries,
sours and jobless ranks grow, Democratic leaders are
congressional leaders are urging a thorough
beginning to discuss recession-fighting initiatives but
examination of the nation's financial institutions, and
find that budget constraints have stripped them of
the administration plans to propose major banking
their usual tools, including tax cuts and big jobs
reforms. More money will have to be pumped into the
programs. Expansion of unemployment insurance and
thrift cleanup as well.
job training are among options under study; there is
Miscellaneous: Democrats plan another push for
also new talk of a major "infrastructure" initiative for
family medical leave legislation. The Senate could be
highways, airports and other such projects, which,
facing a strategic arms reduction (START) treaty if; as
coincidentally, could provide jobs during a recession.
expected, one is signed this year by the United States
Ethics and campaign finance:
and Soviet Union. A Puerto Rican plebiscite on the
Televised hearings of the "Keating Five"
island's governmental status may be approved. A
influence-peddling case in the Senate,
recession could give new impetus to the push to cut
scheduled to resume today, will give
Social Security taxes. Another debate is anticipated
new impetus to overhaul of congressional campaign
over re-regulation of the cable television industry.
financing laws, which foundered in a partisan
Cabinet status for the Environmental Protection
deadlock last year. But there is no sign thus far of a
Agency may be considered again.
break in the impasse over spending limits, which
Democrats demand and Republicans reject.
BY MICHAEL DREW-THE WASHINGTON POST
(continued)
2
"Anxious Congress Returning" (continued)
gress to focus instead on such
The savings and loan debacle will
things as seed money for research.
haunt the 102nd Congress just as it
"We are in a different situation
did its predecessor.
because of the magnitude of the
The case against "the Keating
deficit
we are in uncharted wa-
Five"-senators accused of improp-
ters," said Gephardt, who envisions
erly intervening with federal reg-
only a modest anti-recession effort,
ulators on behalf a major campaign
limited largely to programs such as
contributor,
thrift
executive
unemployment insurance and job
Charles H. Keating Jr.-is expected
training.
to add to pressure for legislation to
Senior Democrats have been
overhaul Congress's much-criti-
talking for years of launching a ma-
cized campaign finance laws. But
jor drive for sweeping improve-
Republicans remain opposed to
ments in health care delivery and
Democratic proposals for spending
plan to do so this year, although
limits, and outlook for the measure
they acknowledge that swift action
is in doubt.
is doubtful. Among the goals are
The case is also expected to lead
long-term care for the elderly and
to a tightening of the Senate's eth-
health coverage for the uninsured.
ics rules and possible overhaul of its
Democrats can also be expected
process for handling ethics cases.
to. put renewed emphasis on edu-
But chances that the Senate will
cation, including passage of Bush's
join the House in banning honoraria
modest package of initiatives that
from special-interest groups in ex-
stalled in the final days of last year's
change for a pay raise (which takes
session.
effect this month in the House) may
Since passage of the landmark
have faded. The public is skeptical
clean-air legislation last year,
enough at Congress's motives, and
Mitchell plans to give resource-
pay raises do not sit well with
recovery, including national recy-
people during a recession in any
cling legislation, a top priority
case.
on the environmental front this
The S&L debacle, coupled with
year.
hints of trouble from the banking
But as usual, most of the con-
and insurance industries, will prob-
gressional business will be old busi-
ably spawn a major inquiry into the
ness: civil rights, campaign finance
health of the nation's financial in-
reform and other endeavors that
stitutions along with action on at
stalled during the last Congress,
least some banking reforms, ac-
ranging from departmental status
cording to House and Senate lead-
for the Environmental Protection
ers. Clean-up efforts are also likely
Agency to unpaid leave for workers
to require a new infusion of cash.
with new infants or ill family mem-
Hearings on the five senators will
bers.
resume today, and a decision by the
Along with pushing again for the
Senate ethics committee is consid-
bill to restore workers' leverage in
ered likely by the end of the-month,
suits against job discrimination,
possibly including a recommenda-
which Bush vetoed as an invitation
tion for sanctions against some of
to racial quotas, many lawmakers
the senators by the full Senate.
plan to try to block the administra-
tion's controversial, scaled-back
Staff writers Tom Kenworthy and
policy to restrict scholarships for
John E. Yang contributed to this
minority students.
report.
3
Christian Science Monitor, January 2, 1991, P. 8
Taxes, Civil Rights
Key Themes for US in '91
By Marshall Ingwerson
But now a faltering economy
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
and the threat of war are threat-
ening to disrupt peace and pros-
WASHINGTON
perity.
OST of the key players
White House aides working on
M
shaping American do-
domestic policy plans expect do-
mestic policy are expect-
mestic politics to be a mere
sideshow to the more riveting
ing 1991 to be more contentious
and politically scrappy after the
war-and-peace questions cen-
tered in the Persian Gulf:
relatively friendly and productive
They are less certain what to
past two years.
Two themes expected to
make of the economy. As of mid-
emerge early on:
December, many Bush adminis-
Taxes - from tax hikes on
tration officials, along with Fed-
eral Reserve chairman Alan
million-dollar incomes to tax cuts
for capital-gains earnings.
Greenspan, suspected that the re-
Civil rights - with a louder,
cession's bark might be worse
than its bite.
rougher debate over affirmative
Since the White House was
action and racial quotas.
The Bush years have mostly
also leery of taking any action that
been marked by a softening and
might contribute to the recession
fine-tuning of the Reagan revolu-
psychology of fear and retrench-
tion. A president with historically
ment, it was not yet embracing
high public approval built rela-
any policies in response to reces-
sion.
tionships with Congress, passed a
In fact, the White House re-
long-languishing Clean Air Act,
enacted child-care subsidies and
sponse to economic recession
credits, and managed - if not to
came last year with the deficit-cut-
actually shrink the deficit - then
ting budget deal. Budget director
Richard Darman believed that if
to cinch the belt tighter than it
the deficit could be cut, then the
might have been over the next
five years.
©
1991 Christian Science Publishing Society. Reproduced by the Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service with the permission of the copyright claimant.
4
"Taxes, Civil Rights Key Themes" (continued)
Federal Reserve Board would including those who earn more ployers in discrimination cases
lower interest rates enough to.
than $1 million a year.
that it would force business to
keep the economy humming.
The administration is probably
adopt de facto racial quota sys-
The Fed didn't move fast enough.
going to bring back its proposal to
tems.
White House chief of staff John
cut capital gains tax rates as a
Supporters of the bill - many
Sununu blames Democrats for
spur to economic growth. Many
of whom are opposed to quota
forcing the process to take so
Democrats have argued that the
systems - scoffed at the White
long.
capital-gains tax cut is a tax cut
House view.
The budget and its staggering,
for. the wealthy. In this growth
But from a political viewpoint,
still growing deficit will dominate
versus fairness debate last year,
Republican operatives are more
the legislative landscape and is
the Democrats won the most po-
than happy for Democrats to
likely to stifle any government
litical points, according to opin-
keep raising the issue. Resent-
plans for costly programs.
ment against affirmative ac-
As the administration
tion is thought to run strong
has been working through
White House aides working on
among working-class whites
the 1992 budget in recent.
- a traditional Democratic
weeks, staff members say
domestic policy plans expect
constituency ripe for Re-
they have been struck by
domestic politics to be a mere
publican conversion.
how much leverage the new
sideshow to events in the Persian
In his two short weeks as
agreement gives them to
incoming chairman of the
hold down spending.
Gulf. The budget and its still
Republicant National Com-
"It's almost the equiva-
growing deficit will also dominate
mittee in December, William
lent of a line-item veto,"
Bennett made numerous
says a White House aide. "I
the legislative landscape.
public statements defending
think that will be fully real-
racial quotas as a legitimate
ized very, very shortly."
source of debate.
ion polls last fall.
"What we have now is the
HE Democrats who con-
T
This debate will return. It may
worst of both possible worlds,"
trol Capitol Hill have the
open up some new aspects, too,
says Will Marshall, president of
apparent initiative on the
such as Democratic proposals to
the Progressive Policy Institute, a
most politically charged issues
cut payroll tax rates for Social Se-
think tank run by. moderate and
coming up. Republicans acknowl-
curity, perhaps making up the
conservative Democrats. "Demo-
edge they were outmaneuvered
lost dollars by raising the level of
cratic policies seem to drive a
politically on the question of tax-
eligible income.
wedge between minorities and
ing the very rich this fall. Demo-
Some Democrats are eager to
the most insecure whites in the
crats immediately began plans to
send another civil rights bill up to
economy."
revive the issue in the 102nd Con-
the White House for a veto that
The Republicans must also be
gress in January.
was obviously painful for a presi-
careful. If the debate appears to
The Republican response is
dent who has tried to expand his
play too deliberately on white
shaping up along these lines: The
party in the black community.
racism, it could bring a backlash.
president and his party will not
The White House assessment
Some of the less sensational
support raising income taxes any
was that the 1990 bill put so much
agenda items of running govern-
more on anybody at any level -
of the burden of proof on em-
ment may be as significant. The
(continued)
5
"Taxes, Civil Rights Key Themes" (continued)
next big economic step the Bush
The White House is arguing
administration plans to take is un-
lately that it can better afford to
veiling its energy policy - which
stand its ground and confront
will include major policy state-
Congress this year because it has
ments on oil independence, clean
already won the most important
air, global warming, and alterna-
battles on its domestic agenda.
tive fuels. The national drug
"The issue is that in the last
strategy faces a review, and pos-
session we had legislation the na-
sible shift in emphasis, by the end
tion absolutely needed," says Mr.
of January. The time for some
Sununu. "In this coming session,
hard decisions is approaching on
we have a lot of legislation the
how to apply the Bush policy of
president wants."
no-net-loss of wetlands. A de-
As another staff aide puts it:
"There is not a whole lot this ad-
tailed array of regulations must
be drawn up to implement last
ministration is burning to have or
year's Clean Air Act. Banking
would give a whole lot for."
Some White House aides and
regulations are being redrawn to
avoid the escalation of failures
Cabinet figures, led by. Housing
that swamped the savings and
and Urban Development Secre-
loan industry..
tary Jack Kemp, have been argu-
On the balance-of-power
ing for an aggressively conser-
front, Congress may choose to
vative antipoverty agenda that
push a confrontation over the
seeks to empower the poor them-
War Powers Act in defense of its
selves - rather than social-service
constitutional right to declare
agencies - with vouchers, owner-
war. And President Bush has al-
ship, and market-style choices.
ready chosen to push for maxi-
The stress Bush gives to the
mum-term limits for Congress as
Kemp program of enterprise
a way of forcing turnover.
zones, phasing out capital-gains
taxes entirely, and higher tax
credits for children will indicate
N the White House, these de-
I
cisions are geared around
how aggressively he is willing to
two events in January, the re-
seek domestic. initiative this year.
lease of the president's proposed
1992 budget and the State of the\
Union address at the end of the
month. These two events - the
budget in particular - set the
framework of most national
policy debates in the coming year.
6
91-1 RCO
CRS Report for Congress
CRS Major Issues
for the
102nd Congress
First Session
December 14, 1990
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting re-
search, analyzing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ-
ing studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields
of expertise.
CONTENTS
Summary
CRS-1
Banks and Thrifts in Transition
CRS-3
Budget Enforcement in 1991
CRS-5
Campaign Financing
CRS-7
Child Welfare and Foster Care Reform
CRS-9
Civil Rights
CRS-11
Defense Goals in the 1990s
CRS-13
Drug Control
CRS-15
Economic Conditions and Outlook
CRS-17
Energy Policy
CRS-19
Foreign Policy Budget Priorities
CRS-21
Global Climate Change
CRS-23
Health Insurance
CRS-25
Higher Education
CRS-27
Iraq-Kuwait Crisis
CRS-29
Japan-U.S. Relations
CRS-31
A New Europe and U.S. Interests
CRS-33
Soviet-U.S. Relations
CRS-35
Trade
CRS-37
Unemployment Compensation
CRS-39
CRS-1
Summary
The 102nd Congress convenes with prospects of an unusually challenging
session, particularly in foreign, defense, and economic affairs. As an integral
part of its research planning and budgeting, the Congressional Research Service
has identified 19 major issues confronting the new Congress. This report
consists of summaries of these issues, which are considered by CRS to (1) be
national in scope, (2) receive widespread public attention, (3) involve significant
impacts on the budget, economy, or social fabric of the Nation, and (4) likely
lead to legislative action. (Obviously, many important issues are not included
in the major issue program and while special attention is directed at the 19
issues discussed below, CRS analysts and researchers will be available, as
always, to provide assistance to the Congress on the complete range of issues.)
CRS believes at this early date that the 19 issues selected for the major issues
program will engage the 102nd Congress in important ways during 1991 --
holding hearings, formulating legislative solutions, debating and voting on
specific bills or treaties, and informing constituent groups. As the year proceeds
and other issues bid for attention on the congressional agenda, CRS will add
these to its group of major issues -- dropping resolved or less pressing issues
from the initial listing.
By highlighting these 19 issues, and by forming interdisciplinary teams to
analyze them, CRS hopes to provide the Congress with more forward-looking
and integrative analysis. The major issue teams will work closely with
appropriate committees and other Members and staff to identify the best way
for CRS to support congressional response to the issues. As problems become
more complex and interrelated they often require legislative solutions that are
referred to multiple committees and many issues are dealt with in omnibus bills.
Through its identification of major issues and formation of interdisciplinary
analytic teams, CRS hopes to be able to respond better to these legislative
realities.
CRS-3
Banks and Thrifts in Transition
F. Jean Wells*
Problems of savings and loan associations (S&Ls) and their Federal deposit
insurance fund and the problems of some banks have been well-publicized.
These examples bring into question a range of issues for strengthening the
Nation's banking system. They primarily concern institutional characteristics
of the system -- the regulatory structure, the deposit insurance mechanism, and
the powers and services of commercial banking institutions. Greater-than-
expected losses projected this year for the Bank Insurance Fund (BIF), the
Federal deposit insurance fund for banks, raise the immediate question of how
to recapitalize it. Progress of the S&L recovery and funding needs of its "clean-
up crew," the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), are of continuing interest.
Congressional Context
Congressional attention to banking issues stems from the system's
importance to the well-being of the Nation's financial system and, hence, the
economy. The use of Government funds to support deposits backed by Federal
deposit insurance at troubled savings institutions has reinforced Congressional
interest in banks and thrifts.
An important part of banking legislation enacted in 1989 was provision for
closing down insolvent S&Ls and disposing of their assets. Funding associated
with that includes Government financing. Thus, Congress continues to watch
the thrift situation both from an oversight and a funding perspective. The law
called for a number of studies addressing issues affecting depository institutions
to be delivered to Congress early in 1991. The Administration has announced
that in connection with the Treasury Department's study on deposit insurance,
it will propose broad-ranging legislation. These situations, combined with the
financial condition of BIF, suggest that Congress may engage in in-depth
examination of possible changes in the operation and regulation of the Nation's
system of depository institutions.
Elements of the Issue
Topics to be examined may include further funding for the RTC,
consideration of new funding arrangements for the BIF, deposit insurance
reform, and financial restructuring.
The funding needs of the RTC and current state of S&L resolutions are of
immediate interest. The RTC, which has been primarily responsible for the
Specialist in economic policy with the CRS Economics Division.
CRS-4
cleanup, has spent between $50 billion to $60 billion net. Further costs will
depend on economic circumstances and the pace of the cleanup. Ultimate cost
estimates vary dramatically. The most recent estimates of future costs
discounted to present value range between $100 billion and $250 billion.
At the end of the 101st Congress, a stopgap measure to provide new
Government funding for dealing with the savings and loan situation through the
RTC was stalled, so debate on the question is likely to continue at the beginning
of the new Congress. Related to this is the question of how the sale of assets
acquired by the RTC in the process of resolving problem-institution cases is
likely to proceed. The speed with which the RTC can dispose of acquired assets
also affects its funding situation.
The BIF is in need of recapitalization both because of likely future losses
and because the fund does not now have the minimum reserves required by law.
Numerous alternatives for industry support of the fund are being proposed.
New monies from the banking industry would give it new permanent financing.
Recapitalization of the BIF may be considered either separately or as part
of the broad issue of deposit insurance reform. Options for controlling the costs
of deposit insurance have also been proposed. They range from allowing the
Federal authorities to intervene earlier in troubled institution cases, to scaling
back deposit insurance from its current limits, to new premium arrangements
that would take into account the risk characteristics of individual institutions.
Financial restructuring can also be linked to deposit insurance reform.
Diversification would permit institutions to engage in a wider array of services
that might increase profit-making opportunities. Proposed changes in the
regulatory apparatus recognize that the possibility of entering new lines of
business can lead to increased risks as well. Regulatory changes could include
attention to such approaches as capital requirements for banking organizations,
since capital provides a first line of defense against losses, or to the way banking
and nonbanking businesses are structured within a banking organization to
ensure that deposit-based aspects of the business are protected.
CRS-5
Budget Enforcement in 1991
Robert A. Keith
On September 30, 1990, President Bush and congressional leaders reached
agreement on a five-year budget accord aimed at reducing the deficit by about
$40 billion in FY91 and $500 billion through FY95. The House and Senate
adopted the accord in early October in the form of a budget resolution for FY91
(H. Con. Res. 310), retaining the overall deficit-reduction goals but modifying
some of the underlying programmatic assumptions.
Before adjourning on October 28, the 101st Congress implemented much of
the budget accord by enacting the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA)
of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), which included multiyear revenue increases and
reductions in entitlement spending, and all thirteen of the regular
appropriations acts for FY91. The President and congressional leaders agreed
that new budgetary procedures would be needed to ensure that the full amount
of targeted savings are achieved and maintained over FY91-FY95. These special
procedures are included in OBRA of 1990 as Title XIII and are referred to as the
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
Congressional Context
During 1991 Congress will consider a wide array of budgetary issues.
Congressional action on these issues is expected to be taken within the
procedural framework established by the Budget Enforcement Act. Following
the presentation of the President's budget by early February, the House and
Senate will work toward agreement on a budget resolution for FY92 by April 15
(in the past, final agreement on a budget resolution usually has missed this
deadline).
Once the budget plan is in place, Congress must consider the regular
appropriations acts, entitlement and other spending measures from the
legislative committees, and any revenue legislation that may be required (the
public debt limit should not need to be increased in 1991). Congress will have
to decide whether it is necessary to invoke the reconciliation process -- a
procedure in which committees are instructed in a budget resolution to conform
existing law to budget resolution spending and revenue levels -- with regard to
the development of entitlement and revenue legislation. Congress is also likely
to consider proposals to modify the budget for FY91, especially with respect to
supplemental appropriations for Operation Desert Shield and other urgent
matters.
*Specialist in American national government with the CRS Government
Division.
CRS-6
Elements of the Issue
The Budget Enforcement Act establishes three principal mechanisms for
enforcing budget decisions covering FY91 through FY95 as amendments to the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, commonly referred
to as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act.
First, limits have been set for discretionary spending provided through the
annual appropriations process. Limits are set for both new budget authority
and outlays and, for FY91 through FY93, the spending limits are divided into
three categories -- defense, international, and domestic. Second, legislation
affecting revenues and entitlements and other "direct spending" must adhere to
new "pay-as-you-go" requirements, under which legislation proposing new direct
spending, or legislation decreasing revenues, must be offset by the end of the
session so that the deficit is not increased. Finally, the deficit targets have been
revised and extended (the previous targets covered FY86 through FY93).
The spending limits and deficit targets are not fixed. Instead, the limits and
targets may be increased at different times during the year to take into account
various factors specified in the Budget Enforcement Act, such as changes in
inflation and budgetary concepts. Breaching the discretionary spending
limits, violating the "pay-as-you-go" requirements, or exceeding the deficit
targets will automatically trigger across-the-board reductions (referred to as
"sequestration") in the applicable programs. The principal sequestration
reductions, if required, would occur within 15 days after Congress adjourns to
end a session. The spending and deficit estimates that may activate
sequestration are made by the Office of Management and Budget. (In the
House, the Democratic majority is proposing to change the rules so that the
estimates would be made by the Congressional Budget Office.)
If the President and Congress abide by the spending limit and the "pay-as-
you-go" mechanisms, sequestration tied to the deficit targets should not occur,
at least through FY93. Any sequestration that occurs tied to these mechanisms
likely would eliminate the full deficit excess. The enforcement procedures under
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 were revised to complement these
mechanisms. Therefore, if Congress enacts legislation consistent with the
Budget Act procedures, no sequester of any type should be necessary.
CRS-7
Campaign Financing
Joseph E. Cantor*
Rising costs of campaigns for Congress and the prominent role played in their
financing by political action committees (PACs) have resulted in increasing calls
for reform of the Federal campaign finance system. At issue is whether the
amount of money required to get elected to office and the need to rely on
funding sources with clear but narrow agendas undermine such basic democratic
principles as equal access to public office for all citizens and equal opportunities
for all segments of society to be heard by those making public policy.
The implications of recent political funding developments are not clear.
Observers disagree about whether rising campaign costs and reliance on PACs
are destructive to the political system. Many believe that there is nothing
inherently alarming about these trends, but that the uneven distribution of
resources -- particularly the disparity between incumbents and challengers --
does pose serious problems.
Congressional Context
After years of seeming stalemate on these problems, the House and Senate
passed separate reform bills in the 101st Congress. While they differed
significantly, both sought voluntary spending limits in exchange for cost-
reduction benefits, and restrictions (or a prohibition) on PAC contributions.
These measures passed largely with Democratic support. A conference
committee was appointed but never met, faced with the difficulty of reconciling
the two bills, the likelihood of a Presidential veto, and the lukewarm support
among some for any change in the current system.
Elements of the Issue
All efforts to regulate the flow of money in elections must take into account
the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley V. Valeo. In it, the Court upheld
contribution limits but declared limits on expenditures to constitute an
unconstitutional restriction on the candidate's First Amendment right of free
speech. Only when limits were voluntarily agreed to, such as in exchange for
some form of public funding, has the Court sanctioned their use.
The idea of congressional campaign spending limits is the most controversial
initiative. While most observers favor reducing expenditures, the principal
difference lies in whether to do so by a limitation -- either mandatory, through
Specialist in American national government with the CRS Government
Division.
CRS-8
constitutional amendment, or voluntary, through a public finance or benefits
package -- or by lowering the costs of campaign services. Many insist spending
limits are the key to "leveling the playing field;" yet opponents view limits as
inherently unfair, working to the advantage of better-known candidates (often
incumbents), and problematic in applying to different races and districts.
Because of the Buckley ruling, spending limit proposals have often been linked
to a public financing system or to public benefits, such as lower broadcast and
postal rates. Many who oppose any spending limits favor these cost-reduction
benefits.
The issue of restricting the role of PACs has advanced much farther than the
spending limits idea. Whereas PAC limitation proposals have long been
proposed, with an aggregate PAC receipts limit the most popular form, an
outright ban on PAC spending in Federal elections was part of the Senate-
passed bill in the 101st Congress. Such a proposal raises constitutional
concerns, while in general, PAC restriction proposals raise questions of how to
replace PAC money with more desirable sources of funding. Proposals to
encourage individual contributions through tax incentives or to raise party
limits have abounded.
The debate over the many component issues of campaign reform is driven by
both strategic partisan factors and by basic philosophical differences over the
appropriateness and effectiveness of government regulation in this area.
Questions regarding regulation are fueled by the large sums of money involved
in independent expenditures, bundling, and "soft" money operations -- all legal
methods usable to circumvent the purposes of current restrictions under Federal
election law. Many legislative proposals, including those passed in the 101st
Congress, attempt to restrict these perceived "loopholes" in existing law.
Several tests appear critical to both enactment of any comprehensive
campaign finance reform legislation and to ultimate success in promoting
meaningful change: constitutionality, in light of the Supreme Court's Buckley
and other rulings; bipartisan support; fairness to all candidates and contests;
and promotion of (or, at least, no impediments to) competition in elections. New
restrictions on the flow of campaign money will need to be realistic and
reasonable, lest they encourage new loopholes to develop.
CRS-9
Child Welfare and Foster Care Reform
Karen Spar'
The public child welfare system is widely considered in a state of crisis.
Societal problems that contribute to increased child maltreatment -- abuse or
neglect -- affect the child welfare system by increasing the number of vulnerable
children in at-risk situations for whom foster care is sought. An estimated
360,000 children were in foster care at the end of 1989, up from 280,000 at the
end of 1986. Drug abuse and AIDS have contributed to the phenomenon of
"boarder babies," children who are abandoned at birth and require foster care.
In addition, the increasing presence of women in the work force has reduced the
number of traditional families that might previously have been considered the
ideal foster family type, further challenging caseworkers to find homes for
growing numbers of children in need of care.
Congressional Context
Major reform of the child welfare system was enacted in 1980, with passage
of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272). Ten years later,
Congress again is looking at child welfare and foster care to evaluate the
effectiveness of the 1980 legislation and to determine what pressures are
affecting the system that were not anticipated or addressed in the 1980 law.
The 101st Congress held numerous hearings on the child welfare system itself
and on external issues affecting the child welfare system, such as substance
abuse, child maltreatment, homelessness, and poverty. Minor provisions
affecting child welfare were contained in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), but the 102nd Congress likely will consider more
comprehensive legislation addressing current concerns in the child welfare
community.
