(Page 1)

POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA Tuesday, March 30, 1993
1. Supplemental -- Senator Hatfield
· Strategy
2. Debt Limit -- Senator Packwood
· Strategy
3. Budget Conference Report -- Senator Domenici

(Page 2)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 29, 1993

TODAY, TUESDAY, MARCH 30
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M. AND RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE BYRD AMENDMENT (RE: OMB/LINE ITEM AUTHORITY), TO THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE EXPECTED, THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR AND A LATE SESSION IS ANTICIPATED.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31
THE SENATE WILL RESUME THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL. THEREFORE VOTES WILL OCCUR AND A LATE SESSION CAN BE ANTICIPATED.

THURSDAY, APRIL 1- FRIDAY, APRIL 2
THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, THE SENATE MUST ALSO COMPLETE ACTION ON THE DEBT LIMIT EXTENSION BILL, EXPECTED FROM THE HOUSE LATER THIS WEEK. THE MAJORITY LEADER ALSO ANNOUNCED THAT IF THESE TWO ITEMS CAN NOT BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED RECESS DATE OF THIS FRIDAY, THEN IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO BE IN SESSION NEXT WEEK IN ORDER TO COMPLETE ACTION ON THESE TWO ITEMS.

(Page 3)

93-18 A
CRS Report for Congress
Special Tax Rules For Members Of Congress
Robert B. Burdette Legislative Attorney American Law Division
December 28, 1992
CRS
Congressional Research Service . The Library of Congress

(Page 4)

SPECIAL TAX RULES FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
SUMMARY
This report supplies simplified explanations for provisions of federal law that create tax rules which apply only to Members of Congress or which, though applicable to everyone, apply in special ways to Members of Congress. General rules that apply to Members of Congress in the same way they apply to other taxpayers are not discussed.
The discussion begins by noting that Members of Congress are immune from local jurisdictions' income taxes and Virginia's personal property tax. The report also notes, in passing, that the District of Columbia exempts certain congressional staff personnel from its income tax.
The next special rules to be examined are those under which certain amounts have to be counted as income for federal tax purposes. Among the amounts discussed are excess or unused funds supplied by Congress for its Members' official travel or transportation and certain sums derived from private sources, such as donations collected by Members to defray expenses incurred in publishing and distributing newsletters or to maintain intern programs. The discussion points out that, while Members are no longer permitted to accept honoraria, the practice of refusing honoraria and directing that the amount concerned should instead be donated to charity no longer results in incidental tax consequences. The discussion also notes that amounts which Members might receive that are not of a "legitimate nature" (i.e., bribes) and likewise that any campaign funds converted by Members' to personal use must be declared as income.
Conversely, the report points out that official death gratuities, certain proceeds from the sale of a principal residence by a Member over 55 years of age, and rolled-over gain on a sale of a principal residence of a Member are not considered income for federal tax purposes.
Special deductions accorded Members of Congress are examined. The special rule allowing a Member to deduct up to $3,000 of living expenses incurred while residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is explained. The interaction of that special rule with the so-called "two-percent floor" applicable to miscellaneous itemized deductions is also explained. Deductions allowed for a variety of other business expenses peculiar to Members of Congress are also discussed.
The report concludes by pointing out that congressional pay is subject to withholding and that a special excise tax applies to any acts of self-dealing by Members with private foundations.

(Page 5)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A WORD ABOUT IMMUNITIES 1
INCOME TAXES 1
Special Rule For Congressional Staff 1
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES 2
WHAT CONSTITUTES INCOME 2
OFFICIAL ALLOWANCES 2
INCOME FROM PRIVATE SOURCES 4
Honoraria 5
Office-Related Expenses Paid By Third Parties 6
Newsletter Funds 6
Intern Programs 6
Trusts To Finance Official Travel 7
Payments Not Of A "Legitimate Nature" (i.e., Bribes) 7
Campaign Contributions Converted To Personal Use 7
SOME ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED INCOME 8
DEATH GRATUITIES 8
PROCEEDS FROM SELLING PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE (WHERE THE SELLER IS OVER THE AGE OF 55) 8
ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON THE SALE OF A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE 11
DEDUCTIONS 12
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES 12
A Member's Living Expenses In The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area 12
The $3,000 Ceiling Generally 12
Substantiation And The Per Diem Rate 15
The Two-Percent Floor On Miscellaneous Itemized

(Page 6)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Deductions And The Interaction Between It And The $3,000 Ceiling On Living Expenses 18
Claiming Living-Expense Deductions On The Return 21
Other Away-From-Home "Traveling Expenses" 21
Expenses Of Operating An Intern Program 22
Newsletter Publication And Distribution Expenses 22
Entertainment Expenses 22
Certain Other Business Expenses 24
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS 25
MOVING EXPENSES 25
CONTRIBUTIONS RETURNED TO DONORS 25
ODDS AND ENDS 26
WITHHOLDING 26
EXCISE TAX ON ACTS OF SELF-DEALING WITH PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS 26

(Page 7)

SPECIAL TAX RULES FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
This report supplies simplified explanations for provisions of federal law that create tax rules which apply only to Members of Congress or which, though applicable to everyone, apply in special ways to Members of Congress. General rules that apply to Members of Congress in the same way they apply to other taxpayers are not discussed.
A WORD ABOUT IMMUNITIES
INCOME TAXES
A provision of federal law that is not part of the Internal Revenue Code1 declares that no State (or any political subdivision thereof) in which a Member of Congress (other than a Member who represents the State or a congressional district located within the State) "maintains a place of abode for purposes of attending sessions of Congress" is permitted, for purposes of any income tax imposed by the State (or political subdivision), to treat that Member as a resident or domiciliary of the State (or political subdivision) or to treat any compensation paid by the United States to that Member as income subject to any such income tax. For purposes of this rule, the term "State" is specially defined to include the District of Columbia.2 Consequently, a Member of Congress is, in effect, immune from any income tax imposed by any of the jurisdictions located in the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area unless he or she represents that jurisdiction or the State or congressional district in which it is located. This immunity does not extend to a Member's spouse or dependents who earn income in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
Special Rule For Congressional Staff
Generally speaking, the staff employees of Members of Congress are not eligible to take advantage of any of the special tax rules applicable to the Members themselves. There is, however, one exception to this axiom. An employee on the staff of a Member of Congress who resides in the District of
1 4 U.S.C. §113(a).
2 4 U.S.C. §113(b)(2).

(Page 8)

CRS-2
Columbia is exempt from the District's income tax if he or she is a bona fide resident of the same State the Member represents in Congress.3
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
Members of Congress are likewise exempt from State or local personal property taxes imposed by the jurisdictions comprising the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Again a provision of federal law that is not part of the Internal Revenue Code4 declares that no State (or any political subdivision thereof) in which a Member of Congress (other than a Member who represents the State or a congressional district located within the State) "maintains a place of abode for purposes of attending sessions of Congress" is allowed to "impose a personal property tax with respect to any motor vehicle owned by such Member." For purposes of this rule, the term "State" is specially defined to include the District of Columbia.5 Consequently, a Member of Congress is, in effect, immune from the personal property tax which Virginia counties and cities impose on motor vehicles. This immunity also does explicitly apply to motor vehicles owned by the spouse of a Member.
WHAT CONSTITUTES INCOME
Under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, the expression "gross income" is defined to mean "all income from whatever source derived." Because of the breadth of this definition, in addition to the salary a Member of Congress is paid as compensation for performing his or her official duties, certain other amounts which may be received from other sources during the taxable year must also be included in the Member's income for federal tax purposes. The discussion immediately below describes the tax treatment that has been explicitly prescribed under regulations or official rulings of the Internal Revenue Service for some non-salary types of income which are sometimes received by Members of Congress.
OFFICIAL ALLOWANCES
In 1977, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that official allowances paid by the House of Representatives generally are not includible in a Member's gross income because they do not generate an accession to the Member's personal
3 See the District of Columbia Code, 1981 Edition, at §47-1801.4, second sentence.
4 See note following 4 U.S.C. §113 and referring to Public Law 99-190, as amended by Public Law 100-202.
5 Ibid.

(Page 9)

CRS-3
wealth and because the Member does not have complete dominion over them.6 Exceptions were noted for two types of allowances that can give rise to income. Both exceptions involved official travel.
One of the exceptions applied in the case of allowances or reimbursements received by a Member in excess of amounts he or she actually paid as ordinary and necessary expenses for official transportation that was not "away from home" (e.g., allowances or reimbursements the Member received that were in excess of amounts the Member actually spent for such expenses as taxi fares for travel within the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area).7 Citing Regulation section 1.162-17(b)(1), the ruling recounted that:
... an employee8 need not report on the tax return expenses for travel, transportation, entertainment, and similar purposes paid or incurred solely for the benefit of an employer if such employee is required to account and does account to the employer. The expenses involved are those that are charged directly or indirectly to the employer or for which the employee is paid through advances, reimbursements, or otherwise, provided the total amount is equal to such expenses. In such a case, when reporting, the taxpayer need only state that the total of amounts charged directly or indirectly to the employer and received from the employer as advances or reimbursements did not exceed the ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred by the employee.
Section 1.162-17(b)(2) of the regulations provides that if the total of amounts charged directly or indirectly to the employer as advances, reimbursements, or otherwise, exceeds the ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred by the employee and the employee is required to and does account to the employer for such expenses, the
6 See Revenue Ruling 77-323. Caution: This ruling is partially obsolete in that it includes descriptions of various types of allowance payment schemes that are no longer used by the House of Representatives. The ruling has not been revoked however and therefore presumably reflects current "law" as to the taxability of travel expense reimbursements.
7 For purposes of rules relating to travel while not "away from home," the tax "home" of a Member of Congress is the place where he or she pursues his or her trade or business, Washington, D.C.
8 Although the ruling does not mention the point, it can be argued that, for purposes of the deductibility of ordinary and necessary expenses a Member incurs in connection with performing his or her official duties, the Member is an "employee." A statutory definition set out at IRC §7701(a)(26) states that the term "trade or business" includes "the performance of the functions of a public office." Since a Member performs such functions and, in doing so, does not act in the capacity of an independent contractor, the only alternative is that he or she acts in the capacity of an "employee."

(Page 10)

CRS-4
taxpayer must include such excess in income and so state on the return.
Hence, it is the excess, if any, of receipts (in the form of official allowances or reimbursements) over amounts actually spent for local travel, transportation, entertainment, and similar purposes, that must be included in a Member's income.
The other exception to the general rule that official allowances are excludable from a Member's gross income involved allowances or reimbursements to a Member for travel expenses incurred in connection with travel while "away from home" (e.g., between the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and the Congressional District which the Member represents in Congress).9 With respect to reimbursement of such expenses, the ruling noted that IRC §274(d) and a regulation prescribed thereunder (Reg. §1.274-5) disallow any business-expense deduction under IRC §162 for away-from-home travel expenses unless the taxpayer substantiates the amount of the expenses and the time, place, and business purpose of the travel. Drawing on those restrictions on the deductibility of away-from-home travel expenses, the ruling concluded that failure to substantiate relevant expenses would render the total amount of reimbursement collected by the Member during the taxable year includible in his or her gross income. The ruling went on to note in this connection that, in lieu of detailed documentation, a recognized per diem allowance or fixed mileage allowance could be used to determine the amount of relevant expenses. However, the ruling also pointed out that, if a standard fixed mileage allowance higher than that recognized by the IRS for other taxpayers is used for reimbursement purposes, then any portion of the allowance collected by the Member in excess of expenses actually paid or incurred must be included in his or her gross income.
INCOME FROM PRIVATE SOURCES
In addition to salary and income derived from official allowances (both of which are paid from the U.S. Treasury), some Members of Congress also occasionally receive other amounts which come to them in some sense because they are Members of Congress and which must be included in gross income. The
9 For ordinary taxpayers, "home" for tax purposes is deemed to be the principal place of business. Thus, for an ordinary individual who works in Washington, D.C., and lives in one of the surrounding jurisdictions, "home" is Washington. However, solely for purposes of the deduction that is allowed under IRC §162 for the expenses of business related travel while "away from home," a Member of Congress is subject to a special rule according to which his or her tax "home" is deemed to be the District or State he or she represents in Congress. This special rule is discussed in significantly greater detail elsewhere in this report.

(Page 11)

CRS-5
discussion below examines several different types of this sort of privately supplied income.
Honoraria
It is unlawful for a Member of Congress to accept any honorarium.10 However, the statutory definition for "gross income" set out at IRC §61, in referring to "all income from whatever source derived," clearly contemplates even income that is received unlawfully. Consequently, if an honorarium is offered to, and unlawfully accepted by, a Members of Congress, the amount concerned is income to the Member.
Formerly, even when a Member refused a tendered honorarium and directed the party offering it to pay the amount concerned to a charity, the Member was required to include the amount in gross income. The underlying law has been changed, however. Section 7701(k) of the Internal Revenue Code presently states the following rule:
TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAID TO CHARITY. -- In the case of any payment which, except for section 501(b) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 [i.e., 5 USC Appendix 7 §501(b)], might be made to any officer or employee of the Federal Government but which is made instead on behalf of such officer or employee to an organization described in section 170(c) [i.e., a public charity] --
(1) such payment shall not be treated as received by such officer or employee for all purposes of this title and for all purposes of any tax law of any State or political subdivision thereof, and
(2) no deduction shall be allowed under any provision of this title (or of any tax law of a State or political subdivision thereof) to such officer or employee by reason of having such payment made to such organization.
For purposes of this subsection, a Senator, a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress shall be treated as an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
This change in underlying law rendered a large body of complicated and interrelated rules inapplicable.
10 See 5 USC Appendix 7 §501(b).

(Page 12)

CRS-6
Office-Related Expenses Paid By Third Parties
Members of Congress are sometimes offered donations and other payments that bear in some manner on their performance of official duties. The Internal Revenue Service has issued rulings concerning the includibility of various such sums in a Member's gross income.
It should be noted that, in the case of those types of payments which the Internal Revenue Service has held must be included in a Member's gross income, even if deductions are allowed for expenditure of the amounts concerned for the purposes described, the inflation of the amount of the Member's adjusted gross income caused thereby will generate distortions of other tax rules that incorporate "floors," "ceilings," or other limitations that are determined by reference to the amount of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income.
Newsletter Funds
Subscription charges or solicited donations received by a Member of Congress for use solely to defray publication and distribution costs of newsletters and other constituent reports or questionnaires have been held by the Internal Revenue Service to be includible in the Member's gross income.11 However, the applicability of this ruling has been substantially restricted by an amendment to 39 U.S.C. §3210 (the statutory provision regulating a Member's use of the franking privilege); the enactment of IRC §527(g), which specifically relates to the tax treatment of newsletter funds; and, most importantly, certain changes in House and Senate rules. Under Rule XLV of the House of Representatives, a Member is not permitted to maintain any "unofficial office account" and the rule defines that term specifically to include "any newsletter fund referred to in section 527(g) of the Internal Revenue Code." The relevant Senate rule (Rule XXXVIII) is not quite so explicit but nevertheless holds that "[n]o Member may maintain or have maintained for his use an unofficial office account" and goes on to define the term "unofficial office account" to mean "an account or repository into which funds are received for the purpose, at least in part, of defraying otherwise unreimbursed expenses allowable in connection with the operation of a Member's office."
Intern Programs
Donations solicited by a Member of Congress to defray the expenses of maintaining at least one type of intern program have been held by the Internal Revenue Service to be includible in the Member's gross income.12 One feature of the program described in the ruling was that participating interns spent part
11 See Revenue Ruling 73-356.
12 See Revenue Ruling 75-146.

(Page 13)

CRS-7
of their time in the Member's office performing services identical to those performed by the Member's regular compensated staff personnel.
Trusts To Finance Official Travel
The Internal Revenue Service has held that contributions to a trust established to finance travel by a Member of Congress and that Member's staff in performing official duties are not excludable "gifts" within the meaning of IRC §102 but rather must be included in the Member's gross income.18
Payments Not Of A "Legitimate Nature" (i.e., Bribes)
The Internal Revenue Service has held that, if a contributor receives from a "political officeholder" a promise that is not of a "traditional and legitimate political nature" to perform some service (for example, a promise to "direct the appropriate governmental office to renew the business license of the contributor") in exchange for a payment from the contributor to a political campaign specified by the officeholder, then the amount of the payment concerned must be included in the officeholder's gross income.14
Campaign Contributions Converted To Personal Use
For many years relevant tax law has required a Member of Congress who converts campaign funds to personal use to include the amount so converted in his or her gross income.16 Law to this effect dates at least as far back as 1934. See Paschen v. United States, 70 F.2d 491 (7th Cir, 1934). Statutory law which implies that converted campaign funds must be included in gross income is currently set out at IRC §527(d), which specifies certain dispositions of campaign funds that are not treated as income to a candidate (and thus suggests that other dispositions must be so treated). Current regulations prescribed under IRC §527 explicitly require converted campaign funds to be included in gross income. See Reg. §1.527-5.
13 See Revenue Ruling 76-276.
14 See Revenue Ruling 75-103.
15 Such conversions may or may not be lawful. A provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act allows certain Members to undertake such conversions without criminal penalties. However, for tax purposes, it is immaterial whether such a conversion is lawful or unlawful. In either case, the sum converted is income subject to tax.

