(page 1) SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JULY 8, 1991 TODAY, TUESDAY, JULY 9 THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND RESUME CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIME BILL. A LARGE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS STILL REMAIN TO THE BILL, THEREFORE, VOTES ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR THROUGHOUT TODAY'S SESSION, AND THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED HIS INTENTION TO REMAIN IN SESSION TONIGHT, IN ORDER TO MAKE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS ON THE CRIME BILL. THEREFORE, VOTES ARE EXPECTED TO OCCUR INTO THE EVENING. WEDNESDAY, JULY 10 RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE CRIME BILL. VOTES WILL OCCUR, AND A LATE SESSION IS EXPECTED. THE MAJORITY LEADER FILED A CLOTURE PETITION ON THE CRIME BILL ON MONDAY OF THIS WEEK. UNDER RULE XXII, A CLOTURE VOTE WILL OCCUR ONE HOUR AFTER THE SENATE CONVENES ON WEDNESDAY, FOLLOWING A LIVE QUORUM, UNLESS CHANGED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. THURSDAY, JULY 11 RESUME THE CRIME BILL. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR, AND THE SENATE CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE IN SESSION LATE ON THURSDAY, IN ORDER TO COMPLETE ACTION ON THE PENDING CRIME BILL. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION OF THE CRIME BILL, THE SENATE WILL BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF AVAILABLE APPROPRIATIONS BILLS. FRIDAY, JULY 12 THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT THE SENATE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK, DUE TO THE DEMOCRATS ANNUAL RETREAT TO BE HELD IN LEESBURG, VA. (page 2) POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA Tuesday, July 9, 1991 No Special Guests Invited (handwritten) (unintelligible) aid testing (crossed out unintelligible) (end handwritten) 1. Schedule · Crime Bill until completion (handwritten) *ENERGY AND WATER cloture WILLL FOLLOW CRIME (end handwritten) Other: Possible Legislation . Title X "Gag Rule" · Senator Chafee proponent of effort to overturn Administration rule. . Senator Hatch will lead effort to defeat Senator Chafee. · ANY INTEREST IN NO ROLL CALL/WRAP UP PASSAGE · Appropriations Bills on calendar · Energy and Water (Hatfield Ranking) · Wetlands issue and nuclear waste cleanup controversial. · Legislative (Gorton Ranking) · Pay raise likely · Treasury/Postal (Domenici Ranking) · Postal subsidies likely issue. · FRIDAY -- NO SESSION, all other days and nights likely to be long. (handwritten) AMDTS 4:00pm 9end handwritten) 2. Other Issues · Motor Voter -- see attached. · Thomas Nomination . Keep your powder dry -- lets support the President. (handwritten) NO FNI SESSION (page 3) ALTERNATIVE TO DEMOCRATIC "MOTOR VOTER" BILL TED STEVENS AND I HAVE INTRODUCED AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEMOCRATIC "MOTOR VOTER" BILL. LAST MAY, TED AND I CIRCULATED A "DEAR COLLEAGUE" DESCRIBING THE ALTERNATIVE. THE ALTERNATIVE AUTHORIZES A TOTAL OF $25 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS AS AN INCENTIVE FOR STATES TO IMPLEMENT "MOTOR VOTER" AND MAIL REGISTRATION. BUT UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATIC BILL, IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROCEDURES WOULD BE COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. AT A TIME WHEN 36 STATES ARE RUNNING BUDGET DEFICITS, THEY DON'T NEED YET ANOTHER UNFUNDED MANDATE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I URGE EVERYONE TO TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE AND CONSIDER PUTTING THEIR NAMES DOWN AS A COSPONSOR. (page 4) United States Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 May 9, 1991 Dear Colleague: Last month, we introduced an alternative to S. 250, the so-called "motor voter" bill which has been reported out of the Rules Committee. Unlike S. 250, our alternative would enhance State efforts at voter registration without requiring Federal intervention in an activity that has traditionally been left to the States. More importantly, it avoids one of the greatest weaknesses of S. 250 -- the imposition of significant unfunded costs on State and local governments. S. 250's unfunded mandate has been criticized by a number of organizations, including the National Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the National Association of Counties, the National Governors Association, the National Association of Secretaries of State, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the National League of Cities. The alternative we propose attempts to lend a helping hand to the States by authorizing a total of $25 million over 3 years in grants as an incentive for States to implement improved voter registration procedures, including procedures related to 1) registration at State departments of motor vehicles, 2) registration by mail, and 3) registration at State and Federal government agencies. Unlike S. 250, implementation of these procedures would be completely voluntary. To be eligible for the grants, the States would be required to match any amount of Federal funds dollar-for-dollar with State funds. And, our proposal also beefs up Federal and State efforts to combat election fraud and public corruption. Public Corruption. Today, many incidents of State and local corruption are immune from federal prosecution. In many instances, federal authorities cannot reach a bribe of a State or local official because it does not involve interference with commerce, use of the mails, or other interstate activity. As a result, it is extremely difficult for Federal prosecutors to take action against a State judge who "shakes down" defendants appearing in a State court, because such acts do not involve the use of the mails or an effect on interstate commerce. It's also common for other corruption schemes to be perpetrated without the use of the mails. The alternative would remedy this problem by enlarging the list of activities that could trigger Federal jurisdiction. This (page 5) new list