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
702349
label
Congress 1991 [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702349
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Congress 1991 [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29151-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu Issues Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702349
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
13edc0bd4a756a2b
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[2]
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:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Subseries:
Issues Files
OA/ID Number:
29151
Folder ID Number:
29151-001
Folder Title:
Congress 1991 [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
1
3
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 5, 1991
NOTE FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Please find attached a listing which the
Executive Clerk's Office has prepared of the
bills currently pending at the White House
and a listing of the bills which passed the
Congress prior to the August recess but which
have not yet been received at the White
House.
We have been advised that the latter group
could be delivered here as early as tomorrow
or Wednesday.
Hope this is helpful.
Phillip Phil. D. Brady
CC: Fred McClure
BILLS DUE; 102-1
08/05/91
09:40AM
Bill Number
Last Day For Action
Short Title
1. S.J.Res. 142
08/06/91
Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Week
- July 28 - August 3, 1991
2. H.J.Res. 181
08/07/91
National Senior Citizens Day -
August 18, 1991
3. H.R. 2525
08/07/91
Department of Veterans Affairs
Codification Act of 1991
4. H.R. 153
08/09/91
Veterans Judicial Review Act (U.S.
Court of Veterans Appeals)
5. S.J.Res. 40
08/13/91
National Historically Black
Colleges Week - September 8 - 14,
1991
6. H.J.Res. 264
08/14/91
Helsinki Human Rights Day --
August 1, 1991
7. H.R. 1047
08/14/91
Veterans Compensation Act (pension
and life insurance)
8. H.R. 1455
08/14/91
Intelligence Authorization Act,
Fiscal Year 1991
9. H.R. 1779
08/14/91
Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal
Building, Chicago, Illinois
10. H.R. 2031
08/14/91
Rural Telephone Cooperative
Associations ERISA Amendments Act
of 1991
11. H.R. 2901
08/14/91
Transfer of Vessels to the
Government of Greece
12. S.J.Res. 179
08/14/91
National Parks Week - beginning
August 25, 1991
BILLS PASSED THE CONGRESS
08/05/91
BUT NOT YET RECEIVED AT THE
09:36AM
WHITE HOUSE
Bill Number
Short Title
1. H.J.Res. 166
Commodore John Barry Day - September 13, 1991
2. H.J.Res. 309
National Sarcoidosis Awareness Day - August
29, 1991
3. H.R. 904
African American History Study
4. H.R. 991
Defense Production Act Extension
5. H.R. 1006
Federal Maritime Commission Authorization
6. H.R. 1143
American Labor History Study
7. H.R. 1448
Women's Correctional Facility, Pocatello,
Idaho
8. H.R. 2123
District of Columbia Annual Federal Payment
9. H.R. 2313
School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Act
Authorization
10. H.R. 2427
Energy and Water Appropriations, 1992
11. H.R. 2506
Legislative Branch Appropriations, 1992
12. H.R. 2699
District of Columbia Appropriations, 1992
13. H.R. 2968
District of Columbia Congressional Review
Waiver
14. H.R. 2969
District of Columbia Budget Reductions
(Reduction of Employees)
15. H.R. 3201
Emergency Unemployment Compensation
16. S. 1593
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and
Information Science Amendments
17. S. 1594
Terry Beirn AIDS Research Initiative
18. S. 1608
Nutrition Information and Labeling Act
Amendments
19. S.J.Res. 72
National Rehabilitation Week September 15 -
21, 1991
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Letter
From Haley Barbour to John Sununu
5/31/91
P/S
Re: Nunn-Roth Bipartisan OIRA Bill (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
Open on Expiration of PRA
Subseries:
Issues Files
(Document Follows)
WHORM Cat.:
By of (NLGB) on 10/28/05
File Location:
Congress 1991 [1]
Date Closed:
1/3/2005
OA/ID Number:
29151-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[2]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
MAY 31 '91 17:03
P.2
Copy to Darman
HALEY BARBOUR
POST OFFICE BOX 960
SUITE 1010
YAZOO CITY, MISSISSIPPI 39194
600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037
mass
-
(601) 746-2134
FAX (601) 746-2167
(202) 333-8767
FAX (202) 338-5950
May 31, 1991
Governor John Sununu
Chief of Staff to The President
The White House
has seen
THE CHIEF of STAFF
Washington, D.C. 20500
RE: NUNN-ROTH BIPARTISAN OIRA BILL
Dear Governor Sununu:
As I mentioned to you at the close of our meeting yesterday,
the opportunity has arisen for a major breakthrough on OIRA. A
little background on recent development follows, and I hope after
reading it, you will agree with me that the time is right for the
Administration to strengthen OIRA by helping pass the bipartisan
Nunn-Roth bill.
On May 14, John Glenn introduced S.1044, the "Federal
Information Resources Management Act". Senators Levin (D-Michigan)
and Akaka (D-Hawaii) are cosponsors. No Republicans cosponsored.
Senator Glenn's statement accompanying his bill makes clear he
wants to pick up where he left off last year. His bill would in
trying to weaken OIRA require an Executive Order be issued by the
President which sets out more stringent disclosure requirements for
OIRA and the White House. His bill does not deal with important
issues raised by a recent Supreme Court decision Dole y U.S.
Steelworkers. The Dole decision interprets the Paperwork Reduction
Act in a way which substantially narrows the scope of OIRA's
responsibilities and opens the door to a frontal assault on the
President's authority to review the regulatory actions of Cabinet
officials. Overall the Glenn bill is a sop to the AFL-CIO and the
Naderites who distrust Executive authority or hate OMB and a snub
to business and conservatives. It would undermine the important
role OIRA plays for the President.
On May 22, Senator Sam Nunn introduced 8.1180, the "Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1991". Senators Bumpers, Kasten, Roth, Bond,
Rudman, Wallop, Dixon, and Baucus are cosponsors. This bipartisan
bill does all the right things. It sends a political signal that
OIRA should be more aggressive as the President's "traffic cop" for
the regulatory system; resolves in favor of the President the
issues raised by the Dole case and elaborates for the Cabinet
Agencies what their "good government" responsibilities under the
MAY 31 '91 17:03
P.3
Governor John Sununu
May 31, 1991
Page No.2
Paperwork Reduction Act are. Senator Nunn and the other Senators
placed no conditions on the Administration in return for support of
this bipartisan package.
The Nunn bill will enjoy the support of small and big business
groups, citizen groups other than the Naderites, the National
Governors Association and elements of the University research
community. A coalition to strengthen the Paperwork Reduction Act
(BCORP) has been working to achieve the result the Nunn-Roth bill
represents. They wrote the President in January asking the
Administration to wait to Bee what bipartisan political support
could be garnered for a positive bill. Now that Nunn et al have
come forward, they have a bill to rally around.
Hearings are anticipated in the near future by the Small
Business and the Governmental Affairs committees. Glenn is
Chairman of Governmental Affairs. Bumpers and Kasten are Chairman
and ranking of Small Business. Nunn is senior Democrat on
Governmental Affairs; Roth is ranking Republican.
The
Administration is being asked to take a position on the two bills.
It is imperative we not equivocate. The President should come
out four square behind the bipartisan bill. Frank Horton will be
primed to lead for us in the House. We should avoid the position
of saying there is merit to both bills, and we definitely should
not compromise with Glenn. Glenn et al want to defang OIRA. The
bipartisan sponsors of the Nunn bill already understand that. We
would be foolish if we give Glenn and company any wiggle room. We
should embrace the good bill and help get it passed.
You may recall the coalition letter supporting OIRA. The
coalition has aligned itself with groups like NFIB to support the
Nunn-Roth bill and to make sure OIRA is not eviscerated by the
Naderites. As I mentioned in your office, another very strong
coalition of CEO's has been put together by Marshall Hahn of
Georgia-Pacific. I strongly urge you to meet with both of these
groups. They are committed to the paperwork reduction effort that
President Bush led in the Reagan administration, and they will work
to see that OIRA's integrity and usefulness is preserved. They
will fight hard for the Nunn-Roth bill, and I think you will find
them exceptionally good allies.
MAY 31 '91 17:04
P.4
Governor John Sununu
May 31, 1991
Page No. 3
After you have had a chance to consider this, I will touch
base with Katie to see if you have determined an appropriate way to
proceed. Thank you for giving this your consideration. More
importantly, thank you for your support of OIRA.
Sincerely,
Huley Haley Barbour
HB/ds
TALKING POINTS FOR SUNUNU AND DARMAN
RE: ADMINISTRATION POSITION ON CWS' HR 1270
SUBSTANTIVE POINTS
*Family Protection Act is not a mandated fringe benefit. It is an
employment preference similar to veterans reemployment.
*Does not require employers to reinstate employees. Employers do not
have to keep job open.
*Employers have only two requirements:
1. They must notify employees who wish to return of positions that
become available for one year after the employee has notified the
employer that they wish to return.
2. They must reinstate employees in the first position that becomes
available that the employee is qualified to perform. The
employee must prove that he/she is qualified for the position.
*Contains provision allowing employer and employee to agree to
substitute a different arrangement.
*Does not require businesses to continue health insurance or benefits
while employee is away from the workforce.
*Does not impose a one-size-fits-all approach. Works to preserve
maximum flexibility for employers and employees.
*This bill is much less burdensome on businesses than the mandates in
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the Administration
supported.
THE CHIEF of 21Vth
POLITICAL ARGUMENTS
*You can't beat something with nothing. Members want to be for
something. The administration can't keep asking members to just
vote no on every issue.
*There is clearly not veto strength in the Senate.
*A lot of members who voted against H.R. 770 would vote for a mandated
leave bill that was less extensive if they don't have other
alternatives to vote for. For example, many CDFers would vote
for as 10 week maternity/paternity mandated leave bill. If the
proponents of mandated leave ever offer a bill less extensive
than H.R. 2, a veto may not be sustained in the House.
*The Chamber of Commerce has endorsed HR 1270. The Chamber has been
one of the strongest opponents of government requirements on
business.
*HR 1270 changes the focus of the debate by allowing us to fight for
families while still opposing H.R. 2. Brings groups such as
Family Research Council (FRC) and several hispanic organizations
into the debate on our side. As they know from child care and
other issues, the grassroots support which FRC can motivate is
tremendous.
to Isn,
anould appreciate you
cersideration of HR 1270
as attemato to HR2-
Claim
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
Summary and Explanation of the
American Family Protection Act
H.R. 1270/ S. 418
April 29, 1991
Summary of Provisions
Conditions of leave
*Employees may take leave upon the birth or adoption of a child, or to
care for a seriously ill member of their immediate family.
*Serious illness is defined as an illness that poses an imminent danger
of death, requires hospitalization, or requires constant in-home care.
*Employees must provide employers with written notification that they
intend to take leave under this act thirty days in advance unless
impossible
*Employees must have been employed for 2000 continuous hours during the
14 months preceding the leave.
*Employees may take intervening employment of up to 17 1/2 hours per
week during the break in employment.
Reemployment rights
*The employee would be reinstated in the same or similar postition as
his/her previous job provided that such a position is available. The
employer would not be required to fire a replacement worker or create a
new position in order to reinstate a returning employee.
*If the same or a similar postion is not available when the employee
wishes to return, that employee would be granted preferred rehire
status.
*The employee would be entitled to the first position that becomes
available that has similar seniority, pay and status as his/her previous
job, provided that the employee is qualified to perform the functions of
that job.
*The employee has the burden of proof in showing he/she is qualified for
the position and has kept up with all changes in technology, etc. that
have occurred in the field during the break in employment.
*The employee would be required to provide the employer with a current
address at which he/she may be reached.
*The employer would be required to notify the employee of all jobs of
similar pay and status that the employee is qualified to perform that
become available for up to one year after the employee notifies the
employer that they wish to return.
*The employee would have fifteen days in which to respond to a job offer
made by the employer under this act.
Page
1
*Upon reinstatement, the employee would be reinstated with any
seniority and benefits accrued before the break in employment.
*Employees can indicate a willingness to return up to six years after
leaving for the care and nurturement of a newly born child or two years
after leaving to care for a seriously ill family member.
Waiver
*Absent any coercion, employers and employees may agree to change the
requirements, terms and conditions of reemployment or to substitute an
employment benefit such as dental insurance.
*The agreement must be in writing. The employer must provide the
employees with a written summary of their rights under this act.
Exemptions
*The employer is exempt from the requirements of this bill if
circumstances have so changed between the time of the employee's
notification of leave and the application for reemployment as to make
reemployment unreasonable.
*The employer is not required to offer reinstatement to an employee who
has had disciplinary action instituted against him/her.
Other Provisions
*Coverage is extended to Congressional employees
*Damages are limited to back pay and benefits
Background on Stenholm-Hatch Preferred Rehire Bill
The idea behind this approach is based on the Stenholm preferred
rehire amendment that was made in order during last year's vote on H.R.
770. (The amendment was not offered because of procedural obstacles
against it.)
If this bill were enacted, it would operate much like the Veterans
Reemployment Rights Act of 1958. The Veterans Reemployment Act provides
that an employee who leaves a position of employment upon induction into
military service shall be entitled to reemployment in the same job they
had before taking leave or a job of similar seniority, pay, and status.
The Stenholm-Hatch Bill allows employees to choose how long they
wish or need to stay home to raise their children or care for a seriously
ill family member while providing employers and employees with flexible
arrangements. It makes it possible for employers to hire replacements
for vital or high-skill job functions. In addition, the waiver
requirement allows employers the flexiblity to offer a benefit package
that best meets the needs of their workforce.
# # #
Page
2
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON
VETERANS REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT
American Family Protection Act
(U.S. Code Title 38, Chapter 43)
(A.K.A Hatch-Stenholm)
ALLOWABLE REASONS FOR BREAK IN
Voluntary enlistment in military,
Legitimate family purpose (i.e.
EMPLOYMENT
draft, activation of reserves
caring for a child under age 6,
caring for a seriously ill
immediate family member)
BREAK IN EMPLOYMENT ALLOWED
One tour of duty for enlisted
Six years to care for a newborn or
BEFORE APPLICATION FOR
personell, unlimited period of time
newly adopted child, two years to.
REINSTATEMENT
for individuals who were drafted or
care for a seriously ill family
activated from the reserves
member
REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS
Reinstatement in the same or
Reinstatement if the same or
similar position upon notification
similar position is available upon
of desire to return. Employee must
application for reinstatement, or
notify employer of desire to return
if such position becomes available
within 90 days of discharge from
within one year
military
SENIORITY RIGHTS
Eligible for all seniority and
Reinstatement would be with all
benefits and promotions that the
benefits and seniority accrued
employee would have been eligible
before break in employment, no
for had he/she not entered military
seniority accrued during break in
service. (Escalator Principle.)
employment
REQUIRED NOTICE BEFORE LEAVING
None. No limit on time elapsing
Thirty days unless impossible
EMPLOYMENT
between the time the employee
leaves and the beginning of
military service
APPLY TO SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST?
Yes.
No.
BURDEN-OF-PROOF ON EMPLOYEE
Unless facts to the contrary are
Employee must submit a written
QUALIFICATIONS
presented by the employer, it is
application that demonstrates that
presumed that the veteran possesses
he/she remains qualified to perform
the necessary qualifications
the duties of the job.
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
Mashington, DC 20515
May 14, 1991
The American Family Protection Act
Better for Businesses and Families
Dear Colleague:
We are writing to ask your support for H.R. 1270, the American
Family Protection Act. This bill presents an alternative to Federally
mandated leave in the debate on work and family time issues. Our bill
would provide a statutory hiring preference to workers who must leave
their jobs to care for young children or to care for a seriously ill
family member. An employee returning to the workforce after
fulfilling family responsibilities would be entitled to reinstatement
to the first available position of similar pay, seniority and status
for which they are qualified.
The proponents of H.R. 2 have the admirable intentions of
providing relief for families. However, the legislation they promote
fails to accomplish this goal. A twelve week parental leave falls far
short of the amount of uninterrupted time infants need with their
parents. Several polls have shown that parents want to spend at least
two or three years at home raising their children not twelve weeks.
Our bill provides parents with the flexibility to spend as much time
at home raising their children as they want.
By getting the government into the twilight zone of mandating
which fringe benefits employers must provide, H.R. 2 would actually
hurt families. By mandating a particular benefit, Congress reduces
the flexibility of employers to provide the benefits such as cafeteria
plans, flextime and homework that employees want. In addition,
workers who are not on leave might be forced to shoulder the workload
of employees on leave, causing them to work longer hours and therefore
have less time to spend with their families.
We have concerns about the operational difficulties and costs of
implementing a leave policy. H.R. 2 would guarentee an employee
taking leave unconditional and immediate reinstatement whenever he or
she chooses to return from leave, regardless of the economic
consequences to the employer. Reinstatement would be mandated even if
the leave is taken for an indeterminate period of time or the employer
has to fill the vacancy with a new, permament worker. At the
beginning of the leave period, the employer and, in all good faith,
the employee -- may have no idea when, if ever, the employee will be
coming back to work. The employer is faced with the uncertainty of
not knowing whether to let the position go vacant or go forward with
expensive placement and training procedures for a specialized job that
may require hiring a new, permament employee.
The American Family Protection Act recognizes that it is not
always possible for an employer to keep a position open while an
employee is on leave. It corrects the problem of forcing an employer
to choose between firing a replacement employee or creating a new,
unneccessary position in order to reinstate a returning employee. Our
bill provides employees with a statutory assurance that their prior
service with an employer will be recognized when they seek
re-employment after taking extended time off to care for young
children or seriously ill family members.
We reject the assumption that assistance to families must come at
the expense of harming businesses. Families want options, not an
inflexible mandate. The American Family Protection Act provides
employers and employees the flexibility to work together to meet their
mutual concerns. A summary of our bill is reproduced on the back. If
you have any questions, or would like to be added as a cosponsor,
contact Ed Lorenzen at 5/6605. Sincerely,
Charlie Stepholm
Fan lyoth Fred S. Upton, M. C.
Charles W. Stenholm, M.C.
Summary of Provisions of H.R. 1270
Conditions of leave
to care for a seriously ill member of their immediate family.
*Employees may take leave upon the birth or adoption of a child, or
care. danger of death, requires hospitalization, or requires constant in-home
*Serious illness is defined as an illness that poses an imminent
*Employees must provide employers with written notification
they impossible intend to take leave under this act thirty days in advance unless that
the 14 *Employees months preceding must have the been leave. employed for 2000 continuous hours during
Reemployment rights
as his/her previous job provided that such a position is available. The
*The employee would be reinstated in the same or similar postition
new position in order to reinstate a returning employee.
employer would not be required to fire a replacement worker or create a
*If the same or a similar postion is not available when the
rehire status. The employee would be entitled to the first position
employee wishes to return, that employee would be granted preferred
that becomes available that has similar seniority, pay and status as
the functions of that job.
his/her previous job, provided that the employee is qualified to perform
*The employee has the burden of proof in showing he/she is
qualified for the position and has kept up with all changes in
technology, employment. etc. that have occurred in the field during the break in
of similar pay and status that the employee is qualified to perform that
*The employer would be required to notify the employee of all jobs
become available for up to one year after the employee notifies the
employer that they wish to return. The employee would have fifteen days
in which to respond to a job offer made by the employer under this act.
*Upon reinstatement, the employee would be reinstated with any
seniority and benefits accrued before the break in employment.
*Employees can indicate a willingness to return up to six years
after leaving for the care and nurturement of a newly born child or two
years after leaving to care for a seriously ill family member.
