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
702610
label
Legislative Affairs (McClure) (1990) [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
702610
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Legislative Affairs (McClure) (1990) [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
29178-009
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
John Sununu White House Office Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
702610
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7cb5d9e01be20363
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
1998-0004-F[1]
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:
White House Offices Files
OA/ID Number:
29178
Folder ID Number:
29178-009
Folder Title:
Legislative Affairs (McClure) (1990) [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
25
5
2
Gins
195032
HOUSE OF representatives
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20515
NEWT GINGRICH
REPUBLICAN WHIP
11/21/90
to the President FTU United States
Dear Mr. President,
Corgratulations on the be
Selection of Bill Bennett Committee to
Republican as National Man of courage, lot of intellect,
Chairman articulation a Bill has a
strengths and to build look on. toward the to 1992 do
as I you would be lager with the
whatever efforts. we have an opportunity 1992
campaign I can to help
Party a striking victory in
and to win all of us want to help achieve
that
- again, cargvatulations an Bennett.
your friend
New
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memo
From Fred McClure to John Sununu
11/8/90
Re: Signing Ceremonies [w/margin notes] (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By &P (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
November 8, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU
FROM:
FRED McCLURE 7M/RP
SUBJECT:
Signing Ceremonies
Per your request this morning, listed below is pending
legislation which may merit a signing ceremony:
1. S. 1630
Clean Air Act Amendments - The bill is now
expected to arrive at the White House by next
Suggested
Tuesday. Although the President has already
announced in California that he will sign the
bill, we still think an actual signing
11/14
ceremony is advisable. We understand that
there are two alternatives under discussion
(White House or Adirondacks). We believe a
good event could be created at either site.
It should be kept in mind that if the
ceremony takes place at the White House,
there are some steps which can be taken to
minimize Congressional exposure (Members
seated rather than on platform, etc.).
2. S. 566
National Affordable Housing Act - Because
Engsested
this legislation contains most of the
President's HOPE initiatives, we think it is
wk of 11/26
a good candidate for an event. Secretary
Kemp has recommended a signing ceremony and a
joint Holiday/McClure scheduling request has
been submitted.
3. S. 2830
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (Farm Bill) - Although the Farm Bill
is not especially popular in the agriculture
community, it does include substantial
subsidy reforms, is perceived as being useful
no siging ceremony
to breaking the farm subsidy deadlock in the
GATT round, and would be a nice "thank-you"
for Members of the Agriculture Committee. We
would recommend a "scaled-down" ceremony.
(see Yeutter memo attached)
-2-
suggested S. 358
Legal Immigration Bill - Considered a victory
for the Administration; may be appropriate to
wh of 26th
combine with an ethnic event. If there is a
choice between the Immigration and the
Housing bills the week of November 26, we
would recommend the Housing bill.
5. S. 3266
Crime Control Act of 1990 - As you know, the
core of our crime package (habeas corpus,
expanded death penalty, and exclusionary
oval
rule) was stripped out of the bill. However,
the legislation does include some good
provisions (S&L enforcement, anti-
pornography, etc.) and we could use a signing
ceremony as a forum to criticize
Congressional Democrats for falling short,
and to encourage the Hill to address these
issues again early in the 102nd Congress.
6. S. 1430
National and Community Service Act - Some
gusgented 11/16 Rose Garden
have suggested a signing ceremony to
highlight the "Point of Light Foundation"
funding, etc.
7. S. 3176
National Environmental Education Act - We
understand Cabinet Affairs recommends a
quesested.,Thin
signing ceremony in connection with the
Environmental Youth Awards to be held on
for
Wednesday, November 14. We have not yet
11/15 event
received this legislation, and may not
receive it in time for the Wednesday event.
existing
Education Awards
BOB DOLE
I
KANSAS
Brent/JS Handed to me at Senate dinner (11-13) by Dole
please discuss at am meeting
United States Senate
OFFICE OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-7020
November 13, 1990
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
The President
The White House
Washington
Dear Mr. President:
In follow-up to my letter of last Friday and our discussion
today, enclosed are some concrete ideas about constructive
actions that could be undertaken to make sure you remain
clearly "out front" in the Persian Gulf crisis -- both
substantively and politically.
I've checked a few of these items that I believe are worth
your particular attention. Some of these ideas might be worth
considering for tomorrow's Leadership Meeting; others could be
follow-on steps for consideration/action down the road.
Undoubtedly you and your staff will have many additional ideas.
I look forward to working closely with you, as the crisis
in the Gulf unfolds.
Sincerely yours,
BOB DOLB
IDEAS FOR LEADERSHIP MEETING WITH PRESIDENT
the debate; and (2) force the President's critics off the
Essential strategy is to: (1) seize the PR initiative -- shape
sidelines -- make them "put up, or shut up."
O President invites Congressional leaders to accompany him on
Thanksgiving trip to Saudi Arabia. One possibility: issuing
the invitation publicly at tomorrow's Leadership meeting (since
Foley has privately demurred, there may be merit in making the
invitation for the Majority and Minority Leaders).
O President consults with the ex-Presidents; asks for their
advice, and explains clearly and frankly the Bush strategy;
asks directly for their public support of that clearly
articulated strategy. Obviously, Carter is the "wild card" --
but even a Carter turn-down is not without some utility,
considering his persistent image as a hand-wringer.
O President makes major address, calling upon people to
point: a clear articulation of the economic stakes in the
support his request for expression of public support. One key
Gulf, which the American people can understand.
NOTE: we have been focused almost exclusively on
aggression; two other points that need to be played up
more: the involvement of the Saddam Husseins of the
world in both terrorism and drugs -- which issues
resonate publicly more than aggression.
President calls for Special Session of Congress, to consider
resolution supporting his actions.
President invites Republican Senators to private White House
meeting, to lay down markers on importance of this issue before
new Congress/special session convenes. Does same for
Republican House members.
President undertakes series of meetings/events with:
(1) opinion-makers on national security. This should be
accompanied by orchestrated effort to have series of
supportive articles, op eds, speeches, etc.
NOTE: one subset of this -- conclaves of former
Chiefs. Secretaries of State/Defense/Chairmen of the Joint
(2) families of hostages.
(3) soldiers destined for Desert Shield service.
-2-
(4) Black community. Because of the disproportionate
contribution of American blacks to our military forces, the
support of the Black community for our Gulf committment is
essential.
O Special effort is undertaken to gain active campaign in
support of President's policies by major domestic interest
groups that ought to be supportive but so far have been
relatively quiet, or actually hostile:
(1) AIPAC. Take focus off "American Jews-White House at
odds on Israel," and put it on "AJ-WH agree on anti-Saddam
strategy."
(2) Conservatives. Some of them are not going to listen in
any case, but some probably just want to be more actively and
visibly involved.
NOTE: I wonder if the President couldn't ask someone
like McClure to be an unofficial "special envoy" to
conservatives, starting with an outreach to them on this
issue?
(3) Veterans. The most predictably reliable supporters we
have -- but they have to be modibized.
O President invites Margaret Thatcher (and other Alled
leaders who would be supportive of strong action) to the U.S.
for consultations.
O President summons major oil executives to Washington, for
high-profile jaw-boning. One major element of any strategy to
gain/sustain broad support is wiping out the impression of many
that this is all for "big oil."
O Administration articulates (perhaps creates task force to
develop?) creative long-term energy independence policy -- to
make clear that if we stick out this crisis, we will not just
be back in the soup with some other Middle East dictator in
five or ten years.
President Bush's Vetoes
1989
Leg
Bill
Bill Description
Date
Outcome*
HR 2 ,
Minimum Wage Increase
June 13
House sustained, 247-178
of
S J Res 113
FS-X Plane Codevelopment
July 31
Senate sustained, 66-34
H J Res 390
Thrift-bailout Bill
Aug. 16
No override attempt
Enrollment Requirements
(pocket-vetoed)
HR 2990
Labor, HHS, Education
FY 1990 Appropriations
Oct. 21
House sustained, 231-191
HR 3026
District of Columbia
FY 1990 Appropriations
Oct. 27
No override attempt
HR 2939
Foreign Aid
FY 1990 Appropriations
Nov. 19
No override attempt
HR 3610
District of Columbia
FY 1990 Appropriations
Nov. 20
No override attempt
HR 1231
Eastern Airlines Strike
Resolution
Nov. 21
House sustained, 261-160
HR 1487
State Department
Authorization
Nov. 21
No override attempt
HR 2712
Chinese Immigrant Status
Nov. 30
House overrode, 390-25
Senate sustained, 62-37
1990
Bill
Bill Description
Date
Outcome*
HR 2364
Amtrak Authorization
May 24
House overrode, 294-123
Senate sustained, 64-36
HR 20
Hatch Act Amendments
June 15
House overrode, 327-93
Senate sustained, 65-35
HR 770
Parental/Medical Leave
June 29
House sustained, 232-195
HR 4328
Textile Import Quotas
Oct. 5
House sustained, 275-152
H J Res 660
Continuing Appropriations
Oct. 6
House sustained, 260-138
S 2104
Civil Rights
Oct. 22
*Veto overrides require a two-thirds majority vote of both houses.
a
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
October 23, 1990
10:00 a.m.
0
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
FREDERICK D. McCLURE 7m
SUBJECT:
Status of Appropriations Bills
Bill
Action
Date
Outlook
Ag
House adopted CR
10-22
POTUS action
Senate adopted CR
10-22
required
Commerce, Justice
State
CR filed
House flr
10-23
DoD
Conf. completed
10-21
D.C.
House rejected CR
10-20
New CR w/o
abortion
Energy & Water
House adopted CR
10-19
POTUS action
Senate adopted CR
10-19
required
For. Ops.
House passed bill
6-27
Senate floor
10-23
Interior
House adopted bill
10-15
Senate floor
10-23
Labor/HHS
House adopted CR
10-22
Leg. Branch
House adopted bill
10-21
Mil. Con.
House adopted CR
10-19
DoT
House adopted CR
10-19
Treasury/Postal
House adopted CR
10-22
VA, HUD
House adopted CR
10-20
-2-
SUMMARY: The House has adopted 7 of the 13 appropriations bills
conference reports. The House has rejected one conference report
(D.C.). The Senate has adopted two conference reports -- Energy
and Water; Agriculture. These are also the only two conference
reports that have been adopted by both Houses. Three (3)
appropriations bills have not gone to conference -- Foreign
Operations, Interior and Legislative Branch.
Today, the House will consider the conference report on
Commerce, Justice, State. Today the Senate will continue with
consideration of the Foreign Operations and Interior bills.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memo
From Fred McClure to John Sununu
11/8/90
PS
Re: Signing Ceremonies (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By IP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
November 8, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN SUNUNU
FROM:
FRED McCLURE 7m/RP
SUBJECT:
Signing Ceremonies
Per your request this morning, listed below is pending
legislation which may merit a signing ceremony:
1. S. 1630
Clean Air Act Amendments - The bill is now
expected to arrive at the White House by next
Tuesday. Although the President has already
announced in California that he will sign the
bill, we still think an actual signing
ceremony is advisable. We understand that
there are two alternatives under discussion
(White House or Adirondacks). We believe a
good event could be created at either site.
It should be kept in mind that if the
ceremony takes place at the White House,
there are some steps which can be taken to
minimize Congressional exposure (Members
seated rather than on platform, etc.).
2. S. 566
National Affordable Housing Act Because
this legislation contains most of the
President's HOPE initiatives, we think it is
a good candidate for an event. Secretary
Kemp has recommended a signing ceremony and a
joint Holiday/McClure scheduling request has
been submitted.
3. S. 2830
Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
of 1990 (Farm Bill) - Although the Farm Bill
is not especially popular in the agriculture
community, it does include substantial
subsidy reforms, is perceived as being useful
to breaking the farm subsidy deadlock in the
GATT round, and would be a nice "thank-you"
for Members of the Agriculture Committee. We
would recommend a "scaled-down" ceremony.
(see Yeutter memo attached)
-2-
4. S. 358
Legal Immigration Bill Considered a victory
for the Administration; may be appropriate to
combine with an ethnic event. If there is a
choice between the Immigration and the
Housing bills the week of November 26, we
would recommend the Housing bill.
5. S. 3266
Crime Control Act of 1990 - As you know, the
core of our crime package (habeas corpus,
expanded death penalty, and exclusionary
rule) was stripped out of the bill. However,
the legislation does include some good
provisions (S&L enforcement, anti-
pornography, etc.) and we could use a signing
ceremony as a forum to criticize
Congressional Democrats for falling short,
and to encourage the Hill to address these
issues again early in the 102nd Congress.
6. S. 1430
National and Community Service Act - Some
have suggested a signing ceremony to
highlight the "Point of Light Foundation"
funding, etc.
7. S. 3176
National Environmental Education Act - We
understand Cabinet Affairs recommends a
signing ceremony in connection with the
Environmental Youth Awards to be held on
Wednesday, November 14. We have not yet
received this legislation, and may not
receive it in time for the Wednesday event.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. Report
Side-by-side Comparison of Bush and Underlying Crime
6/11/90
PS
Legislation (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By of (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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.
TUN-11-'90 MON 16:24 ID:
TEL NO:4
#014 P02
DEATH PENALTY - OK.
FEO CAP.
?
HABEAS
STATE CAP.
only 174.
N.G.
F NON-CAP
s NON-CAP
SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF BUSH AND
UNDERLYING CRIME LEGISLATION
CORE ISSUES
BUSH ADMINISTRATION
S.1970
General death
Proposes in title II of
Proposes in title I of
penalty
S.1225 enforceable death
S.1970 "Racial Justice
penalty for the most
Act" provisions that
serious federal crimes of
would effectively
homicide, treason, and
abolish all state and
ok.
espionage. Similar pro-
federal capital
posal by Senator Thurmond
punishment.
in title I of S.1971.
STATUS: Racial Justice
Act was deleted from S.
1970.
Death Penalty
Supports procedures
Proposes in title II of
Litigation
recommended by "Powell
S.1970 and in S.1757
Procedures
Committee" to curb delay
death penalty litigation
and repetitive litigation
procedures that reject
in capital cases.
the principal "Powell
Introduced by Senator
Committee" recommen-
Thurmond as S.1760.
dations and overturn the
existing rules that
limit dilatory and
obstructive litigation
in capital cases.
STATUS: Compromise
Thurmond/Specter
procedures including
Teague "retroactivity"
repealer were adopted in
the Senate.
Administration version
may be in the House Rep.
bill.
Habeas Corpus
Proposes in title VI of
Specter-Thurmond
2. Reform
S.1225 general reforms to
language adopted.
curb the abuse of habeas
STATUS: Administration
corpus and other col-
proposals have not been No
lateral remedies by state
considered in Senate but
and federal prisoners.
may be included in the
good.
Similar proposal by
House Rep. bill.
-
Senator Thurmond in title
II of S.1971.
JUN-11-'90 MON 16:24 ID:
TEL NO:4
#014 P03
- 2 -
MAY F of
Exclusionary Rule
Proposes in title V of
Proposes in title III of
3.
S.1225 general "good
S.1970 to narrow
faith" exception to
existing "good faith"
exclusionary rule, where
exception to exclusion-
conduct of officers was
ary rule for cases
objectively reasonable.
involving a warrant.
Similar proposal by
Rejects extension of
Senator Thurmond in title
objective reasonableness
III of S.1971.
standard to warrantless
searches and seizures.
STATUS: Tentative
Thurmond/Biden deal
would drop both
provisions.
Administration proposal
is expected to be
introduced in House
Republican drug/crime
bill.
Firearms generally
Proposes in title I of
Proposes amendments in
S.1225 various amendments
title XI and title XIII
to strengthen federal
of S.1972 that are
firearms laws and
largely taken from the
penalties. Generally
Administration's pro-
DICONCINI
identical proposal by
posals. Title XI
Senator Thurmond in title
weakens Administration's
9 for .3 YRS.
IV of S.1971.
proposed expansion of
firearm ownership dis-
qualification for
violent criminals and
drug offenders, and adds
ban on domestic assembly
for export of weapons
banned from importation.
STATUS: Most have not
been considered to date.
Non-controversial Admin.
provisions are likely to
be included in House
Republican bill.
Control of Highly
Proposes in title III of
Proposes in title IV of
Dangerous Weapons
8.1225 general ban on gun
S.1970 and title XIII of
magazines and clips that
S.1972 ban on "assault
enable a firearm to fire
weapons" limited to nine
more than 15 rounds
specific categories
without re-loading.
defined by make and
model. No restrictions
on firing capacity of
other weapons.
STATUS: Deconcini
OK.
ENHANCED PENALTIES
4,
FOR CRIME
WITH WEAPON
NOT
5.
DOMESTIC Assy.
THERE
-
JUN-11-'90 MON 16:25 ID:
TEL NO:4
#014 P04
- 3 -
amendment (3 year ban of
, specified "assault
weapons") adopted by
Senate. Admimistration
magazine ban and
domestic assembly
language not considered
and unlikely to be
included in House
Republican drug/crime
bill.
Organization of
Supports integrating and
Proposes in title VI of
Federal Organized
coordinating organized
S.1970 and title XV of
Crime and Drug
crime and drug enforce-
S.1972 general sepa-
Enforcement
ment with general law
ration of organized
Operations
enforcement operations in
crime and drug enforce-
(Justice
Justice Department.
ment from regular
Reorganization)
Justice Department
operations.
STATUS: Tentative
Biden/Thurmond deal
would delete.
Money Laundering
Proposes money laundering
Proposes money launder-
amendments in title II of
ing measures in title
the "Minor and Technical
XIV of S.1972 including
Criminal Law Amendments"
several taken from the
legislation.
Administration's
proposals.
STATUS: Under discussion
as part of tentative
Biden/Thurmond deal.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
04. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
10/16/90
Re: House GOP Whip Meeting (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By of (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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.
October 16, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
FREDERICK D. McCLURE
7m
SUBJECT:
House GOP Whip Meeting
Approximately 40 individuals participated in today's House
GOP Whip meeting. Almost to a person, the sentiment was that the
President should not veto a continuing resolution in the face of
an unacceptable reconciliation package this weekend. They
believe that shutting down the government will result in the
President and the GOP "taking the hit," rather than Congress
generally or the Democrats.
Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) did offer a contrary view
given the President's earlier statements about vetoing the next
CR.
Finally, the GOP Whip organization sentiment was that (1)
the President should get together with Foley and Mitchell to
produce a short (2-3 day) CR and (2) say that he blames Congress
for the delay but will not allow the American people to suffer.
