Republican Conference, January 23, 1990

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

10 pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

lead_397_007_all

Title (Dublin Core)

Republican Conference, January 23, 1990

Date (Dublin Core)

1990-01-23

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1990-01-23

Congress (Dublin Core)

101st (1989-1991)

Policy Area (Curation)

Congress

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

Record Type (Dublin Core)

agendas (administrative records)

Rights (Dublin Core)

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/

Language (Dublin Core)

eng

Collection Finding Aid (Dublin Core)

https://dolearchivecollections.ku.edu/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=26&q=

Physical Location (Dublin Core)

Collection 007, Box 397, Folder 7

Institution (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Archival Collection (Dublin Core)

Robert J. Dole Republican Leadership Collection, 1985-1996

Full Text (Extract Text)

handwritten note at top of page: "Joyce"
Armstrong (check mark)
Bond
Boschwitz (check mark)
Burns (check mark)
Chafee (check mark)
Coats (check mark)
Cochran (check mark)
Cohen
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole (check mark)
Domenici (check mark)
Durenberger
Garn
Gorton (check mark)
Gramm
Grassley (check mark)
Hatch (check mark)
Hatfield (check mark)
Heinz (check mark)
Helms
Humphrey
Jeffords
Kassebaum (check mark)
Kasten
Lott (check mark)
Lugar (check mark)
Mack
McCain (check mark)
McClure (check mark)
McConnell (check mark)
Murkowski
Nickles (check mark)
Packwood (check mark)
Pressler (check mark)
Roth
Rudman (check mark)
Simpson
Specter (check mark)
Stevens (check mark)
Symms (check mark)
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner (check mark)
Wilson

handwritten names: Secretary Brady, Fred McClure, Sununu, Damon

(Printed by the Secretary for the Minority)
GPO: 1989 98-241 (m)

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE
JANUARY 23, 1990 - S 230 - 10:30 A.M.

1. Agenda Prior to February Recess
o Clean Air
o National Service Legislation (S.1430 Kennedy)
o Crime Bill (Feb 7-8-9) UC Agreement in place
o Education Bills:
- S. 1310, Simon Literacy Program
- S. 695, Bush Educational Excellence Act, (can be brought up under agreement after 2/1) includes Dodd provision for private board for teaching standards. Senator Helms objects

2. Major Issues: 5 C's (HANDOUT: PRESIDENT'S LETTER)
A. Clean Air
- Mitchell hopes to complete prior to Feb. recess
- Are we willing to allow Senator Mitchell to proceed to the bill?
- You might ask for indication of who intends to offer major amendments
B. Child Care
- House Democrats are still trying to reach some consensus on a proposal
- White House continuing to press for tax credits (EITC expansion)
C. Chinese Students (HANDOUTS: AG LETTER & 2 PAGE SUMMARY)
- House taking up veto on Wednesday
- Critical that we support the President at this time - his actions as good as legislation.
- Information would have us believe changes in China occurring
- Hope we can delay vote on veto
D. Campaign Finance Reform
- Senator Mitchell anxious to move bills soon after February recess
- House Republicans and Democrats moving ahead with discussions

-2-

- Some receptivity among House Republicans (and others - Rudman) to place limit on campaign expenditures
- We need to determine where Senate Republicans stand

E. Capital Gains
- White House will again include a proposal very similar to last years Packwood proposal

OTHER ISSUES
- Moynihan Social Security Proposal (HANDOUT DESCRIPTION OF BILL)
- Don't sign on too quickly -- we need to develop Republican position
- Moynihan proposal sure fire way to lead to higher taxes (to make up budget deficit or to pay baby boom benefits) in the future or benefit reductions to accommodate lower reserves.
- We should legitimately consider ways to "fence" the reserves so they are available to pay future benefits -- perhaps investing in the private sector -- not Treasury securities
- The Administration has a proposal to use money to pay down deficit - not current services
- Basically we need to examine proposal very carefully -- through extensive hearings. Lets not trash the 1983 agreement too quickly.

Puerto Rican Status Referendum Act
- Senator Johnston very anxious to move bill - as is Senator McClure
- We have to examine possible implications for the Party -- as two Democrat senators very likely
- No reason to leap on the bandwagon at this time

REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE
JANUARY 23, 1990 - S 230 - 10:30 A.M.