Waiver
*Absent any coercion, employers and employees may agree to change
the requirements, terms and conditions of reemployment or to substitute
an employment benefit such as dental insurance.
The agreement must be in writing. The employer must provide the
employees with a written summary of their rights under this act.
Exemptions
*The employer is exempt from the requirements of this bill if
circumstances have so changed between the time of the employee's
notification of leave and the application for reemployment as to make
reemployment unreasonable.
*The employer is not required to offer reinstatement to an employee
who has had disciplinary action instituted against him/her.
Other Provisions
Coverage is extended to Congressional employees
*Damages are limited to back pay and benefits
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date
Barental
TO: KATIE WINILLE JOHN
FROM:
JACK HOWARD
Special Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
CHARLIC STENHOCM WANTED THE
GOVERNOR To HAVE THIS
THE CHIEF of STAFF Jack
seen has
CHARLES W. STENHOLM
Please Respond to:
17TH DISTRICT
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
TEXAS
1226 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
Congress of the United States
WASHINGTON D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6605
COMMITTEES:
AGRICULTURE
House of Representatives
DISTRICT OFFICES:
P.O. Box 1237
VETERANS AFFAIRS
STAMFORD, TX 79553
Washington, DC 20515
(915) 773-3623
CHAIRMAN OF
P.O. BOX 1101
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK,
ABILENE, TX 79604
DAIRY, AND POULTRY
February 20, 1991
(915) 673-7221
The Honorable
House Office Building
House of Representatives
Washington. D. C., 20515
Dear
Few issues have been around as long or have inspired as strong
emotions as the issue of family and medical leave. Concerted efforts
on both sides of this issue have resulted in a political stalemate.
As you know, legislation identical to the bill vetoed last year has
been reintroduced as H.R. 2 and is apparently on a legislative
fast-track.
I remain strongly opposed to legislation that mandates which
employment benefits an employer must provide. I believe that we need
to encourage employers and employees to work together to find
arrangements that meet the legitimate family needs of employees while
maintaining the flexibility necessary for an employer to keep a
business operating efficiently. For this reason, I have worked
closely with Senator Orrin Hatch to craft a bill which we believe
balances the needs of American families with those of all employers.
I plan to introduce the product of our efforts, the "American Family
Protection Act of 1991", when Congress returns from the
Lincoln/Washington District Work Period. Senator Hatch has already
introduced similar legislation, S. 418, in the Senate.
This bill is intended to shift the focus of the debate away from the
terms set by the proponents of H.R. 2. Instead of compromises that
merely "split the difference" with the mandate in H.R. 2, the
Stenholm-Hatch Bill is an alternative that approaches the issue from
an entirely different perspective. This bill dismisses the premise
that assistance to families can be provided only by placing further
restraints on businesses.
I have enclosed a summary of this legislation for your review. If you
have any questions, or would like to cosponsor this bill, feel free to
contact me or Ed Lorenzen (5/6605) of my staff.
Sincerely yours,
Charlie
Charles W. Stenholm
CWS:esl
Member of Congress
Congressional Record
Vol. 137
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1991
No. 38
House of Representatives
found that "missing big events in their chil-
THE AMERICAN FAMILY
dren's lives" is the thing parents dislike most
PROTECTION ACT
about their current day care situation. William
Galston and Elaine Ciulla Kamark of the Pro-
HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM
gressive Policy Institute wrote in a 1990 report
that "Government will never have the re-
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
sources or the ability to replace what children
lose when they lose supportive families. This
Tuesday, March 5, 1991
suggests that the focus of public policy should
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
be to look for ways to create stable families,
to come to the House floor today to introduce
not substitute families."
the American Family Protection Act. This bill
It is my hope that the American Family Pro-
presents an alternative approach to the issue:
tection Act can achieve this goal. It allows
of family leave, an issue that has received
employees to take a break in employment to
considerable attention in the past year. This
care for a child up to age 6, and to leave their
bill will provide the basis for a possible substi-
jobs for up to 2 years to care for a seriously ill
family member. They would be entitled to their
tute amendment when the Family and Medical
old job, or a job of similar pay, seniority, and
Leave Act of 1991 is considered by the House
status upon their return if such job is avail-
of Representatives in the near future.
able, provided they are qualified to perform
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I have
the functions of the job. The employer would
strong reservations about federally mandated
have to notify the employee of subsequently
parental and family and medical leave. The
available positions, and reinstate them in the
Government should not be in the business of
first position of similar pay, status, and bene-
setting the benefit priorities for American
fits that the employee is qualified to fill. How-
workers. H.R. 2 would begin to get the Gov-
ever, an employer would not be required to
emment into the twilight zone of fringe bene-
fire a replacement worker in order to reinstate
fits-something very different from basic labor
the employee returning to the work force.
standards of wages, hours, and safety-and
My bill allows. the employee and employer
that is someplace it doesn't belong. A poll re-
leased last week demonstrated clearly that
even further flexibility. If the employee and
employer agree that a benefit, such as em-
the overwhelming majority of the American
public agrees that the Federal Government
ployer assistance in locating and paying for
child care, would be in the best interest of
should not mandate which benefits employers
should provide.
both the employer. and the employee, they
I also have serious concerns about the
may substitute such an agreement for the re-
operational difficulties and costs of implement-
quirements of this bill. This would encourage
ing a leave policy. The costs of recruiting and
employers to work with employees to best
meet the needs of the work force.
training temporary replacements is substantial,
I know that some of my colleagues who
especially for highly skilled positions. Even
agree with me on the problems of mandate
worse, many employers will find it impossible
may be concerned that support for this bill
to recruit temporary replacements for an inde-
terminate period of time. This is of particular
would be inconsistent with their opposition to
mandates. This bill does not mandate an em-
concern to employers in rural areas, such as
my west Texas district.
ployment benefit. It completely eliminates the
biggest flaw in H.R. 2: Mandated reinstate-
Despite my opposition to H.R. 2, I recognize
ment after leave, regardless of the nature of
that American families are under tremendous
the job, regardless of how serious the employ-
strain and need assistance. In an increasing
number of families, both parents are forced to
er's need to plan his or her operations with
certainty.
work by economic necessity. Despite a seem-
ingly inexhaustible supply of parental love,
I am enthusiastic about this legislation be-
cause it will allow this body to support the
parents are unable to be present at many of
the times of need cf their children and miss
principle that the workplace should be flexible;
many important events in their children's lives.
that the needs and the agreements of individ-
We took a major step last fall in assisting fam-
ual entrepreneurs and workers is more impor-
ilies by passing historic child care legislation,
tant than a Federal fiat. It is my hope that this
which included as its centerpiece tax credits
legislation, by encouraging employers and em-
that relieved the tax burden on low-income
ployees to continue the trend of cooperation
families with children. I worked closely with my
in addressing family needs, will further
strengthen American families.
colleague, NANCY JOHNSON, on the issue of
child care, and am pleased to be working with
I am submitting for the RECORD summaries
her again on the American Family Protection
of this legislation I am introducing today. I
Act.
urge all of my colleagues to take a careful.
The proponents of H.R. 2 have the admira-
look at this bill and to consider our arguments
ble intentions of providing further relief from
when the issue comes to the House floor. The
the burdens families face. However, the legis-
future of American families may depend on
lation they promote falls well short of the
what we do in this body.
standards they set for themselves. Although
there is considerable debate about the nature
of the bonding process between parents and
children, I know of no scholar who would
claim that parents can truly bond with their
children in 12 weeks. A 1988 USA Today poll
AN INTERNATIONAL DAILY NEWSPAPER
FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 1991
50¢ ($1.00 CANADIAN)
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
COPYRIGHT C 1991 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING SOCIETY All rights reserved
VOL. 83, NO. 101
GOBET/AFP
To Be Effective, Family Leave Should Be Flexible
bonding must be a central objective of any legislation in
Because The American Family Protection Act does
this area.
By Orrin G. Hatch
not establish new mandated benefits but preserves
According to the experts, the first four to six months
those already in effect, there is no need to exempt small
are critical in this bonding process. More precisely, they
employers, who include about 95 percent of all US em-
note, bonding is a continuous process lasting years. By
ployers. Instead of an inflexible federal mandate, par-
F
OR millions of American families, the conflicts be-
any standard, the 12 weeks allowed in the Family and
ents would be free to choose the length of time right for
tween work and family are unavoidable. Congress
Medical Leave Act are not enough.
their circumstances.
is currently struggling with the question of how
Providing job protection for individuals who must
How does the American Family Protection Act work?
best to help these families cope with them.
For example, Mary Smith is free to spend more time
One proposal before Congress, the Family and Med-
with her newborn - as much as six years. When she de-
ical Leave Act, would establish an unprecedented fed-
cides to return to work, she would simply apply for
eral mandate that prescribes new, unearned employee
VIEWS FROM
reemployment. If the same or similar job is available.
benefits along with complex federal rules and regula-
the employer must rehire her. If the same or similar job
tions.
Another, more realistic approach focuses on protec-
CAPITOL
is not then available, the employer is obligated to notify
Mary of such an opening for up to a year later.
tion of employee seniority, earned benefits, and accrued
pay status and offers greater flexibility to both em-
HILL
This concept of preferred rehire has been success-
fully used to assist veterans of the armed forces seeking
ployees and employers.
reentry into the civilian labor force.
The latter approach is embodied in the American
It doesn't make sense to mandate a new employee
Family Protection Act. It provides up to six years of
benefit that will impose unprecedented obligations and
leave for parents to bond with children and up to two
care for seriously ill children, elderly parents, or close
new costs on employers, particularly when the trade-
years to care for seriously ill elderly relatives, children,
family members is another objective of national legisla-
offs necessary to make the costs bearable render the
or close family members. The differences between this
tion. But, by definition, a serious illness is one that may
benefit inadequate to fulfill its purpose. This mandate
legislation and other approaches warrant analysis.
not run its course within the allowed 12-week period.
makes even less sense when it exempts almost half of
As designed, federally prescribed mandates are in-
Mandated benefits are not free. Accepting this re-
the labor force.
flexible, ineffective, and discriminatory in impact. Here
ality, proponents of that approach exempt from cov-
But, even more important, families deserve the right
are the facts:
erage small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
to choose. Congress can help families the most by giving
"Bonding" is the interaction between parent and
But this would make almost 50 percent of the nation's
them options, and that is precisely what the American
child that begins immediately after birth and foreshad-
working parents those whose employers are least
Family Protection Act does.
ows the infant's later socio-emotional development.
likely to have their own leave programs - ineligible for
Without this post-birth intimacy, many children are at
bonding.or medical-emergency benefits. A mandated
Orrin G. Hatch of Utah is the ranking Republican member
high risk of developmental difficulty. Facilitating this
benefit, therefore, has a discriminatory impact.
of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
THE-SPIRIT OF ENTERPRISE
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
1615 H St., NW
#
*
SUS CHAMBER OF COMMUNITY
Washington, DC 20062
Media Relations Department (202) 463-5682
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Thomas Love
COMMENT ON THE AMERICAN FAMILY PROTECTION ACT
BY RICHARD L. LESHER, PRESIDENT
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WASHINGTON, May 14 -- Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, and Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, are to be praised for introducing the American Family
Protection Act as a workable alternative to mandated leave.
The Stenholm-Hatch proposal answers two major problems with mandated
leave. First, it allows an employee to take up to six years to handle family
responsibilities rather than 12 weeks -- clearly too short a time for many
emergencies. Second, it gives a preferred rehire right, similar to veterans'
rehire, rather than making leave a mandated benefit with automatic
reinstatement.
This provides needed flexibility for both the employer and employee. It
allows an employer to plan for and maintain the necessary staff to function
efficiently rather than having to hold a job open or fill it with a temporary
employee. It allows the employee to take the time needed to bond with a child
or handle a serious medical problem while insuring the opportunity to return
to work if an appropriate vacancy occurs.
###
91-87
R
SER-Jobs for Progress National, Inc.
1355 River Bend Drive. Suite 240. Dallas, Texas 75247. (214) 631-3999, FAX (214) 630-0132
Cultivating America's Greatest Resource: People
Pedro L. Viera
President
May 6,
Board of Directors
Juan Mircles
Chairman/Texas
Jose Velez
Vice Chairman/Nevada
Dr. John Soto
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Treasurer/Colorado
U.S. Senator
Roberto Canino
135 Russell Senate Office Building
Secretary/Florida
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dr. Ernest Drew
Amigos de SER Rep.
Dear Senator Hatch:
President & CEO
Hoechst Celanese
On behalf of SER, I wish to commend you for introducing a
Angle Garcia
key piece of legislation in the Senate in the form of bill
Texas
S. 418, the American Family Protection Act of 1991.
Jane Garcia
Michigan
I have studied the bill and firmly believe that it will go
Victor Garza
far in "
strengthen (ing) the family structure of the
California
United States by providing protection for eligible
Lillian Gutlerrez
individuals who desire or need to leave employment for a
Colorado
legitimate family purpose
"
George Lopez
Local Program Rep.
Given the success of SER's Family Learning Center program in
California
providing literacy and job skills training, we can attest to
Manuel Marquez
the advantages of focusing on the traditional family unit as
California
the source on which to build and support a positive learning
Marian Martinez
environment. Our experience also indicates that the family
Nebraska
unit as the focal point of learning, produces social and
Hector Mota
economic benefits which extend to the immediate community.
Local Program Rep.
Nebraska
Ensuring early childhood bonding between child and parent
Jess Quintero
and availing an employee a balance between work and family
Washington. D.C.
are crucial to preserving these inherent strengths of the
Joe Ramirez
family unit. This is especially true now with more women
Amigos de SER Rep.
Vice President, Law
having to enter the work force to sustain their families.
AT&T
Today, women must work to help husbands earn an adequate
living and, as single-female heads-of-household, women must
work because they are the only income-earners in the family.
These changes alone have placed an enormous strain on the
support environment on which members of the family used to
rely. When coupled with the prospects of a long-term
illness of a family member, the burden places families at
severe economic risk. Thus, it is imperative to establish a
policy which helps preserve the support environment and
safeguards the family structure in the face of these
economic changes and personal tragedies.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Page Two
The bill you have introduced in the Senate, the American
Family Protection Act of 1991, encompasses the provisions to
protect the family in these instances. It is also fair to
the employer. It is in the employer's best interest to
ensure an employee's family remains socially and
economically stable and intact. The "time-off" an employee
is granted to bear and rear a child or to care for a family
member will instill loyalty, increase productivity, and
assure the employer of a highly motivated employee when
he/she returns.
Moreover, the balance between work and family will build a
positive environment in the workplace and a healthy,
productive relationship between employer and employee. An
employer will also benefit to the extent that retaining
loyal employees in the long-run will become a necessity when
one considers the imminent changes associated with a
shrinking labor force, the aging of the population, and the
increasing number of women entering the workforce.
The American Family Protection Act of 1991 also provides
flexibility in the conditions of reemployment, it provides
an adequate time span to permit early childhood bonding
following birth or to provide personal or medical care for a
family member with a serious health condition, and it
provides ample recourse to employee and employer where
either fails to comply with the provisions of the Act.
More importantly, the American Family Protection Act of 1991
helps preserve the family structure, which benefits the
community and the nation - and this is in all our best
interests. SER is proud to enlist its support of this
important legislation and urge your colleagues to join you
to protect the American family.
Sincerely,
Pedro L. Viera
President
PLV/ac
SEN1-LTR.DOC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Carrie Howard
Tuesday, May 14, 1991
(202) 393-2100
GROUP APPLAUDS 'FAMILY TIME'
BILL WHICH PUTS KIDS FIRST
Citing polls showing growing public concern about
the effects of parental absence on children, Family
Research Council president Gary L. Bauer today urged
Congress to adopt legislation which would make it easier
FAMILY
for parents to spend more time with their children.
RESEARCH
"America is suffering from a serious family time
COUNCIL
famine," Bauer said. "Accordingly, any legislation
designed to ease work-family tensions must have
promoting parent-child interaction as its top priority."
Gary L. Bauer
President
Bauer applauded a parental leave alternative
introduced by Congressman Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) and
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) which would allow family-
oriented workers to interrupt employment for up to six
years after the birth or adoption of a child. Comparing
this six-year standard to the 12-week maximum found in
the Family and Medical Leave Act, Bauer said research
included in a paper officially released today by the
Family Research Council demonstrates conclusively that
"children need more than 12 weeks and mothers want
700
Thirteenth St., NW
more than 12 weeks."
Suite 500
Washington, DC
20005
(202) 393-2100
FAX (202) 393-2134
The FRC report cites Census Bureau data showing that most
mothers currently do not return to paid employment during the 12
weeks immediately following childbirth and that decisions to return
to employment are often influenced by the length of maternity leave
offered.
Thus, to the extent that parental leave legislation would
establish normative expectations that employed women should
return to paid work within weeks of giving birth, Bauer said the
Family and Medical Leave Act actually could reduce the amount of
time mothers spend with their children. Conversely, the Stenholm-
Hatch Bill is apt to increase the amount of time mothers devote to
caring for young children by giving employed mothers an
opportunity to stay home with children without significantly risking
future employability.
In addition, Bauer expressed concern that, despite its gender-
neutral veneer, job-guaranteed parental leave legislation also could
reduce paternal involvement in children's lives by crowding out
other employment arrangements like home-based employment
and flextime -- which family-oriented men are more apt to take than
paternity leave. Citing a recent study which shows that employers
typically spread a maternity leave-taker's workload among existing
employees rather than hiring a temporary replacement, Bauer said
passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act could cause some
employed fathers to work longer hours with less schedule and
workplace flexibility in order to take up the slack left behind by
leave-taking employees. Bauer said the Stenholm-Hatch Bill would
have no similar adverse effect on paternal time with children, and he
said the Stenholm-Hatch Bill's fairness and flexibility no doubt help
to explain why business groups (such as the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce) and minority groups (such as the League of United Latin
American Citizens) have embraced this proposal.
In calling for passage of the Stenholm-Hatch proposal, Bauer
also urged lawmakers to adopt pro-child tax relief proposals which
would make it more affordable for parents to spend time with
children. Bauer praised Congressman Frank Wolf's bill to increase
the tax exemption for children (which now has more than 150
cosponsors) and a bill introduced by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
which would expand the Young Child Tax Credit (YCTC).
The YCTC, which Congress adopted last year, is designed to
address tax discrimination against mothers who take time off from
employment to care for their own children.
Bauer said he was surprised that Senator Albert Gore (D-TN)
and Congressman Thomas Downey (D-NY) had introduced a tax bill
last week which would exacerbate the tax code's bias against
parental childrearing by eliminating-the-Young Child Tax Credit.
"The Gore-Downey proposal to increase the tax bias against
mothers who take time off from their jobs to care for young children
seems inconsistent with the purported goals of the parental leave bill
they both support," Bauer said. "Apparently, these lawmakers want
to 'turn back the clock' and return to the days when the tax code was
even more biased against spending time with children."
30 : :
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
5-20-91
TO:
Governor Sununu
C. Boyden Gray
FROM:
FRED McCLURE Sm
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
X
FYI
THE CHIEF of STAFF
Comment
has seen
Action
Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), Chairman of the
Republican Policy Committee forwarded the
attached documents to all Republican Senate
Offices.
These documents were handed out at a press
conference that Senators Mitchell and Boren
held on campaign finance reform.
Thought you might find them of interest.
The attached "Summary of
Democratic leadership Substitute
Election Ethics Act of 1991"
(5/15/91) was distributed at
a press conference held by
Senators mitchell and Boren
at noon today (5-15).
