Policy Luncheon, March 3, 1992

Item

Other Media: lead_402_012_all_tr.docx

Transcription (Scripto): Download Full Text Only (DOCX)
Extent (Dublin Core): 35 Pages
File Name (Dublin Core): lead_402_012_all
Title (Dublin Core): Policy Luncheon, March 3, 1992
Date (Dublin Core): 1992-03-03
Date Created (Dublin Core): 1992-03-03
Congress (Dublin Core): 102nd (1991-1993)
Creator (Dublin Core): Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021; U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee; Roth, William V., Jr. (William Victor), 1921-2003; Barr, William Pelham, 1950-
Record Type (Dublin Core): summaries
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 402, Folder 12
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): (Page 1)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 2, 1992

TODAY, TUESDAY, MARCH 3
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING BILL. CLOTURE IS EXPECTED TO BE INVOKED, THEREFORE, THE SENATE SHOULD BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL, AND ADDITIONAL ROLL CALL VOTES COULD OCCUR.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4 - FRIDAY, MARCH 6
IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE SENATE WILL BE ON THE CORPORATION OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING THROUGHOUT MOST OF THIS WEEK. ALSO, THE MAJORITY LEADER WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER S. 792, THE INDOOR RADON BILL, AND POSSIBLY THE VETO MESSAGE TO ACCOMPANY THE H.R. 2212, MFN/CHINA, IF RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSE. THEREFORE, VOTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR EACH DAY OF SENATE SESSION THIS WEEK.

NOTE:
THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS ANNOUNCED THAT NO VOTES WILL OCCUR ON MONDAY, MARCH 9TH AND MONDAY, MARCH 16TH. ALSO, THE FIRST ROLL CALL VOTES OF THOSE WEEKS WILL BE NO EARLIER THAN 2:15 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 10 AND 2:15 P.M. ON TUESDAY, MARCH 17. I HOPE THIS WILL BE OF SOME HELP FOR SCHEDULING.

(Page 2)

Bush's job approval sinks to low of 40%
3-3
The Iowa Poll rating is the president's worst ever and his fourth straight drop.
By THOMAS A. FOGARTY REGISTER STAFF WRITER
COPYRIGHT, 1992. DES MOINES REGISTER AND THEN'NE COMPANY President Bush, nagged by a recession, Patrick Buchanan and five voluble Democrats who want to replace him in the White House, wins approval for his job performance from only 40 percent of Iowans, a new Iowa Poll shows.
Bush's job approval rating is by far the lowest he's scored in the Iowa Poll during 37 months in office. It also marks the fourth consecutive Iowa Poll in which Bush has suffered a drop in popularity.
The poll reflects the low ratings Bush has been receiving in comparable national polls. A national poll taken Feb. 20-23 by the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press gives Bush a 39 percent approval rating.
In an Iowa Poll taken in December, Bush won approval from 55 percent of Iowans. Until now, that was his lowest popularity rating in the poll.
The last time a president fared as poorly in popularity as Bush does in the new poll was in June 1988, when President Reagan won approval from 40 percent of Iowans.
Bush reached his high point in the Iowa Poll a year ago, during the Persian Gulf War. Then, 82 percent of Iowans said they favored his handling of the job as president.
In the new poll, 54 percent of Iowans say they disapprove of Bush's handling of the job and 6 percent
IOWA POLL Please turn to Page 2A
(Handwritten: Daily News Clips 3-3-92)
1 of 2
2

(Page 3)