Elements of the Issue
Child welfare services include a range of activities designed to protect at-risk
children -- investigation of abuse and neglect reports, preventive and supportive
services, removal of children from home if necessary, financial support for
children in foster care, services to reunite children with their natural families
if possible, and adoption assistance or other permanency planning services for
children if family reunification is not feasible. Services are provided through
State, local, and private agencies, with support from Federal programs and from
State, local, and private funding sources. These programs are distinguished
Specialist in social legislation with the CRS Education and Public Welfare
Division.
CRS-10
from the broader programs ("welfare") for the poor, such as AFDC, food stamps,
and Medicaid.
The primary Federal programs in this area are authorized by Titles IV-B
(child welfare services) and IV-E (foster care and adoption assistance) of the
Social Security Act. The Social Services Block Grant under Title XX of the
Social Security Act also provides financial assistance. It is estimated that the
Federal Government supports about 40 percent of the costs of the child welfare
system. Federal and nonfederal spending for child welfare activities in FY90
totaled about $3.5 billion.
Many of the external pressures that affect the child welfare system by
increasing the number of children in need of care are beyond the scope of child
welfare legislation. Nonetheless, it is likely that legislation will be considered
to test ways to improve the ability of child welfare agencies to handle the impact
of drug abuse on families with young children and to expedite the transition
into permanent homes for the growing number of "boarder babies." More
comprehensive legislative issues likely to be discussed include the structure of
the Federal legislation that finances preventive child welfare services through
a limited authorization, and foster care maintenance payments through an open-
ended entitlement. While incentives exist in the law for States to limit spending
for foster care and to encourage spending for preventive services, these
incentives have been largely ineffective. At issue is how to increase the
availability of preventive services and improve the quality of services for
vulnerable families, while improving foster care and protecting the rights of
children who must be placed in substitute care. Fiscal issues include the
feasibility of increased Federal spending, particularly for new initiatives, during
a time of fiscal restraint, and the sharing of costs between the Federal
Government and States.
CRS-11
Civil Rights
Charles Dale*
Not since the turbulent 1960s have civil rights issues so dominated public
debate in this country or gained so prominent a position on the national
policymaking agenda of Congress and the executive branch. Concerns about
overt discrimination and exclusion of racial or ethnic minorities and women
from important educational and economic opportunities in society shaped the
civil rights "movement" of the earlier era. By contrast, a civil rights renaissance
with less singular public policy focus may. now be emerging. One apparent
emphasis has been the extension of Federal civil rights protection to certain
groups -- such as disabled people -- not covered by the earlier law. Also before
Congress is legislation to restore rights eroded by judicial interpretations of
existing law. Finally, Federal policy continues to evolve regarding affirmative
action, abortion, and other long-standing issues that defy facile legislative or
administrative solution.
Setting much of the contemporary civil rights agenda of Congress are
Supreme Court decisions that have reshaped the judicial landscape for
enforcement of Federal civil and constitutional rights. The most recent focal
point has been a spate of rulings by the Court on race-based affirmative action
and minority-business set-asides, burden-of-proof issues in Federal equal
employment opportunity litigation, and the scope and application of the
Reconstruction-era civil rights statutes that could dramatically alter the future
course of Federal civil rights enforcement. The Civil Rights Act of 1990 (S.
2104), which addressed several of these rulings, passed both Houses of Congress
but was vetoed by the President.
Congressional Context
Recent legislative activity in Congress may substantially influence the
future development of Federal civil rights law. In 1987 Congress enacted the
Civil Rights Restoration Act (P.L. 100-259) to reverse the Supreme Court
decision in the Grove City College case and restore "institution-wide" coverage
of various Federal laws barring discrimination in federally assisted programs.
This was followed by passage, a year later, of the Fair Housing Amendments Act
(P.L. 100-430), a law that not only expanded protections of the landmark 1968
Civil Rights Act (P.L. 101-284) to include "handicap" and "family status"
discrimination but also strengthened administrative enforcement of Federal Fair
Housing Act guarantees. Last year the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L.
101-336) extended Federal civil rights protection to the disabled in employment,
public accommodations and transportation, and telecommunications services.
Legislative attorney with the CRS American Law Division.
CRS-12
Another measure, revising the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(P.L. 90-202) to prevent age discrimination in employee benefits, also became
law.
Elements of the Issue
A recurrent concern increasingly evident in the public debate on civil rights
relates to judicial and legislative use of preferential remedies, including "goals,"
"quotas," and "set-asides," as tools for enhancing participation of minorities and
women in education, employment, government contracting, and governmentally
assisted programs. A driving factor behind failure of the Civil Rights Act of
1990 to become law was Administration objections that the legislation would
lead to quota hiring by employers. Greater ambivalence is apparent, however,
in the recent Administration retreat from the announced policy change of the
Department of Education prohibiting race exclusive scholarship programs by
federally funded educational institutions. Another aspect of this policy debate
has centered on set-asides of government contracts to assist small businesses
owned by women and minorities. All these issues will undoubtedly remain on
the agenda of the 102nd Congress.
Other civil rights issues will also confront the returning Congress. Cases
to be decided by the Supreme Court this term may well factor into the
congressional legislative agenda. First, congressional proponents have vowed to
reintroduce the failed 1990 Civil Rights Act to reverse earlier Court rulings
deemed hostile to civil rights enforcement and to provide for damages and jury
trials in employment discrimination lawsuits. In addition, the Court this term
has agreed to decide whether an employer's policy excluding all fertile female
workers from hazardous positions in the workplace is illegal under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352). Another case considers whether Title
VII covers American companies and their employees working abroad. The Court
also will revisit the constitutional standards defining a "unitary school system"
and their significance for school systems under racial desegregation court orders.
CRS-13
Defense Goals in the 1990s
Robert L. Goldich* and Stephen Daggett"
U.S. military strategy and force structure stand at a crossroads as the 1990s
begin. The U.S.-Soviet military confrontation in Europe that shaped U.S.
defense policy since the end of World War II is dramatically diminishing in scope
and intensity. The United States may be beginning its most significant strategic
reorientation since the Nation entered World War I in 1917 and first began
participating fully in world politics.
Congressional Context
The 102nd Congress faces a radically changed international environment
that raises fundamental questions about the basic principles that guided U.S.
defense policy in the cold war era. As a result, the Congress will encounter a
number of difficult choices as it debates the President's defense budget request,
acts on emergency funding for military operations in the Persian Gulf, and, in
the Senate especially, decides whether to approve a treaty limiting conventional
armed forces in Europe and, possibly, a strategic arms reduction treaty. The
Congress will be challenged in 1991 to provide funding for a military force
structure and weapons mix that supports evolving U.S. national military
strategy in a period of transition, while the possibility of war in the Persian
Gulf demands major attention. Simultaneously, the Congress will be under
pressure to meet FY92 deficit reduction targets while representing local
constituencies facing both the positive and negative economic consequences of
declining defense spending.
Elements of the Issue
The ability of the Soviet Union to launch a military offensive against
NATO has virtually evaporated due to the collapse of communism in Eastern
European, the effective demise of the Warsaw Pact, and the apparent inability
of the Soviet government to control events within its own borders. Yet it
appears that the United States will still be required to maintain substantial
military power -- as a means of dealing with continuing, if diminished, Soviet
power; as a hedge against a resurgent Soviet threat (including one that might
result from internal instability in the Soviet Union); and as a means of
Specialist in national defense with the CRS Foreign Affairs and National
Defense Division.
.. Analyst in national defense with the CRS Foreign Affairs and National
Defense Division.
CRS-14
responding to challenges to U.S. interests that do not derive from the Soviet
Union (a mission dramatized by the massive deployment of U.S. forces to the
Arabian Peninsula area in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait).
A military force built primarily to confront the Soviet Union in Europe may
not be appropriate for the new international environment, however. The need
to decide how to reshape U.S. defense policy and redesign military forces is made
urgent by the prospect that the defense budget is facing a substantial decline.
In shaping U.S. defense policy for the 1990s, the 102nd Congress will face a
number of uncertainties and dilemmas. For example, to what extent, and how,
should U.S. military force structure, weapons procurement, and planning still
be directed toward European security? With the decline of the Soviet threat,
but with other dangers remaining, should a greater priority be given to short-
term military readiness. to longer-term weapons modernization? Should basic
research be given a higher priority than weapons procurement in light of
diminished threats? If so, how can the United States ensure an adequate
defense industrial base? How does change in Europe affect U.S. strategic
nuclear doctrine? Should deployments of troops overseas be reduced as the
overall size of the force declines and burden-sharing arrangements with allies
are revised? If so, how can the United States ensure access to bases abroad
when needed? Does the deployment of more than 400,000 U.S. troops to the
Middle East, and the strategic rationale for that deployment, suggest a need to
reconsider the nature and extent of force reductions planned for the early and
mid-1990s?
CRS-15
Drug Control
Harry Hogan®
How to prevent the misuse of narcotics and other dangerous drugs has been
a public policy concern in the United States for over a century, and a large part
of the responsibility has gradually been assumed by the Federal Government.
Historically based on a decision to restrict availability through a system of strict
regulation, including selective prohibition, the current Federal antidrug strategy
relies on activities and programs in five major areas: (1) regulation, interdiction,
policing, and other "enforcement" efforts; (2) international activities, both
multilateral and bilateral; (3) education and other prevention efforts; (4)
treatment and rehabilitation of drug-dependent- persons; and (5) research on
drugs, drug ependency, and treatment and prevention methods.
Although the basic policy of restriction has been criticized, it seems to enjoy
general national support. A renewed discussion of the merits of legalization has
not yet been reflected to significant degree in congressional debate over drug
matters. Instead, today's broad policy questions in Congress are more likely to
concern the priority ranking assigned to the problem, the level of resources
devoted, the emphasis given to each of the major components of the antidrug
strategy, and the effectiveness of policy implementation.
Current estimates of the retail dollar value of the three principal illicit
drugs consumed annually in the United States -- cocaine, marihuana, and heroin
range from $50 billion to $150 billion. Although various indicators point to
a significant decline in drug abuse within some population groups during the
past decade, there is also evidence of a sharp increase in chronic use, especially
of "crack" cocaine, among other groups. There also are indications that the
influx of heroin may again be on the rise. However, it is worth noting that
statistical data in this area are far less reliable than in most public policy fields.
Congressional Context
Federal antidrug spending has risen from $82 million in FY69 to an
estimated $9.5 billion in FY91. A preliminary estimate of total appropriations
for FY91 is $10.4 billion. The increases have resulted from both congressional
and executive branch initiatives.
During the 101st Congress a continuing interest in budget levels and
general oversight was augmented by the development and enactment of a new
omnibus crime and drug control bill, S. 3266 (P.L. 101-647). This 1990 measure
Specialist in American national government with the CRS Government
Division.
CRS-16
follows passage of similar omnibus bills in 1984, 1986, and 1988, the latter two
of which authorized large increases in appropriations.
Elements of the Issue
As enacted, the Crime Control Act of 1990 contained provisions concerning
such drug-related problems and efforts as regulation of precursor chemicals,
curbing of money laundering, Federal antidrug manpower, funding of alternative
correctional approaches such as boot camps, and forfeiture of trafficker assets.
Among significant provisions dropped were a number concerning application of
the Federal death penalty, revision of habeas corpus procedures in capital cases,
modification of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule, and further
restrictions on the sale and possession of semiautomatic military-style firearms.
Some of these issues will probably arise again during the 102nd Congress.
Another issue Congress may reconsider concerns Federal grants to localities
for enforcing drug laws. Municipal leaders, particularly of the larger cities, have
continually lobbied for direct funding in lieu of receiving it through State
governments, as under existing law.
International subjects that might be taken up include: (1) restrictions on
the use of the armed services in cocaine-producing countries as part of the
"Andean Strategy," (2) further encouragement of international cooperation to
reduce the demand for drugs, and (3) more support for the development of
regional drug control programs.
In relation to treatment, the question of additional assistance for drug-
dependent pregnant and post-partum women and their children may receive
attention.
Finally, the departure of William Bennett as director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is expected to generate a number of oversight
hearings in which key congressional players will have an opportunity to
question his replacement, former governor of Florida Bob Martinez.
CRS-17
Economic Conditions and Outlook
Gail E. Makinen*
Maintaining the economic health of the United States is both implicit and
explicit in the congressional agenda. An important part of economic health is
to ensure a growth in gross national product (GNP) consistent with continuous
full employment of labor and capital at a stable rate of inflation. Achieving
these ideal economic conditions has proven elusive: the United States has
experienced eight economic downturns since the end of World War II.
The prospect of a ninth downturn looms large after an unprecedented
peacetime expansion under way since December 1982. Should a downturn
materialize and become a persisting recession, Federal revenues and
expenditures and the budget deficit could be deleteriously affected, possibly
leading to a suspension of the targeting and enforcement procedures of the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) legislation and the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA).
Congressional Context
Congress seldom enacts explicit macroeconomic legislation with the express
intent of securing the macroeconomic health of the Nation. The net cumulative
effects of its numerous individual expenditure and revenue decisions, however,
constitute broad fiscal policy. Major changes in fiscal policy not only have
significant short-run effects on aggregate demand, but by influencing the
incentives to work, save, and invest, such effects extend into the longer run by
affecting the growth of aggregate supply.
Such long-term effects also result from the net Federal budget position,
since budget deficits can reduce the resources that are available for private
capital formation. Congressional attention to major shifts in fiscal policy as well
as the overall fiscal agenda usually begins with the release of the Economic
Report of the President and the State of the Union Address in January and the
presentation of the Federal budget in early February. The budget and the
Economic Report initiate the congressional budget cycle and serve as the basis
for hearings before the Joint Economic Committees and the Budget Committees.
Elements of the Issue
Analysis of the sources of change in the economic health of the Nation is
important to the formulation of possible remedial legislation. These changes can
Specialist in economic policy with the CRS Economics Division.
CRS-18
arise from a variety of factors such as domestic monetary policy and the state
of consumer and business confidence as well as similar changes in foreign
countries. Since these changes can affect U.S. economic health, GNP,
unemployment, interest rates, and inflation, they can significantly alter Federal
Government expenditures as well as revenues.
Significant deficit reduction would almost certainly be contractionary under
current economic conditions. Congress, however, is also clearly concerned with
the size of the Federal budget deficit, and has enacted legislation intended to
provide remedies against the growth of the deficit and national debt. This
legislation attempts to distinguish between budget deficits that result from
purposeful action by Congress and those that result from the operation of
economic forces. In particular, OBRA provides for a suspension of the targeting
and enforcement procedures of GRH if two successive quarters of actual real
GNP growth is less than 1 percent or if either the Congressional Budget Office
or the Office of Management and Budget forecasts two consecutive quarters of
negative GNP growth. With the prospect of a significant economic downturn
or recession, the possibility of suspending provisions of GRH rises.
During past economic downturns the Congress has demonstrated an
interest in problems associated with rising unemployment by enacting special
countercyclical programs often targeted on areas of high unemployment, on
groups with high unemployment rates, or both. A renewed interest in
unemployment problems and the adequacy of the coverage of the existing
unemployment compensation system could generate additional legislative
activity.
When the focus of policy is shifted to the longer run, the Federal budget
deficit can be seen as a net absorber of the Nation's savings that would
otherwise flow into private capital formation or be available for lending abroad.
Since the private capital stock is a source of GNP growth and productivity, and
foreign lending directly influences the size of the U.S. trade deficit, the
continued economic health and long-run growth in material well-being in the
United States requires constant vigilance by Congress over the long-run
magnitude of the Federal budget deficit.
CRS-19
Energy Policy
Robert L. Bamberger
In the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, U.S. dependence on
imported oil looms again as a major national concern. The current Gulf crisis
is the third time in less than 20 years that the domestic and global economy
have suffered temporary supply interruptions and dramatic price swings. Not
surprisingly, demands are again heard for a new and effective energy policy.
The challenge to Congress, as in the past, is to help shape an energy policy that
is politically palatable, environmentally acceptable, and economically effective.
Congressional Context
Before the invasion of Kuwait, environmental concerns were influencing
U.S. energy policy more than national security and the Nation's dependence on
imported oil. For example, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 will
introduce important changes in how the economy uses certain fuels. Refiners
will produce cleaner-burning gasoline; utilities will shift fuel sources and install
equipment to reduce acid rain.
Environmental priorities in general add to the difficulties of diversifying
the fuel mix upon which the U.S. economy depends. These considerations
diminish the likelihood of greater use of coal in the future, but increase the
prospects for natural gas and for a reexamination of the nuclear option.
Protecting unique land areas and coastal resources is a growing imperative for
some.
To address the oil dimension of the energy problem, the 101st Congress
enacted a production credit for enhanced oil recovery, boosted the Federal
gasoline tax by a nickel a gallon, and doubled taxes on gas-guzzling cars. The
dévelopments in the Persian Gulf also prompted Congress to enact legislation
increasing the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to one billion barrels.
Elements of the Issue
Several beliefs persist that complicate national energy policy. Among
these are that oil is running out, and that the era of cheap energy is over. The
experience of the 1970s and 1980s belies this conventional wisdom. Oil prices
declined dramatically in real terms in the years after both the disruptions of
Specialist in energy policy with the CRS Environment and Natural
Resources Policy Division.
CRS-20
1973 and 1979-80, owing to plentiful oil reserves. Unfortunately, most of those
reserves are concentrated in one of the most contentious regions of the globe,
the Persian Gulf. Until the mid-1980s, policymakers were preoccupied with the
power of producing nations to drive prices higher. However, the collapse of oil
prices in the mid-1980s demonstrated that oversupply from the producing
nations can drive prices down as well as up.
A related belief is that conservation and improving the efficiency of
energy use can dramatically reduce dependence on imported oil in the near
decades; indeed, some argue that had we pursued conservation aggressively from
the mid-1970s on, we would not need to import oil now. But the ability of
foreign producers to profit when prices are down as well as up suggests that
policies promoting conservation and diversification from oil would require an
enormously expensive commitment to technologies. that could not otherwise
compete with much cheaper oil.
This may seem an unencouraging outlook; there seems to be, after all, no
apparent policy that will broadly reduce the Nation's need for Persian Gulf oil.
But it underscores the importance of finding practical policy options, probably
more incremental than sweeping, that would diversify and secure energy sources
and improve energy efficiency without unacceptably narrowing consumer choice,
disregarding the environment, or imposing an onerous burden on the economy.
The specific energy agenda in the 102nd Congress foreseeably will be
shaped by two developments. One is the denouement in the Persian Gulf--
whether a negotiated settlement, a prolonged stalemate, or armed conflict. The
other is the National Energy Strategy, a set of options presented to the
President in December 1990 from which the Administration is likely to develop
legislative recommendations. Among these are development of domestic oil
resources, including possibly the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR),
research and development in energy efficient technologies, and electric utility
reform. Congress, with or without Administration sanction, also will likely
renew the debate over raising corporate average fuel economy standards and
seek alternative means of financing to accelerate development of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
CRS-21
Foreign Policy Budget Priorities
Larry Q. Nowels*
Dramatic international events and fundamental changes to the global
landscape pose a significant challenge to the formulation of new directions for
American foreign policy and spending patterns in support of that policy. Many
believe that traditional foreign policy budget allocations, largely framed in a cold
war context, no longer reflect current needs or support emerging American
national interests abroad. Issues such as economic competitiveness,
democratization, environmental protection, international narcotics, debt, support
for the United Nations, and international financial burden-sharing have taken
on new importance in foreign policy decision-making. The current Persian Gulf
priorities. crisis raises additional uncertainties regarding future foreign policy spending
Many in Congress have called on the President to reformulate the
international affairs budget to take into account world changes. Given the
highly constrained budget environment and newly enacted deficit reduction plan,
spending on foreign policy programs is not expected to grow beyond levels of
inflation. Consequently, any shifts in resource allocations within the
international affairs budget will represent trade-offs among a wide range of
competing interests.
Congressional Context
While Congress has asked the President to submit a significantly modified
foreign policy budget for FY92, legislators may move ahead with their own plan,
particularly if executive branch proposals are judged unsatisfactory. During the
100th Congress several congressional recommendations emerged to rewrite
foreign aid legislation, develop a framework to assist East European
governments, and establish new foreign policy budget priorities, primarily by
shifting resources from security programs to economic activities. Congressional
consideration of foreign policy reform initiatives will likely begin early in the
102nd Congress when committees start their review of four major foreign policy
authorization and appropriation bills dealing with foreign assistance and the
State Department.
Elements of the Issue
Congressional attention to new U.S. foreign policy budget priorities has
focused primarily on overhauling the American foreign assistance program,
Specialist in foreign affairs with the CRS Foreign Affairs and National
Defense Division.
CRS-22
which accounts for about three-quarters of the roughly $20 billion international
affairs budget. While consensus for change exists, wide disagreement remains
over how a new aid program should be structured. Some believe that significant
portions of security assistance could be shifted to international development
efforts. Others assert that foreign aid should more directly serve U.S. economic
interests by combining international development goals with American
commercial objectives and integrating the activities of foreign aid agencies with
U.S. programs designed to advance American exports.
A growing theme is the perceived need for the United States to help
countries that are undertaking significant political reform. Efforts to promote
democracy are expanding through a number of U.S. programs, including foreign
aid, and public diplomacy activities of the U.S. Information Agency, the National
Endowment for Democracy, and international exchanges.
Some perceive new threats to U.S. national security interests in a post-cold-
war era that deserve greater emphasis within foreign policy budget allocations.
Depletion of the ozone layer has elevated public awareness that protection of the
environment requires international cooperation in countermeasures and national
strategies to conserve or develop new sources of energy. Reducing the supply
of drugs through international narcotics control programs also has become a
high priority of U.S. foreign policy.
The rising prominence of the United Nations as an effective organization
to catalyze international cooperation, manage crises, and assist in regional
conflict resolution has convinced many observers that the U.N. can play an
important role in advancing American foreign policy interests. Nonetheless,
U.S. payments are seriously in arrears.
Because the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 sets a cap on
international affairs spending for FY91-FY93 disallowing increases in real terms,
there is concern that the United States will have difficulty in meeting new
priorities and will be more constrained in responding to new, rapidly developing
international events. Consequently, attention may focus on ways in which the
United States can share the financial burden of such international obligations,
as in the case of the Persian Gulf crisis, and on new initiatives that do not
require budgeted resources but nevertheless respond to pressing foreign policy
needs.
CRS-23
Global Climate Change
John R. Justus
There is a growing concern that human activities such as the burning of
fossil fuels and deforestation are increasing atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide (CO₂), which, along with increasing concentrations of other trace
gases (chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide), could affect global climate.
If these gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, a globally averaged
warming of 3 to 8 degrees fahrenheit could occur over the next 100 years
through enhancement of Earth's naturally occurring "greenhouse effect." Such
a warming could have far-reaching impacts, negative as well as positive, on
natural resources; biodiversity; food and fiber production; energy supply, use,
and distribution; transportation; land use; water supply and control; and human
health and welfare. To the extent such impacts occur, their consideration would
need to be incorporated into fiscal and budgetary planning at the Federal, State,
and municipal levels and in the private sector.
Recently there have been controversial claims that a global warming signal
has been detected. Natural variability of climate is large enough, however, that
even the record-setting warmth of the 1980s or a singular event such as the
severe U.S. drought of summer 1988 does not allow the vast majority of
knowledgeable scientists to state that a global warming signal attributable to
human pollution has been identified, at least at the present time. Although
causal relationships between long-range trends and present-day severe weather
events have not been firmly established, such events do focus attention on
possible climate change and the need for better understanding of global and
regional climate and improved climate prediction models.
Congressional Context
The prospect of global warming from an increase in greenhouse gases
became a major political issue during the past decade. Seeking answers to a
number of questions -- "How much warming? How soon? Should we worry? --
a growing number of policymakers are debating the merits and disadvantages
of an active governmental role in forging policies to deal with prospective
climate change.
How real is the human-induced global warming threat? Another ten to
twenty years of continued warming would impart an improved degree of
certainty to the scientific projections, but waiting for this added assurance might
put society at risk for a larger dose of climate change than if actions to curb or
slow the buildup of greenhouse gases were implemented now. But actions on
Specialist in earth and ocean science with the CRS Science Policy Research
Division.
CRS-24
what scale? Moreover, in times of fiscal restraint and deficit reduction, many
policymakers are counseling caution, lest their actions commit the Government
and private sectors to the expenditure of major resources in support of remedial,
perhaps expedient, courses of action to avoid consequences we cannot foresee
with certainty.
Given uncertainties about the timing and magnitude of the global warming
projections, what policy responses, if any, are appropriate now or in the future?
Such options range from engineering countermeasures, to passive adaptation,
to prevention, to an international law of the atmosphere. One approach that
has been widely discussed, the so-called "no regrets" approach, is to implement
those policies now that would effectively reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
but also are justified by clear additional benefits to society as well. Policy
options that stress energy efficiency and conservation, renewable energy, CFC
reduction, and fuel substitution are important examples. Whether the
uncertainties are sufficiently large to suggest delaying policy responses is not
only a scientific question per se, but a value judgment.