The summary was prepared
by the sponsors of the bill,
not RPC.
5/15/91
SUMMARY OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SUBSTITUTE
ELECTION ETHICS ACT OF 1991
Voluntary Flexible Spending Limits
A system of voluntary flexible spending limits would be
established, based on state voting age population, ranging from
$950,000 to $5,500,000 for Senate general election campaigns.
Primary spending limits amounting to 67% of the general
election limit up to $2,750,000 would be established. The
general election limit could be increased by up to 25 percent
of the spending limit to the extent of $100 contributions
received from individuals residing in the candidate's State.
Benefits for Eligible Candidates
Candidates who raise a threshold amounting to 10% of the
general election spending limit in individual contributions of
$250 or less (50% in-State) and who agree to voluntarily abide
by spending limits would be eligible to receive certain
benefits:
A. Broadcast Vouchers: Vouchers amounting to 20% of the
general election limit would be provided to purchase television
advertising in segments of between one and five minutes.
B. Low Cost Mail: First class mail would be available at
one quarter the regular rate for candidate mailings. Third
class rates would be 2 cents lower than first class.
Candidates would be permitted to spend up to 5 percent of the
general election limit on such mailings.
C. Broadcast Rates: Current law lowest unit charge
provisions would be modified to require broadcasters to charge
eligible candidates during the general election no more than
50% of the lowest unit charge for the same amount of time for
the same time of day and day of week. Eligible candidates
would be entitled to the lowest unit charge during the 45 day
period prior to a primary.
D. Independent Expenditures: Eligible candidates would
receive public funds to respond to independent broadcast ads
exceeding $10,000 from any source during the general election
period.
E. Contingent Public Financing: Eligible candidates would
receive additional public funding if an opposing candidate
exceeds the spending limits.
PAC Limitations
Political Action Committees would be prohibited from making
contributions or expenditures for the purpose of influencing
elections for federal office.
Soft Money
Political party committees would be prohibited from using
soft money, not regulated under federal law, for any activities
in connection with a federal election. Activities in
connection with a federal election include get-out-the-vote
activities, voter registration, generic and mixed election
activities including general public advertising, and campaign
materials, maintenance of voter files and other activities
affecting a federal election during a federal election period.
Party committee spending on mixed federal-state activities in
connection with federal elections would be subject to overall
limits.
State party contribution limits would be increased to the
amount permitted to national parties. Federal office holders
and candidates would be prohibited from soliciting soft money
contributions. The contribution/expenditure exceptions in
current law that permit unlimited State party spending for
"volunteer activities" that affect a federal election and GOTV
for presidential elections would be repealed. State parties
would be permitted to spend 4 cents per voter for presidential
elections.
Bundling
Bundling in excess of the contribution limits would be
prohibited by all political committees and lobbyists, and
individuals acting on behalf of those entities or on behalf of
corporations, labor unions, or trade associations.
Broadcast Rules
A. Lowest Unit Rate: All eligible candidates would be
entitled to purchase television broadcast time during a general
election at 50% of the lowest unit charged for same amount of
time for the same time of day and day of week. During the 45
day period prior to a primary eligible candidates would be
entitled to purchase time at the lowest unit charge.
B. Candidate Accountability: All candidates would be
required to appear at the end of their television advertisement
conveying the message that the advertisement was paid for by
the candidate.
C. Disclosure: Non-eligible candidates would be required
to disclose in all advertisements that the candidate has not
agreed to spending limits.
D. Vouchers: Vouchers amounting to 20 percent of the
general election spending limit would be provided to eligible
candidates to purchase prime time television advertisements of
at least one minute but not more than five minutes.
Broadcast stations would be required to make these longer time
periods available to candidates.
Independent Expenditures
The types of activities and relationships which are
expenditures in coordination, consultation or concert with a
candidate -- and therefore not independent -- would be more
broadly defined. Under this definition, expenditures by
political committees required to register as lobbyists would
not be independent and would count against the contribution
limit.
Primary spending limits would increase by the amount of
independent expenditures intended to assist opponents of a
candidate. The general election spending limit would be
increased and public funds made available to eligible
candidates who are the target of more than $10,000 of
independent expenditures from any one source. Broadcast
stations would be required to make time available immediately
after the independent broadcast for the candidate to respond.
Personal Loans
Candidates agreeing to spending limits would be prohibited
from spending more than $250,000 of their own funds for
election to the Senate. Contributions could not be received
after an election to repay personal loans of the candidate.
501 (c) Organizations
Federal office holders and candidates would be prohibited
from raising any funds for 501 (c) (3) organizations organized to
conduct voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives.
Miscellaneous
Leadership PACs would be prohibited. Individual
contributions in excess of $10,000 would have to reported to
the FEC. Dependent children below voting age would not be
permitted to contribute to federal election campaigns.
FEC Reform
With respect to preliminary matters such as decisions to
investigate violations the recommendation of the General
Counsel would be sustained if supported by the votes of 3
Commissioners. Provisions are included to shorten time periods
of FEC action, authorize the FEC to seek court injunctions, and
increase minimum penalty amounts for violations of the law.
#####
May 15, 1991
Publication: SR-12-General Government
dpc
special
report
Major Issues: S.3
Campaign Finance Reform,
As reported April 11, 1991
(S. Rept. 102-37)
democratic policy committee
DPC Staff Contact: Greg Billings (4-3232)
dpc
Democratic Policy Committee
United States Senate
George J. Mitchell, Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20510
Thomas A. Daschle, Co-Chairman
Major Issues
I. Spending Limits
Republicans maintain that problems in the Senate election campaign pro-
cess can be addressed without spending limits.
Democrats know the facts.
Spending limits are the essential element of true campaign finance
reform because only through limits will candidates cease their
chase for more money.
Spending limits, set at reasonable levels, inherently benefit chal-
lengers because incumbents typically have vastly greater fund-
raising abilities. The spending limits in S.3 basically limit incum-
bent, not challenger, spending. As a result, spending limits will
make Senate elections far more competitive.
Spending limits prevent incumbents from amassing huge campaign
war chests, which scare off challengers.
Campaign finance reforms without spending limits result in only
marginal changes in the campaign financing system without ad-
dressing the heart of the problem: the endless pursuit of money
required to run modern Senate campaigns.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 1
II. Republican Use of Public Financing
Republicans maintain that public funds should not be used to clean up the
Federal election campaign system.
Democrats know the facts.
Republicans have used tens of millions of dollars in public funds for
their political campaigns.
Republican presidential candidates and the Republican Party have
accepted some $241 million in public funds for the primary and
general elections since the presidential system of spending limits
and public campaign resources began in 1976. All but one
Republican presidential candidate has accepted public funds.
President Reagan was the top recipient of public funds, having
received a total of $90.5 million for his presidential bids in 1976,
1980, and 1984. President Bush, who with Mrs. Bush checked
"yes" on the presidential election checkoff on his Federal tax
returns, accepted some $60.2 million in 1980 and 1988. Senate
Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) received some $8.1 million
during those elections.
The Republican party has accepted $32.2 million in publicly funded
grants to pay for all of its presidential conventions since 1976.
Republican party campaign committees have spent millions of
dollars in public funds as postal subsidies for political mailings.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.2
III. Success of the Presidential System
Most Republicans maintain that the presidential system does not work, is a
bureaucratic nightmare, and that one of every four dollars is spent on legal
and accounting expenses.
Democrats, and even one Republican, know the facts.
"There's far too much emphasis on money and far too much time
spent collecting it. It's the most corrupting thing I see on the
congressional scene. The problem is so bad we ought to start
thinking about Federal financing [of House and Senate cam-
paigns]. It was an anathema to me but in my experience with
the [Reagan] presidential campaigns, it worked, and it was a breath
of fresh air."
Former Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV), chair,
Reagan presidential campaigns, 1976, 1980 and 1984
The Watergate scandal and the ensuing public outcry were the
impetus for the adoption of landmark legislation to dramatically
change and clean up the way presidential campaigns were fi-
nanced. Twenty years ago, presidential campaigns were financed
by the wealthiest, most influential, and secretive individuals in our
society. The centerpiece of reform legislation to deal with that
problem was a system of campaign spending limits and public
campaign resources.
The reform legislation recognized that in a nation of 200 million
people, the costs of reaching voters with a campaign message had
outrun what a private fúnd-raising system could accountably raise.
Equally important, the Federal income tax presidential campaign
fund one dollar check-off ensures that challengers to a sitting
President, who cannot call on the vast array of government
programs and offices to bolster their campaigns, will have a more
equal chance to bring their candidacies to the people.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.3
Even though the Federal check-off is not widely advertised, more
than 32 million Americans have made it clear that they believe in
our system of free elections, by checking "yes."
This system cannot be deemed a failure because more people do
not participate. That would be equivalent to saying low voter
turnout is an indictment of free elections.
Despite the success of the current system, the 1988 presidential
election showed that there are problems- - namely tens of millions
of dollars in Federally illegal contributions as large as $100,000,
each laundered through State political parties. S.3 would shut down
these political party soft money abuses.
Democrats also know there are more advantages to public financing.
Public financing has minimized the role of special interest PAC
contributions in presidential campaigns.
Less than two percent of the total campaign receipts of all
presidential candidates in 1988 came from PACs, while
PAC contributions to congressional candidates have jumped
from $12.5 million in 1974 to $150 million in 1990.
Public financing makes elections more financially competitive for
challengers.
In the three general elections in which an incumbent
President was challenged (1976, 1980, and 1984), public
financing provided equal amounts for the incumbents and
the challengers, a total of $91.6 million each for incumbents
and challengers. Challengers won two of these three races.
By contrast, Senate incumbents in 1990 had a total of $145
million in campaign funds, almost three times as much as
their challengers. Thirty-one of the 32 Senate incumbents
won reelection, the highest reelection rate in the Senate
since 1960.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 4
The presidential public financing system has broadened grass
roots democracy by bringing more small contributors into the
political system, with some 32.5 million taxpayers checking "yes"
on their Federal tax returns for the presidential campaign fund.
A nationwide University of Michigan study in 1988 found that while
six percent of the public said they contributed money to a candidate
and six percent said they contributed to a political party during the
election year, 27 percent said they contributed through the dollar
tax check-off.
IV. S. 3 Benefits Challengers, Not Incumbents
Republicans maintain that spending limits inherently benefit incumbents and
that S. 3 is designed to perpetuate a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Democrats know the facts.
The current campaign finance system overwhelmingly benefits
incumbents and the spending limits in S. 3 for the most part limit
incumbent spending, not challenger spending. In the 1990 elec-
tions, Senate incumbents spent $129 million compared to $47
million by challengers, nearly a 3 to 1 margin. Senate incumbents
outspent challengers in 26 out of 28 races. Thirteen of the 28
challengers were unable to raise even 50 percent of the proposed
spending limits in S.3. Twenty-three of the 28 were unable to reach
the spending limits.
The S.3 system of public campaign resources and spending limits
would enable challengers to compete by:
imposing generous spending limits which primarily affect
incumbents; and,
providing substantial campaign resources to all candidates
in the form of postal and broadcast benefits that will increase
the ability of challengers to communicate with voters.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.5
If S. 3 had been in effect in the 1990 Senate elections, the 28
challengers would have received a net benefit (spending limits
affecting incumbents and benefits of greater relative value to
underfunded challengers) of $2.5 million each, or a total of $70.8
million for all 28 races.
S.3 would increase total net resources for Senate challengers to
$18.6 million and decrease total net resources for incumbents to
a $52.2 million.
Spending will continue to escalate still further - and the gap
between incumbent and challenger widen further - - until reason-
able limits are placed on campaign spending.
V. Republican Attempts to Suppress
Political Speech By Non-profit Organizations
Republicans support provisions which prohibit free speech.
During Senate consideration of campaign finance reform legisla-
tion last year, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered an
amendment that would effectively prohibit tax-exempt, non-profit
organizations from participating or intervening in any political
campaign. This would be accomplished by subjecting such orga-
nizations to income tax on their dues and other income. This
amendment was supported by almost every Senate Republican
and is now included in campaign finance reform legislation intro-
duced by Republicans in this Congress. It is expected that this
assault on the political speech of non-profit organizations will be
undertaken again when S. 3 is considered on the Senate floor.
Democrats know the facts.
Under current law, 501(c)(3) charitable organizations - - the con-
tribution which entitles the donor to a tax deduction - - may not
"participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in
opposition to any candidate for public office." The Republicans
would like to extend this rule to all other non-profit, 501(c) orga-
nizations- the contributions which do not tentitle the donor to a tax
DPC Special Report Campaign Finance Reform
p.6
deduction. These organizations include civic and business leagues,
labor unions, agricultural organizations, veterans organizations,
fraternal societies, and other organizations operated on a non-
profit basis for the mutual benefit of their members.
According to a long line of cases and IRS rulings interpreting this
language in the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), the
Republican amendment would prevent veterans organizations,
labor unions, business leagues, and agricultural organizations
from communicating with their membership to inform them of the
voting records of Members of Congress. Such organizations could
not endorse candidates, conduct voter registration, or provide
candidate ratings to their members under this amendment.
It is illogical policy, and most likely unconstitutional, to prohibit non-
profit 501(c) organizations from communicating basic electoral
information to their members. And, it should be understood that the
amendment is basically a prohibition on speech because the
sanction - forfeiting such organizations tax exemption - is so
drastic that non-profit organizations would not pay the price.
Republicans argue that the government is conferring a tax benefit on such
organizations - by not subjecting them to taxation on their dues income, and,
therefore, that the government is justified in imposing a condition on such
benefit.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican position ignores the fundamental distinction be-
tween 501 (c) non-profit organizations and 501 (c)(3) charities. The
former are non-profit, mutual benefit organizations which are
established to facilitate collective action for their membership.
Their income is tax exempt, not because the government has
decided to confer a valuable tax benefit, but because the income
of such organizations is not earned for a profit-making purpose.
Contributions to such organizations are not deductible because the
organization operates for the private benefit of its members.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.7
In contrast, 501(c)(3) charities receive a valuable tax benefit, in the
form of tax deductible contributions, because of the public benefits
to be derived from their operation. The government prohibits their
involvement in politics because they are in effect a substitute for
government, performing functions that otherwise are performed by
government.
Republicans maintain that the McConnell amendment would not prohibit
political speech but would simply require that such speech take place through
affiliated organizations, political committees separately established by the
501(c) organization.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican's position misstates the law. The IRS has been
clear that the current law prohibition on 501(c)(3) organizations
intervening in political campaigns absolutely precludes such orga-
nizations from maintaining affiliated political organizations to con-
duct such activities.
The effect of the McConnell amendment should be understood by
all of those who would vote for it. A veterans organization could not
inform its membership that a congressional candidate is opposed
to and votes against all veterans programs. An agricultural
organization could not inform its members that a candidate is
opposed to agricultural price supports. A labor union could not
inform its members that a candidate is opposed to issues important
to working Americans.
The McConnell amendment would be a major assault on a funda-
mental right of Americans in a Democratic society - the right to be
well informed of the voting record and position of their elected
representatives.
Republicans maintain that current law in effect subsidizes political speech
because the income that funds the speech is not subject to taxation.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican view indicates an ignorance of current tax law
under 527(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. That provision requires
that tax exempt 501 (c) organizations pay taxes on that portion of
their income devoted to political speech.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.8
VI. The Political Activities of Labor Organizations
Republicans maintain that current election law enables labor organizations
to provide unfair and substantial benefits to Democrats and that S. 3
perpetuates that system. To deal with that situation, Republican campaign
finance reform legislation is largely devoted to measures which are designed
to prevent labor organizations from engaging in political activities on behalf
of their members.
Democrats know the facts.
Labor organizations, like corporations, are already subject to
stringent limitations on their political activities and S. 3 includes
additional limitations.
Under current Federal election law, labor organizations (and.
corporations) are prohibited from making any expenditures or
contributions in connection with elections to public office. An
exception is provided in the law that permits labor organizations
(and corporations) to establish and maintain PACs. In addition,
labor organizations (and corporations) are permitted to communi-
cate with their members (and shareholders) and to conduct non-
partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns aimed
at their members (and shareholders) and their families. That is the
limit of activities to which labor unions can get involved under
Federal election law.
Current substantial soft money spending at the State party level
permits labor organizations to participate heavily in those Federal
election activities that are permitted to be allocated to non-Federal
purposes under current law. The Democratic bill, S. 3, deals with
that situation by requiring all State party spending which affects a
Federal election to be subject to Federal limitations, including
those described above for labor organizations.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.9
The Republican bills ignore the soft money problem now occurring
at the State party level and essentially codify current FEC regula-
tions. Labor organizations would be permitted to continue current
soft money practices if not for separate provisions in the Repub-
lican bills that prohibit all non-profit, tax exempt organizations from
intervening in political campaigns. As a result, the Republican bill
effectively prohibits labor organizations from participating in politi-
cal campaigns, while preserving the soft money role of corpora-
tions.
VII. Gerrymandering
Republicans maintain that additional Federal statutory standards should be
applied to State legislature redistricting activities to ensure that congres-
sional districts are drawn fairly.
Democrats know the facts.
Republican proposals to impose additional Federal standards for
redistricting are designed merely to create confusion and delay in
State legislatures, to create the impression that congressional
districts are being drawn unfairly, and to transfer State legislative
redistricting decisions to the Federal courts.
Line-drawing activities now are occurring in all states and several
States either have completed their work or are nearing its
completion. Federal legislation at this point would be highly
disruptive of the process. Federal legislation would also represent
a major attack on Federalism as laid out in the Constitution, which
leaves it to the States to determine the boundaries of congres-
sional districts.
State legislatures already are subject to the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act to give fair representation to minority groups and
to one-man-one-vote constitutional requirements as interpreted
by the Supreme Court in the Baker V. Carrline of cases going back
more than 30 years. In Karcher V. Doggett, the Supreme Court
has provided further constitutional guidance to the States by
requiring absolutely that congressional districts be of almost
exactly equal population.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 10
The Republican campaign finance reform bills include provisions
which would impose a series of additional standards on State
legislatures. Those standards include the requirements that con-
gressional districts:
be contiguous;
not dilute the voting strength of any political party;
be compact in form;
not divide any counties; and,
minimize division of cities, towns, villages or other political
subdivisions.
While additional Republican standards may appear reasonable on
their face, they are génerally inconsistent with each other and
clearly unworkable with the constitutional requirements of the
Karcher decision. A congressional district can be compact, it can
be contiguous, it can be drawn without dividing any county, or
diluting the strength of any political party. But it would be virtually
impossible to satisfy all four standards. They often are mutually
exclusive. It would be impossible to satisfy these four standards as
well as constitutional requirements of the Karcher decision.
The difficulty in satisfying the four standards is particularly acute in
large geographical areas in which one party predominates, whether
it he the Republican party or the Democratic party. In order to
achieve population parity and any kind of political parity, the
congressional district will have to be drawn to divide counties,
cross political subdivisions, and be less than compact in form.
Republicans are aware of the division problems, and it is not really
their intent to have congressional districts drawn to satisfy all four
standards. Instead, by putting forth these inconsistent standards,
Republicans can appear to favor fairly drawn congressional
districts, while making Democrats look the opposite. And in the
event that such standards actually are adopted into law, Republi-
cans are not concerned that State legislatures will find the law
impossible to implement. Republicans would prefer that the
Republican-dominated Federal judiciary decide how best to draw
congressional districts.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 11
VIII. FEC Administrative Burdens in S.3
Republicans maintain that the provision of public benefits and spending limits
in S. 3 will impose enormous administrative burdens on the Federal Elections
Commission (FEC). They maintain the FEC must hire a huge auditing staff,
will subject candidates to audit harassment, and will fail to complete audits
from one election cycle before the next elections are held.