Next, they suggest that the President indicate that he will
continue to sign 2-day CRs until an acceptable reconciliation
package is produced and that he will not let Congress go home
until the matter is resolved satisfactorily.
Frankly, I believe that this is the beginning of House GOP
efforts to avoid being put in the position of sustaining a
Presidential veto of a CR that causes a government-wide shutdown.
06/05/90
12:19
001
Rob Protmar
Rebuttal to Proponents' Arguments for
the ICC Provision of H.R. 2364
Proponents of H.R. 2364, the Amtrak reauthorization bill,
have asserted certain arguments in favor of the bill's "ICC
provision." A review of the major arguments and conclusions
finds that they are for the most part misleading and deceptive.
The substantive arguments are addressed below.
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR EXPANDING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY.
Myth: The provision closes a loophole in existing law.
It is argued that the provision is necessary to close a so-
called "loophole" in the Interstate Commerce Act. Under the
existing statute (43 U.S.C. 11343), the types of transactions
required for ICC review and approval include:
(1) consolidation or merger of 2 or more carriers;
(2) any purchase, lease, or contract to operate a carrier's
property by any number of carriers;
(3) acquisition of control of a carrier by any number of
carriers;
(4) acquisition of control of at least 2 carriers by an entity
that is not a carrier;
(5) acquisition of control of a carrier by an entity that is not
a carrier but that controls any number of carriers; and
(6) acquisition by a rail carrier of trackage rights over, or
joint ownership in or joint use of, a railroad line owned and
operated by another carrier.
However, under longstanding legal precedent, when an entity which
is not a carrier acquires control of a single system, the
transaction is not within the purview of the ICC's jurisdiction
under Section 11343.
Fact: The provision would involve government in a whole new area
of regulation.
The types of transactions listed in Section 11343, for ICC
review and approval, are distinguished by the fact that each
raises a potential competitive or antitrust concern that warrants
government review. No such issue presents itself when a non-
carrier acquires a single carrier. Regulating transactions of
this type, as provided for in H.R. 2364, goes beyond government's
legitimate interest in assuring competition in the rail industry.
Such regulation would be tantamount to using the ICC as a forum
to determine the competence of non-railroad management to operate
railroads. This would be a significant broadening of
government's regulatory role and clearly goes beyond the current
scope of the Interstate Commerce Act.
1
06/05/90
12:19
002
SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY EXISTS TO PROTECT RAIL SERVICE AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.
Myth: The provision is in the public interest.
It has been argued that because the Class I railroads
represent the majority of the country's rail system, employ over
two hundred thousand persons and serve thousands of communities,
they should be subject to the additional regulatory scrutiny
provided in H.R. 2364. There is particular concern about the
dislocation that would result if Class I rail carriers were
purchased in order to be "cut up and sold off piecemeal."
Fact: The public interest is already protected; rail service
could be jeopardized and stockholders could be adversely
affected.
Under existing law, rail carriers are already scrutinized
more closely than other industries. Adequate authority exists to
preserve the public interest in acquisitions of railroads. The
only transaction that is currently not subject to ICC review is a
simple change in ownership that would result from a non-carrier's
purchase of a majority shareholder's interest in a carrier or
carrier holding company. Transactions that could affect the
public interest would be subject to scrutiny. The ICC has full
and complete jurisdiction over sales, transfers, and disposition
of rail lines and extensive authority over a carrier's issuance
of debt securities, including the assumption of debt. More
importantly, however, the ICC does not have any track record in
determining whether a financial transaction is in the public
interest.
Most other industries (including other transportation
providers) are not subject to the kind of review proposed for
Class I rail carriers. Financial analysts testified before the
Senate Commerce Committee that review of these acquisitions will
make it more difficult for railroads to raise capital on terms
comparable to those available to other industries.
The assumption that adding new debt to A rail carrier puts
transportation service at risk is specious. Instead, it could
constitute a desirable but necessary cost to finance a needed
expansion of service. The use of leverage in a corporation is a
strategic decision the owners make within limits set by the
providers of borrowed capital. The ICC is not in a position to
determine what an acceptable level of debt is for a particular
carrier. TO limit arbitrarily the debt a carrier could incur
limits management flexibility and would place an artificial
constraint on a carrier's ability to raise needed capital.
Moreover, there is no measurable relationship between quality of
service and level of debt maintained by a railroad. The
2
06/05/90
12:20
003
appropriate debt-equity ratio of any railroad company is best
left to the market. If a rail carrier takes on excessive debt,
that will be reflected in the value of . its stock.
Further, requiring ICC approval of changes in ownership
(where competitive concerns do not exist) and capital structure
decisions increase uncertainty in these types of strategic
decisions. According to the financial analysts who testified
before the Senate Commerce Committee, this added uncertainty
would likely increase the railroad industry's cost of capital.
In turn, this would make it more difficult to raise needed
financing in the financial markets, and thereby put downward
pressure on rail stocks. The public interest would certainly not
be served by artificially penalizing the holders of rail stocks.
Moreover, increasing the cost of capital could jeopardise the
financial viability of a railroad and ultimately endanger rail
service.
RAIL SERVICE COULD BE PUT AT RISK.
Myth: The provision would preserve the railroad infrastructure.
Railroads are unlike other transportation modes because they
must maintain and operate their own rights-of-way. Because the
rights-of-way are private, there is a national interest in
protecting the rail infrastructure by assuring the preservation
of rail service.
Fact: The provision would act as a barrier to capital investment.
The desirability or protecting the rail infrastructure is
well established. H.R. 2364, however, does not increase the
security of rail infrastructure. It may, in fact, have the
opposite effect. The provision would make more difficult the
injection of fresh capital for infrastructure renewal or
managerial talent into the rail industry. The rail
infrastructure is best preserved by enhancing the industry's
access to managerial talent and financial resources.
INVESTMENT IN RAILROADS WOULD BE LESS ATTRACTIVE.
Myth: The provision would not preclude investment in Class I
railroads.
Proponents assert that the provision in H.R. 2364 would not
preclude investment in railroads. The provision, it is argued,
merely provides an expeditious (105 day) and "limited 'fitness
review'' of the non-carrier, the non-carrier's intentions, and
what affect of the transaction would have on the public interest.
3
06/05/90
12:21
004
Fact: The regulatory uncertainties inherent in H.R. 2364 would
discourage the commitment of outside capital in the railroad
industry.
The increased delay and uncertainty inherent in acquiring
ICC approval of a transaction will raise the cost of such
transactions. For example, while the bill limits the ICC's
review period to 105 days, any decision rendered would be subject
to challenge and review by the U.S. Court of Appeals, where
review could take months. Further, the ICC would be authorized
to place conditions on transactions prior to granting approval
including, but not limited to, the imposition of labor protective
arrangements and the continuation of uneconomical rail service.
such conditions could substantially alter the economic
feasibility of proposed non-carrier acquisitions of rail
carriers. H.R. 2364 fails to provide guidance or standards for
use in determining the fitness of the non-carrier, thereby
leaving the review process open to further uncertainty,
subjective determinations, and protracted litigation.
CONSEQUENCES COULD BE SEVERE.
Myth: The provision is minimal.
Because there are currently only 16 Class I railroads, it is
argued, the provision would be invoked only very infrequently, if
at all.
Fact: There is no reason for the type of additional government
regulation contained in the provision.
Passage of law should be based on substantive merit, not
frequency of application. Further, there has been no evidence of
significant reductions in rail service or questionable financial
actions arising out of recent acquisitions of Class I railroads
that justify the burdensome regulation implicit in this
provision. Moreover, indirect economic effects of this provision
could be substantial if it sets a precedent for reregulation of
the railroad industry or mergers and acquisitions in other
industries. Congress has expressed interest in restricting
higher debt levels in the corporate sector through tax changes
and other impediments. Requiring review for restructuring in the
railroad industry could lead to similar regulation in other
industries. Further, to the extent that the preapproval process
impedes foreign investment in U.S. railroads, retaliation is
likely. Restrictions on U.S. investment abroad could result.
LEGISLATION IS NOT WANTED BY THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY.
Myth: Railroads do not oppose this provision.
Railroads are not lobbying against this provision.
4
06/05/90
12:21
005
Fact: significant portions of the railroad industry and the
financial services industry oppose this provision.
On June 22, 1989, the Senate Commerce Committee held a
hearing on legislation (S. 1005) similar to H.R. 2364. Santa Fe
Southern Pacific testified in opposition to the expanded ICC
authority as did several major financial institutions. The Union
Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads are opposed to the
expanded ICC authority in H.R. 2364.
THIS IS ANTI-INVESTMENT LEGISLATION.
Myth: This is not an anti-LBO provision.
Some say that the bill does not specifically single out LBOS
but would apply to any non-carrier acquisition of a Class I
railroad without regard to how such a transaction is financed.
Fact: The provision would be a barrier to railroad acquisitions
and capital restructurings.
This bill is anti-LBO and anti-every other type of non-
carrier acquisition and capital restructuring of a railroad. The
types of transactions this bill is designed to regulate are
precisely those that involve the issuance of debt to finance the
acquisition. The language of the bill explicitly requires a
review of the "total fixed charges" that would result from
proposed transactions. Further, under existing law the ICC is
authorized to review transactions except changes in control (to a
non-carrier) that result from a change in stock ownership. LBOs
have proved to be one way stockholders have to realize the higher
value of assets overall. Placing obstacles to industry
restructurings would adversely affect both industry stock prices
and the overall equity market.
PROVISION WOULD UNRAVEL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR DEREGULATION.
Myth: The provision was developed strictly on a bipartisan basis.
House Commerce Committee Republicans and one Senate Commerce
Committee Republican supported this measure.
Fact: There is bipartisan support for deregulation of the rail
industry.
In the Senate Commerce Committee, eight of the nine
Republicans opposed a bill similar in purpose and intent (S.
1005). In any case, this should not be a partisan issue.
Republicans and Democrats supported passage of the Staggers Rail
Act of 1980 that significantly reduced counterproductive and
burdensome government regulation of the rail industry. Only
5
06/05/90
12:22
006
recently, GAO issued a report, Railroad Regulation: Economic and
Financial Impacts or the Staggers Act of 1980, documenting the
benefits of that Act including the improved financial health and
competitiveness within the industry. Efforts to reimpose
intrusive government regulation would have to roll-back
bipartisan support for deregulation.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSETS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION.
Myth: The provision is necessary to protect the Federal
investment in major railroads.
The Nation's freight railroads owe the Federal government
approximately $400 million in outstanding (and for the most part
unsecured) loans. Thus, it is argued that the proposed review
process will allow the ICC to consider the effect of proposed
transactions on such debts.
Fact: There are more effective means to protect Federal financial
interests in individual railroads.
If the purpose of the legislation is to protect the Federal
government's financial interest in individual railroads, there
are more efficient, effective, and far less burdensome means to
achieve that goal. The Federal Railroad Administration is
currently in the process of renegotiating directly with carriers
the terms of many of its outstanding loans with precisely the
intention of limiting the government's exposure in acquisition
and bankruptcy situations. In addition, the FRA is exploring
other options that are more direct and far less burdensome than
an ICC review to protect financial assets. Also, under current
agreements, there is usually a provision that can trigger
acceleration of the full balance of the loan if there is a change
in corporate ownership. Typically, DOT negotiates with carriers
for repayment of outstanding loans.
Finally, the Federal investment in the freight rail industry
is best protected by assuring the financial health of the
industry. Therefore, its access to capital markets. It would be
counterproductive to limit that access.
6
06/05/90
12:19
001
Rob Protman
Rebuttal to Proponents' Arguments for
the ICC Provision of H.R. 2364
Proponents of H.R. 2364, the Amtrak reauthorization bill,
have asserted certain arguments in favor of the bill's "ICC
provision." A review of the major arguments and conclusions
finds that they are for the most part misleading and deceptive.
The substantive arguments are addressed below.
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR EXPANDING GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT OF THE
RAILROAD INDUSTRY.
Myth: The provision closes a loophole in existing law.
It is argued that the provision is necessary to close a so-
called "loophole" in the Interstate Commerce Act. Under the
existing statute (43 U.S.C. 11343), the types of transactions
required for ICC review and approval include:
(1) consolidation or merger of 2 or more carriers;
(2) any purchase, lease, or contract to operate a carrier's
property by any number of carriers;
(3) acquisition of control of a carrier by any number of
carriers;
(4) acquisition of control of at least 2 carriers by an entity
that is not a carrier;
(5) acquisition of control of a carrier by an entity that is not
a carrier but that controls any number of carriers; and
(6) acquisition by a rail carrier of trackage rights over, or
joint ownership in or joint use of, a railroad line owned and
operated by another carrier.
However, under longstanding legal precedent, when an entity which
is not a carrier acquires control of a single system, the
transaction is not within the purview of the ICC's jurisdiction
under Section 11343.
Fact: The provision would involve government in a whole new area
of regulation.
The types of transactions listed in Section 11343, for ICC
review and approval, are distinguished by the fact that each
raises a potential competitive or antitrust concern that warrants
government review. No such issue presents itself when a non-
carrier acquires a single carrier. Regulating transactions of
this type, as provided for in H.R. 2364, goes beyond government's
legitimate interest in assuring competition in the rail industry.
Such regulation would be tantamount to using the ICC as a forum
to determine the competence of non-railroad management to operate
railroads. This would be a significant broadening of
government's regulatory role and clearly goes beyond the current
scope of the Interstate Commerce Act.
1
06/05/90
12:19
002
SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY EXISTS TO PROTECT RAIL SERVICE AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST.
Myth: The provision is in the public interest.
It has been argued that because the Class I railroads
represent the majority of the country's rail system, employ over
two hundred thousand persons and serve thousands of communities,
they should be subject to the additional regulatory scrutiny
provided in H.R. 2364. There is particular concern about the
dislocation that would result if Class I rail carriers were
purchased in order to be "cut up and sold off piecemeal."
Fact: The public interest is already protected: rail service
could be jeopardized and stockholders could be adversely
affected.
Under existing law, rail carriers are already scrutinized
more closely than other industries. Adequate authority exists to
preserve the public interest in acquisitions of railroads. The
only transaction that is currently not subject to ICC review is a
simple change in ownership that would result from a non-carrier's
purchase of a majority shareholder's interest in a carrier or
carrier holding company. Transactions that could affect the
public interest would be subject to scrutiny. The ICC has full
and complete jurisdiction over sales, transfers, and disposition
of rail lines and extensive authority over a carrier's issuance
of debt securities, including the assumption of debt. More
importantly, however, the ICC does not have any track record in
determining whether a financial transaction is in the public
interest.
Most other industries (including other transportation
providers) are not subject to the kind of review proposed for
Class I rail carriers. Financial analysts testified before the
Senate Commerce Committee that review of these acquisitions will
make it more difficult for railroads to raise capital on terms
comparable to those available to other industries.
The assumption that adding new debt to A rail carrier puts
transportation service at risk is specious. Instead, it could
constitute a desirable but necessary cost to finance a needed
expansion of service. The use of leverage in a corporation is a
strategic decision the owners make within limits set by the
providers of borrowed capital. The ICC is not in a position to
determine what an acceptable level of debt is for a particular
carrier. TO limit arbitrarily the debt a carrier could incur
limits management flexibility and would place an artificial
constraint on a carrier's ability to raise needed capital.
Moreover, there is no measurable relationship between quality of
service and level of debt maintained by a railroad. The
2
06/05/90
12:20
003
appropriate debt-equity ratio of any railroad company is best
left to the market. If a rail carrier takes on excessive debt,
that will be reflected in the value of vite stock.
Further, requiring ICC approval of changes in ownership
(where competitive concerns do not exist) and capital structure
decisions increase uncertainty in these types of strategic
decisions. According to the financial analysts who testified
before the Senate Commerce Committee, this added uncertainty
would likely increase the railroad industry's cost of capital.
In turn, this would make it more difficult to raise needed
financing in the financial markets, and thereby put downward
pressure on rail stocks. The public interest would certainly not
be served by artificially penalizing the holders of rail stocks.
Moreover, increasing the cost of capital could jeopardize the
financial viability of a railroad and ultimately endanger rail
service.
RAIL SERVICE COULD BE PUT AT RISK.
Myth: The provision would preserve the railroad infrastructure.
Railroads are unlike other transportation modes because they
must maintain and operate their own rights-of-way. Because the
rights-of-way are private, there is a national interest in
protecting the rail infrastructure by assuring the preservation
of rail service.
Fact: The provision would act as a barrier to capital investment.
The desirability or protecting the rail infrastructure is
well established. H.R. 2364, however, does not increase the
security of rail infrastructure. It may, in fact, have the
opposite effect. The provision would make more difficult the
injection of fresh capital for infrastructure renewal or
managerial talent into the rail industry. The rail
infrastructure is best preserved by enhancing the industry's
access to managerial talent and financial resources.
INVESTMENT IN RAILROADS WOULD BE LESS ATTRACTIVE.
Myth: The provision would not preclude investment in Class I
railroads.
Proponents assert that the provision in H.R. 2364 would not
preclude investment in railroads. The provision, it is argued,
merely provides an expeditious (105 day) and "limited 'fitness
review'' of the non-carrier, the non-carrier's intentions, and
what affect of the transaction would have on the public interest.
3
06/05/90
12:21
004
Fact: The regulatory uncertainties inherent in H.R. 2364 would
discourage the commitment of outside capital in the railroad
industry.
The increased delay and uncertainty inherent in acquiring
ICC approval of a transaction will raise the cost of such
transactions. For example, while the bill limits the ICC's
review period to 105 days, any decision rendered would be subject
to challenge and review by the U.S. Court of Appeals, where
review could take months. Further, the ICC would be authorized
to place conditions on transactions prior to granting approval
including, but not limited to, the imposition of labor protective
arrangements and the continuation of uneconomical rail service.
such conditions could substantially alter the economic
feasibility of proposed non-carrier acquisitions of rail
carriers. H.R. 2364 fails to provide guidance or standards for
use in determining the fitness of the non-carrier, thereby
leaving the review process open to further uncertainty,
subjective determinations, and protracted litigation.
CONSEQUENCES COULD BE SEVERE.
Myth: The provision is minimal.
Because there are currently only 16 Class I railroads, it is
argued, the provision would be invoked only very infrequently, if
at all.
Fact: There is no reason for the type of additional government
regulation contained in the provision.