THE REGISTER
President's popularity hits new low in Iowa POLL
IOWA Poll
Continued from Page 1A

say they're unsure how they fell. This poll marks the first time more Iowans disapprove of Bush's performance than approve it.
Men and Women offer nearly identical assessments.
Bush's highest marks come from Iowans ages 18-34 (47 percent), Iowans with annual family incomes over $30,000 (46 percent) northwest Iowans (47 percent) and Republicans (67 percent).
The president's lowest approval ratings come from Iowans age 65 and older (32 percent), Iowans with annual family incomes under $15,000 (31 percent), southwest Iowans including the Des Moines area (33 percent), and Democrats (16 percent). According to the poll, 39 percent of political independents approve of Bush's job performance.
The Iowa poll conducted Feb. 18-25, asked the following:
I'd like to get your impression of the jobs some elected officials are doing. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Charles Grassley is doing as U.S. Senator? Tom Harkin as U.S. Senator? George Bush as president?
The Iowa Poll directed by J. Ann Seizer, is based on interviews with 810 Iowans age 18 and older. Interviewers contacted households with randomly selected telephone numbers. Percentages based on the full sample may have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.4
PRESIDENT BUSHIOWA POLLHERE ARE Iowans' ratings of President Bush in the year since Operation Desert Storm:
(Alt Text: Line graph showing approval ratings of president bush from February 1991 to February 1992. The final numbers of the graph have unsure at 6% approve 40% and disapprove at 54%.)
February 1991 rating based on interviews with 810 Iowans
percentage points. Republishing the copyrighted Iowa Poll without credit to The Des Moines Register is prohibited.
Grassley remains popular among Iowans
Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is expected to seek re-election this year, maintains a comfortable level of popularity among Iowans, the new Iowa Poll shows.
Sixty-six percent of Iowa adults say they approve of Grassley's handling of the job of U.S. senator. Only 13 percent disapprove, and 21 percent are undecided.
The results are a slight improvement from the Iowa Poll taken in December, when 62 percent of Iowans approved of Grassley's performance. In the December poll, 17 percent disapproved and 21 percent were undecided.
Sen. Tom Harkin, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, sees no change in the approval rating he received in the December poll. In each poll, Harkin wins approval from 59 percent of Iowans.
The number of Iowans disapproving of Harkin's job performance is up nine points from December - to 30 percent disapproval.
2 of 2
3
03-03-92 09:04 AM FROM GRASSLEY DSM TO SENATOR GRAS
PO3

(Page 4)

SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON MAJOR PROVISIONS IN THE CRIME BILLS
ISSUE
CRIME CONTROL ACT OF 1992
CONFERENCE REPORT
DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION
SENATE PASSED VERSION. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST DELAY AND FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION IN DEATH PENALTY CASES. FEDERAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO DEFER TO STATE COURT DECISIONS WHICH ARE FULL AND FAIR ALSO ADDRESSES FEDERAL DEATH ROW INMATE LITIGATION.
EXPANDS THE RIGHTS OF DEATH ROW INMATES BY OVERTURNING 15 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS FAVORABLE TO STATES ON HABEAS CORPUS. ITS LOOPHOLES BROADLY DEFEAT ITS LIMIATION OF ONE APPEAL IT PUTS THE POWER TO REGULATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED "REFORM" IN THE HANDS OF GROUPS OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY RATHER THAN WITH THE COURTS. DOES NOTHING TO THWART, AND ACTUALLY INCREASES, FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS BY FEDERAL DEATH ROW INMATES.
FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY
HOUSE VERSION. COMPREHENSIVE DEATH PENALTY WHICH IS LESS ONEROUS ON PROSECUTORS. ENSURES THAT JURY WILL IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY WHEN WARRANTED.
WEAKENED SENATE VERSION WHICH GIVES JURIES A STANDARDLESS DISCRETION TO REFRAIN FROM IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY. THE ENTIRE DEATH PENALTY IS WORTHLESS SINCE DEATH SENTENCES WOULD RARELY BE CARRIED DUE TO THE LIBERAL HABEAS PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE BILL.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEATH PENALTY
PERMITS THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR AGGRAVATED MURDERS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NO PROVISION
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
EXPANDS CURRENT LAW. AUTHORIZES ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN BOTH WARRANT AND NON-WARRANT CASES WHERE THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED IN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE "GOOD FAITH" COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
NARROWS THE EXISTING "GOOD FAITH" EXCEPTION FOR WARRANT CASES. ELIMINATES THE EXCEPTION FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES WHICH IS THE LAW IN TWO FEDERAL CIRCUITS.