Democrats know the facts.
The FEC projects that in order to comply with the audit require-
ments of S. 3, eight additional auditors would be needed. CBO
estimates that the cost of S. 3 for the FEC would be $1 million a
year. The system proposed under S. 3 is not at all comparable to
the presidential system. First, only 10 percent of eligible Senate
candidates would be required to be audited under the legislation.
That works out to a maximum of seven audits if all 66 Senate
candidates voluntarily agree to participate in the spending limits
system.
The scope of the audits for eligible Senate candidates under S. 3
will not be as cumbersome as the presidential system for the FEC
audit staff because Senate campaigns will not be encumbered with
the equivalent of State-by-State limits that complicate a presidential
audit. The FEC has estimated that 50 percent of the attention
demanded by a presidential audit is required because the cam-
paigns exceed one or more of the State spending limits. That is why
the FEC has requested those State-by-State limits be repealed.
The FEC never actually testified that it would have to hire additional
auditors. In past floor statements and in Rules Committee hear-
ings, Senator McConnell has stated that the FEC testified it would
have to hire 2,500 additional auditors to audit publicly financed
congressional elections. However, Senator McConnell himself
suggested that number to the FEC during a Rules Committee
hearing, and did not receive a clear reply that the number was
incorrect. On that basis, he feels free to repeat his erroneous
assertion even though CBO, working with the FEC, has estimated
S. 3 will require the hiring of eight auditors.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 12
Senator McConnell's statements, declaring that one of every four
dollars spent in a presidential campaign is devoted to hiring
accounting and legal staff to comply with the strictures of the public
financing/spending limit law, are erroneous statements. Senator
McConnell is referring to a study which includes a table that lists
legal and accounting costs as a percentage of total expenditures.
But that category also includes fund-raising costs, which during a
presidential primary can be considerable. In fact, since the law
permits up to 20 percent of presidential election expenses to be
allocated to fund raising, campaigns typically assign a large
percentage of costs to that category. Senator McConnell's figures
are wrong; legal and accounting costs do not comprise more than
six percent of presidential campaign expenditures.
IX. State and Local Governments Are Moving
Toward Clean, Publicly Funded Campaigns
In recent years, a number of State and local governments have adopted
campaign finance reform laws that provide candidates with clean public
campaign resources.
New Jersey instituted a partial public financing program in 1977. It allows
viable candidates to run for governor who might not otherwise have been able
to because of limited personal wealth. The deputy director of the New Jersey
Election Law Enforcement Commission notes that the system has eliminated
undue influence from gubernatorial elections.
In the 1989 New York City mayoral election, all the primary candidates agreed
to participate in the public financing system, except Ronald Lauder who spent
$13 million of his own money and lost to his opponent Rudoph Guliani.
Last year, Los Angeles city voters approved a measure to create a system of
campaign spending limits and public campaign resources for their mayoral
and municipal elections.
Florida Governor Lawton Chiles has championed a major overhaul of the
State's campaign finance system. This system would set aside $4 million a
year for public financing of Statewide races and $2.5 million for gubernatorial
general election candidates who agree to a $5 million spending limit.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 13
The Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives says that spending
limits and public financing have helped increase the number of individuals
participating in the political process in Minnesota. He maintains that the new
system has brought more volunteers into legislative races, helped increase
voter turnout and steadily decreased the number of unopposed candidates
running in each election. In addition, he says that the system has increased
electoral competition.
X. The Influence of Large Donors on the Political Process
Earlier this year in an article about the Keating Five, Senator Rudman was
reported to have asserted that pending campaign finance reform bills did not
deal with the issues investigated by the Ethics Committee.
Democrats know the facts.
S. 3 deals directly and comprehensively with the abuses associ-
ated with the campaign contributions of Charles Keating and other
wealthy individuals. Keating gave $100,000 in non-Federal money
to a 1988 presidential candidate, contributed $850,000 to a 501 (c)
organization formed to conduct voter registration activities, contrib-
uted $85,000 in non-Federal dollars to a state political party,
contributed $200,000 to a non-Federal political committee main-
tained by a member of Congress, and contributed thousands of
dollars in bundled contributions to several Senators.
S. 3 deals with these abuses of the campaign finance laws in
several ways. It would:
prohibit the use of non-Federal (soft) money by political
party committees for use in activities that affect Federal
campaigns. Keating gave these kinds of contributions to a
Republican presidential candidate in 1988 and to a
Democratic state party.
prohibit candidates and Federal officeholders from raising
funds for 501(c) organizations organized to conduct voter
registration and GOTV drives.
DPC Special Report- - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 14
prohibit Federal officeholders and candidates from main-
taining political committees other than their principal cam-
paign committee used for their election to Congress.
prohibit Federal officeholders and candidates from raising
non-Federal (soft) money.
severely limit the ability of individuals to bundle large contri-
butions to candidates as a means of evading the contribu-
tion limits of current law.
XI. The Failure of Republicans
to Deal with the Problems of Soft Money
All Republican campaign finance reform bills essentially preserve the current
system whereby non-Federal, soft money is used by party committees to
affect Federal elections. The Republican bill would effectively sanction the
practice of wealthy individuals giving $100,000 contributions to political
candidates.
S. 3 deals comprehensively with this issue by requiring that all party commit-
tee spending which affects a Federal election be funded with money permis-
sible under Federal election law. S. 3 also includes provisions prohibiting
Federal officeholders and candidates from raising soft money for political
campaigns and for nonpolitical purposes. To the extent large corporate,
labor, and individual contributors can give large sums of money to Federal
officeholders, for whatever purpose, S. 3 would limit such activities.
In its broadest sense, soft money refers to the use of money
unregulated by Federal law to affect Federal elections. It
includes funds spent by both political party committees and
other organizations to affect Federal elections.
The expenditure of private funds by organizations desiring to participate in the
election process can be troubling at times but does not raise issues of undue
influence that undermines public perceptions of the honesty of politicians. In
contrast, when candidates raise money from large donors to be used by party
committees for activities that affect Federal elections, important policy issues
arise about the influence of large contributors on the political process.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 15
For example, in the last presidential election 241 wealthy individuals and
corporations gave $100,000 to the Bush campaign. Most of those individuals
and companies had interest in legislation before the Federal government.
Some were rewarded with ambassadorships. This is the type of activity that
gave rise to the 1974 legislation that passed Congress after the Watergate
scandal laid bare the type of influence welded by super wealthy campaign
contributors.
Republican campaign finance reform bills focus on a nonproblem - the
expenditure of money by non-profit organizations to influence Federal elec-
tions, instead of dealing with the obvious abuses associated with this type of
soft money contribution to Federal officeholders and candidates. The
Republican legislation would remove the tax exemption of any non-profit
organization which "participates or intervenes in an election". This includes
an endorsement of a political candidate or the communication of information
to an organization's members with respect to the voting record of a candidate.
The Republicans call this "sewer money" and they vow to clean it up.
In other words, the Republicans believe that a non-profit organization should
not be permitted to educate its members about the views of a candidate. This
is wrong according to Republicans. But it is alright for wealthy individuals and
corporations to give $100,000 contributions to candidates for purposes of
influencing a Federal election.
What they have done is to create a straw man in order to deflect attention from
the fact that they are unwilling to deal with the real soft money problem arising
from large contributions made to Federal candidates and officeholders.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 16
THE WHITE HOUSE
washington
May 15, 1991
91 MAY 15 PM 5: 33
1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Leg
FROM:
MARLIN FITZWATER
Mah
SUBJECT:
CONGRESSIONAL REACTION TO GATES NOMINATION
Reaction from the Senate Intelligence Committee was mostly
positive, as was overall Senate reaction. Some opponents of Gates'
1987 nomination, including Sens. Cranston (currently on the panel)
and Specter (no longer on the panel), voiced positive reaction to
the nomination. Sen. Metzenbaum issued the only outwardly negative
comment; neutral comments came from panel members Bradley & Glenn
and Sen. Mitchell. This memorandum was compiled from media reports
filed after the announcement through 12:00 p.m. today.
+ indicates generally positive response
- indicates generally negative response
o indicates neutral response
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE
Democrats: Boren (chairman), Nunn, Hollings, Bradley, Cranston,
DeConcini, Metzenbaum, Glenn
Republicans: Murkowski (ranking member), Rudman, Warner, Danforth,
D'Amato, Gorton, Chafee
+ SEN. BOREN (supported '87 nomination)
"Barring some new revelation, I would be inclined to vote for Mr.
Gates, and I think the Senate probably would be, too."
(Susan Spencer, CBS)
Boren said Monday he expected Gates would face some stiff
questioning about his Iran-Contra role. Nonetheless, Boren
predicted Gates could win confirmation. Boren Tuesday praised
Gates as "an extremely able and nonpartisan professional" who "has
vigorously supported a policy of cooperation by the executive
branch with the congressional intelligence oversight process."
However, Boren promised, "The committee will engage in a very
manner." thorough and careful confirmation process conducted in a timely
(Tom Raum, AP)
"He [Gates] was a real architect of the (CIA Director) Webster
policy of total candor with the committee."
(Laurence McQuillan, Reuter)
- 2 -
BOREN (continued)
Boren said he believed the Senate would approve Gates this time
because of his performance since 1987 and because a committee
inquiry had found no evidence of Iran-contra wrongdoing by him.
"I never found any evidence that he was a co-conspirator, that he
took any action, gave any orders to further the wrongdoing." He
said he believed the late CIA Director Casey deliberately did not
tell Gates of the illegal activity so that Gates could credibly
testify to Congress that the CIA was not involved in it. Boren
said Gates had performed "tremendous public service" since 1987,
currently as Bush's deputy national security adviser.
(Jim Adams, Reuter)
Boren and Murkowski warned, however, that they were predicting
Gates's approval on the assumption that the hearings would not
disclose he was involved in the scandal, or some other wrongdoing
they know nothing of now.
(Jim Adams, Reuter)
+ SEN. MURKOWSKI
Murkowski agreed that "Iran-Contra will certainly come up but
(confirmation hearings) should eliminate any concerns some may
have."
(Jim Adams, Reuter)
"Some will see if they can milk any more out of this [Iran-
contra], but I don't think they can." (Waldman & Shaw, Newsday)
+ SEN. NUNN
"He's done an excellent job" as Deputy National Security Adviser.
(Waldman & Shaw, Newsday)
Nunn said the panel would certainly look at Gates' role in the
Iran-contra affair, but is unlikely to plow new ground. "To use
it [the nomination] as an excuse to open up a new area of inquiry,
I wouldn't be in favor of it."
(Devroy & Kenworthy, Washington Post)
+ SEN. CRANSTON (opposed '87 nomination)
Cranston noted that he had explored Iran-contra questions in the
context of Bush's nomination of Donald Gregg to be ambassador to
South Korea. "The evidence was very strong" against Gregg, he
said, but added: "From what we know now, Gates' role seems to have
been much more ambiguous."
(Jim Drinkard, AP)
"I am favorably disposed toward the nomination. I will, of course,
wait until his confirmation hearing is completed before making a
final decision."
(Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)
+ SENS. CRANSTON & HOLLINGS
Hollings & Cranston said they were inclined to support the
nomination.
(Major Garrett, Washington Times)
- 3 -
+ SEN. GORTON
Gorton said through a spokesman that there were "valid questions
that deserve answers" about the Iran-contra period. But he said
he supported the nomination and that Gates is "extremely qualified
and has tremendous experience in the intelligence community."
(Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)
+ SEN. RUDMAN
"Unless there's something I don't know about, I don't think
there'll be much of a problem. Barring something unexpected, I
would expect to support him."
(Seib & Mossberg, Wall Street Journal)
Rudman called for a careful review of Gates' testimony on the Iran-
contra affair before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Dec. 4,
1986. "There were serious questions about whether he was entirely
candid with the committee about what he knew," Rudman said,
although he added: "I don't think anything in the record indicates
Gates was a participant in the events leading up to Iran-contra."
(Gerstenzang & Fritz, Los Angeles Times
+ SEN. D'AMATO
"It would be premature to take a position on Mr. Gates'
confirmation until the hearing process is over. But I believe he
is fully qualified for the job and unless disqualifying information
should be revealed during the hearing, the President's choice
should be honored."
(Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)
o- SEN. BRADLEY
"I intend to pursue the most important unresolved questions about
Mr. Gates' record, his view on the future challenges and direction
of the intelligence community and its role in protecting U.S.
interests."
(Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)
Bradley said that "serious questions" [on Iran-contra] remain. "We
deserve to give his nomination a thorough look," adding that
another issue is "where he will take the agency."
(Waldman & Shaw, Newsday)
o SENS. BRADLEY & GLENN
Glenn & Bradley said they were neutral on the nomination.
(Major Garrett, Washington Times)
+ SEN. DECONCINI
"He's pretty well liked up here" on Capitol Hill. "He's friendly.
He makes a good impression.'
"People want to put it [Iran-
contra] away," said DeConcini.
(Jim Drinkard, AP)
DeConcini said he is eager to explore with Gates his knowledge of
the Iran-contra affair and his role in preparing "testimony that
was untruthful." Even so, DeConcini said that Gates is unlikely
to run into significant opposition in the Senate.
(Devroy & Kenworthy, Washington Post)
- 4 -
- SEN. METTENBAUM
"Four years ago, Mr. Gates suddenly withdrew from consideration as
CIA director amid serious questions about his possible role in the
and disappointed that President Bush has made such a controversial surprised
Iran-contra scandal. Those questions remain
I
am
choice."
(Devroy & Kenworthy, Washington Post)
+ ANONYMOUS INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AIDE
An Intelligence Committee aide said the staff has been reviewing
Gates' past testimony and comparing it with what has been learned
since 1987 through a congressional investigation and through the
prosecutions of figures like Oliver North and John Poindexter.
That review has turned up only a few, relatively minor,
discrepancies, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"Our impression is that there may not be a whole lot more than what
was on the table the last time."
(Jim Drinkard, AP)
RANK-AND-FILE SENATORS
+ SEN. SPECTER (Intelligence Committee member in 1987; Gates' main
GOP opponent in '87)
"I believe Iran-Contra has been investigated enough
We are not
likely to learn anything new. My real concerns turn on what is
going to happen from here on," he said, adding that Gates' past
performance is relevant only insofar as it might predict future
behavior.
(Jim Drinkard, AP)
Specter has been favorably impressed by Gates' professional
performance since 1987. "There's a great deal to be said about
having someone direct the CIA who knows the CIA, adding that Iran-
contra had been investigated enough. (Laurence McQuillan, Reuter)
"When I look at Mr. Gates' nomination I am concerned about him as
an individual, but I'm even more concerned about what is going to
happen as to congressional oversight." Specter said Gates has
impressed him in his current job but questioned whether Gates would
be forthcoming with Congress. (Major Garrett, Washington Times)
Specter said that Gates' role in preparing Casey's testimony
remained a "relevant factor" in judging how he would perform as
DCI. "I believe the critical question is what kind of director
Bob Gates will be." However, Specter and others on the Hill said
the nomination should not serve as a springboard to reopening
either the Iran-contra investigation or the Gary Sick 1980
allegations.
(Devroy & Kenworthy, Washington Post)
+ SEN. COHEN (ranking member of Intelligence Committee in '87)
Cohen said he believed Gates would be confirmed although "there
will be a hard look at some of the issues" from the Iran-contra
period.
(Andrew Rosenthal, New York Times)
- 5 -
o SEN. MITCHELL
Mitchell said he expects Gates' role in the Iran-Contra scandal to
be an issue in his confirmation hearings. But Mitchell said he
will not decide on whether to support or oppose Gates' nomination
"until the hearing process is completed."
(Tom Raum, AP)
o SEN. BIDEN
Biden predicted the nomination would revive questions of whether
Bush helped arrange a deal whereby freedom for U.S. hostages in
Iran would be delayed until Ronald Reagan became President.
(Maureen Santini, New York Daily News)
"I think that the President is not unmindful of the fact that in
nominating Mr. Gates, who may or may not be confirmed, that the
Iran-contra issue will be raised again."
(Susan Spencer, CBS)
+ SEN. DOLE
Dole called Gates "a seasoned pro who has earned the respect of
members on both sides of the aisle with his expertise, dedication
and commitment to America's national security."
(Tom Raum, AP)
"I have watched him operate under pressure, counseling presidents,
Cabinet members and congressmen. He has the right stuff to meet
this important new challenge." (Major Garrett, Washington Times)
+ SEN. HATCH
"He's very honest, and very nonpartisan in his approach. If there
were covert actions on his watch, I think they would be very well
put together, and carefully monitored."
(Lardner & Pincus, Washington Post)
HOUSE MEMBERS
- REP. HAMILTON
Hamilton, who was chairman of the House Iran-Contra committee in
1987, frai the questions that linger over Gates. "If Casey knew,
is it possible Bob Gates did not know" about the diversion of funds
to the contras and North's resupply network?" Hamilton asked in an
interview Tuesday. "It certainly raises doubts." Casey and Gates
"worked very closely together."
(Terence Hunt, AP)
+ REP. SHUSTER
Gates is not only bright and experienced, but "calm and level-
headed," said Shuster, ranking minority member of the House
Intelligence Committee. "He has a coolness that's necessary in an
intelligence officer. If one responds emotionally to a very tense
situation, you can end up making bad decisions."
(Meddis & Lee, USA Today)
###
DON NICKLES,
TRENT LOTT
CHAIRMAN
RICHARD G. LUGAR
JOHN H. CHAFEE
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI
THAD COCHRAN
BOB PACKWOOD
JOHN C. DANFORTH
WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR.
ROBERT DOLE
United States Senate
ALAN K. SIMPSON
PETE V. DOMENICI
TED STEVENS
JAKE GARN
STROM THURMOND
PHIL GRAMM
MALCOLM WALLOP
ORRIN G. HATCH
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
JOHN WARNER
MARK O. HATFIELD
JESSE HELMS
RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
RICK LAWSON,
ROBERT W. KASTEN, JR.
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-7064
STAFF DIRECTOR
202-224-2946
May 15, 1991
Leg 1991
MEMORANDUM TO:
All Republican Senate Offices
FROM:
Republican Policy Committee
SUBJECT:
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED
BY DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP TODAY
At noon today, Senators Mitchell and Boren held a press conference on
campaign finance reform and the enclosed documents were distributed. We
thought you might find them of interest.
The attached "Summary of
Democratic Leadership Substitute
Election Ethics Act of 1991"
(5/15/91) was distributed at
a press conference held by
Senators mitchell and Boren
at noon today (5-15).
The summary was prepared
by the sponsors of the bill,
not RPC.
5/15/91
SUMMARY OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SUBSTITUTE
ELECTION ETHICS ACT OF 1991
Voluntary Flexible Spending Limits
A system of voluntary flexible spending limits would be
established, based on state voting age population, ranging from
$950,000 to $5,500,000 for Senate general election campaigns.
Primary spending limits amounting to 67% of the general
election limit up to $2,750,000 would be established. The
general election limit could be increased by up to 25 percent
of the spending limit to the extent of $100 contributions
received from individuals residing in the candidate's State.
Benefits for Eligible Candidates
Candidates who raise a threshold amounting to 10% of the
general election spending limit in individual contributions of
$250 or less (50% in-State) and who agree to voluntarily abide
by spending limits would be eligible to receive certain
benefits:
A. Broadcast Vouchers: Vouchers amounting to 20% of the
general election limit would be provided to purchase television
advertising in segments of between one and five minutes.