Passage of law should be based on substantive merit, not
frequency of application. Further, there has been no evidence of
significant reductions in rail service or questionable financial
actions arising out of recent acquisitions of Class I railroads
that justify the burdensome regulation implicit in this
provision. Moreover, indirect economic effects of this provision
could be substantial if it sets a precedent for reregulation of
the railroad industry or mergers and acquisitions in other
industries. Congress has expressed interest in restricting
higher debt levels in the corporate sector through tax changes
and other impediments. Requiring review for restructuring in the
railroad industry could lead to similar regulation in other
industries. Further, to the extent that the preapproval process
impedes foreign investment in U.S. railroads, retaliation is
likely. Restrictions on U.S. investment abroad could result.
LEGISLATION IS NOT WANTED BY THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY.
Myth: Railroads do not oppose this provision.
Railroads are not lobbying against this provision.
4
06/05/90
12:21
005
Fact: significant portions of the railroad industry and the
financial services industry oppose this provision.
On June 22, 1989, the Senate Commerce Committee held a
hearing on legislation (S. 1005) similar to H.R. 2364. Santa Fe
Southern Pacific testified in opposition to the expanded ICC
authority as did several major financial institutions. The Union
Pacific and Burlington Northern railroads are opposed to the
expanded ICC authority in H.R. 2364.
THIS IS ANTI-INVESTMENT LEGISLATION.
Myth: This is not an anti-LBO provision.
Some say that the bill does not specifically single out LBOS
but would apply to any non-carrier acquisition of a Class I
railroad without regard to how such a transaction is financed.
Fact: The provision would be a barrier to railroad acquisitions
and capital restructurings.
This bill is anti-LBO and anti-every other type of non-
carrier acquisition and capital restructuring of a railroad. The
types of transactions this bill is designed to regulate are
precisely those that involve the issuance of debt to finance the
acquisition. The language of the bill explicitly requires a
review of the "total fixed charges" that would result from
proposed transactions. Further, under existing law the ICC is
authorized to review transactions except changes in control (to a
non-carrier) that result from a change in stock ownership. LBOs
have proved to be one way stockholders have to realize the higher
value of assets overall. Placing obstacles to industry
restructurings would adversely affect both industry stock prices
and the overall equity market.
PROVISION WOULD UNRAVEL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR DEREGULATION.
Myth: The provision was developed strictly on a bipartisan basis.
House Commerce Committee Republicans and one Senate Commerce
Committee Republican supported this measure.
Fact: There is bipartisan support for deregulation of the rail
industry.
In the Senate Commerce Committee, eight of the nine
Republicans opposed a bill similar in purpose and intent (S.
1005). In any case, this should not be a partisan issue.
Republicans and Democrats supported passage of the Staggers Rail
Act of 1980 that significantly reduced counterproductive and
burdensome government regulation of the rail industry. Only
5
06/05/90
12:22
006
recently, GAO issued a report, Railroad Regulation: Economic and
Financial Impacts or the Staggers Act of 1980, documenting the
benefits of that Act including the improved financial health and
competitiveness within the industry. Efforts to reimpose
intrusive government regulation would have to roll-back
bipartisan support for deregulation.
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSETS ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION.
Myth: The provision is necessary to protect the Federal
investment in major railroads.
The Nation's freight railroads owe the Federal government
approximately $400 million in outstanding (and for the most part
unsecured) loans. Thus, it is argued that the proposed review
process will allow the ICC to consider the effect of proposed
transactions on such debts.
Fact: There are more effective means to protect Federal financial
interests in individual railroads.
If the purpose of the legislation is to protect the Federal
government's financial interest in individual railroads, there
are more efficient, effective, and far less burdensome means to
achieve that goal. The Federal Railroad Administration is
currently in the process of renegotiating directly with carriers
the terms of many of its outstanding loans with precisely the
intention of limiting the government's exposure in acquisition
and bankruptcy situations. In addition, the FRA is exploring
other options that are more direct and far less burdensome than
an ICC review to protect financial assets. Also, under current
agreements, there is usually a provision that can trigger
acceleration of the full balance of the loan if there is a change
in corporate ownership. Typically, DOT negotiates with carriers
for repayment of outstanding loans.
Finally, the Federal investment in the freight rail industry
is best protected by assuring the financial health of the
industry. Therefore, its access to capital markets. It would be
counterproductive to limit that access.
6
2:30 pm
Issue: AMTRAK VETO
Date: 6/5/90
Yes LnsYes Undcded LnsNo
No
Yes
LnsYes
Undcded
LnsNo
No
ADAMS
ARMSTRONG
BAUCUS
BOND
BENTSEN
BOSCHWITZ
BIDEN
BURNS
BINGAMAN
CHAFEE
BOREN
COATS
BRADLEY
COCHRAN
BREAUX
COHEN
BRYAN
D'AMATO
BUMPERS
DANFORTH
BURDICK
DOLE
BYRD
DOMENICI
CONRAD
DURENBERGER
CRANSTON
GARN
DASCHLE
GORTON
DECONCINI
GRAMM
DIXON
GRASSLEY
DODD
HATCH
EXON
HATFIELD
FORD
HEINZ
FOWLER
HELMS
GLENN
HUMPHREY
GORE
JEFFORDS
GRAHAM
KASSEBAUM
HARKIN
KASTEN
HEFLIN
LOTT
HOLLINGS
LUGAR
INOUYE
MACK
JOHNSTON
McCAIN
KENNEDY
McCLURE
RBRT KERREY
McConnell
JOHN KERRY
MURKOWSKI
KOHL
NICKLES
LAUTENBERG
PACKWOOD
LEAHY
PRESSLER
LEVIN
ROTH
LIEBERMAN
RUDMAN
MATSUNAGA
SIMPSON
METZENBAUM
SPECTER
MIKULSKI
STEVENS
MITCHELL
SYMMS
MOYNIHAN
THURMOND
NUNN
WALLOP
PELL
WARNER
PRYOR
WILSON
REID
RIEGLE
ROBB
Totals: Yes 31 LnYes 3 Und 7 LnNo 3 No 2
ROCKEFELLER
SANFORD
SARBANES
SASSER
SHELBY
SIMON
WIRTH
TTLS: Ys
LNYs
UND
LNNo
No
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
05. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
6/5/90
P/S
Re: Recommended phone calls on Amtrack Reauthorization
(3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By IP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
June 5, 1990
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
FRED MCCLURE far
SUBJECT: Recommended phone calls on Amtrak Reauthorization
Below are the recommended phone calls regarding H.R. 2364, Amtrak
Reauthorization.
We recommend you call Senators Rudman, Hatfield, Boschwitz,
Grassley and Armstrong. We would recommend that Secretary
Skinner call Senators Cohen, Durenberger and Pressler, and
finally, that Secretary Brady call Senator Heinz.
We will proceed to ask Secretaries Skinner and Brady to make
these calls unless we hear otherwise from you.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
RECOMMENDED PHONE CALLS BY GOVERNOR SUNUNU
TO:
Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN)
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH)
Senator Bill Armstrong (R-CO)
DATE:
June 5, 1990
RECOMMENDED BY:
Fred McClure 7m
BACKGROUND:
On May 24, the President vetoed H.R. 2364,
legislation authorizing $2 billion to Amtrak
over three years. The basis of the veto was
a new provision requiring ICC review of
proposed acquisitions of railroads by non-
railroad companies. The bill had passed the
House by a vote of 323-93 and the Senate by
voice vote.
DATE OF
SUBMISSION:
June 5, 1990
KEY POINTS:
See Attachment.
ACTION:
Senator Rudy Boschwitz (R-MN)
Unions in Minnesota have put pressure on him to override.
As the former Chairman of the Senatorial Campaign Committee,
he may be swayed by the argument that an override helps the
candidacies of Senator Exon (D-NE) and Harkin (D-IA). It is
Senator Exon's bill and Senator Harkin's ICC provision.
ACTION:
-2-
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
Senator Grassley told David Sloane that he may be with the
President if a 34th vote is needed. He is worried about
hurting Congressman Tauke's (R-IA) race against Senator
Harkin (D-IA). Since Congressman Tauke is likely to vote
for override, however, this should not be a concern.
ACTION:
Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH)
Senator Rudman usually supports legislation to curtail LBOs.
He is concerned that the veto message only addresses the ICC
provision. Senator Rudman is opposed to funding for Amtrak.
ACTION:
Senator William Armstrong (R-CO)
Senator Armstrong opposes the ICC provision, but is more
opposed to Amtrak funding. He may be swayed by the argument
that if the veto is not sustained, we will be stuck with
both the Amtrak funding and the ICC provision. In any
event, Amtrak funding is determined by the Appropriations
Committees.
ACTION:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
06. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
9/24/90
Re: Senate Republican Policy Luncheon on Tuesday (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Open on Expiration of PRA
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
(Document Follows)
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
By IP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
will of STAFF
September 24, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
Fred McClure fm
SUBJECT:
Senate Republican Policy Luncheon on Tuesday
You are scheduled to address Senate Republicans at their policy
luncheon tomorrow at 12:45 p.m. in Room S-211. The Senate will
vote to invoke cloture this week on three bills on which there
are senior advisors vetoes: S. 1224, the CAFE bill (Tuesday at
2:15 p.m.); S. 110, the Family Planning bill (Wednesday); and
S. 874, the Motor Voter bill (Wednesday). Each bill will be
killed if cloture is not invoked.
S. 1224, CAFE
We are very close to getting the votes necessary to beat cloture.
To be safe, we need to find 41 votes; although fewer may be
needed if there are absentees.
Talking Points:
*
S. 1224, the bill to raise the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards by 40% by the year 2001 on all cars and
light trucks sold in the U.S. would have an adverse impact on the
U.S. economy. This bill would put unreasonable burdens on the
consumers and the automakers. The bill will increase the
estimated cost of the average new american auto in the year 2001
by $1,500 (in 1990 dollars) and cost an estimated 60,000 U.S.
auto manufacturing jobs. Total costs of the CAFE bill translate
to more than $70 for each barrel of oil saved.
*
The only real way to increase CAFE is to downsize the car or
truck. Department of Transportation studies conclude that S.1224
would result an increase of up to 1,400 fatalities a year to meet
downsizing requirements. It is ironic that this increase in
fatalities would wipe out the projected lives that would be saved
under the air toxics title of the Clear Air Bill--while costing
the economy more money.
*
S. 1224 does not address the short-term problem of the
Iraq/Kuwait oil embargo. This bill has no effect on consumption
before 1995.
- 2 -
S. 110, the Family Planning Bill
At some time on Wednesday, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture
on S. 110. Debate on the bill begins on Tuesday. There is a
senior advisors' veto threat on the bill because language in the
Committee report and in the bill's preamble effectively encourage
abortion counseling, which runs counter to regulations issued by
HHS. (The Supreme Court is expected to rule on these regulations
in November.) Senator Chafee will offer an amendment to strike
these HHS regulations outright. We do not have enough votes to
stop cloture, though the expected passage of the Chafee amendment
may improve our chances. Senator Humphrey is expected to extend
debate as long as he is able.
Talking Points
*
The President supports family planning, but cannot support a
program that includes abortion counseling.
*
In its current form, the bill is likely to be interpreted to
allow the promotion of abortion as an option for family planning.
*
The bill is not needed; there has been no family planning
authorization bill since 1985. The program has been funded
through the appropriations process.
*
The President would support funding for the Family Planning
program through the appropriations bill, or through an
authorization bill, as long as abortion language was not
attached.
S. 874, the Motor Voter bill
Cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of S. 874
is also expected on Wednesday. This is a more partisan issue
that makes defeating cloture a better possibility. Senator Dole
has a substitute which the Administration supports.
Talking Points:
*
This bill greatly increases the potential for voter fraud.
*
It also imposes mandatory Federal procedures on states,
which have been historically unconstrained in governing the
electoral process. As part of these mandatory procedures, it
also imposes unnecessary and burdensome administrative cost on
states.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
07. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
9/19/90
P/S
Re: CAFE Standards Vote in the Senate (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By IP (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
September 19, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
Fred McClure 7m
SUBJECT:
CAFE Standards Vote in the Senate
Last Friday the Senate voted 68 to 28 to stop debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1224, the Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Act of 1990. The cloture vote on the bill is scheduled for next
Tuesday at 2:15 p.m.
Twenty-three (23) Republicans voted against the Administration.
However, some of these Republicans are with us on the merits and
may be willing to vote against invoking cloture on the bill.
Below is a selected list of Senators who we believe fall into
this category. Please call these six Senators sometime before
close of business Monday. Proposed talking points are attached.
Please let me know any feedback you receive.
Senator D'Amato 4-6542
Senator Domenici 4-7090
Senator Kassebaum 4-4774
Senator Murkowski 4-6665
Senator Packwood 4-5244
Senator Warner 4-2023
Other Republicans who voted for cloture on the motion to proceed
are Boschwitz, Chafee, Cohen, Durenberger, Gorton, Hatfield,
Heinz, Jeffords, McCain, Rudman, Pressler, Danforth, Grassley,
Humphrey, Roth, Specter and Stevens (the latter seven may be
with us).
- 2 -
Of the four Senators who did not vote on the first cloture
motion, three are expected to vote against cloture (Garn,
Johnston, and Simpson) and one (Wilson) for.
One Democrat, Senator Sasser, is expected to vote against the
next cloture vote (he switched his vote to support cloture just
prior to the close of the vote).
With the 28 votes we got last Friday, plus the 3 absentees and
Sasser, we still need 9 votes to obtain the 41 votes to stop
cloture.
Attachment
CC: Boyden Gray
Michael Boskin
Attachment
TALKING POINTS
*
S. 1224, the bill to raise the Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) standards by 40% by the year 2001 on all cars
and light trucks sold in the U.S. would have an adverse
impact on the U.S. economy. This bill would put
unreasonable burdens on the consumers and the automakers.
The bill will increase the estimated cost of the average new
American auto in the year 2001 by $1,500 (in 1990 dollars)
and cost an estimated 60,000 U.S. auto manufacturing jobs.
*
The only real way to increase CAFE is to downsize the car or
truck. Department of Transportation studies conclude that
S.1224 would result an increase of up to 1,400 fatalities a
year to meet downsizing requirements. It is ironic that
this increase in fatalities would wipe out the projected
lives that would be saved under the air toxics title of the
Clear Air Bill-while costing the economy more money.
*
S. 1224 does not address the short-term problem of the
Iraq/Kuwait oil embargo. This bill has no effect on
consumption before 1995.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
July 19, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
Fred McClure for
SUBJECT: Analysis of Key Votes in the 101st Congress,
Second Session
Attached for your review is the recent analysis we provided to
the President on Congressional support for the Administration's
positions.
Attachment
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08a. Memo
From Nick Calio to John Sununu
9/18/90
P/S
Re: Textile Bill (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By & (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
MEMORANDUM TO GOVERNOR SUNUNU
FROM:
Nick Calio
DATE:
September 18, 1990
RE:
Textile Bill
This afternoon, the House is scheduled to consider the Textile
Bill, H.R. 4328. We would appreciate your calling the following
Members to let them know the importance of this vote to the
President.
Tom Lewis (R-Fla.) - Lewis represents West Palm Beach and serves
on the Agriculture and Science and Technology Committees. He has
voted against the bill and to sustain vetoes in the past two
Congresses.
Barbara Vucanovich (R-Nev.) - Normally a strong supporter of the Callfa
President and a free-trader, she has voted against Textile Bills vete
in the past. However, she has indicated she may change her vote
to send a signal to the Administration that she is not pleased
with our current trade policies. She has asked, independently of
our conversations on this issue, to meet with you regarding a new
Justice later proba real
U.S. Attorney in Nevada.
Call for &
Michael Bilirakis (R-Fla.) -In the 99th Congress, he voted for
the bill, but changed his vote in the 100th to vote against. He
yours am was
is getting a lot of pressure from textile lobbyists and is being
swayed by conservatives such as Duncan Hunter (R-Cal.) and Newt
Gingrich (R-Ga.). Hunter and Gingrich are using the issue of
"slave labor" in China to win votes for the bill.
Bob Livingston (R-La.) - Livingston has opposed Textile Bills in
the past but has indicated he may change his position. He was
visited personally by Roger Milliken, a CEO representing textile
interests and a key Republican fundraiser, who has been most
persuasive in changing Members' minds.
pt.now
Jim McCrery (R-La.) - As the only other possible nay vote from
the Louisiana delegation, McCrery is genuinely undecided about
which way to go. If we can convince Livingston about the harm
THE
the bill will cause, McCrery may find it easier to vote against
the bill.
ok
onet
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08b. Memo
From Frederick McClure to POTUS
9/17/90
PS
Re: Recommended Telephone Call to Richard Stallings (2
pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By If (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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.
FYI
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL BY THE PRESIDENT
TO:
Congressman Richard Stallings (D-ID)
DATE:
September 17, 1990
RECOMMENDED BY:
Fred McClure
PURPOSE:
To urge Congressman Stallings to vote
against the textile bill on the House
floor today.
BACKGROUND:
Congressman Richard Stallings (D-ID) has
consistently voted against textile
legislation. He has voted against two
textile bills and voted to sustain two
of President Reagan's vetos. His
position is wavering, however,
(he tells us) because Senator McClure
(R-ID) voted for the bill and
Congressman Craig (R-ID) is considering
supporting it too.
A phone call from you, asking for his
help and reminding him of his consistent
support for free trade in the past, may
be enough to solidify his opposition to
the bill.
KEY POINTS:
We've got a tough vote today on the
textile bill and I need your help.
This bill would seriously restrict
textile and footwear imports and violate
international trade rules.
We're currently enjoying a huge export
boom, the greatest in our nation's
history. This bill will place at risk
our $400 billion in exports and the
millions of American jobs that depend on
trade.
-2-
Furthermore, the timing of this bill is
terrible. It sends the wrong signal to
the rest of the world when other
countries are on the verge of adopting
America's model of free enterprise and
competition.
It also sends the wrong signal to other
countries as we commence this round of
the GATT negotiations.
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
September 17, 1990
ACTION:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08c. Memo
From Frederick McClure to POTUS
9/17/90
PS
Re: Recommended Telephone Call to Susan Molinari (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By & (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL BY THE PRESIDENT
TO:
Congresswoman Susan Molinari (R-NY)
DATE:
September 17, 1990
RECOMMENDED BY:
Fred McClure
PURPOSE:
To urge Congresswoman Molinari to vote
against the textile bill on the House
floor today.
BACKGROUND:
Representative Susan Molinari is facing
her first vote on the textile bill today
and tells us she is truly undecided.
Her father opposed the bill in 1987 and
Bill Green (R-NY) is spearheading the
effort against it. Therefore she has
some good reasons to vote no.