(Page 14)

CRS-8
Campaigning for election to public office is not considered a trade or business for federal tax purposes.16 Consequently, it can be argued that income in the form of converted campaign funds is not self-employment income and thus cannot have the effect of enlarging the limitation imposed under IRC §415(c)(1) on the amount which can be contributed to the special type of retirement plan referred to in §415.
SOME ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED INCOME
The discussion immediately below describes certain amounts which explicit regulations or rulings of the Internal Revenue Service specify may be excluded from the gross income of a Member of Congress receiving them. In each of the instances described, the amount concerned is similar to a like amount regarded as excludable from income by a taxpayer who is not a Member of Congress. In other words, the exclusions described here merely represent special applications of generally available exclusions.
DEATH GRATUITIES
A death gratuity paid from the contingent fund of the House of Representatives or the Senate has been held to be a "gift" which the recipient was entitled to exclude from gross income.17
PROCEEDS FROM SELLING PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE (WHERE THE SELLER IS OVER THE AGE OF 55)
Like any other taxpayer, a Member of Congress is entitled to claim the one- time exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence which IRC §121 confers on a taxpayer who has attained the age of 55. The application of this exclusion in the case of a Member of Congress, however, can be complicated by the fact that many Members maintain residences in both the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and the States, congressional districts, and possessions which they represent in Congress. A question can arise as to which is the Member's "principal" residence eligible for the exclusion. Although private letter rulings cannot be relied upon as precedent, it nevertheless seems noteworthy that at least one such ruling has been made concerning the application of IRC §121 to a Member of Congress with a residence in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and another in the constituency.18 That ruling began by taking note of the fact that Article I, Section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution declares that "[n]o Person shall be a Representative ... who shall not, when
16 See McDonald v. Commissioner, 323 U.S. 57 (1944).
17 See Revenue Ruling 55-609.
18 See Letter Ruling 8031070 (May 12, 1980).

(Page 15)

CRS-9
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."19 The ruling recognized that this constitutional requirement does not establish that the residence which a Member maintains in the State in which he or she is an inhabitant on the date he or she is elected is necessarily that Member's "principal" residence within the meaning of IRC §121. Instead, the ruling concluded that a determination as to which of more than one residences is a Member's "principal" residence is to be made in accordance with the principles set out in Revenue Ruling 77-298. That ruling had originally been issued to clarify the application of a different section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC §1034, not IRC §121). It had held that, as between a residence maintained in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and a residence maintained in the congressional district represented, the one occupied a majority of the time would ordinarily be considered the "principal" residence.
Should a Member of Congress elect to claim the exclusion allowed under IRC §121, a special rule for determining the amount of gain involved may apply. As explained infra, Members of Congress are allowed to deduct certain living expenses they incur while residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. There is a temporary regulation20 which applies in the case of a Member of Congress who owns the residence he or she occupies in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and who uses either of two special methods for computing deductible living expenses without ordinarily required substantiation which another related temporary regulation21 permits. Both of the special computational methods involve multiplication of a designated constant amount of dollars times the number of "Congressional days" there are in the taxable year concerned. If the Member uses either method in claiming deductions for living expenses, then, according to the temporary regulation, "the Member must treat as an adjustment to the basis of such residence an amount equal to 20 percent of the maximum amount of actual subsistence multiplied by the number of Congressional days."
For example, suppose a Member of Congress owns and occupies a residence in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; has an otherwise adjusted basis in that residence of $100,000; deducts interest and taxes with respect to the
19 Although not mentioned in the letter ruling, a nearly identical provision applicable in the case of Senators is set out at Article I, Section 3, clause 3, of the Constitution.
20 See 26 C.F.R. §5e.274-8(c)(2). It should be noted that this temporary regulation does not reflect changes made in underlying statutory law that were enacted as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
For an explanation of how this temporary regulation came into being, see the discussion infra concerning special deductions for Members. In particular, the discussion of the deduction for "traveling expenses" allowed under IRC §162(a)(2).
21 See 26 C.F.R. §5e.274-8(c)(1).

(Page 16)

CRS-10
residence; and uses the relevant special computational rule to determine that $12,133 of living expenses have been incurred during the current taxable year.22 In such a situation, the Member would be required to reduce his or her basis in the residence by $3,640.28 Thus, the Member would be left with an adjusted basis of $96,360 in the residence as of the year's end.
It should be noted that the language of the temporary regulation does not take into account either the $3,000 ceiling on living expenses deductible under IRC §16224 or the two-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions imposed under IRC §6725. Consequently, the amount of living expenses used for purposes of computing the required basis reduction will, in most cases, exceed the amount of such expenses actually allowed to be deducted. Put another way, the benefit derived from claiming the current deduction for relevant living expenses will in most cases be more than offset in the long run by the adverse consequence generated by the overcompensating basis adjustment.
Since IRC §121(b)(1) itself limits the total excludable gain to $125,000 ($62,500 in the case of a separate return by a married individual), application of the temporary regulation could effectively increase the amount of gain which a Member would have to recognize on an eventual sale of the residence. In the example cited, suppose the Member reached the age of 55 during the taxable year and sold the residence for $225,000. If no deduction for relevant living expenses had been claimed, the Member's taxable income would not have been reduced by the $3,000 maximum amount allowed under IRC §162 but his or her basis in the residence would have remained $100,000. As a result, the sale of the residence would have yielded a gain of $125,000, all of which would have been excluded from the Member's income. By contrast, if the Member used the applicable computational method to claim a deduction of $3,000 for relevant living expenses and consequently was obliged to reduce his or her basis in the
22 The amount concerned is assumed to have been computed by multiplying the factor of two-thirds drawn from the special computational method specified in the temporary regulation times a constant of $182 per day times the 100 "Congressional days" which fell within the taxable year. The $182 daily rate equals 150 percent of the maximum per diem rate currently allowed federal employees on travel status in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. That sum reflects the "maximum amount of actual subsistence" allowed under the current Federal Travel Regulation. See discussion infra concerning the deduction for a Member's living expenses in Washington.
23 This amount is computed by multiplying the 20 percent factor specified in the temporary regulation for basis adjustment times the "maximum amount of actual subsistence multiplied times the number of Congressional days" (i.e., the $182 per day rate multiplied times the 100 Congressional days which fell within the taxable year).
24 Discussed infra.
25 Discussed supra.

(Page 17)

CRS-11
residence by $3,640, the net result would have been a $640 increase in taxable income. That is, taxable income would have been reduced by the $3,000 deduction but would have been increased by the excess of the amount realized from the sale of the residence over the $125,000 exclusion allowed by IRC §121. In other words, the Member would have been allowed to reduce income by the $3,000 deduction but would have had to recognize income equal to the $225,000 selling price of the residence less the Member's $96,360 newly adjusted basis therein and less the $125,000 exclusion. The net result would thus have been that the $3,000 deduction would have been more than offset by the $3,640 addition to income. The tax cost suffered by the Member as a result of claiming the deduction for relevant living expenses would have equaled $640 multiplied times the marginal rate of tax applicable to the Member.
Obviously, overcompensating basis adjustments could accumulate year by year to exaggerate the effect illustrated here. Thus, many Members might achieve tax savings in the long run by not claiming any (or at least not claiming any more) deductions for living expenses incurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
It seems worth mentioning here that occasional informal advice has reportedly been given over the telephone by the Internal Revenue Service to the effect that the temporary regulations described here could simply be ignored since they were issued during a brief period when the underlying statutory law did not impose the $3,000 ceiling on deductions under IRC §162 which was for many years (and is, once more) a significant factor to be taken into account in computing the tax liability of a Member of Congress. That very informal advice is of no precedential value at all. The temporary regulations in question were issued in satisfaction of a statutory obligation to prescribe regulations that was imposed on the Secretary of the Treasury. The temporary regulations have not been officially withdrawn.
ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON THE SALE OF A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE
Like any other taxpayer, a Member of Congress who sells a principal residence and purchases (and occupies) a new one within a prescribed statutory period is allowed to "rollover" any gain that results from the sale of the old residence.26 The prescribed period begins two years before the sale and ends two years after the sale. As a technical matter, this rule is not a true exclusion from gross income but rather is a rule of nonrecognition of what otherwise would clearly be income. As explained elsewhere in this report, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that a residence in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area that is owned and occupied by a Member of Congress can qualify as that Member's "principal" residence for purposes of IRC §1034 despite the fact that the Member also owns (and at some times during the taxable year occupies) a residence in the congressional district he or she represents. Which
26 See IRC §1034.

(Page 18)

CRS-12
of the two residences is the Member's "principal" residence in such situations is determined by which is occupied a majority of the time.
DEDUCTIONS
There are some deductions which the Internal Revenue Code allows generally in the case of any taxpayer but which can apply in a special way in the case of a Member of Congress. The discussion immediately below focuses on such deductions.
ORDINARY AND NECESSARY BUSINESS EXPENSES
A deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year is allowed under IRC §162. There are several types of business expenses which Members of Congress incur that are different from any that other taxpayers incur.
A Member's Living Expenses In The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area
The $3,000 Ceiling Generally
Paragraph (2) of IRC §162(a) explicitly designates "traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circumstances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business" to be among the ordinary and necessary business expenses for which a deduction is allowed. As a general rule, in order to be considered made while "away from home" so as to render them deductible, "traveling expenses" (pertinent costs of meals and lodging and incidental expenses like dry cleaning) must be incurred as part of a trip to a place distant enough from the taxpayer's "home" to require a stop for sleep or rest.27 In the case of a taxpayer who is not a Member of Congress, the term "home," as used in this context, refers to the taxpayer's regular or principal place of business. A different rule applies, however, in the case of a Member of Congress. The second sentence of IRC §162(a) states that:
For purposes of the preceding sentence, the place of residence of a Member of Congress (including any Delegate and Resident Commissioner) within the State, congressional district, or possession which he represents in Congress shall be considered his home, but amounts expended by such Members within each taxable year for living expenses shall not be deductible for income tax purposes in excess of $3,000.
27 See United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967).

(Page 19)

CRS-13
This special rule means, of course, that, while a Member of Congress is residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area to perform his or her official duties, the Member may deduct up to $3,000 worth of expenses for meals and lodging (and incidental expenses) so long as the Member's "home" is far enough from Washington, D.C., that a trip there would require a stop for rest or sleep.
It should be noted that the special designation of a Member's tax "home" only applies for purposes of living expenses incurred by the Member, not those incurred by the Member's spouse or any other relative residing with the Member in his or her Washington-area abode. This observation complicates computation of the amounts of both types of expenses. Another complicating factor in the case of expenses incurred for meals in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is that such expenses may be subject to the 80 percent limitation imposed under IRC § 274(n). See discussion infra.
In connection with lodging expenses, IRC §280A generally disallows all deductions, including deductions under IRC §162(a), with respect to any "dwelling unit" used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a "residence." For purposes of this disallowance, special rules set out under paragraphs (1) and (2) of IRC §280A(d) clarify that a "dwelling unit" (such as a house, an apartment, or a condominium) is considered used as a "residence" if it is used "for personal purposes by the taxpayer ... or by any members of the family (as defined in [IRC] section 267(c)(4)) of the taxpayer" for more than fourteen days in the taxable year (emphasis added). In the case of a Member of Congress who is "away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business" while he or she is residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, an argument can be made that occupancy of a "dwelling unit" is for business, not personal, purposes. Consequently, if the unit is occupied by the Member alone, it retains its character as away-from-home "lodging" and expenses attributable to it remain deductible. By contrast, if someone in the Member's family occupies the unit for more than fourteen days during the taxable year and can identify no business purpose for doing so, then the general rule on its face appears to disallow any deduction for expenses attributable to the Member's use of the unit. Theoretically, IRC §280A has imposed this constraint from the date of its enactment in 1976. As a practical matter, since the $3,000 ceiling on a Member's deductible living expenses can fairly easily be reached without counting any "lodging" expenses, the constraint's actual impact has been negligible. For a time, however, the constraint threatened to be more severely restrictive.
The $3,000 ceiling on the deduction of a Member's living expenses incurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area was repealed by section 139 of Public Law 97-51. That repeal was to have been effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1981. The effective date was subsequently changed, however, by section 133a of Public Law 97-92 so that the repeal was to have gone into effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1980. Still later, the $3,000 ceiling was retroactively re-imposed by section 215(a) of Public Law 97-216. The net effect of all these changes was that the deduction

(Page 20)

CRS-14
for a Member's relevant living expenses was free from the $3,000 ceiling for only one taxable year (i.e., tax year 1981).
During the period following the initial repeal of the $3,000 ceiling and prior to its retroactive re-imposition, the constraint imposed by IRC §280A on deducting expenses for "lodging" drew considerable attention. As a consequence of that attention, a special exception to the general rule of IRC §280A was enacted. The exception states, in relevant part, as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to disallow any deduction allowable under section 162(a)(2) ... by reason of the taxpayer's being away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business 28
Since it is precisely "by reason of the taxpayer's being away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business" that a Member's expenses for lodging in the Washington area do give rise to a "deduction allowable under section 162(a)(2)," the exception clearly applies and the general rule under which personal use of a dwelling unit would render such expenses nondeductible is disregarded. Consequently, in the case of the Member of Congress who is "away from home" while residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, lodging expenses are deductible even if the Member's family occupies the same dwelling unit.
Of course, even though IRC §280A no longer utterly precludes deductions for expenses of lodging shared by a Member of Congress with his or her family, IRC §162 itself (as noted earlier) only allows a deduction for the Member's own lodging expenses, not those allocable to the Member's family. The same limitation applies in the case of other "traveling expenses" (such as, expenses of meals and incidental expenses) deductible under IRC §162(a)(2).29
28 See IRC §280A(f)(4).
29 This conclusion reflects an assumption that no other person in the Member's family can establish that he or she is also "away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business" while residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

(Page 21)

CRS-15
Substantiation And The Per Diem Rate
Deductions under IRC §162 for traveling expenses are ordinarily disallowed in the case of any taxpayer unless substantiated in accordance with IRC §274 and Reg. §1.274-5. Compliance with these substantiation requirements can be burdensome and would be especially onerous when significant amounts of living expenses incurred over long periods of time must be allocated between a Member and the rest of his or her family. To relieve its Members from such burdens of substantiation, Congress enacted a provision obligating the Secretary of the Treasury to "prescribe amounts deductible (without substantiation) pursuant to the last sentence of section 162(a)."30 In satisfaction of its obligation, the Treasury published temporary regulations in the Federal Register of January 21, 1982, at pages 2986-2988.
The temporary regulations31 set out two different methods which may be used to determine the amount of relevant living expenses a Member of Congress may deduct without substantiation. One method can only be used by a Member who owns the residence he or she occupies in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and who deducts interest and taxes with respect to that residence. Using this method, the sum of living expenses deductible without substantiation is computed by multiplying two-thirds of a specified daily rate times the number of "Congressional days" falling within the taxable year.32 The other method is for use by Members who do not own the residences they occupy and by Members who, though they do own the residences they occupy, for whatever reason do not deduct interest and taxes with respect to their residences. Under this method, the sum of living expenses deductible without substantiation is computed by multiplying the full amount of the specified daily rate times the number of "Congressional days" falling within the taxable year.33 For purposes of both methods, all days during the taxable year are considered "Congressional days" except those in periods lasting five or more consecutive days (including Saturdays and Sundays) during which the particular chamber in which the Member serves was not in session.34 Of course, if a Member elects not to use either of the two special methods just described, relevant
30 See IRC §280A(f)(4)(B). It should be noted that IRC §§162 and 280A, including the special "away-from-home" exception discussed supra, apply generally to all taxpayers. By contrast, the special provision obligating the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate relevant regulations for nonsubstantiation of deductible living expenses only applies in the case of Members of Congress.
31 See 26 C.F.R. §5e.274-8.
32 See Temp. Reg. §5e.274-8(c)(1)(i).
33 See Temp. Reg. §5e.274-8(c)(1)(ii).
34 See Temp. Reg. §5e.274-8(d).