(Page 5)

ADMISSABILITY OF CONFESSIONS
KEEPS CURRENT LAW
OVERTURNS 2 SUP. CT. DECISIONS. AUTOMATICALLY REVERSES ALL CONVICTIONS WHERE A OURT ERRONEOUSLY ADMITS A CRIMINAL CONFESSION OBTAINED IN TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE LAW EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE COURT FINDS THAT THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS OVERWHELMING AND THE ADMISSION OF THE CONFESSION WOULD NOT EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL
RACIAL SAFEGUARDS
REQUIRES ADMINISTRATION OF DEATH PENALTY AND OTHE RPENALTIES WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE OF DEFENDANT OR VICTIMS. PROHIBITS RACIAL QUOTAS FOR IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY. PROHIBITS ALL APPEALS TO RACIAL BIAS BY PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
NO PROVISIONS
FEDERAL PRISON CONSTRUCTION
AUTHORIZES $500 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FEDERAL PRISONS
NO PROVISION
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
$1 BILLION FOR GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL POLICE. $150 MILLION FOR COPS-ON-THE-BEAT.
SAME PROVISIONS
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
$345 MILLION FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $75 MILLION TARGETED AT TERRORISM.
SAME PROVISIONS
VICTIMS
REMOVES EXISTING CAP ON THE CRIME VICTIMS FUND. MANDATES AND EXPANDS RESTITUTION TO COVER ADDITIONAL EXPENSES, PROTECTS VICTIMS RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL JURY.
CONTAINS ONLY PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CRIME VICTIMS FUND.
FIREARMS PENALTIES
PROVIDES TOUGH MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR USE OF FIREARMS IN FEDERAL CRIMES OF VIOLENCE AND DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIMES.
INCREASES PENALTIES FOR THESE OFFENSE IF USING A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS

(Page 6)

AUTHORIZATIONS IN MILLION DOLLARS
ANTI-GANG GRANTS 100
JUVENILE ALTERNATIVE PUNISHMENT 200
FEDERAL COUNTER TERRORISM:
- FBI 25
- STATE DEP. 10
- CUSTOMS 7.5
- SECRET SERVICE 2.5
- BATF 2.5
- FAA 2.5
- GRANTS TO STATES 25
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT:
- DEA 100.5
- FBI 98
- INS 45
- U.S. ATTYS 45
- MARSHALS 10
- BATF 15
- JUDICIARY 20
- PUBLIC DEFENDERS 12
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 1,000
POLICE CORPS 100
LAW ENFORCEMENT SCHOLARSHIPS 30
RURAL CRIME STUDY 5
RURAL DRUG TRAINING 1
RURAL DRUG GRANTS 50
MISSING ALZHEIMER 1
PARENTAL KIDNAPPING .25
NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION 20
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GRANTS 25
CAMPUS ASSAULT STUDY .25
COP-ON-THE-BEAT GRANTS 150
BOOT CAMPS GRANTS 200
LAW ENFORCEMENT FAMILY SUPPORT 5
PRISON LITERACY 10
TRAUMA CENTER GRANTS 50
RURAL DRUG TREATMENT 25
DRUG EMERGENCY AREAS 300
COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG GRANTS 15
PRISON DRUG TREATMENT 100
ARRESTEE DRUG TESTING 100
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 35
DNA IDENTIFICATION GRANTS 10
FBI DNA PROGRAM 2
SAFE SCHOOLS 100
FEDERAL PRISON CONSTRUCTION 500
TOTAL $3.555 BILLION

(Page 7)