B. Low Cost Mail: First class mail would be available at
one quarter the regular rate for candidate mailings. Third
class rates would be 2 cents lower than first class.
Candidates would be permitted to spend up to 5 percent of the
general election limit on such mailings.
C. Broadcast Rates: Current law lowest unit charge
provisions would be modified to require broadcasters to charge
eligible candidates during the general election no more than
50% of the lowest unit charge for the same amount of time for
the same time of day and day of week. Eligible candidates
would be entitled to the lowest unit charge during the 45 day
period prior to a primary.
D. Independent Expenditures: Eligible candidates would
receive public funds to respond to independent broadcast ads
exceeding $10,000 from any source during the general election
period.
E. Contingent Public Financing: Eligible candidates would
receive additional public funding if an opposing candidate
exceeds the spending limits.
PAC Limitations
Political Action Committees would be prohibited from making
contributions or expenditures for the purpose of influencing
elections for federal office.
Soft Money
Political party committees would be prohibited from using
soft money, not regulated under federal law, for any activities
in connection with a federal election. Activities in
connection with a federal election include get-out-the-vote
activities, voter registration, generic and mixed election
activities including general public advertising, and campaign
materials, maintenance of voter files and other activities
affecting a federal election during a federal election period.
Party committee spending on mixed federal-state activities in
connection with federal elections would be subject to overall
limits.
State party contribution limits would be increased to the
amount permitted to national parties. Federal office holders
and candidates would be prohibited from soliciting soft money
contributions. The contribution/expenditure exceptions in
current law that permit unlimited State party spending for
"volunteer activities" that affect a federal election and GOTV
for presidential elections would be repealed. State parties
would be permitted to spend 4 cents per voter for presidential
elections.
Bundling
Bundling in excess of the contribution limits would be
prohibited by all political committees and lobbyists, and
individuals acting on behalf of those entities or on behalf of
corporations, labor unions, or trade associations.
Broadcast Rules
A. Lowest Unit Rate: All eligible candidates would be
entitled to purchase television broadcast time during a general
election at 50% of the lowest unit charged for same amount of
time for the same time of day and day of week. During the 45
day period prior to a primary eligible candidates would be
entitled to purchase time at the lowest unit charge.
B. Candidate Accountability: All candidates would be
required to appear at the end of their television advertisement
conveying the message that the advertisement was paid for by
the candidate.
C. Disclosure: Non-eligible candidates would be required
to disclose in all advertisements that the candidate has not
agreed to spending limits.
D. Vouchers: Vouchers amounting to 20 percent of the
general election spending limit would be provided to eligible
candidates to purchase prime time television advertisements of
at least one minute but not more than five minutes.
Broadcast stations would be required to make these longer time
periods available to candidates.
Independent Expenditures
The types of activities and relationships which are
expenditures in coordination, consultation or concert with a
candidate -- and therefore not independent -- would be more
broadly defined. Under this definition, expenditures by
political committees required to register as lobbyists would
not be independent and would count against the contribution
limit.
Primary spending limits would increase by the amount of
independent expenditures intended to assist opponents of a
candidate. The general election spending limit would be
increased and public funds made available to eligible
candidates who are the target of more than $10,000 of
independent expenditures from any one source. Broadcast
stations would be required to make time available immediately
after the independent broadcast for the candidate to respond.
Personal Loans
Candidates agreeing to spending limits would be prohibited
from spending more than $250,000 of their own funds for
election to the Senate. Contributions could not be received
after an election to repay personal loans of the candidate.
501 (c) Organizations
Federal office holders and candidates would be prohibited
from raising any funds for 501 (c) (3) organizations organized to
conduct voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives.
Miscellaneous
Leadership PACs would be prohibited. Individual
contributions in excess of $10,000 would have to reported to
the FEC. Dependent children below voting age would not be
permitted to contribute to federal election campaigns.
FEC Reform
With respect to preliminary matters such as decisions to
investigate violations the recommendation of the General
Counsel would be sustained if supported by the votes of 3
Commissioners. Provisions are included to shorten time periods
of FEC action, authorize the FEC to seek court injunctions, and
increase minimum penalty amounts for violations of the law.
#####
May 15, 1991
Publication: SR-12-General Government
dpc
special
report
Major Issues: S.3
Campaign Finance Reform,
As reported April 11, 1991
(S. Rept. 102-37)
democratic policy committee
DPC Staff Contact: Greg Billings (4-3232)
dpc
Democratic Policy Committee
United States Senate
George J. Mitchell, Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20510
Thomas A. Daschle, Co-Chairman
Major Issues
I. Spending Limits
Republicans maintain that problems in the Senate election campaign pro-
cess can be addressed without spending limits.
Democrats know the facts.
Spending limits are the essential element of true campaign finance
reform because only through limits will candidates cease their
chase for more money.
Spending limits, set at reasonable levels, inherently benefit chal-
lengers because incumbents typically have vastly greater fund-
raising abilities. The spending limits in S.3 basically limit incum-
bent, not challenger, spending. As a result, spending limits will
make Senate elections far more competitive.
Spending limits prevent incumbents from amassing huge campaign
war chests, which scare off challengers.
Campaign finance reforms without spending limits result in only
marginal changes in the campaign financing system without ad-
dressing the heart of the problem: the endless pursuit of money
required to run modern Senate campaigns.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 1
II. Republican Use of Public Financing
Republicans maintain that public funds should not be used to clean up the
Federal election campaign system.
Democrats know the facts.
Republicans have used tens of millions of dollars in public funds for
their political campaigns.
Republican presidential candidates and the Republican Party have
accepted some $241 million in public funds for the primary and
general elections since the presidential system of spending limits
and public campaign resources began in 1976. All but one
Republican presidential candidate has accepted public funds.
President Reagan was the top recipient of public funds, having
received a total of $90.5 million for his presidential bids in 1976,
1980, and 1984. President Bush, who with Mrs. Bush checked
"yes" on the presidential election checkoff on his Federal tax
returns, accepted some $60.2 million in 1980 and 1988. Senate
Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) received some $8.1 million
during those elections.
The Republican party has accepted $32.2 million in publicly funded
grants to pay for all of its presidential conventions since 1976.
Republican party campaign committees have spent millions of
dollars in public funds as postal subsidies for political mailings.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.2
III. Success of the Presidential System
Most Republicans maintain that the presidential system does not work, is a
bureaucratic nightmare, and that one of every four dollars is spent on legal
and accounting expenses.
Democrats, and even one Republican, know the facts.
"There's far too much emphasis on money and far too much time
spent collecting it. It's the most corrupting thing / see on the
congressional scene. The problem is SO bad we ought to start
thinking about Federal financing [of House and Senate cam-
paigns]. It was an anathema to me but in my experience with
the [Reagan] presidential campaigns, it worked, and it was a breath
of fresh air."
Former Senator Paul Laxalt (R-NV), chair,
Reagan presidential campaigns, 1976, 1980 and 1984
The Watergate scandal and the ensuing public outcry were the
impetus for the adoption of landmark legislation to dramatically
change and clean up the way presidential campaigns were fi-
nanced. Twenty years ago, presidential campaigns were financed
by the wealthiest, most influential, and secretive individuals in our
society. The centerpiece of reform legislation to deal with that
problem was a system of campaign spending limits and public
campaign resources.
The reform legislation recognized that in a nation of 200 million
people, the costs of reaching voters with a campaign message had
outrun what a private fund-raising system could accountably raise.
Equally important, the Federal income tax presidential campaign
fund one dollar check-off ensures that challengers to a sitting
President, who cannot call on the vast array of government
programs and offices to bolster their campaigns, will have a more
equal chance to bring their candidacies to the people.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.3
Even though the Federal check-off is not widely advertised, more
than 32 million Americans have made it clear that they believe in
our system of free elections, by checking "yes."
This system cannot be deemed a failure because more people do
not participate. That would be equivalent to saying low voter
turnout is an indictment of free elections.
Despite the success of the current system, the 1988 presidential
election showed that there are problems- - namely tens of millions
of dollars in Federally illegal contributions as large as $100,000,
each laundered through State political parties. S.3 would shut down
these political party soft money abuses.
Democrats also know there are more advantages to public financing.
Public financing has minimized the role of special interest PAC
contributions in presidential campaigns.
Less than two percent of the total campaign receipts of all
presidential candidates in 1988 came from PACs, while
PAC contributions to congressional candidates have jumped
from $12.5 million in 1974 to $150 million in 1990.
Public financing makes elections more financially competitive for
challengers.
In the three general elections in which an incumbent
President was challenged (1976, 1980, and 1984), public
financing provided equal amounts for the incumbents and
the challengers, a total of $91.6 million each for incumbents
and challengers. Challengers won two of these three races.
By contrast, Senate incumbents in 1990 had a total of $145
million in campaign funds, almost three times as much as
their challengers. Thirty-one of the 32 Senate incumbents
won reelection, the highest reelection rate in the Senate
since 1960.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 4
The presidential public financing system has broadened grass
roots democracy by bringing more small contributors into the
political system, with some 32.5 million taxpayers checking "yes"
on their Federal tax returns for the presidential campaign fund.
A nationwide University of Michigan study in 1988 found that while
six percent of the public said they contributed money to a candidate
and six percent said they contributed to a political party during the
election year, 27 percent said they contributed through the dollar
tax check-off.
IV. S. 3 Benefits Challengers, Not Incumbents
Republicans maintain that spending limits inherently benefit incumbents and
that S. 3 is designed to perpetuate a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Democrats know the facts.
The current campaign finance system overwhelmingly benefits
incumbents and the spending limits in S. 3 for the most part limit
incumbent spending, not challenger spending. In the 1990 elec-
tions, Senate incumbents spent $129 million compared to $47
million by challengers, nearly a 3 to 1 margin. Senate incumbents
outspent challengers in 26 out of 28 races. Thirteen of the 28
challengers were unable to raise even 50 percent of the proposed
spending limits in S.3. Twenty-three of the 28 were unable to reach
the spending limits.
The S.3 system of public campaign resources and spending limits
would enable challengers to compete by:
imposing generous spending limits which primarily affect
incumbents; and,
providing substantial campaign resources to all candidates
in the form of postal and broadcast benefits that will increase
the ability of challengers to communicate with voters.
DPC Special Report- - Campaign Finance Reform
p.5
If S. 3 had been in effect in the 1990 Senate elections, the 28
challengers would have received a net benefit (spending limits
affecting incumbents and benefits of greater relative value to
underfunded challengers) of $2.5 million each, or a total of $70.8
million for all 28 races.
S. 3 would increase total net resources for Senate challengers to
$18.6 million and decrease total net resources for incumbents to
a $52.2 million.
Spending will continue to escalate still further - and the gap
between incumbent and challenger widen further — until reason-
able limits are placed on campaign spending.
V. Republican Attempts to Suppress
Political Speech By Non-profit Organizations
Republicans support provisions which prohibit free speech.
During Senate consideration of campaign finance reform legisla-
tion last year, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered an
amendment that would effectively prohibit tax-exempt, non-profit
organizations from participating or intervening in any political
campaign. This would be accomplished by subjecting such orga-
nizations to income tax on their dues and other income. This
amendment was supported by almost every Senate Republican
and is now included in campaign finance reform legislation intro-
duced by Republicans in this Congress. It is expected that this
assault on the political speech of non-profit organizations will be
undertaken again when S.3 is considered on the Senate floor.
Democrats know the facts.
Under current law, 501(c)(3) charitable organizations - - the con-
tribution which entitles the donor to a tax deduction - - may not
"participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in
opposition to any candidate for public office." The Republicans
would like to extend this rule to all other non-profit, 501(c) orga-
nizations- - the contributions which do notentitle the donor to a tax
DPC Special Report — Campaign Finance Reform
p.6
deduction. These organizations include civic and business leagues,
labor unions, agricultural organizations, veterans organizations,
fraternal societies, and other organizations operated on a non-
profit basis for the mutual benefit of their members.
According to a long line of cases and IRS rulings interpreting this
language in the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), the
Republican amendment would prevent veterans organizations,
labor unions, business leagues, and agricultural organizations
from communicating with their membership to inform them of the
voting records of Members of Congress. Such organizations could
not endorse candidates, conduct voter registration, or provide
candidate ratings to their members under this amendment.
It is illogical policy, and most likely unconstitutional, to prohibit non-
profit 501 (c) organizations from communicating basic electoral
information to their members. And, it should be understood that the
amendment is basically a prohibition on speech because the
sanction - forfeiting such organizations tax exemption - is so
drastic that non-profit organizations would not pay the price.
Republicans argue that the government is conferring a tax benefit on such
organizations — by not subjecting them to taxation on their dues income, and,
therefore, that the government is justified in imposing a condition on such
benefit.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican position ignores the fundamental distinction be-
tween 501 (c) non-profit organizations and 501 (c)(3) charities. The
former are non-profit, mutual benefit organizations which are
established to facilitate collective action for their membership.
Their income is tax exempt, not because the government has
decided to confer a valuable tax benefit, but because the income
of such organizations is not earned for a profit-making purpose.
Contributions to such organizations are not deductible because the
organization operates for the private benefit of its members.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.7
In contrast, 501 (c)(3) charities receive a valuable tax benefit, in the
form of tax deductible contributions, because of the public benefits
to be derived from their operation. The government prohibits their
involvement in politics because they are in effect a substitute for
government, performing functions that otherwise are performed by
government.
Republicans maintain that the McConnell amendment would not prohibit
political speech but would simply require that such speech take place through
affiliated organizations, political committees separately established by the
501 organization.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican's position misstates the law. The IRS has been
clear that the current law prohibition on 501(c)(3) organizations
intervening in political campaigns absolutely precludes such orga-
nizations from maintaining affiliated political organizations to con-
duct such activities.
The effect of the McConnell amendment should be understood by
all of those who would vote for it. A veterans organization could not
inform its membership that a congressional candidate is opposed
to and votes against all veterans programs. An agricultural
organization could not inform its members that a candidate is
opposed to agricultural price supports. A labor union could not
inform its members that a candidate is opposed to issues important
to working Americans.
The McConnell amendment would be a major assault on a funda-
mental right of Americans in a Democratic society - the right to be
well informed of the voting record and position of their elected
representatives.
Republicans maintain that current law in effect subsidizes political speech
because the income that funds the speech is not subject to taxation.
Democrats know the facts.
The Republican view indicates an ignorance of current tax law
under 527(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. That provision requires
that tax exempt 501 (c) organizations pay taxes on that portion of
their income devoted to political speech.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p.8
VI. The Political Activities of Labor Organizations
Republicans maintain that current election law enables labor organizations
to provide unfair and substantial benefits to Democrats and that S. 3
perpetuates that system. To deal with that situation, Republican campaign
finance reform legislation is largely devoted to measures which are designed
to prevent labor organizations from engaging in political activities on behalf
of their members.
Democrats know the facts.
Labor organizations, like corporations, are already subject to
stringent limitations on their political activities and S. 3 includes
additional limitations.
Under current Federal election law, labor organizations (and
corporations) are prohibited from making any expenditures or
contributions in connection with elections to public office. An
exception is provided in the law that permits labor organizations
(and corporations) to establish and maintain PACs. In addition,
labor organizations (and corporations) are permitted to communi-
cate with their members (and shareholders) and to conduct non-
partisan voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns aimed
at their members (and shareholders) and their families. That is the
limit of activities to which labor unions can get involved under
Federal election law.
Current substantial soft money spending at the State party level
permits labor organizations to participate heavily in those Federal
election activities that are permitted to be allocated to non-Federal
purposes under current law. The Democratic bill, S. 3, deals with
that situation by requiring all State party spending which affects a
Federal election to be subject to Federal limitations, including
those described above for labor organizations.
DPC Special Report- - Campaign Finance Reform
p.9
The Republican bills ignore the soft money problem now occurring
at the State party level and essentially codify current FEC regula-
tions. Labor organizations would be permitted to continue current
soft money practices if not for separate provisions in the Repub-
lican bills that prohibit all non-profit, tax exempt organizations from
intervening in political campaigns. As a result, the Republican bill
effectively prohibits labor organizations from participating in politi-
cal campaigns, while preserving the soft money role of corpora-
tions.
VII. Gerrymandering
Republicans maintain that additional Federal statutory standards should be
applied to State legislature redistricting activities to ensure that congres-
sional districts are drawn fairly.
Democrats know the facts.
Republican proposals to impose additional Federal standards for
redistricting are designed merely to create confusion and delay in
State legislatures, to create the impression that congressional
districts are being drawn unfairly, and to transfer State legislative
redistricting decisions to the Federal courts.
Line-drawing activities now are occurring in all states and several
States either have completed their work or are nearing its
completion. Federal legislation at this point would be highly
disruptive of the process. Federal legislation would also represent
a major attack on Federalism as laid out in the Constitution, which
leaves it to the States to determine the boundaries of congres-
sional districts.
State legislatures already are subject to the requirements of the
Voting Rights Act to give fair representation to minority groups and
to one-man-one-vote constitutional requirements as interpreted
by the Supreme Court in the Baker V. Carrline of cases going back
more than 30 years. In Karcher V. Doggett, the Supreme Court
has provided further constitutional guidance to the States by
requiring absolutely that congressional districts be of almost
exactly equal population.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 10
The Republican campaign finance reform bills include provisions
which would impose a series of additional standards on State
legislatures. Those standards include the requirements that con-
gressional districts:
be contiguous;
not dilute the voting strength of any political party;
be compact in form;
not divide any counties; and,
minimize division of cities, towns, villages or other political
subdivisions.
While additional Republican standards may appear reasonable on
their face, they are génerally inconsistent with each other and
clearly unworkable with the constitutional requirements of the
Karcher decision. A congressional district can be compact, it can
be contiguous, it can be drawn without dividing any county, or
diluting the strength of any political party. But it would be virtually
impossible to satisfy all four standards. They often are mutually
exclusive. It would be impossible to satisfy these four standards as
well as constitutional requirements of the Karcher decision.
The difficulty in satisfying the four standards is particularly acute in
large geographical areas in which one party predominates, whether
it he the Republican party or the Democratic party. In order to
achieve population parity and any kind of political parity, the
congressional district will have to be drawn to divide counties,
cross political subdivisions, and be less than compact in form.
Republicans are aware of the division problems, and it is not really
their intent to have congressional districts drawn to satisfy all four
standards. Instead, by putting forth these inconsistent standards,
Republicans can appear to favor fairly drawn congressional
districts, while making Democrats look the opposite. And in the
event that such standards actually are adopted into law, Republi-
cans are not concerned that State legislatures will find the law
impossible to implement. Republicans would prefer that the
Republican-dominated Federal judiciary decide how best to draw
congressional districts.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 11
VIII. FEC Administrative Burdens in S.3
Republicans maintain that the provision of public benefits and spending limits
in S.3 will impose enormous administrative burdens on the Federal Elections
Commission (FEC). They maintain the FEC must hire a huge auditing staff,
will subject candidates to audit harassment, and will fail to complete audits
from one election cycle before the next elections are held.
Democrats know the facts.
The FEC projects that in order to comply with the audit require-
ments of S. 3, eight additional auditors would be needed. CBO
estimates that the cost of S. 3 for the FEC would be $1 million a
year. The system proposed under S. 3 is not at all comparable to
the presidential system. First, only 10 percent of eligible Senate
candidates would be required to be audited under the legislation.