(Page 22)

CRS-16
deductions may still be claimed. However, in such a case, the amounts of deductible expenses must be substantiated.35
The daily rate to be used under either of the two methods for computing the amount of living expenses deductible without substantiation is difficult to identify at present. The temporary regulations refer to "the maximum amount of actual subsistence for Washington, D.C. payable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5702(c)." The statutory provision mentioned in this cross-reference (i.e., 5 U.S.C. §5702(c)) was repealed by Public Law 99-234, effective for 1986 and thereafter. The provision had formerly stated, in relevant part, that:
... an employee may be reimbursed for the actual and necessary expenses of official travel when the maximum per diem allowance would be less than these expenses, except that such reimbursement shall not exceed [a specified sum] for each day ... .
In other words the maximum amount of reimbursement a federal employee could receive under this former provision was either the specified per diem or, if more, the actual amount spent (up to a specified limit). Of course to get more than the amount specified as the per diem rate, a government employee would have to verify the amount. Arguably, no such verification is required in the present context, however, since the sole function of the cross-reference under scrutiny is to identify an amount. In other words, the reference is to an amount (the "maximum amount payable" for a government employee in travel status while in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area), not to the rules which a government employee must satisfy to receive the amount. After all, the reference occurs in the context of computation methods to be used to avoid the burdens of detailed verification of expenses. Elsewhere in 5 U.S.C. §5702(c) a distinction was also (and one still is) drawn between reimbursement using a per diem allowance and reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses of official travel. It can therefore be argued that the cross-reference to the maximum amount payable under former 5 U.S.C. §5702(c) should be interpreted as a reference to an amount higher than the per diem allowance for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
The per diem allowance for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area has changed since the temporary regulation noted above first went into effect. It is set out in the Federal Travel Regulations. The Federal Travel Regulations also permit reimbursement for actual and necessary travel expenses up to 150 percent of an otherwise applicable per diem allowance.36 Thus, a plausible argument can be made that the "maximum amount of actual subsistence" for the Washington area that is payable pursuant to currently applicable Federal Travel Regulations is 150% of the amount specified as the per diem rate for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
35 For guidance in such cases, see Revenue Ruling 80-62.
36 See Federal Travel Regulation, § 301-8.3, "Maximum daily rates and reimbursement limitations."

(Page 23)

CRS-17
Even if one assumes, more conservatively, that the reference should be interpreted as specifying only the identified per diem rate itself (rather than 150 percent of that amount), little practical consequence would follow for most Members. There are typically about 120 to 130 "Congressional days" in a taxable year. Even if there were as few as 100 "Congressional days" during a particular year, the per diem rate would only have to exceed $30 to consume the entire allowed deduction of $3,000. However, if a Member dies or resigns relatively early in a taxable year, the difference between the two possibly applicable rates could generate a significant difference in ultimate tax liability.
The Internal Revenue Service has not yet officially resolved the ambiguity concerning the amount of the applicable daily rate. The temporary regulations have not been repealed and no relevant formal rulings have been issued.
The various types of living expenses contemplated by the special deduction allowed Members under IRC §162 are described in the temporary regulations, as follows:
Meals include the actual cost of food and expenses incident to the preparation and serving thereof. Lodging includes amounts paid for rent, care of premises, utilities, insurance and depreciation of household furnishings owned by the Member. In the case of a Member who lives in a residence owned by him in the Washington, D.C. area, the cost of lodging also includes depreciation on such residence. Other incidental expenses include laundry, cleaning, and local transportation. Local transportation includes travel within a 50 mile radius of Washington, D.C., whether by private automobile, taxicab or other transportation for hire.
Interest and taxes payable in connection with ownership of real and personal property are not contemplated. In other words, deductions for those expenses are not subject to the $3,000 ceiling and may be claimed to the full extent they might be claimed by any other taxpayer.
An additional point which, though perhaps obvious to some, seems worth brief mention here is that, if living expenses are deducted under IRC §162, those same expenses may not also be deducted under some other section of the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, for example, the Internal Revenue Service has explicitly ruled that a Member of Congress is not permitted to deduct the same item simultaneously as both a "traveling expense" under IRC §162 and a "moving expense" under IRC §217.87
37 See Revenue Ruling 73-468.

(Page 24)

CRS-18
The Two-Percent Floor On Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions And The Interaction Between It And The $3,000 Ceiling On Living Expenses
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 added a so-called "two-percent floor" on miscellaneous itemized deductions.38 According to this rule, sums designated by a statutory definition as included within the meaning of the term "miscellaneous itemized deductions" are allowed to be deducted only to the extent they exceed, in the aggregate, two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. For example, if a Member of Congress has adjusted gross income of $200,000 for a particular taxable year, then the first $4,000 of his or her otherwise deductible miscellaneous itemized deductions cannot be claimed.
The statutory definition for the term "miscellaneous itemized deductions" supplied by IRC §67(b) uses curiously backward language to specify that the term means itemized deductions other than those allowed under a list of specified provisions. Since the list does not exclude any deduction allowed under IRC §162, such deductions therefore are "miscellaneous itemized deductions" subject to the 2% floor. One deduction allowed under IRC §162 is that for away- from-home travel expenses, including such expenses incurred by Members of Congress while abiding in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
The way Congress evidently intended IRC §§ 67 and 162 to interact with one another is not obvious from the face of relevant statutory law.39 A provision of the Tax And Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA) enacted
38 See IRC §67(a).
39 There are at least two ways in which IRC §§ 67 and 162 could be interpreted as interacting with one another. One interpretation would require the amount of each deduction subject to the floor to be computed first without regard to the floor. Assume that the amount of pertinent living expenses exceeded $3,000 so that, by virtue of the ceiling, exactly $3,000 worth of such expenses would be deductible if IRC § 67 were ignored. The $3,000 would then be added together with any additional otherwise allowed deductions subject to the floor. From this sum, an amount equal to two percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income would be subtracted. Any remainder would then be deductible. Following such an interpretation would amount to pro rating the floor among whatever deductions subject thereto the taxpayer could claim for the year in question. In other words, the $3,000 ceiling on the special deduction for a Member's living expenses incurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area would be reduced by two percent of a fraction of the Member's adjusted gross income. The fraction would equal the amount of otherwise deductible living expenses incurred (up to $3,000) divided by total "miscellaneous itemized deductions" for the year. This interpretation would, in effect, apply the ceiling before the floor. Despite the apparent logic of so interpreting the two Code provisions' interaction, it is not the interpretation which Congress evidently intended. As explained in the accompanying text, the interpretation evidently intended by Congress was just the opposite.

(Page 25)

CRS-19
a relevant "clarification."40 It explicitly states that the floor applies before the ceiling. The House and Senate committee reports both supply the same example to illustrate what effect this ordering rule has.41 That example is stated, as follows:
... assume that a Member with AGI (i.e., adjusted gross income) of $100,000 has $5,000 of away-from-home expenses qualifying for the deduction (disregarding application of the $3,000 limit and the two- percent floor, but after application of the 80-percent rule for meal and entertainment expenses) and $5,000 of other miscellaneous itemized deductions, for a total of $10,000 of potential deductions subject to the two-percent floor. Application of the two-percent floor would limit these deductions to $8,000, and the amount disallowed because of the two-percent floor would be disallowed proportionately. Thus, after application of the two-percent floor, the Member could deduct $4,000 of the away-from-home expenses and $4,000 of the [other] miscellaneous itemized deductions. The former amount (i.e., the away- from-home expenses) is further limited to $3,000 because of the special limitation on deducting Member's expenses in sec. 162(a). Thus, the Member could deduct a total of $7,000 of miscellaneous itemized deductions.
Further guidance with respect to the interaction of the 2% floor and the special $3,000 living-expense deduction is afforded by a temporary regulation prescribed under IRC section 67. It is set out as Reg. §1.67-1T(d), captioned "Members of Congress," and provides, as follows:
(1) In general. With respect to the deduction for living expenses of Members of Congress referred to in section 162(a), the 2-percent floor described in section 67 and paragraph (a) of this section shall be applied to the deduction before the application of the $3,000 limitation on deductions of living expenses referred to in section 162(a). (For purposes of this paragraph (d), the term "Member(s) of Congress" includes any Delegate or Resident Commissioner.) The amount of
40 Section 1001(f)(1) of TAMRA (Public Law 100-647) amended IRC §67 by adding a new subsection (f) thereto. The new §67(f) is captioned "coordination with other limitation" and reads, as follows:
This section shall be applied before the application of the dollar limitation of the last sentence of section 162(a) (relating to trade or business expenses)."
The "dollar limitation of the last sentence of section 162(a)" is, of course, the $3,000 ceiling on deductible living expenses incurred by a Member of Congress in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
41 It is set out in H.Rept. 100-795 at page 9, footnote 7, and in S.Rept. 100-445 at page 10, footnote 9.

(Page 26)

CRS-20
miscellaneous itemized deductions of a Member of Congress that is disallowed pursuant to section 67 and paragraph (a) of this section is determined by multiplying the aggregate amount of such living expenses (determined without regard to the $3,000 limitation of section 162(a) but with regard to any other limitations) by a fraction, the numerator of which is the aggregate amount disallowed pursuant to section 67 and paragraph (a) of this section with respect to miscellaneous deductions of the Member of Congress and the denominator of which is the amount of miscellaneous itemized deductions (including deductions for living expenses) of the Member of Congress (determined without regard to the $3,000 limitation of section 162(a) but with regard to any other limitations). The amount of deductions for miscellaneous itemized deductions (other than deductions for living expenses) of a Member of Congress that are disallowed pursuant to section 67 and paragraph (a) of this section is determined by multiplying the amount of miscellaneous itemized deductions (other than deductions for living expenses) by the fraction described in the previous sentence.42
This general rule is illustrated by an example that is also set out in the regulation, under subparagraph (2).
The example in the regulation is stated, as follows:
Example. For 1987 A, a member of Congress, has adjusted gross income of $100,000, and miscellaneous itemized deductions of $10,750 of which $3,750 is for meals, $3,000 is for other living expenses, and $4,000 is for other miscellaneous itemized deductions (none of which is subject to any percentage limitations other than the 2-percent floor of section 67). The amount of A's business meal expenses that are disallowed under 274(n) is $750 ($3,750 × 20%). The amount of A's miscellaneous itemized deductions that are disallowed under section 67 is $2,000 ($100,000 × 2%). The portion of the amount disallowed under section 67 that is allocated to A's living expenses is $1,200. This portion is equal to the amount of A's deductions for living expenses allowable after the application of section 274(n) and before the application of section 67 ($6,000) multiplied by the ratio of A's total miscellaneous itemized deductions disallowed under section 67 to A's total miscellaneous itemized deductions, determined without regard to the $3,000 limitation of section 162(a) ($2,000/$10,000). Thus, after application of section 274(n) and section 67, A's deduction for living expenses is $4,800 ($6,750 - $750 -$1,200). However, pursuant to section 162(a), A may deduct only $3,000 of such expenses. The amount of A's other miscellaneous itemized deductions that are disallowed under section 67 is $800 ($4,000 x $2,000/$10,000). Thus,
42 The temporary regulation, in effect, takes a backwards approach from that described in the preceding paragraph: focusing on the proration of the amount disallowed by the two-percent floor.

(Page 27)

CRS-21
$3,200 ($4,000 - $800) of A's miscellaneous itemized deductions (other than deductions for living expenses) are allowable after application of section 67. A's total allowable miscellaneous itemized deductions are $6,200 ($3,000 + $3,200).
Claiming Living-Expense Deductions On The Return
In its "Tax Information for Members of the House of Representatives," a handout prepared by the Baltimore District office, the Internal Revenue Service advises Members claiming deductions for living expenses incurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area to record the expenses on Form 2106, which relates to "Employee Business Expenses." The total amount of such expenses (without regard to either the two-percent floor or the $3,000 ceiling) is entered on this form's line 4 (captioned "business expenses not included in lines 1 through 3"). Although the instructions for Form 2106 do not explicitly require a Member to do so, typing or writing in a description of the expenses (such as "Member of Congress living expenses in Washington, D.C.") beside the printed matter at line 4 of the form may prove useful. Both on the face of the form itself and in the instructions relating to line 4, the taxpayer is cautioned not to include amounts spent for meals and entertainment on this line. Such amounts are to be listed on line 5 and are subject to the 80 percent limitation discussed infra. The amount shown on line 4 is repeated at various other places on Form 2106 and ultimately appears at the bottom of the form on line 17. This amount shown on line 17 of Form 2106 is then recorded on line 20 of the Member's Schedule A ("Itemized Deductions"), accompanying his or her Form 1040, the personal income tax return. Lines 20 through 24 of the Schedule A all relate to miscellaneous itemized deductions. Line 20 specifically relates to unreimbursed employee business expenses. In computing the amount shown on line 24, the ordering rule described supra should be kept in mind so as to claim the full $3,000 allowed under IRC §162 if (as is likely) circumstances warrant such a claim.
Other Away-From-Home "Traveling Expenses"
In addition to those living expenses incurred in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area which are treated as "traveling expenses" by virtue of the second sentence of IRC §162(a), a Member may also deduct "traveling expenses" incurred for business travel that is not only "away" from that Member's tax "home" (i.e., the State or congressional district represented) but is also "away" from Washington. Ordinarily, substantiation of the amounts concerned is required. In this regard, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the per diem allowance specified in the Federal Travel Regulations for the locality involved and the mileage allowances specified by the Internal Revenue Service itself will satisfy the substantiation and adequate accounting requirements of Reg. §§ 1.162-17(b) and 1.274-5.48
43 See Revenue Ruling 80-62.

(Page 28)

CRS-22
Expenses Of Operating An Intern Program
In a ruling discussed supra in connection with types of income from private sources that have been held explicitly includible in a Member's gross income, the Internal Revenue Service has also held that amounts paid from solicited donations to compensate interns are deductible business expenses under IRC §162.44
Newsletter Publication And Distribution Expenses
In another ruling discussed supra in connection with types of income from private sources that have been held explicitly includible in a Member's gross income, the Internal Revenue Service has also held that publication and distribution expenses incurred by a Member of Congress in connection with newsletters and other reports to constituents and defrayed by earmarked subscription fees and solicited contributions are deductible under IRC §162 as business expenses incurred as an employee.45
Entertainment Expenses
Determining the extent to which entertainment expenses are deductible is a multi-step process. As an initial matter, the expense must qualify as an ordinary and necessary business expense within the general meaning of IRC §162. If it is, then the deduction must not be specifically disallowed under any of the special rules of IRC §274(a). In a relevant ruling,46 the Internal Revenue Service described three examples of entertainment expenses incurred by a hypothetical Member of Congress and held that only one of them would be deductible. The situation involving the expense held to be deductible was described as follows:
A, a Member of Congress, pays for the lunch of a constituent whom A takes to a restaurant in order that A might have the time and opportunity to discuss a problem the constituent is having with an agency of the Government. A had no other time to discuss the constituent's problem.
According to the ruling, the discussion of the constituent's problem was evidence of the business-relatedness of the expense. The ruling concluded that, so long as the surroundings where the lunch was furnished were conducive to the discussion of business, the exception specified under IRC §274(c)(1) applied and the expense was deductible.
44 See Revenue Ruling 75-146.
45 See Revenue Ruling 73-356.
46 See Revenue Ruling 78-373.

(Page 29)

CRS-23
By contrast, in the case of expenses incurred by a Member of Congress for a cocktail party and buffet to which a few constituents were invited but at which the surroundings were not conducive to the discussion of business, the ruling disallowed any deduction, citing Reg. §1.274-2(c)(7) to the effect that an expense cannot qualify as directly related to the taxpayer's trade or business if the entertainment concerned occurs under circumstances where there is little or no possibility of engaging in the active conduct of trade or business.
The third example involved expenses incurred by a Member of Congress for a party for his staff members, secretaries, and aides, all of whom were compensated out of his annual congressional hiring allowance. The ruling held that such expenses were not deductible. The rationale was that the exception to the general disallowance rule of IRC §274(a) that is set out at §274(e)(5) and that covers expenses for recreational, social, and similar activities primarily for the benefit of employees would not apply since Congress, rather than the individual Member, was the employer of those attending the party and thus the requisite employer-employee relationship between the individual incurring the expense and those benefitting from it was absent.47
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 amended IRC §274, inter alia, by adding to it a new subsection (n) under which the amount allowable as a deduction for "any expense for food or beverages" or for any entertainment expense is not permitted to exceed 80 percent of the amount which "but for this paragraph" would be deductible.48
47 A subsequent private letter ruling (Letter Ruling 8029034) allowed a deduction for expenses incurred by an "elected public official" for a similar party. The distinguishing feature of the arrangements for the party involved in the letter ruling was that the elected public official used a special official expense allowance to pay for the party and, thus, was acting as an agent on behalf of the employer-government.
48 If a Member of Congress elects to substantiate living expenses incurred while residing in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area rather than to use either of the two estimation methods described in Temp. Reg. §5.274-8(c)(1), then the Member's own meals may be subject to the 80 percent limitation. If so, the amounts deducted must be reported separately on the Form 2106 and the 80 percent limitation is applied before either the two-percent floor of IRC §67(a) or the $3,000 ceiling of IRC §162(a). Although there is no explicit statutory authority for this special ordering rule, it reflects statements appearing in the House and Senate committee reports accompanying the TAMRA legislation. See H.Rept. 100-795, at page 9, and S. Rept. 100-445, at page 10. Both reports explain the "clarification" added to IRC §67 with respect to the interaction of the two-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions and the $3,000 ceiling on deductions for Members' relevant living expenses by asserting that:
This clarification is consistent with the general rule under the Act to apply certain deduction limitation provisions in the following order: first, provisions disallowing a percentage of a deduction (e.g., sec.