Derivation of the Provisions of the Proposed Crime Control Act of 1992 from the Crime Bills Passed by the Senate (S. 1241) and the House of Representatives (H.R. 3371 as Originally Passed) :
TITLE I -- DEATH PENALTY
Sections 101-141 (federal death penalty procedures, authorizations, and related amendments) : House bill title XXIII.
[Note: The death penalty title of the House bill was drafted after Senate passage of S. 1241 and incorporates all positive features of the federal death penalty provisions in titles II-IV and other titles of S. 1241. ]
TITLE II -- HABEAS CORPUS REFORM
SUBTITLE A -- GENERAL HABEAS CORPUS REFORM
Sections 201-06 (generally applicable habeas corpus reforms) : Senate bill title XI, subtitle A.
SUBTITLE B -- DEATH PENALTY LITIGATION PROCEDURES
Sections 211-12 (special habeas corpus procedures for capital cases) : Senate bill title XI, subtitle B.
SUBTITLE C -- EQUALIZATION OF CAPITAL HABEAS CORPUS LITIGATION FUNDING
Section 221 (states to receive funding for capital habeas litigation equal to federal funding of capital defense resource centers) : Senate bill § 4923 and House bill § 1108.
TITLE III -- EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Section 301 ("good faith" exception admitting evidence where conduct of officers was objectively reasonable) : House bill § 1720.
TITLE IV -- FIREARMS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS
Section 401 (increased penalties for using firearm in federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime): Similar to Senate bill § 1213 as applied to gun use during federal crimes; Senate bill § 1212 and House bill § 2001 also provide certain penalty increases for gun use in federal crimes.
Section 402 (increased penalty for second offense of using explosive to commit felony) : House bill § 2002.

(Page 8)

- 2 -

Section 403 (smuggling firearms in aid of drug trafficking) : House bill § 2003 and Senate bill § 1223.
Section 404 (theft of firearms or explosives) : House bill S 2004 and Senate bill § 1224.
Section 405 (increased penalty for false statement in firearms purchase) : House bill § 2005 and Senate bill § 1226.
Section 406 (summary destruction of explosives subject to forfeiture) : House bill § 2006 and Senate bill § 1229.
Section 407 (elimination of outmoded parole language) : House bill § 2007 and Senate bill § 1232.
Section 408 (enhanced penalties for using firearm in connection with counterfeiting or forgery) : House bill § 2008 and Senate bill § 1234.
Section 409 (mandatory penalties for firearms possession by violent felons and serious drug offenders) : House bill § 2009; encompasses Senate bill § 1235.
Section 410 (receipt of firearm by non-resident) : Senate bill § 1237; House bill § 2010 is similar.
Section 411 (firearms conspiracy) : House bill § 2011 and Senate bill § 1238.
Section 412 (theft of firearms or explosives from licensee) : House bill § 2012 and Senate bill § 1239.
Section 413 (prohibition of disposing of firearm to person disqualified from firearms possession) : House bill § 2013.
Section 414 (increased penalty for interstate gun trafficking) : House bill § 2014.
Section 415 (prohibition of possession or trafficking in stolen firearms that have moved interstate) : House bill § 2015; encompasses Senate bill § 1233.
Section 416 (possession of explosives by felons and others) : House bill § 2017 and Senate bill § 1228.
Section 417 (possession of explosive during commission of felony) : Senate bill § 1221.
Section 418 (disposition of forfeited firearms) : Senate bill § 1231) .
Sections 419 (definition of serious drug offense) : Senate

(Page 9)