That works out to a maximum of seven audits if all 66 Senate
candidates voluntarily agree to participate in the spending limits
system.
The scope of the audits for eligible Senate candidates under S. 3
will not be as cumbersome as the presidential system for the FEC
audit staff because Senate campaigns will not be encumbered with
the equivalent of State-by-State limits that complicate a presidential
audit. The FEC has estimated that 50 percent of the attention
demanded by a presidential audit is required because the cam-
paigns exceed one or more of the State spending limits. That is why
the FEC has requested those State-by-State limits be repealed.
The FEC never actually testified that it would have to hire additional
auditors. In past floor statements and in Rules Committee hear-
ings, Senator McConnell has stated that the FEC testified it would
have to hire 2,500 additional auditors to audit publicly financed
congressional elections. However, Senator McConnell himself
suggested that number to the FEC during a Rules Committee
hearing, and did not receive a clear reply that the number was
incorrect. On that basis, he feels free to repeat his erroneous
assertion even though CBO, working with the FEC, has estimated
S. 3 will require the hiring of eight auditors.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 12
Senator McConnell's statements, declaring that one of every four
dollars spent in a presidential campaign is devoted to hiring
accounting and legal staff to comply with the strictures of the public
financing/spending limit law, are erroneous statements. Senator
McConnell is referring to a study which includes a table that lists
legal and accounting costs as a percentage of total expenditures.
But that category also includes fund-raising costs, which during a
presidential primary can be considerable. In fact, since the law
permits up to 20 percent of presidential election expenses to be
allocated to fund raising, campaigns typically assign a large
percentage of costs to that category. Senator McConnell's figures
are wrong; legal and accounting costs do not comprise more than
six percent of presidential campaign expenditures.
IX. State and Local Governments Are Moving
Toward Clean, Publicly Funded Campaigns
In recent years, a number of State and local governments have adopted
campaign finance reform laws that provide candidates with clean public
campaign resources.
New Jersey instituted a partial public financing program in 1977. It allows
viable candidates to run for governor who might not otherwise have been able
to because of limited personal wealth. The deputy director of the New Jersey
Election Law Enforcement Commission notes that the system has eliminated
undue influence from gubernatorial elections.
In the 1989 New York City mayoral election, all the primary candidates agreed
to participate in the public financing system, except Ronald Lauder who spent
$13 million of his own money and lost to his opponent Rudoph Guliani.
Last year, Los Angeles city voters approved a measure to create a system of
campaign spending limits and public campaign resources for their mayoral
and municipal elections.
Florida Governor Lawton Chiles has championed a major overhaul of the
State's campaign finance system. This system would set aside $4 million a
year for public financing of Statewide races and $2.5 million for gubernatorial
general election candidates who agree to a $5 million spending limit.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 13
The Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives says that spending
limits and public financing have helped increase the number of individuals
participating in the political process in Minnesota. He maintains that the new
system has brought more volunteers into legislative races, helped increase
voter turnout and steadily decreased the number of unopposed candidates
running in each election. In addition, he says that the system has increased
electoral competition.
X. The Influence of Large Donors on the Political Process
Earlier this year in an article about the Keating Five, Senator Rudman was
reported to have asserted that pending campaign finance reform bills did not
deal with the issues investigated by the Ethics Committee.
Democrats know the facts.
S.3 deals directly and comprehensively with the abuses associ-
ated with the campaign contributions of Charles Keating and other
wealthy individuals. Keating gave $100,000 in non-Federal money
to a 1988 presidential candidate, contributed $850,000 to a 501 (c)
organization formed to conduct voter registration activities, contrib-
uted $85,000 in non-Federal dollars to a state political party,
contributed $200,000 to a non-Federal political committee main-
tained by a member of Congress, and contributed thousands of
dollars in bundled contributions to several Senators.
S. 3 deals with these abuses of the campaign finance laws in
several ways. It would:
prohibit the use of non-Federal (soft) money by political
party committees for use in activities that affect Federal
campaigns. Keating gave these kinds of contributions to a
Republican presidential candidate in 1988 and to a
Democratic state party.
prohibit candidates and Federal officeholders from raising
funds for 501 (c) organizations organized to conduct voter
registration and GOTV drives.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 14
prohibit Federal officeholders and candidates from main-
taining political committees other than their principal cam-
paign committee used for their election to Congress.
prohibit Federal officeholders and candidates from raising
non-Federal (soft) money.
severely limit the ability of individuals to bundle large contri-
butions to candidates as a means of evading the contribu-
tion limits of current law.
XI. The Failure of Republicans
to Deal with the Problems of Soft Money
All Republican campaign finance reform bills essentially preserve the current
system whereby non-Federal, soft money is used by party committees to
affect Federal elections. The Republican bill would effectively sanction the
practice of wealthy individuals giving $100,000 contributions to political
candidates.
S. 3 deals comprehensively with this issue by requiring that all party commit-
tee spending which affects a Federal election be funded with money permis-
sible under Federal election law. S. 3 also includes provisions prohibiting
Federal officeholders and candidates from raising soft money for political
campaigns and for nonpolitical purposes. To the extent large corporate,
labor, and individual contributors can give large sums of money to Federal
officeholders, for whatever purpose, S. 3 would limit such activities.
In its broadest sense, soft money refers to the use of money
unregulated by Federal law to affect Federal elections. It
includes funds spent by both political party committees and
other organizations to affect Federal elections.
The expenditure of private funds by organizations desiring to participate in the
election process can be troubling at times but does not raise issues of undue
influence that undermines public perceptions of the honesty of politicians. In
contrast, when candidates raise money from large donors to be used by party
committees for activities that affect Federal elections, important policy issues
arise about the influence of large contributors on the political process.
DPC Special Report — Campaign Finance Reform
p. 15
For example, in the last presidential election 241 wealthy individuals and
corporations gave $100,000 to the Bush campaign. Most of those individuals
and companies had interest in legislation before the Federal government.
Some were rewarded with ambassadorships. This is the type of activity that
gave rise to the 1974 legislation that passed Congress after the Watergate
scandal laid bare the type of influence welded by super wealthy campaign
contributors.
Republican campaign finance reform bills focus on a nonproblem - the
expenditure of money by non-profit organizations to influence Federal elec-
tions, instead of dealing with the obvious abuses associated with this type of
soft money contribution to Federal officeholders and candidates. The
Republican legislation would remove the tax exemption of any non-profit
organization which "participates or intervenes in an election". This includes
an endorsement of a political candidate or the communication of information
to an organization's members with respect to the voting record of a candidate.
The Republicans call this "sewer money" and they vow to clean it up.
In other words, the Republicans believe that a non-profit organization should
not be permitted to educate its members about the views of a candidate. This
is wrong according to Republicans. But it is alright for wealthy individuals and
corporations to give $100,000 contributions to candidates for purposes of
influencing a Federal election.
What they have done is to create a straw man in order to deflect attention from
the fact that they are unwilling to deal with the real soft money problem arising
from large contributions made to Federal candidates and officeholders.
DPC Special Report - Campaign Finance Reform
p. 16
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS-TEMPORARY
102nd Congress
1st Session
Vote No. 53
May 7, 1991, 2:49 p.m.
Page S-5380 (Temp. Record)
VERTICAL PRICE FIXING/Cloture
SUBJECT:
Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991
S. 429. Mitchell motion to close debate on
the motion to proceed to S. 429.
ACTION: CLOTURE MOTION AGREED TO, 61-37
SYNOPSIS: S. 429, the Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991, would amend the Sherman Act of
1890, which regulates vertical agreements in the chain of consumer goods distribution, and establishes
as per se illegal any price-fixing agreement along that chain. S. 429 would liberalize evidentiary standards for proving
the existence of a vertical price-fixing agreement; it would expand the definition of what actually constitutes a price-
fixing agreement, and codify and expand the per se rule of illegality for vertical price fixing.
On April 25, Senator Mitchell moved to proceed to S 429. The motion to proceed is a debatable motion.
Subsequently, Senator Mitchell sent to the desk, for himself and others, a motion to limit debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 429.
NOTE: A three-fifths majority (60) vote is required to invoke cloture. The Senate subseqently voted to invoke
cloture on the bill itself. See vote No. 54.
Those favoring the motion to invoke cloture contended:
We urge our colleagues to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 429, the Consumer Protection Against
Price-Fixing Act of 1991. This bill is the most important piece of consumer-protection legislation the Senate will
consider this Congress. S. 429 has the simple purpose of making clear in the antitrust laws that prices are to be fixed
by the market, not by conspiratorial agreements to eliminate competition and fix high prices.
This bill is about the right of a retailer to sell his product at whatever price he decides upon, without government
intervention. In our economic system, we believe businesses ought to be free to decide how they will do business, how
they will sell a product, how they will price a product.
(See other side)
YEAS (61)
NAYS
(37)
NOT VOTING (1)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (0)
Democrats (1)
(11 or 26%)
(50 or 91%)
(32 or 74%)
(5 or 9%)
Brown
Adams
Inouye
Bond
Lott
Boren
Pryor
Cohen
Akaka
Kennedy
Burns
Lugar
Dixon
D'Amato
Baucus
Kerrey
Chafee
Mack
Heflin
Gorton
Bentsen
Kerry
Coats
McCain
Johnston
Grassley
Biden
Kohl
Cochran
McConnell
Mikulski
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Hatfield
Bingaman
Lautenberg
Craig
Nickles
Jeffords
1-Official Business
Bradley
Leahy
Danforth
Pressler
Murkowski
Breaux
Levin
Dole
2-Necessarily Absent
Roth
3-Illness
Packwood
Bryan
Lieberman
Domenici
Seymour
4-Other
Rudman
Bumpers
Metzenbaum
Durenberger
Simpson
Specter
Burdick
Mitchell
Gam
Smith
SYMBOLS:
Byrd
Moynihan
Gramm
Stevens
Conrad
Nunn
Hatch
Symms
AY-Announced Yea
Cranston
Pell
Helms
Thurmond
AN-Announced Nay
Daschle
Reid
Kassebaum
Wallop
PY-Paired Yes
DeConcini
Riegle
Kasten
Warner
PN-Paired Nay
Dodd
Robb
Exon
Rockefeller
Ford
Sanford
Fowler
Sarbanes
Glenn
Sasser
Gore
Shelby
Graham
Simon
Harkin
Wellstone
Hollings
Wirth
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee- Don Nickles, Chairman
VOTE NO. 53
MAY 7, 1991
Price fixing undermines competition and hurts everyone, especially consumers, who have lost $20 billion a year as a
result of such practices. Manufacturers are setting product prices for their outlets, and not allowing discounters to sell
at a lower price. Some discount stores have lost product lines because competitors complained, and the manufacturers
have withdrawn their product line, effectively eliminating economic competition in some cases.
S. 429 will end such unfair business practices, and, without raising taxes, adding to the deficit, or creating a new
bureaucracy, it will save American consumers $20 billion per year.
This bill is neither Democratic nor Republican, neither pro-East nor pro-West. It is a bill which will protect
consumers and free trade in every part of the country; consumers who have recently been stripped of these protections
by Supreme Court decisions making antitrust laws unenforceable.
The people who oppose this bill are big manufacturers who do not want strong antitrust laws, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the Business Roundtable; people who stand to profit by the failure of this bill. In support of this bill are
groups such as the Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and the Consumer's Union. Who should we
believe is going to act in the interest of the consumer?
The argument that price fixing is in the interest of the consumer because it allows manufacturers to assure full
service to customers is totally fallacious. Manufacturers can already require that service departments, warranties, and
even clean showrooms are necessary conditions for the sale of their products. Price fixing serves nothing but to hinder
competition and cheat consumers.
This bill will protect our retail market and American consumers in three ways. First, S. 429 would codify the
established principles which hold that resale price-fixing agreements are, per se, unlawful, based on the obvious fact
that such practices are harmful to competition. Second, it would clarify the evidentiary standards for the establishment
of the existence of an illegal vertical price-fixing agreement, which has been made nearly impossible due to recent
Supreme Court rulings. Finally, it clarifies the practices that constitute illegal price fixing.
It is particularly disturbing that the Senate is being denied the right even to consider this bill by blocking its
introduction on the floor. We again urge our colleagues to vote in favor of the cloture motion so that we may have the
chance to consider and pass this important pro-consumer legislation.
Those opposing the motion to invoke cloture contended:
First Argument:
This legislation has been before the Júdiciary Committee three times, and each time it has lost support. Given the
strength of competition in the retail industry, S. 429 is a superfluous bill that will do little more than lead to excessive
lawsuits between retailers and manufacturers. Current law clearly states that vertical price fixing is a per se violation of
the Sherman Act. This debate is not about the merits of retail price maintenance, but about the kind of evidence
needed to prosecute such violations in court. S. 429 expands the kind of activities that will be considered illegal, while
easing the burden of proof needed to get a conviction.
It is manifest that these provisions would have a crushing negative impact on American business. It would upset a
long line of established antitrust principles, and serve to inhibit communications between manufacturers and their
distributors. S. 429 would interfere with the right of a manufacturer to choose the appropriate outlet for his product.
Further, S. 429 would choke the free flow of information between manufacturers and consumers that is crucial to the
free market, by instilling a fear of lawsuits in manufacturers in every industry.
Under the new definition of price fixing in this bill, even innocent and laudable communications can constitute
illegal behavior, and the evidentiary standards it proposes will make it far too easy to obtain a conviction. In addition,
it will expose our manufacturers to excessively high damages. The final result of this bill will be to encourage
industries to leave the country, and bog down domestic productivity with lawsuits. We urge our colleagues to consider
well the great harm that this bill would do, and then vote against this cloture motion to bring it to the floor.
Second Argument
The reason this bill is before the Senate today is because a backroom deal was forged by some of our colleagues,
who circumvented the normal procedure followed by the Senate, and abrogated the Senate's rules. This legislation was
never approved by Committee. S. 429 is before us because concessions were extorted from some Senators by others,
who threatened to block some key legislation in the waning hours of the last Congress unless their demands were met.
This is no way for a deliberative, democratic, legislative body to operate. Agreements obtained in one session of
Congress should not bind a subsequent Congress, and a deal cut by a few should not bind a majority. The agreement
by which this bill came to the floor should have no standing in this Congress, and we urge our colleagues to vote
against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 429.
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS-TEMPORARY
102nd Congress
1st Session
Vote No. 54
May 8, 1991, 5:59 p.m.
Page S-5490 (Temp. Record)
VERTICAL PRICE FIXING/Cloture
SUBJECT:
Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991
S. 429. Mitchell motion to close debate on
S. 429.
ACTION: CLOTURE MOTION AGREED TO, 63-35
SYNOPSIS:
S. 429, the Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act of 1991, would amend the Sherman Act of
1890, which regulates vertical agreements in the chain of consumer goods distribution, and establishes
as per se illegal any price-fixing agreement along that chain. S. 429 would liberalize evidentiary standards for proving
the existence of a vertical price-fixing agreement; it would expand the definition of what actually constitutes a price-
fixing agreement, and codify and expand the per se rule of illegality for vertical price fixing.
On March 7, Senator Mitchell sent to the desk, for himself and others, a motion to close debate on S. 429.
Following the vote on the cloture motion, the Senate passed S. 429 by voice vote. During consideration of the bill, the
Senate also adopted a Brown substitute amendment by voice vote. As amended by the Brown substitute, the bill would
require specific proofs to establish price-fixing violations. The amendment provides that in any court action alleging a
conspiracy to set prices (other than a maximum price) the court must first find that there is sufficient evidence of an
illegal vertical price-fixing conspiracy in order to send the case to trial. For the purpose of the amendment, the court
must find the existence of "sufficient evidence" that a manufacturer received an expressly or reasonably implied
demand by a dealer to terminate another dealer in order to eliminate price competition, and that such a request was
"the major cause" of termination of, or refusal to supply, the claimant.
Such a request would be deemed to be the major cause of termination or refusal to supply the claimant if there is
evidence of aquiescence to the demand, or if there were threats or actions to curtail or eliminate price competition by
the claimant or other retailers.
Policy decisions by manufacturers to change to exclusive distributorship networks are expressly exempted from
lawsuit liability. Judges, at the summary judgment stage of a price-fixing lawsuit, would be required to consider any
actual, bona fide non-price business justification for the termination of a client, such as service, adequate product
information, and warranties. Finally, S. 429, as amended, would expressly maintain that maximum price-fixing agree-
(See other side)
YEAS
(63)
NAYS
(35)
NOT VOTING (1)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (0)
Democrats (1)
(13 or 30%)
(50 or 91%)
(30 or 70%)
(5 or 9%)
Brown
Adams
Inouye
Bond
Boren
Pryor
Chafee
Akaka
Kennedy
Burns
Dixon
Cohen
Baucus
Kerrey
Coats
Heflin
D'Amato
Bentsen
Kerry
Cochran
Johnston
Domenici
Biden
Kohl
Craig
Mikulski
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Gorton
Bingaman
Lautenberg
Danforth
Hatfield
Bradley
1-Official Business
Leahy
Dole
Jeffords
Breaux
Levin
2-Necessarily Absent
Durenberger
Kassebaum
3-Illness
Bryan
Lieberman
Garn
Murkowski
4-Other
Bumpers
Metzenbaum
Gramm
Rudman
Burdick
Mitchell
Grassley
SYMBOLS:
Specter
Byrd
Moynihan
Hatch
Warner
Conrad
Nunn
Helms
AY-Announced Yea
Cranston
Pell
Kasten
AN-Announced Nay
Daschle
Reid
Lott
PY-Paired Yea
DeConcini
Riegle
Lugar
PN-Paired Nay
Dodd
Robb
Mack
Exon
Rockefeller
McCain
Ford
Sanford
McConnell
Fowler
Sarbanes
Nickles
Glenn
Sasser
Packwood
Gore
Shelby
Pressler
Graham
Simon
Roth
Harkin
Wellstone
Seymour
Hollings
Wirth
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Symms
Thurmond
Wallop
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee - Don Nickles, Chairman
VOTE NO. 54
MAY 8, 1991
ments would not be per se illegal, but would take into consideration all relevant factors affecting competition in the
market. Vertical agreements to discontinue sales to other dealers shall be expressly illegal if discount pricing was the
major cause of such termination, whether or not a specific price was agreed upon. S. 429 would not affect application
of the rule of reason standard to vertical location clauses or vertical territorial restraints under antitrust laws, or the
existing state of law with respect to other types of non-price vertical restraints.
NOTE: A three-fifths majority (60) vote is required to invoke cloture.
Those favoring the motion to invoke cloture contended:
This is the most important bill for consumers that this Congress will consider. S. 429 will protect retailers from the
threat of being driven out of business by big manufacturers and competing retailers, who, unless this bill is passed, will
be able to fix prices and shut out the competition. It will protect the right of consumers to purchase goods at fair and
competitive prices. Unless this bill passes, consumers will face the prospect of buying goods from monopolies at
unfairly inflated prices. The Consumer Protection Against Price-Fixing Act will preserve the fundamental principles of
competition in a free market.
Some of our colleagues would like to prevent the Senate from getting the chance to vote on this bill by
filibustering. We urge our colleagues to vote in the affirmative on the motion to close debate on the bill, so we can
pass this critical legislation.