1. Agenda Prior to February Recess
· Clean Air
· National Service Legislation (S.1430 Kennedy)
· Crime Bill (Feb 7-8-9) UC Agreement in place
· Education Bills:
- S. 1310, Simon Literacy Program
- S. 695, Bush Educational Excellence Act, (can be brought up under agreement after 2/1) includes Dodd provision for private board for teaching standards. Senator Helms objects

2. Major Issues: 5 C's (HANDOUT: PRESIDENT'S LETTER)
A. Clean Air
- Mitchell hopes to complete prior to Feb. recess
- Are we willing to allow Senator Mitchell to proceed to the bill?
- You might ask for indication of who intends to offer major amendments
B. Child Care
- House Democrats are still trying to reach some consensus on a proposal
- White House continuing to press for tax credits (EITC expansion)
C. Chinese Students (HANDOUTS: AG LETTER & 2 PAGE SUMMARY)
- House taking up veto on Wednesday
- Critical that we support the President at this time - his actions as good as legislation.
- Information would have us believe changes in China occurring
- Hope we can delay vote on veto
D. Campaign Finance Reform
- Senator Mitchell anxious to move bills soon after February recess
- House Republicans and Democrats moving ahead with discussions

-2-

- Some receptivity among House Republicans (and others - Rudman) to place limit on campaign expenditures
- We need to determine where Senate Republicans stand
E. Capital Gains
- White House will again include a proposal very similar to last years Packwood proposal

OTHER ISSUES
- Moynihan Social Security Proposal (HANDOUT DESCRIPTION OF BILL)
- Don't sign on too quickly -- we need to develop Republican position
- Moynihan proposal sure fire way to lead to higher taxes (to make up budget deficit or to pay baby boom benefits) in the future or benefit reductions to accommodate lower reserves.
- We should legitimately consider ways to "fence" the reserves so they are available to pay future benefits -- perhaps investing in the private sector -- not Treasury securities
- The Administration has a proposal to use money to pay down deficit - not current services
- Basically we need to examine proposal very carefully -- through extensive hearings. Lets not trash the 1983 agreement too quickly.

Puerto Rican Status Referendum Act
- Senator Johnston very anxious to move bill - as is Senator McClure
- We have to examine possible implications for the Party -- as two Democrat senators very likely
- No reason to leap on the bandwagon at this time

This represents the proposal as announced on December 28, 1989 and not the bill as introduced today.

January 23, 1990

SENATOR MOYNIHAN'S SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSAL
Senator Moynihan has announced that he will introduce legislation on January 23, 1990 to cut the Social Security payroll tax rate. This memo
a. Outlines current law;
b. Describes Senator Moynihan's proposal; and
c. Outlines pros and cons.

A. CURRENT LAW
The 1983 Social Security Amendments set payroll tax rates to accumulate a Social Security Trust Fund surplus. That surplus would then be available to help finance the retirement benefits of the baby boom generation.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATES
Employee Share Employer Share Total
1984-1987 5.70% 5.70% 11.40%
1988-1989 6.06% 6.06% 12.12%
1990 and after 6.20% 6.20% 12.40%

NOTE: This does not include the 1.45% payroll tax for the Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) program.

The tax is paid on annual earnings of up to $51,300 in 1990. No tax is paid on earnings above that amount. The $51,300 limit -- the so-called wage base -- is increased each year based on year-to-year growth in the national average wage.

B. SENATOR MOYNIHAN'S PLAN
The plan has two parts:
1. Repeal the 1990 increase.
For 1990, Senator Moynihan would reduce the rate from 6.20% each on employer and employee to the 1989 level of 6.06%.
Estimated 1990 cost: $7 billion.

-2-

2. Beginning in 1991, Shift Social Security to Pay-As-You-Go Financing.
a. For 1991 - 2014, Senator Moynihan would cut the payroll tax rate dramatically to 5.1%. This would return Social Security to so-called "pay-as-you-go" financing, under which a given year's benefits are paid for by that year's payroll tax receipts. Social Security operated under pay-as-you-go for many years prior to 1983.
Estimated 1991 cost: $55 billion.

b. For 2015 - 2045, Senator Moynihan would increase the tax rate significantly in order to pay the baby boom retirement benefits. Senator Moynihan estimates it would jump to 6.0% in the year 2015 and reach 7.6% by 2025.

Basically, Senator Moynihan trades a lower payroll tax rate in the next 25 years (1990 - 2015) for a higher rate in later years (2015 - 2049).

The following shows tax rates under current law and Senator Moynihan's plan:

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATE EMPLOYEE SHARE ONLY (MATCHED BY EMPLOYER)
Current Law (Build Surplus) Senator Moynihan* (Pay-As-You-Go)
(These are preliminary estimates provided by Moynihan's staff.)
1984-1987 5.70% Not applicable
1988-1989 6.06% Not applicable
1990 6.20% 6.06%
1991 6.20% 5.10%
1992 6.20% 5.10%
2015 6.20% 6.0%
2020 6.20% 6.80%
2025 6.20% 7.60%
2049 6.20% *Awaiting estimates

-3-

Note: These rates do not include the payroll tax of 1.45% for Medicare Hospital Insurance (Part A) Coverage because the proposal affects only the tax rate for the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability (OASDI) program. The proposal would not change the current rate of 1.45% for Medicare Part A. Nor does it change the wage base of $51,300 in 1990.