Elements of the Issue
In the 102nd Congress, Members and committees of relevant jurisdiction
will doubtless continue their efforts to acquire information from all sides of the
scientific debate about possible climate change. Work will continue to evaluate
potential economic and strategic impacts of a warmer climate and to further the
negotiations, under United Nations auspices, for achieving a framework
convention on global climate protection to limit or avert global warming or
mitigate its impacts, should it occur. Those negotiations formally begin in
February 1991 at a session to be hosted by the United States in Washington,
D.C. A variety of approaches to formulating response strategies will be
embodied in legislative measures introduced in the 102nd Congress.
CRS-25
Health Insurance
Janet Kline*
Rising health care costs have created increasing pressures on public and
private health care financing programs in a time of limited resources. Over the
past ten years, health care spending has grown faster than spending in the
general economy. National health expenditures were $540 billion in 1988, more
than 11 percent of the gross national product. While payments by public and
private health insurance programs account for a majority (approximately three-
fourths) of payments for health care services, gaps in coverage and in the
availability of insurance leave many people at risk. Between 31 million and 37
million people were uninsured in 1988. Generally, the uninsured are young
(under age 24); they are poor; and they have ties to the work force (primarily
in small firms, in industries with seasonal or temporary employment, and in
firms with a lower skilled or less unionized work force). In the past decade,
there was growth in the number and proportion of the uninsured population.
Insurance status has implications for access to health services: the uninsured
use fewer health care services and generally have poorer health status than the
insured.
Even people with health insurance can face substantial health care costs if
their insurance does not adequately cover their medical expenses. In 1986 the
Department of Health and Human Services estimated that about 10 million
persons had insurance that was inadequate to protect them from risk of
catastrophic illness expense. Private sector health plans and public programs
(Medicare and Medicaid) all, to some degree, leave their enrollees underinsured
because of cost-sharing requirements, limits on payments to providers, or
uncovered services. Most health care plans (except Medicaid) either do not cover,
or have only limited benefits for, long-term care services, including both nursing
home care and home and community-based care.
Congressional Context
The 101st Congress addressed the issue of the uninsured in a number of
ways. The U.S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care (known
as the Pepper Commission) developed recommendations for universal coverage
for health care and long-term care, and numerous bills were introduced
expanding access to coverage. S. 768, which mandates employer coverage, was
reported by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. In addition,
attempts to expand availability were addressed through proposals and legislation
was introduced for private insurance market reforms. Under the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), Medicaid eligibility was
Specialist in health policy with the CRS Education and Public Welfare
Division.
CRS-26
expanded for pregnant women, children, and other groups; refundable tax
credits were provided for health insurance premiums for qualified children; and
States were authorized to purchase continuation coverage (COBRA coverage) for
certain low-income workers. Also in the 101st Congress, numerous bills were
introduced to expand long-term care coverage.
Elements of the Issue
Several issues will continue to affect the numbers of uninsured and
underinsured individuals. Rising costs will put increasing pressures on public
budgets, employer costs, and out-of-pocket expenses of individuals for medical
care. An ongoing focus of our public and private health care systems will be
attempts to control those costs. Expansion of limited coverage for long-term
care services will continue to be an issue. The future of employer-provided
retiree health benefits is also at issue. These and other issues, including the
Pepper Commission recommendations for improving access to care, expansion
of Medicaid coverage, Federal mandates for private coverage, private insurance
market reforms, long-term care coverage, and managed-care approaches to
controlling health care costs, will be a concern of the 102nd Congress.
Legislation to implement some of these proposals will be introduced during the
early months of the 102nd Congress.
CRS-27
Higher Education
Margot A. Schenet*
The Federal effort to assist low- and moderate-income students attain a
postsecondary education was initiated in the Higher Education Act of 1965
(HEA) and continues to be sustained through subsequent amendments to HEA.
Title IV, the heart of the Act, includes four types of aid, primarily for students
who are financially needy: grants (Pell Grants, Supplemental Educational
Opportunity Grants), loans (Guaranteed Student Loans, Perkins Loans), work-
study programs, and fellowships. In academic year 1990-91, U.S. Department
of Education programs will provide more than $18 billion in student aid to help
nearly 6 million students meet the costs of postsecondary education. Such aid
can be used for attendance at over 8,000 federally eligible institutions, public
and private, profit and nonprofit, including traditional colleges and universities,
community or junior colleges, and vocational-technical career schools.
Congressional Context
Three underlying trends that developed in the 1980s are likely to continue
to have an impact on the Federal role in postsecondary education, and
particularly on student aid. These are the continuing increases in college costs;
the growing predominance of loans rather than grants in the type of aid
available to students, at the same time that loan eligibility was restricted to
lower-income students; and the growth in the participation of students
attending proprietary (for-profit) vocational schools. The HEA expires during
the 102nd Congress and these trends are likely to lead to specific Title IV
reauthorization issues: student loan defaults and their impact on the integrity
of the Guaranteed Student Loan program, the appropriate balance between
grant and loan assistance, and efforts to increase the access to and the success
of minority students in postsecondary institutions.
Elements of the Issue
Defaults on guaranteed student loans constitute a growing percentage of
limited aid dollars, and default control, which has preoccupied Congress and the
Administration over the past few years, is likely to occupy a place on the
reauthorization agenda. Related to the default issue is controversy over the
participation of students attending proprietary vocational schools in student aid
programs. Proprietary school students have relatively high default rates, and
they constitute a growing proportion of student aid recipients. New restrictions
on the participation of schools with high default rates, imposed by the Omnibus
Reconciliation Act of 1990, may do much to reduce the default problem.
Specialist in social legislation with the CRS Education and Public Welfare
Division.
CRS-28
However, the broader question of restoring the general stability of the student
loan program is likely to be raised during reauthorization.
Imbalance between loan and grant assistance is another likely issue. Loans
have replaced grants as the major source of student aid during the recent period
of tight Federal budgets and spiraling college costs. As a result, students incur
considerable debt to attend college and suffer significant consequences if they
cannot repay their loans. Loan default costs to the Federal Government also
continue to grow. Policymakers may consider different ways to improve the
balance between grant and loan aid. Options might include making Pell Grants
an entitlement; or changing the "mix" of aid to grant awards only for the first
and second year of postsecondary education, where most aid recipients are
concentrated, with loans provided to students in later years of school.
The Federal Government has traditionally sought to facilitate minority
access to postsecondary education, a role reflected in various HEA programs.
Many observers have expressed concern about the recent trends in the
postsecondary enrollment and completion rates of minorities, particularly blacks,
which are considerably lower than the comparable rates for whites. During the
reauthorization of the HEA, the Federal role in fostering minority access and
success is likely to be debated. In particular, the effectiveness of current
programs of financial assistance for minority students, and the TRIO programs
(Special Programs for the Disadvantaged) will likely be reviewed, as well as the
possibility of new programs or approaches to improve minority access and
success in postsecondary education.
CRS-29
Iraq-Kuwait Crisis
Raymond W. Copson*
Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait confronted the United States with a
prolonged and unexpected crisis. At a time when Americans had been
anticipating a relaxation in international tensions and a post-cold-war "peace
dividend," the prospect of major war suddenly loomed. In November 1990 the
United Nations Security Council set a January 15, 1991, deadline for an Iraqi
withdrawal, after which use of force was authorized. U.S. troop commitments
in the Gulf are growing beyond 400,000 as January 15 approaches. Many
observers anticipated that Iraq would refuse to withdraw, precipitating a war at
some point early in the New Year.
A few encouraging events occurred at the end of 1990, including Iraq's
release of all Western hostages. High-level meetings between Iraqi and
American officials were anticipated. Nonetheless, as 1991 opens, the prospect
of U.S. military involvement in a Persian Gulf conflict appears more probably
than any alternative. Even if war can be avoided, the crisis seems certain to
have lasting consequences for the U.S. role in the Middle East and the wider
international system. A long-term U.S. military presence in the Middle East
seems a distinct possibility, although some analysts are concerned that this will
prove costly and provoke anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.
Congressional Context
For Congress the crisis raises pressing questions involving foreign policy,
the respective powers of Congress and the executive branch, and the budget.
Members expressed concern about Iraq's human rights conduct and military
buildup before the crisis, and both Houses voted economic sanctions against
Iraq. After the invasion and the initial U.S. diplomatic and military response,
both Houses passed resolutions supporting U.S. objectives and the United
Nations role in the crisis. Leaders stressed, however, that these resolutions
were not a blanket authorization for a future war.
In view of the January 15 U.N. deadline, Congress will be concerned about
the possibility of war in early 1991. The congressional role in authorizing U.S.
involvement in a Persian Gulf war, and the form of any authorization, could be
intensely debated. Congress will also confront decisions related to the costs of
the crisis, particularly since new projections are raising questions about the
impact of Gulf operations on the budget deficit. Some Members suggest that a
tax surcharge may have to be considered, but others are ruling out this option
on economic and political grounds.
Specialist in international relations with the CRS Foreign Affairs and
National Defense Division.
CRS-30
Elements of the issue
U.S. objectives in the crisis, as outlined by President Bush, are the
unconditional withdrawal of Iraq, restoration of Kuwait's government, assurance
of Saudi Arabia's security, and protection of the safety of Americans abroad.
Promoting Middle East stability and preventing Iraq from acquiring nuclear
weapons and military comity in the Gulf are sometimes mentioned as important
considerations. Officials also maintain that U.S. policy is defining the American
role in the post-cold-war world, while protecting the economy and assuring
continued competition in world oil markets. Although these goals have drawn
broad support, debate has recently intensified. Among the questions are
whether U.S. objectives may be too ambitious or too costly, and whether access
to cheap oil is playing too prominent a role in U.S. policy. The means of
achieving U.S. goals are another issue. Some favor allowing international
economic sanctions a year or more to force Iraq to withdraw, arguing that this
approach will save lives and minimize negative popular reactions to U.S. policy
in the Middle East. Others doubt that sanctions will work and advocate early
military action lest the anti-Iraq coalition deteriorate.
Even if war does not occur, direct costs of Persian Gulf operations in FY91
are projected to be $30 billion or more. Indirect costs may include the possible
need to assist poor countries that are supporting the U.S. role in the Gulf or
suffering from the crisis. Israel, meanwhile, will certainly seek increased U.S.
military aid to compensate for the large quantities of arms being sold to Saudi
Arabia. If war does occur, direct and indirect costs will be sharply higher. Many
nations are helping to offset these costs, and more than 25 have sent or
promised military aid. Nonetheless, a continuing debate over the adequacy of
this "burden-sharing" seems certain.
CRS-31
Japan-U.S. Relations
Richard P. Cronin*
Japan-U.S. relations, which are complicated by dual aspects of partnership
and competition, will continue to be a major focus of public and congressional
attention during the 102nd Congress. The close relationship has played a key
role in the rapid postwar growth of the Pacific Rim economies and provided the
main linchpin of U.S. military power in the Pacific. The relationship has come
under increasing stress as a result of the end of the cold war, which has tended
to put lower value on Japan's role as a military ally, and increasing U.S.
concerns about whether Japan is meeting the international obligations of an
economic superpower.
Congressional Context
Congress has exercised great influence over issues that dominate the U.S.-
Japan relationship, especially in the area of trade policy. Members of Congress
are under pressure from industries, labor unions, and communities affected by
imports or barriers to access to the Japanese market, or by Japanese purchases
of local companies and real estate properties. Major legislative enactments such
as expansion of Section 301 in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988 (P.L. 100-418) clearly were aimed at reducing the imbalance of U.S. trade
with Japan. Likewise, Congress played a critical role in causing the Bush
Administration to gain additional accommodations on co-development of the FSX
fighter.
Elements of the Issue
In the face of a U.S. economic slowdown and continued budgetary
stringencies, Congress will be concerned about the adequacy of Japan's
contributions to burden sharing, both military and economic assistance.
Especially in the case of U.S. militry involvement in the Gulf, which Americans
tend to perceive as at least partly aimed at protecting the interests of industrial
democracies, including Japan, Congress can be expected to weigh the extent and
quality of Japan's support for U.S. policy. This includes its contributions to
support the U.S.-led United Nations effort, including aid to regional "front line"
states that have suffered economically for their stance against Iraq. In action on
the defense budget Congress can also be expected to pay close attention to
Japan's response to U.S. pressure to assume all costs, apart from salaries, for
supporting U.S. forces based in Japan.
Specialist in international relations with the CRS Foreign Affairs and
National Defense Division.
CRS-32
An expected significant decrease in the trade deficit with Japan for 1990
likely will not deflect continued calls for greater market openness. Congress can
be expected to look carefully at how well Japan carries out commitments made
in 1989 under the Super 301 negotiations and the Administration's Structural
Impediments Initiative and to consider whether to renew the Super 301
provision, which expires at the end of 1990.
Japan may be the target of new unilateralist measures as a consequence of
the apparent breakdown of the GATT negotiations, which aimed at reducing
agricultural protectionism and liberalizing trade in services. The United States
likely will renew pressure on Japan to open up its rice market to imports and
allow greater foreign participation in its construction industries.
Growing economic interdependence between the United States and Japan
has been reflected in rising Japanese real estate and business investment in the
United States, including purchases of U.S. firms with leading-edge proprietary
technology and acquisition of entertainment industry giants. These
developments have led to new debates about the need for more reciprocity
concerning U.S. investments in Japan. Questions about what constitutes an
"American" company have become important in the context of efforts to form
consortia to promote greater U.S. technological competitiveness. Also of concern
is alleged "asymmetry" in scientific cooperation, with U.S. complaints of a largely
one-sided flow of research results to Japan.
Finally, as a result of long-standing concern with lobbying by
representatives of foreign interests, and the wide publicity given Pat Choate's
book, Agents of Influence, Congress may consider legislation making changes in
the Foreign Agents Registration Act and perhaps putting additional restrictions
on the ability of U.S. trade officials to work for Japanese and other foreign
interests after leaving government service.
CRS-33
A New Europe and U.S. Interests
Stanley R. Sloan*
The revolution in Eastern Europe and the process of German unification
have raised fundamental questions about European security affiliations and
institutions. The Warsaw Pact is disintegrating, and NATO's future role is open
for debate. The November 1990 Paris summit meeting of the 34 participants in
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe proclaimed the end of
the cold war and began building a more cooperative European security system.
Meanwhile, the European Community is approaching its deadline of
achieving a common internal market by the end of 1992 and considering further
steps toward monetary and political union. U.S.-West European relations may
be troubled by continuing differences over the EC's agricultural subsidies. The
reordering of European relationships now under way will have profound
implications for U.S. interests.
Congressional Context
Early in the 102nd Congress the Senate will be asked to consider an
important arms control treaty that marks the transition from bloc-to-bloc
confrontation to a new post-cold-war era. The Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe, signed in Paris on November 19, 1990, by 22 NATO and
Warsaw Pact nations, is designed to create a stable military balance in Europe.
The treaty ratification process will be an element of congressional participation
in shaping post-cold-war European security relationships.
The Congress also faces important decisions concerning the extent to which
the United States should, along with other Western countries, facilitate recovery
and reform in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union with economic
assistance, political support, transfers of information and technology, and other
available means. The outcome of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations may
stimulate legislative proposals affecting U.S.-European relations.
Elements of the Issue
The process of change in Europe raises a series of important issues for U.S.
foreign and defense policy. President Bush has stated his resolve to see that the
United States remains an active participant in Europe. However, a Europe in
which the two alliances are less important would also make dealing with our
CRS senior specialist in international security policy.
CRS-34
allies more complex, and might require creating new venues for dealing with
members, or former members, of the Warsaw Pact.
It appears certain now that the United States will be able to reduce its
military involvement in Europe substantially below current levels. Increasingly,
Washington observers expect U.S. force levels in Europe to drop below 100,000
by the mid-1990s. As the prominence of the U.S. military role in Europe
recedes, it is possible that U.S. political influence will recede as well. On the
other hand, as the importance of military instruments of power diminishes in
relations among European countries, future U.S. influence in Europe may
depend much more on the political and economic roles that it plays than on the
strength of its military presence.
Perhaps the key argument for the United States remaining actively
involved in European security arrangements is that twice in this century the
United States has had to send soldiers into combat in Europe. The post-World
War II U.S. investment in European security arrangements has paid large
dividends in terms of war avoidance, and has been important politically in
supporting democratic forces and ideas on the European continent.
Members of Congress and the Administration will necessarily confront a
number of difficult questions as they attempt to establish new defense spending,
arms control, and foreign aid priorities in the coming months and years.
Already the desire to provide assistance to emerging democracies in Eastern
Europe has come into conflict with competing foreign aid priorities and the
desire to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. The Persian Gulf crisis has raised new
issues about how to allocate the costs and responsibilities for defending Western
interests in this region. Differences over trade policy also threaten to disturb
allied relationships.
CRS-35
Soviet-U.S. Relations
Francis T. Miko'
U.S.-Soviet relations reached a new positive level in 1990, when leaders of
both countries declared an end to the cold war. Dramatic changes in Soviet
policy and thinking have brought major progress in arms control, regional
cooperation (including unprecedented mutual support in the Persian Gulf crisis),
and other areas of bilateral relations. Today, developments inside the Soviet
Union, rather than any bilateral differences, pose the greatest uncertainties for
future U.S.-Soviet relations. Worsening economic conditions, including
shortages of food and basic goods in major cities, are exacerbating efforts to
implement economic reform. Competition for power between the central
government and republics seeking autonomy threatens the cohesion of the
Soviet Union.
The progress achieved in bilateral relations may clear the way to major new
U.S.-Soviet agreements in 1991. President Bush has announced plans to assist
Soviet efforts to implement perestroika. As the two countries prepare for the
next summit, scheduled for February 1991 in Moscow, the United States must
decide to what extent, how, and under what conditions to help the Soviet Union.
Congressional Context
Congress will be directly involved in the further development of U.S.-
Soviet relations. Conventional and strategic arms control agreements will
require congressional approval. Early in 1991 Congress is likely to consider the
issues involved through extensive hearings. In the sphere of economic relations
and assistance, Congress has yet to consider the U.S.-Soviet trade agreement
signed in 1990, although the President will submit this accord to Congress only
after the Soviet Union has adopted liberalized emigration laws. Legislative
restrictions limiting economic relations and assistance beyond the emergency
food aid and credits now envisioned can only be removed with congressional
consent. Congress continues to take a strong interest in human rights and
emigration issues, as well as the status of the Baltic Republics.
Elements of the Issue
The United States and Soviet Union signed the multilateral agreement on
Conventional Forces in Europe on November 19, 1990. The President is expected
to submit the agreement for congressional approval in January or February
1991. U.S. and Soviet officials have announced that they hope to have a START
Specialist in international relations with the CRS Foreign Affairs and
National Defense Division.
CRS-36
treaty ready to sign at the February 1991 Moscow Summit. The bilateral
chemical weapons agreement must also be approved by Congress.
U.S.-Soviet regional initiatives have moved increasingly from competition
to cooperation. The United States will seek continued Soviet support in military
and other efforts to reverse the Iraqi annexation of Kuwait, and negotiations
will proceed to end the conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia. Both
countries are supporting a much greater U.N. role in settling these disputes. In
Europe, hopes are high for an unprecedented era of cooperation, following the
Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe, the unification of Germany, and the
movement throughout much of the region toward democracy. A search is under
way for new security structures through the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and other institutions, now that the Warsaw
Pact has lost its military role.
The Administration has decided to seek improved economic relations and
provide some short-term assistance to the Soviet Union. The President has
taken initial steps with the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the
Trade Act of 1974, so that he can provide Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
credits to the Soviet Union for agricultural purchases. Before the United States
can grant most-favored-nation status and the full range of economic benefits or
aid to the Soviet Union, Congress must approve the bilateral trade agreement
signed in 1990 and continue the President's authority to waive the Jackson-
Vanik Amendment. Even if these actions are taken, U.S. credits to the Soviet
Union are limited to $300 million without specific congressional approval under
the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended. The United States and its
allies have eased restrictions on technology transfer to the Soviet Union, but
Moscow is likely to seek a further relaxation of controls.
Bilateral cooperation in science, space, medicine, education, and culture,
as well as global problems such as the environment, terrorism, and drugs, is
likely to be expanded in the coming years, assuming that the Soviet nation can
avoid chaotic disorder without a return to totalitarian rule.
CRS-37
Trade
George Holliday* and William H. Cooper"
The failure of the ministerial meeting in December 1990 to reach a
successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations signaled the
beginning of comprehensive review of U.S. trade policy in the 1990s. Trade
negotiators had intended to reach agreements in principle on a wide range of
trade issues that they had considered in the four-year negotiations -- the eighth
round of trade negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The failure of the December meeting, largely
because of the inability to reach agreement on reduction of trade-distorting
agricultural subsidies, adds an element of uncertainty to the trade agenda of the
102nd Congress.
Congressional Context
Negotiators have effectively only until March 1, 1991, to complete the work
of the Uruguay Round. The President must formally notify Congress by that
date of his intent to enter into agreements to ensure that Congress considers
implementing legislation under fast-track procedures. (Under fast-track
procedures, Congress considers the legislation expeditiously and without
amendments.) To meet their deadline, negotiators must not only achieve an
effective compromise on the difficult issues of agricultural trade; they must also
resolve outstanding questions about trade in textiles, GATT rules for dumping
and subsidies, trade in services, tariffs, and other issues.
Elements of the Issue
If agreements are signed in the Uruguay Round, Congress will consider
complex and comprehensive implementing legislation. Since such legislation
would amend statutes relating to domestic as well as trade policy, it would
require extensive review by a number of committees. If the negotiators are
unsuccessful, Congress is likely to consider more actively other approaches --
unilateral measures, such as enactment of strengthened laws to remedy unfair
or injurious trade practices, or bilateral agreements with important trade
partners. Continuing large U.S. trade deficits could provide additional incentive
for a more activist, unilateral, or bilateral approach to trade policy.
Specialist in international trade and finance with the CRS Economics
Division.
.. Specialist in international trade and finance with the CRS Economics
Division.
CRS-38
Congress may, for example, consider toughening Section 301 and related
trade laws, which authorize the executive branch to retaliate against countries
that do not open their markets to U.S. exports. The so-called Super 301
authority, enacted as part of the 1988 Omnibus Trade Act, expired after May
1990. This provision required the Administration to name "priority" countries
that practiced unfair trade and authorized retaliatory measures if they failed to
cease their unfair practices. The 102nd Congress may study the option of
renewing Super 301.
The U.S. Government has successfully negotiated market-opening
agreements covering commodities ranging from agricultural goods to satellites
with Japan and other countries. Yet new issues with major trade partners are
emerging and some old ones probably will be revisited. The United States has
also been forging special bilateral trading relationships -- free trade
arrangements (FTA). In 1988 it formed an FTA with Canada, and in 1990, the
Bush Administration announced its intention to pursue FTA negotiations with
Mexico. Congress will have a major role to play during the negotiations and in
approving any agreement that the two countries may reach.
The potential North American free trade area, the European Community's
efforts to become more closely united by 1992, and Japan's emergence as a
economic power in East Asia have fostered speculation that the international
trading system is breaking up into regional trading blocs. Such trade and
economic regional blocs would have major implications for the multilateral trade
system and for U.S. trade laws.
The United States also is forming new trading relationships with East and
Central European countries as they grapple with forming market-driven
economies. The United States has normalized trade relations with Poland,
Hungary, and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. A pending trade
agreement with the U.S.S.R. granting most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment to
that country will require congressional approval for implementation upon
submission by the President. Agreements with other East Central European
countries requiring congressional action may follow.
The 102d Congress will also consider extension and amendment of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, the primary authority for controlling
exports, which expired when President Bush vetoed a bill passed by the
Congress in November 1990.
CRS-39
Unemployment Compensation
Gene Falk'
The recent slowdown in economic growth and the resulting increase in
unemployment have heightened congressional interest in unemployment
compensation (UC), which provides temporary cash payments to replace some
of the wages lost when a worker becomes involuntarily unemployed. It also
helps stabilize the economy by providing unemployed workers with some
purchasing power. Federal law establishes the framework for the Federal-State
UC system, and all UC tax receipts, benefit payments, and funds for program
administration flow through the U.S. Treasury. States determine eligibility and
benefit rules, levy taxes to support benefit payments, and administer the
program.
Congressional Context
In recent years, congressional interest in UC has centered on changes in its
financing and assistance to those unemployed because of long-term changes in
the structure of the economy. A prolonged slump in economic growth or a
recession would likely change the focus of legislative interest. To respond to a
cyclical rise in unemployment, Congress probably would concentrate on issues
such as extending the duration of assistance and financing the potential
insolvencies of some State programs.
Under the pay-as-you-go rules enacted in the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, any increase in the deficit caused by new UC
legislation would require offsetting tax increases or spending cuts. The President
and Congress could suspend this requirement if the economy is in recession and
could exempt a bill that responds to an "emergency."
Elements of the Issue
The recent slowdown in economic growth was reflected in a jump in UC
spending. FY90 UC outlays were 20 percent higher than FY89 outlays ($20.2
billion compared with $16.8 billion). Conversely, UC tax receipts declined as
employment and payroll growth subsided.