Some feel she committed her vote to
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who is a strong
supporter of the bill in exchange for
his help last week on the "home porting"
issue.
KEY POINTS:
We've got a tough vote today on the
textile bill and I need your help.
This bill would seriously restrict
textile and footwear imports and violate
international trade rules.
We're currently enjoying a huge export
boom, the greatest in our nation's
history. This bill will place at risk
our $400 billion in exports and the
millions of American jobs that depend on
trade.
Furthermore, the timing of this bill is
terrible. It sends the wrong signal to
the rest of the world when other
countries are on the verge of adopting
America's model of free enterprise and
competition.
-2-
It also sends the wrong signal to other
countries as we commence this round of
the GATT negotiations.
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
September 17, 1990
ACTION:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08d. Memo
From Frederick McClure to POTUS
9/17/90
PS
Re: Recommended Telephone Call to Gerald Solomon (2
pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By gp (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
RECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL BY THE PRESIDENT
TO:
Congressman Gerald Solomon (R-NY)
DATE:
September 17, 1990
RECOMMENDED BY:
Fred McClure
PURPOSE:
To urge Congressman Solomon to vote
against the textile bill on the House
floor today.
BACKGROUND:
Congressman Gerry Solomon (R-NY) has
consistently supported textile
legislation, but has told our
legislative affairs staff and other
private sector lobbyists that he may
consider switching his position and
oppose the bill this year.
A phone call from you asking for his
help this time may be the key to his
support for our position.
KEY POINTS:
We've got a tough vote today on the
textile bill and I need your help.
This bill would seriously restrict
textile and footwear imports and violate
international trade rules.
We're currently enjoying a huge export
boom, the greatest in our nation's
history. This bill will place at risk
our $400 billion in exports and the
millions of American jobs that depend on
trade.
-2-
Furthermore, the timing of this bill is
terrible. It sends the wrong signal to
the rest of the world when other
countries are on the verge of adopting
America's model of free enterprise and
competition.
It also sends the wrong signal to other
countries as we commence this round of
the GATT negotiations.
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
September 17, 1990
ACTION:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
08e. List
Of Representatives and positions on Textile Bill [FOIA
9/17/90
P/S, (b)(6)
RESTRICTIONS REDACTED] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By H (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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.
8
2023953911 USTR Washington
09/17/90 16:06
003
Rep. Larry Coughlin (R-PA)
225-6111
Norristown. (215) 277-4040
88 Vote Y-N
o
Undecided. Needs to be reminded that this is a crucial
vote for the President's trade policy.
Rep. D. French Slaughter, Jr. (R-VA)
225-6561
Charlottesville, (804) 295-2106
88 Vote Y-Y
o
Undecided. Needs to be reminded that this is a crucial
vote for the President's trade policy.
Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY)
225-3371
(b)(6)
88 Vote (not a member in 88)
O
Freshman. Leaning for the Bill because of significant
pressure from Labor. Ambassador Hills has spoken with -
- still feels she's getting too much pressure from
Labor to ignore.
ATTACHMENT A
KEY VOTE ANALYSIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
INDEX
List of Key Votes
p. 1
Republican Rankings
p. 4
Democrat Rankings
p. 8
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 101st Congress
Thu, July 12, 1990 8:46am (EDT)
Display of 12 House Votes in Vote File Named 'KEY HOUSE VOTES'
Description: key House votes
2712 by PELOSI (D-CA) -- Emergency Chinese Immigration Relief Act of 1989
(Pocket vetoed 11/30/89)
LOST
01/24/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2004: 390-25
(DEM: 245-0; REP: 145-25)
Favorable Vote: 'NO' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR2712 PASSED OVER VETO
(House voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 2712, Emergency
Chinese Immigration Relief Act of 1989.)
H.R.2190 by FOLEY (D-WA) -- National Voter Registration Act of 1989
02/06/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2010: 156-265
LOST
(DEM: 1-251; REP: 155-14)
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR2190 REJECTED MOTION
(House rejected the Gillmor motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on
House Administration with instructions to report back forthwith containing
an amendment to allow some provision for formal authentication of mail-in
registrations; delete provisions that require designated locations to
accept and transmit completed registration forms to State election
officials; and add to the enforcement provisions penalties for offers of
payment for voting, filing false information regarding an election
campaign, and using the postal system to perpetrate such fraud.)
H.R.1231 by ANDERSON (D-CA) -- Emergency Board to Investigate the Dispute
Between Eastern Airlines and Its Collective Bargaining Units, Establishment
(Vetoed 11/21/89)
WON
03/07/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2022: 261-160
(DEM: 236-13; REP: 25-147)
Favorable Vote: 'NO' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR1231 FAILED TO OVERRIDE VETO
(House voted to sustain the President's veto of H.R. 1231, to establish a
commission to investigate and report respecting the dispute between Eastern
Airlines and its collective bargaining units.)
H. R. 3847 by CONYERS (D-MI) -- Department of Environmental Protection Act
Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1990
03/28/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2049: 161-266
LOST
(DEM: 25-228; REP: 136-38)
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR3847 REJECTED AMENDMENT
(House rejected the Hastert amendment in the nature of a substitute that
sought to elevate the EPA to cabinet level, but delete all other provisions
of the bill.)
H.R.3
by HAWKINS, AUGUSTUS (D-CA) -- Act for Better Child Care Services of
1990
LOST
Act for Better Child Care
Child Care and Health Insurance Act of 1989
- 1 -
03/29/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2057: 195-225
(DEM: 38-211; REP: 157-14)
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR3 REJECTED AMENDMENT
(House rejected the Stenholm amendment in the nature of a substitute that
sought to increase the funding for the Head Start program, but would permit
only 50% of the funds to be used to expand the program to a full-day
program; not to authorize funds for a separate program to provide before
and after-school care in schools for school-aged children and for
pre-school children throughout the day; provide an increase in Title XX
block grants to States for child care services; provide expansion of the
basic Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and provide for a matching grants
child care program for private companies; and entitle individuals over 65
years old who perform child care services to be entitled to an exemption of
the earnings from Social Security excess earnings tax.)
.R.1236 by BROOKS (D-TX) -- Price Fixing Prevention Act of 1989
04/18/90 HOUSE Vote No. 2074: 235-157
LOST
(DEM: 212-23; REP: 23-134)
Favorable Vote: 'NO' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR1236 PASSED AS AMENDED
(House passed H.R. 1236, to establish evidentiary standards for Federal
civil antitrust claims based on resale price fixing.)
H.R.770 by CLAY (D-MO) -- Family and Medical Leave Act of 1990
05/10/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2107: 237-187
LOST
(DEM: 198-54; REP: 39-133)
Favorable Vote: 'NO' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR770 PASSED AS AMENDED
(House passed H.R. 770, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1990.)
H.R.2273 by COELHO (D-CA) -- Americans With Disabilities Act of 1989
05/22/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2121: 192-227
LOST
(DEM: 46-203; REP: 146-24)
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR2273 REJECTED AMENDMENT
(House rejected the Sensenbrenner amendment, as modified, that sought to
provide that the victims of job discrimination based on a disablility would
be entitled only to remedies currently available under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than any future expanded remedies.)
H.R.4636 by FASCELL (D-FL) -- Supplemental Assistance for Emerging Democracies
Act of 1990
Development Fund for Africa Act
Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between North and
South Act of 1990
LOST
05/22/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2126: 175-243
(DEM: 23-225; REP: 152-18)
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR4636 REJECTED AMENDMENT
(House rejected the Broomfield amendment seeking to provide substitute
provisions on El Salvador would have provided the President to determine
whether certain specified actions by the Salvadoran Government have
occurred which warrant withholding military aid, and permitting funds and
programs for the military, the police, a Judicial/Democratization program,
and national reconciliation.)
- 2 -
H.R.3030 by DINGELL (D-MI) -- Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
05/23/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2132: 274-146 LOST (DEM: 231-20; REP: 43-126
Favorable Vote: 'NO'
Legend for 'PROFILE': HR3030 AGREED TO AMENDMENT
(House agreed to the Wise amendment that authorizes $250 million for a
"Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance" program to be disbursed over
5-year period, providing those workers who become unemployed or suffer a
reduction of hours as a result of the provisions of the bill with two yea
of retraining and up to six months of unemployment benefits.)
H.R.2364 by LUKEN, THOMAS (D-OH) -- AMTRAK Reauthorization and Improvement Ac
of 1990 (Vetoed 5/24/90)
LOST
06/07/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2162: 294-123
(DEM: 236-7; REP: 58-116
Favorable Vote: 'NO' Legend for 'PROFILE': HR2364 PASSED OVER VETO
(House voted to override the President's veto of H.R. 2364, to amend the
Rail Passenger Service Act to authorize appropriations for the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (two-thirds of those present voting in
favor) .)
H.J.R.350 by MICHEL (R-IL) -- Constitution of the United States, Amendment -
Desecration of the Flag
LOST
06/21/90 -- HOUSE Vote No. 2192: 254-177
(DEM: 95-160; REP: 159-17
Favorable Vote: 'YES' Legend for 'PROFILE': HJR350 FAILED OF 2/3 MAJORI
(House failed to suspend the rules and pass H.J.Res. 350, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congre
and the States to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the
United States.)
- 3 -
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 101st Congress
Thu, July 12, 1990 8:38am (EDT)
Voting Performance by
House Republicans
In Order by Percent 'FOR' (When Voting)
Based on 12 Votes in House Vote File Named 'KEY HOUSE VOTES'
Description: key House votes
% For
% Based on All Votes
(When Voting)
% For
% Against
% Not Voting
of
Abstai
BAKER (R-LA)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
COMBEST (R-TX)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DELAY (R-TX)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GEKAS (R-PA)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOSS (R-FL)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HANSEN (R-UT)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HASTERT (R-IL)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MCCRERY (R-LA)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MICHEL (R-IL)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SENSENBRENNER (R-WI)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SUNDQUIST (R-TN)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
HOLLOWAY (R-LA)
100.00
91.67
0.00
8.33
0.00
HAMMERSCHMIDT (R-AR)
100.00
83.33
0.00
16.67
0.00
STUMP (R-AZ)
100.00
75.00
0.00
25.00
0.00
ARCHER (R-TX)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
ARMEY (R-TX)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BALLENGER (R-NC)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BARTLETT (R-TX)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BATEMAN (R-VA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BEREUTER (R-NE)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BURTON (R-IN)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
COBLE (R-NC)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
COUGHLIN (R-PA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
COX (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
CRANE (R-IL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
DICKINSON (R-AL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
EDWARDS, MICKEY (R-OK)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
FAWELL (R-IL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
FIELDS (R-TX)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
GALLEGLY (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
GRADISON (R-OH)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
HANCOCK (R-MO)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
HEFLEY (R-CO)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
HILER (R-IN)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
HUNTER (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
IRELAND (R-FL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
KYL (R-AZ)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
LEWIS, TOM (R-FL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
LIVINGSTON (R-LA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
LOWERY, BILL (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
MADIGAN (R-IL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
MCCANDLESS (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
MOORHEAD (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
NIELSON, HOWARD (R-UT)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
PACKARD (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
- 4 -
PAXON (R-NY)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
QUILLEN (R-TN)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
RHODES, III (R-AZ)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
ROHRABACHER (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
ROTH, TOBY (R-WI)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
SHAW (R-FL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
SHUMWAY (R-CA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
SKEEN (R-NM)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
SPENCE (R-SC)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
STEARNS (R-FL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
THOMAS, CRAIG (R-WY)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
VUCANOVICH (R-NV)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
WALKER (R-PA)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
YOUNG, BILL (R-FL)
91.67
91.67
8.33
0.00
0.00
BILIRAKIS (R-FL)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
DORNAN, ROBERT (R-CA)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
GRANT (R-FL)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
INHOFE (R-OK)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
LENT (R-NY)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
VANDER JAGT (R-MI)
90.91
83.33
8.33
8.33
0.00
KOLBE (R-AZ)
90.00
75.00
8.33
16.67
0.00
SMITH, DENNY (R-OR)
90.00
75.00
8.33
16.67
0.00
LEWIS, JERRY (R-CA)
88.89
66.67
8.33
25.00
0.00
FRENZEL (R-MN)
87.50
58.33
8.33
33.33
0.00
LUKENS, DONALD (R-OH)
87.50
58.33
8.33
33.33
0.00
CRAIG (R-ID)
85.71
50.00
8.33
41.67
0.00
BLILEY (R-VA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
BROOMFIELD (R-MI)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
BROWN, HANK (R-CO)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
BUNNING (R-KY)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
CALLAHAN (R-AL)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
COURTER (R-NJ)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
DANNEMEYER (R-CA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
DOUGLAS (R-NH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
DREIER, DAVID (R-CA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
DUNCAN, JR. (R-TN)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
GILLMOR (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
GUNDERSON (R-WI)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
HERGER (R-CA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
HOPKINS (R-KY)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
JAMES (R-FL)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
KASICH (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
LAGOMARSINO (R-CA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
LIGHTFOOT (R-IA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MARLENEE (R-MT)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MCCOLLUM (R-FL)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MCEWEN (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MCMILLAN, ALEX (R-NC)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MILLER, CLARENCE (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
MYERS (R-IN)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
OXLEY (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
PETRI (R-WI)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
RITTER (R-PA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
ROBERTS, PAT (R-KS)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
ROGERS (R-KY)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
SCHIFF (R-NM)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
SHUSTER (R-PA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
SLAUGHTER, D. FRENCH (R-VA
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
SMITH, LAMAR (R-TX)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
SMITH, VIRGINIA (R-NE)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
- 5 -
UPTON (R-MI)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
WEBER (R-MN)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
WOLF (R-VA)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
WYLIE (R-OH)
83.33
83.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
BARTON (R-TX)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
CHANDLER (R-WA)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
CLINGER (R-PA)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
GINGRICH (R-GA)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
PURSELL (R-MI)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
SCHULZE (R-PA)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
YOUNG, DON (R-AK)
81.82
75.00
16.67
8.33
0.00
BUECHNER (R-MO)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
COLEMAN, THOMAS (R-MO)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
GOODLING (R-PA)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
GRANDY (R-IA)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
HYDE (R-IL)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
MEYERS (R-KS)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
MORRISON, SID (R-WA)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
PARRIS (R-VA)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
SMITH, ROBERT C. (R-NH)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
SMITH, ROBERT F. (R-OR)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
STANGELAND (R-MN)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
WHITTAKER (R-KS)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
ROBINSON (R-AR)
75.00
50.00
16.67
33.33
0.00
THOMAS, WILLIAM (R-CA)
75.00
50.00
16.67
33.33
0.00
BENTLEY (R-MD)
72.73
66.67
25.00
8.33
0.00.
EMERSON (R-MO)
72.73
66.67
25.00
8.33
0.00
DEWINE (R-OH)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
FISH (R-NY)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
MARTIN, DAVID (R-NY)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
MARTIN, LYNN (R-IL)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
MOLINARI (R-NY)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
REGULA (R-OH)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
SCHUETTE (R-MI)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
GALLO (R-NJ)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
HOUGHTON (R-NY)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
MILLER, JOHN (R-WA)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
PASHAYAN (R-CA)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
ROS-LEHTINEN (R-FL)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
SAXTON (R-NJ)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
SOLOMON (R-NY)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
CAMPBELL, TOM (R-CA)
63.64
58.33
33.33
0.00
8.33
TAUKE (R-IA)
60.00
50.00
33.33
16.67
0.00
BOEHLERT (R-NY)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
HENRY (R-MI)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
PORTER (R-IL)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
RAVENEL (R-SC)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
RIDGE (R-PA)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
SCHAEFER (R-CO)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
SAIKI (R-HI)
54.55
50.00
41.67
8.33
0.00
MCDADE (R-PA)
45.45
41.67
50.00
8.33
0.00
WELDON (R-PA)
45.45
41.67
50.00
8.33
0.00
DAVIS, ROBERT (R-MI)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
JOHNSON, NANCY (R-CT)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
LEACH, JAMES (R-IA)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
ROWLAND, JOHN (R-CT)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
SNOWE (R-ME)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
MCGRATH (R-NY)
36.36
33.33
58.33
8.33
0.00
ROUKEMA (R-NJ)
36.36
33.33
58.33
8.33
0.00
GREEN (R-NY)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
- 6 -
MACHTLEY (R-RI)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
SMITH, CHRISTOPHER (R-NJ)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
SMITH, PETER (R-VT)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
WALSH (R-NY)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
GILMAN (R-NY)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
HORTON (R-NY)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
MORELLA (R-MD)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
SHAYS (R-CT)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
RINALDO (R-NJ)
18.18
16.67
75.00
8.33
0.00
SCHNEIDER (R-RI)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
CONTE (R-MA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
BLAZ (R-GUAM)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CHENEY (R-WY)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MOLINARI (R-NY)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SMITH, LARKIN (R-MS)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Do you wishito display a description
of the votes in this vote file?