Those opposing the motion to invoke cloture contended:
In the 100 years since the Sherman Act was passed, no other legislation has posed as great a threat to the well
established antitrust principles, to American business, or to the consumer, as S. 429. It will open up a pandora's box of
litigation that will not serve to help consumers, but will serve to ruin American manufacturers and threaten American
jobs. It is an invitation for retailers to sue any manufacturer that doesn't want to sell them its products, and virtually
guarantees them success of their lawsuit. Far from codifying established standards for business practices, it will leave
them subject to legal action so blurred and broad, that it will be almost impossible for industries to do business in this
country. It is hard to argue that destroying American business is the best way to serve the American consumer. We
urge our colleagues to vote against the motion to invoke cloture on S. 429.
SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS-TEMPORARY
102nd Congress
1st Session
Vote No. 55
May 9, 1991, 2:02 p.m.
Page S-5601 (Temp. Record)
GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS SUSPENSION/Rejection
SUBJECT:
A joint resolution suspending certain provisions of the Emergency Deficit Control and Reduction Act of
1985
S.J. Res. 137. On agreeing to the resolution.
ACTION: JOINT RESOLUTION DEFEATED, 5-92
SYNOPSIS:
S.J. Res. 137, in effect:
suspends the Federal budget target for fiscal years (FY) 1991 and 1992;
nullifies any sequestration orders signed by the President;
nullifies the spending caps for FY 1991 and FY 1992 as instituted by the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990
(See vote No. 326, 101st Congress, 2d Session);
nullifies the "pay-as-you-go" rules for spending by Appropriation subcommittees for fiscal years 1991 and 1992; and
eliminates most Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Budget Act points of order for fiscal years 1991 and 1992.
NOTE: Upon notification to Congress by the Congressional Budget Office and/or the Office of Management and
Budget that either has forecast that the economy has entered a recession (defined as two subsequent quarters of
negative growth in the Gross National Product), the Senate Majority Leader must introduce a resolution identical to
S.J. Res. 137 in the Senate, which is then referred to the Budget Committee. If the Committee does not act on the
resolution within five days (in session), it is automatically discharged and placed on the Senate Calendar. Upon
placement on the Calendar, the Senate has five days (in session) to consider it.
The Congress received notification from the Congressional Budget Office on April 30, 1991.
Those favoring the resolution contended:
The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law is poor legislation. In prosperous times it is ineffectual, and it has very
deleterious consequences if enforced during a recession. The drafters of this legislation fully understood that it could
exacerbate a recession, so they included a provision to allow Congress to suspend Gramm-Rudman-Hollings during
recessionary periods. We must exercise that option now.
(See other side)
YEAS
(5)
NAYS
(92)
NOT VOTING (3)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans (2)
Democrats (1)
(0 or 0%)
(5 or 9%)
(41 or 100%)
(51 or 91%)
Harkin
Brown
Lott
Adams
Hollings
Bond-2
Pryor-3
Pell
Burns
Lugar
Akaka
Inouye
Garn⁻²
Riegle
Chafee
Mack
Baucus
Johnston
Sarbanes
Coats
McCain
Bentsen
Kennedy
Wellstone
Cochran
McConnell
Biden
Kerrey
Cohen
Murkowski
Bingaman
Kerry
EXPLANATION OF ABSENCE:
Craig
Nickles
Boren
Kohl
1-Official Business
D'Amato
Packwood
Bradley
Lautenberg
Danforth
2-Necessarily Absent
Pressler
Breaux
Leahy
3-Illness
Dole
Roth
Bryan
Levin
4-Other
Domenici
Rudman
Bumpers
Lieberman
Durenberger
Seymour
Burdick
Metzenbaum
SYMBOLS:
Gorton
Simpson
Byrd
Mikulski
Gramm
Smith
AY-Announced Yes
Conrad
Mitchell
Grassley
Specter
Cranston
Moynihan
AN-Announced Nay
Hatch
Stevens
Daschie
PY-Paired Yes
Nunn
Hatfield
Symms
DeConcini
Reid
PN-Paired Nay
Helms
Thurmond
Dixon
Robb
Jeffords
Wallop
Dodd
Rockefeller
Kassebaum
Warner
Exon
Sanford
Kasten
Ford
Sasser
Fowler
Shelby
Glenn
Simon
Gore
Wirth
Graham
Wofford
Heflin
Compiled and written by the staff of the Senate Republican Policy Committee Don Nickles, Chairman
VOTE NO. 55
MAY 9, 1991
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is quite simply a politically popular abdication of responsibility. The American public is
rightly concerned about the size of the national deficit, and wants Congress to reduce it. However, Congress' solution,
strict deficit targets with strong enforcement provisions, has put the Government into a fiscal straitjacket. All policy
goals are subsumed by the one overarching goal of deficit reduction. When the economy is expanding, the need to
provide Government services is not as great as when in a decline, so the effects of this policy are not as pronounced.
However, when in a recession, the effects are devastating for Americans.
A recession increases the Government's obligation to provide unemployment compensation and the whole panoply
of social services that are required by those people who are hurt by the recession. Gramm-Rudman-Hollings does not
allow us to help these people. Instead, it requires that because revenue declines in a recession, so too must services
decline. In other words, when people need the services more, they must get less. The fact is that the deficit and
recession are two different problems, each of which has to be solved in its own separate way and in its own separate
time. During a recession, the very real human problems of joblessness, homelessness, and declining standards of living
must be addressed before the deficit, not after.
We are currently in a recession, and have been for eleven months. Unemployment now exceeds eight million
workers. So far, the prescription offered by the Administration is to be patient; it will end soon. This is the same
advice given by President Hoover during the Great Depression. How long should Americans be patient? How many
must lose their jobs, lose their homes, and accept lower standards of living before we act?
Congress should invest in America. Job training programs, unemployment compensation, nutrition programs, and
educational aid all in the long run save this country money by making sure that we become more productive in the
future. We urge our colleagues to join us in abandoning our myopic, short-sighted commitment to deficit targets. The
true way to achieve lasting prosperity is to invest in America, not to starve it.
Those opposing the resolution contended:
After much work last year, we agreed upon a plan to reduce the Federal deficit nearly $500 billion over five years.
Approval of S.J. Res. 137 would suspend the enforcement of this hard-won deficit reduction package, which is
something we believe is wholly unwarranted at this time. Therefore, we oppose passage of the joint resolution.
First, it is unnecessary to suspend Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in order to address the current recession. A credible
deficit reduction package, responsibly enforced, will free the Federal Reserve sufficiently to allow it to lower interest
rates. Lower rates will stimulate the economy far more than any loosening of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings strictures.
Also, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is no longer the straitjacket our opponents make it out to be. It allows explicitly for
emergency spending that will not count against the spending caps, and forestalls automatic across-the-board cuts and
sequestration. We have also eliminated the counterproductive requirement to accelerate deficit reductions during
economic decline. This removes many of the potentially deleterious effects of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings statutes.
Historically, most of the anti-recessionary policies we have undertaken in the name of fighting economic downturns
have come into full effect long after the recession was over, feeding the ensuing inflation, and making the next
recession worse. This historical trend argues convincingly against suspending the important spending restraints in
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Any increased spending would merely be late, ineffectual, and inflationary.
Finally, passage of S.J. Res. 137 would remove the protections against uncontrolled spending incorporated into the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law, and unravel the hard-won gains of last year's Budget Reconciliation agreement. With
our current high deficit, we can not afford a spending spree, which would be far more likely to occur once the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings restraints have been rescinded. S.J. Res. 137 would throw out all the mandatory caps on
defense, domestic discretionary spending, and points of order against excess spending, allowing us to spend the Nation
deeper into recession. We should reaffirm our commitment to reversing the deficit by standing up for the five-year
plan approved by Congress, and rejecting S.J. Res. 137.
TO VIV 0.447,
all
Leg
THE "CONSUMER PROTECTION AGAINST
PRICE-FIXING ACT OF 1991
S.429 was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, 8 - 6 and
reported "without recommendation."
Vertical price fixing (between manufacturers and dealers) has
been per se illegal since 1911; S.429 does nothing to change that.
S.429 fashions a cloak of conspiracy where none exists; perfectly
legitimate business conduct runs the risk of being labeled as part
of a totally fictional price fixing conspiracy.
The retail discount industry is thriving under current law; no
change is necessary.
Chamber of Commerce of the
National Electrical
Ford Motor Company
United States
Okemo Mountain Ski Resort
Manufacturers Association
National Association of
Fort Howard Company
National Office Machine Dealers
Outboard Marino Corporation
Gehl Company
Manufacturers
Association
Owens-Coming Fibergias
Gates-Mille, Inc.
ABCD; The Microcomputer
Portable Power Equipment
Parker, Hannifin Corporation
General Motors Company
Industry Association
Manufacturers Association
Pass & Seymour/Legrand
Georgia Pacific Corporation
American Apparel Manufacturers
Sporting Goods Manufacturers
Pravey Electronics Corporation
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Association
Pendicton Woolen Mills
Association
American Frozen Food Institute
Company
U. S. Business & Industrial
Pepsico, Inc.
W. L Gore & Associates
American Furniture
Council
PPG Industries, Inc.
Manufacturers Association
Harley-Davideon, Inc.
3M
Raytheon Company
Head Sportswear, Inc.
American Paper Institute
Rockwell International
A. a Smith Corporation
Houblein, Inc.
American Petroleum Institute
American Standard, Inc.
Rohm & Hans Company
American Sld Federation
Hewlett-Packand Company
Apple Computer, Inc.
Russell Corporation
Household International
American Textile Manufacturers
ARCO
Santa Fe Ski Company
IBM Corporation
Institute, Inc.
Armco, Inc.
Scott Paper Company
ICI American, Inc.
Association of Home Appliance
Armstrong World Industries
Sharp Electronics Corporation
Manufacturers
ITT Corporation
Atomic Sld USA
Siemens Corporation
James River
Amoriation of International
Attitash Ski Resort
Snap-On Tools
Jockey International, Inc.
Automobile Manufacturers
Benjamin Moore & Co.
Sony Corporation of America
The Beer Institute
Joseph E Seagnum & Sons, Inc
Blount, Inc.
Springs Industries, Inc.
Citizons for a Sound Economy
Kanton (Ping Golf Club)
BP America
Stratton Mountain
The Construction Industry
Manufacturing Corporation
Sun Le
Burlington Industries, Inc.
Manufacturers Association
Keawood USA Corporation
Cagon USA, Inc.
Texaco, Inc.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Canton North America, Inc.
Texas Instruments Inc.
Lenox Inc.
Computer & Business
Textron Inc.
Casio, Inc.
Lion Rock International
Equipment Manufacturers
Caterpillar, Inc.
The Trane Company
Association
Londontown Corporation
Compaq Computer Corporation
Tropicana Products, Inc.
Distillod Spirits Council
Mack Trucks, Inc.
Coors Brewing Company
Thomas Consumer Electronics,
The Mews
Electronic Industries Association
Inc.
Coming Incorporated
Equipment Manufacturers
Millikea & Company
Crystal Brands, Inc.
The Toro Company
Institute
Mitrubishi Electric Sales
Denon America, Inc.
Tom's Foods, Inc.
Financial Executives Institute
America, Inc.
The Dow Chemical Company
TRW, Inc.
Maryland Chamber of Commorce
Mobil Corporation
Dresser Industries, Inc.
Union Cump Corporation
Mississippi Manufacturers
Motornia, Inc.
The Dupost Company
United Technologies Corporation
Association
NEC Tochnologies, Inc.
Dynaman Corporation
Whirtpool Corporation
National Association of Retail
NEC America, Inc.
Eastman Kodak Company
Xerox Corporation
Nevice USA
Droggists
Estee Lauder
National Automobile Dealers
Nike, Inc.
Zealth Electronics Corporation
Flow Boy Manufacturing
Association
North American Philips
FMC Corporation
Corporation
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 22, 1991
Dear Mitch:
In my State of the Union address in January, I expressed
my strong desire to achieve genuine campaign finance
reform this year. We must curtail special interest
influence in elections, promote electoral competition,
and increase the participation of individual citizens
and the political parties.
Since my first year as President, I have called
for abolishing political action committees that are
subsidized by corporations, unions, or trade associa-
tions. That critical step, combined with measures to
reduce unfair advantages of incumbency, would markedly
improve both the perception and the reality of our
electoral process.
I hope that Congress does not waste this opportunity
for reform on efforts to insulate incumbents further,
by limiting overall speech in campaigns to challenge
them, or on new schemes to provide taxpayer subsidies
for congressional elections.
The legislative initiative which you and many of your
colleagues recently introduced would eliminate political
action committees and accomplish several other reforms I
have proposed in the past, including tighter regulation
of "soft money" and the use of union dues for political
purposes. In addition, your bill promotes electoral
competition in several respects consistent with my
previous proposals.
Spending limits, on the other hand, would disadvantage
challengers and thereby entrench incumbents further.
Ironically, spending limits tend to favor powerful
special interests over individuals, because these
interests would retain the financial and organizational
resources to work around the limits. Therefore, I
intend to veto any campaign finance "reform" legislation
which features spending limits or taxpayer financing of
congressional campaigns.
2
Further, I am deeply opposed to campaign reform
legislation that proposes different rules concerning
political action committees for the Senate and House.
We must not further balkanize ethics and election
reform.
As you know, there are two critical ingredients to
campaign reform: curbing the divisive role of special
interests and enhancing the quality of representation
through real electoral competition. I believe both
of these goals can be achieved and are essential to
revitalizing our electoral process.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues
to enact meaningful campaign finance reform consistent
with these aims.
Sincerely,
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1991
Dear Mitch:
In my State of the Union address in January, I. expressed
my strong desire to achieve genuine campaign finance
reform this year. We must curtail special interest
influence in elections, promote electoral competition,
and increase the participation of individual citizens
and the political parties.
Since my first year as President, I have called
for abolishing political action committees that are
subsidized by corporations, unions, or trade associa-
tions. That critical step, combined with measures to
reduce unfair advantages of incumbency, would markedly
improve both the perception and the reality of our
electoral process.
I hope that Congress does not waste this opportunity
for reform on efforts to insulate incumbents further,
by limiting overall speech in campaigns to challenge
them, or on new schemes to provide taxpayer subsidies
for congressional elections.
The legislative initiative which you and many of your
colleagues recently introduced would eliminate political
action committees and accomplish several other reforms I
per.l. per. 5/22 Mitchnell l.casey
have proposed in the past, including tighter regulation
of "soft money" and the use of union dues for political
purposes. In addition, your bill promotes electoral
competition in several respects consistent with my
previous proposals.
on the other hand,
The spending limits endorsed in the Boren/Mitchell
substitute amendment would disadvantage challengers
and thereby entrench incumbents further. Ironically,
medits
spending limits tend to favor powerful special interests
over individuals, because these interests would retain
the financial and organizational resources to work
around the limits. Therefore, I intend to veto any
campaign finance "reform" legislation which features
spending limits funded at the taxpayer's expense.-
congressional campaigns.)
or taxpayes financing of compaigns
E'd
2
Further, I am deeply opposed to campaign reform
legislation that proposes different rules concerning
political action committees for the Senate and House.
We must not further balkanize ethics and election
reform.
As you know, there are two critical ingredients to
campaign reform: curbing the divisive role of special
interests and enhancing the quality of representation
through real electoral competition. I believe both
of these goals can be achieved and are essential to
revitalizing our electoral process.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues
to enact meaningful campaign finance reform consistent
with these aims.
Sincerely,
CyBul
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
D'd
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1991
Dear Mitch:
In my State of the Union address in January, I expressed
my strong desire to achieve genuine campaign finance
reform this year. We must curtail special interest
influence in elections, promote electoral competition,
and increase the participation of individual citizens
and the political parties.
Since my first year as President, I have called
for abolishing political action committees that are
subsidized by corporations unions, or trade associa-
tions. That critical step, combined with measures to
reduce unfair advantages of incumbency, would markedly
improve both the perception and the reality of our
electoral process.
I hope that Congress does not waste this opportunity
for reform on efforts to insulate incumbents further,
by limiting overall speech in campaigns to challenge
them, or on new schemes to provide taxpayer subsidies
for congressional elections.
The legislative initiative which you and many of your
colleagues recently introduced would eliminate political
action committees and accomplish several other reforms I
have proposed in the past, including tighter regulation
of "soft money" and the use of union dues for political
purposes. In addition, your bill promotes electoral
competition in several respects consistent with my
previous proposals.
The spending limits endorsed in the Boren/Mitchell
substitute amendment would disadvantage challengers
and thereby entrench incumbents further. Ironically,
spending limits tend to favor powerful special interests
over individuals, because these interests would retain
the financial and organizational resources to work
around the limits. Therefore, I intend to veto any
campaign finance "reform" legislation which features
spending limits funded at the taxpayer's expense.
2
Further, I am deeply opposed to campaign reform
legislation that proposes different rules concerning
political action committees for the Senate and House.
We must not further balkanize ethics and election
reform.
As you know, there are two critical ingredients to
campaign reform: curbing the divisive role of special
interests and enhancing the quality of representation
through real electoral competition. I believe both
of these goals can be achieved and are essential to
revitalizing our electoral process.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues
to enact meaningful campaign finance reform consistent
with these aims.
Sincerely,
CyBul
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
U.S. Senator
MITCH McCONNELL
Room 120
Phone: (202) 224-2541
Russell Senate Office Building
FAX: (202) 224-2499
* * * * - ATES STATE UNITED
SENATE
W A S H I N G T O N
FROM: Senator M'Connell
TO: Gov. John Sununu
PAGES TO
FOLLOW:
3
EXTREMELY URGENT!
RE:
P.1
20:02 16. 21 AMY
John-
I'm on the Senate
Floor. We are on the
critical amendment on
texpayer funding and spending
limits. lt will be voted
on at 10A:M tomorrow.
Please call Mitel me back- -
tonight, if possible
2'd
80:02 T6. 21 MAY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1991
Dear Mitch:
In my State of the Union address in January, I expressed
my strong desire to achieve genuine campaign finance
reform this year. We must curtail special interest
influence in elections, promote electoral competition,
and increase the participation of individual citizens
and the political parties.
Since my first year as President, I have called
for abolishing political action committees that are
subsidized by corporations, unions, or trade associa-
tions. That critical step, combined with measures to
reduce unfair advantages of incumbency, would markedly
improve both the perception and the reality of our
electoral process.
I hope that Congress does not waste this opportunity
for reform on efforts to insulate incumbents further,
by limiting overall speech in campaigns to challenge
them, or on new schemes to provide taxpayer subsidies
for congressional elections.
The legislative initiative which you and many of your
colleagues recently introduced would eliminate political
action committees and accomplish several other reforms I
have proposed in the past, including tighter regulation
of "soft money" and the use of union dues for political
purposes. In addition, your bill promotes electoral
competition in several respects consistent with my
previous proposals.
The spending limits endorsed in the Boren/Mitchell
substitute amendment would disadvantage challengers
and thereby entrench incumbents further. Ironically,
spending limits tend to favor powerful special interests
over individuals, because these interests would retain
the financial and organizational resources to work
around the limits. Therefore, I intend to veto any
campaign finance "reform" legislation which features
spending limits funded at the taxpayer's expense.
2
Further, I am deeply opposed to campaign reform
legislation that proposes different rules concerning
political action committees for the Senate and House.
We must not further balkanize ethics and election
reform.
As you know, there are two critical ingredients to
campaign reform: curbing the divisive role of special
interests and enhancing the quality of representation
through real electoral competition. I believe both
of these goals can be achieved and are essential to
revitalizing our electoral process.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues
to enact meaningful campaign finance reform consistent
with these aims.