UC can act as an automatic stabilizer. Its spending increases during
economic slumps without action by Congress or States when more people receive
benefits. This cyclically induced increase in spending combines with lower UC
tax receipts to increase the Federal budget deficit. Some have questioned
Analyst in social legislation with the CRS Education and Public Welfare
Division.
CRS-40
whether a further increase in the already large budget deficit would aid an
economic recovery. However, the UC system's automatic response to a slump
or recession may be attenuated by: (1) the low rate of benefit receipt among the
unemployed; (2) difficulty in activating extended benefits (additional weeks of
assistance for those who exhaust their regular benefits) in States with high
unemployment; and (3) potential cutbacks in benefits or tax increases by States
facing UC insolvency.
Many unemployed workers do not receive UC. Some are ineligible for
benefits, for reasons such as too little recent work experience, voluntary quits,
or dismissal with cause. In the midst of the 1981-82 recession the rate of
insured unemployment (unemployed and receiving UC) compared to total
unemployment declined, and it has remained at low levels through 1990.
Research shows that many unemployed who do not receive UC had little recent
work experience. However, the low. rate of UC receipt has not been fully
explained.
Typically, higher levels of unemployment are accompanied by an increase
in the length of time people remain unemployed because it is more difficult to
find jobs. Since regular State UC programs limit benefit durations (most to 26
weeks), more people exhaust their regular UC benefits before finding work
during recessions. The permanent Federal-State extended benefits (EB) program
provides additional weeks of assistance in States with high rates of insured
unemployment. However, because the rate of insured unemployment compared
with total unemployment is at a low level, it is unlikely that EB will be
activated under present law in many States, even those with relatively high total
unemployment rates. During some past recessions, Congress has enacted
temporary assistance programs to aid the long-term unemployed.
A recession could jeopardize the financial health of some State UC
programs. Lower tax revenues and higher benefit payments would deplete
reserves in State accounts. In recent years, some have questioned whether many
State accounts could withstand a recession. States facing insolvency would be
faced with the choice of either raising taxes, cutting benefits, or receiving loans
from a Federal UC account. These loans must be repaid with interest, implying
future UC tax increases or benefit cuts.
91-68 C
CRS Report for Congress
The Congressional Scene:
Selected Publications
Covering the Congress
Pamela M. Dragovich
Reference Specialist
Congressional Reference Division
00000000
January 10, 1991
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
The Congressional Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting re-
search, analyzing legislation. and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, and their staffs.
The Service makes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ-
ing studies, reports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
CRS assists committees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields
of expertise.
THE CONGRESSIONAL SCENE:
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS COVERING THE CONGRESS
SUMMARY
The activities of Congress in legislative and policymaking matters are reported
in various periodicals, newsletters, and other periodical publications that may
be of interest to those who follow congressional activities. A representative list
of such publications is included in this report.
Reprinted with permission from Congressional Quarterly's
Guide to Current American Government, Fall 1988 edition.
How a Bill Becomes Law
from the group's purview only by a discharge petition
signed by a majority of the House membership on House
bills, or by adoption of a special resolution in the Senate.
Introduction of Bills
Discharge attempts rarely succeed.
The first committee action taken on a bill usually is a
A House member (including the resident commissioner
request for comment on it by interested agencies of the
of Puerto Rico and non-voting delegates of the District of
government. The committee chairman may assign the bill
Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa)
to a subcommittee for study and hearings, or it may be
may introduce any one of several types of bills and resolu-
considered by the full committee. Hearings may be public,
tions by handing it to the clerk of the House or placing it in
closed (executive session), or both. A subcommittee, after
a box called the hopper. A senator first gains recognition of
considering a bill, reports to the full committee its recom-
the presiding officer to announce the introduction of a bill.
mendations for action and any proposed amendments.
If objection is offered by any senator, the introduction of
The full committee then votes on its recommendation
the bill is postponed until the following day.
to the House or Senate. This procedure is called "ordering
As the next in either the House or Senate, the bill
a bill reported." Occasionally a committee may order a bill
is numbered, referred to the appropriate committee, la-
reported unfavorably; most of the time a report, submitted
beled with the sponsor's name, and sent to the Government
by the chairman of the committee to the House or Senate,
Printing Office so that copies can be made for subsequent
calls for favorable action on the measure since the commit-
study and action. Senate bills may be jointly sponsored and
tee can effectively "kill" a bill by simply failing to take any
carry several senators' names. Until 1978, the House lim-
action.
ited the number of members who could cosponsor any one
When a committee sends a bill to the chamber floor, it
bill; the ceiling was eliminated at the beginning of the 96th
explains its reasons in a written statement, called a report,
Congress. A bill written in the executive branch and pro-
which accompanies the bill. Often committee members op-
posed as an administration measure usually is introduced
posing a measure issue dissenting minority statements that
by the chairman of the congressional committee that has
are included in the report.
jurisdiction.
Usually, the committee "marks up" or proposes
Bills-Prefixed with "HR" in the House, "S" in the
amendments to the bill. If they are substantial and the
Senate, followed by a number. Used as the form for most
measure is complicated, the committee may order a "clean
legislation, whether general or special, public or private.
bill" introduced, which will embody the proposed amend-
Joint Resolutions-Designated H J Res or S J Res.
ments. The original bill then is put aside and the "clean
Subject to the same procedure as bills, with the exception
bill," with a new number, is reported to the floor.
of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Con-
The chamber must approve, alter, or reject the com-
stitution. The latter must be approved by two-thirds of
mittee amendments before the bill itself can be put to a
both houses and is thereupon sent directly to the adminis-
vote.
trator of general services for submission to the states for
ratification rather than being presented to the president
for his approval.
Floor Action
Concurrent Resolutions-Designated H Con Res
After a bill is reported back to the house where it
or S Con Res. Used for matters affecting the operations of
originated, it is placed on the calendar.
both houses. These resolutions do not become law.
There are five legislative calendars in the House, is-
Resolutions-Designated H Res or S Res. Used for a
sued in one cumulative calendar titled Calendars of the
matter concerning the operation of either house alone and
United States House of Representatives and History of
adopted only by the chamber in which it originates.
Legislation. The House calendars are:
The Union Calendar to which are referred bills raising
Committee Action
revenues, general appropriations bills and any measures
directly or indirectly appropriating money or property. It is
A bill is referred to the appropriate committee by a
the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the
House parliamentarian in the Speaker's order, or by the
State of the Union.
Senate president. Sponsors may indicate their preferences
The House Calendar to which are referred bills of
for referral, although custom and chamber rule generally
public character not raising revenue or appropriating
govern. An exception is the referral of private bills, which
money or property.
are sent to whatever group is designated by their sponsors.
The Consent Calendar to which are referred bills of a
Bills are technically considered "read for the first time"
non-controversial nature that are passed without debate
when referred to House committees.
when the Consent Calendar is called on the first and third
When a bill reaches a committee it is placed on the
Mondays of each month.
group's calendar. At that time it comes under the sharpest
The Private Calendar to which are referred bills for
congressional focus. Its chances for passage are quickly
relief in the nature of claims against the United States or
determined - and the great majority of bills falls by the
private immigration bills that are passed without debate
legislative roadside. Failure of a committee to act on a bill
when the Private Calendar is called the first and third
is equivalent to killing it; the measure can be withdrawn
Tuesdays of each month.
COPYRIGHT 1988 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
Reproduction prohibited in whole or in part except by editorial clients.
The Discharge Calendar to which are referred motions
the Whole to meet with any 100 members on the floor, and
to discharge committees when the necessary signatures are
to amend and act on bills with a quorum of the 100, within
signed to a discharge petition.
the time limitations mentioned previously. When the Com-
There is only one legislative calendar in the Senate
mittee of the Whole has acted, it "rises," the Speaker
and one "executive calendar" for treaties and nominations
returns as the presiding officer of the House and the mem-
submitted to the Senate. When the Senate Calendar is
ber appointed chairman of the Committee of the Whole
called, each senator is limited to five minutes' debate on
reports the action of the committee and its recommenda-
each bill.
tions (amendments adopted).
Debate. A bill is brought to debate by varying proce-
Votes. Voting on bills may occur repeatedly before
dures. If a routine measure, it may await the call of the
they are finally approved or rejected. The House votes on
calendar. If it is urgent or important, it can be taken up in
the rule for the bill and on various amendments to the bill.
the Senate either by unanimous consent or by a majority
Voting on amendments often is a more illuminating test of
vote. The policy committee of the majority party in the
a bill's support than is the final tally. Sometimes members
Senate schedules the bills that it wants taken up for de-
approve final passage of bills after vigorously supporting
bate.
amendments that, if adopted, would have scuttled the leg-
In the House, precedence is granted if a special rule is
islation.
obtained from the Rules Committee. A request for a special
The Senate has three different methods of voting: an
rule is usually made by the chairman of the committee that.
untabulated voice, a standing vote (called a division) and a
favorably reported the bill, supported by the bill's sponsor
recorded roll call to which members answer "yea" or "nay"
and other committee members. The request, considered by
when their names are called. The House also employs voice
the Rules Committee in the same fashion that other com-
and standing votes, but since January 1973 yeas and nays
mittées consider legislative measures, is in the form of a
have been recorded by an electronic voting device, elimi-
resolution providing for immediate consideration of the
nating the need for time-consuming roll calls.
bill. The Rules Committee reports the resolution to the
Another method of voting, used in the House only, is
House where it is debated and voted upon in the same
the teller vote. Traditionally, members filed up the center
fashion as regular bills. If the Rules Committee should fail
aisle past counters; only vote totals were announced. Since
to report a rule requested by a committee, there are several
1971, one-fifth of a quorum can demand that the votes of
ways to bring the bill to the House floor - under suspen-
individual members be recorded, thereby forcing them to
sion of the rules, on Calendar Wednesday or by a discharge
take a public position on amendments to key bills. Elec-
motion.
tronic voting now is commonly used for this purpose.
The resolutions providing special rules are important
After amendments to a bill have been voted upon, a
because they specify how long the bill may be debated and
vote may be taken on a motion to recommit the bill to
whether it may be amended from the floor. If floor amend-
committee. If carried, this vote removes the bill from the
ments are banned, the bill is considered under a "closed
chamber's calendar. If the motion is unsuccessful, the bill
rule," which permits only members of the committee that
then is "read for the third time." An actual reading usually
first reported the measure to the House to alter its lan-
is dispensed with. Until 1965, an opponent of a bill could
guage, subject to chamber acceptance.
delay this move by objecting and asking for a full reading of
When a bill is debated under an "open rule," amend-
an engrossed (certified in final form) copy of the bill. After
ments may be offered from the floor. Committee amend-
the "third reading," the vote on final passage is taken.
ments are always taken up first, but may be changed, as
The final vote may be followed by a motion to recon-
may all amendments up to the second degree; i.e., an
sider, and this motion itself may be followed by a move to
amendment to an amendment to an amendment is not in
lay the motion on the table. Usually, those voting for the
order.
bill's passage vote for the tabling motion, thus safeguarding
Duration of debate in the House depends on whether
the final passage action. With that, the bill has been for-
the bill is under discussion by the House proper or before
mally passed by the chamber. While a motion to reconsider
the House when it is sitting as the Committee of the Whole
a Senate vote is pending on a bill, the measure cannot be
House on the State of the Union. In the former, the amount
sent to the House.
of time for debate is determined either by special rule or is
allocated with an hour for each member if the measure is
Action in Second House
under consideration without a rule. In the Committee of
the Whole the amount of time agreed on for general debate
After a bill is passed it is sent to the other chamber.
is equally divided between proponents and opponents. At
This body may then take one of several steps. It may pass
the end of general discussion, the bill is read section by
the bill as is - accepting the other chamber's language. It
section for amendment. Debate on an amendment is lim-
may send the bill to committee for scrutiny or alteration, or
ited to five minutes for each side.
reject the entire bill, advising the other house of its actions.
Senate debate is usually unlimited. It can be halted
Or it may simply ignore the bill submitted while it contin-
only by unanimous consent by "cloture," which requires a
ues work on its own version of the proposed legislation.
three-fifths majority of the entire Senate except for pro-
Frequently, one chamber may approve a version of a bill
posed changes in the Senate rules. The latter requires a
that is greatly at variance with the version already passed
two-thirds vote.
by the other house, and then substitute its amendments for
The House sits as the Committee of the Whole when it
the language of the other, retaining only the latter's bill
considers any tax measure or bill dealing with public
designation.
appropriations. It can also resolve itself into the Committee
A provision of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
of the Whole if a member moves to do so and the motion is
1970 permits a separate House vote on any non-germane
carried. The Speaker appoints a member to serve as the
amendment added by the Senate to a House-passed bill
chairman. The rules of the House permit the Committee of
and requires a majority vote to retain the amendment.
Previously the House was forced to act on the bill as a
tions in disagreement. Then the chamber concerned can
whole; the only way to defeat the non-germane amendment
either "recede and concur" in the amendment of the other
was to reject the entire bill.
house, or "insist on its amendment."
Often the second chamber makes only minor changes.
When the conferees have reached agreement, they pre-
If these are readily agreed to by the other house, the bill
pare a conference report embodying their recommenda-
then is routed to the White House for signing. However, if
tions (compromises). The reports, in document form, must
the opposite chamber basically alters the bill submitted to
be submitted to each house.
it, the measure usually is "sent to conference." The cham-
The conference report must be approved by each
ber that has possession of the "papers" (engrossed bill,
house. Consequently, approval of the report is approval of
engrossed amendments, messages of transmittal) requests
the compromise bill. In the order of voting on conference
a conference and the other chamber must agree to it. If the
reports, the chamber which asked for a conference yields to
second house does not agree, the bill dies.
the other chamber the opportunity to vote first.
Final Steps. After a bill has been passed by both the
Conference, Final Action
House and Senate in identical form, all of the original
papers are sent to the enrolling clerk of the chamber in
Conference. A conference undertakes to harmonize
which the bill originated. He then prepares an enrolled bill,
conficting House and Senate versions of a legislative bill.
which is printed on parchment paper. When this bill has
The conference is usually staffed by senior members (con-
been certified as correct by the secretary of the Senate or
ferees), appointed by the presiding officers of the two
the clerk of the House, depending on which chamber origi-
houses, from the committees that managed the bills. Under
nated the bill, it is signed first (no matter whether it
this arrangement the conferees of one house have the duty
originated in the Senate or House) by the Speaker of the
of trying to maintain their chamber's position in the face of
House and then by the president of the Senate. It is next
amending actions by the conferees (also referred to as
sent to the White House to await action.
"managers") of the other house.
If the president approves the bill, he signs it, dates it
The number of conferees from each chamber may vary,
and usually writes the word "approved" on the document.
the range usually being from three to nine members in each
If he does not sign it within 10 days (Sundays excepted)
group, depending upon the length or complexity of the bill
and Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without his
involved. There may be five representatives and three sen-
signature.
ators on the conference committee, or the reverse. But a
However, should Congress adjourn before the 10 days
majority vote controls the action of each group so that a
expire, and the president has failed to sign the measure, it
large representation does not give one chamber a voting
does not become law. This procedure is called the pocket
advantage over the other chamber's conferees.
veto.
Theoretically, conferees are not allowed to write new
A president vetoes a bill by refusing to sign it and
legislation in reconciling the two versions before them, but
before the 10-day period expires, returning it to Congress
this curb sometimes is bypassed. Many bills have been put
with a message stating his reasons. The message is sent to
into acceptable compromise form only after new language
the chamber that originated the bill. If no action is taken
was provided by the conferees. The 1970 Reorganization
there on the message, the bill dies. Congress, however, can
Act attempted to tighten restrictions on conferees by for-
attempt to override the president's veto and enact the bill,
bidding them to introduce any language on a topic that
"the objections of the president to the contrary notwith-
neither chamber sent to conference or to modify any topic
standing." Overriding of a veto requires a two-thirds vote
beyond the scope of the different House and Senate ver-
of those present, who must number a quorum and vote by
sions.
roll call.
Frequently the ironing out of difficulties takes days or
Debate can precede this vote, with motions permitted
even weeks. Conferences on involved appropriations bills
to lay the message on the table, postpone action on it, or
sometimes are particularly drawn out.
refer it to committee. If the president's veto is overridden
As a conference proceeds, conferees reconcile differ-
by a two-thirds vote in both houses, the bill becomes law.
ences between the versions, but generally they grant con-
Otherwise it is dead.
cessions only insofar as they remain sure that the chamber.
When bills are passed finally and signed, or passed
they represent will accept the compromises. Occasionally,
over a veto, they are given law numbers in numerical order
uncertainty over how either house will react, or the positive
as they become law. There are two series of numbers, one
refusal of a chamber to back down on a disputed amend-
for public and one for private laws, starting at the number
ment, results in an impasse, and the bills die in conference
"1" for each two-year term of Congress. They are then
even though each was approved by its sponsoring chamber.
identified by law number and by Congress - i.e., Private
Conferees sometimes go back to their respective cham-
Law 21, 97th Congress; Public Law 250, 97th Congress (or
bers for further instructions, when they report certain por-
PL 97-250).
How a Bill Becomes Law
This graphic shows the most typical way in which proposed legisla-
Senate bill No. 2 (S 2). Bills must be passed by both houses in
tion is enacted into law. There are more complicated, as well as
identical form before they can be sent to the president. The path
simpler, routes, and most bills never become law. The process is
of HR 1 is traced by a solid line, that of S 2 by a broken line. In
illustrated with two hypothetical bills, House bill No. 1 (HR 1) and
practice most bills begins as similar proposals in both houses.
Committee
S 2
Committee
HR 1
Action
Introduced
Introduced
Action
In House
In Senate
Referred to
Bill goes to full committee, then usually to spe-
Referred to
House Committee
cialized subcommittee for study, hearings, revi-
Senate Committee
sions, approval. Then bill goes back to full com-
mittee where more hearings and revision may
occur. Full committee may approve bill and rec-
Referred to
ommend its chamber pass the proposal. Com-
Referred to
Subcommittee
mittees rarely give bill unfavorable report;
Subcommittee
rather, no action is taken, thereby ending fur-
ther consideration of the measure.
Reported by
Reported by
Full Committee
Full Committee
In House, many bills go before Rules Committee
for "rule" expediting floor action, setting condi-
Rules Committee
tions for debate and amendments on floor. Some
Action
bills are "privileged" and go directly to floor.
Other procedures exist for noncontroversial or
routine bills. In Senate, special "rules" are not
used; leadership normally schedules action.
Floor Action
Floor Action
Bill is debated, usually amended, passed or de-
feated. If passed, it goes to other chamber to
House Debate,
follow the same route through committee and
Senate Debate,
Vote on Passage
floor stages. (If other chamber has already
Vote on Passage
passed related bill, both versions go straight to
conference.)
Conference Action
Once both chambers have passed related bills,
conference committee of members from both
houses is formed to work out differences.
Compromise version from conference is sent to
each chamber for final approval.
H.R.
VETOED
SIGNED
Compromise bill approved by both houses is sent to the president, who can sign it into law or veto it and return it to Congress.
Congress may override veto by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses; bill then becomes law without president's signature.
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540
The Congress of the United States
IP 22C
In response to numerous inquiries about the Congress, we have compiled
this packet which we believe will provide useful information on the subject. It
includes materials on the organization and procedures of the Congress, the
committee system, and the legislative process.
Members of Congress who want further information on this topic may
contact CRS at 7-5700. Additional CRS reports may be identified by looking in
the current Guide to CRS Products (for congressional use only) under "Congress"
and in the latest Update under "Government and Politics."
Constituents may find additional information on this topic in a local library
through the use of Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature, Public Affairs
Information Service Bulletin (PAIS), and various newspaper indexes. Books on
this subject may be identified through the library's catalog or the most recent
edition of Subject Guide to Books in Print.
We hope this information will be helpful.
Congressional Reference
Division
1/91
IP 22C (GO)
102d CONGRESS
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPRESENTATIVES
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independent in SMALL CAPS; Resident Commissioner and Delegates in boldface)
Members who have died or resigned in bold brackets []
[Room numbers with 3 digits are in the Cannon HOB, 4 digits beginning with 1 are in the Longworth HOB, 4 digits beginning with
2 are in the Rayburn HOB, digits beginning with H1 are in the O'Neill HOB, digits beginning with H2 are in the Ford HOB]
[Capitol room numbers begin with SB, ST, HB, HT with 2 digits and begin with H or S with 3 digits]
[Washington, D.C. 20515]
Compiled by
DONNALD K. ANDERSON, Clerk of the House
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Abercrombie, Neil (HI)
52726
1440
Boehlert, Sherwood L. (NY)
53665
1127
Ackerman, Gary L. (NY)
52601
238
Boehner, John A. (OH)
56205
1020
Alexander, Bill (AR)
54076
233
Bonior, David E. (MI)
52106
2242
Allard, Wayne (CO)
54676
513
Borski, Robert A. (PA)
58251
407
Anderson, Glenn M. (CA)
56676
2329
Boucher, Rick (VA)
53861
405
Andrews, Michael A. (TX)
57508
303
Boxer, Barbara (CA)
55161
307
Andrews, Robert E. (NJ)
56501
1005
Brewster, Bill K. (OK)
54565
1407
Andrews, Thomas H. (ME)
56116
1724
Brooks, Jack (TX)
56565
2449
Annunzio, Frank (IL)
56661
2303
Broomfield, Wm. S. (MI)
56135
2306
Anthony, Beryl, Jr. (AR)
53772
1212
Browder, Glen (AL)
53261
1221
Applegate, Douglas (OH)
56265
2183
Brown, George E., Jr. (CA)
56161
2188
Archer, Bill (TX)
52571
1236
Bruce, Terry L. (IL)
55001
419
Armey, Richard K. (TX)
57772
130
Bryant, John (TX)
52231
208
Aspin, Les (WI)
53031
2336
Bunning, Jim (KY)
53465
116
Atkins, Chester G. (MA)
53411
123
Burton, Dan (IN)
52276
120
AuCoin, Les (OR)
50855
2159
Bustamante, Albert G. (TX)
54511
1116
Bacchus, Jim (FL)
53671
431
Byron, Beverly B. (MD)
52721
2430
Baker, Richard H. (LA)
53901
404
Callahan, Sonny (AL)
54931
1330
Ballenger, Cass (NC)
52576
328
Camp, Dave (MI)
53561
511
Barnard, Doug, Jr. (GA)
54101
2227
Campbell, Ben Nighthorse (CO)
54761
1530
Barrett, Bill (NE)
56435
1607
Campbell, Tom (CA)
55411
313
Bartlett, Steve (TX)
54201
1113
Cardin, Benjamin L. (MD)
54016
117
Barton, Joe (TX)
52002
1225
Carper, Thomas R. (DE)
54165
131
Bateman, Herbert H. (VA)
54261
1030
Carr, Bob (MI)
54872
2439
Beilenson, Anthony C. (CA)
55911
1025
Chandler, Rod (WA)
57761
223
Bennett, Charles E. (FL)
52501
2107
Chapman, Jim (TX)
53035
236
Bentley, Helen Delich (MD)
53061
1610
Clay, William (Bill) (MO)
52406
2470
Bereuter, Doug (NE)
54806
2348
Clement, Bob (TN)
54311
325
Berman, Howard L. (CA)
54695
137
Clinger, William F., Jr. (PA)
55121
2160
Bevill, Tom (AL)
54876
2302
Coble, Howard (NC)
53065
430
Bilbray, James H. (NV)
55965
319
Coleman, E. Thomas (MO)
57041
2468
Bilirakis, Michael (FL)
55755
2432
Coleman, Ronald D. (TX)
54831
440
Blaz, Ben Garrido (GU)
51188
1130
Collins, Barbara-Rose (MI)
52261
1541
Bliley, Thomas J., Jr. (VA)
52815
2241
Collins, Cardiss (IL)
55006
2264
(Rev. 01/10/91)
Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional
Research Service.