(Page 30)

CRS-24
Certain Other Business Expenses
Amounts paid from a Member's personal funds to defray the costs of reasonable salaries for staff employees who were in addition to those paid from official congressional allowances and who were needed to handle an unusually heavy workload have been held to be deductible business expenses incurred as an employee.49 That same ruling also held, however, that costs similarly incurred for extra office equipment could only be recovered over time through deductions for depreciation (under IRC §§ 167 and 168) rather than all at once in the year in which they were actually paid.
A later ruling50 amplified Revenue Ruling 73-464 to make clear that, under appropriate circumstances, not only staff salaries, but also office rent and "supplies" (i.e., items consumed within the taxable year) are deductible under IRC §162(a).51
Legal expenses incurred by a Member of Congress in connection with litigation relating to congressional redistricting have been held to be nondeductible "personal" expenses of the kind contemplated by IRC §262 rather than deductible business expenses within the meaning of IRC §162.52
274(n), generally limiting meal and entertainment deductions to 80 percent of the amount otherwise allowable); second, provisions disallowing a ... [specified] amount of certain deductions (e.g., the two- percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions); and third, provisions establishing a deduction ceiling (e.g., the $3,000 limit in the last sentence of sec. 162(a) and certain dollar limitations in sec. 217 on deductions for moving expenses).
49 See Revenue Ruling 73-464.
50 Revenue Ruling 84-110.
51 See also Frank v. United States, 577 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1978), which held that expenses incurred by a Senate staff employee in performing official duties were deductible under IRC §162 even though the sum of these expenses consistently exceeded that employee's annual Senate salary.
52 See Revenue Ruling 67-457.

(Page 31)

CRS-25
CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
Like any other taxpayer, a Member of Congress is allowed a deduction under IRC §170 for charitable contributions made during the taxable year. There have been a few rulings, however, which have specifically focused on charitable contributions made by Members of Congress. Several have confirmed the allowance of deductions for certain types of contributions. For example, one rather old ruling held that a Member's return of a portion of his salary to the Treasury was a deductible charitable contribution.53 A more recent ruling held that, when a trust which had been established to finance certain travel expenses of a Member of Congress was terminated and its assets were distributed to various charitable organizations, the distributions would be deductible charitable contributions within the meaning of IRC §170.
A deduction has been disallowed for the donation of a Member's congressional papers to a university. The essential rationale was that the Member had a zero basis in the materials donated.54
MOVING EXPENSES
A deduction is allowed under IRC §217 for moving expenses incurred during the taxable year in connection with the commencement of work by the taxpayer at a new "principal place of work." The Internal Revenue Service has specifically ruled that a claim of a deduction under IRC §217 by a new Member of Congress for the expenses of moving to the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is not inconsistent with a claim of a deduction under IRC §162 for the same taxable year for living expenses incurred while residing in the Washington area.55 The ruling did go on to point out, however, that the same expenses could not be deducted under both sections.
CONTRIBUTIONS RETURNED TO DONORS
The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that contributions collected by a trust established to finance travel by a Member of Congress that remained unspent as of the date the trust was terminated and that were subsequently returned to donors could be deducted by the Member as a business loss.56
53 See Revenue Ruling 56-126.
54 See James H. Morrison, 71 T.C. 64 (1979), affirmed sub. nom. Morrison
v. Commissioner, 611 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1980).
55 See Revenue Ruling 73-468.
56 See Revenue Ruling 76-276.

(Page 32)

CRS-26
ODDS AND ENDS
WITHHOLDING
Subchapter A of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC §§ 3401 et seq.) relates to "withholding from wages." For purposes of the rules regarding withholding, IRC §3401(a) defines the term "wages" to mean, in pertinent part, "all remuneration ... for services performed by an employee for his employer. In its turn, IRC §3401(c) then defines the term "employee" to include, inter alia, an ... elected official of the United States." Thus, federal income taxes must be withheld from congressional salaries. Voluntary withholding of State income taxes, if any, is permitted (see H.Res. 732, 94th Congress, 1st Session (November 4, 1975)).
EXCISE TAX ON ACTS OF SELF-DEALING WITH PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS
If a Member of Congress participates in any act of "self-dealing" with a private foundation, he or she is subject to the heavy excise tax imposed under IRC §4941.57 Various acts of self-dealing are described under subsection (d) of IRC §4941 and under Reg. §§ 53.4941(d)-1 and 53.4941(d)-2. All involve transactions or other dealings between a private foundation and a so-called "disqualified person." For relevant purposes, the term "disqualified person" is defined specifically to include an individual holding "an elective public office in the ... legislative branch of the Government of the United States" (see IRC §§ 4946(a)(1)(I) and 4946(c)(1)).
Robert B. Burdette Legislative Attorney December 28, 1992
57 The foundation manager who participates in such an act is also subject to the same heavy excise tax. Furthermore, the foundation itself may incur liability for such tax. If a particular foundation incurs such liability willfully and also either repeatedly or "flagrantly," then it is subject to an involuntary termination under IRC §507. This is a very severe penalty amounting to dissolution of the foundation accompanied by a loss of all of its assets.

(Page 33)

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Computation of Limit on Unreimbursed Living Expenses and Other Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
This worksheet is used in compliance with IRC 162 (a) for the $3,000 Statutory Limitation for Washington, DC Living Expenses for Members of Congress. Completion of Parts I and II will give you an allowable amount of miscellaneous deductions for Form 1040 Schedule A Line 24. A recomputation in Part III will allow the figures to flow thru the Schedule A without the interruption of this worksheet. Keep this worksheet for your records.
Order of Completion:
1. Complete Form 2106
2. Complete Worksheet (Part III will instruct completion of Schedule A)
PART I Living Expenses (Away-from-Home) Meals and Lodging
la Away-from-Home Lodging
1b 80% of Away-from-Home Meals
lc Total
1d Enter 2% of Form 1040 Line 32 (AGI)
le (computation to apply proportionately): Divide Line lc by the sum of Lines lc and 2a enter here ·
1f f Multiply Line le by Line ld
1g g Subtract Line If from Line lc · 1h Enter the lessor of Line lg or $3,000.00
PART II Other Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions (attach statement)
2a Total Miscellaneous Deductions
Include all unreimbursed employee expenses not on Line lc above, and any items normally included on Schedule A Lines 20 and 21.
2b Enter 2% of Form 1040 Line 32 (AGI
2c (computation to apply proportionately): Divide Line 2a by the sum of Lines lc and 2a enter here
2đ Multiply Line 2c by Line 2b
2e Subtract Line 2d from Line 2a
PART III Recomputation for Schedule A.
1 Add Lines 1h and 2e
2 Enter 2% of Form 1040 Line 32 (AGI)
3 Add Lines 1 and 2
4 Enter amount from Line 1h above (Also enter this amount on Schedule A Line 20)
5 Subtract Line 4 from Line 3.
(Also enter this amount on Schedule A Line 21)
Complete Schedule A as per instructions for Lines 22, 23, and 24. The 2% of AGI (Line 23) will be subtracted on Schedule A as this was added on Line 3 of Part III above. Asterisk. (*) in red Schedule A Line 20 with footnote: Total reflects $3,000 Statutory Limitation per IRC 162 (a) for Washington, DC Living Expenses for Members of Congress. Line 24 Schedule A will equal Part III Line 1 of this worksheet.
NOFFICIAL WORKSHEET, DEVELOPED BY TAXPAYER SERVICE NOT TO BE INCLUDED WITH RETURN

(Page 34)

Republican National Committee Haley Barbour Chairman
March 30, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR SENATOR BOB DOLE
FROM:
HALEY BARBOUR
Haley B
Attached please find a memo to me from Dr. Richard Wirthlin about the results of a national survey his group just completed. The poll validates many of our assumptions.
Voters want deficit reduction, and most (54%) favor President Clinton's plan. However, few know much about what is in the plan. Those who are familiar with the plan are one- half again more likely to oppose it (38%) as those unfamiliar with it (25%).
While most voters are aware the plan calls for an energy tax increase (83%) and a middle class tax increase (81%), a majority (53%) have not heard or read that the package includes major new government spending increases. Two-thirds say they are less likely to support the package because of these spending increases. Most oppose its 4 to 1 ratio of tax increases to deficit reduction.
Voters overwhelming believe the deficit should be reduced by spending cuts not tax increases. Over two-thirds (71%) think Clinton's plan should include fewer taxes, and 66% say it should include more spending cuts. On a separate question 78% say the best way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending. Only 17% prefer tax increases to spending cuts as the best means to reduce the deficit.
Support for Clinton's package falls from 54% to 46% when voters are informed of the package's tax hikes and spending increases. More significantly, opposition jumps from 33% to 49%, an increase consistent with the 50% higher opposition among voters who initially said they were familiar with the package.
Importantly, many voters who do not like the package support it anyway, because they are unaware of any alternatives.
The key lessons are:
1. Voters need to know what is in Clinton's package, and so far many do not. Voters are especially unaware of the proposal's large spending increases ($247 million as passed by the House). Knowledge greatly increases opposition.
2. Voters need to know the Republicans have an alternative package that significantly reduces the deficit by cutting spending only and that the Democrats have voted it down on virtual party line votes. People want something to be done about the deficit, and many will support Clinton if they think there is no alternative. We must push our no tax, spending cut alternatives.
Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center . 310 First Street Southeast . Washington, D.C. 20003 · (202) 863-8700 TDD: (202) 863-8728 · FAX: (202) 863-8774
®

(Page 35)

The Wirthlin Group MEMORANDUM
TO: Haley Barbour
FROM: Richard Wirthlin
SUBJECT: Summary of Results
DATE: March 30, 1993
RESEARCH DESIGN
This study contains the cumulative results of a telephone survey of one thousand nineteen (1019) adult Americans in the United States. Survey responses were gathered between March 22 - March 27, 1993.
All respondents interviewed in this study were adults (18 years of age or older) living in the United States. In general, random samples such as this yield results projectable to the entire population of adult Americans within + 3.07 percentage points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Interviews were conducted by The Wirthlin Group-trained personnel from telephone banks at the Orem, Utah telephone center.
Approximately 15% of all interviews were independently validated for procedure and content by a Wirthlin Group professional. Completed interviews were edited and coded at the Orem field facility. Statistical analysis and cross-tabulations were produced by the firm's own software and computer system.
MAJOR FINDINGS:
While President Clinton attempts to send his economic package through Congress in order to "jump start" the economy, results from our latest national survey indicate that many Americans do not strongly support his economic plan. Even though 54% say they favor Clinton's plan, that support erodes to 46% when they become aware of the new taxes and government spending that will be part of the package.
The economy remains the single most important problem facing the United States today - up two percentage points from last month. Social issues are mentioned by 32% with health care (9%) topping this agenda.

(Page 36)

Memorandum March 30, 1993
Page 2
Awareness
Currently, 65% of Americans indicate that they have seen, read, or heard about President Clinton's economic package. Thirty-four percent (34%) say that they have not.
However, while 65% say they are aware of President Clinton's economic package, few indicate they know a great deal about the plan.
Using a one-to-ten scale to measure the level of information with one meaning the respondent did not know anything about Bill Clinton's economic package and ten meaning they knew a great deal about Bill Clinton's economic package, we asked them to rate their level of information. Only one percent gave a rating of ten while 12% gave a rating of one; the mean was 4.5. Clearly, while 65% say they generally have seen or heard about the plan, only about 10% believe they know a great deal of what it entails while 33% say they have very little information.'
Initial Support of the Plan
Even though a significant number of Americans are not well informed as to the details of the Clinton plan, over half (54%) favor the President's plan while 33% oppose it. Note that 39% give only lukewarm support.
Awareness and Depth of Support
After asking respondents if they favor or opposed the Clinton plan, we read several detailed statements of what the economic plan entailed. After asking if they were aware of that specific part of the package, respondents were then probed to determine, given that particular part of the plan, if it would make them more or less likely to support President Clinton's economic package.
Gasoline and Energy Tax
· Eighty-three percent (83%) are aware that the Clinton plan will raise taxes on gasoline and other forms of energy. However, 61% are less likely to support the plan because of that tax. Note that 36% say they are much less likely to support the Clinton plan because it will raise taxes on energy supplies.
Increase Government Spending
· Only 45% are aware that the Clinton plan includes $250 billion in new government spending; 53% have not heard or read about this aspect of the plan. Yet, 68% say they are less likely to support it, with 39% saying they are much less likely, and only 23% are more likely to support the plan once they know about the increased government spending.
"Calculated from the percentage of the top three boxes and the bottom three boxes on the scale.

(Page 37)

Memorandum March 30, 1993
Page 3
Middle Class Tax Increase
	· Eighty-one percent (81%) are aware of the Clinton plan will raise taxes on the middle class and 72% say that because of that tax hike, they are less likely to give their support to the package. Forty-six percent (46%) are 	much less likely.
Taxes vs Spending Cuts
	· Slightly more than three out of ten (36%) Americans are aware that the Clinton plan will add four dollars in new taxes for every one dollar in spending cuts. Sixty-three percent (63%) have not heard about this aspect of the 	plan. In turn, 61% are less likely to endorse the Clinton economic plan; 33% much less likely once they understand the tax vs spend issue.
Clearly, the two aspects of the Clinton plan that encounter the most resistance are $250 billion in new government spending and middle class taxes.
After informing the respondents about the costs of the Clinton plan, we re-asked if they would favor or oppose the package. Forty-six percent (46%) favor while 49% oppose - a net shift of 18 percentage points. This is a significant shift, even taking into account that the costs of the plan were highlighted rather than its benefits. It appears that this 46% holds because currently there is no alternative to the Clinton plan given and some type of deficit reduction package is needed.
Balancing the Budget: Tax Increases vs Spending Cuts
Seventy-one percent (71%) believe that the Clinton plan should include fewer taxes while another 66% believe that it should include more spending cuts.
Additionally, when given the choice between two opposing arguments concerning how to best reduce the national deficit, 78% say the best way is to cut government spending across the board so that taxes do not have to be increased. Seventeen percent (17%) believe taxes should be raised across the board to help cover government spending.
In sum, when and if the public becomes aware of the costs and consequences of Clinton's economic program, we would expect support for his plan to erode substantially.

(Page 38)

Based on what you know now, would you say that you favor or oppose Bill Clinton's economic package?
Alt Text: Bar graph with strongly favor 16%, Somewhat Favor 39%, Strongly Oppose 16%, Somewhat Oppose 17%, Don't Know 12%, Refused 1%
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 39)

Have you heard that the Clinton plan will reduce the deficit by adding FOUR DOLLARS in new taxes for every ONE DOLLAR in spending cuts
Alt Text: Pie chart with yes at 36%, No 63%
Does that make you more or less likely to support this plan?
Alt text: Bar Chart with Total more likely 30%, Much More Likely 12%, Somewhat More Likely 18%, Somewhat Less Likely 28%, Much Less Likely 33%, Total Less Likely 61%.
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 40)

Have you heard that the Clinton plan will raise taxes on middle class families?
Alt Text: Pie chart with Yes 81%, No 19%
Does that make you more or less likely to support this plan?
Alt Text: Bar graph with 21% Total More Likely 7% Much More Likely, 14% Somewhat More Likely, Somewhat Less Likely 27%, Much Less Likely 46%, Total Less Likely 72%
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 41)

Have you heard that the Clinton plan includes $250 billion in NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING INCREASES over the next five years?
Alt Text: Pie chart with Yes at 45%, No at 53%
Does that make you more or less likely to support this plan?
Alt Text: Bar chart with Total More Likely at 23%, Much More Likely 7%, Somewhat More Likely 16%, Somewhat Less Likely 29%, Much Less Likely 39%, Total Less Likely 68%.
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 42)

Have you heard that the Clinton plan will raise taxes on gasoline and other forms of energy?
Alt Text: Pie chart with Yes at 83%, no 16%.
Does that make you more or less likely to support this plan?
Alt Text: Bar Graph with Total More Likely 33%, Much More Likely 11%, Somewhat More Likely 23%, Somewhat Less Likely 26%, Much Less Likely 36%, Total Less Likely 61%.
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 43)

Would you say that you now favor or oppose Bill Clinton's economic package?
Post
Alt Text: Bar graph with Total oppose 49%, Strongly Oppose 28%, Somewhat Oppose 21%, Somewhat Favor 30%, Strongly Favor 16%, Total Favor 46%.
The Wirthlin Group

(Page 44)

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Legislative Notice
Editor, Judy Gorman Prinkey
No. 6 
March 24, 1993
H.R. 1335 - EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
Calendar No. 44
Reported from the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 23, 1993, by a vote of 19-10. (No written report)
NOTEWORTHY
· H.R. 1335 includes most of President Clinton's "economic stimulus" spending initiatives proposed in his State of the Union Address.
· The bill contains $16.26 billion in new budget authority (75 different line-item appropriations), including money for summer youth jobs, Head Start, AIDS and childhood immunization. It also provides $3.2 billion in transportation trust fund spending for highway projects, and $3.3 billion in loans for FY 1993.
· The House passed the bill on March 18, 1993 by a vote of 235-190. The Senate bill is identical to the House-passed bill except for the summer youth formula.
· All of the spending in the bill is declared as an "emergency" under the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act - thereby exempting it from the FY 1993 discretionary spending caps, and directly adding to the deficit.
· By OMB Director Panetta's own estimate, the bill will provide only 219,000 jobs in 1993. This amounts to an average cost per job of $89,041. The private sector created 365,000 jobs last month - at no cost to the government.
· Attached to this Notice are three charts providing further information:
- Chart 1: A detailed breakdown of the spending in the appropriations bill;
- Chart 2: A CBO analysis of the bill, which makes clear that 60 percent of the bill's spending will occur after FY 1993;
- Chart 3: A detailed breakdown of jobs created by the spending in the bill, according to OMB Director Panetta (released March 9, 1993).