Increasingly, Bush Seems Right on China
A. Doak Barnett is professor emeritus of Chinese studies at The Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. This article is adapted from his testimony last month before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

By A. Doak Barnett

WASHINGTON
Like virtually all Americans, and most people in the Western world, I was shocked and outraged as well as saddened by the massacre of several hundred demonstrators in Beijing in early June.

I strongly supported President Bush's condemnation of the massacre and his imposition, by executive action, of carefully defined, limited sanctions. But I also strongly support his decision to try to reopen a dialogue with China's leaders -- although I am critical of the way he did it, particularly of his decision, at China's request, to maintain secrecy until the national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft and the Deputy Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, arrived in Beijing. However, I think the action should be judged on the basis of more fundamental considerations than the style and method of renewing a dialogue.

China is a country of great importance, a member of the nuclear club, a country whose policies have an enormous influence on the stability of Asia -- as well as on global stability. The ending of the old U.S.-China-Soviet triangle does not end the need for U.S.-China consultation and, where possible, cooperation. Some argue that this can be done at the ambassadorial level. I disagree. To deal with major issues, a dialogue at the highest levels is essential.

Our objective must be to encourage a return to active, effective economic and political reform in China. We have to recognize the severe limits of any foreign power's ability to determine domestic trends in China, and we cannot expect rapid democratization on the Western model; China's traditions and circumstances are different from Eastern Europe's.

But we can hope for renewed progress toward political liberalization. I am convinced that this can and will resume over time -- but in a process of two steps forward and one step backward -- with retreats occurring whenever social instability reaches a critical point.

The key question is how progress toward reform and liberalization can be encouraged by outside powers. Many Americans now assume that strong, continuing outside pressure will help. I strongly disagree. Outside pressures will almost certainly strengthen conservative hardliners and weaken moderate reformers. To the extent that contacts with the outside increase in the future, this will strengthen reform, as it has during the past decade.

Beijing is beginning to respond.

The tragedy in June has created an unstable, uncertain situation. The present leadership is not monolithic.

Conservative hardliners are temporarily in the ascendancy, but most of China's reformers are still in place, waiting for a change in the country's leadership and policies.

While present economic policies are regressive, there has been no basic reversal of the policies of economic reform, only a partial, and I believe temporary, retreat. The post-Tiananmen policies of political repression of individuals and groups most active in the events of April-June continue, even after the lifting of martial law in Beijing. But when I was in China in September I was struck by the fact that the repression has not resulted in the purging of most reformers. Even if temporarily cowed, most reformers are not demoralized or intimidated.

I feel very strongly that prolonged and strong U.S. pressures on China -- and ostracism of China -- will simply delay, not accelerate, a revival of needed reforms. Punitive action and intemperate rhetoric will, if prolonged, simply encourage hostile xenophobia on the part of hardliners.

Sanctions would scuttle the progress.

Much will depend on the Chinese response to the President's initiative. The early response is encouraging: Beijing's assurance on refraining from selling missiles to the Middle East, the lifting of martial law, allowing a Voice of America correspondent in the country, possible flexibility on Cambodia and discussions about a renewal of the Fulbright program and creation of a Peace Corps program.

The U.S. and others have urged Beijing to go further. Encouraging, in this regard, is the recent announcement by the Ministry of Public Security of the release of 573 people who were detained after the Tiananmen demonstrations and had pleaded guilty.

There are many other things China could do, including the following: End jamming of V.O.A. broadcasts and allow journalists greater freedom; finally resolve the case of the dissident physicist, Fang Lizhi, and his wife, who are now taking refuge in the U.S. Embassy; clarify Beijing's commitment to continued intellectual and student exchanges with the West; and further moderate domestic political policies.

We cannot expect that Chinese leaders will immediately do all these things. No list of this kind should be used as a litmus test. But we can and should expect significant Chinese responses to Mr. Bush's initiative.

I believe Congress should allow some time -- at least another month or two -- to see what the Chinese responses will be. Congress should not move to pass, over the President's vetoes, its legislative sanctions amendment or its Emergency Chinese Immigration Relief Act. The sanctions are likely to be counterproductive, and the immigration act seems gratuitous, because the President has pledged to achieve its objectives by administrative means.

If both of these are passed over the President's vetoes, China clearly will feel compelled to retaliate, possibly quite strongly. This is likely to cause a serious further deterioration of U.S.-China relations, and a further downward spiral, for at least a year or two, before new efforts can be made to repair relations.

Further U.S. punitive actions against China would almost certainly create serious divisions between the U.S. and our allies in Europe and Japan. Some Western diplomats in Beijing have already argued to their home governments that sanctions have encouraged conservative, isolationist and xenophobic trends, and have recommended that their governments renew high-level contacts. They have praised, at least privately, the Scowcroft-Eagleburger visit, saying that it will bolster moderates and improve U.S.-China relations.

I believe they are right, and that President Bush needs to be given time to test whether his judgment was right.

NEW YORK TIMES
SUNDAY, JANUARY 21, 1990

Republican Conference, January 23, 1990

Item