REPRESENTATIVES
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Combest, Larry (TX)
54005
1527
Fawell, Harris W. (IL)
53515
435
Condit, Gary (CA)
56131
1529
Fazio, Vic (CA)
55716
2113
Conte, Silvio O. (MA)
55335
2300
Feighan, Edward F. (OH)
55731
1124
Conyers, John, Jr. (MI)
55126
2426
Fields, Jack (TX)
54901
108
Cooper, Jim (TN)
56831
125
Fish, Hamilton, Jr. (NY)
55441
2269
Costello, Jerry F. (IL)
55661
119
Flake, Floyd H. (NY)
53461
1034
Coughlin, Lawrence (PA)
56111
2309
Foglietta, Thomas M. (PA)
54731
231
Cox, C. Christopher (CA)
55611
412
Foley, Thomas S. (WA)
52006
1201
Cox, John W., Jr. (IL)
55676
501
Ford, Harold E. (TN)
53265
2305
Coyne, William J. (PA)
52301
2455
Ford, William D. (MI)
56261
2371
Cramer, Robert E. (Bud), Jr. (AL)
54801
1431
Frank, Barney (MA)
55931
2404
Crane, Philip M. (IL)
53711
1035
Franks, Gary A. (CT)
53822
1609
Cunningham, Randy "Duke" (CA)
55452
1017
Frost, Martin (TX)
53605
2459
Dannemeyer, William E. (CA)
54111
2351
Fuster, Jaime B. (PR)
52615
427
Darden, George (Buddy) (GA)
52931
228
Gallegly, Elton (CA)
55811
107
Davis, Robert W. (MI)
54735
2417
Gallo, Dean A. (NJ)
55034
1318
DeFazio, Peter A. (OR)
56416
1233
Gaydos, Joseph M. (PA)
54631
2186
de la Garza, E (TX)
52531
1401
Gejdenson, Sam (CT)
52076
2416
DeLauro, Rosa L. (CT)
53661
327
Gekas, George W. (PA)
54315
1519
DeLay, Tom (TX)
55951
308
Gephardt, Richard A. (MO)
52671
1432
Dellums, Ronald V. (CA)
52661
2136
Geren, Pete (TX)
55071
1730
de Lugo, Ron (VI)
51790
2238
Gibbons, Sam (FL)
53376
2204
Derrick, Butler (SC)
55301
201
Gilchrest, Wayne T. (MD)
55311
502
Dickinson, William L. (AL)
52901
2406
Gillmor, Paul E. (OH)
56405
1203
Dicks, Norman D. (WA)
55916
2429
Gilman, Benjamin A. (NY)
53776
2185
Dingell, John D. (MI)
54071
2328
Gingrich, Newt (GA)
54501
2438
Dixon, Julian C. (CA)
57084
2400
Glickman, Dan (KS)
56216
2311
Donnelly, Brian J. (MA)
53215
2229
Gonzalez, Henry B. (TX)
53236
2413
Dooley, Calvin M. (CA)
53341
1022
Goodling, William F. (PA)
55836
2263
Doolittle, John T. (CA)
52511
1223
Gordon, Bart (TN)
54231
103
Dorgan, Byron L. (ND)
52611
203
Goss, Porter J. (FL)
52536
224
Dornan, Robert K. (CA)
52965
301
Gradison, Willis D., Jr. (OH)
53164
1125
Downey, Thomas J. (NY)
53335
2232
Grandy, Fred (LA)
55476
418
Dreier, David (CA)
52305
411
Gray, William H., III (PA)
54001
2454
Duncan, John J., Jr. (TN)
55435
115
Green, Bill (NY)
52436
2301
Durbin, Richard J. (IL)
55271
129
Guarini, Frank J. (NJ)
52765
2458
Dwyer, Bernard J. (NJ)
56301
2428
Gunderson, Steve (WI)
55506
2235
Dymally, Mervyn M. (CA)
55425
1717
Hall, Ralph M. (TX)
56673
2236
Early, Joseph D. (MA)
56101
2349
Hall, Tony P. (OH)
56465
2162
Eckart, Dennis E. (OH)
56331
1111
Hamilton, Lee H. (IN)
55315
2187
Edwards, Chet (TX)
56105
425
Hammerschmidt, John Paul (AR)
54301
2110
Edwards, Don (CA)
53072
2307
Hancock, Mel (MO)
56536
318
Edwards, Mickey (OK)
52132
2330
Hansen, James V. (UT)
50453
2421
Emerson, Bill (MO)
54404
438
Harris, Claude (AL)
52665
1009
Engel, Eliot L. (NY)
52464
1213
Hastert, J. Dennis (IL)
52976
515
English, Glenn (OK)
55565
2206
Hatcher, Charles (GA)
53631
2434
Erdreich, Ben (AL)
54921
439
Hayes, Charles A. (IL)
54372
1131
Espy, Mike (MS)
55876
216
Hayes, James A. (LA)
52031
503
Evans, Lane (IL)
55905
1121
Hefley, Joel (CO)
54422
222
Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. (AS)
58577
413
Hefner, W. G. (Bill) (NC)
53715
2161
Fascell, Dante B. (FL)
54506
2354
Henry, Paul B. (MI)
53831
215
2
REPRESENTATIVES
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Herger, Wally (CA)
53076
1108
Lent, Norman F. (NY)
57896
2408
Hertel, Dennis M. (MI)
56276
2442
Levin, Sander M. (MI)
54961
323
Hoagland, Peter (NE)
54155
1710
Levine, Mel (CA)
56451
2443
Hobson, David L. (OH)
54324
1338
Lewis, Jerry (CA)
55861
2312
Hochbrueckner, George J. (NY)
53826
124
Lewis, John (GA)
53801
329
Holloway, Clyde C. (LA)
54926
1206
Lewis, Tom (FL)
55792
1216
Hopkins, Larry J. (KY)
54706
2437
Lightfoot, Jim (IA)
53806
1222
Horn, Joan Kelly (MO)
52561
1008
Lipinski, William O. (IL)
55701
1501
Horton, Frank (NY)
54916
2108
Livingston, Bob (LA)
53015
2368
Houghton, Amo (NY)
53161
1217
Lloyd, Marilyn (TN)
53271
2266
Hoyer, Steny H. (MD)
54131
1214
Long, Jill L. (IN)
54436
1513
Hubbard, Carroll, Jr. (KY)
53115
2267
Lowery, Bill (CA)
53201
2433
Huckaby, Jerry (LA)
52376
2182
Lowey, Nita M. (NY)
56506
1313
Hughes, William J. (NJ)
56572
341
Luken, Charles J. (OH)
52216
1632
Hunter, Duncan (CA)
55672
133
McCandless, Alfred A. (Al) (CA)
55330
2422
Hutto, Earl (FL)
54136
2435
McCloskey, Frank (IN)
54636
127
Hyde, Henry J. (IL)
54561
2262
McCollum, Bill (FL)
52176
2453
Inhofe, James M. (OK)
52211
408
McCrery, Jim (LA)
52777
429
Ireland, Andy (FL)
55015
2466
McCurdy, Dave (OK)
56165
2344
Jacobs, Andrew, Jr. (IN)
54011
2313
McDade, Joseph M. (PA)
53731
2370
James, Craig T. (FL)
54035
1408
McDermott, Jim (WA)
53106
1707
Jefferson, William J. (LA)
56636
506
McEwen, Bob (OH)
55705
2431
Jenkins, Ed (GA)
55211
2427
McGrath, Raymond J. (NY)
55516
205
Johnson, Nancy L. (CT)
54476
227
McHugh, Matthew F. (NY)
56335
2335
Johnson, Tim (SD)
52801
428
McMillan, J. Alex (NC)
51976
401
Johnston, Harry (FL)
53001
1028
McMillen, C. Thomas (MD)
58090
420
Jones, Ben (GA)
54272
514
McNulty, Michael R. (NY)
55076
414
Jones, Walter B. (NC)
53101
241
Machtley, Ronald K. (RI)
54911
132
Jontz, Jim (IN)
55037
1317
Madigan, Edward R. (IL)
52371
2109
Kanjorski, Paul E. (PA)
56511
424
Manton, Thomas J. (NY)
53965
331
Kaptur, Marcy (OH)
54146
1228
Markey, Edward J. (MA)
52836
2133
Kasich, John R. (OH)
55355
1133
Marlenee, Ron (MT)
51555
2465
Kennedy, Joseph P., II (MA)
55111
1208
Martin, David O'B. (NY)
54611
442
Kennelly, Barbara B. (CT)
52265
204
Martinez, Matthew G. (CA)
55464
2446
Kildee, Dale E. (MI)
53611
2239
Matsui, Robert T. (CA)
57163
2353
Kleczka, Gerald D. (WI)
54572
226
Mavroules, Nicholas (MA)
58020
2334
Klug, Scott L. (WI)
52906
1224
Mazzoli, Romano L. (KY)
55401
2246
Kolbe, Jim (AZ)
52542
410
Meyers, Jan (KS)
52865
1230
Kolter, Joe (PA)
52565
212
Mfume, Kweisi (MD)
54741
217
Kopetski, Michael J. (OR)
55711
1520
Michel, Robert H. (IL)
56201
2112
Kostmayer, Peter H. (PA)
54276
2436
Miller, Clarence E. (OH)
55131
2308
Kyl, Jon L. (AZ)
53361
336
Miller, George (CA)
52095
2228
LaFalce, John J. (NY)
53231
2367
Miller, John (WA)
56311
322
Lagomarsino, Robert J. (CA)
53601
2332
Mineta, Norman Y. (CA)
52631
2350
Lancaster, H. Martin (NC)
53415
1417
Mink, Patsy T. (HI)
54906
2135
Lantos, Tom (CA)
53531
1526
Moakley, John Joseph (MA)
58273
221
LaRocco, Larry (ID)
56611
1117
Molinari, Susan (NY)
53371
315
Laughlin, Greg (TX)
52831
218
Mollohan, Alan B. (WV)
54172
229
Leach, Jim (IA)
56576
1514
Montgomery, G. V. (Sonny) (MS)
55031
2184
Lehman, Richard H. (CA)
54540
1319
Moody, Jim (WI)
53571
1019
Lehman, William (FL)
54211
2347
Moorhead, Carlos J. (CA)
54176
2346
3
REPRESENTATIVES
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Moran, James P.(VA)
54376
1523
Reed, John F. (RI)
52735
1229
Morella, Constance A. (MD)
55341
1024
Regula, Ralph (OH)
53876
2207
Morrison, Sid (WA)
55816
1434
Rhodes, John J., III (AZ)
52635
326
Mrazek, Robert J. (NY)
55956
306
Richardson, Bill (NM)
56190
332
Murphy, Austin J. (PA)
54665
2210
Ridge, Thomas J. (PA)
55406
1714
Murtha, John P. (PA)
52065
2423
Riggs, Frank D. (CA)
53311
1517
Myers, John T. (IN)
55805
2372
Rinaldo, Matthew J. (NJ)
55361
2469
Nagle, David R. (IA)
53301
214
Ritter, Don (PA)
56411
2202
Natcher, William H. (KY)
53501
2333
Roberts, Pat (KS)
52715
1110
Neal, Richard E. (MA)
55601
437
Roe, Robert A. (NJ)
55751
2243
Neal, Stephen L. (NC)
52071
2463
Roemer, Tim (IN)
53915
415
Nichols, Dick (KS)
53911
1605
Rogers, Harold (KY)
54601
343
Norton, Eleanor Holmes (DC)
58050
1631
Rohrabacher, Dana (CA)
52415
1039
Nowak, Henry J. (NY)
53306
2240
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (FL)
53931
416
Nussle, Jim (IA)
52911
507
Rose, Charles (NC)
52731
2230
Oakar, Mary Rose (OH)
55871
2231
Rostenkowski, Dan (IL)
54061
2111
Oberstar, James L. (MN)
56211
2209
Roth, Toby (WI)
55665
2352
Obey, David R. (WI)
53365
2462
Roukema, Marge (NJ)
54465
2244
Olin, Jim (VA)
55431
1410
Rowland, J. Roy (GA)
56531
423
Ortiz, Solomon P. (TX)
57742
1524
Roybal, Edward R. (CA)
56235
2211
Orton, Bill (UT)
57751
1723
Russo, Marty (IL)
55736
2233
Owens, Major R. (NY)
56231
114
Sabo, Martin Olav (MN)
54755
2201
Owens, Wayne (UT)
53011
1728
SANDERS, BERNARD (VT)
54115
509
Oxley, Michael G. (OH)
52676
2448
Sangmeister, George E. (IL)
53635
1032
Packard, Ron (CA)
53906
434
Santorum, Richard John (PA)
52135
1708
Pallone, Frank, Jr. (NJ)
54671
213
Sarpalius, Bill (TX)
53706
126
Panetta, Leon E. (CA)
52861
339
Savage, Gus (IL)
50773
2419
Parker, Mike (MS)
55865
1504
Sawyer, Thomas C. (OH)
55231
1518
Patterson, Elizabeth J. (SC)
56030
1641
Saxton, Jim (NJ)
54765
324
Paxon, Bill (NY)
55265
1314
Schaefer, Dan (CO)
57882
1007
Payne, Donald M. (NJ)
53436
417
Scheuer, James H. (NY)
55471
2221
Payne, Lewis F., Jr. (VA)
54711
1118
Schiff, Steven (NM)
56316
1427
Pease, Donald J. (OH)
53401
2410
Schroeder, Patricia (CO)
54431
2208
Pelosi, Nancy (CA)
54965
109
Schulze, Richard T. (PA)
55761
2369
Penny, Timothy J. (MN)
52472
436
Schumer, Charles E. (NY)
56616
2412
Perkins, Carl C. (KY)
54935
1004
Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. (WI)
55101
2444
Peterson, Collin C. (MN)
52165
1725
Serrano, José E. (NY)
54361
1107
Peterson, Douglas "Pete" (FL)
55235
1415
Sharp, Philip R. (IN)
53021
2217
Petri, Thomas E. (WI)
52476
2245
Shaw, E. Clay, Jr. (FL)
53026
2338
Pickett, Owen B. (VA)
54215
1204
Shays, Christopher (CT)
55541
1531
Pickle, J. J. (TX)
54865
242
Shuster, Bud (PA)
52431
2268
Porter, John Edward (IL)
54835
1026
Sikorski, Gerry (MN)
52271
403
Poshard, Glenn (IL)
55201
314
Sisisky, Norman (VA)
56365
426
Price, David E. (NC)
51784
1406
Skaggs, David E. (CO)
52161
1507
Pursell, Carl D. (MI)
54401
1414
Skeen, Joe (NM)
52365
2447
Quillen, James H. (Jimmy) (TN)
56356
102
Skelton, Ike (MO)
52876
2134
Rahall, Nick Joe, II (WV)
53452
2104
Slattery, Jim (KS)
56601
1512
Ramstad, Jim (MN)
52871
504
Slaughter, D. French, Jr. (VA)
56561
1404
Rangel, Charles B. (NY)
54365
2252
Slaughter, Louise McIntosh (NY)
53615
1424
Ravenel, Arthur, Jr. (SC)
53176
508
Smith, Christopher H. (NJ)
53765
2440
Ray, Richard (GA)
55901
225
Smith, Lamar S. (TX)
54236
422
4
REPRESENTATIVES
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Smith, Lawrence J. (FL)
57931
113
Traxler, Bob (MI)
52806
2366
Smith, Neal (IA)
54426
2373
Udall, Morris K. (AZ)
54065
235
Smith, Robert F. (Bob) (OR)
56730
118
Unsoeld, Jolene (WA)
53536
1508
Snowe, Olympia J. (ME)
56306
2464
Upton, Frederick S. (MI)
53761
1713
Solarz, Stephen J. (NY)
52361
1536
Valentine, Tim (NC)
54531
1510
Solomon, Gerald B. H. (NY)
55614
2265
Vander Jagt, Guy (MI)
53511
2409
Spence, Floyd (SC)
52452
2405
Vento, Bruce F. (MN)
56631
2304
Spratt, John M., Jr. (SC)
55501
1533
Visclosky, Peter J. (IN)
52461
330
Staggers, Harley O., Jr. (WV)
54331
1323
Volkmer, Harold L. (MO)
52956
2411
Stallings, Richard H. (ID)
55531
1122
Vucanovich, Barbara F. (NV)
56155
206
Stark, Fortney Pete (CA)
55065
239
Walker, Robert S. (PA)
52411
2445
Stearns, Cliff (FL)
55744
1123
Walsh, James T. (NY)
53701
1238
Stenholm, Charles W. (TX)
56605
1226
Washington, Craig A. (TX)
53816
1711
Stokes, Louis (OH)
57032
2365
Waters, Maxine (CA)
52201
1207
Studds, Gerry E. (MA)
53111
237
Waxman, Henry A. (CA)
53976
2418
Stump, Bob (AZ)
54576
211
Weber, Vin (MN)
52331
106
Sundquist, Don (TN)
52811
230
Weiss, Ted (NY)
55635
2467
Swett, Dick (NH)
55206
128
Weldon, Curt (PA)
52011
316
Swift, Al (WA)
52605
1502
Wheat, Alan (MO)
54535
1210
Synar, Mike (OK)
52701
2441
Whitten, Jamie L. (MS)
54306
2314
Tallon, Robin (SC)
53315
432
Williams, Pat (MT)
53211
2457
Tanner, John S. (TN)
54714
1232
Wilson, Charles (TX)
52401
2256
Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) (LA)
54031
2342
Wise, Robert E., Jr. (WV)
52711
1421
Taylor, Charles H. (NC)
56401
516
Wolf, Frank R. (VA)
55136
104
Taylor, Gene (MS)
55772
1429
Wolpe, Howard (MI)
55011
1535
Thomas, Craig (WY)
52311
1721
Wyden, Ron (OR)
54811
2452
Thomas, Lindsay (GA)
55831
240
Wylie, Chalmers P. (OH)
52015
2310
Thomas, William M. (CA)
52915
2402
Yates, Sidney R. (IL)
52111
2234
Thornton, Ray (AR)
52506
1705
Yatron, Gus (PA)
55546
2205
Torres, Esteban Edward (CA)
55256
1740
Young, C. W. Bill (FL)
55961
2407
Torricelli, Robert G. (NJ)
55061
317
Young, Don (AK)
55765
2331
Towns, Edolphus (NY)
55936
1726
Zeliff, William H., Jr. (NH)
55456
512
Traficant, James A., Jr. (OH)
55261
312
Zimmer, Dick (NJ)
55801
510
5
UNITED STATES SENATE
SENATORS
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic)
[Room numbers beginning with SD are in the Dirksen Building, SH are in the Hart Building, and SR are in the Russell Building.
Capitol numbers begin with S]
[Washington, D.C. 20510]
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Vice Pres. Quayle, Dan (IN)
42424
Gramm, Phil (TX)
42934
SR-370
Adams, Brock (WA)
42621
SH-513
Grassley, Chuck (LA)
43744
SH-135
Akaka, Daniel K. (HI)
46361
SH-109
Harkin, Tom (IA)
43254
SH-316
Baucus, Max (MT)
42651
SH-706
Hatch, Orrin G. (UT)
45251
SR-135
Bentsen, Lloyd (TX)
45922
SH-703
Hatfield, Mark O. (OR)
43753
SH-711
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (DE)
45042
SR-221
Heflin, Howell (AL)
44124
SH-728
Bingaman, Jeff (NM)
45521
SH-524
Heinz, John (PA)
46324
SR-277
Bond, Christopher S. (MO)
45721
SR-293
Helms, Jesse (NC)
46342
SD-403
Boren, David L. (OK)
44721
SR-453
Hollings, Ernest F. (SC)
46121
SR-125
Bradley, Bill (NJ)
43224
SH-731
Inouye, Daniel K. (HI)
43934
SH-722
Breaux, John B. (LA)
44623
SH-516
Jeffords, James M. (VT)
45141
SD-530
Brown, Hank (CO)
45941
SH-902A
Johnston, J. Bennett (LA)
45824
SH-136
Bryan, Richard H. (NV)
46244
SR-364
Kassebaum, Nancy Landon (KS)
44774
SR-302
Bumpers, Dale (AR)
44843
SD-229
Kasten, Robert W., Jr. (WI)
45323
SH-110
Burdick, Quentin N. (ND)
42551
SH-511
Kennedy, Edward M. (MA)
44543
SR-315
Burns, Conrad R. (MT)
42644
SD-183
Kerrey, J. Robert (NE)
46551
SH-302
Byrd, Robert C. (WV)
43954
SH-311
Kerry, John F. (MA)
42742
SR-421
Chafee, John H. (RI)
42921
SD-567
Kohl, Herbert (WI)
45653
SH-702
Coats, Dan (IN)
45623
SR-407
Lautenberg, Frank R. (NJ)
44744
SH-717
Cochran, Thad (MS)
45054
SR-326
Leahy, Patrick J. (VT)
44242
SR-433
Cohen, William S. (ME)
42523
SH-322
Levin, Carl (MI)
46221
SR-459
Conrad, Kent (ND)
42043
SD-361
Lieberman, Joseph I. (CT)
44041
SH-502
Craig, Larry E. (ID)
42752
SH-708
Lott, Trent (MS)
46253
SR-487
Cranston, Alan (CA)
43553
SH-112
Lugar, Richard G. (IN)
44814
SH-306
D'Amato, Alfonse (NY)
46542
SH-520
McCain, John (AZ)
42235
SR-111
Danforth, John C. (MO)
46154
SR-249
McConnell, Mitch (KY)
42541
SR-120
Daschle, Thomas A. (SD)
42321
SH-317
Mack, Connie (FL)
45274
SH-517
DeConcini, Dennis (AZ)
44521
SH-328
Metzenbaum, Howard M. (OH)
42315
SR-140
Dixon, Alan J. (IL)
42854
SH-331
Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD)
44654
SH-320
Dodd, Christopher J. (CT)
42823
SR-444
Mitchell, George J. (ME)
45344
SR-176
Dole, Bob (KS)
46521
SH-141
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (NY)
44451
SR-464
Domenici, Pete V. (NM)
46621
SD-434
Murkowski, Frank H. (AK)
46665
SH-709
Durenberger, Dave (MN)
43244
SR-154
Nickles, Don (OK)
45754
SH-713
Exon, J. James (NE)
44224
SH-330
Nunn, Sam (GA)
43521
SD-303
Ford, Wendell H. (KY)
44343
SR173A
Packwood, Bob (OR)
45244
SR-259
Fowler, Wyche, Jr. (GA)
43643
SR-204
Pell, Claiborne (RI)
44642
SR-335
Garn, Jake (UT)
45444
SD-505
Pressler, Larry (SD)
45842
SH-133
Glenn, John (OH)
43353
SH-503
Pryor, David H. (AR)
42353
SR-267
Gore, Albert, Jr. (TN)
44944
SR-393
Reid, Harry (NV)
43542
SH-324
Gorton, Slade (WA)
43441
SH-730
Riegle, Donald W., Jr. (MI)
44822
SD-105
Graham, Bob (FL)
43041
SD-241
Robb, Charles S. (VA)
44024
SR-493
6
SENATORS
Name
Phone
Room
Name
Phone
Room
Rockefeller, John D., IV (WV)
46472
SH-724
Simpson, Alan K. (WY)
43424
SD-261
Roth, William V., Jr. (DE)
42441
SH-104
Smith, Robert C. (NH)
42841 SH-825A
Rudman, Warren B. (NH)
43324
SH-530
Specter, Arlen (PA)
44254
SH-303
Sanford, Terry (NC)
43154
SH-716
Stevens, Ted (AK)
43004
SH-522
Sarbanes, Paul S. (MD)
44524
SD-332
Symms, Steve (ID)
46142
SH-509
Sasser, Jim (TN)
SR-363
Thurmond, Strom (SC).
45972
SR-217
43344
Seymour, John (CA)
Wallop, Malcolm (WY)
46441
SR-237
43841
SH-720
Warner, John (VA)
42023
SR-225
Shelby, Richard C. (AL)
45744
SH-313
Wellstone, Paul David (MN)
45641
SH-123
Simon, Paul (IL)
42152
SD-462
Wirth, Timothy E. (CO)
45852
SR-380
7
COMMITTEES
HOUSE COMMITTEES
SENATE COMMITTEES
Phone
Room
Phone
Room
Agriculture
52171
1301
Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Appropriations
52771
H 218
Forestry
42035
SR328A
Armed Services
54151
2120
Appropriations
43471
SD-136
Banking, Finance and Urban
Armed Services
43871
SR-222
Affairs
54247
2129
Banking, Housing, and Urban
Budget (O'HOB)
67200
H1-A214
Affairs
47391
SD-534
District of Columbia
54457
1310
Budget
40642
SD-621
Education and Labor
54527
2181
Commerce, Science, and
Energy and Commerce
52927
2125
Transportation
45115
SD-358
Foreign Affairs
55021
2170
Energy and Natural Resources
44971
SD-364
Government Operations
55051
2157
Environment and Public Works
46176
SD-410
House Administration
52061
H 326
Finance
44515
SD-205
Interior and Insular Affairs
52761
1324
Foreign Relations
44651
SD-440
Judiciary
53951
2138
Governmental Affairs
44751
SD-340
Merchant Marine and Fisheries
54047
1334
Judiciary
45225
SD-224
Post Office and Civil Service
309
Labor and Human Resources
45375
SD-428
54054
Franking Commission
50436
305
Rules and Administration
46352
SR-305
Public Works and
Small Business
45175
SR428A
Transportation
54472
2165
Veterans' Affairs
49126
SR-414
Rules
59486
H 312
SELECT COMMITTEES
Minority
56991
H 305
Science, Space, and Technology.