(Page 45)

HIGHLIGHTS
The bill contains a hodgepodge of spending, including $4 billion to extend jobless benefits to those unemployed over 26 weeks, $3 billion for highway projects and $1 billion for summer youth jobs. Other moneys go to programs to feed poor women and children, immunize one million children this summer, hire food and poultry inspectors, repair veterans' hospitals, pave roads on Indian reservations, and fund "information highways" to link computers in schools, libraries, and other facilities.
Summary of Recommended Appropriations by Subcommittee


Subcommittee	Budget authority	Loan Authorization
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration	$602,655,000	$707,623,000
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies	507,555,000	2,575,558,000
District of Columbia	28,177,000	
Energy and Water Development	141,822,000	
Interior Department	748,842,547	
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education	8,814,358,000	
Limitation on administrative expenses	(302,000,000)	
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies	924,334,000	
Limitation on administrative expenses	(3,242,100,000)	
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government	153,093,000	
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development	4,336,617,000	
Total	16,257,453,547	2,283,181,000
Limitation on administrative expenses	(302,000,000)	
Limitation on obligations	(3,242,100,000)	

BACKGROUND
Committee Action
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 19-10 to approve the $16.26 billion supplemental spending bill. The Senate version is identical to the House-passed bill except for a change in the formula for distributing funds for summer youth jobs. Whereas the House had changed that formula, the Senate version retains the current distribution formula.
2

(Page 46)

	Also, the Senate Committee went on record against using any of the stimulus money in the bill for wasteful spending projects. Opponents of the bill argue that mayors and federal agencies will spend money on such wasteful projects as parking garages, swimming pools, fish atlases and many other questionable projects. The block grant projects submitted by the mayors include: constructing a $500,000 gold course replacing a gymnasium for $4.5 million, erecting a $5 million beach parking garage and building a $1 million cemetery. OMB Director Panetta has sent a March 22, 1993 letter to the Committee opposing such spending. In it he stated: “Let me assure you that the administration does not support funding for any types of projects that the opponents of the legislation speculated would be funded.”
Clinton Defends the Plan
	In his press conference on March 23, President Clinton was asked about GOP charges of wasteful spending projects in his stimulus package. Clinton contended that the Republicans had distorted the contents of the package and pledged he would “do everything I can to keep undue waste and abuse from coming into this process.” [Washington Post, 3/24/93 p.A18]
COST
CBO estimates that enactment of H.R. 1335 will result in outlays of $6.9 billion in FY 1993, $6.2 billion in FY 1994, $3 billion in FY 1995, $853.4 million in FY 1996 and $587.9 million in FY 1997.
Staff Contact: Judy Myers, 224-2946
3

(Page 47)

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1993
Chart 1
FEDERAL PROGRAM	“Stimulus”	FEDERAL PROGRAM	“Stimulus
Unemployment Trust Fund Advances	4,000	CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COLUMN
Federal Aid Highways*	2,976*	Corps of Engineers	94
Community Development Block Grants	2,536	Fish and Wildlife Service	87
Pell Grants	1,864	NOAA Research & Facilities	81
JPTA Summer Youth	1,000	Women, Infants, & Children Feeding Program	75
EPA Construction Grants	892	NTIA Information Highways	64
Head Start	500	Child Nutrition	56
Mass Transit Grants	736	DOE Energy Supply & Research	48
Chapter 1 Education & Summer Programs	735	Soil Conservation Service	47
HUD Homeless Assistance	423	Agriculture Research Service	38
RDA Rural Water & Sewer Grants & Loans	349	VA Construction	33
Childhood Immunizations	300	Community Service Employment for Seniors	32
National Park Service	254	District of Columbia	28
Airport Grants in Aid*	250*	Temporary Emergency Food Assistance	23
National Science Foundation R&D	207	EPA Abatement, Control, & Research	23
VA Medical Care	203	Bureau of Land Management	17
AIDS: Ryan White Act	200	Mass Transit*	16*
Forest Service	188	National Service	15
AMTRAK	188	Unemployment Worker Profiling	14
Social Security Administrative Expenses	160	FmHA Rural Housing	11
IRS Information Systems	148	NIH Computing	9
Small Business Administration Loans	141	Equal Employment Opportunity Commission	9
National Institute of Standards	117	GSA Public Buildings	5
Bureau of Indian Affairs	102	NASA Computing	5
DOE Energy Conservation	101	Food Safety Inspection Service	4
Economic Development Administration	94	Minority Business Development	2
CONTINUED IN NEXT COLUMN		
		NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY	
		NEW OBLIGATION LIMIT	
		TOTAL NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY	

*=Obligation limitation, not budget authority.
As Reported By the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 23, 1993

(Page 48)

Chart 2
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1993
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY 16,257,454,000
INCREASED OBLIGATION LIMITATION* 3,242,100,000
TOTAL NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY 19,499,554,000
TOTAL NEW OUTLAYS 17,560,174,000
OUTLAYS BY YEAR	AMOUNT	% OF TOTAL
FY93 Outlays	6,887,822,000	39%
FY94 Outlays	6,214,484,000	35%
FY95 Outlays	3,016,616,000	17%
FY96 Outlays	853,370,000	5%
FY97 Outlays	587,882,000	3%

*= Airport and Highway Spending are governed by Obligation Limits, not Budget Authority.
Estimated by CBO As Reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 23, 1993

(Page 49)

Spending Levels, Jobs Created, and Federal Spending per Job in H.R. 1335 (Based on OMB Director Panetta’s March 9, 1993, letter (1)
(In millions of dollars)
Chart 3
Committee Request	BA	Ob. Lmt.	Loan	# of jobs	$ per job
INFRASTRUCTURE					
Corps of Engineers	94			1,409	66,714
Highways/ISTEA		2,976		13,100	227,176
Airports		250		200	1,250,000
Amtrak	188			700	268,571
Mass Transit	736	16		3,800	193,684
VA maintenance	235	3,242		3,115	75,441
Subtotal	1,253			22,324	200,636
SUMMER OF OPPORTUNITY					
Unemployment comp	4,000			0	N/A
Pell Grant shortfall	1,864			0	N/A
Summer youth	1,000			111,600	8,865
Chptr. 1 census/summer progs	735			20,000	36,750
Head Start summer program	500			12,500	40,000
Immunizations	300			250	1,200,000
AIDS: Ryan White CARE Act	200			0	N/A
SBA business loan subsidies	141		2,575	3,021	46,673
WIC	75			300	250,000
Childcare Feeding	56			0	N/A
BIA Schools	49			100	490,000
Title V older Americans emp.	32			5,600	5,714
Emergency food assistance	23			0	N/A
National Services program	15			250	89,820
Worker profiling	14			0	N/A
EEOC	9			156	57,692
Subtotal	9,013		2,575	153,777	58,611
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS					
NSF R&D and computing	207			1,160	178,448
SSI	150			0	N/A
IRS tax modernization	148			404	366,337
NIST, adv. Tech. & computing	117			470	248,936
NOAA equipment	81			125	648,000
NTIA Info. Highways (Commerce)	64			122	524,590
SSI trust fund	10			0	N/A
NIH computing	9			66	136,364
NASA computing	5			38	131,579
SSI disability processing	(302)			0	N/A
Subtotal	791			2,385	331,656
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING					
CDBG	2,536			15,894	159,557
Supportive Housing	423			3,430	123,324
Economic development admin	94			352	267,045
D.C. deficit assistance	28			0	N/A
Minority business development	2			0	N/A
Accelerate public housing mod.	0			1,090	N/A
Subtotal	3,083			20,766	148,464

(Page 50)

Spending Levels, Jobs Created, and Federal Spending per job in H.R. 1335 (In millions of dollars)
Committee Request	BA	Ob. Limits	Loan	# jobs	$per job
RURAL DEVELOPMENT					
Rural Dev. Auth. Grants	282			Incl. w/loans	
Natural resources protection – FS	188			2,500	75,200
Rural Dev. Auth. Loans	67		470	84	797,619
Soil conservation watershed	47			305	154,098
Ag. research facility main	38			282	134,752
BIA road maintenance forest dev. (2)	28			6,580	4,255
BIA Constr (2) (3)	11			2,445	4,499
FMHA very low Income housing repair grants	6			90	66,667
Food safety & Inspection service	4			80	50,000
FMHA housing guaranty loans	4		235	810	4,938
FMHA very low income housing repair loans	1		3	90	11,111
Subtotal	676		708	13,266	50,957
ENVIRONMENT/ENERGY					
EPA wastewater state revolving fund	845			862	980,278
NPS Natural resource protection	231			0	
Fish & Wildlife	87			0	
National laboratories	47			216	217,593
Weatherization	47			282	166,667
EPA watershed restoration	47			704	66,761
Vehicle energy conservation	28			235	119,149
NPS historic preservation	23			425	54,118
EPA green programs	23			169	136,095
Building & Industrial cons.	19			94	202,128
BLM	17			0	
Fed. Building energy efficiency	17			85	200,000
BIA Constr (2)	15			3,525	4,255
Subtotal	1,446			6,597	219,191
TOTALS:					
Budget Authority	16,262			219,115	89,013(4)
Obligation Limitations		3,242			
Loans Levels*			3,283		

•	$212 million in loan subsidies included in the $16.4 billion total will generate $3.3 billion in loans
(1) All numbers are FY 93 jobs are taken from OMB Director Panetta’s letter dated March 9, 1993
(2) BIA jobs created estimated by proportionately dividing total BIA jobs provided (11,280).
(3) Reflects House action, transferring $5.6 million from BIA guaranteed loan program to construction.
(4) Total jobs created calculated by dividing total BA and Obligation limitations by total 1993 jobs in Panetta letter.

(Page 51)

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Talking Points
March 28, 1993
"Ready to Go" Projects Detailed
· On March 23, 1993, President Clinton replied to a question criticizing some spending provisions in the stimulus bill:
"Let me say, you will read those bills for years in vain and not find those projects ... I will do everything I can to keep undue waste and abuse from coming into this process. I do not support it."
BUT THERE'S MORE TO THE STORY ...
· On January 19, 1993, then Housing and Urban Development Secretary-designate Henry Cisneros and Transportation Secretary-designate Federico Pena attended the National Conference of Mayors meeting in Washington, DC.
· At the meeting, they invited the assembled mayors to compile community development and transportation projects which could be started immediately and completed in 1993.
· On February 18, 1993, the mayors released their list of projects eligible for federal funding under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) five-year highway funding bill.
. The two-volume list is titled Ready to Go: A Survey Of USA Community Development and Transportation Projects to Provide Jobs and Stimulate the Economy Now. It contains 4,396 projects from 473 cities in 49 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia.
· Attached is an excerpted list of programs contained in the Ready to Go volumes. These 395 entries, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, are eligible for CDBG and ISTEA funds. Cities would apply to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Transportation for federal funds in 1993 to underwrite these projects.
· 20 excerpted projects, totaling $32,664,600, would create no jobs in 1993, according to the Mayors.
· 104 other projects, totaling $29,926,277, would create 1-10 jobs in 1993, according to the Mayors.
· The stimulus bill, as being considered on the Senate floor, contains $2.536 billion in CDBG funding; $2.976 billion in ISTEA monies.

(Page 52)

Excerpts from the Mayors’ “Ready To Go Projects”

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Auburn, AL	New gym	$460,000	13	p.2
Florence, AL	New fences for Recreation Department	$15,000	12	
Tempe, AZ	Convert 25 vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas	$75,000	4	
Alameda, CA	Pathways in various parks	$85,000	2	P.9
	Purchase a ferry vessel	$1,220,000	20	
Fairfield, CA	Build phase 1 of a sports park	$10,000,000	50	P.13
	Build a police building	$25,000,000	280	
Hayward, CA	Build a neighborhood center	$2,000,000	12	p.16
Hemet, CA	Build a fire station	$4,500,000	40	
Highland, CA	Graffiti abatement	$100,000	4	
	Build a telecommuting center	$150,000	25	
Huntington Park, CA	Buy trees/tree planters	$80,000	10	P.17
	Build a parking garage	$850,000	25	
Lancaster, CA	Build a bike path	$8,080,000	70	P.18
Los Angeles, CA	Build a childcare facility	$1,000,000	19	
	Construct a rec. center with a pool	$7,000,000	71	
	Build a rec. center in Baldwin Hills	$1,400,000	20	
Merced, CA	Build a senior center	$1,900,000	50	p.19
	Build youth sports complex	$2,200,000	25	
	Buy bus stop signs/shelters	$40,000	5	
Modesta, CA	Build an amphitheater/softball field	$1,200,000	30	
	Build three bike paths	$1,337,400	0	
1

(Page 53)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Monterey Park, CA	Build ten bus shelters	$170,000	6	p.20
	El Encanto restoration	$150,000	10	
Napa, CA	Expand and restore a senior center	$1,300,000	80	
	Build bike paths	$500,000	20	
	Begin transit service ctr.	$300,000	20	
	Purchase traffic signals	$1,500,000	20	
Norwalk, CA	Build senior citizens center	$1,700,000	57	P. 22
Placentia, CA	Staffing for projects	$50,000	2	p. 25
	Graffiti removal	$100,000	5	
	“Outreach programs”	$75,000	10	
Redding, CA	Enterprise community park – phase 1	$1,600,000	40	p. 26
	Build a fire training center	$250,000	14	
	Mall renovation	$1,000,000	50	
	Build a dispatch center	$800,000	20	
	Build a fire station	$450,000	21	
	Office park	$260,000	5	
	Construct a bike path	$55,000	13	
Riverside, CA	Boat house restoration	$200,000	41	p. 27
Salinas, CA	Build a soccer field	$1,620,000	30	
	Build phase 3 of a community park	$,305,000	35	
San Diego, CA	Build a community park	$200,000	10	
San Francisco, CA	Fund the “art ark”	$1,200,000	40	p. 28
San Gabriel, CA	Historic roof repairs	$120,000	20	
	Street tree planting	$250,000	12	
San Luis Obispo, CA	All projects	$1,145,000	0	p. 30
Santee, CA	Recreation building	$99,000	50	p. 33
Vallejo, CA	Youth shelter	$400,000	5	p. 39
2

(Page 54)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Denver, CO	Purchase, for govt. use, an inner-cty. Bldg.	$300,000	15	p. 36
	Build a media center	$1,000,000	55	
Thornton, CO	Built a fire station	$993,125	15	
Bridgeport, CT	Poli/Majestic Theatres	$1,000,000	20	p. 37
East Hartford, CT	Conduct historic preservation	$13,000	3	
Manchester, CT	Build a new police station	$8,000,00	50	p. 38
	Build a new fire station	$675,0000	25	
	Build an ice-skating warming hut	$30,000	5	
West Haven, CT	Construct a casino building	$1,000,000	20	p. 40
	Build City Hall parking garage & deck	$750,000	25	
Washington, DC	Camp Simms	$5,000,000	100	
Ft. Lauderdale, FL	Business incubator building	$500,000	10	p.41
	Beach parking garage	$5,000,000	50	
Ft. Pierce, FL	All projects	$9,800,000	25	p. 42
Hialeah, FL	Park development	$1,000,000	25	p. 43
	Park development	$2,000,000	150	
Hollywood, FL	Myrtle Gray Center improvements	$42,000	15	
	Trolley service to beach/throughout city	$450,000	6	
Jacksonville, FL	Senior center	$500,000	15	
	New Park	$875,000	20	
Key West, FL	Parking garage	$3,500,000	25	p. 44
Miramar, FL	Park redevelopment	$1,400,000	50	
Ocala, FL	Park redevelopment	$375,000	14	
3

(Page 55)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Pensacola, FL	Two trolleys	$150,000	0	
Port St. Lucie, FL	Whispering Pines Park recreation center	$3,000,000	200	
	Sandhill Crane Park	$250,000	20	
	Veterans Memorial Park	$200,000	15	
	Cameo Park	$93,000	7	
	Selvitz Park	$283,000	21	
Atlanta, GA	Repair historic wall around cemetery	$2,500,000	0	
	Replace gym	$4,500,000	0	
	Acquisition/relocating funding for neighborhood development	$3,000,000	0	
Cobb County, GA	Homeless facility	$1,500,000	75	P.47
	Senior ctr. 	$1,500,000	80	
	Senior ctr.	$1,400,000	75	
	Boys club	$500,000	45	
	Girls ctr.	$600,000	50	p.48
	Two neighborhood ctr.	$1,200,000	80	
	Job training ctr.	$500,000	50	
Gwinnett County, GA	Homeless facility	$800,000	50	
	Human services cluster ctr.	$1,500,000	75	
	Human services cluster ctr.	$2,000,000	75	
	Human services cluster ctr.	$2,000,000	75	
	Head Start Ctr.	$1,400,000	65	
	Human services cluster ctr.	$1,500,000	75	
	Boys/girls club	$500,000	50	
4