- 7 -
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 101st Congress
Thu, July 12, 1990 8:42am (EDT)
Voting Performance by
House Democrats
In Order by Percent 'FOR' (When Voting)
Based on 12 Votes in House Vote File Named 'KEY HOUSE VOTES'
Description: key House votes
% For
% Based on All Votes
(When Voting)
% For
% Against
% Not Voting
do
Abstai
MONTGOMERY (D-MS)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
PARKER (D-MS)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
RAY (D-GA)
75.00
75.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
HALL, RALPH (D-TX)
72.73
66.67
25.00
8.33
0.00
HUTTO (D-FL)
72.73
66.67
25.00
8.33
0.00
STENHOLM (D-TX)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
LEATH, MARVIN (D-TX)
66.67
50.00
25.00
25.00
0.00
TAUZIN (D-LA)
63.64
58.33
33.33
8.33
0.00
BARNARD (D-GA)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
BYRON (D-MD)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
HUCKABY (D-LA)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
PICKETT (D-VA)
58.33
58.33
41.67
0.00
0.00
SARPALIUS (D-TX)
54.55
50.00
41.67
8.33
0.00
STALLINGS (D-ID)
54.55
50.00
41.67
8.33
0.00
HUBBARD (D-KY)
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
SISISKY (D-VA)
50.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
HAYES, JAMES A. (D-LA)
50.00
41.67
41.67
16.67
0.00
JENKINS (D-GA)
45.45
41.67
50.00
8.33
0.00
DERRICK (D-SC)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
ENGLISH (D-OK)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
GEREN (D-TX)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
PATTERSON (D-SC)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
ROWLAND, ROY (D-GA)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
SKELTON (D-MO)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
TAYLOR (D-MS)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
THOMAS, ROBERT (D-GA)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
VALENTINE (D-NC)
41.67
41.67
58.33
0.00
0.00
WATKINS (D-OK)
37.50
25.00
41.67
33.33
0.00
NEAL, STEPHEN (D-NC)
36.36
33.33
58.33
8.33
0.00
BEVILL (D-AL)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
BROWDER (D-AL)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
CAMPBELL, BEN (D-CO)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
CLARKE (D-NC)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
COOPER (D-TN)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
DARDEN (D-GA)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
HATCHER (D-GA)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
LANCASTER (D-NC)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
LLOYD (D-TN)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
OLIN (D-VA)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
PAYNE, LEWIS (D-VA)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
LAUGHLIN (D-TX)
30.00
25.00
58.33
16.67
0.00
DONNELLY (D-MA)
27.27
25.00
66.67
8.33
0.00
WILSON, CHARLES (D-TX)
27.27
25.00
66.67
8.33
0.00
ANDREWS (D-TX)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
CHAPMAN (D-TX)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
- 8 -
HARRIS (D-AL)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
HEFNER (D-NC)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
JONES, BEN (D-GA)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
LAFALCE (D-NY)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
LIPINSKI (D-IL)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
ORTIZ (D-TX)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
PICKLE (D-TX)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
TALLON (D-SC)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
VOLKMER (D-MO)
25.00
25.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
FLIPPO (D-AL)
25.00
8.33
25.00
66.67
0.00
NELSON, BILL (D-FL)
20.00
8.33
33.33
58.33
0.00
MURPHY (D-PA)
18.18
16.67
75.00
8.33
0.00
TANNER (D-TN)
18.18
16.67
75.00
8.33
0.00
APPLEGATE (D-OH)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
BENNETT (D-FL)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
BUSTAMANTE (D-TX)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
ERDREICH (D-AL)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
LONG (D-IN)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
MARTINEZ (D-CA)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
MCCURDY (D-OK)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
MOLLOHAN (D-WV)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
SLATTERY (D-KS)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
YATRON (D-PA)
16.67
16.67
83.33
0.00
0.00
ALEXANDER (D-AR)
11.11
8.33
66.67
25.00
0.00
JONES, WALTER (D-NC)
10.00
8.33
75.00
16.67
0.00
BEILENSON (D-CA)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
BROOKS (D-TX)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
CARR (D-MI)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
EARLY (D-MA)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
JOHNSTON, HARRY (D-FL)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
KOLTER (D-PA)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
STAGGERS (D-WV)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
TRAXLER (D-MI)
9.09
8.33
83.33
8.33
0.00
ANNUNZIO (D-IL)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ANTHONY (D-AR)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ASPIN (D-WI)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
BILBRAY (D-NV)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
CLEMENT (D-TN)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
CONDIT (D-CA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
COSTELLO (D-IL)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
DE LA GARZA (D-TX)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
DYSON (D-MD)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ECKART (D-OH)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
GAYDOS (D-PA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
GLICKMAN (D-KS)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
GUARINI (D-NJ)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
HAMILTON (D-IN)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
HOAGLAND (D-NE)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
HOCHBRUECKNER (D-NY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
JACOBS (D-IN)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
JOHNSON, TIMOTHY P. (D-SD)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
KANJORSKI (D-PA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
LEHMAN, WILLIAM (D-FL)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
LUKEN, THOMAS (D-OH)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MANTON (D-NY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MAZZOLI (D-KY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MCMILLEN, TOM (D-MD)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MCNULTY (D-NY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MOAKLEY (D-MA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
MURTHA (D-PA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
- 9 -
NAGLE (D-IA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
NATCHER (D-KY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
NEAL, RICHARD (D-MA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
PALLONE (D-NJ)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
PENNY (D-MN)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
PERKINS (D-KY)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
PRICE, DAVID (D-NC)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
RAHALL (D-WV)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
RICHARDSON (D-NM)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ROE (D-NJ)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ROSE (D-NC)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
SANGMEISTER (D-IL)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
SHARP (D-IN)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
SMITH, NEAL (D-IA)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
SPRATT (D-SC)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
TRAFICANT (D-OH)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
WHITTEN (D-MS)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
WISE (D-WV)
8.33
8.33
91.67
0.00
0.00
ACKERMAN (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
ANDERSON (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
ATKINS (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BATES (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BOGGS (D-LA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BORSKI (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BOSCO (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BOUCHER (D-VA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BRENNAN (D-ME)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BRUCE (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BRYANT, JOHN (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
CARDIN (D-MD)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
CARPER (D-DE)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
COYNE, WILLIAM (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DE FAZIO (D-OR)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DELLUMS (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DICKS (D-WA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DINGELL (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DIXON, JULIAN (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DORGAN, BYRON (D-ND)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DOWNEY, THOMAS (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
DYMALLY, MERVYN (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
EDWARDS, DON (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
ENGEL (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
ESPY (D-MS)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
EVANS, LANE (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FASCELL (D-FL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FAZIO (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FEIGHAN (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FOGLIETTA (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FOLEY (D-WA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FORD, WILLIAM (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
FROST (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
GEJDENSON (D-CT)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
GEPHARDT (D-MO)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
GONZALEZ (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
GORDON (D-TN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
GRAY, WILLIAM (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
HALL, TONY (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
HAYES, CHARLES A. (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
HERTEL (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
HOYER (D-MD)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
- 10 -
HUGHES (D-NJ)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
JONTZ (D-IN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KAPTUR (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KASTENMEIER (D-WI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KENNEDY, JOSEPH (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KENNELLY (D-CT)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KILDEE (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KLECZKA (D-WI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
KOSTMAYER (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
LANTOS (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
LEVINE, MEL (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
LEVIN, SANDER (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
LEWIS, JOHN (D-GA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
LOWEY, NITA (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MARKEY (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MATSUI (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MAVROULES (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MCCLOSKEY (D-IN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MCDERMOTT (D-WA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MCHUGH (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MILLER, GEORGE (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MORRISON, BRUCE (D-CT)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
MRAZEK (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
NOWAK (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
OWENS, MAJOR (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
PANETTA (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
PAYNE, DONALD (D-NJ)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
PEASE (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
PELOSI (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
POSHARD (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
RUSSO (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SABO (D-MN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SAVAGE (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SAWYER (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SCHEUER (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SCHROEDER (D-CO)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SCHUMER (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SERRANO (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SKAGGS (D-CO)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SLAUGHTER, LOUISE (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SMITH, LAWRENCE (D-FL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SOLARZ (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
STARK (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
STUDDS (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SWIFT (D-WA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
SYNAR (D-OK)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
TORRES (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
TOWNS (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
UDALL (D-AZ)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
UNSOELD (D-WA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
VENTO (D-MN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
VISCLOSKY (D-IN)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WALGREN (D-PA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WASHINGTON (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WAXMAN (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WEISS (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WHEAT (D-MO)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WOLPE (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
WYDEN (D-OR)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
BERMAN (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
- 11 -
BONIOR (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
BOXER (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
BROWN, GEORGE (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
COLEMAN, RONALD (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
COLLINS (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
CONYERS (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
CROCKETT (D-MI)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
DURBIN (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
DWYER (D-NJ)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
FLAKE (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
FRANK (D-MA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
GIBBONS (D-FL)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
LEHMAN, RICHARD (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
MFUME (D-MD)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
MINETA (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
OBERSTAR (D-MN)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
OBEY (D-WI)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
RANGEL, CHARLES (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
ROSTENKOWSKI (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
ROYBAL (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
SIKORSKI (D-MN)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
STOKES (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
TORRICELLI (D-NJ)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
WILLIAMS, PAT (D-MT)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
YATES (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
91.67
8.33
0.00
AKAKA (D-HI)
0.00
0.00
85.71
14.29
0.00
AUCOIN (D-OR)
0.00
0.00
83.33
16.67
0.00
CLAY (D-MO)
0.00
0.00
83.33
16.67
0.00
MOODY (D-WI)
0.00
0.00
83.33
16.67
0.00
OAKAR (D-OH)
0.00
0.00
83.33
16.67
0.00
OWENS, WAYNE (D-UT)
0.00
0.00
83.33
16.67
0.00
HAWKINS, AUGUSTUS (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
66.67
33.33
0.00
FORD, HAROLD (D-TN)
0.00
0.00
58.33
41.67
0.00
COELHO (D-CA)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DE LUGO (D-VI)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FALEOMAVAEGA (D-AS)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FAUNTROY (D-DC)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FLORIO (D-NJ)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FUSTER (D-PR)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GARCIA (D-NY)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LELAND (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
PEPPER (D-FL)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ROBINSON (D-AR)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WRIGHT (D-TX)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Do you wish to display a description
of the votes in this vote file?
- 12 -
ATTACHMENT B
KEY VOTE ANALYSIS
SENATE
INDEX
List of Key Votes
p. 1
Republican Rankings
p. 3
Democrat Rankings
p. 4
ATTACHMENT B
15 Key Votes in the Second Session of the 101st Congress (1990)
OUTCOME
ISSUE
WON
Presidential Veto of Chinese Students Immigration
Bill. The veto was sustained 65-37.
WON
Wirth-Wilson Alternative Fuels Amendment to the
Clean Air Bill. The amendment would have gutted an
Administration backed alternative fuels compromise
contained in the Clean Air Bill.
The Wirth-Wilson Amendment was defeated 52-46.
WON
Byrd Coal Miners Amendment to the Clean Air Bill.
The amendment created a new compensation program
for unemployed miners. The Amendment was defeated
49-50.
LOST
Dole-Nickles-Heflin Permitting Amendment to the
Clean Air Bill. The amendment established operating
permits to facilitate enforcement and to provide a
process for implementing new control requirements.
The amendment was defeated 49-51.
WON
Final Passage of the Clean Air Act. The bill passed
89-11.
WON
Confirmation of Tim Ryan to be Director of the
Office of Thrift Supervision. Confirmed 62-37.
WON
Byrd-Johnston Transfer Amendment to the Supplemental
Appropriations Bill. The Amendment would have
transferred funds the Administration wanted for
Nicaragua and Panama into domestic programs. The
amendment was defeated 48-51.
LOST
Abortion-Related Procedural Vote on the Supplemental
Appropriations Bill. The appropriations bill for
Panama and Nicaragua contained a provision allowing
the District of Columbia to use its Medicaid funds
for abortion. The President said he would veto the
bill if this provision was retained. Republicans
attempted to strike the provision on a procedural
vote. This tactic failed 45-51. Subsequently, the
provision was removed in conference.
- 1 -
LOST
Final Passage of the Hatch Act Amendments. Bill
passed 67-30. (See next vote.)
WON
Presidential Veto of the Hatch Act Amendments.
Veto sustained 65-35.
LOST
Deconcini Amendment Restricting Manufacture and Sale
of Nine Semi-automatic Assault Weapons. Amendment
passed 50-48.
WON
Procedural Vote to reconsider Thurmond Habeas Corpus
Amendment to the Crime Bill. The amendment to
reform habeas corpus was initially defeated by the
Senate. A motion was made to reconsider the
amendment, and the motion to reconsider passed 52-
46. Subsequently, the Thurmond amendment passed by
voice vote.
WON
Graham Amendment to strike Kennedy Racial Justice
Provisions from the Crime Bill. Department of
Justice argued the racial justice language would
have prevented the imposition and carrying out of
death penalties. The Graham Amendment passed 58-
38.
WON
Presidential Veto of the Amtrak Authorization Bill.
Veto sustained 65-35.
LOST
Final Passage of the Flag Desecration Constitutional
Amendment. The amendment was defeated 58-42. (67
votes were needed to pass the amendment.)
- 2 -
REPUBLICAN SENATORS' PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT SCORES -- 1990
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 101st Congress
Mon, July 9, 1990 12:42pm (EDT)
Voting Performance by
Senate Republicans
In Order by Percent 'FOR' (When Voting)
Based on 15 Votes in Senate Vote File Named 'KEYVOTES2'
Description: Key votes 101st
% For
% Based on All Votes
(When Voting)
% For
% Against
% Not Voting
do
Abstair
DOLE (R-KS)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GRAMM, PHIL (R-TX)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LUGAR (R-IN)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MACK (R-FL)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MURKOWSKI (R-AK)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SIMPSON (R-WY)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
THURMOND (R-SC)
100.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
BURNS (R-MT)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
COATS (R-IN)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
COCHRAN (R-MS)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
HATCH (R-UT)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
HUMPHREY (R-NH)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
LOTT (R-MS)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
MCCONNELL (R-KY)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
NICKLES, DON (R-OK)
93.33
93.33
6.67
0.00
0.00
BOND (R-MO)
92.86
86.67
6.67
6.67
0.00
DOMENICI (R-NM)
92.86
86.67
6.67
6.67
0.00
BOSCHWITZ (R-MN)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
GARN (R-UT)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
GRASSLEY (R-IA)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
ROTH, WILLIAM (R-DE)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
RUDMAN (R-NH)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
SYMMS (R-ID)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
WALLOP (R-WY)
86.67
86.67
13.33
0.00
0.00
ARMSTRONG (R-CO)
85.71
80.00
13.33
6.67
0.00
DANFORTH (R-MO)
80.00
80.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
GORTON (R-WA)
80.00
80.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
KASTEN (R-WI)
80.00
80.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
MCCAIN (R-AZ)
80.00
80.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
MCCLURE (R-ID)
80.00
80.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
STEVENS (R-AK)
78.57
73.33
20.00
6.67
0.00
D'AMATO (R-NY)
73.33
73.33
26.67
0.00
0.00
HELMS (R-NC)
73.33
73.33
26.67
0.00
0.00
KASSEBAUM (R-KS)
73.33
73.33
26.67
0.00
0.00
PRESSLER (R-SD)
73.33
73.33
26.67
0.00
0.00
WARNER (R-VA)
73.33
73.33
26.67
0.00
0.00
CHAFEE (R-RI)
69.23
60.00
26.67
13.33
0.00
HEINZ (R-PA)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
SPECTER (R-PA)
66.67
66.67
33.33
0.00
0.00
WILSON, PETE (R-CA)
64.29
60.00
33.33
6.67
0.00
COHEN (R-ME)
60.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
DURENBERGER (R-MN)
60.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
JEFFORDS (R-VT)
46.67
46.67
53.33
0.00
0.00
HATFIELD (R-OR)
40.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
PACKWOOD (R-OR)
40.00
40.00
60.00
0.00
0.00
- 3 -
DEMOCRATIC SENATORS' PRESIDENTIAL SUPPORT SCORES -- 1990
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 101st Congress
Mon, July 9, 1990 12:53pm (EDT)
Voting Performance by
Senate Democrats
In Order by Percent 'FOR' (When Voting)
Based on 15 Votes in Senate Vote File Named 'KEYVOTES2'
Description: Key votes 101st
% For
% Based on All Votes
(When Voting)
% For
% Against
% Not Voting
% Abstain
BREAUX (D-LA)
64.29
60.00
33.33
6.67
0.00
HEFLIN (D-AL)
60.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
SHELBY (D-AL)
60.00
60.00
40.00
0.00
0.00
JOHNSTON, BENNETT (D-LA)
57.14
53.33
40.00
6.67
0.00
BOREN (D-OK)
53.33
53.33
46.67
0.00
0.00
FORD, WENDELL (D-KY)
53.33
53.33
46.67
0.00
0.00
HOLLINGS (D-SC)
53.33
53.33
46.67
0.00
0.00
BAUCUS (D-MT)
46.67
46.67
53.33
0.00
0.00
EXON (D-NE)
46.67
46.67
53.33
0.00
0.00
NUNN (D-GA)
46.67
46.67
53.33
0.00
0.00
ROBB (D-VA)
46.67
46.67
53.33
0.00
0.00
DECONCINI (D-AZ)
35.71
33.33
60.00
0.00
6.67
BENTSEN (D-TX)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
BYRD, ROBERT (D-WV)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
DIXON, ALAN (D-IL)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
FOWLER (D-GA)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
GRAHAM, BOB (D-FL)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
REID (D-NV)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
SANFORD (D-NC)
33.33
33.33
66.67
0.00
0.00
BRYAN, RICHARD (D-NV)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
CONRAD (D-ND)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
DODD (D-CT)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
LIEBERMAN (D-CT)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
MITCHELL, GEORGE (D-ME)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
PRYOR (D-AR)
26.67
26.67
73.33
0.00
0.00
MATSUNAGA (D-HI)
25.00
16.67
50.00
33.33
0.00
INOUYE (D-HI)
21.43
20.00
73.33
6.67
0.00
RIEGLE (D-MI)
21.43
20.00
73.33
6.67
0.00
BIDEN (D-DE)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
BINGAMAN (D-NM)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
BUMPERS (D-AR)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
BURDICK (D-ND)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
LEVIN, CARL (D-MI)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
ROCKEFELLER (D-WV)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
SARBANES (D-MD)
20.00
20.00
80.00
0.00
0.00
METZENBAUM (D-OH)
15.38
13.33
73.33
6.67
6.67
DASCHLE (D-SD)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
GLENN (D-OH)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
KERREY, BOB (D-NE)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
LEAHY (D-VT)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
MOYNIHAN (D-NY)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
SASSER (D-TN)
13.33
13.33
86.67
0.00
0.00
ADAMS (D-WA)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.00
- 4 -
BRADLEY (D-NJ)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.0
CRANSTON (D-CA)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.0
GORE (D-TN)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.0
HARKIN (D-IA)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.0
KENNEDY, EDWARD (D-MA)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.0
KERRY (D-MA)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
KOHL (D-WI)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
LAUTENBERG (D-NJ)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
MIKULSKI (D-MD)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
PELL (D-RI)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
WIRTH (D-CO)
6.67
6.67
93.33
0.00
0.(
SIMON (D-IL)
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.(
AKAKA (D-HI)
0.00
0.00
66.67
33.33
0.1
- 5 -
3 1 2
1 3 2
- 2 -
Alabama
lowa
Heflin
71
29
71
Harkin
38
New Hampshire
58
39
Shelby
68
32
68
Grassley
79
21
Humphrey
76
79
23
77
Rudman
Alaska
80
19
81
Kansas
Murkowski
85
10
90
Dole
94
New Jersey
4
96
Stevens
87
13
87
Kassebaum
85
Bradley
14
46
86
51
47
Arizona
Lautenberg
49
50
49
Kentucky
DeConcini
61
38
62
New Mexico
Ford
60
39
61
McCain
91
9
91
McConnell
Bingaman
82
18
54
82
46
54
Domenici
Arkansas
90
7
93
Louisiana
Bumpers
50
50
50
New York
Breaux
71
28
72
Pryor
53
45
55
Johnston
Moynihan
70
30
52
70
45
54
California
D'Amato
Democrats
67
32
68
Republicans
Maine
Cranston
50
50
50
Mitchell
North Carolina
57
43
57
Wilson
68
22
76
Cohen
Sanford
74
26
74
56
40
59
Helms
Colorado
71
28
72
Maryland
Wirth
56
41
58
Mikulski
North Dakota
41
56
42
Armstrong
83
12
88
Burdick
Sarbanes
45
53
51
45
48
52
Conrad
1
2
55
E
Connecticut
45
Massachussets
55
Dodd
54
45
55
Chio
Kennedy
48
49
49
Texas
Lieberman
56
44
56
Glenn
Kerry
47
53
59
47
38
61
Bentsen
69
28
71
Delaware
Metzenbaum
39
59
39
Michigan
Gramm
86
12
88
Biden
50
48
52
Levin
Oklahoma
50
50
50
Utah
Roth
94
5
95
Boren
Riegle
45
77
54
45
20
80
Garn
86
11
Nickles
89
Florida
86
11
Minnesota
89
Hatch
81
18
82
Graham
64
36
64
Boschwitz
86
Oregon
10
90
Vermont
Mack
86
14
86
Hatfield
Durenberger
77
18
69
81
30
70
Leahy
47
53
Packwood
47
Georgia
79
18
Mississippi
82
Jeffords
68
26
73
Fowler
61
38
62
Cochran
94
Pennsylvania
6
94
Virginia
Nunn
72
28
72
Lott
Heinz
82
16
71
84
27
73
Robb
73
27
73
Hawaii
Specter
66
34
Missouri
66
Warner
86
13
87
Inouye
60
37
62
Bond
Rhode Island
86
12
88
Washington
Matsunaga
50
35
59
Danforth
Pell
90
10
49
90
48
51
Adams
43
56
Chafee
43
Idaho
81
19
Montana
81
Gorton
89
11
89
McClure
88
10
90
Baucus
South Carolina
48
48
50
West Virginia
Symms
82
14
86
Burns
86
Hollings
12
67
88
33
67
Byrd
54
46
Illinois
Thurmond
54
90
10
90
Nebraska
Rockefeller
51
49
51
Dixon
72
28
72
Exon
South Dakota
65
35
65
Wisconsin
Simon
41
58
41
Daschle
Kerrey
51
49
49
51
51
49
Kohl
47
53
47
Indiana
Pressier
59
41
59
Nevada
Kasten
85
15
85
Coats
81
19
81
Tennessee
Bryan
59
40
60
Wyoming
Lugar
93
2
98
Gore
Reid
63
37
56
63
30
66
Simpson
84
10
89
Sasser
55
43
57
Wallop
78
13
86
ND Northern Democrats
SD Southern Democrats
Southern states - Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., Ky., la., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va.