56371
2321
Ethics
42981
SH-220
Small Business
55821
2361
Indian Affairs
42251
SH-838
Standards of Official Conduct
57103
HT-2
Intelligence
41700
SH-211
Advice and Education
53787
HT-2
Veterans' Affairs
53527
335
SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Ways and Means
53625
1102
Aging
45364
SH-628
SELECT COMMITTEES
Aging (O'HOB)
63375
H1-A712
Children, Youth, and Families
(FHOB)
67660
H2-385
Hunger (FHOB)
65470
H2-507
Intelligence, Permanent
54121
H 405
Narcotics Abuse and Control
(FHOB)
63040
H2-234
8
3
COMMITTEES
5
JOINT COMMITTEES
Phone
Room
Phone
Room
Economic
45171
SD-G01
Taxation
Library (O'HOB)
67633
A103
(LHOB)
53621
1015
Printing
45241
SH-818
(DSOB)
45561
SD-204
LIAISON OFFICES
Phone
Room
Phone
Room
Air Force (RHOB)
56656
B 322
Navy (RHOB)
57124
B 324A
Office of Personnel
Army (RHOB)
53853
B 325
Management (RHOB)
54955
B 332
Coast Guard (RHOB)
54775
B 320
Veterans' Administration
Marine Corps (RHOB)
57124
B 324A
(RHOB)
52280
B 328
9
IP 22C (GO)
Characteristics of Congress
F
ollowing is a compilation of information about indi-
244 - listed law as their profession. Businessmen and
vidual members of the 102nd Congress - their birth
bankers make up the next-largest category, with 191 mem-
dates, loccupations, religion and seniority.
bers falling into those groups.
Senate and House seniority lists begin on page 127.
Roman Catholic members make up the largest religious
The average age of members of the new Congress is 54,
group, followed by members of the Methodist, Episcopal
slightly higher than in the two previous Congresses.
and Baptist faiths.
As in other years, the biggest single occupational group
Data below, and the composition of Senate and House
in Congress is lawyers. Nearly half the members -
committees, reflect information as of Dec. 21, 1990.
Senate - Birth Dates, Occupations, Religions, Seniority
(Seniority rank is within the member's party.)
ALABAMA
Lieberman (D)-Feb. 24, 1942. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 38.
Heflin (D)-June 19, 1921. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
IOWA
lawyer, judge, government and political
53.
science lecturer. Religion: Methodist.
DELAWARE
Grassley (R)-Sept. 17, 1933. Occupa-
Seniority: 26.
tion: farmer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
Roth (R)-July 22, 1921. Occupation: law-
25.
Shelby (D)-May 6, 1934. Occupation:
yer. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority: 6.
Harkin (D)-Nov. 19, 1939. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Senior-
Biden (D)-Nov. 20, 1942. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
ity: 45.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
niority: 35.
ALASKA
niority: 11.
KANSAS
Stevens (R)-Nov. 18, 1923. Occupation:
FLORIDA
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority
Dole (R)-July 22, 1923. Occupation: law-
Graham (D)-Nov. 9, 1936. Occupation:
3.
yer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 4.
developer, cattleman. Religion: United
Murkowski (R)-March 28, 1933. Occupa-
Kassebaum (R)-July 29, 1932. Occupa-
Church of Christ. Seniority: 48.
tion: banker. Religion: Roman Catholic.
tion: broadcasting executive. Religion:
Mack (R)-Oct. 29, 1940. Occupation:
Seniority: 27.
Episcopalian. Seniority: 17.
banker. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
ARIZONA
KENTUCKY
niority: 39.
DeConcini (D)-May 8, 1937. Occupation:
GEORGIA
Ford (D)-Sept. 8, 1924. Occupation: in-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Nunn (D)-Sept. 8, 1938. Occupation:
surance executive. Religion: Baptist.
niority: 19.
Seniority: 13.
farmer, lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
McCain (R)-Aug. 29, 1936. Occupation:
niority: 9.
McConnell (R)-Feb. 20, 1942. Occupa-
naval officer, beer distributor. Religion:
Fowler (D)-Oct. 6, 1940. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
Episcopalian. Seniority: 33.
32.
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Senior-
ARKANSAS
ity: 43.
LOUISIANA
Bumpers (D)-Aug. 12, 1925. Occupation:
HAWAII
Johnston (D)-June 10, 1932. Occupation:
farmer, hardware company executive,
Inouye (D)-Sept. 7, 1924. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 10.
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 5.
Breaux (D)-March 1, 1944. Occupation:
14.
Akaka (D)-Sept. 11, 1924. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Pryor (D)-Aug. 29, 1934. Occupation:
elementary school teacher, principal,
niority: 40.
newspaper publisher, lawyer. Religion:
state program administrator. Religion:
MAINE
Presbyterian. Seniority: 23.
Congregationalist. Seniority: 55.
Cohen (R)-Aug. 28, 1940. Occupation:
CALIFORNIA
IDAHO
lawyer. Religion: Unitarian. Seniority:
Cranston (D)-June 19, 1914. Occupa-
Symms (R)-April 23, 1938. Occupation:
21.
tion: author, journalist, real estate exec-
fruit grower, fitness club owner. Reli-
Mitchell (D)-Aug. 20, 1933. Occupation:
utive. Religion: Protestant. Seniority: 7.
gion: Methodist. Seniority: 24.
lawyer, judge. Religion: Roman Catho-
Seymour (R)-Dec. 3, 1937. Occupation:
Craig (R)-July 20, 1945. Occupation:
lic. Seniority: 29.
president; real estate broker. Religion:
farmer, real estate salesman. Religion:
MARYLAND
Episcopalian. Seniority: 44.
Methodist. Seniority: 42.
COLORADO
Sarbanes (D)-Feb. 3, 1933. Occupation:
ILLINOIS
lawyer. Religion: Greek Orthodox. Se-
Wirth (D)-Sept. 22, 1939. Occupation:
Dixon (D)-July 7, 1927. Occupation: law-
niority: 18.
education official. Religion: Episco-
yer. Religion: Presbyterian. Seniority:
Mikulski (D)-July 20, 1936. Occupation:
palian. Seniority: 41.
31.
social worker. Religion: Roman Catho-
Brown (R)-Feb. 12, 1940. Occupation:
Simon (D)-Nov. 29, 1928. Occupation:
lic. Seniority: 43.
tax accountant, meatpacking company
author, newspaper publisher. Religion:
MASSACHUSETTS
executive, lawyer. Religion: United
Lutheran. Seniority: 35.
Church of Christ. Seniority: 42.
INDIANA
Kennedy (D)-Feb. 22, 1932. Occupation:
CONNECTICUT
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Lugar (R)-April 4, 1932. Occupation: ag-
niority: 4.
Dodd (D)-May 27, 1944. Occupation:
ricultural industries executive. Religion:
Kerry (D)-Dec. 22, 1943. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Methodist. Seniority: 13.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
niority: 30.
Coats (R)-May 16, 1943. Occupation:
niority: 34.
118 - JANUARY 12, 1991
CQ
©
1991 Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduced by the Library of Congress, Congressional
Research Service, with the permission of the copyright claimant.
FOR THE RECORD
MICHIGAN
NEW YORK
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic.
Riegle (D)-Feb. 4, 1938. Occupation:
Moynihan (D)-March 16, 1927. Occupa-
Seniority: 22.
business executive, professor. Religion:
tion: author, government professor. Re-
Daschle (D)-Dec. 9, 1947. Occupation:
Methodist. Seniority: 17.
ligion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 19.
congressional aide. Religion: Roman
Levin (D)-June 28, 1934. Occupation:
D'Amato (R)-Aug. 1, 1937. Occupation:
Catholic. Seniority: 45.
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority: 26.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
TENNESSEE
MINNESOTA
niority: 27.
Sasser (D)-Sept. 30, 1936. Occupation:
Durenberger (R)-Aug. 19, 1934. Occupa-
NORTH CAROLINA
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
tion: adhesives manufacturing execu-
Helms (R)-Oct. 18, 1921. Occupation:
19.
tive, lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic.
journalist, broadcasting executive, bank
Gore (D)-March 31, 1948. Occupation:
Seniority: 16.
executive, congressional aide. Religion:
journalist, home builder. Religion: Bap-
Wellstone (D)-July 21, 1944. Occupa-
Baptist. Seniority: 7.
tist. Seniority: 37.
tion: college professor. Religion: Jew-
Sanford (D)-Aug. 20, 1917. Occupation:
TEXAS
ish. Seniority: 56.
FBI agent, lawyer, university president.
MISSISSIPPI
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 39.
Bentsen (D)-Feb. 11, 1921. Occupation:
financial executive, lawyer. Religion:
NORTH DAKOTA
Cochran (R)-Dec. 7, 1937. Occupation:
Presbyterian. Seniority: 8.
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 18.
Burdick (D)-June 19, 1908. Occupation:
Gramm (R)-July 8, 1942. Occupation:
Lott (R)-Oct. 9, 1941. Occupation: law-
lawyer. Religion: United Church of
economics professor. Religion: Episco-
yer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 36.
Christ. Seniority: 2.
palian. Seniority: 31.
MISSOURI
Conrad (D)-March 12, 1948. Occupation:
UTAH
management and personnel director.
Danforth (R)-Sept. 5, 1936. Occupation:
Religion: Unitarian. Seniority: 49.
Gam (R)-Oct. 12, 1932. Occupation: in-
lawyer, clergyman. Religion: Episco-
OHIO
surance executive. Religion: Mormon.
palian. Seniority: 10.
Seniority: 9.
Bond (R)-March 6, 1939. Occupation:
Glenn (D)-July 18, 1921. Occupation: as-
Hatch (R)-March 22, 1934. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Senior-
tronaut, soft drink company executive.
lawyer. Religion: Mormon. Seniority: 13.
ity: 34.
Religion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 12.
VERMONT
Metzenbaum (D)-June 4, 1917. Occupa-
MONTANA
tion: newspaper publisher, parking lot
Leahy (D)-March 31, 1940. Occupation:
Baucus (D)-Dec. 11, 1941. Occupation:
executive, lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
lawyer. Religion: United Church of
niority: 16.
niority: 15.
Christ. Seniority: 22.
OKLAHOMA
Jeffords (R)-May 11, 1934. Occupation:
Burns (R)-Jan. 25, 1935. Occupation: ra-
lawyer. Religion: Congregationalist. Se-
dio and television broadcaster. Religion:
Boren (D)-April 21, 1941. Occupation:
niority: 37.
Lutheran. Seniority: 40.
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
24.
VIRGINIA
NEBRASKA
Nickles (R)-Dec. 6, 1948. Occupation:
Warner (R)-Feb. 18, 1927. Occupation:
Exon (D)-Aug. 9, 1921. Occupation: of-
machine company executive. Religion:
farmer, lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
fice equipment dealer. Religion: Episco-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 27.
Seniority: 20.
palian. Seniority: 24.
OREGON
Robb (D)-June 26, 1939. Occupation:
Kerrey (D) Aug 27, 1943. Occupation: res-
Hatfield (R)-July 12, 1922. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Senior-
taurateur. Religion: Congregationalist.
ity: 50.
Seniority: 50.
political science professor, governor.
Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 2.
WASHINGTON
NEVADA
Packwood (R)-Sept. 11, 1932. Occupa-
Adams (D)-Jan. 13, 1927. Occupation:
Reid (D)-Dec. 2, 1939. Occupation: law-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Unitarian. Senior-
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Senior-
yer. Religion: Mormon. Seniority: 47.
ity: 5.
ity: 41.
Bryan (D) July 16, 1937. Occupation: law-
PENNSYLVANIA
Gorton (R) Jan. 8, 1928. Occupation: law-
yer. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority:
Heinz (R)-Oct. 23, 1938. Occupation:
yer. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority:
50.
food industry executive. Religion: Epis-
35.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
copalian. Seniority: 12.
WEST VIRGINIA
Rudman (R)-May 18, 1930. Occupation:
Specter (R)-Feb. 12, 1930. Occupation:
Byrd (D)-Nov. 20, 1917. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority: 23.
lawyer, law professor. Religion: Jewish.
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 1.
Smith (R)-March 30, 1941. Occupation:
Seniority: 27.
Rockefeller (D)-June 18, 1937. Occupa-
real estate broker, teacher. Religion:
RHODE ISLAND
tion: public official. Religion: Presby-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 41.
Pell (D)-Nov. 22, 1918. Occupation: in-
terian. Seniority: 38.
NEW JERSEY
vestment executive. Religion: Episco-
WISCONSIN
Bradley (D)-July 28, 1943. Occupation:
palian. Seniority: 3.
Chafee (R)-Oct. 22, 1922. Occupation:
Kasten (R)-June 19, 1942. Occupation:
professional basketball player. Religion:
shoe company executive. Religion:
Protestant. Seniority: 26.
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Senior-
Presbyterian. Seniority: 26.
Lautenberg (D)-Jan. 23, 1924. Occupa-
ity: 11.
Kohl (D) Feb. 7, 1935. Occupation: busi-
tion: computer firm executive. Religion:
SOUTH CAROLINA
nessman; professional basketball team
Jewish. Seniority: 32.
Thurmond (R)-Dec. 5, 1902. Occupation:
owner. Religion: Jewish. Seniority: 53.
NEW MEXICO
lawyer, teacher, coach, education ad-
WYOMING
Domenici (R)-May 7, 1932. Occupation:
ministration. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
1.
Wallop (R)-Feb. 27, 1933. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
niority: 7.
Hollings (D)-Jan. 1, 1922. Occupation:
rancher, meatpacking executive. Reli-
Bingaman (D)-Oct. 3, 1943. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Lutheran. Seniority: 6.
gion: Episcopalian. Seniority: 13.
Simpson (R)-Sept. 2, 1931. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
SOUTH DAKOTA
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Senior-
33.
Pressler (R)-March 29, 1942. Occupa-
ity: 19.
CQ JANUARY 12, 1991 - 119
FOR THE RECORD
House - Birth Dates, Occupations, Religions, Seniority
(Seniority rank is within the member's party.)
ALABAMA
CALIFORNIA
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
Seniority: 20.
1 Callahan (R)-Sept. 11, 1932. Occupa-
1 Riggs (R)-Sept. 5, 1950. Occupation:
23 Beilenson (D)-Oct. 26, 1932. Occupa-
tion: moving and storage company
real estate developer. Religion: Epis-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
executive. Religion: Roman Catholic.
copalian. Seniority: 150.
ity: 72.
Seniority: 98.
2 Herger (R)-May 20, 1945. Occupation:
24 Waxman (D)-Sept. 12, 1939. Occupa-
2 Dickinson (R)-June 5, 1925. Occupa-
rancher, gas company president. Re-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
tion: railroad executive, lawyer, judge.
ligion: Mormon. Seniority: 115.
ity: 50.
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 7.
3 Matsui (D)-Sept. 17, 1941. Occupa-
25 Roybal (D)-Feb. 10, 1916. Occupation:
3 Browder (D)-Jan. 15, 1943. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
social worker, public health educator.
tion: professor. Religion: Methodist.
niority: 91.
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
Seniority: 236.
4 Fazio (D)-Oct. 11, 1942. Occupation:
11.
4 Bevill (D)-March 27, 1921. Occupa-
journalist. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
26 Berman (D)-April 15, 1941. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
niority: 91.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
ity: 23.
5 Pelosi (D)-March 26, 1940. Occupa-
ity: 131.
5 Cramer (D)-Aug. 22, 1947. Occupa-
tion: public relations consultant. Reli-
27 Levine (D)-June 7, 1943. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 214.
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
niority: 246.
6 Boxer (D)-Nov. 11, 1940. Occupation:
131.
6 Erdreich (D)-Dec. 9, 1938. Occupa-
stockbroker, journalist. Religion: Jew-
28 Dixon (D)-Aug. 8, 1934. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
ish. Seniority: 131.
legislative aide, lawyer. Religion:
ity: 131.
7 Miller (D)-May 17, 1945. Occupation:
Episcopalian. Seniority: 91.
7 Harris (D)-June 29, 1940. Occupation:
lawyer, legislative aide. Religion: Ro-
29 Waters (D)-Aug. 31, 1938. Occupa-
lawyer, judge. Religion: Baptist. Se-
man Catholic. Seniority: 50.
tion: Head Start official. Religion:
niority: 191.
8 Dellums (D)-Nov. 24, 1935. Occupa-
Christian. Seniority: 246.
tion: psychiatric social worker. Reli-
30 Martinez (D)-Feb. 14, 1929. Occupa-
gion: Protestant. Seniority: 33.
tion: upholstery company owner. Re-
ALASKA
9 Stark (D)-Nov. 11, 1931. Occupation:
ligion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
AL Young (R)-June 9, 1933. Occupation:
banker. Religion: Unitarian. Seniority:
128.
38.
31 Dymally (D)-May 12, 1926. Occupa-
elementary school teacher, riverboat
10 Edwards (D)-Jan. 6, 1915. Occupa-
tion: special education teacher. Reli-
captain. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
niority: 26.
tion: title company executive, lawyer,
gion: Episcopalian. Seniority: 110.
FBI agent. Religion: Unitarian. Senior-
32 Anderson (D)-Feb. 21, 1913. Occupa-
ity: 11.
tion: banker, home builder. Religion:
ARIZONA
11 Lantos (D)-Feb. 1, 1928. Occupation:
Episcopalian. Seniority: 26.
economics professor. Religion: Jew-
33 Dreier (R)-July 5, 1952. Occupation:
1 Rhodes (R)-Sept. 8, 1943. Occupa-
ish. Seniority: 110.
real-estate developer. Religion:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Protestant. Se-
12 Campbell (R)-Aug. 14, 1952. Occupa-
Christian Scientist. Seniority: 57.
niority: 115.
tion: Professor, economist. Religion:
34 Torres (D)-Jan. 27, 1930. Occupation:
2 Udall (D)-June 15, 1922. Occupation:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 135.
auto worker, labor official, interna-
lawyer. Religion: Mormon. Seniority:
13 Mineta (D)-Nov. 12, 1931. Occupation:
tional trade executive. Religion: Ro-
9.
insurance executive. Religion: Meth-
man Catholic. Seniority: 131.
3 Stump (R)-April 4, 1927. Occupation:
odist. Seniority: 50.
35 Lewis (R)-Oct. 21, 1934. Occupation:
cotton farmer. Religion: Seventh-day
14 Doolittle (R)-Oct. 30, 1950. Occupa-
insurance executive. Religion: Pres-
Adventist. Seniority: 33.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Mormon. Se-
byterian. Seniority: 42.
4 Kyl (R)-April 25, 1942. Occupation:
niority: 150.
36 Brown (D)-March 6, 1920. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
15 Condit (D)-April 21, 1948. Occupation:
tion: physicist, management consul-
niority: 115.
public official. Religion: Baptist. Se-
5 Kolbe (R)-June 28, 1942. Occupation:
niority: 237.
tant. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
37.
real estate consultant. Religion:
16 Panetta (D)-June 28, 1938. Occupa-
Methodist. Seniority: 98.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
37 McCandless (R)-July 23, 1927. Occu-
lic. Seniority: 72.
pation: automobile dealer. Religion:
17 Dooley (D)-Jan. 11, 1954. Occupation:
Protestant. Seniority: 79.
ARKANSAS
farmer. Religion: Protestant. Senior-
38 Doman (R)-April 3, 1933. Occupation:
ity: 246.
broadcast journalist and producer.
1 Alexander (D)-Jan. 16, 1934. Occupa-
18 Lehman (D)-July 20, 1948. Occupa-
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
97.
Seniority: 26.
tion: legislative aide. Religion: Lu-
theran. Seniority: 131.
39 Dannemeyer (R)-Sept. 22, 1929.
2 Thomton (D)-July 26, 1928. Occupa-
19 Lagomarsino (R)-Sept. 4, 1926. Occu-
Occupation: lawyer. Religion: Luther-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Church of
pation: lawyer. Religion: Roman
an. Seniority: 42.
Christ. Seniority: 244.
Catholic. Seniority: 27.
40 Cox (R)-Oct. 16, 1952. Occupation:
3 Hammerschmidt (R)-May 4, 1922.
20 Thomas (R)-Dec. 6, 1941. Occupation:
White House counsel. Religion: Ro-
Occupation: lumber company execu-
political science professor. Religion:
man Catholic. Seniority: 135.
tive. Religion: Presbyterian. Seniority:
Baptist. Seniority: 42.
41 Lowery (R)-May 2, 1947. Occupation:
9.
21 Gallegly (R)-March 7, 1944. Occupa-
public relations executive. Religion:
4 Anthony (D)-Feb. 21, 1938. Occupa-
tion: real estate broker. Religion:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 57.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
Protestant. Seniority: 115.
42 Rohrabacher (R)-June 21, 1947.
Seniority: 91.
22 Moorhead (R)-May 6, 1922. Occupa-
Occupation:
White
House
120 - JANUARY 12, 1991
CQ
FOR THE RECORD
speechwriter, journalist. Religion:
3 Bennett (D)-Dec. 2, 1910. Occupation:
Baptist. Seniority: 135.
6 Gingrich (R)-June 17, 1943. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Disciples of Christ.
43 Packard (R)-Jan. 19, 1931. Occupa-
tion: history professor. Religion: Bap-
Seniority: 2.
tist. Seniority: 42.
tion: dentist. Religion: Mormon. Se-
4 James (R)-May 5, 1941. Occupation:
niority: 79.
7 Darden (D)-Nov. 22, 1943. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
44 Cunningham (R)-Jan. 8. 1941. Occu-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
135.
niority: 177.
pation: businessman. Religion: Bap-
5 McCollum (R)-July 12, 1944. Occupa-
tist. Seniority: 150.
8 Rowland (D)-Feb. 3, 1926. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: physician. Religion: Methodist.
45 Hunter (R)-May 31, 1948. Occupation:
Seniority: 57.
Seniority: 131.
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
6 Stearns (R)-April 16, 1941. Occupa-
57.
9 Jenkins (D)-Jan. 4, 1933. Occupation:
tion: motel company executive. Reli-
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
gion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 135.
72.
COLORADO
7 Gibbons (D)-Jan. 20, 1920. Occupa-
10 Barnard (D)-March 20, 1922. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
tion: banker. Religion: Baptist. Se-
1 Schroeder (D)-July 30, 1940. Occupa-
Seniority: 11.
niority: 72.
tion: lawyer, law instructor. Religion:
8 Young (R)-Dec. 16, 1930. Occupation:
United Church of Christ. Seniority: 38.
insurance executive. Religion: Meth-
2 Skaggs (D)-Feb. 22, 1943. Occupa-
odist. Seniority: 16.
HAWAII
tion: lawyer, congressional aide. Reli-
9 Bilirakis (R)-July 16, 1930. Occupa-
gion: Congregationalist. Seniority:
tion: lawyer. restaurant owner. Reli-
1 Abercrombie (D)-June 26, 1938.
191.
gion: Greek Orthodox. Seniority: 79.
Occupation: community activist. Reli-
3 Campbell (D)-April 13, 1933. Occupa-
10 Ireland (R)-Aug. 23, 1930. Occupa-
gion: unspecified. Seniority: 245.
tion: banker. Religion: Episcopalian.
2 Mink (D)-Dec. 6. 1927. Occupation:
tion: rancher, jewelry designer, horse
trainer, teacher. Religion: unspeci-
Seniority: 33.
lawyer. Religion: Protestant. Senior-
ity: 242.
fied. Seniority: 191.
11 Bacchus (D)-June 21, 1949. Occupa-
4 Allard (R)-Dec. 2, 1943. Occupation:
tion: lawyer, journalist. Religion: Pres-
veterinarian. Religion: Protestant. Se-
byterian. Seniority: 246.
IDAHO
niority: 150.
12 Lewis (R)-Oct. 26, 1924. Occupation:
5 Hefley (R)-April 18, 1935. Occupation:
real estate broker, aircraft testing
1 LaRocco (D)-Aug. 25, 1946. Occupa-
community planner. Religion: Presby-
specialist. Religion: Methodist. Se-
tion: stockbroker. Religion: Roman
terian. Seniority: 115.
niority: 79.
Catholic. Seniority: 246.
6 Schaefer (R)-Jan. 25, 1936. Occupa-
13 Goss (R)-Nov. 26, 1938. Occupation:
2 Stallings (D)-Oct. 7, 1940. Occupa-
tion: public relations consultant. Reli-
small businessman, newspaper
tion: history professor. Religion: Mor-
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 95.
founder, CIA agent. Religion: Presby-
mon. Seniority: 180.
terian. Seniority: 135.
14 Johnston (D)-Dec. 2, 1931. Occupa-
CONNECTICUT
ILLINOIS
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
1 Kennelly (D)-July 10, 1936. Occupa-
Seniority: 219.
1 Hayes (D)-Feb. 17, 1918. Occupation:
tion: public official. Religion: Roman
15 Shaw (R)-April 19, 1939. Occupation:
labor official, packinghouse worker.
Catholic. Seniority: 127.
nurseryman, lawyer. Religion: Roman
Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 191.
2 Gejdenson (D)-May 20, 1948. Occu-
Catholic. Seniority: 57.
2 Savage (D)-Oct. 30, 1925. Occupa-
pation: dairy farmer. Religion: Jewish.
16 Smith (D)-April 25, 1941. Occupation:
tion: newspaper publisher. Religion:
Seniority: 110.
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
Baptist. Seniority: 110.
131.
3 DeLauro (D)-March 2, 1943. Occupa-
3 Russo (D)-Jan. 23, 1944. Occupation:
tion: political activist. Religion: Ro-
17 Lehman (D)-Oct. 5, 1913. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
high school English teacher, automo-
man Catholic. Seniority: 246.
niority: 50.
4 Shays (R)-Oct. 18, 1945. Occupation:
bile dealer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
4 Sangmeister (D) Feb. 16, 1931. Occu-
ity: 38.
real estate broker. Religion: Christian
pation: lawyer. Religion: Lutheran.