(Page 56)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
	Child care ctr.	$1,000,000	50	
South Gate, GA	Senior citizen center	$2,000,000	25	
Maui City, HI	All projects	$1,373,000	0	
Boise, ID	Three bike underpasses	$1,500,000	25	p.50
	Improve bus stops	$500,000	20	
Bollingbrook, IL	Enclose creek	$600,000	10	
Chicago, IL	Neighborhood infrastructure	$5,500,000	90	p.51
Elk Grove Vil., IL	Pump house demolition	$15,000	8	p.52
Evanstan	Park restoration	$35,000	6	
	Park restoration	$15,000	6	
	Replace gym floor	$20,000	6	
Macomb, IL	Buy/demolish old warehouses	$300,000	10	p.53
Moline, IL	Retail anchor infrastructure	$2,000,000	100	
Niles, IL	Watertank repainting	$120,000	15	p.54
Rockford, IL	Park construction	$500,000	15	p.55
Anderson, IN	Neighborhood Park	$10,000	2	p.56
	Watertower refurbishment	$225,000	5	
Evansville, IN	All projects	$301,000	0	p.57
Fort Wayne, IN	Tree planting	$50,000	3	
Gary, IN	Bus shelter/landscape	$200,000	10	p.58
	Park improvements	$1,250,000	10	
	Farmers’ market improvements	$750,000	20	
	Entry zone beautification	$450,000	20	
	Enhance central business district	$15,000,000	75	
	Four projects	$1,550,000	0	
5

(Page 57)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Hammond, IN	Child Care center	$500,000	20	
	Expand shopping center	$600,000	40	
	Technical/vocational school construction	$3,000,000	200	
	Community center construction	$1,300,000	40	
	Boys/girls club construction	$1,300,000	40	
Lake County, IN	Old Nurses home	$2,000,000	20	p.59
Terre Haute, IN	Demolition project	$250,000	12	p.60
Cedar Rapids, IA	Trail improvement	$2,880,000	100	
	Playground	$28,000	0	
Davenport, IA	Bikepath	$430,000	11	p.61
Waterloo, IA	Fire dept. training center	$800,000	40	
	Two new parking ramp levels	$4,600,000	100	
Kansas City, KS	New fire station	$1,300,000	50	p.62
Shawnee, KS	Period-type Street lighting in downtown	$750,000	40	
Wichita, KS	Library relocation	$150,000	2	p.63
Bowling Green, KY	Industrial Park infrastructure	$1,000,000	50	
	Headstart/senior center	$750,000	0	
Lexington, KY	Purchase more rideshare vehicles	$250,000	75	p.64
6

(Page 58)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
	Incident management	$1,565,000	50	
Louisville, KY	Restore city parks	$2,500,000	125	
	Renovate theater	$2,000,000	350	
	Renovate libraries	$804,000	40	
	Build fire station	$2,000,000	100	
	Renovate central park	$1,250,000	60	
	Renovate western branch library	$539,000	30	
	Walkway & bikeway	$2,750,000	135	
	Two regional transit centers	$3,400,000	125	
Baton Rouge, LA	Park improvements	$500,000	40	
Kenner, LA	City hall building maintenance	$600,000	4	P. 66
Lake Charles, LA	New bus stop	$100,000	5	
7

(Page 59)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Monroe, LA	Historic preservation	$327,000	15	
	Parking Lot	$50,000	15	
	Ywca historic preservation	$116,000	15	
Shreveport, LA	Community center	$3,000,000	100	p. 67
Augusta, ME	Civic center expansion	$5,200,000	125	
	Police station	$1,500,000	35	
	Community center	$2,000,000	45	
	Park and ride lot	$200,000	10	
Bangor, ME	Waterfront Park	$200,000	2	p. 68
	Park renovation	$75,000	2	
	Vacant comm. Building renovation	$2,500,000	21	
	Parking garage	$200,000	2	
Portland, ME	Ten projects	$9,865,000	0	
Baltimore, MD	Seven projects	$4,896,000	0	
PG County, MD	Homeless shelter	$400,000	10	p. 69
	Day care center rehabilitation	$200,000	20	
Attleboro, MA	Parking garage repairs	$7,500	5	
	Sprinkler system	$110,000	15	
	Bldgs. Purchase/demolition	$350,000	15	
Boston, MA	Commercial development	$1,800,000	75	
	Inner-city mall	$1,200,000	120	
8

(Page 60)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Brookline, MA	Playground rehabilitation	$150,000	3	p.70
	Park rehabilitation	$1,000,000	25	
	Rehabilitaiton athletic facility	$275,000	15	
	Rehabilitation Park	$212,000	5	
	Rehabilitation playground	$190,000	3	
	Renovate Coolidge Library	$275,000	15	
Chicopee, MA	Playground improvement	$200,000	7	
Fall River, MA	Fire station repair	$1,459,000	60	p.71
	Clean and paint water tank	$750,000	10	
	Construct two police stations	$6,000,000	50	
Fitchburg, MA	Abandoned building demolition	$700,000	60	p.71
Framingham, MA	Evaluate former fire station for use as medical crt.	$150,000	8	
Holyoke, MA	Trees planted on street	$200,000	10	p.72
Lynn, MA	Create downtown center	$1,725,000	15	
	Restore tower and cottage	$2,385,498	20	p.73
Maiden, MA	Build fire station	$3,500,000	75	
	Parking garage	$4,000,000	100	
	Three park improvements	$1,500,000	24	p.73
New Bedford, MA	Walking path	$160,000	16	p.74
Somerville, MA	Tree planting	$400,000	5	p.75
	Park renovation	$1,500,000	15	
9

(Page 61)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Springfield, MA	Neighborhood center	$400,000	30	p. 75
	Business incubator	$5,000,000	30	
	Tourist information center	$1,500,000	10	
	Bus shelter	$2,000,000	15	
Battlecreek, MI	Renovate recreation center	$3,000,000	75	
Dearborn, MI	Streetscaping	$50,000	8	
	Parking lot redesign	$300,000	30	
	Develop playground	$38,000	6	
Detroit, MI	Replace bus shelter	$1,000,000	5	
	Replace bus garage air compressors	$600,000	0	
	Replace bus shelters	$1,000,000	5	
	Purchase four bus wash racks	$480,000	3	
Farmington Hills, MI	Bike path	$100,000	10	p. 78
Inkster, MI	Shopping center	$600,000	50	
Kalamazoo, MI	Central compost facility	$250,000	20	p. 79
Pontiac, MI	Security guards for public housing	$100,000	5	p. 80
	Counseling for self-defeating behavior	$50,000	5	
Portage, MI	Improve bike path	$70,000	10	
Saginaw, MI	Remodel restrooms, build basketball fac.	$150,000	12	p. 81
Troy, MI	Bike path	$462,000	30	p. 82
Minneapolis, MN	Convert brewery to industrial park	$5,000,000	60	
	Preserve historic landmark	$2,500,000	25	
	Build grocery store	$1,400,000	250	
	Build bike path	$5,000,000	40	p. 83
10

(Page 62)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
St. Charles, MO	Replace playground equipment	$13,900	4	p. 85
	Basketball court and restrooms	$64,000	30	
St. Louis, MO	Restrooms	$1,250,000	10	
Helena, MT	Bike path	$250,000	30	p. 86
Lincoln, NE	Infant headstart complex	$363,000	10	p. 86
Clark County, NV	Parking lot	$139,400	9	p. 87
Henderson, NV	Restroom & playground	$250,000	10	
Las Vegas, NV	Art center	$1,000,000	4	
Reno, NV	Playground equipment	$10,000	3	
	Replace playground equipment	$160,000	3	
	Replace modular equipment	$20,000	16	
	Soundwalls	$205,800	6	
	Replace playground equipment	$300,000	8	
Concord, NH	Renovate restrooms & locker rooms	$50,000	5	 p. 88
	Industrial park	$1,297,000	66	
Manchester, NH	Rehabilitate Park	$100,000	8	p. 89
	Bike path	$130,000	6	
Nashua, NH	Recreation facilities	$280,000	14	p. 89
	Victory gardens	$65,000	7	
Camden, NJ	Park improvements	$3,500,000	100	
	Park rangers	$100,000	20	
East Orange, NJ	Arcade improvement	$40,000	0	
Newark, NJ	Performing Arts Center: Phase 1	$15,000,000	600	p. 92
	Rehab. Neighborhood service ctr.	$14,000,000	500	
Noirth Bergen, NJ	Recreation building	$1,000,000	100	p. 93
11

(Page 63)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Perth Amboy, NJ	Tennis court reconstruction	$80,000	11	p. 94
	Pool	$350,000	15	
	Park	$35,000	5	
	Gymnasium	$700,000	25	
	Parking lot/roof	$120,000	12	
	Recreation space	$500,000	20	
Teaneck, NJ	Tennis court reconstruction	$110,000	20	
	Lighting fields	$130,000	20	
	Basketball courts	$150,000	20	
Trenton, NJ	Theater site preparation	$250,000	5	p. 95
Farmington, NM	Remodel jail	$500,000	25	
	Remode alcohol treatment center	$180,000	10	
Auburn, NY	Cultural arts center	$10,000,000	118	p. 96
	Day care facility	$754,795	47	
	Baseball stadium	$2,750,000	23	
	Landscape planting on highway	$325,000	20	
Binghamton, NY	Carousel enclosure	$50,000	5	p. 97
Elmira, NY	Sports & rec. building	$756,000	12	
Poughkeepsie, NY	Parking deck	$4,000,000	30	p. 99
Rome, NY	Hike/bike bridge	$750,000	20	
12

(Page 64)

City/State	Project	Cost	Jobs	Reference
Troy, NY	Conversion of atrium to cultural center	$3,500,000	80	p. 100
	Theater roof repair	$50,000	4	
Utica, NY	Playground improvement	$250,000	15	
	Refurbish parking garage	$600,000	50	
White Plains, NY	Playground	$25,000	3	p. 101
	Playground	$35,000	5	
	Pool	$35,000	5	
Yonkers, NY	New library	$5,000,000	250	
Grand Forks, ND	Playground equipment	$120,000	3	p. 103
Cincinnati, OH	Playground	$425,000	11	p. 105
	Research park infrastructure	$2,700,000	68	
Columbus, OH	Parking lot development	$300,000	4	
	Movie theater	$2,700,000	33	
	Youth and family development	$215,000	200	
	Shopping services	$190,000	4	
Dayton, OH	Nature center	$500,000	20	p. 106
	Bike path extension	$250,000	25	
	Bike path extension	$750,000	25	
Lima, OH	Baseball diamond and pool	$650,000	60	p. 107
Newark, OH	Bike path	$250,000	10	p. 108
	Bike path	$250,000	25	
Toledo, OH	Park renovation	$1,250,000	34	
	Environment clean-up	$1,250,000	10	p. 109
	 Pedestrian concourse	$2,700,000	40	
Muskogee, OH	Rails & trails	$868,170	25	p. 110
13

(Page 65)

City/State	Project	Cost	Job	Reference
Corvallis, OR	Bike/parking facilities	$200,000	6	
	Bike path widening	$450,000	13	
	Bike lanes	$150,000	5	
Eugene, OR	Youth campus	$2,500,000	35	
	Bike path	$750,000	15	
	Research for bike path	$808,000	30	
Lake Oswego, OR	Pathway	$250,000	4	p. 111
	Restore bike facility	$200,000	4	
	Pathway	$200,000	4	
Wash. County, OR	Park	$144,277	10	p. 112
Philadelphia, PA	Extend bike path	$660,000	15	
Pittsburgh, PA	Playground rehab	$1,000,000	50	p. 115
Williamsport, PA	Park improvement	$51,400	10	
Ciales, PR	Agr. marketing facilities	$3,000,000	150	p. 119
	Sports facility	$5,000,000	90	
Cidra, PR	Recreation complex	$1,709,568	80	
Culebra, PR	Park construction	$1,500,000	25	
	Expand plaza	$500,000	20	
Guanica, PR	Construction of boardwalk	$400,000	20	
	Reconstruct town square	$400,000	15	p. 120
14

(Page 66)

City/State	Project	Cost	Job	Reference
	Multi-purpose recreation center	$1,000,000	20	
Guayama, PR	Convention center	$1,250,000	25	
	Restore public library	$200,000	10	
	Park	$600,000	45	
	Improve art center	$200,000	15	
	Recreation & sports facility	$3,700,000	165	
Guayanilla, PR	Two trollies	$150,000	3	
Jayuya, PR	Tourism infrastructure construction	$2,000,000	60	
Mayaguez, PR	Baseball fields	$1,000,000	50	
	Parking lot	$1,000,000	50	
Penuelas, PR	Construction of observatory	$400,000	10	
Rio Grande, PR	Commercial center	$778,000	25	p. 122
	Three trolleys	$135,000	6	
San Juan, PR	Improve rec center	$500,000	40	
	Improve gymnasium	$225,000	15	
	Traffic safety learning ctr. For kids	$1,200,000	25	
Santa Isabel, PR	Construct athletic facility	$400,000	10	p. 123
	Construct sports/fitness center	$2,000,000	50	
Utuado, PR	Tourism/rec infrastructure	$12,000,000	300	
	Art craft marketing center	$1,500,000	50	
	Improve recreating/sports facilities	$2,000,000	75	
Vega Baja, PR	Pool	$1,200,000	40	
	Athletic Park lighting system	$340,000	22	
	Regional arts center	$800,000	30	
Central Falls, RI	Ren. Historic mill/sports complex	$200,000	15	p. 124
15

(Page 67)

City/State	Project	Cost	Job	Reference
Cranston, RI	Calise Field	$450,000	25	
E. Providence, RI	Senior citizens center	$2,000,000	35	p. 125
	Playground	$100,000	15	
	Carousel renovations	$400,000	25	
Columbia, SC	Ballpark	$430,000	15	
	Pool	$360,000	30	
	Community center	$510,000	40	
	Gym/field renovation	$330,000	30	
Fontain Inn, SC	Senior/multi purpose addition	$175,000	40	p. 126
Greenville Cty., SC	United Ministries New Life Bldg.	$500,000	75	
	Recreation center	$900,000	135	
	Day care center	$500,000	40	
	Park	$50,000	30	
Greer, SC	Integration complex center	$900,000	100	
Jcakson, TN	Observatory construction	$400,000	10	p. 128
Nashville, TN	Park improvements	$175,000	44	p. 129
	Library expansion	$150,000	38	
Beaumont, TX	Pool	$1,000,000	40	p. 130
Brownsville, TX	Park	$200,000	20	
Killeen, TX	Jog path/benches	$2,500,000	50	p. 133
Lubbock, TX	Daycare facility expansion	$35,000	10	p. 134
Mesquite, TX	Ballfield construction	$60,000	0	
Midland, TX	Three swimming pools	$1,000,000	0	
San Antonio, TX	Retail/commercial/service center	$2,000,000	100	
16

(Page 68)

City/State	Project	Cost	Job	Reference
Sandy City, UT	Culinary master plan	$75,000	150	p. 137
Chesapeake, VA	Police department renovation	$664,200	0	p. 139
Danville, VA	Park improvement	$100,000	10	
	Police patrolling	$100,000	4	
Norfolk, VA	Waterfront improvement	$17,700,000	354	p. 141
	Parks	$4,224,000	84	
Virginia Beach, VA	Homeless shelter	$400,000	15	p. 142
	Bike trail	$1,500,000	15	
	Park & ride lot	$2,000,000	15	
Kennewick, WA	Senior center parking lot	$60,000	10	p. 143
	Portable dental school	$90,000	35	
Seattle, WA	Replace rec centers	$1,000,000	56	
	New children’s play area	$600,000	34	
	Park development/landscapes	$60,000	3	
	Ten thousand trees	$5,090,000	288	p. 144
Spokane, WA	Pool renovation	$3,250,000	32	
	Small business incubator	$1,020,000	37	
	Market historic renovation	$1,745,000	45	
	New trail paths	$800,000	10	
Tacoma, WA	Rehab. Rail to Mt. Ranier Nat’l. Park	$3,000,000	50	
Vancouver, WA	Homeless shelter	$750,000	20	p. 145
Wheeling, WV	Playground renovations	$142,000	20	
	Biking/jogging trail	$250,000	15	
Green Bay, WI	Buy/demolish property	$1,000,000	3	p. 146
	Park renovation	$125,000	10	
17

(Page 69)

City/State	Project	Cost	Job	Reference
Janesville, WI	Land Acquisition for Ice Age Trail	$65,000	0	p. 147
	Develop Ice Age Trail	$100,000	12	
Madison WI	Industrial incubator facility constr.	$600,000	18	
	New health & cmty. Services facility	$2,000,000	60	
	New Neighborhood Ctr. Facility	$700,000	20	
Racine, WI	Raze bldg./develop industrial park	$500,000	25	p. 148
	Gaslight Pointe Lake walk	$300,000	70	
Cheyenne, WY	Six new buses	$240,000	0	
	Historic preservation	$175,000	18	
	Bikeway/park development	$1,500,000	50	
	Homeless shelter	$100,000	20	
	New Headstart center	$200,000	20	
	Four/five new softball fields	$325,000	25	
18

(Page 70)

Weekend Update
GOP Conference Secretary, Trent Lott, Secretary 
Dave Hoppe, Staff Director 202-224-3496
ABC CBS CNN NBC
released: 3/30/93
SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1993 CNN'S "THE CAPITOL GANG" GUESTS: REPUBLICAN LEADER BOB DOLE (R-KS) ISSUES: RUSSIA, CLINTON'S BUDGET, HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY
SEN. DOLE: "Well I support Clinton, but I think he could have been a little stronger a little earlier. He could have said 'Well maybe Yeltsin,' but the bottom line is democracy and I don't disagree with that ... I don't know of any alternative to Boris Yeltsin. We need to do more than just send money. We need to work out some long term barter arrangement ... "
"I think it's a very important relationship (US and Russian). It's his first big meeting with a foreign leader outside the United States and I think he ought to do his homework. He's had bipartisan consultations and when he goes there he'll be prepared."
"If you've got a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, big majorities in the House and Senate, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to push a bill through the Democratic Congress ... It (the budget) didn't roar through the Senate, it took eight days ... We're roaring now on the stimulus package, but I understand Breaux and Boren have sort of caved in to the White House on that issue. But keep in mind we had the choice between the biggest spending reduction, the Republican plan, in history and the biggest tax increase in the world in history according to Sen. Moynihan ... and the Democrats voted for a big tax increase."
" (Krueger) He voted a little late in the procedure, after they had 52 votes. This (budget resolution) is not a law, nobody signs this, the President doesn't sign it, it's just sort of a preliminary bout for getting into the main event when it goes to committees ... In two months Clinton's going to be in trouble on this package, it gets into the committees and he's going to be losing Democrats."