- 3 -

bill § 4911.
Section 420 (definition of burglary for armed career criminal purposes) : Senate bill § 1241.
TITLE V -- JUVENILES AND GANGS
SUBTITLE A -- INCREASED PENALTIES FOR EMPLOYING CHILDREN TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS NEAR SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS
Section 501 (enhanced penalties for using minors in drug trafficking near schools) : Senate bill § 1501.
SUBTITLE B -- ANTIGANG PROVISIONS
Sections 511-12 (juvenile drug trafficking and gang prevention grants) : Senate bill §§ 1511-12.
Section 513 (criminal street gangs offense) : House bill § 1703.
SUBTITLE C -- JUVENILE PENALTIES
Section 521 (broadened adult prosecution for serious juvenile offenders, including presumption in favor of adult treatment for juvenile gang leaders) : Senate bill SS 1521 and 4633.
Section 522 (treating certain highly serious drug crimes by juveniles as armed career criminal predicate offenses) : Senate bill § 1522.
Section 523 (intermediate sanctions grant program for young offenders) : House bill §§ 601-04.
SUBTITLE D -- OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 531 (funding objective of establishing effective bindover systems for adult prosecution of most serious violent 16 and 17 year old offenders) : House bill § 1723.
Section 532 (Attorney General and Secretary of Treasury to develop national strategy to coordinate federal gang investigations) : House bill § 1715.
Section 533 (clarification of requirement of production of juvenile record prior to commencement of proceedings) : House bill § 1931.

(Page 10)

- 4 -

TITLE VI -- TERRORISM AND INTERNATIONAL MATTERS
[Note: Sections 119-20, 127-32 of the proposed Crime Control Act of 1992 (CCA) , relating to certain terrorist offenses, are included in the death penalty title (title I) of the CCA, because they may result in a capital sentence in cases where death results. Their derivation is listed here along with the anti-terrorism provisions in title VI of the CCA. ]
Section 119 (death penalty for terrorist murders abroad of United States nationals) : Senate bill § 525 and House bill § 2319.
Section 120 (conforming amendment to aircraft piracy provision) : Senate bill § 203 (b) and House bill § 2320.
Section 127 (implementing legislation for convention against terrorist acts at international airports) : Senate bill § 501 and House bill § 2327.
Section 128 (amendment to Federal Aviation Act relating to aircraft piracy) : Senate bill § 502 and House bill § 2328.
Section 129 (implementing legislation for conventions concerning terrorist acts directed against maritime navigation or maritime fixed platforms) : Senate bill §§ 511-16 and House bill § 2329.
Section 130 (implementing legislation for the convention against torture) : Senate bill § 521 and House bill § 2330.
Section 131 (offense of using weapons of mass destruction) : Senate bill § 522 and House bill § 2331.
Section 132 (homicides and attempted homicides in firearms attacks on federal facilities) : Senate bill § 523 and House bill § 2332.
Section 601 (civil remedy for terrorism) : House bill SS 1734-35, as amended to ensure non-interference with criminal prosecutions of terrorists.
Section 602 (offense of providing material support to terrorists) : Senate bill § 531.
Section 603 (forfeiture of instrumentality and proceeds of terrorist offenses) : Senate bill § 532, as amended to correct technical defects in drafting.
Section 604 (admission to U.S. of aliens cooperating in

(Page 11)

- 5 -
investigations) : Senate bill §§ 541-43.
Section 605 (extended territorial sea included in special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of U.S.): Senate bill $ 517 and House bill § 1716.
Section 606 (assimilated crimes in extended territorial sea) : Senate bill § 518 and House bill § 1717.
Section 607 (jurisdiction over crimes against U.S. nationals on certain foreign ships) : Senate bill § 519.
Section 608 (increased penalties for manslaughter and aggravated assault committed abroad by terrorists against U.S. nationals) : Senate bill § 524.
Section 609 (funding authorizations for anti-terrorism operations and programs) : Senate bill § 561.
Section 610 (increased penalties for certain offenses likely to be committed by terrorists) : House bill § 1951.
Section 611 (sentencing guidelines increase for terrorist crimes) : House bill § 1952.
Section 612 (extension of statute of limitations for certain terrorist offenses) : House bill § 1953.
Sections 613 (international parental kidnapping) : House bill §§ 1421-22; different formulation in Senate bill §§ 4101- 03.
Section 614 (state court programs regarding international and interstate parental child abduction) : House bill § 1423 and Senate bill § 4104.
Section 615 (foreign murder of U.S. national) : Senate bill S 3202; more limited provision in House bill § 1713.
Section 616 (extradition of persons committing crimes of violence against U.S. nationals in foreign countries) : Senate bill § 3202.
Section 617 (provisions concerning gambling devices on U.S. ships) : Similar to § 202 of H.R. 3866 as passed by both Houses of Congress; House bill § 1722 also has provisions concerning gambling on ships.
Section 618 (FBI access to telephone subscriber information in counterintelligence investigations) : House bill § 1706.