Scientist. Seniority: 132.
18 Ros-Lehtinen (R)-July 15, 1952.
Seniority: 219.
5 Franks (R)-Feb. 9, 1953. Occupation:
Occupation: teacher, private school
5 Lipinski (D)-Dec. 22, 1937. Occupa-
administrator. Religion: Roman Cath-
real estate investor. Religion: Baptist.
tion: parks supervisor. Religion: Ro-
olic. Seniority: 148.
Seniority: 150.
man Catholic. Seniority: 131.
6 Johnson (R)-Jan. 5, 1935. Occupa-
19 Fascell (D)-March 9, 1917. Occupa-
6 Hyde (R)-April 18, 1924. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Protestant. Se-
tion: civic leader. Religion: Unitarian.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Seniority: 79.
niority: 5.
niority: 28.
7 Collins (D)-Sept. 24, 1931. Occupa-
GEORGIA
tion: auditor. Religion: National Bap-
DELAWARE
tist. Seniority: 45.
1 Thomas (D)-Nov. 20, 1943. Occupa-
AL Carper (D)-Jan. 23, 1947. Occupa-
8 Rostenkowski (D)-Jan. 2, 1928. Occu-
tion: farmer, investment banker. Reli-
tion: public official. Religion: Presby-
pation: insurance executive. Religion:
gion: Methodist. Seniority: 131.
terian. Seniority: 131.
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 7.
2 Hatcher (D)-July 1, 1939. Occupation:
9 Yates (D)-Aug. 27, 1909. Occupation:
lawyer, teacher. Religion: Episco-
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
FLORIDA
palian. Seniority: 110.
15.
3 Ray (D)-Feb. 2, 1927. Occupation: ex-
10 Porter (R)—June 1, 1935. Occupation:
1 Hutto (D)-May 12, 1926. Occupation:
terminator, Senate aide. Religion:
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
high school English teacher, advertis-
Methodist. Seniority: 131.
niority: 56.
ing and broadcast executive, sports-
4 Jones (D)-Aug. 30, 1941. Occupation:
11 Annunzio (D)-Jan. 12, 1915. Occupa-
caster. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
actor. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
tion: high school teacher, labor offi-
91.
219.
cial. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
2 Peterson (D)-June 26. 1935. Occupa-
5 Lewis (D)-Feb. 21, 1940. Occupation:
niority: 16.
tion: educational administrator. Reli-
civil rights activist. Religion: Baptist.
12 Crane (R)-Nov. 3, 1930. Occupation:
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 246.
Seniority: 191.
history professor, author. Religion:
CQ JANUARY 12, 1991 - 121
1
FOR THE RECORD
Protestant. Seniority: 15.
tive. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority:
lic. Seniority: 109.
13 Fawell (R)-March 25, 1929. Occupa-
33.
4 McCrery (R)-Sept. 18, 1949. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
2 Nussle (R)-June 27, 1960. Occupa-
tion: lawyer, corporate government
niority: 98.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Lutheran. Se-
affairs executive. Religion: Methodist.
14 Hastert (R)-Jan. 2, 1942. Occupation:
niority: 150.
Seniority: 133.
teacher, restaurateur. Religion: Prot-
3 Nagle (D)-April 15, 1943. Occupation:
5 Huckaby (D)-July 19, 1941. Occupa-
estant. Seniority: 115.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
tion: farmer, engineer. Religion:
15 Madigan (R)-Jan. 13, 1936. Occupa-
niority: 191.
Methodist. Seniority: 72.
tion: automobile leasing executive.
4 Smith (D)-March 23, 1920. Occupa-
6 Baker (R)-May 22, 1948. Occupation:
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
tion: farmer, lawyer. Religion: Meth-
real estate broker. Religion: Method-
20.
odist. Seniority: 7.
ist. Seniority: 115.
16 Cox (D)-July 10, 1947. Occupation:
5 Lightfoot (R)-Sept. 27, 1938. Occupa-
7 Hayes (D)-Dec. 21, 1946. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
tion: radio broadcaster, store owner,
lawyer, real estate developer. Reli-
niority: 246.
police officer. Religion: Roman Cath-
gion: Methodist. Seniority: 176.
17 Evans (D)-Aug. 4,- 1951. Occupation:
olic. Seniority: 98.
8 Holloway (R)-Nov. 28, 1943. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
6 Grandy (R)-June 29, 1948. Occupa-
tion: nursery owner. Religion: Baptist.
niority: 131.
tion: actor. Religion: Episcopalian.
Seniority: 115.
18 Michel (R)-March 2, 1923. Occupa-
Seniority: 115.
tion: congressional aide. Religion:
Apostolic Christian. Seniority: 1.
MAINE
19 Bruce (D)-March 25, 1944. Occupa-
KANSAS
tion: farmer, lawyer. Religion: Meth-
1 Andrews (D)-March 27, 1953. Occu-
odist. Seniority: 180.
1 Roberts (R)-April 20, 1936. Occupa-
pation: association director, political
20 Durbin (D)-Nov. 21, 1944. Occupation:
tion: journalist, congressional aide.
activist. Religion: Unitarian. Seniority:
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 57.
246.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
niority: 131.
2 Slattery (D)-Aug. 4, 1948. Occupation:
2 Snowe (R)-Feb. 21, 1947. Occupation:
21 Costello (D)-Sept. 25, 1949. Occupa-
realtor. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
concrete company executive, public
tion: law enforcement administrator.
niority: 131.
official. Religion: Greek Orthodox.
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
3 Meyers (R)-July 20, 1928. Occupation:
Seniority: 42.
217.
homemaker, community volunteer.
22 Poshard (D)-Oct. 30, 1945. Occupa-
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 98.
tion: educator. Religion: Baptist. Se-
4 Glickman (D)-Nov. 24, 1944. Occupa-
MARYLAND
niority: 219.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
ity: 72.
1 Gilchrest (R)-April 15, 1946. Occupa-
5 Nichols (R)-April 29, 1926. Occupa-
tion: high school history and govern-
ment teacher. Religion: Methodist.
INDIANA
tion: banker. Religion: Methodist. Se-
Seniority: 150.
niority: 150.
1 Visclosky (D)-Aug. 13, 1949. Occupa-
2 Bentley (R)-Nov. 28, 1923. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
tion: journalist, international trade
lic. Seniority: 180.
KENTUCKY
consultant. Religion: Greek Orthodox.
2 Sharp (D)-July 15, 1942. Occupation:
Seniority: 98.
political science professor. Religion:
1 Hubbard (D)-July 7, 1937. Occupation:
3 Cardin (D)-Oct. 5, 1943. Occupation:
Methodist. Seniority: 50.
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
50.
191.
3 Roemer (D)-Oct. 30, 1956. Occupa-
tion: congressional aide, former col-
2 Natcher (D)-Sept. 11, 1909. Occupa-
4 McMillen (D)-May 26, 1952. Occupa-
lege instructor. Religion: Roman
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
tion: communications equipment dis-
Catholic. Seniority: 246.
ity: 4.
tributor, professional basketball
4 Long (D)-July 15, 1952. Occupation:
3 Mazzoli (D)-Nov. 2, 1932. Occupation:
player. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
professor. Religion: Methodist. Se-
lawyer, law professor. Religion: Ro-
niority: 191.
niority: 235.
man Catholic. Seniority: 33.
5 Hoyer (D)-June 14, 1939. Occupation:
5 Jontz (D)-Dec. 18, 1951. Occupation:
4 Bunning (R)-Oct. 23, 1931. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
public official. Religion: Methodist.
tion: investment broker, professional
126.
Seniority: 191.
baseball player. Religion: Roman
6 Byron (D)-July 27, 1932. Occupation:
6 Burton (R)-June 21, 1938. Occupa-
Catholic. Seniority: 115.
civic leader. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: insurance and real estate agent.
5 Rogers (R)-Dec. 31, 1937. Occupa-
Seniority: 91.
Religion: Protestant. Seniority: 79.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
7 Mfume (D)-Oct. 24, 1948. Occupation:
7 Myers (R)-Feb. 8, 1927. Occupation:
ity: 57.
radio station program director, talk
banker, farmer. Religion: Episco-
6 Hopkins (R)-Oct. 25, 1933. Occupa-
show host, assistant professor of po-
palian. Seniority: 9.
tion: stockbroker. Religion: Method-
litical science and communications.
8 McCloskey (D)-June 12, 1939. Occu-
ist. Seniority: 42.
Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 191.
pation: lawyer, journalist. Religion:
7 Perkins (D)-Aug. 6, 1954. Occupation:
8 Morella (R)-Feb. 12, 1931. Occupa-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 131.
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
tion: English literature professor. Re-
9 Hamilton (D)-April 20, 1931. Occupa-
179.
ligion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
115.
niority: 16.
LOUISIANA
10 Jacobs (D)-Feb. 24, 1932. Occupa-
MASSACHUSETTS
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
1 Livingston (R)-April 30, 1943. Occupa-
lic. Seniority: 48.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
1 Conte (R)-Nov. 9, 1921. Occupation:
Seniority: 40.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
IOWA
2 Jefferson (D)-March, 14, 1947. Occu-
niority: 3.
pation: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Se-
2 Neal (D)-Feb. 14, 1949. Occupation:
1 Leach (R)-Oct. 15, 1942. Occupation:
niority: 246.
public official. Religion: Roman Cath-
foreign service officer, congressional
3 Tauzin (D)-June 14, 1943. Occupa-
olic. Seniority: 219.
aide, propane gas "company execu-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
3 Early (D)-Jan. 31, 1933. Occupation:
122 JANUARY 12. 1991
CQ
i
FOR THE RECORD
teacher, basketball coach. Religion:
niority: 110.
3 Gephardt (D)-Jan. 31, 1941. Occupa-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 50.
15 Ford (D)-Aug. 6, 1927. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
4 Frank (D)-March 31, 1940. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: United Church of
ity: 72.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
Christ. Seniority: 16.
4 Skelton (D)-Dec. 20, 1931. Occupa-
ity: 110.
16 Dingell (D)-July 8, 1926. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Christian
5 Atkins (D)-April 14, 1948. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Church. Seniority: 72.
public official. Religion: Unitarian. Se-
niority: 6.
5 Wheat (D)-Oct. 16, 1951. Occupation:
niority: 180.
17 Levin (D)-Sept. 6, 1931. Occupation:
public official. Religion: Church of
6 Mavroules (D)-Nov. 1, 1929. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
Christ. Seniority: 131.
tion: personnel supervisor. Religion:
131.
6 Coleman (R)-May 29, 1943. Occupa-
Greek Orthodox. Seniority: 91.
18 Broomfield (R)-April 28, 1922. Occu-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Protestant. Se-
7 Markey (D)-July 11, 1946. Occupa-
pation: insurance executive. Religion:
niority: 32.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
Presbyterian. Seniority: 1.
7 Hancock (R)-Sept. 14, 1929. Occupa-
lic. Seniority: 71.
tion: businessman. Religion: Church
8 Kennedy (D)-Sept. 24, 1952. Occupa-
tion: energy company executive. Reli-
MINNESOTA
of Christ. Seniority: 135.
8 Emerson (R)-Jan. 1, 1938. Occupa-
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 191.
1 Penny (D)-Nov. 19, 1951. Occupation:
tion: government relations executive.
9 Moakley (D)-April 27, 1927.
sales representative. Religion: Lu-
Religion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 57.
Occupation: lawyer. Religion: Roman
theran. Seniority: 131.
9 Volkmer (D)-April. 4, 1931. Occupa-
Catholic. Seniority: 38.
10 Studds (D)-May 12, 1937. Occupation:
2 Weber (R)-July 24, 1952. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
congressional aide, publisher. Reli-
lic. Seniority: 72.
high school teacher. Religion: Episco-
palian. Seniority: 38.
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 57.
11 Donnelly (D)-March 2, 1946. Occupa-
3 Ramstad (R)-May 6, 1946. Occupa-
MONTANA
tion: high school teacher. Religion:
tion: legislative aide, lawyer. Religion:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 91.
Protestant. Seniority: 150.
1 Williams (D)-Oct. 30, 1937. Occupa-
4 Vento (D)-Oct. 7, 1940. Occupation:
tion: elementary and secondary
science teacher. Religion: Roman
school teacher. Religion: Roman
MICHIGAN
Catholic. Seniority: 72.
Catholic. Seniority: 91.
1 Conyers (D)-May 16, 1929. Occupa-
5 Sabo (D)-Feb. 28, 1938. Occupation:
2 Martenee (R)-Aug. 8, 1935. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
public official. Religion: Lutheran. Se--
tion: rancher. Religion: Lutheran.- Se-
niority: 33.
ity: 16.
niority: 91.
2 Pursell (R)-Dec. 19, 1932. Occupation:
6 Sikorski (D)-April 26, 1948. Occupa-
high school teacher, real estate
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
NEBRASKA
salesman, office supply business
lic. Seniority: 131.
owner. Religion: Protestant. Senior-
7 Peterson (D)-June 29, 1944. Occupa-
1 Bereuter (R)-Oct. 6, 1939. Occupa-
ity: 33.
tion: accountant. Religion: Lutheran.
tion: city planner. Religion: Lutheran.
3 Wolpe (D)-Nov. 2, 1939. Occupation:
Seniority: 42.
Seniority: 246.
political science professor. Religion:
2 Hoagland (D)-Nov. 17, 1941. Occupa-
8 Oberstar (D)-Sept. 10, 1934. Occupa-
Jewish. Seniority: 91.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: language teacher, congressional
4 Upton (R)-April 23, 1953. Occupation:
Seniority: 219.
aide. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
congressional aide; budget analyst.
3 Barrett (R)-Feb. 9, 1929. Occupation:
niority: 50.-
Religion: Protestant. Seniority: 115.
insurance and real estate company
5 Henry- (R)-July 9, 1942. Occupation:
owner. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
political science professor. Religion:
MISSISSIPPI
niority: 150.
Christian Reformed. Seniority: 98.
6 Carr (D)-March 27, 1943. Occupation:
1 Whitten (D)-April 18, 1910. Occupa-
NEVADA
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
tion: author, lawyer, grammar school
129.
teacher and principal. Religion: Pres-
1 Bilbray (D)-May 19, 1938. Occupation:
7 Kildee (D)-Sept. 16, 1929. Occupa-
byterian. Seniority: 1.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
tion: teacher. Religion: Roman Catho-
2 Espy (D)-Nov. 30, 1953. Occupation:
niority: 191.
lic. Seniority: 72.
lawyer, businessman. Religion: Bap-
2 Vucanovich (R)-June 22, 1921. Occu-
8 Traxler (D)-July 21, 1931. Occupation:
tist. Seniority: 191.
pation: travel agent, franchise owner,
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
3 Montgomery (D)-Aug. 5, 1920. Occu-
congressional aide. Religion: Roman
niority: 47.
pation: insurance executive. Religion:
Catholic. Seniority: 79.
9 Vander Jagt (R)-Aug. 26, 1931. Occu-
Episcopalian. Seniority: 23.
pation: lawyer. Religion: Presby-
4 Parker (D)-Oct. 31, 1949. Occupation:
funeral director. Religion: Presby-
NEW HAMPSHIRE
terian. Seniority: 8.
10 Camp (R)-July 9, 1953: Occupation:
terian. Seniority: 219.
1 Zeliff (R)-June 12, 1936. Occupation:
lawyer, congressional aide. Religion:
5 Taylor (D)-Sept. 17, 1953. Occupa-
hotel owner. Religion: Protestant. Se-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 150.
tion: sales representative. Religion:
niority: 150.
11 Davis (R)-July 31, 1932. Occupation:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 239.
2 Swett (D)-May 1, 1957. Occupation:
funeral director. Religion: Episco--
architect. Religion: Mormon. Senior-
palian. Seniority: 42.
MISSOURI
ity: 246.
12 Bonior (D)-June 6, 1945. Occupation:
probation officer. Religion: Roman
1 Clay (D)-April 30,. 1931. Occupation:
NEW JERSEY
Catholic. Seniority: 72.
real estate salesman, insurance ex-
13 Collins (D)-April 13, 1939. Occupation:
ecutive. Religion: Roman Catholic.
1 Andrews (D)-Aug. 4, 1957. Occupa-
public official. Religion: Shrine of the
Seniority: 26.
tion: law professor. Religion: Episco-
Black Madonna (Pan-African Ortho-
2 Hom (D)-Oct. 18, 1936. Occupation:
palian. Seniority: 243.
dox Christian). Seniority: 246.
political research and consulting firm
2 Hughes (D)-Oct. 17, 1932. Occupa-
14 Hertel (D)-Dec. 7, 1948. Occupation:
president. Religion: Roman Catholic.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Seniority: 246.
Seniority: 50.
CQ JANUARY 12, 1991 123
FOR THE RECORD
3 Pallone (D)-Oct. 30, 1951. Occupa-
minister. Religion: African Methodist
30 Slaughter (D)-Aug. 14, 1929. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
Episcopal. Seniority: 191.
tion: market researcher. Religion:
lic. Seniority: 218.
7 Ackerman (D)-Nov. 19, 1942. Occupa-
Episcopalian. Seniority: 191.
4 Smith (R)-March 4, 1953. Occupation:
tion: advertising executive; publisher
31 Paxon (R)-April 29, 1954. Occupation:
sporting goods wholesaler. Religion:
and editor; social studies teacher.
public official. Religion: Roman Cath-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 57.
Religion: Jewish. Seniority: 175.
olic. Seniority: 135.
5 Roukema (R)-Sept. 19, 1929. Occupa-
8 Scheuer (D)-Feb. 6, 1920. Occupa-
32 LaFalce (D)-Oct. 6, 1939. Occupation:
tion: high school history and govern-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
ment teacher. Religion: Protestant.
ity: 48.
niority: 50.
Seniority: 57.
9 Manton (D)-Nov. 3, 1932. Occupation:
33 Nowak (D)-Feb. 21, 1935. Occupation:
6 Dwyer (D)-Jan. 24, 1921. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
insurance salesman and executive.
niority: 180.
niority: 50.
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
10 Schumer (D)-Nov. 23, 1950. Occupa-
34 Houghton (R)-Aug. 7, 1926. Occupa-
110.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
tion: glassworks company executive.
7 Rinaldo (R)-Sept. 1, 1931. Occupa-
ity: 110.
Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority: 115.
tion: management consultant lec-
11 Towns (D)-July 21, 1934. Occupation:
turer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
social worker, teacher. Religion: Prot-
niority: 20.
NORTH CAROLINA
estant. Seniority: 131.
8 Roe (D)-Feb. 28, 1924. Occupation:
12 Owens (D)-June 28, 1936. Occupa-
1 Jones (D)-Aug. 19, 1913. Occupation:
construction company owner, engi-
tion: librarian. Religion: Baptist. Se-
office supply company owner. Reli-
neer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
niority: 131.
gion: Baptist. Seniority: 22.
niority: 32.
13 Solarz (D)-Sept. 12, 1940. Occupa-
2 Valentine (D)-March 15, 1926. Occu-
9 Torricelli (D)-Aug. 26, 1951. Occupa-
tion: public official. Religion: Jewish.
pation: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Se-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
Seniority: 50.
niority: 131.
niority: 131.
14 Molinari (R)-March 27, 1958. Occupa-
3 Lancaster (D)-March 24, 1943. Occu-
10 Payne (D)-July 16, 1934. Occupation:
tion: public official. Religion: Roman
pation: lawyer. Religion: Presby-
community development executive.
Catholic. Seniority: 149.
terian. Seniority: 191.
Religion: Baptist. Seniority: 216.
15 Green (R)-Oct. 16, 1929. Occupation:
4 Price (D)-Aug. 17, 1940. Occupation:
11 Gallo (R)-Nov. 23, 1935. Occupation:
state government lawyer, federal
political science and public policy
real estate broker. Religion: Method-
housing official. Religion: Jewish. Se-
professor. Religion: American Bap-
ist. Seniority: 98.
niority: 41.
tist. Seniority: 191.
12 Zimmer (R)-Aug. 16, 1944. Occupa-
16 Rangel (D)-June 11, 1930. Occupa-
5 Neal (D)-Nov. 7, 1934. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
newspaper publisher, mortgage
ity: 150.
lic. Seniority: 33.
banker. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
13 Saxton (R)-Jan. 22, 1943. Occupation:
17 Weiss (D)-Sept. 17, 1927. Occupation:
niority: 50.
real estate broker, elementary school
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority: 72.
6 Coble (R)-March 18, 1931. Occupa-
teacher. Religion: Methodist. Senior-
18 Serrano (D)-Oct. 24, 1943. Occupa-
tion: lawyer, insurance agent. Reli-
ity: 96.
tion: public official. Religion: Roman
gion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 98.
14 Guarini (D)-Aug. 20, 1924. Occupa-
Catholic. Seniority: 241.
7 Rose (D)-Aug. 10, 1939. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
19 Engel (D)-Feb 18, 1947. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
lic. Seniority: 91.
public official, teacher. Religion: Jew-
niority: 38.
ish. Seniority: 219.
8 Hefner (D)-April 11, 1930. Occupation:
NEW MEXICO
20 Lowey (D)-July 5, 1937. Occupation:
broadcasting executive. Religion:
public official. Religion: Jewish. Se-
Baptist. Seniority: 50.
1 Schiff (R)-March 18, 1947. Occupa-
niority: 219.
9 McMillan (R)-May 9, 1932. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Senior-
21 Fish (R)-June 3, 1926. Occupation:
tion: food store executive. Religion:
ity: 135.
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
Presbyterian. Seniority: 98.
2 Skeen (R)-June 30, 1927. Occupation:
niority: 13.
10 Ballenger (R)-Dec. 6, 1926. Occupa-
rancher. Religion: Roman Catholic.
22 Gilman (R)-Dec. 6, 1922. Occupation:
tion: president of plastics packaging
Seniority: 57.
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
company. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
3 Richardson (D)-Nov. 15, 1947. Occu-
20.
niority: 114.
pation: business consultant. Religion:
23 McNulty (D)-Sept. 16, 1947. Occupa-
11 Taylor (R)-Jan. 23, 1941. Occupation:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 131.
tion: public official. Religion: Roman
tree farmer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
Catholic. Seniority: 219.
ity: 150.
NEW YORK
24 Solomon (R)-Aug. 14, 1930. Occupa-
tion: insurance salesman. Religion:
NORTH DAKOTA
1 Hochbrueckner (D)-Sept. 20, 1938.
Presbyterian. Seniority: 42.
Occupation: aerospace engineer. Re-
25 Boehlert (R)-Sept. 28, 1936. Occupa-
AL Dorgan (D)-May 14, 1942. Occupa-
ligion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
tion: congressional aide, public rela-
tion: public official. Religion: Lu-
191.
tions manager. Religion: Roman
theran. Seniority: 110.
2 Downey (D)-Jan. 28, 1949. Occupa-
Catholic. Seniority: 79.
tion: personnel manager. Religion:
26 Martin (R)-April 26, 1944. Occupation:
Methodist. Seniority: 50.
OHIO
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
3 Mrazek (D)-Nov. 6, 1945. Occupation:
niority: 57.
1 Luken (D)-July 16, 1951. Occupation:
congressional aide. Religion: Meth-
27 Walsh (R)-June 19, 1947. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
odist. Seniority: 131.
businessman. Religion: Roman Cath-
niority: 246.
4 Lent (R)-March 23, 1931. Occupation:
olic. Seniority: 135.
2 Gradison (R)-Dec. 28, 1928. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
28 McHugh (D)-Dec. 6, 1938. Occupa-
tion: investment broker, federal
16.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
worker. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
5 McGrath (R)-March 27, 1942. Occupa-
lic. Seniority: 50.
28.
tion: physical education teacher. Reli-
29 Horton (R)-Dec. 12, 1919. Occupation:
3 Hall (D)-Jan. 16, 1942. Occupation:
gion: Roman Catholic. Seniority: 57.
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
real estate salesman. Religion: Chris-
6 Flake (D)-Jan. 30, 1945. Occupation:
niority: 4.
tian. Seniority: 91.
124 JANUARY 12, 1991 CQ
FOR THE RECORD
,
4 Oxley (R)-Feb. 11, 1944. Occupation:
4 McCurdy (D)-March 30, 1950. Occu-
Seniority: 13.
FBI agent, lawyer. Religion: Lutheran.
pation: lawyer. Religion: Lutheran.
14 Coyne (D)-Aug. 24, 1936. Occupation:
Seniority: 78.
Seniority: 110.
accountant. Religion: Roman Catho-
5 Gillmor (R)-Feb. 1, 1939. Occupation:
5 Edwards (R)-July 12, 1937. Occupa-
lic. Seniority: 110.
lawyer. Religion: Protestant. Senior-
tion: journalist, lawyer. Religion: Epis-
15 Ritter (R)-Oct. 21, 1940. Occupation:
ity: 135.
copalian. Seniority: 33.
engineering consultant, professor.
6 McEwen (R)-Jan. 12, 1950. Occupa-
6 English (D)-Nov. 30, 1940. Occupa-
Religion: Unitarian. Seniority: 42.
tion: real estate developer. Religion:
tion: petroleum landman. Religion:
16 Walker (R)-Dec. 23, 1942. Occupa-
Protestant. Seniority: 57.