Sincerely,
CyBul
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 21, 1991
Dear Mitch:
In my State of the Union address in January, I expressed
my strong desire to achieve genuine campaign finance
reform this year. We must curtail special interest
influence in elections, promote electoral competition,
and increase the participation of individual citizens
and the political parties.
Since my first year as President, I have called
for abolishing political action committees that are
subsidized by corporations, unions, or trade associa-
tions. That critical step, combined with measures to
reduce unfair advantages of incumbency, would markedly
improve both the perception and the reality of our
electoral process.
I hope that Congress does not waste this opportunity
for reform on efforts to insulate incumbents further,
by limiting overall speech in campaigns to challenge
them, or on new schemes to provide taxpayer subsidies
for congressional elections.
The legislative initiative which you and many of your
colleagues recently introduced would eliminate political
action committees and accomplish several other reforms I
have proposed in the past, including tighter regulation
of "soft money" and the use of union dues for political
purposes. In addition, your bill promotes electoral
competition in several respects consistent with my
previous proposals.
The spending limits endorsed in the Boren/Mitchell
substitute amendment would disadvantage challengers
and thereby entrench incumbents further. Ironically,
spending limits tend to favor powerful special interests
over individuals, because these interests would retain
the financial and organizational resources to work
around the limits. Therefore, I intend to veto any
campaign finance "reform" legislation which features
spending limits funded at the taxpayer's expense.
2
Further, I am deeply opposed to campaign reform
legislation that proposes different rules concerning
political action committees for the Senate and House.
We must not further balkanize ethics and election
reform.
As you know, there are two critical ingredients to
campaign reform: curbing the divisive role of special
interests and enhancing the quality of representation
through real electoral competition. I believe both
of these goals can be achieved and are essential to
revitalizing our electoral process.
I look forward to working with you and your colleagues
to enact meaningful campaign finance reform consistent
with these aims.
Sincerely,
CyBul
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES UPDATE
Agenda
February 13, 1991
APPROPRIATIONS
Desert Storm Supplemental
FY 1991 Supplement
BANKING DEREGULATION - REFORM
BUDGET ISSUES
Budget Agreement Enforcement Matters
Balanced Budget Amendment
Line Item Veto
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMUNICATIONS
Cable TV
AT&T Consent Decree
Spectrum Allocation
CRIME/DRUGS
DEFENSE
Desert Storm Burdensharing/Costs
B-2
SDI
EDUCATION ISSUES
Higher Education Reauthorization
Excellence in Education Act
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Clean Water Reauthorization
EPA Cabinet Status
Global Warming
RCRA Reauthorization
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT
HATCH ACT
HEALTH
Food Safety
Orphan Drugs
HIGHWAY BILL REAUTHORIZATION
INTELLIGENCE REAUTHORIZATION
LABOR ISSUES
Family Medical Leave
Strike Breakers
NATIONAL ENERGY STRATEGY
PRODUCT LIABILITY TORT REFORM
PUERTO RICO PLEBISCITE
SAVINGS AND LOAN (RTC FUNDING)
SOCIAL SECURITY
Earnings Test
Payroll Cut
DEN
Central Objectives for Bush Administration
Highway Legislation
Identify and focus investment on a 150,000-mile
National Highway System for greater positive impacts on
Leg
sustainable domestic economic growth and on global
competitiveness.
Provide stability and growth in Federal funding--a
37-percent increase in obligation limitation for FY's
1992-1996 over FY's 1987-1991. This, together with the
encouragement of greater state, local, and private
funding will reach further towards meeting needs. A
5-year bill will provide stability for State trans-
portation planning efforts and permit transition
to the new program.
Increased funding for bridges--31 percent more budget
authority for FY's 1992-1996 than for FY's 1987-1991--
to strengthen these critical links in the
transportation chain.
Promote environmentally sound and more energy efficient
surface transportation.
Develop longer lasting and safer facilities and provide
congestion relief. A doubling of the Highway R&D
activity in 1992, represents a continuing increase in
emphasis on the deployment of new technology.
Increase motor carrier productivity by advancing an
expanded national system, continuing deregulation and
relief from burdensome paperwork.
Give greater flexibility and discretion for State and
local governments and decreased Federal requirements in
the urban/rural program but greater focus on managed
performance in the national system.
Encourage broad flexibility in the use of Federal
transit and Federal-aid highway funds for transit or
highway projects, giving State and local governments
the ability to address regional and local
transportation priorities.
The new National Highway System will include the Interstate
System, the strategic defense highway network and other principal
arterials reflecting current patterns of interstate and
interregional travel. This system will be identified through
local, state and Federal government interaction. Flexibility to
accommodate future shifts in mobility needs will be provided.
Safety, congestion, pavement, and bridge management systems will
help ensure high level performance on this system.
A new Urban and Rural Program within the Federal-aid highway
program will consolidate funding for most non-NHS highway
projects. FHWA approvals to advance projects in this program
will be minimal. with State and local concurrence areas will be
able to use these funds for transit projects where such projects
are most effective in enhancing mobility.
2/1/91
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION '91
To Jobs
To Homes
To Market
Thirty-five years ago, President Eisenhower and freshman Senator
Prescott Bush defined the Interstate Highway vision. That vision
has mapped the Nation's economic development and prosperity for
the past generation -- politically, economically, and socially.
Now through the President's National Transportation Policy, we've
defined a new bipartisan vision for the coming generation of
surface transportation -- one which meets the evolving mobility
needs of the Next American Century, linking America and the
world.
THEMES
1) Productivity and Jobs (transportation accounts for 17% of GNP
and 25% of export dollars)
Increasing long-term investment for productivity and
international competitiveness;
Leveraging increased investment from the private sector;
Ancillary short term benefit of job creation from construction
(30,000 to 50,000 jobs per $1B) ;
Flexibility of federal funding to empower state and local
governments to make more efficient use of scarce resources;
Accountability by states to protect federal investment.
2) Mobility: (congestion costs interstate commerce over
$35B/year)
Linking trained workers with communications and transportation;
Apply advanced technologies -- IVHS (smart cars/highways) and
High Speed Rail/Maglev to relieve congestion;
Sound management techniques to keep roads and transit working;
Keep rural America connected.
3) Environmental Sensitivity (transportation responsible for
more than 50% of urban air pollution and consumes 25% of refined
petroleum products)
Improve local transit and highway operations to reduce fuel
consumption and waste;
Flexibility of federal funding allows states to address clean
air and make environmentally sound transportation decisions;
Congestion management systems promote more efficient use of
energy and less air pollution.
4) Safety (45,000 lives lost each year: equivalent of one
medium-jetliner crash each day)
Support the war on drunk driving and other safety problems.
DOT 2/5/91
RCV BY:Tne TICKET CENTER
: 1-28-91 :12:44PM ;
2241315- LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS:# 8
1991
Leg
Brantzo
Errckson 102nd CONGRESS
1st Session
8. RES.
Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States
should take c. leadership position in calling for worldwide carbon
dioxide emissions reductions at the first meeting of the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on a Framework Convention
on Climate Change to be held in Washington, D.C on February 4th -
14th, 1991.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 1 1991
Mr. Mitchell (for himself, and Mr.
) submitted
the following resolution, which was
RESOLUTION
Whereas, human activities substantially increase the atmospheric
concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide,
methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide;
Whereas, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases
enhances the natural greenhouse effect, resulting on average
in an additional warming of the Earth's surface and an
excess of radioactive energy available to alter the climate
system;
Whereas, carbon dioxide has been responsible for over half the
enhanced greenhouse effect in the past, and is likely to
remain so in the future;
ROV BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 1-28-91 112:45PM ;
2241315-> LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS:# 4
-2-
Whereas, the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in August 1990 that under
a business-as-usual scenario for emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, a global warming of five to ten
degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrialized levels is likely
by the end of the next century, bringing the Earth to its
warmest level in at least 150,000 years;
Whereas, many scientific studies show that rapid global warming
would create grave risks of precipitous climate shifts, with
effects including extreme heat waves and droughts in
agricultural and urban areas, amplified warming at mid and
high altitudes, sea level rise and resultant flooding of
coastal areas, an increase in the frequency and severity of
hurricanes and other extreme weather events, and the
potential destruction of forests over broad expanses;
Whereas, I environmental stresses of this magnitude have the
potential to cause unprecedented agricultural, economic, and
social and political disruptions;
Whereas, the Ministerial Declaration of the Second World Climate
Conference in November 1990, adopted by more than one
hundred governments, including the United States, calls for
the negotiation of a treaty to limit climate change in order
to protect society and the environment "without further
delay based on the best available knowledge" with the
ultimate global objective "to stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with climate."
Whereas, the Declaration further states that "the potentially
serious consequences of climate change give sufficient
reasons to begin by adopting response strategies even in the
face of significant uncertainties.";
Whereas, the United Nations General Assembly has established an
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework
Convention on Climate Change responsible for negotiating an
international climate protection agreement in time for
signature at the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development in June 1992;
Whereas, the first negotiation session will be hosted by the
United States from February 4th to 14th, 1991;
RCV BY:The TICKET CENTER
; 1-28-91 12:46PM i
2241315- LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS:# 5
-3-
Whereas, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Australia, and New Zealand
have already proposed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases; and that seventeen other
countries (Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and
Switzerland) have proposed, individually or collectively, to
stabilize or reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by the
year 2000,
Whereas, the United States emits more carbon dioxide than any
other nation and has the highest per capita emissions of
carbon dioxide,
Whereas, a large fraction of the emissions of carbon dioxide from
the United States could be controlled at a savings, no cost,
or low cost and that such measures would contribute to the
competitiveness of American business and the overall economy;
Whereas, the National Energy Strategy, which has been in
preparation for the last eighteen months, presents an
opportunity to develop targets for reductions in United
States emissions of carbon dioxide and mechanisms for
implementing such targets;
Therefore be it resolved, it is the policy of the United States
(1) to specify reductions in the national emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases by a date certain, and (2)
to assume a leadership position in negotiating an
international climate protection treaty that contains
specific commitments to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide
and the following elements:
- An agreement by industrialized nations to reduce
their current emissions of carbon dicxide;
- An agreement by developing nations to limit their
growth in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel
combustion 50 that total emissions from the
industrialized and developing world are
significantly reduced;
- An agreement by all countries to stop the release of
carbon dioxide due to deforestation, by preservation
of existing forests and reforestation;
- An agreement by all countries to take available
steps to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases,
including methane;
RCV BY:The TICKET CENTER
: 1-28-91 :12:47PM ;
2241315+ LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS;# 6
-4-
- The establishment of an international fund, to help
developing countries achieve these objectives,
- The establishment of a mechanism of continuing
international cooperation for development of
efficient policies for future emissions reductions
necessary to meet the objective of stabilising
greenhouse gas emissions at safe levels.
Be it further resolved, that the United States should support, at
the February negotiating session, the establishment of a
process that will allow negotiations of substantive
provisions to accomplish each of these elements, for
inclusion in the convention that is to be concluded in June
1992.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
From C. Boyden Gray to POTUS
1/18/91
P/5
Re: Options for a Constitutional Amendment Limiting
Congressional Terms (4 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
Issues Files
By IP (NLGB) on 4/21/08
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Congress 1991 [1]
Date Closed:
1/3/2005
OA/ID Number:
29151-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[2]
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2005-0426-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
91 JAN 18 PM 6: 35
January 18, 1991
leg
1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
C. BOYDEN GRAY sma
SUBJECT:
Options for a Constitutional Amendment Limiting
Congressional Terms
We are currently preparing a draft constitutional amendment to
limit the term of service of U.S. Senators and Representatives.
Before we can draft such an amendment, we need your guidance on
several key provisions. This memorandum explains briefly the
various state provisions recently enacted and sets forth the
options available to us.
BACKGROUND
Three states, California, Colorado, and Oklahoma, have recently
adopted some form of term limitation for their state legislators.
One state, Colorado, has also amended its Constitution to limit
the terms of its U.S. Senators and Representatives as well. Each
of these proposals differs slightly from the other two in regards
to the term of service permitted, whether the limitation applies
to total service or merely prohibits serving consecutive terms,
and whether the limitation covers service in both houses of the
legislature.
California. California's constitutional amendment finds that the
"increased concentration of political power in the hands of
incumbent representatives has made our electoral system less
free, less competitive, and less representative," resulting in "a
class of career politicians, " who have "become representatives of
the bureaucracy, rather than of the people whom they are elected
to represent." The amendment limits the terms of state senators
to two four-year terms and state representatives to three two-
year terms.
Colorado. The Colorado amendment limits the terms of U.S.
Senators to two consecutive six-year terms and the terms of U.S.
Representative to six consecutive two-year terms. State senators
are limited to two consecutive four-year terms; and state
representatives to four consecutive two-year terms. Terms are
considered consecutive unless they are at least four years apart.
Oklahoma. The Oklahoma amendment provides that no one shall be
eligible to serve more than 12 years in the Oklahoma State
Legislature. The amendment specifically provides that years in
the legislature need not be consecutive and that years of service
in both the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be
included in determining eligibility.
OPTIONS IN DRAFTING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
As the various proposals of California, Colorado, and Oklahoma
demonstrate, there are a number of ways of approaching term
limitations. We need your guidance on three interrelated
questions: (1) How long shall U.S. Senators and Representatives
be allowed to serve? (2) Shall the limitation apply to total
terms or only to consecutive terms? (3) Shall the limitation
apply to service in both houses? Each of these options are
discussed briefly below.
(1). Limit on Term of Service. Fundamental to any term
limitation proposal is the limit on the number of years or the
number of terms that a senator or representative may serve. The
term of service limit most frequently mentioned is 12 years for
Senators and Representatives, although Colorado and California
permit state senators to serve longer than state representatives.
A further option as to whether the time limitation applies to
consecutive terms only or to total years of service is addressed
below.
(a) Term Limits for U.S. Senators. Anything less than two
terms (12 years) would seem unreasonably short;
anything more than 12 years would seem to defeat the
purpose for the amendment. The 12 year limit is
reasonable and finds support in the press and in the
three states that have enacted term limitations.
DECISION: The term limit amendment shall provide that
no U.S. Senator shall serve more than two
terms.
Approve
Approve as modified
Disapprove
(b) Term Limits for U.S. Representatives. There is no
compelling argument for limiting Representatives to a
different term of service than Senators, and different
term limits would undoubtedly deflect debate from the
principle of term limits to the nuances.
2
DECISION: The term limit amendment shall provide that
no U.S. Representative shall serve more than
six terms.
Approve
Approve as modified
Disapprove
(2) Limiting Total Terms or Consecutive Terms. There are two
basic options here. One option (followed by California and
Oklahoma) limits the total number of terms or years that state
senators and representatives may serve without regard to whether
the terms were served consecutively. This option reflects a
philosophy that the legislature should be representative of the
public, and that that can best be accomplished by rotating public
office. This proposal gives finality to public service in the
legislature. On the other hand, this option would prevent the
electorate from selecting citizens with prior legislative
experience.
A second option (followed by Colorado) would prohibit U.S.
Senators and Representatives from serving more than a specified
number of consecutive terms. Under this option a U.S. Senator,
for example, could serve two terms, sit out for a term and then
stand for election again. This proposal is similar to laws in
many states which apply to gubernatorial terms and similar to the
limitation on Presidential terms found in the 22nd Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. It has the advantage of allowing the
electorate to choose experienced representatives for office,
while at the same time preventing those individuals from
exploiting the perquisites of elective office -- immediate access
to the press, access to Congressional media facilities, and the
frank -- to retain the seat in perpetuity. This proposal would
slow, but not prevent, lengthy service in the House or Senate.
DECISION:
The term limitation amendment shall limit
total terms or total service.
The term limitation amendment shall limit
consecutive terms.
(3). Limiting Service in Both Houses or a Single House. (This
option need be considered only if the decision in (2) is to limit
total terms or total service.) There are again two basic
options. Under the first (adopted by Oklahoma), service in both
houses is considered in determining eligibility. This option
3
effectively rotates the seats and prevents a member who has
served the limit from using the perquisites of office to run for
a seat in the other house.
Under the second option (followed by California and Colorado)
members of one house, who are no longer eligible for re-election
to that house, may run for a seat in the other body. This option
focuses more narrowly on rotating membership in a single house.
DECISION:
The limitation on total service shall
include service in both houses of Congress.
The limitation on total service shall apply
to service in a single house in Congress.
4
Lent
PATHOTISM IN GULF
oppy PASS GOOD B. LEGISLITION
NUICE LICENSING ROF,
ANWR-
IN TERMS OF THE CONSUMER -
PUSH."
CABLE RATES- -
REGULATION
Sylvis
ECONOMY -
BANKS/OVERREEGULATION
JEACERS-
Michel
DEFICIENCY ON UNEMPLOYA.
Bob Gradeson
-
SCOREKEEANG
REGARDLESS -
STATUTE ON BOOKS
: CAN'T BE CHANGED BY RULE
LETTER TO SPEAKER
PROS CALL SPEAKER
2
DIVISION ON OTHER SINE ON BUDGET
D's CONCERNED ABOUT
SCALE BACK AS DESIGNED
1990 NOT ONLY - VIEW AS CAPS -
SEND SAME PROPOSALS < CAPS -
3
Bill goodling
DOMESTIC AGENDA -
DON'T UNDERESTINATE d WITH FORD its CHAIRMAN
RORD IS PARTISAN
AGENDA is LABOR -
LAST CHANCE GONE IN EDUCATION
Chalmers
SOCIAL SECURITY -
MANY BILLIONS 50 d EARNINGS UNIT
Bill bromfield
EAdm ACT
ENT. FOR AMERICAS -
WORKIED ABOUT FOREIGN AND -
COMPLETE REFORM
NUKE NON PROLIPERATION
SOCIAL SECURITY
STABLE
-
DON'T REDUCE PAYROLL TAX
FUND RUNS OUT RASTER
* PUSH 9 IN EARNINGS LIMITATION
B14 ISSUE is HEALTH CARD
ACTIVE TASK FORCE
WHY EXPENSES INCREASING
MH2- PRACTICE
*
PAPERWORK / Rod M
S/L - PRES ATTACK IN STATE OF UNION
DEPOSIT INSURANCE
How REVAMP
PRES TALK ABOUT SAVING DEPOSITORS
Nor POLITICAL PLOY -
Chalmers
IT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON OUR WATCH
MICKEY.
STATE OF THE UNION
DOMESTIC AGENDA
BUDGET
GROWTH PACKAGE
CHILD CARE
INT. TARGET TAX CLEDIT
1/2 CRIME
AFFORD ASLE HOUSING /MIDDLE INC.
CLEAN AIR BICC
ENERAT 1 ND OF
ADA.
CLIME { DRUG. PROBLEM
FARM BILL
HOUSING BILL
SPENDING CUTS.
gerry Lewis
PRES
PUBLIC -
TALK ABOUT
Bill unher
LINE ITEM VETO
Sprio
IN 1957 THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PASSED -
MSCollem-
FREEZE
Michel
VETERANS
Conte
THREE DRAFTING ERRORS
COLA FOR VETS QUESTION
BOB MICHAEL
FIGHT OMB vs CBO
S/L CONSENT REQUEST'
EXTENDERS THAT EXPIRE
charlmers Wylie
,
RTC. - $10.B. ANNUNZIO aBJECTED
BRADY #47B.
THEY $SB, S. etc
ASK FOR $47B- RIGHT AWAY.
STOP PLAYING GARYES -
2)
VOUCHER PROGRAM. -
How CHECK USE OF FUNDS
3
DEPOSIT INSURANCE REFORM
RECOMMEND CLEAN SHOT..