Presidential Support
and Opposition: Senate
1. Bush Support Score, 1989. Percentage of 101 recorded
votes in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on
which a senator voted "yea" or "nay" in agreement with the
president's position. Failures to vote lower both support and oppo-
sition scores.
2. Bush Opposition Score, 1989. Percentage of 101 recorded
votes in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on
which a senator voted "yea" or "nay" in disagreement with the
president's position. Failures to vote lower both support and oppo-
sition scores.
3. Bush Support Score, 1989. Percentage of 101 recorded
votes in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on
which a senator was present and voted "yea" or "nay" in agree-
ment with the president's position. In this version of the study,
absences are not counted: therefore, failures to vote do not lower
support or opposition scores. Opposition scores, not listed here, are
the inverse of the support score; i.e., the opposition score is equal
to 100 percent minus the individual's support score.
CQ
DECEMBER 30, 1989 — 3559
KEY
-
2
3
t Not eligible for all recorded
42 Rohrabacher
70
29
71
votes in 1988 (sworn in after Jan.
43 Packard
81
15
84
25) or voted "present" to avoid
44 Bates
23
77
23
45 Hunter
76
22
77
possible conflict of interest.
Presidential Support,
Colorado
1 Schroeder
19
79
19
Presidential Opposition: House
2 Skaggs
35
65
35
3 Campbell
45
50
48
4 Brown
63
35
64
5 Hefley
65
31
67
6 Schaefer
69
29
70
1. Bush Support Score, 1989. Percentage of 86 recorded votes
Connecticut
in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on which a
Democrats
Republicans
1 Kennelly
28
67
29
2 Gejdenson
26
74
26
representative voted "yea" or "nay" in agreement with the presi-
3 Morrison
24
70
26
dent's position. Failures to vote lower both support and opposition
4 Shays
36
64
36
scores.
5 Rowland
51
47
52
6 Johnson
60
38
61
2. Bush Opposition Score, 1989. Percentage of 86 recorded
Delaware
votes in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on
AL Carper
41
58
41
which a representative voted "yea" or "nay" in disagreement with
-
2
3
Florida
the president's position. Failures to vote lower both support and
1 Hutto
70
29
71
opposition scores.
Alabama
2 Grant**
77
22
78
1 Callahan
73
21
78
3 Bennett
43
57
43
2 Dickinson
71
16
81
4 James
69
30
69
3. Bush Support Score, 1989. Percentage of 86 recorded
3 Browder't
54
44
55
5 McCollum
72
26
74
votes in 1989 on which President Bush took a position and on
4 Bevill
52
45
54
6 Stearns
78
22
78
which a representative was present and voted "yea" or "nay" in
5 Flippo
45
45
50
7 Gibbons
37
53
41
6 Erdreich
49
50
49
71
26
73
agreement with the president's position. In this version of the
8 Young
7 Harris
52
48
52
9 Bilirakis
60 36 63
study, absences are not counted; therefore, failures to vote do not
10 Ireland
65
22
75
Alaska
lower support or opposition scores. Opposition scores, not listed
11 Nelson
42
48
47
AL Young
70
27
72
here, are the inverse of the support score; i.e., the opposition score
12 Lewis
72
28
72
13 Goss
69
31
69
is equal to 100 percent minus the individual's support score.
Arizona
14 Johnston
34
64
35
1 Rhodes
86
13
87
15 Shaw
77
22
78
2 Udall
29
60
32
16 Smith
34
64
35
3 Stump
72
27
73
17 Lehman
24
71
26
1 Rep. Glen Browder, D-Ala., was sworn in April 18, 1989, to succeed Bill Nichols, D.
4 Kyl
80
20
80
5 Kolbe
18 Ros-Lehtinen³t
66
32
68
69
28
71
who died Dec. 13, 1988. Browder was eligible for 79 presidential-support votes in 1989.
19 Fascell
40
59
40
His presidential-support score was 54 percent: opposition score was 44 percent:
Arkansas
support score, adjusted for absences, was 55 percent.
1 Alexander
34
63
35
Georgia
1 Thomas
58
42
58
2 Robinson*
64
31
67
2 Hatcher
49
Rep. Gary Condit, D-Calif., was sworn in Sept. 20, 1989, to succeed Tony Coehlo, D.
45
52
3 Hammerschmidt
81
15
84
who resigned June 15. 1989. Coehlo was eligible for only 27 presidential-support votes
38
57
40
3 Ray
69
28
71
4 Anthony
38
59
39
in 1989. His presidential-support score was 26 percent; opposition score was 63
4 Jones
percent, support score, adjusted for absences, was 29 percent. Condit was eligible for
California
5 Lewis
28
72
28
1 Bosco
6 Gingrich
87
9
34
36
90
only 37 presidential-support votes in 1989.
60
2 Herger
76
24
76
7 Darden
56
42
57
a Rep. lleana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., was sworn in Sept. 6, 1989, to succeed Claude
3 Matsui
33
33
8 Rowland
66
52
45
54
4 Fazio
9 Jenkins
47
47
50
Pepper. D. who died May 30, 1989. Pepper was eligible for only 15 presidential-
35
64
35
support votes in 1989. His presidential-support score was 0 percent; opposition score
5 Pelosi
26
70
27
10 Barnard
67
24
73
was 7 percent: support score, adjusted for absences. was 0 percent. Ros-Lehtinen was
6 Boxer
26
72
26
Hawaii
eligible for only 41 presidential-support votes in 1989.
7 Miller
22
76
23
1 Saiki
60
40
60
8 Dellums
23
76
24
2 Akako
35
62
36
9 Stark
24
73
25
Rep. Jill Long, D-Ind., was sworn in April 5, 1989, to succeed Daniel R. Coats, R. who
10 Edwards
27
69
28
was sworn in as senator Jan. 3, 1989. Long was eligible for 82 presidential-support
Idaho
11 Lantos
31
62
34
votes in 1989. Her presidential-support score was 33 percent; opposition score was 67
1 Craig
78
22
78
12 Campbell
56
43
56
percent. She missed none of the presidential-support votes for which she was eligible.
2 Stallings
45
51
47
13 Mineta
29
64
31
14 Shumway
78
20
80
Illinois
B Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., was sworn in Oct. 24, 1989, to succeed Larkin Smith, R,
15 Condit2+
35
65
35
1 Hayes
27
73
27
who died Aug. 13, 1989. Smith was eligible for 45 presidential-support votes in 1989.
16 Panetta
31
67
32
2 Savage
23
70
25
His presidential-support score was 76 percent; opposition score was 24 percent. He
17 Pashayan
64
34
65
3 Russo
27
72
27
missed none of the presidential-support votes for which he was eligible. Taylor was
18 Lehman
29
63
32
4 Sangmeister
21
78
21
eligible for only 22 presidential-support votes in 1989.
19 Lagomarsino
73
27
73
5 Lipinski
36
51
41
20 Thomas
72
28
72
6 Hyde
66
16
80
.
Craig Washington, D-Texas, tentatively will be sworn in Jan. 23, 1990, to succeed
21 Gallegly
76
24
76
7 Collins
14
38
27
Mickey Leland, D. who died Aug. 7, 1989. Leland was eligible for 45 presidential-
22 Moorhead
72
24
75
8 Rostenkowski
36
59
38
support votes in 1989. His presidential-support score was 27 percent; opposition score
23 Beilenson
33
64
34
9 Yates
27
72
27
was 62 percent; support score, adjusted for absences, was 30 percent.
24 Waxman
28
63
31
10 Porter
65 35 65
25 Roybal
24
66
27
11 Annunzio
37
60
38
26 Berman
31
63
33
7 Rep. Pete Geren, D-Texas, was sworn in Sept. 20, 1989, to succeed Jim Wright, D. who
12 Crane
63
30
68
27 Levine
31
65
33
resigned June 30, 1989. Wright was eligible for 18 presidential-support votes in 1989.
13 Fawell
60
40
60
28 Dixon
29
63
32
His presidential-support score was 22 percent; opposition score was 28 percent;
14 Hastert
76
23
76
29 Hawkins
26
64
29
support score, adjusted for absences, was 44 percent. Geren was eligible for only 37
15 Madigan
77
18
81
30 Martinez
34
60
36
presidential-support votes in 1989.
16 Martin
59
37
61
31 Dymally
29
63
32
17 Evans
23
77
23
32 Anderson
36
58
38
18 Michel
88
9
90
Rep. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., was sworn in May 2, 1989, to succeed Dick Cheney, R,
33 Dreier
76
24
76
19 Bruce
33
67
33
who became defense secretary March 21, 1989. Cheney was eligible for only one
34 Torres
29
69
30
20 Durbin
24
76
24
presidential-support vote in 1989. His presidential-support score was 100 percent.
35 Lewis
78
21
79
21 Costello
36
63
36
Thomas was eligible for 76 presidential-support votes in 1989.
36 Brown
31
55
36
22 Poshard
35
65
35
37 McCandless
77
19
80
. Rep. Tommy F. Robinson, R-Ark., switched from the Democratic Party to the Republi-
38 Dornan
70
23
75
Indiana
can Party on July 28.
39 Dannemeyer
70
26
73
1 Visclosky
30
67
31
40 Cox
71
26
73
2 Sharp
28
66
30
Rep. Bill Grant, R-Fla., switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party
41 Lowery
74
22
77
3 Hiler
81
19
81
on Feb. 21.