of jurisdictional acts includes transmitting messages over intrastate wires; transporting persons across State lines; and using any facility of interstate commerce such as a cross-town delivery service or a "fax" machine. Election Fraud. Current law requires that a Federal candidate be named on the ballot in order for a Federal prosecution of election fraud to succeed. Virtually all election fraud, however, is undertaken for the purpose of influencing the outcome of local elections, where Federal candidates are often unlisted. In some States, elections are held several times a year without Federal candidates, which renders them immune from Federal prosecution for vote-buying, ballot-box stuffing, tampering with voting equipment, and other forms of election fraud. The alternative we have suggested would close this loophole by permitting prosecution in Federal court regardless of whether Federal candidates are involved in the fraud or named on the ballot when the act of fraud occurs. It would specifically permit prosecutions for fraud in a local election if the local office, for which the election is being held, has control over Federal funds totalling $10,000 or more in a year. ***** Needless to say, we urge you to support our alternative. We encourage you to contact the top election official in your State and ask him or her this simple question: Which piece of legislation would be more helpful to you in your efforts to increase the rate of voter registration and combat election fraud -- S. 250 or the Dole-Stevens alternative? If you would like to co-sponsor the alternative, please contact Mark Mackie of Sen. Stevens' office at 224-8923 or Dennis Shea of Sen. Dole's office at 224-3135. For your review, we have attached a copy of the alternative as well as a detailed letter from the Justice Department outlining its objections to S. 250. Sincerely, (signature) TED STEVENS (signature) BOB DOLE Enclosures (page 6) July 9, 1991 MFN ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT* (far left column) YES Burns Bond Chafee Cochran Craig Danforth Dole Domenici Durenberger Garn Gramm Grassley Hatch Hatfield Kassebaum Lugar McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Packwood Pressler Roth Rudman Simpson Stevens Symms Thurmond Warner 29 (inner left column) LEANING YES Brown Coats Kasten Lott Seymour Specter 6 (middle column) LEANING NO Cohen Gorton Jeffords (crossed out) Mack (crossed out "4") (handwritten) 3 (end handwritten) (inner right column) NO (handwritten) MACK (end handwritten) D'Amato Helms Smith Wallop (crossed out "4") (handwritten) 5 (end handwritten) (far right column) UNDECIDED *Rough Staff No's Includes White House input DEMOCRATS Burdick 1 Baucus Johnston 2 Boren Bingaman Conrad Daschle Dixon Exon Heflin Lieberman Pryor Robb Shelby 11 (page 7) July 9, 1991 TITLE X, FAMILY PLANNING I. Summary of HHS Regulation -- Published February 2, 1988. · Prohibits counseling and referrals for abortion. · Establishes requirements for physical and financial separation of Title X programs from abortion activities. · Prohibits Title X projects from encouraging, promoting or advocating abortion as a method of family planning. The regulation does not govern grantee activities that are not part of Title X project as long as they are kept absolutely separate. II. Summary of Supreme Court Opinion -- Decided on 5/4 Vote · Regulation is permissible construction of Title which prohibits the use of Title X funds in projects where abortion is used. · The Court held that the regulation does not significantly impinge on the doctor -- patient relationship, nor interfere with woman's rights to choose. III. Current Legislation · The Labor and Human Resources Committee reported S. 323, a bill to overturn regulations under Title X that prohibit involvement with abortion. IV. Talking Points in Support of Administration · It does not make sense that a program originally intended to reduce abortion through prevention should provide counseling and referral for abortions. · It does not make sense for a preventive family planning program to be co-located with abortion services, giving the false impression of government sponsorship or endorsement of abortion services, when the Federal government specifically prohibits funding of abortion services. (page 8) 2 · The regulation does not govern grantee activities that are not part of the Title X project. It does not affect state or private family planning programs if they are not assisted by Title X. · The regulation does not prevent a woman from seeking and obtaining an abortion outside of Title X. . If a women's pregnancy threatens her health, she will be immediately referred to proper treatment. V. Comments/Observations · Roger Porter insists there are no negotiations ongoing. He assumes the Administration still insists on its position. He is going to check with Sununu and let us know. They are concerned with the possibility of a voice vote. · Those in opposition to the regulation argue that physicians have the responsibility and right to inform their patients of all their options, while not encouraging any particular choice. (page 9) FIREARMS o The four most objectionable provisions (contained in the President's Bill) were deleted: 1) Registration of magazines (which is de facto gun registration) 2) Allows gun registration at the local level for two or more handguns purchased during a 30 day period. 3) Allows pretrial detention (no bail) for minor violations in filling out forms at time of purchase. 4) Would expand the list of ineligible purchasers under the 1968 Gun Control Act to include some misdemeanors (Senator Simpson would probably be denied due to his conviction of shooting mail boxes as a youth). o DeConcini -- had 51 votes last year. We lost two of our 49 votes -- Heinz and Boschwitz. o Compromise -- Waiting period expires after 2 1/2 years. Allowing Brady to pass with no sunset of waiting period would have established the waiting period as the new Davis/Bacon, which we would vote to repeal (and probably lose) every year for the next 15 years.