(Page 71)

-2-
"The Breaux/Boren package doesn't save any money, it postpones half of it one year, so it's not a savings."
"My view is he made a mistake bringing this (homosexuals in the military) up so early in the administration anyway. He should have had the commission, or whatever he had, to make the decision later, and now he's in deep water ... Instead of talking about this issue, let's talk about 1.8 million young men and women that are going to get kicked out of the service, plus a lot of people are going to lose their jobs because of massive, massive defense cuts of $112 billion over the next five years."
SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1993
CNN'S "NEWSMAKER SATURDAY" GUEST: SENATOR SAM NUNN (D-GA) ISSUES: DEFENSE CUTS, RUSSIA, HOMOSEXUALS IN THE MILITARY
SEN. NUNN: "So I think Secretary Aspin did the prudent thing in waiting until he goes through his major procurement review and then making the changes later on this year."
"Well that's the inevitable result of deciding to cut the force structure, and that's where most of this year's defense budget is going to be cut ... We're going to have to make some very tough procurement decisions."
"But interestingly enough, Charlie, just looking at the procurement account alone, just what we buy, it's the lowest since 1979, even without cutting out any kind of weapons systems. And that's not in real dollars; that's in nominal dollars. With inflation dollars, it's much lower. So procurement is going down, and going down dramatically -- not just in this budget, but for the last three or four years."
"President Clinton talked about, I think $1,400,000 as an ending point in terms of how far we go down. The question is how steep the slope is, how quickly you take people out of the military -- because if you take them out too rapidly, then you have to lay people off instead of using the whole host of incentives we have to have people retire early."
"Well, we haven't seen the five-year defense plan. We have been dealing with numbers grabbed out of the air. No one knows where all these cuts are going to come from."

(Page 72)

-3-
"No one can tell you where [$200 billion worth of cuts] is going to come from. We'll say, for instance, in bringing down the force to 1.4 million people an bringing down the reserves somewhat, we'll save something like $20-$30 billion. That leaves a huge gap to come out of other funding, which has primarily got to be procurement, research and development, and what we call the readiness accounts."
"But we probably aren't going to really get a definitive five-year defense program from the new administration until sometime in the fall.
Now the difficulty in our committee is we're going to have to be making 1994 decisions, knowing that we're going to be funding programs, maybe to the tune of a billion or $2 billion, which is real money, and also knowing that some of those programs -- we don't know which ones -- are going to be terminated later on in the fall. That makes it very difficult for us to make those decisions sometime in August and July."
"He knows that if things go wrong in Russia, it will have tremendous effect on our defense budget in this country. We'll spend hundreds of billions of dollars that would otherwise not have to be spent."
"I would concentrate on two things humanitarian. One is children ... The other short-term area would be to help some on the military housing. I can make a strong national security case that it's in our national security interest to help the Russians move their troops out of the Baltics and to give them some help in facilitating housing for those troops ... In the long run, a real private-sector initiative [would] go over there, not putting it in a pool, but one business to one business, getting down to the local level -- not putting it through the government. .. [The International Monetary Fund] has been treating Russia just like any third world country. It's not a third world country. It's a country with nuclear weapons aimed at us and dangerous to the world. It's a country that has the capability of proliferating weapons all over the world, if their economy continues to deteriorate."
"If you go to a policy of assigning gays or lesbians in the military according to their sexual orientation, you have to start asking the questions all over again. So I think that is fraught with legal difficulties ... I think President Clinton, when he visited the ship recently, the Teddy Roosevelt aircraft carrier, and he saw the living quarters, I think that made an impression on him, and I believe that he has now understood better that the military is not like any other institution, that for sailors in the Persian Gulf, the ship is home, for soldiers in Somalia, the tent is home."

(Page 73)

-4-
MS. BORGER: "[David Mixner] has said you are a George Wallace, and he says that -- he called you a bigot, in fact. How do you respond to those kinds of statements?"
SEN. NUNN: "There's nothing you can say about that. That's the price we pay for being involved in the political process. I've tried to be fair and objective, I've given my view, I've said that I'm going to listen to all the testimony and my final opinion will be shaped by the testimony. We're going to have hearing where both sides are presented. We're going to hear from the men and women in the military, the most important people in this equation because they have to live with the policy, whatever it is. So when people call me all sorts of names, you know, nobody enjoys that, but there's nothing I can do about it. He's entitled to his opinion."
MS. BORGER: "Does the president have the votes right now?"
SEN. NUNN: "Well, it depends on what his policy is ... It's not like race, and contrary to what some people say, or civil rights. When you give your status, you are describing your conduct ... "
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993
NBC'S "MEET THE PRESS"
GUESTS: MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER RICHARD GEPHARDT (D-MO)
ISSUES: RUSSIA, BOSNIA, NAFTA, GAYS IN THE MILITARY, HEALTH CARE
GORBACHEV: "I think that we will not be able to avoid new elections ... "
"Well, first of all, I think that no referendum could replace, could substitute for the elections that we need so much. We shouldn't waste our time for involving the whole society in unnecessary debate about the referendum. What we need is early elections and we have to do all we can to hold them early."
"And our army will not go against the people. I am quite sure about that."
"I think Russia together with the United Nations will cooperate in finding the most appropriate solution to the extent possible, to the extent that a solution can be found in this very destructive, devastating conflict that we are seeing in Yugoslavia. I think that what matters here is not the position of Russia, but the position of the United Nations ... "

(Page 74)

-5-
"I welcome this meeting. I hope that the main result of this meeting will be a reaffirmation of the continuity in relations between our two countries ... I see no reason for the president of Russia to change the venue of this meeting, this summit."
" ... what Russia needs most is that mutual understanding continues between our countries so that our relations do not cool, but, rather, our cooperation expands ...
... but where is there aggressiveness ... that would make them look for new partners in Russia and act in a businesslike way, in a constructive way ...
Along the road transforming our system of property, we should give incentive to the initiative of the people, but we do need some help, some technical assistance, and also some other forms of assistance, and I think that they will reach an agreement on this, but let me say to the Americans, above all, investment in Russia is investment into your own future."
REP. GEPHARDT: "This is the most important issue of my lifetime and probably the lifetime of everybody watching this show. We have spent over $4 trillion over the last years trying to defend against a Russian attack since World War II. And this whole part of the world has not been the part -- a part of Western commerce. These have not been markets that we could participate in that my workers here in St. Louis could sell product in. So getting improvement here, moving this country in the right direction, engaging all of our people in trying to get Russia to go in the right direction is the most important thing we could do for ourselves."
" ... we don't go at the invitation of the parliament. This is a trip that I wanted to -- to lead with Bob Michel and other members of both the Democratic and the Republican leadership to try to hold together the bipartisanship support that we had for passing aid to the Russians last year and that we will need to hold together if we're to do the right thing over a long period of time."
"That is not my intention and it's not the Speaker's intention [to invite Khasbulatov to the U.S. ] Obviously, if Mr. Khasbulatov wants to come to the United States, we would meet him as I expect he'll meet us when we go there."
" ... I just hope and I know President Clinton hopes that [the IMF] will use a little flexibility if you will in applying these rules so that the Russians can get both their political act together and their economic act together at the same time."

(Page 75)

-6-
" ... We should keep the pressure up as President Clinton is on the Serbs to agree to this peace treaty. And then we and the United Nations, with the United Nations, should be trying to see if we can help that peace treaty be implemented. And I see that as a peacekeeping role, as a perhaps helping to enforce a treaty to make sure the provisions of the treaty are carried forward."
" ... I said before we voted on fast track and I visited President Salinas at that time and said that I could be for and we should try to have a North American Free Trade Agreement if it contains certain important items.
.. President Clinton is now negotiating with President Salinas to try to get these deficiencies to be corrected if they can be, I will support the treaty. If they can't, I can't."
" ... If he can, then it will be a good treaty and should be supported because it'll be good for the American worker as well as for Mexico and as well as for Canada. If it's not good, and I won't -- and I've been very clear about what I think needs to be in this treaty, then it shouldn't be supported and we should be guided by the merits and by the substance and not by the politics."
" ... So we've really got to cut our way through some very tough issues. One issue is how do we get environmental laws adequately enforced on both sides of the border? Second, how do we build infrastructure on both sides of the border that's desperately needed in villages that have no water, no sewers and terrible environmental problems?"
"Third and most important, how do we pull Mexico's standard of living up and how do we take care of American workers who have lost their jobs and will lose their jobs as a result of this treaty? We hope there's a net job gain in the United States, but what do we say to the worker who loses their job? We have to have a steady stream of revenue in order to take care of these problems. I don't see where it comes from unless it comes from the economic activity on the border. All of these things are tough to negotiate."
MR. RUSSERT: " ... What kind of support is there in the House of Representatives for allowing gays in the military at this point?"
REP. GEPHARDT: "Well, I think there is support for President Clinton's position ... they come up with a definite plan to do it, and he makes the order, I think there will be adequate support in the House to carry it forward and to support it."
" ... My own feeling is that what was originally announced is what ought to go forward. I don't think we ought to discriminate against people ... "

(Page 76)

-7-
"Well, I think the Speaker was really trying to say as many of us have that this is going to be a very tough bill to do. In my view, it'll be the toughest bill since the Social Security Act of 1936 and it'll be just as important.
We're going to take our time to do it. We're going to listen to the American people. We're going to let everybody be heard. But as the Clinton administration is working day and night to get it done, we'll work day and night in the Congress to get it done because we all understand there's not an issue other than the economy that's more important to the American people than health care. If we can get it done this year, we will."
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993
CBS'S "FACE THE NATION" GUESTS: WARREN CHRISTOPHER ISSUES: RUSSIA, BOSNIA, SADDAM HUSSEIN
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: "We're interested in democracy and market reform in Russia, and at the present time, by far the best exponent of that is President Boris Yeltsin. He is a newly elected president of the country, and we're going to be giving him the support we can as a partner in cooperation with him to try to continue the momentum forward in Russia toward democracy and market reform. That's our long-term interest."
"I think one thing for the United States to try to do in this period is to be very steady and just keep moving forward and not be knocked off our balance by ups and downs. I think we need to support democracy and market reform whether people are in or out or up or down."
MS. WARNER: " ... are you prepared to say publicly now that the Baltic states and other states of the former Soviet Union should rethink their policies toward the ethnic Russians living inside their borders?"
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: "Yes, I think that there should be a concern for their human rights, for their ability to live indignity, for their ability to have social justice within their countries, and I made that point when I was in Geneva with Mr. Kozyrev.
"We've got a great stake, the United States has, in enabling people to live in a minority situation in countries and have a full respect for their rights, and so we'll be saying that to those countries of the former Soviet Union ... "

(Page 77)

-8-
"Well, I think that his desire to take the issue to the people as early as April is an indication of his belief in the sovereignty of the people, and that's, I think, what we'll believe in at the present time."
"I do not think the parliament is a democratic institution ... I encouraged Foreign Minister Kozyrev to be sure to respect civil rights during this period, to maintain freedom of the press, and I got reassurances on that from Kozyrev when he was here.
I was somewhat disturbed to hear this morning that parliament has passed some sort of a provision or law taking control of the media. That's a very fresh report, and I don't -- have not gotten to the bottom of that, but if that were to be a step to try to rob the press of its freedom during this period, I think it would be very adverse."
"Well, we'll be having a good-sized package, Bob. First we'll be having bilateral aid. We'll be trying to find some projects that are down to earth, that are tangible, non- ideological, and we'll get to the grassroots ...
We will also be trying to work with our allies on a multilateral package that can deal with some of the underlying problems, such as debt relief, such as the need to stabilize their currency. That may not all come out at the summit, but over the next several weeks, between now and the G7 meeting in Tokyo in July, we'll be working on a whole package of items."
"Well, we're going to ask for $300 million more than the $400 million that was voted last year, and the reason we're going to do that is not out of charity, but out of the interests of people in the United States ... "
" ... We'll be putting forward, I think, a very interesting and, I might say, quite exciting package of ideas, and I would not want to pick a target number of limit in any way what the president may be asking for ... I had private briefings, long private briefings on both the House and Senate side this week, more than 100 on the House side and about 40 on the Senate side, and there is a tremendous backlog of support there ... "
" ... for support in the generality, Tom, without trying to be specific about it."
"We think they [Ukraine] should move to do that and move to do that promptly. We really think they should carry out the arrangement [SALT I & II] they made with our predecessors."

(Page 78)

-9-
" ... I think the trilateral relationship between Ukraine and Russia and the United States is a very important one because of the large number of nuclear warheads that they have there."
" ... The hatred between all three groups -- the Bosnians and the Serbs and the Croatians -- is almost unbelievable. It's almost terrifying, and it's centuries old. That really is a problem from hell, and I think that the United States is doing all we can to try to deal with that problem."
" ... We're going to up the ante, as you might say, ,Bob, in connection with the sanctions. We're going to tighten the sanctions and toughen the sanctions. It's been quite a porous sanctions regime ... Within the next few days, I think within the next week, we'll probably be able to get enactment of a no-fly zone at the United Nations.
If the Serbs don't soon sign, we'll be counseling with our allies, consulting with our allies on the possibility of lifting the arms embargo, but that's a very tough equation, because if you lift the arms embargo, they will almost certainly stop their humanitarian aid ... "
"We've never contemplated yet the use of ground forces in Bosnia. As I say, it's a tragic problem that we inherited when we come into office, and we're trying to do all we can, taking the various steps that I outlined ... I have a standard reaction to cease-fire -- first I'm hopeful and second I'm skeptical. Maybe the cease-fire will hold, but we're going to be watching that situation as it goes along."
" ... I don't foreclose any subsequent actions, but it's the kind of a situation where the solution is very difficult to come by ... "
MR. FRIEDMAN: " ... we're not going to get involved in trying to reshape the situation on the ground."
SECRETARY CHRISTOPHER: " ... What the United States policy is is if there is a consensual agreement, a viable agreement with enforcement provision, the United States then join with its allies under a UN umbrella to try to ensure that that agreement is lived up to ... We have a third party that's not yet signed the agreement that is clearly, I've said before, I think, the principal villain in this picture, although there's no angels there at all ... "
" ... We intend to try to require Saddam Hussein to obey all the UN resolutions. Now, we think it's impossible to conceive that he can do that and still stay in power, so we're pressing for the enforcement of all of the UN resolutions ...

(Page 79)

-10-
"When I was out in the region not so long ago, I talked to all of the leaders of the main countries in the region, and they share our mistrust for Saddam Hussein. Nobody came around to me and said, "Mr. Christopher, why don't you be a little easier on Saddam Hussein?" I think they share our mistrust and we're going to be proceeding on a policy. I think we'll get a re-enactment of the resolutions at the UN this week."
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993
ABC'S "THIS WEEK WITH DAVID BRINKLEY"
GUESTS: VALERI ZORKIN (CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE RUSSIAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT), VICE PRESIDENT ALBERT GORE, KONSTANTIN ZLOBIN (SPOKESMAN FOR RUSLAN KHASBULATOV)
ISSUES: RUSSIA, BOSNIA, HEALTH CARE, GAYS IN THE MILITARY, STIMULUS PLAN, GOVERNMENT REFORM
ZORKIN: " ... impeachment, it would be the same kind extreme as if someone from the other side would push the President to take the most radical steps.
"We think that if Russia is going to be a legal state, it must be -- must act strictly within the framework of the constitution ... "
" ... if we have further confrontation, this will be -- we will be killing ourselves and everything that flows from that.
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: "Well, we're committing ourselves to the values and principles for which Boris Yeltsin is fighting in Russia ... we believe that what he's doing is the right thing."
MS. ROBERTS: "How will he be able to leave Russia under these circumstances?"
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: " ... They think that everything will go ahead as planned. "
MS. ROBERTS: " ... any hope of a really substantial aid package passing the Congress?"