ND
Northern
Democrats
SD Southern Democrats
3560 - DECEMBER 30, 1989
CQ
-
2
3
-
2
3
-
2
3
-
2
E
4 Long't
33
67
33
5 Sabo
30
69
31
32 LaFake
34
59
36
5 Jontz
22
78
6 Sikorski
South Dakota
22
30
70
30
33 Nowak
37
60
38
6 Burton
AL Johnson
60
28
68
7 Stangeland
78
34
16
83
66
34
34 Houghton
65
26
72
7 Myers
73
27
73
8 Oberstar
35
64
35
31
69
31
North Carolina
Tennessee
8 McCloskey
42
42
Mississippi
1 Jones
1 Quillen
9 Hamilton
71
58
36
51
21
77
41
27
1 Whitten
52
47
2 Valentine
2 Duncan
10 Jacobs
67
28
53
52
64
47
35
65
53
2 Espy
35
59
37
3 Lancaster
45
3 Lloyd
56
52
38
59
46
lowa
3 Montgomery
78
22
78
4 Price
34
4 Cooper
48
50
66
49
34
1 Leach
45
52
46
4 Parker
71
5 Neal
5 Clement
23
75
29
42
52
65
31
44
2 Tauke
66
30
69
5 Taylor't
68
32
6 Coble
6 Gordon
35
68
81
17
64
35
82
3 Nagle
41
58
41
7 Rose
36
58
7 Sundquist
80
17
82
38
4 Smith
31
56
36
Missouri
8 Hefner
8 Tanner
47
41
51
55
48
43
5 Lightfoot
72
27
73
1 Clay
28
62
31
9 McMillan
9 Ford
80
21
17
64
25
82
6 Grandy
74
26
74
2 Buechner
62
22
74
10 Ballenger
79
20
80
3 Gephardt
33
63
34
11 Clarke
Texas
37
Kansas
60
38
4 Skelton
59
34
64
1 Chapman
49
47
51
1 Roberts
79
21
79
5 Wheat
27
71
27
North Dakota
2 Wilson
47
38
55
2 Slattery
45
55
45
6 Coleman
67
30
69
AL Dorgan
24
74
25
3 Bartlett
80
20
80
3 Meyers
69
31
69
7 Hancock
78
22
78
4 Hall
69
29
70
4 Glickman
37
60
38
Ohio
8 Emerson
78
21
79
5 Bryant
24
43
36
5 Whittaker
76
23
76
1 Luken
9 Volkmer
53
38
47
53
51
43
6 Barton
67
27
72
2 Gradison
67
28
71
7 Archer
81
16
83
Kentucky
Montana
3 Holl
31
62
34
8 Fields
78
20
80
1 Hubbard
49
50
49
1 Williams
31
60
34
4 Oxley
80
19
81
9 Brooks
16
49
25
2 Natcher
49
51
49
2 Marlenee
70
21
77
5 Gillmor
77
22
78
10 Pickle
47
52
47
3 Mazzoli
50
50
50
6 McEwen
72
21
78
11 Leath
60
27
69
4 Bunning
78
17
82
Nebraska
7 DeWine
71
29
71
12 Geren t
51
49
51
5 Rogers
80
20
80
I Bereuter
69
29
70
8 Lukens
72
23
76
13 Sarpalius
60
38
61
6 Hopkins
72
28
72
2 Hoagland
35
65
35
9 Kaptur
33
64
34
14 Laughlin
63
30
68
7 Perkins
37
62
38
3 Smith
80
17
82
10 Miller
76
20
79
15 de la Garza
43
50
46
11 Eckort
31
69
31
16 Coleman
Louisiana
35
62
36
Nevada
12 Kasich
70
29
71
17 Stenholm
79
71
1 Livingston
21
79
28
72
1 Bilbray
45
53
46
13 Pease
30
66
31
2 Boggs
50
45
52
18 Vocancy't
2 Vucanovich
79
19
81
14 Sawyer
33
67
33
19 Combest
85
3 Tauzin
15
69
29
70
85
15 Wylie
83
12
88
20 Gonzalez
38
4 McCrery
85
15
85
62
38
New Hampshire
16 Regula
70
30
70
21 Smith
80
14
5 Huckaby
74
22
77
85
1 Smith
62
37
62
17 Traficant
29
71
29
72
22 Delay
79
6 Baker
70
27
19
81
2 Douglas
64
34
65
18 Applegate
45
52
46
23 Bustamante
40
7 Hayes
59
38
61
56
41
19 Feighan
31
66
32
24 Frost
38
8 Holloway
58
66
26
72
40
New Jersey
20 Oakar
33
60
35
25 Andrews
45
51
1 Florio
47
8
22
27
Maine
21 Stokes
28
70
29
26 Armey
76
24
76
2 Hughes
30
69
31
1 Brennan
27
73
27
27 Ortiz
50
3 Pallone
34
65
Oklahoma
47
52
34
2 Snowe
51
48
52
4 Smith
55
44
55
1 Inhofe
72
24
75
Utah
5 Roukema
Maryland
53
42
56
2 Synar
28
71
28
1 Hansen
80
17
82
1 Dyson
48
52
48
6 Dwyer
34
63
35
3 Watkins
48
49
49
2 Owens
27
63
30
7 Rinaldo
2 Bentley
51
40
56
55
42
57
4 McCurdy
55
44
55
3 Nielson
-76
23
76
3 Cardin
8 Roe
35
48
42
5 Edwards
36
63
36
81
9
90
9 Torricelli
4 McMillen
45
55
34
45
56
38
6 English
64
35
65
Vermont
5 Hoyer
35
63
36
10 Payne
24
62
28
Oregon
AL Smith
50
49
51
11 Gallo
6 Byron
71
29
71
64
34
65
12 Courter
6
10
36
1 AuCoin
26
69
27
7 Mfume
31
66
32
8 Morella
13 Saxton
41
65
33
67
2 Smith, R.
79
Virginia
21
79
41
58
1 Bateman
34
63
3 Wyden
74
21
78
14 Guarini
35
27
69
28
2 Pickett
4 DeFazio
52
47
23
52
Massachussets
73
24
1 Conte
43
53
45
New Mexico
5 Smith, D.
3 Bliley
80
17
71
82
17
80
4 Sisisky
51
47
2 Neal
30
64
32
1 Schiff
52
69
30
69
Pennsylvania
5 Payne
56
43
2 Skeen
56
3 Early
23
69
25
86
14
86
3 Richardson
37
58
1 Foglietta
28
63
31
6 Olin
36
62
37
4 Frank
27
72
27
39
2 Gray
30
63
33
7 Slaughter
77
23
77
5 Atkins
30
67
31
New York
3 Borski
41
59
41
8 Parris
69
23
75
6 Mavroules
37
60
38
1 Hochbrueckner
7 Markey
28
71
33
28
64
34
4 Kolter
45
48
49
9 Boucher
27
67
29
2 Downey
28
72
28
5 Schulze
69
30
69
10 Wolf
81
19
81
8 Kennedy
23
73
24
3 Mrazek
31
6 Yatron
27
47
9 Mookley
31
65
65
33
37
33
4 Lent
76
21
78
7 Weldon
65
33
67
Washington
10 Studds
27
73
27
5 McGrath
60
36
63
8 Kostmayer
26
72
26
1 Miller
59
36
62
11 Donnelly
33
63
34
2 Swift
6 Flake
27
67
28
9 Shuster
76
23
76
31
65
33
Michigan
66
29
10 McDade
66
29
70
3 Unsoeld
27
7 Ackerman
73
27
27
1 Conyers
14
57
20
8 Scheuer
30
59
34
11 Kanjorski
36
63
36
4 Morrison
67
31
68
5 Foley*t
2 Pursell
37
9 Manton
38
53
42
12 Murtha
51
47
52
27
73
27
60
62
3 Wolpe
70
29
10 Schumer
26
70
27
13 Coughlin
69
28
71
6 Dicks
38
57
40
28
11 Towns
14 Coyne
30
70
30
7 McDermott
29
67
30
4 Upton
74
26
74
19
67
22
5 Henry
66
33
67
12 Owens
21
70
23
15 Ritter
69
30
8 Chandler
69
62
34
65
6 Corr
30
67
31
13 Solarz
37
16 Walker
63
37
79
21
79
17 Gekas
7 Kildee
69
35
65
35
14 Molinari
29
70
West Virginia
45
19
71
8 Traxler
28
63
31
15 Green
37
18 Walgren
34
65
34
1 Mollohan
55
43
56
57
61
9 Vander Jagt
78
14
85
16 Rangel
27
59
19 Goodling
65
29
69
2 Staggers
40
59
40
31
10 Schuette
65
17 Weiss
70
20 Gaydos
42
56
3 Wise
43
31
60
34
28
70
28
29
11 Davis
52
30
15
36
21 Ridge
56
4 Rahall
43
56
40
58
40
63
18 Garcia
30
12 Bonior
19 Engel
30
65
32
22 Murphy
34
36
63
36
62
35
13 Crockett
22
64
26
20 Lowey
28
29
23 Clinger
78
Wisconsin
70
22
78
1 Aspin
41
38
51
14 Hertel
28
67
29
21 Fish
65
33
67
Rhode Island
2 Kastenmeier
28
71
28
15 Ford
24
73
25
22 Gilman
44
55
45
1 Machtley
49
50
49
3 Gunderson
77
23
77
16 Dingell
35
62
36
23 McNulty
42
57
42
2 Schneider
35
24 Solomon
56
38
4 Kleczka
28
66
30
17 Levin
31
69
31
67
33
67
5 Moody
27
73
27
18 Broomfield
74
20
79
25 Boehlert
51
47
52
South Carolina
6 Petri
66
34
66
26 Martin
71
22
76
1 Ravenel
64
33
66
7 Obey
31
67
32
Minnesota
27 Walsh
69
30
69
2 Spence
72
24
75
8 Roth
72
27
73
1 Penny
57
43
57
28 McHugh
35
64
35
3 Derrick
43
55
44
9 Sensenbrenner
66
34
66
2 Weber
77
22
78
29 Horton
50
49
51
4 Patterson
55
45
55
3 Frenzel
76
22
77
30 Slaughter
27
71
27
5 Spratt
49
51
49
Wyoming
4 Vento
30
69
31
31 Paxon
73
26
74
6 Tallon
56
41
58
AL Thomas
72
25
74
Southern states Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., Ky., La., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va.
Omitted votes are quorum calls, which CQ does not include in its vote charts.
CQ
DECEMBER 30, 1989 - 3561
INSIDE CONGRESS
Highest Scorers in Presidential Support
Highest Scorers - Support
Average Scores
Highest individual scorers in presidential support -
those who voted most often for Bush's position in 1989:
Composite presidential support scores for Democrats
and Republicans for 1989 and 1988:
Senate
1989
1988
Dem.
Rep.
Dem.
Rep.
Support
Senate
55%
82%
47%
68%
House
36
69
25
57
Opposition
Senate
43%
16%
45%
25%
House
58
27
66
36
David L. Boren
Bob Dole
Regional Averages
Democrats
Republicans
Boren, Okla.
77%
Cochran, Miss.
94%
Support
Robb, Va.
73
Dole, Kan.
94
Dixon, III.
72
Roth, Del.
94
Regional presidential support scores for 1989. Scores
Nunn, Ga.
72
Lugar, Ind.
93
for 1988 are in parentheses:
Breaux, La.
71
McCain, Ariz.
91
Heflin, Ala.
71
East
West
South
Midwest
Democrats
Senate
50%
(41)
55%
(46)
65%
(54)
51%
House
House
(47)
32
(22)
30
(21)
47
(31)
32
(23)
Republicans
Senate
75%
(57)
83%
(68)
85%
(76)
83%
House
(72)
58
(47)
72
(63)
75
(61)
71
(58)
Opposition
Regional presidential opposition scores for 1989.
Scores for 1988 are in parentheses:
East
West
South
Midwest
Democrats
Senate
49% (48)
42%
(47)
34%
(39)
48%
House
(47)
61
(67)
65
G. V. "Sonny" Montgomery
(71)
49
Robert H. Michel
(60)
64
(71)
Republicans
Democrats
Republicans
Senate
23%
(42)
14%
(27)
14%
Montgomery, Miss.
(26)
15%
78%
Michel, III.
88%
House
(30)
36
(45)
25
(29)
22
(29)
26
Huckaby, La.
(34)
74
Gingrich, Ga.
87
Byron, Md.
71
Rhodes, Ariz.
86
Parker, Miss.
71
Skeen, N.M.
86
(CQ defines regions of the United States as follows: East Conn.,
Stenholm, Texas
71
Combest, Texas
85
Del., Maine, Md., Mass., N.H., N.J., N.Y., Pa., R.I., Vt., W.Va.
Hutto, Fla.
70
McCrery, La.
85
West: Alaska, Ariz., Calif., Colo., Hawaii, Idaho, Mont., Nev., N.M.,
Hall, Texas
P.
69
Wylie, Ohio
83
Ore., Utah, Wash., Wyo. South: Ala., Ark., Fla., Ga., Ky., La., Miss.,
Ray, Ga.
69
N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va. Midwest: Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kan.,
Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb., N.D., Ohio, S.D., Wis.)
3542 - DECEMBER 30, 1989
CQ
Include GOP Leaders Dole and Michel
Presidential Success
Highest Scorers - Opposition
National Security vs. Domestic Issues
Highest individual scorers in presidential opposition
- those who voted most often against Bush's position:
1989 presidential success scores broken down into
domestic issues and national security issues, with na-
Senate
tional security including foreign policy and defense.
Scores for 1988 are in parentheses:
National Security
Domestic
Total
Senate
79%
(92)
69%
(45)
73%
(65)
House
58
(53)
47
(24)
50
(33)
Total
71
(75)
57
(34)
62.6
(47)
Success Rate
Annual percentages of presidential victories since 1953
on congressional votes on which the presidents took a
Howard M. Metzenbaum
clear position:
Larry Pressler
Democrats
Republicans
Eisenhower
Ford
Metzenbaum, Ohio
59%
Pressler, S.D.
41%
Harkin, Iowa
58
1953
89.0%
Specter, Pa.
34
1974
58.2%
Simon, III.
58
D'Amato, N.Y.
32
1954
82.8
1975
61.0
Adams, Wash.
56
Hatfield, Ore.
30
1955
75.0
1976
53.8
Mikulski, Md.
56
Helms, N.C.
28
1956
70.0
Riegle, Mich.
54
Heinz, Pa.
27
1957
68.0
Kerry, Mass.
53
Cohen, Maine
26
1958
76.0
Kohl, Wis.
53
Carter
Jeffords, Vt.
26
1959
52.0
Leahy, Vt.
53
1960
65.0
1977
75.4%
Sarbanes, Md.
53
1978
78.3
1979
76.8
House
Kennedy
1980
75.1
1961
81.0%
1962
85.4
Reagan
1963
87.1
1981
82.4%
1982
72.4
Johnson
1983
67.1
1984
65.8
1964
88.0%
1985
59.9
1965
93.0
1986
56.1
1966
79.0
1987
43.5
1967
79.0
1988
47.4
1968
75.0
Patricia Schroeder
Christopher Shays
Bush
Democrats
Nixon
Republicans
1989
62.6%
Schroeder, Colo.
79%
Shays, Conn.
64%
1969
74.0%
Jontz, Ind.
78
Morella, Md.
58
1970
77.0
Sangmeister. III.
78
Schneider, R.I.
56
1971
75.0
Bates, Calif.
77
Gilman, N.Y.
55
Evans, III.
77
1972
66.0
Conte, Mass.
53
Dellums, Calif.
76
1973
Leach, Iowa
50.6
52
Durbin, III.
76
Machtley, R.I.
50
1974
59.6
Miller, Calif.
76
CQ
DECEMBER 30, 1989 - 3543
from Bob Grady
S. 324 -- MAJOR ISSUES
Industry 2/
Draft Bill
DOE Proposed Changes
Proposed Changes
Purpose
Seek to reduce the generation of CO2 and GHG as quickly as feasible.
Consider the contribution of energy use
Focus Government and
to potential climate change.
private attention on the
implications of poten-
tial global climate
change.
Goals 1/
Stabilize the generation of C02 and other GHG
No change
Identify strategies to
stabilize GHG to meet
treaty obligations.
Investigate the feasibility of achieving a 20% reduction of CO2 by 2005
No change
Include all
human-induced GHG
Establish an international agreement on climate change by 1992
Modify to "R&D" agreement
Encourage the initiation
of a framework conven-
tion process
Title I: Energy Policy Initiatives
-
Develop least cost energy strategy:
Set priorities to achieve goals to maximum extent feasible
- Change priorities to recommendations,
- Delete linkage to
emphasize use of market forces
goals
Set targets for energy production and use
- Delete targets
- Change targets to
estimates
Establish 2-year action plan to meet targets
- Delete 2-year action plan
- Delete 2-year action
plan
Least cost calculations should include the costs of maintaining access to
- Delete
- Delete
foreign oil, and give a 10% preference to conservation over fossil fuel
- Establish DOE Director of Climate protection with broad responsibilities
- Delete entirely
- Retain, but limit
responsibilities
1/ A substantial amount of language on goals is verbatim from the 1989 Noordwijk Declaration.
2/ Represents an amalgam of comments from several industry groups.
S. 324 MAJOR ISSUES
Industry
Draft Bill
DOE Proposed Changes
Proposed Changes
- NAS 1-year study of global change causes, effects and mitigation actions;
- DOE will review feasibility of
- Change NAS to OSTP;
President must report his assessment to Congress 6 months later.
requesting a NAS study
expand study scope to
to include GHG sinks,
adaptation measures,
and assessment of
population growth
- Federal Energy-Environmental Coordination Council
- Delete. Replace with general language
- Delete
to urge President to assure coordination
Title II: Energy Efficiency
- Study and report on policies to decrease energy use per GNP
Delete
- Establish R&D centers for energy-intensive industries
Delete centers; retain provisions on
support for R&D energy intensive
industries
- Energy conservation and alternative clean energy at Federal facilities;
Implement all projects with 10-year paybacks by 2000. 25% completed by
Change to 5-year payback. Make implementa-
Change from payback
1995. Sanctions if not met. All new Federal leases after 1994 must meet new
tion dependent upon availability of funds.
period to life cycle
Federal standards
Delete alternative clean energy; limit to
cost analysis.
conservation only. All new construction
after 1984 must meet new Federal building
standards.
- Numerical residential energy efficiency ratings.
No change
Adjust ratings to
account for climate
differences. Delete
pro-renewable bias in
ratings
- Energy efficiency labelling for windows
No change
No comment
- Expand EIA data collection on end use energy consumption and utility
No change
Delete; too costly and
conservation programs
not needed
S. 324 MAJOR ISSUES
Industry
Draft Bill
DOE Proposed Changes
Proposed Changes
- Require States to conduct public review of a requirement to permit utilities
Encourage States to consider guidelines to
Delete entirely
to earn higher earnings for least cost measures than supply investments.
permit equal earnings. No change to scope
Encourage competitive bidding arrangements. (Least cost measures are defined
of least cost measures (social, environmental
as conservation and would include consideration of social and environmental costs.
costs).
Title III: Energy R&D
Establish 7 national priorities
Change "priorities" to add competitveness
Consider anti-trust
to non-inclusive criteria;
barriers to private R&D
Prescribes procedures and requirements for energy R&D management plans,
Delete management plan provisions and
No comment
including establishment of specific R&D goals.
references to specific goals
Program scope includes engine R&D, hydrogen, fusion, coal, natural gas in vehicles
Expand scope of vehicle R&D to include all
Consider safety in
(including bus and fleet demonstrations), enhanced natural gas production
alternative fuels
evaluating vehicles
New Federal Interagency Energy Technology Transfer Council to promote use of
Delete new council; assign functions to
No comment
conservation and renewable energy in developing countries
existing DOE Council
1-year assessment of methane emissions and control options
Stretch-out; 2-year study of emissions,
No comment
3-year study of control options
Title IV: Natural Resources Policy
Require studies and assessments of:
No change
Consider adaptation as
- Ecological impact of climate change
well as mitigation
- National reforestation initiative
- Urban forestry initiative
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
09. Memo
From Frederick McClure to POTUS
7/17/90
Re: Analysis of Key Votes in the 101st Congress, Second
Session (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By If (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
July 17, 1990
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Frederick D. McClure, 7m Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
SUBJECT: Analysis of Key Votes in the 101st Congress,
Second Session
I. INTRODUCTION
Attached is our most recent analysis of Congressional support for
the Administration's positions. The ranking is broken down by
House and Senate, with Members being listed in order of percentage
support for your position on selected votes. We chose votes where
there was a clear Presidential position on what the Administration
considered to be an important bill. Details about the selected
votes are provided below.
II. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Twelve votes were selected for the House analysis, all of which
occurred between January and the Fourth of July recess. ATTACHMENT
A provides an explanation of these key votes, as well as the
ranking of House Members, Republicans and Democrats respectively.
Keeping in mind that last year's analysis consisted of twice as
many votes over an entire calendar year, we have noted a number of
interesting trends:
(1) The number of strong Presidential supporters has increased.
So far in 1990, fifteen House Republicans have supported your
position on every key vote. Last year, eight Members supported you
on every key vote. Only Republican Leader Bob Michel has supported
you on every key vote taken both last year and this year.
From a broader perspective, 67 House Republicans (38 percent) have
voted with you more than 90 percent of the time so far this year.
Last year, 50 Republicans did (28 percent).
- 2 -
(2) This good news on GOP support is partially offset by the fact
that the relatively small group of Republicans who tend to
consistently vote against your position is also growing. Last
year, nine Republicans voted against the White House position 50
percent or more of the time. Based on the selected votes to date
this year, that number has increased to 21.
(3) The drop in Democratic support is even more stark. In 1989,
53 Democrats had Presidential support scores of 50 percent or
higher. So far this year, that group has shrunk to 17.
Of even more concern is the fact that while last year no Democrat
voted against your position on every key vote, so far this year,
135 House Democrats have voted against your position on every key
vote. The increase in consistent Democratic opposition obviously
compounds the increase in consistent Republican defectors.
(4) In the face of this growing partisanship, you won outright on
only one of the twelve key votes. However, on each of the five
votes where a veto was threatened, veto strength was demonstrated.
(5) Compared to last year's analysis, Republicans registering the
largest gain in Presidential support were: Reps. Baker and
Sensenbrenner (69 percent to 100 percent); Reps. DeLay, Gekas, and
Stump (79 percent to 100 percent); and Rep. Cox (70 percent to 92
percent).
Republican Members showing the sharpest decline were: Rep. Rinaldo
(52 percent to 18 percent), Rep. Weldon (78 percent to 45 percent),
Rep. Tauke (92 percent to 60 percent), Rep. Chris Smith (62 percent
to 33 percent), Rep. McGrath (67 percent to 38 percent), and
Rep. Snowe (69 percent to 41 percent).
Among Democrats, the biggest drops were recorded by: Rep. Laughlin
(85 percent to 30 percent), Rep. Penny (67 percent to eight
percent) and Rep. Murtha (58 percent to eight percent). There were
numerous others who dropped from the 50 and 60 percent range to the
0 to 20 percent range.
- 3 -
III. THE SENATE
Fifteen votes were selected from the Second Session for the Senate
Analysis, all of which occurred between January and the Fourth of
July recess. ATTACHMENT B provides an explanation of these key
votes as well as a ranking of Senators, Republicans and Democrats
respectively.
From this analysis we have drawn the following conclusions:
(1) You have received very strong support from Senate Republicans
so far this year. The average Republican Senate score is 82%. In
contrast, the Democratic average is 25%. These Presidential
support scores reflect growing partisanship in the Senate. In last
year's report, which consisted of 25 key votes, the average GOP
score was 75% while the Democrats averaged 35%.
(2) You won outright 10 of the 15 major votes. Of the five votes
lost, your position ultimately prevailed on two.
(3) On all 15 votes, your position was supported by large
majorities of Republicans. Voting with you 100% of the time were
Senators Dole, Gramm, Lugar, Mack, Murkowski, Simpson and Thurmond.
The lowest Republican scores were Senators Packwood and Hatfield
(40%), Jeffords (46%), and Cohen and Durenberger (60%).
(4) Southerners remain your strongest Democratic supporters. Those
supporting your position most often were Senators Breaux (64%),
Heflin and Shelby (60%), Johnston (57%), and Boren, Ford, and
Hollings (53%).
(5) Compared to last year, the largest declines in Presidential
support were by Senator Packwood (84% in 1989 to 40% thus far in
1990), Bentsen (58% to 33%), Gore (48% to 6%) and Inouye (48% to
21%).