(Page 12)

- 6 -
TITLE VII -- SEXUAL VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE, AND VICTIMS' RIGHTS SUBTITLE A -- SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND CHILD ABUSE
Section 701 (broadened definition of sexual act for victims below 16) : House bill § 1431.
Section 702 (doubling maximum penalty for recidivist sex offenders): House bill § 1724.
Section 703 (restitution for victims of sex offenses) : House bill § 521 (c) .
Section 704 (HIV testing and penalty enhancement in sex offense cases) : House bill § 1531.
Section 705 (payment of cost of HIV testing for rape victims) : House bill § 1532.
SUBTITLE B -- VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Section 711 (expansion of scope of restitution and authorization of suspension of federal grants, contracts, loans, and licenses to enforce compliance with restitution orders) : House bill § 521 (a) -(b).
Section 712 (victim's right of allocation in sentencing) : House bill § 1954.
Section 713 (protection of victim's right to an impartial jury by equalizing number of defense and prosecution peremptory challenges) : House bill § 1959.
Section 714 (mandatory restitution and other provisions strengthening enforcement of restitution) : Senate bill § 2003.
SUBTITLE C -- CRIME VICTIMS FUND
Sections 721-31 (removal of cap on crime victims fund and other amendments affecting victims programs) : House bill SS 501- 11.
SUBTITLE D -- NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT
Sections 741-46 (national background check system for determining whether applicants for child care positions have records as child abusers or molesters) : S. 1966; both House bill SS 1441-45 and Senate bill §§ 3601-06 contain provisions for establishment of national informational system on child abusers.

(Page 13)

- 7 -
SUBTITLE E -- JACOB WETTERLING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN REGISTRATION ACT
Sections 751-53 (state programs to require convicted child molesters to keep authorities informed of their location for 10 years following release from custody) : House bill SS 1401-03.
SUBTITLE F -- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Section 761 (domestic violence grant program) : House bill SS 1821-22.
Section 762 (report on battered women's syndrome) : Senate bill § 4903.
SUBTITLE G -- OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 771 (offense of inducing minors to commit crimes, including mandatory penalties) : Senate bill § 3503.
Section 772 (authorizing disclosure of arrest records by campus police) : House bill § 1727.
Section 773 (national baseline study on campus sexual assault) : House bill § 1714.
Section 774 (sense of Congress that history of drunk driving should be considered in child custody and visitation decisions) : Senate bill § 1804.
TITLE VIII -- EQUAL JUSTICE ACT
Section 801 (short title) : House bill § 1601.
Section 802 (requirement that death penalty and other penalties be administered without regard to the race of the offender or victim; prohibition of racial quotas for imposing the death penalty and other penalties) : House bill § 1602.
Section 803 (safeguards against racial bias against defendant or victim through inquiry on voir dire, change of venue, and prohibition of prejudicial statements) : House bill § 1603.
Section 804 (for federal capital cases, requiring instructions and juror certifications guarding against racial bias, and making racial motivation of murder aggravating factor permitting consideration of death penalty) : House bill § 1604.
Section 805 (extension of protection of 18 U.S.C. 241-42 to all persons in U.S., rather than just "inhabitants") : House bill

(Page 14)