Methodist. Seniority: 50.
tion: high school teacher, congres-
7 Hobson (R)-Oct. 17, 1936. Occupa-
sional aide. Religion: Presbyterian.
tion: real estate and mortgage execu-
Seniority: 33.
tive. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
OREGON
17 Gekas (R)-April 14, 1930. Occupation:
150.
8 Boehner (R)-Nov. 17, 1949. Occupa-
1 AuCoin (D)-Oct. 21, 1942. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Greek Orthodox.
journalist, public relations executive.
Seniority: 79.
tion: plastics and packaging sales
Religion: Protestant. Seniority: 50.
18 Santorum (R)-May 10, 1958. Occupa-
company president. Religion: Roman
2 Smith, Robert F. (R)-June 16, 1931.
tion: lawyer, legislative aide. Religion:
Catholic. Seniority: 150.
Occupation: cattle rancher. Religion:
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 150.
9 Kaptur (D)-June 17, 1946. Occupa-
tion: urban planner, White House
Presbyterian. Seniority: 79.
19 Goodling (R)-Dec. 5, 1927. Occupa-
3 Wyden (D)-May 3, 1949. Occupation:
tion: public school superintendent.
staff member. Religion: Roman Cath-
public interest lawyer, professor of
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 28.
olic. Seniority: 131.
gerontology, public interest group ex-
20 Gaydos (D)-July 3, 1926. Occupation:
10 Miller (R)-Nov. 1, 1917. Occupation:
ecutive, campaign aide. Religion:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
electrical engineer. Religion: Method-
Jewish. Seniority: 110.
niority: 25.
ist. Seniority: 9.
4 DeFazio (D)-May 27, 1947. Occupa-
21 Ridge (R)-Aug. 26, 1945. Occupation:
11 Eckart (D)-April 6, 1950. Occupation:
tion: congressional aide. Religion:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
Roman Catholic. Seniority: 191.
niority: 79.
niority: 110.
5 Kopetski (D)-Oct. 27. 1949. Occupa-
22 Murphy (D)-June 17, 1927. Occupa-
12 Kasich (R)-May 13, 1952. Occupation:
tion: advertising executive. Religion:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
legislative aide. Religion: Roman
unspecified. Seniority: 246.
lic. Seniority: 72.
Catholic. Seniority: 79.
23 Clinger (R)-April 4, 1929. Occupation:
13 Pease (D)-Sept. 26, 1931. Occupa-
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
tion: newspaper editor. Religion:
PENNSYLVANIA
niority: 42.
Methodist. Seniority: 72.
1 Foglietta (D)-Dec. 3, 1928. Occupa-
14 Sawyer (D)-Aug. 15, 1945. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
RHODE ISLAND
tion: teacher. Religion: Presbyterian.
lic. Seniority: 110.
Seniority: 191.
2 Gray (D)-Aug. 20, 1941. Occupation:
1 Machtley (R)-July 13, 1948. Occupa-
15 Wylie (R)-Nov. 23, 1920. Occupation:
clergyman. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
ity: 91.
Seniority: 135.
9.
3 Borski (D)-Oct. 20, 1948. Occupation:
2 Reed (D)-Nov. 12. 1949. Occupation:
16 Regula (R)-Dec. 3, 1924. Occupation:
stockbroker. Religion: Roman Catho-
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
lic. Seniority: 131.
niority: 246.
niority: 20.
4 Kolter (D)-Sept. 3, 1926. Occupation:
17 Traficant (D)-May 8, 1941. Occupa-
accountant. Religion: Roman Catho-
SOUTH CAROLINA
tion: county drug program director,
lic. Seniority: 131.
sheriff. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
5 Schulze (R)-Aug. 7, 1929. Occupation:
1 Ravenel (R)-March 29, 1927. Occupa-
niority: 180.
household appliance dealer. Religion:
tion: businessman. Religion: French
18 Applegate (D)-March 27, 1928. Occu-
Presbyterian. Seniority: 28.
Huguenot. Seniority: 115.
pation: real estate broker. Religion:
6 Yatron (D)-Oct. 16, 1927. Occupation:
2 Spence (R)-April 9, 1928. Occupation:
Presbyterian. Seniority: 72.
professional boxer, ice cream manu-
lawyer. Religion: Lutheran. Seniority:
19 Feighan (D)-Oct. 22, 1947. Occupa-
facturer. Religion: Greek Orthodox.
16.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
Seniority: 26.
3 Derrick (D)-Sept. 30, 1936. Occupa-
lic. Seniority: 131.
7 Weldon (R)-July 22, 1947. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
20 Oakar (D)-March 5, 1940. Occupation:
tion: teacher. Religion: Protestant.
Seniority: 50.
high school English and speech
Seniority: 115.
4 Patterson (D)-Nov. 18, 1939. Occupa-
teacher. Religion: Roman Catholic.
8 Kostmayer (D)-Sept. 27, 1946. Occu-
tion: legislative aide, Peace Corps re-
Seniority: 72.
pation: public relations consul-
cruiting officer, Head Start official.
21 Stokes (D)-Feb. 23, 1925. Occupation:
tant. Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority:
Religion: Methodist. Seniority: 191.
lawyer. Religion: African Methodist
130.
5. Spratt (D)-Nov. 1, 1942. Occupation:
Episcopal. Seniority: 26.
9 Shuster (R)-Jan. 23, 1932. Occupa-
lawyer, insurance agency owner. Re-
tion: computer industry executive.
ligion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 131.
OKLAHOMA
Religion: United Church of Christ. Se-
6 Tallon (D)-Aug. 8, 1946. Occupation:
niority: 20.
clothing store owner. Religion: Meth- ...
1 Inhofe (R)-Nov. 11, 1934. Occupation:
10 McDade (R)-Sept. 29, 1931. Occupa-
odist. Seniority: 131.
real estate developer, insurance ex-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
ecutive. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
lic. Seniority: 4.
SOUTH DAKOTA
niority: 115.
11 Kanjorski (D)-April 2, 1937. Occupa-
2 Synar (D)-Oct. 17, 1950. Occupation:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
AL Johnson (D)-Dec. 28, 1946. Occupa-
lawyer, rancher, real estate broker.
lic. Seniority: 180.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Lutheran. Se-
Religion: Episcopalian. Seniority: 91.
12 Murtha (D)-June 17, 1932. Occupa-
niority: 191.
3 Brewster (D)-Nov. 8. 1941. Occupa-
tion: car wash operator. Religion: Ro-
tion: pharmacist, rancher, real estate
man Catholic. Seniority: 46.
TENNESSEE
company owner. Religion: Baptist.
13 Coughlin (R)-April 11, 1929. Occupa-
Seniority: 246.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
1 Quillen (R)-Jan. 11, 1916. Occupation:
CQ JANUARY 12, 1991 125
1
FOR THE RECORD
newspaper publisher, real estate and
Methodist. Seniority: 219.
tion: lawyer, accountant. Religion:
insurance salesman, banker. Reli-
14 Laughlin (D)-Jan. 21, 1942. Occupa-
Baptist. Seniority: 191.
gion: Methodist. Seniority: 4.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
3 Bliley (R)-Jan. 28, 1932. Occupation:
2 Duncan (R)-July 21, 1947. Occupa-
niority: 219.
funeral director. Religion: Roman
tion: lawyer, judge. Religion: Presby-
15 de la Garza (D)-Sept. 22, 1927. Occu-
Catholic. Seniority: 57.
terian. Seniority: 134.
pation: lawyer. Religion: Roman
4 Sisisky (D)-June 9, 1927. Occupation:
3 Lloyd (D)-Jan. 3, 1929. Occupation:
Catholic. Seniority: 16.
beer and soft drink distributor. Reli-
radio station owner and manager.
16 Coleman (D)-Nov. 29, 1941. Occupa-
gion: Jewish. Seniority: 131.
Religion: Church of Christ. Seniority:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
50.
Seniority: 131.
5 Payne (D)-July 9, 1945. Occupation:
4 Cooper (D)-June 19, 1954. Occupa-
17 Stenholm (D)-Oct. 26, 1938. Occupa-
developer, businessman. Religion:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: cotton grower. Religion: Lu-
Presbyterian. Seniority: 216.
Seniority: 131.
theran. Seniority: 91.
6 Olin (D)-Feb. 28, 1920. Occupation:
5 Clement (D)-Sept. 23, 1943. Occupa-
18 Washington (D)-Oct. 12, 1941. Occu-
electronics company executive. Reli-
tion: college president. Religion:
pation: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Se-
gion: Unitarian. Seniority: 131.
Methodist. Seniority: 215.
niority: 240.
7 Slaughter (R)-May 20, 1925. Occupa-
6 Gordon (D)-Jan. 24, 1949. Occupa-
19 Combest (R)-March 20, 1945. Occu-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
pation: congressional aide, electron-
Seniority: 98.
niority: 180.
ics wholesaler, farmer, stockman, ag-
8 Moran (D)-May 14, 1945. Occupation:
7 Sundquist (R)-March 15, 1936. Occu-
ricultural specialist. Religion: Meth-
investment banker. Religion: Roman
pation: printing, advertising and mar-
odist. Seniority: 98.
Catholic. Seniority: 246.
keting firm owner. Religion: Lutheran.
20 Gonzalez (D)-May 3, 1916. Occupa-
9. Boucher (D)-Aug. 1, 1946. Occupa-
Seniority: 79.
tion: lawyer, business consultant,
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
8 Tanner (D)-Sept. 22, 1944. Occupa-
translator. Religion: Roman Catholic.
niority: 131.
tion: lawyer, businessman. Religion:
Seniority: 10.
Disciples of Christ. Seniority: 219.
21 Smith (R)-Nov. 19, 1947. Occupation:
10 Wolf (R)-Jan. 30, 1939. Occupation:
9 Ford (D)-May 20, 1945. Occupation:
rancher, lawyer. Religion: Christian
lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
mortician. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
Scientist. Seniority: 115.
niority: 57.
50.
22 DeLay (R)-April 8, 1947. Occupation:
pest control company owner. Reli-
WASHINGTON
gion: Baptist. Seniority: 98.
TEXAS
23 Bustamante (D)-April 8, 1935. Occu-
1 Miller (R)-May 23, 1938. Occupation:
1 Chapman (D)-March 8, 1945. Occupa-
pation: teacher. Religion: Roman
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
Catholic. Seniority: 180.
98.
niority: 189.
24 Frost (D)-Jan. 1, 1942. Occupation:
2 Swift (D)-Sept. 12, 1935. Occupation:
2 Wilson (D)-June 1, 1933. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Jewish. Seniority:
broadcaster. Religion: Unitarian. Se-
lumberyard manager. Religion: Meth-
91.
niority: 91.
odist. Seniority: 38.
25 Andrews (D)-Feb. 7, 1944. Occupa-
3 Unsoeld (D)-Dec. 3, 1931. Occupa-
3 Bartlett (R)-Sept. 19, 1947. Occupa-
tion: lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian.
tion: public official. Religion: Theist.
tion: tool and plastics company
Seniority: 131.
Seniority: 219.
owner. Religion: Presbyterian. Se-
26 Armey (R)-July 7, 1940. Occupation:
4 Morrison (R)-May 13, 1933. Occupa-
niority: 79.
economist. Religion: Presbyterian.
tion: fruit grower, nurseryman. Reli-
4 Hall (D)-May 3, 1923. Occupation:
Seniority: 98.
gion: Methodist. Seniority: 57.
businessman, lawyer. Religion: Meth-
27 Ortiz (D)-June 3, 1937. Occupation:
5 Foley (D)-March 6, 1929. Occupation:
odist. Seniority: 110.
law enforcement official. Religion:
lawyer. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
5 Bryant (D)-Feb. 22, 1947. Occupation:
Methodist. Seniority: 131.
niority: 16.
lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
131.
6 Dicks (D)-Dec. 16, 1940. Occupation:
6 Barton (R)-Sept. 15, 1949. Occupa-
UTAH
lawyer, congressional aide. Religion:
tion: engineering consultant. Religion:
Lutheran. Seniority: 72.
1 Hansen (R)-Aug. 14, 1932. Occupa-
Methodist. Seniority: 98.
7 McDermott (D)-Dec. 28, 1936. Occu-
tion: insurance executive, land devel-
7 Archer (R)-March 22, 1928. Occupa-
pation: psychiatrist. Religion: Episco-
oper. Religion: Mormon. Seniority:
tion: lawyer, feed company executive.
palian. Seniority: 219.
57.
Religion: Roman Catholic. Seniority:
2 Owens (D)-May 2, 1937. Occupation:
8 Chandler (R)-July 13, 1942. Occupa-
16.
lawyer. Religion: Mormon. Seniority:
tion: public relations consultant,
8 Fields (R)-Feb. 3, 1952. Occupation:
190.
newscaster, banker. Religion: un-
lawyer, cemetery executive. Religion:
3 Orton (D)-Sept. 22, 1949. Occupation:
specified. Seniority: 79.
Baptist. Seniority: 57.
lawyer. Religion: Mormon. Seniority:
9 Brooks (D)-Dec. 18, 1922. Occupa-
246.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Methodist. Se-
WEST VIRGINIA
niority: 3.
1 Mollohan (D)-May 14, 1943. Occupa-
10 Pickle (D)-Oct. 11, 1913. Occupation:
VERMONT
tion: lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Senior-
public relations and advertising exec-
utive. Religion: Methodist. Seniority:
AL Sanders (I)-Sept. 8, 1941. Occupa-
ity: 131.
14.
tion: free-lance writer, college profes-
2 Staggers (D)-Feb. 22, 1951. Occupa-
11 Edwards (D)-Nov. 24, 1951. Occupa-
sor. Religion: Jewish. Seniority: none.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Roman Catho-
tion: radio station owner. Religion:
lic. Seniority: 131.
Methodist. Seniority: 246.
VIRGINIA
3 Wise (D)-Jan. 6, 1948. Occupation:
12 Geren (D)-Jan. 29, 1952. Occupation:
lawyer. Religion: Episcopalian. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Baptist. Seniority:
1 Bateman (R)-Aug. 7, 1928. Occupa-
niority: 131.
237.
tion: lawyer. Religion: Presbyterian.
4 Rahall (D)-May 20, 1949. Occupation:
13 Sarpalius (D)-Jan. 10, 1948. Occupa-
Seniority: 79.
broadcasting executive, travel agent.
tion: agricultural consultant. Religion:
2 Pickett (D)-Aug. 31, 1930. Occupa-
Religion: Presbyterian. Seniority: 72.
126 JANUARY 12, 1991
CQ
FOR THE RECORD
(
WISCONSIN
4 Kleczka (D)-Nov. 26, 1943. Occupa-
8 Roth (R)-Oct. 10, 1938. Occupation:
tion: accountant. Religion: Roman
real estate broker. Religion: Roman
1 Aspin (D)-July 21, 1938. Occupation:
Catholic. Seniority: 178.
Catholic. Seniority: 42.
economics professor. Religion: Epis-
5 Moody (D)-Sept. 2, 1935. Occupation:
9 Sensenbrenner (R)-June 14, 1943.
copalian. Seniority: 33.
economist. Religion: Protestant. Se-
Occupation: lawyer. Religion: Episco-
2 Klug (R)-Jan. 16, 1953. Occupation:
niority: 131.
palian. Seniority: 42.
business development firm vice pres-
6 Petri (R)-May 28, 1940. Occupation:
ident. Religion: Roman Catholic. Se-
lawyer. Religion: Lutheran. Seniority:
niority: 150.
55.
WYOMING
3 Gunderson (R)-May 10, 1951. Occu-
7 Obey (D)-Oct. 3, 1938. Occupation:
AL Thomas (R)-Feb. 17, 1933. Occupa-
pation: public official. Religion: Lu-
real estate broker. Religion: Roman
tion: businessman. Religion: Method-
theran. Seniority: 57.
Catholic. Seniority: 31.
ist. Seniority: 147.
IP 22C (GO)
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540
April 4, 1991
CHANGES IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE 102d CONGRESS
California (Senate):
Seymour, John (R). Birth date: December 3, 1937. Occupation: real
estate broker. Religion: Protestant. (Replaced Pete Wilson, who resigned
to become Governor of California.)
Illinois (15th District):
Vacant. Representative Edward R. Madigan (R) resigned on March 8, 1991,
to become Secretary of Agriculture.
Massachusetts (1st District):
Vacant. Representative Silvio O. Conte (R) died on February 9, 1991.
Pennsylvania (Senate):
Vacant. Senator John Heinz (R) died on April 4, 1991.
Texas (3rd District):
Vacant. Representative Steve Bartlett (R) resigned on March 11, 1991, to
run for the office of mayor of Dallas.
CURRENT PARTY ALIGNMENT IN THE 102d CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Democrats - 267
Republicans - 164
Independent - 1
Vacancy - 3
SENATE:
Democrats - 56
Republicans - 43
Vacancy - 1
Sources: Clerk of the House of Representatives
Secretary of the Senate
91-86 GOV
CRS Report for Congress
Membership of the 102d Congress:
A Profile
Mildred L. Amer
Specialist in American National Government
Government Division
January 10, 1991
CRS
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
The Congress onal Research Service works exclusively for the Congress, conducting re-
search, analyz ing legislation, and providing information at the request of committees,
Members, ano their staffs.
The Service n akes such research available, without partisan bias, in many forms includ-
ing studies, PE ports, compilations, digests, and background briefings. Upon request,
CRS assists a mmittees in analyzing legislative proposals and issues, and in assessing the
possible effects of these proposals and their alternatives. The Service's senior specialists
and subject analysts are also available for personal consultations in their respective fields
of expertise.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE 102d CONGRESS: A PROFILE
SUMMARY
For Members of the 102d Congress, this report provides data on age,
occupation, religion, education, length of service, sex and race.
The average age in the House is 52.8; the Senate, 57.2; for both chambers
53.6.
The dominant self-ascribed profession of Members continues to be the law
(244 of 535, 46%), followed by business or banking (189 of 535, 35%), and
education (67 of 535, 13%). Of note is that Members frequently list more than
one occupation.
Protestants collectively constitute the majority religious affiliation of
Members (346), but Roman Catholics account for the dominant, single religious
denomination (142). Other affiliations (Greek Orthodox, Jewish, or unspecified)
make up the balance (53).
An overwhelming majority of Members have had a college education.
The average length of service in the House is 10.35 years; in the Senate,
11.17.
A record 31 women (the same number as in the 101st) are Members, 29 in
the House, 2 in the Senate. The racial and ethnic makeup of the Congress
including Delegates is: a record 26 black Members (all in House); 12 Hispanics,
also all in the House; and 7 of Asian/Pacific ethnicity (including a Senator, who
is one of the 2 Native Americans in Congress).
MEMBERSHIP OF THE 102d CONGRESS: A PROFILE
The Congress is composed of 540 individuals from our 50 States, as well as
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa, including any vacancies. The following is a profile of the 102d Congress,
which commenced on January 3, 1991. 1
AGE
At an average age of 53.6, the 102d Congress will be the oldest since the
85th Congress (1957-1959), when the average age was 53.8. The average age of
Senators is now 57.2 and of Representatives, 52.8.
Representatives must be at least 25 when they take office. The youngest
Representative and Member of Congress is Jim Nussle, Republican of Iowa, who
is 30. The oldest Representative is Sidney Yates, Democrat of Illinois, who is
81 and 15 days older than William Natcher, Democrat of Kentucky.
Senators must be at least 30 when they take office. The youngest Senator
is Don Nickels, Republican of Oklahoma, who is 42 and several months younger
than Albert Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, and Kent Conrad, Democrat of North
Dakota, both of whom were also born in 1948. The oldest Senator and Member
of Congress is Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, who is 88.
The average ages of each Chamber are shown in table 1.
TABLE 1. Average Age, 102d Congress
(Ages as of November 9, 1990)
All members
Senate
House
Both Parties
53.6
57.2
52.8
Democrats
53.4
57.5
52.6
Republicans
53.9
56.8
53.2
Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, V. 48, Nov. 10, 1990. p.
3835.
1
Information on the five Delegates is included only where indicated.
CRS-2
OCCUPATIONS
As has been true in previous Congresses, law is the dominant profession in
the 102d Congress. There are presently 244 Members (45.6 percent) who have
listed law as their profession. The distribution of other occupations, compiled
by Congressional Quarterly, is shown in table 2.
TABLE 2. Members' Occupations*
House
Senate
Congress
D
R
Total
D
R
Total
Total
Actor/Entertainer
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
Aeronautics
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
Agriculture
11
9
20
3
5
8
28
Business or Banking
77
80
157
15
17
32
189
Clergy
2
0
2
0
1
1
3
Education
37
19
57+
6
4
10
67+
Engineering
4
3
7
0
0
0
7
Journalism
14
10
25+
8
2
10
35+
Labor Officials
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
Law
126
57
183
35
26
61
244
Law Enforcement
4
1
5
0
0
0
5
Medicine
3
2
5
0
0
0
5
Military
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
Professional Sports
2
1
3
1
0
1
4
Public Service/
Politics
41
20
61
4
0
4
65
+ Includes one Independent Member.
*
Because some Members list more than one occupation, totals are higher
than total membership.
Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, V. 48, Nov. 10, 1990.
p. 3837, supplemented by CRS.
Moreover, among other prior occupations of Members of the 102d Congress
are: 16 former Governors, some 80 former congressional staffers (including
pages), 3 former FBI agents, 3 morticians, 2 pharmacists, an astronaut, a
psychiatrist, a dentist, a veterinarian, an architect, a former volunteer fireman,
and a Delegate who is a retired U.S. Marine Corps General.
CRS-3
RELIGION
Most of the Members of the 102d Congress cite a specific religious
affiliation. Table 3 presents information, compiled by Congressional Quarterly,
on the religious affiliations of Members of the 102d Congress.
TABLE 3. Members' Religious Affiliations
House
Senate
Congress
D
R
Total
D
R
Total
Total
African Methodist
Episcopal
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
Apostolic Christian
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
Baptist
35
12
47
4
8
12
59
Christian Church
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
Christian Reformed
Church
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
Christian Science
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
Church of Christ
3
1
4
0
0
0
4
Disciples of Christ
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
Episcopalian
24
17
41
6
12
18
59
French Huguenot
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
Greek Orthodox
2
4
6
1
0
1
7
Jewish
26
6
33+
6
2
8
41+
Lutheran
10
9
19
2
1
3
22
Methodist
38
24
62
9
4
13
75
Mormon
6
4
10
1
2
3
13
Presbyterian
15
27
42
7
2
9
51
Roman Catholic
85
37
122
12
8
20
142
Seventh-day
Adventist
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
Unitarian
5
2
7
1
2
3
10
United Church of
Christ and
Congregationalist
3
2
5
5
2
7
12
Unspecified
Protestant
10
17
27
1
3
4
31
Unspecified
5
0
5
0
0
0
5
+ Includes one Independent Member.
Source: Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, V. 48, Nov. 10, 1990.
p. 3837, supplemented by CRS.
CRS-4
EDUCATION2
In terms of education level, there are at least 370 Representatives and 94
Senators with bachelor's degrees, 101 Representatives and 20 Senators with
master's degrees, 190 Representatives and 60 Senators with law degrees, 19
Representatives and 4 Senators with doctoral degrees, and 4 Representatives
with medical degrees. Former Rhodes Scholars include 5 Senators and 2
Representatives.
CONGRESSIONAL SERVICE
The average length of service of Representatives in the 102d Congress is
10.35 years, slightly over five terms. Representatives are elected for two-year
terms. Representative Jamie Whitten, Democrat of Mississippi, has served
longer (more than 49 years) in the House than any other Member of the 102d
Congress and is the Dean of the House. His service began on November 4, 1941.
The average length of service of Senators in the 102d Congress is 11.17
years, almost two terms.4 Senators are elected for six-year terms. Senator
Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, has served longer (more than
35 years) in the Senate than any other Member of the 102d Congress. His
current service began on November 7, 1956. Previously, he had served in the
Senate from December 24, 1954, to April 4, 1956.
WOMEN AND MINORITY MEMBERS
There are 31 women serving in the 102d Congress-2 Senators and 29
Representatives. This is the same number as the last Congress which had the
largest number of women to serve in any Congress.
There are 26 black Members of the 102d Congress (including a Delegate), all
serving in the House of Representatives.⁶ This is the largest number of black
Members ever to serve in any Congress.
2 Educational Degrees Attained by Members of Congress, 94th through 101st
Congresses. CRS Report 89-92 GOV, Jan. 25, 1989, by Mildred Amer.
Washington, 1989, updated.
3 Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
4 Ibid.
5 Mills, Mike. Voter Elect Record Number of Women and Blacks.
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, V. 48, Nov. 10, 1990. p. 3835-3836.
CRS-5
There are also 12 Hispanic Members of the 102d Congress (including 2
Delegates), 7 Members (including 2 Delegates) who are of Asian/Pacific Island
ancestry, and 2 Native Americans (including a Senator who is also of
Asian/Pacific Island ancestry).⁶
MLA/ds
6 Ibid.