OFFICE wish
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 18, 1990
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY (Senate)
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
S. 2830 - Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990
(Leahy (D) Vermont)
If S. 2830 were sent to the President prior to the conclusion of
the budget summit and does not achieve substantial, multi-year
savings from the current (Mid-session) estimate of program costs;
and if price and income supports are not made more market-
oriented than the Committee version, which is a retrogression
from the 1985 Act; then the Secretary of Agriculture and the
President's other senior advisers would recommend that he veto
the bill.
From a budget perspective, the bill is both premature and
inadequate. The Administration expects the budget summit to
achieve substantial, multi-year savings from our Mid-session
Review baseline. Thus, it would be a mistake for Congress to
complete action on a bill that gives producers the wrong
impression by sending them inaccurate signals about likely
program parameters.
From a policy perspective, S. 2830 includes provisions for
commodity subsidies that would reverse the strides toward market
orientation made in the 1985 Food Security Act.
o Raising loan rates (which act as price floors)
threatens to undermine U.S. farmers' hard-won
gains in recapturing a competitive position in
world markets. Congress raised loan rates in the
1981 Farm bill, and the results were devastating.
Our exports collapsed and so did U.S. farm
income. We must not risk a repeat of that
experience.
Freezing most program crop target prices at 1990
levels and even raising some others not only
fails to achieve savings but also incurs
additional costs. High target prices stimulate
production and lead to wasteful acreage reduction
programs.
Mandating marketing loans for wheat and
feedgrains represents a vain attempt to avoid
market disruptions caused by higher price
2
supports. The Secretary is required to choose
between two complicated and costly new loan
programs. One would raise loan rates by 25
percent in the first year alone and, coupled with
marketing loans, would increase outlays above the
current law baseline over the next five years by
about $1 billion. The other would allow the
Secretary to adjust loan rates downwards.
However, the Secretary would be compelled to
compensate farmers for any reduction through
increases in advance deficiency payments at a
cost of about $3 billion over the life of the
bill.
A new marketing loan subsidy is established for
soybeans and five other oilseeds. The program
would do little to increase U.S. production and
world market share, and would likely cost the
taxpayer $2.4 billion over the next five years.
These goals could be accomplished more
effectively and at less cost by the
Administration's planting flexibility proposal.
The creation of a substantial new subsidy for an
entire category of crops is indefensible in a
time of serious fiscal constraints.
The provisions for dairy support establish a
program that is much less market-oriented and
more onerous to the consumer and taxpayer than
the existing one. The bill prohibits the
Secretary from reducing the support price below
its current level, regardless of the stocks which
accumulate in Federal inventories. This
encourages farmers to continue to generate
surplus milk, which must then be purchased and
stored at Federal expense, at absolutely no risk
to the producers. Supply controls contained in
the bill further insulate the dairy sector from
market forces.
Failure to enact true planting flexibility for
program participants would perpetuate the market
distortions that arise when government
incentives, not the market, dictate production
decisions. In addition, the substantial
cost-effective environmental benefits of
increased crop rotation would be largely foregone
under the partial base protection provisions.
The bill fails to reform the wool and mohair,
peanut, and honey programs. These programs are
3
all archaic constructions, no longer suited to
modern market and budget realities.
By maintaining the sugar price support at its
current level, the bill perpetuates the inequity
between the treatment of sugar and other program
commodities. In addition, the bill necessitates
the continued reduction in the volume of sugar
imported from Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)
and less-developed countries. As a result of the
current sugar program, American consumers have
paid close to double the world market price for
sugar for the last five years, at an annual cost
of over $1.5 billion. In order to begin to
relieve this burden, the Administration
recommends an immediate ten percent reduction in
the sugar price support.
The bill would require the Secretary to give
bonus payments to farmers if market prices turn
out to be higher than forecast at the start of
the crop year. This is an anomalous, convoluted
"safety net" that could increase outlays by $1.5
billion in times of high market prices.
The commodity provisions of S. 2830 would cost $59 billion over
the next five years. The bill authorizes another $25 billion for
programs in science and education, conservation, forestry,
marketing and inspection, and foreign food assistance. These
spending levels exceed the Administration's proposal by $25
billion and the current law baseline by $8 billion. Equally
important is the fact that the bill would greatly increase the
likelihood of budget outlays beyond $59 billion.
This enormous potential for costs far above the
current forecast arises mainly from the lack of
adequate Secretarial discretion to adjust loan
rates and set-asides when market conditions
warrant.
The bill is also written so that only slight, and
quite plausible, changes in market prices could
trigger substantial outlays. This is
particularly true for the oilseed marketing loan
and high-price bonus provisions. Only a slight
drop in prices would trigger major Federal
expenditures.
Apparently the Committee is attempting to circumvent the
discipline of the budget process by not including a nutrition
title, with the expectation that a package similar to the House
nutrition title will be accepted in conference. The House
4
expansions are estimated to cost $543 million in FY 91 and almost
$5.4 billion over five years. This is in addition to the current
baseline growth of 16 percent or $2.5 billion, from FY 90 to
FY 91.
Such an expansion is totally inconsistent with the deficit
reduction being sought in the ongoing budget summit, and is an
example of the type of mandatory cost expansion that has fostered
the current crisis. The bill should include a reauthorization of
nutrition programs consistent with the Administration's proposals
and financed within the parameters of the Senate budget
resolution, and any subsequent bipartisan budget agreement.
The Administration also has concerns with a number of provisions
in the trade title. With respect to food aid, we strongly object
to the attempt to bypass Presidential authority by dictating the
Executive branch structure for administering the program. The
P.L. 480 program serves multiple legislative objectives and
affects a wide variety of domestic and international interests.
Therefore, we believe it is imperative that authority to direct,
manage, and delegate responsibilities for food aid programs be
maintained by the President. With regard to export assistance
programs, the Administration opposes the provision allowing
foreign agricultural commodities to be exported under Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) guarantee programs, and the provision
earmarking $50 million of CCC funds for promoting oilseed crops.
The Administration also opposes the provision requiring spending
levels in USDA's Long-Term Agricultural Strategy Reports to be
treated as the President's annual budget submission. Finally,
the Administration opposes the provision barring foreign
financial institutions from receiving assignment of letters of
credit issued by CCC.
The Administration also has serious objections to provisions in
S. 2830 that are not related to the commodity and food assistance
titles.
O In the conservation title, the water quality
incentive and integrated crop management programs
are not likely to achieve significant
environmental benefits while adding at least $500
million to costs. Moreover, instituting new
subsidies for farmers to reduce pollution would
be inconsistent with the long-standing policy of
allocating such costs equitably across society
instead of providing special treatment for any
sector of the economy. This policy was recently
reinforced in the Senate-passed Clean Air Bill.
In the research title, the Administration objects
to the provision to establish an institute
providing the private sector with financial
5
incentives for commercialization of
agricultural products. As with other
technologies, the appropriate Federal role is
support of research and development and rapid
transfer of new technology through such
mechanisms as cooperative research and licensing
arrangements.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by NRD (Offutt) and LRD
(Coleman), in consultation with NRD (Gibbons), OIRA (Grove), HIMD
(Haskins and Brentlinger), IAD (Speckhard and Dorsey), USDA
(Yeutter and Campbell), EPA (Coronado), CEQ (Bear), CEA
(Ballenger), USTR (Early), AID (Honnold), Treasury (Levy), State
(Rappaport), Justice (Pestal), Commerce (Van Hanswyck), and
Interior (Hill).
Administration Position to Date
In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, Secretary
Yeutter and his staff have emphasized the Administration's
commitment to maintaining the course toward reliance on market
forces that was set by the Food Security Act of 1985. Opposition
to practically every action of the Committee on this bill has
been registered by the Department of Agriculture during hearings
and markups since February. The Secretary also wrote to Chairman
Leahy emphasizing the need for the bill to achieve budget
savings.
Summary of S. 2830
The Committee report on S. 2830 is not yet available. We have
reviewed a summary of the bill and preliminary language, however.
In summary, S. 2830 would:
-- Set subsidy provisions for wheat, feedgrains, cotton, and
rice. Loan rates, which act as price floors, effectively
would be set above current levels and the Secretary's
ability to reduce them to avoid surplus accumulation would
be severely circumscribed. Legislatively-set target
prices (intended to supplement farm income by guaranteeing
payments to farmers on a portion of historical production)
would be frozen at 1990 levels. This would halt the
two-percent rate of annual decline established by the 1985
Act. Acreage reduction programs (ARPs) require
participating farmers to set aside a portion of their
acreage in return for price and income supports. In the
6
bill, the Administration's selection of ARP levels must
conform to triggers based on stocks-to-use ratios by
commodity. Limited flexibility to plant any program crop
or oilseeds on 25 percent of base acreage is provided on
the condition that supplemental income payments on program
crops planted on these acres be foregone.
-- Create a marketing loan for oilseeds, including soybeans.
A marketing loan allows farmers to repay a nonrecourse
commodity loan at the market price. When market prices
fall below the original loan rate, the Treasury provides a
subsidy by absorbing the loss on the part of the loan not
repaid.
-- Retain the sugar program and maintain the current 18 cent
minimum loan rate.
-- Revise the dairy program to establish the current support
price ($10.10 per hundredweight) as the minimum over the
five years of the bill. The bill would restrict the
Secretary's ability to manage the supply of dairy products
by reducing the support price, as current law allows.
-- Extend the current wool and mohair program without the
reform requested by the Administration to convert it to a
target price-deficiency payment scheme comparable to those
for other commodities. The peanut program would be
extended and the quota loan rate and quota would be
increased, further raising costs to consumers. The honey
support price would be increased, and the Administration's
proposal for reform along the lines of wool and mohair
would be rejected.
-- Rewrite P.L. 480 food aid authorities. Under current law,
multiple objectives of humanitarian assistance, market
development, and foreign policy are pursued
simultaneously. S. 2830 would separate the program into
distinct components. These include one for humanitarian
assistance, one for economic development, one for
commercial market development, and one to promote
democracy. The bill would remove the President's current
authority to determine the administrative structure for
U.S. foreign food aid programs. (This is an effort to
reduce inter-agency coordination and the role of the State
Department.) S. 2830 would vest such authority directly
with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of
the Agency for International Development, rather than with
the President.
7
-- Reauthorize export assistance programs, including
discretionary authority for the direct-subsidy Export
Enhancement Program; continue the guarantee programs at
the current level; increase the market promotion program
to $225 million from $200 million in 1990; and require
that $50 million of CCC funds be used to promote exports
of cottonseed and sunflower seed oil. The Administration
opposes the special earmark for cottonseed and sunflower
oil. The Administration also opposes provisions that
would allow less than 100 percent U.S. content in goods
exported with Commodity Credit Corporation guarantees, and
require that the Foreign Agricultural Service
Administrator be appointed by the President and confirmed
by the Senate. Finally, the Administration opposes the
provision stipulating that spending levels recommended by
the Secretary of Agriculture in the Long-Term Agricultural
Trade Strategy Report be treated as the annual budget
submission of the President.
-- Authorize various miscellaneous items, including forest
health, rural firefighting, and rural diversification
grants, and a Forest Legacy Program. The President's Tree
Planting initiative is not included, but has been
introduced as a separate bill.
-- Authorize a minimum enrollment of 40 million acres for the
Conservation Reserve Program and give the Secretary
discretion to enroll an additional 10 million acres. The
bill would also allow the Secretary to enroll land on a
continual basis for hardwood trees.
-- Authorize a voluntary, paid easement for wetlands. The
bill would also establish two new programs in water
quality and increase the authorization for the Great
Plains Conservation Program by $300 million above the $900
million proposed by the Administration.
-- Authorize USDA to finance businesses that intend to
develop new technologies that utilize agricultural
commodities, requiring an independent institute and
regional centers for administration. The bill would
create numerous new centers and management organizations
that would harm the Department's ability to plan and
manage its research and extension programs. In addition
to these provisions, the research title would also provide
for, and greatly exceed, the President's funding request
for the National Research Initiative. The Administration
requested $100 million for this Initiative for FY 1991,
and proposed increasing this level to $350 million by
FY 1995. S. 2830 would authorize $500 million annually
over the same period.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 16, 1990 - 5:45 PM
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
10. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
7/19/90
P/S
Re: Friday Meeting w/Senator Lugar (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By of (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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
July 19, 19902
THE CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
THROUGH:
Fred McClure for
FROM:
Brian Waidmann, Bu Special Assistant for
Legislative Affairs
SUBJECT:
Friday Meeting with Senator Lugar
At your request, you are meeting Friday with Senator Richard
Lugar (R-IN), Ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture
Committee. The meeting is at 10:00 a.m. Although the meeting
was set for your office, the meeting needs to be held in the
Capitol because Senator Lugar is managing Senate floor debate of
the farm bill. Specifically, the meeting will be held in the
Vice President's Office, located just outside the Senate chamber.
I will meet you outside the Senate steps.
You requested the meeting to discuss the farm bill. Attached is
the Statement of the Administration's Position on the farm bill.
It will be particularly helpful for you to know the following:
- The bill costs about $64 billion over the next five years ($59
billion in commodity subsidies and another $25 billion for
programs in conservation, forestry, marketing and inspection and
foreign food assistance.) These spending totals exceed the
Administration's request by $25 billion and the current law
baseline by $8 billion. The accompanying SAP spells out the
Administration's policy objections to the bill.
- The bill is under a veto threat.
- There is common agreement that this bill must be reduced.
Senator Leahy (D-VT), Committee Chairman, said yesterday that the
farm bill must comply with a budget summit agreement if one is
reached. The question is whether these cuts should be made as
part of the budget summit or as part of this bill. Senator Dole
discussed this issue yesterday with committee Republicans and
Director Darman. The consensus was that Senator Lugar would ask
Senator Leahy if he would allow the necessary budget cuts to be
part of the legislation implementing the summit agreement. If he
agreed, that would reduce the number of contentious amendments
during Senate debate of the farm bill. If he did not, Senator
Dole would proceed with a major substitute amendment cutting the
bill's cost and deleting objectionable provisions.
- 2 -
- As you know, during the summit, Democrats offered first-year
budget cuts in farm programs of $1 billion from the current
baseline. The understanding is that this is an initial offer,
and budget cuts in farm programs could be higher. The major
issue to be resolved is out-year savings in farm programs.
Integral to this is the Administration's effort to reduce
agricultural subsides worldwide as part of the Uruguay Round of
trade talks.
-- While Senator Lugar voted for the bill, he personally favors
reducing farm programs. He derides the complexity and high cost
of farm programs. He agrees with Senator Dole that Congress
spends more time writing farm bills than farmers spend farming.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
11. Memo
From Frederick McClure to John Sununu
7/19/90
PS
Re: Textile Bill (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group: Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Chief of Staff to the President, Office of the
Open on Expiration of PRA
Series:
Sununu, John, Files
(Document Follows)
Subseries:
White House Offices Files
By If (NLGB) on 10/28/05
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
Legislative Affairs
(McClure) (1990) [1]
Date Closed:
12/14/2004
OA/ID Number:
29178-009
FOIA/SYS Case #:
1998-0004-F[1]
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 CHIEF of STAFF
has seen
THE WHITE HOUSE
Les
WASHINGTON
1990 JUL 12 AM 8: 47
July 12, 1990
INFORMATION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT 7m
FROM:
FREDERICK D. MCCLURE, Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
SUBJECT:
Textile Bill
Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) wants the Senate to vote on the
Textile Import Quota bill today. The House also intends to
consider this matter before the August recess. Noteworthy is
that Senate action coincides -- probably purposefully so -- with
this week's major textile negotiations that are part of the
Uruguay Round.
As you know, this trade protectionist bill limits growth of
textile imports to one percent annually. USTR Representative
Carla Hills is recommending a veto.
Right now there are insufficient votes in the Senate to show veto
strength on final passage of the bill. There may be 34 minimum
necessary votes to sustain a veto in the Senate.
At this point, the legislative situation is unclear. Senator
Dole wants the bill to pass quickly and by voice vote. Senator
Dole says he will support the bill on Senate passage but will
vote to sustain a veto. Senator Packwood, who will lead the
fight against the bill on the Senate floor, wants to delay the
bill as long as possible. Others opposed to the bill are
Senators Bradley, Baucus, Cranston, Gorton and Gramm. Although
Senators Packwood and Gramm are seriously considering offering a
capital gains amendment to the bill as part of their delaying
strategy, it is doubtful this will happen because of the budget
negotiations.
Here is why we now lack 34 votes on final passage of the bill:
(1) Senators Helms and Thurmond are intensively lobbying the
issue. Senator Helms has made an impassioned plea to Republicans
that defeat of this legislation could cost him his Senate seat.
Your probably remember talks we have had with textile quota
proponents regarding the 1986 election defeats. Senators
otherwise opposed to the bill say they will support Senator
Helms, at least for the first vote.
- 2 -
(2) The last Senate vote on this issue was in September 1988
when the bill passed 59-36. (That bill was vetoed by President
Reagan and the House sustained the veto by a five-vote margin).
of the 36 Senate opponents, 6 have left the Senate and two others
are at best soft in their opposition to the bill. This year's
textile bill already has 55 co-sponsors.
(3) Senators opposed to the Uruguay Round may support the
amendment as an effective, indirect means to derail the trade
negotiations. Some agricultural interests oppose the U. S.
effort to end agricultural subsidies as part of the Uruguay
Round.
(4) A further complication is that Senator Dole, who has led
every major battle for the Administration, will support the bill
on final passage. Several Republicans will follow his lead.
Senator Dole has said he will support a veto, however.
The Senate debate coincides with a key pressure point in the
Uruguay Round talks. This week GATT countries are meeting in
Geneva to develop a compromise proposal for completing the
textile negotiations in the next six months.
USTR believes that the Geneva negotiations will be undermined if
the textile bill gets majority votes in both Houses of Congress.
The situation is even worse if we do not show veto-strength on
final passage. Our chief textile negotiator, USTR Ambassador
Ron Sorini, believes that Senate passage of a textile bill with
less than 34 votes seriously harms the Uruguay trade talks, and
may bring them to an abrupt end. If so, we may well want to
adopt Senator Dole's strategy of letting the bill pass by voice
vote, and work to sustain the veto in both the House and Senate.
Ambassador Hills clearly explains what is at stake if this bill
is enacted:
"By providing permanent, rigid protection from imports to
domestic producers of textiles, apparel and footwear, this
legislation would cause tremendous harm to our economy,
flagrantly violate our international obligations, and
virtually destroy any chance of a successful conclusion of
the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations."
To get the necessary 34 Senate votes, Ambassador Hills, Secretary
Mosbacher and White House officials will continue to lobby
Senators. Consumer groups and retail interests will also
continue to lobby against the bill.
In light of the importance of the issue, you will be informed on
all major developments.