(Page 80)

-11-
VICE PRESIDENT GORE "Well, the President has been consulting very carefully and broadly with leadership -- with the leadership in the Congress and with others who have paid a lot of attention to the unfolding events in Russia. And what we're finding is that there is a great deal of support for the proposition that in concert with our allies, we ought to do what we can to help stabilize the movement toward democracy in Russia."
" ... our course of action should be to make certain that we have the best military in the entire world and we will under President Clinton, but to also take the steps which we can take in cooperation with our allies to help influence the course of events in Russia toward democracy and freedom and away from dictatorship and chaos."
"Well, the next step is to turn up the diplomatic heat and to tighten the sanctions as part of an international effort to convince the Serbs to sign the agreement ... "
"Well, not -- and interminable period of time, obviously, but long enough to make a good faith effort to try to get the Serbs to sign. And the pressure is beginning to have an effect on them -- "
" ... In the event that they do not sign, then we will make an assessment at that time and move forward with -- in another direction and certainly efforts to persuade the United Nations to lift the arms embargo represents one of those options."
" ... They have to stabilize the ruble, for example, and get their inflation under control ... I think the decision by President Yeltsin to move this man Fyodorov into the Finance Ministry and to make proposals that effect the central bank there and hopefully will bring about a change in their policies represents movement in the right direction."
MS. ROBERTS: " ... one way ... is taking money away from our foreign aid to countries like Israel and Egypt to give it to Russia ... "
VICE PRESIDENT GORE: "Well, that's not an option that we're considering ... we found a great deal of support for an international package in which the United States would be taking the lead role, aimed at specific measures that will assist President Yeltsin and his group of reformers in the task of nation-building and moving toward democracy and freedom and private property."

(Page 81)

-12-
" ... there is a growing consensus among policy makers throughout this country, that the American people are dead right in saying it's time to overhaul this health care system, not just nibble around the edges at it ... But the second step which must also be taken this year is to completely reform our health care system, get it under control, provide access to affordable high- quality care to all Americans, and we're determined to do that this year."
"(Segregation of gays in the military) The President never used those words. His remarks were misinterpreted."
"Well, there's no discussion of a fence. The Majority Leader, George Mitchell, has been talking with a number of Senators about an objective that we agree with basically to have the President's economic plans seen as a package with a stimulus proposal to create jobs, with long-term deficit reduction, with an investment plan to build our economic future.
How do we keep that plan intact as a single plan ... "
"Well, it's premature to send a signal that we're going to eliminate some agency. We're not interested in moving boxes around. We're interested in changing the way the government does -- we want high-quality, low-cost government and we want the government of this country to realize that it has customers and that is has to be customer friendly and customer driven and there are ways to introduce this revolutionary new idea, save money and make the government a lot more effective in giving high-quality, low-cost service to the American --... "
MR. BRINKLEY: "Now, Mr. Khasbulatov and Boris Yeltsin yesterday had an agreement calling for an election of a new president -- or a president and election of a new congress. What happened?"
ZLOBIN: "I think that the project that were discussed -- that was discussed today, this morning, was rather constructive. But the delegates decided that it is not worthwhile even to discuss it because up to their opinion, the project was done without their participation."
"I think mainly because this project was prepared only by the leader of three branches of power, without their participation. And that was, I think, the most important ground for refusal."

(Page 82)

-13-
MS. ROBERTS: " ... We've made it pretty clear in this country that United States aid will not be forthcoming to Russia if President Yeltsin is removed. Does that play a role in the considerations there?
ZLOBIN: "Well, I think that, of course, Western help, including, of course, American help, is very appreciated here in Russia. But up to my mind, the most important thing is that Russia itself should do everything possible to recover the country."
SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1993
CNN'S "EVANS & NOVAK"
GUEST: SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, LLOYD BENTSEN
ISSUES: RUSSIA, TAXES, ECONOMIC STIMULUS, TRADE, HEALTH COSTS
MR. NOVAK: "What are the things that they [Russians] have to do, Mr. Secretary, immediately for us to make our money worth while for them ?"
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "What they have to do is to get control of the central bank, and not just be printing currency and creating additional credit that gives you 30 percent inflation a month. Because you cannot stabilize that economy, you cannot make any headway until they do that."
MR. NOVAK: "Isn't it true that the Congress of Peoples Deputies controls the central bank essentially, not the president ?"
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "That's correct. That's where you are now. But I think, now, the president has moved Fyodorov as his chief financial officer, and he's a man, he's intelligent, he has the right attitude. And if we then make it conditional, this money, on seeing that bank stabilized, there'll be pressure on both sides to see that they turn that attitude around at the central bank. "
"They've [Russians] already raised interest rates some, and that helps. But there are many other things that they have to do in the way -- for example, property rights. Defining property rights, and what those things are. That's an imperative."
"Because, if you make it conditional on their doing this, with the central bank -- for example, let me give you the whole gross domestic production of Russia today on the devalued ruble, it's about $75 billion. That's all, as compared to our $6 trillion a year. It doesn't take a lot of money to stabilize that currency once they cut out the flood of printing."

(Page 83)

-14-
"I think what you can have is a stand-still on the debt for a very few months while you renegotiate something that they can meet. "
MR. EVANS: "Longer term."
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "That's right. And begin to make the payments."
MR. NOVAK: "You want a higher price of oil".
SECRETARY BENTSEN "It has to. But the other point is they have a lot of hard currency waiting for them if they'll make and allow the investment in those pipelines where they're leaking gas, for example, leaking oil, where the pumps aren't working properly. A relatively small amount of money going into that being paid off with oil would get them a lot of hard currency in a hurry".
"I'm saying to you that those tax rates as related to the rest of the world and what our have been before, and the fact that we're dedicating so much of it to deficit reduction I think is a very positive effect on our economy."
MR. NOVAK: "President Clinton said he had not changed his mind about wanting to reclassify the Japanese minivans as trucks, which would be roughly a one thousand percent increase in their tariff. Does the Treasury Department, in your opinion, have the authority to do that ? I understand some of your staff have told you you don't have the authority to do that by executive action. Is that correct ?"
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "Well, we're studying that proposal now. We have not made a decision."
MR. NOVAK: "Do you think it might have to go to Congress ?"
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "Congress might play a role in it. They have often in the past. but in this instance, I think that we're going to be able to resolve it in Treasury, with the administration's approval."
"Well, that's [reclassifying tariffs] one of the things we'll have to study insofar as how it is done and be sure that it's got legal .. "
"I see that we're going to have to settle some of these differences and open up those markets [with the Japanese]. I think that's terribly important. "

(Page 84)

-15-
"There is no way we can tell you how it's [health care] going to be financed or the amount until we know what the package is, until we look at all the options, and put that together."
MR. NOVAK: "Bob Krueger was one of two Democratic Senators who voted against the president's budget resolution."
SECRETARY BENTSEN: "Well, I'm not about to tell my successor how to vote. He has a mind of his own. He's independent and he makes up that mind himself."
"Well, Bob Krueger always has been pretty independent in his thinking. "
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993
CNN'S "NEWSMAKER SUNDAY"
GUESTS: SENATOR BILL BRADLEY (D-NJ), LORD DAVID OWEN, EUROPEAN ENVOY TO THE BOSNIAN PEACE TALKS
ISSUES: RUSSIA, BOSNIA
SEN. BRADLEY: "I've not heard of many representative bodies, many representative legislatures, that take their votes in secret. The whole point is you're representing people. People want to know how you vote. So you have to put it out there for them to see. I think it's highly irregular [the parliament's secret vote]".
" ... does Russia perceive itself in this post-Cold War world as focusing on its vast economic, ecological and ethnic problems, inwardly, or does it see itself as still having a kind of imperial presence with regard to the other former republics of the Soviet Union and beyond."
"I think they're headed in the direction of reform; not that there isn't a hard-core group of communists that still harbor Marxist-Leninist objectives."
"No, I don't think that you're going to see a reversion to a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship."
"They know they have to move to reform. They [the hard- liners/communists] want to move a little slower than those who are more aggressive."

(Page 85)

-16-
"And I think that should come in a number of different forms. I think that we should have debt relief, in terms of rescheduling the communist debt, and debt-equity swaps. I think we ought to move to replace the Chernobyl-style nuclear reactors."
"I think we ought to send a vast amount of humanitarian aid, medicines, infant formula, for example. I think we need massive exchange programs, high school students coming over here. We need to take Soviet -- Russian bankers and bring them over here to be trained. We need to have small business people over here."
" ... there should be a multilateral package of aid for Russia, meaning other countries chipping in as well."
" ... but we're also saying to Parliament, "Look, we support not only your values, but we also support Russia. We don't want to mess around in your internal affairs. We don't intend to. We champion the rights of individual Russians in the former republics of the Soviet Union, and we believe that we can move ahead together here."
"I think that the main point that we have to keep in mind is that Russia is a very stable society in terms of changes that can't really rock the whole country overnight. My guess is you're going to see a status quo modification gradually in the direction of reform, and I think we should be optimistic about some of these changes ... although there is always the possibility that some minority, behind closed doors, can throw it off track."
LORD OWEN: "It appears to be holding. [Bosnian cease-fire]"
"The only real cessation of hostilities, I think, will come with a political settlement."
"Well, I think we've got to pressurize the Bosnian Serbs, and through them, Belgrade, to sign up."
"I think we've got to make it very clear that those sanctions are going to be toughened in a very real way on transshipments across Serbian Montenegro, down the Danube."
"If you do cooperate, we do get cessation of hostilities, we get the withdrawal of heavy weapons, we get the division, separation of the forces and the armies going back to the provinces where they have natural majorities, then we will relax economic sanctions on Yugoslavia."

(Page 86)

-17-
MR. SESNO: "President Izetbegovic says that if there isn't a Serbian signature within 10 days, he considers his signature on this peace plan invalid."
LORD OWEN: "I think that if we don't, then sanctions have got to be applied, and as I say, applied very toughly. .. There are a whole range of diplomatic sanctions, progressive isolation of Yugoslavia from Europe, which I don't think President Milosevic wants. And then in the last analysis, there is the question of military sanctions, military actions, that stop short of going in in an invasion force, because nobody's ever shown any intention of doing that. But there are ways of tightening that particular pressure as well."
"But you turn the screw, force the pressure on. As far as the next military measure is concerned, obviously the no-fly zone is one that could be introduced. That has a damaging effect on the humanitarian effort."
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993 MCLAUGHLIN'S "ONE-ON-ONE"
GUEST: ROBERT GATES (FORMER CIA DIRECTOR)
ISSUES: NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION
MCLAUGHLIN: "Why do you think North Korea pulled out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in the past few weeks?"
GATES: "It would seem that they're unprepared to receive the kind of international inspections that would be required to assure that they don't have a nuclear weapons program. I don't know if they (Korea) have a bomb at the present time. Our general view has been that they are certainly working on a program ... and have devoted enormous resources to it. They have engaged in deception to avoid its discovery. Whether they have an assembled weapon, I don't know.
MCLAUGHLIN: "Is it your intuition that they do now have an assembled weapon?"
GATES: "My inclination would be that they may not have an assembled weapon at this time, but they are continuing to work hard on the program in the hope of having one soon. The North Korean Army does not have high regard for Kim Jong-il (the current leader's son and rumored to succeed his father). So you have the potential of some sort of a conflict with respect to the succession there. This may be an effort on his part to show the North Korean military that he is a tough guy. There may be merit in extending [sanctions] to some of these other [nuclear capable] states (by the US) ."

(Page 87)

-18-
"So I am comfortable with the security of nuclear weapons in Russia at the present time. We have no evidence that a single nuclear weapon has been smuggled out of the former Soviet Union or sold to one of these aspiring nuclear states. The smuggling of nuclear material such as enriched uranium as well as the flow of scientist and engineers creates a more worrisome problem ... "
"Clearly the danger of a global confrontation has receded significantly ... but what you have in its place is a second order of conflict of many ethnic and national conflicts all over the world in many, many countries."
"Iran is in the middle of a major rearmament program, they not only are pursuing weapons of mass destruction in every category, chemical, biological, and nuclear, they are buying weapons from North Korea with which they can deliver those weapons of mass destruction. They are building their own capability to build missiles. They are also engaged in a conventional weapons build-up."
"[Iran] is a country in the middle of a major weapons build- up. They have contracted for reactors from China. They are very busy in a variety of places, including Sudan."
"I think given the kind of world we're facing ... perhaps we should have a pause before we cut either one of these (intelligence and military budget cuts) ... but what's the rush, why not wait a year or two."

(Page 88)

-19-
SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993
NBC'S "MCLAUGHLIN GROUP"
PREDICTIONS:
FRED BARNES: "Bill Bennett will change his schedule and start giving many speeches at Republican and conservative events, as many speeches as he gives for pay."
ELEANOR CLIFT: "After the defeats in Virginia and New Jersey, the NRA will find a way to come out for the Brady Bill."
JACK GERMOND: "I think there has been a real change in attitude in the last couple of days in Russia and I think in the long run that Yeltsin is going to survive, and I think no matter who survives, their interest in getting rid of the nuclear weapons is such that they will come through on the treaties in the next six months or so."
MORTON KONDRACKE: "Ezer Weizman's election as President of Israel is a -- Ezer Weizman supports negotiation with the PLO -- is a straw in the wind that the Israel body politick is moving toward talks with the PLO, and I predict that will happen within a year.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: "President Clinton will nominate to the Supreme Court of the United States, law professor from Yale, Drew Days."

(Page 89)

The Polling Spotlight
From the Office of the GOP Conference Secretary, Trent Lott, Secretary Dave Hoppe, Staff Director 202-224-3496
Released 3/30/93
1) IF NOVEMBER ELECTIONS WERE HELD TODAY
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,003 adults surveyed 3/22-24; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. CNN 3/25)
November election held today:
	ALL	DEM	GOP	IND	2/28
Clinton	40%	76%	7%	30%	45%
Bush	32	7	71	23	28
Perot	22	14	16	37	22

2) CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 3/25/93)
	NOW	2/28	2/17
Support	55%	59%	79%
Oppose	34	29	16

Which do you prefer?
More services/more taxes 20%
Less services/reduce taxes 41
Same as now 35
(Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Assoc. Poll: 1,000 self ID’d 11/92 voters surveyed 3/17-20; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. 3/23)
Q: “Presently, there are several economic and deficit reduction plans that have been put forth. One plan (PLAN A) would reduce the deficit by $679 billion over the next five years through cuts in defense, discretionary and mandatory spending programs with no tax or spending increases. Another plan (PLAN B) would reduce the deficit by $460 billion over the next five years through $260 billion in spending cuts, $186 billion in spending increases and $316 billion in tax increases. Which plan would you prefer?”
PLAN A 57%
PLAN B 23
Neither (vol.) 10
NOTE: According to Kevin Phillips in L.A. Times, 3/28/93: “recent ABC News polling found a whopping 78% of Americans trust the government in Washington to do what was right only some or none of the time – up 15 points from 1992”.

(Page 90)

3) ON CLINTON ECONOMIC PROPOSALS (Fabrizio/McLaughlin: 3/23) Strongly favor 19%, Somewhat favor 30%, Somewhat oppose 22%, Strongly oppose 17%
Asked of Strongly/Somewhat support: If we learned that… would you still favor Clinton’s program or oppose it?
	STILL FAVOR	NOW OPPOSE	NO DIFF.
It contains largest tax hike in US history…	43%	33%	19%
It means gas/energy taxes of $430/avg. family…	46	38	14
It will add nearly $1.2 Trillion to the national debt…	20	61	14
One economist says it will cost 3.2 million jobs by ’96…	19	62	13
It has $4 in taxes to $1 in cuts, even though in the campaign he promised $3 cuts for $1 taxes…	24	52	18
It would raise taxes on Soc. Sec., so seniors getting $28k in benefits would pay more than a couple in their 40s making $90k….	20	66	10
It actually ups non-defense spending by $31 billion…	33	44	15

On the following proposals:	Approve	Disapprove
“Requiring middle class taxpayers to pay taxes on health insurance provided by their employers”	30%	64%
“Raising taxes on taxpayers with incomes over $30k to pay for Nat’l health care system”	48	47

4) COURSE CLINTON SHOULD TAKE TO COVER THE UNINSURED (Harris Poll: 1,255 adults surveyed 3/3-10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 3/23)
	All
Fewer taxes and slower phase-in (within 5-8 yrs)	70%
Raising add’l taxes for quick coverage (3-4 yrs)	26

5) CLINTON’S SUPREME COURT PICK (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 3/35/93)
Clinton should pick someone for Supreme Court who will make the Court…
More Liberal 29%
More conservative 29
Same 38