- 8 -
SS 1605 and 1707 and Senate bill § 4646.
TITLE IX -- FUNDING, GRANT PROGRAMS, AND STUDIES SUBTITLE A -- SAFER STREETS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
Sections 901-04 (raising BJA funding to $1 billion, continuing 25% state matching funds level, and waiving four-year limitation on duration for grants supporting multi-jurisdictional task forces) : Senate bill §§ 101-04.
SUBTITLE B -- RETIRED PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFIT
Section 911 (extending public safety officer death benefit program to officers in retirement status who are killed while responding to emergency) : House bill § 1211.
SUBTITLE C -- STUDY ON POLICE OFFICERS' RIGHTS
Section 921 (study of police disciplinary investigations, procedures, and sanctions) : House bill § 1221.
SUBTITLE D -- COMMUNITY POLICING
Sections 931-52 ("Police Corps" program to pay for college educations for prospective police officers and program of scholarships for in-service officers) : Senate bill §§ 801-31; similar programs in House bill §§ 1271, 1231-33.
Sections 961-62 (community policing-cop on the beat grant program) : House bill §§ 101-03.
SUBTITLE E -- RURAL CRIME PREVENTION STRATEGY
Sections 971-75 (national assessment, information dissemination, assistance, and pilot programs to combat crime in rural areas) : Senate bill §§ 3901-05.
SUBTITLE F -- NATIONAL COMMISSION TO SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT
Sections 981-89A (national commission to support law enforcement) : Senate bill §§ 2201-10.
SUBTITLE G -- OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 991 (grant program to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementia's) : Senate bill § 3001.
Section 992 (funding authorization for correctional options grant program) : House bill § 1802.

(Page 15)

- 9 -
Section 993 (law enforcement family support grant program) : House bill §§ 1241-42.
Section 994 (prisoner literacy and life skills grant programs) : Senate bill § 4301.
Section 995 (funding program for trauma centers in high crime areas) : House bill §§ 1506-07.
Section 996 (study of alcohol and crime) : House bill § 311.
Section 997 (notification to law enforcement authorities of release of federal prisoners) .
TITLE X -- ILLEGAL DRUGS
SUBTITLE A -- DRUG TESTING
Section 1001 (drug testing of federal offenders on post- conviction release) : House bill § 1504.
Section 1002 (drug testing in state criminal justice systems) : House bill § 711.
SUBTITLE B -- PRECURSOR CHEMICALS
Sections 1011-23 (provisions strengthening control of precursor chemicals) : Senate bill §§ 3101-14.
- SUBTITLE C -- INTERDICTION
Sections 1031-39 (provisions strengthening interdiction efforts, including criminal penalties, civil penalties, and forfeiture for failure to land aircraft or bring-to vessel, broadened authority for FAA, Coast Guard, and Customs Service, and measures facilitating international cooperation in interdiction) : Senate bill §§ 4402-14, with incorporation of elements of House bill § 1719.
SUBTITLE D -- RURAL DRUG CRIME
Sections 1051-54 (rural drug enforcement task forces, cross- designation of federal officers, rural drug enforcement training, and funding authorizations for rural law enforcement agencies) : House bill §§ 1809-11, 1823; Senate bill §§ 1601-04 are similar.
Sections 1055-56 (rural drug treatment grant program and clearinghouse) : Senate bill §§ 1621-22.

(Page 16)

- 10 -
SUBTITLE E -- GRANT PROGRAMS
Section 1061 (drug emergency areas program) : Senate bill SS 1701-02 and House bill §§ 801-02.
Section 1062 (community substance abuse prevention program) : Senate bill § 4921.
Section 1063 (prisoner substance abuse treatment grant program) : House bill §§ 301-04.
Section 1064 (grant program for pre-trial drug testing) : House bill §§ 701-02.
SUBTITLE F -- OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 1071 (increased penalties for trafficking in "ice") : Senate bill § 1612.
Section 1072 (prohibition of advertisements proposing transactions involving schedule I controlled substances) : House bill § 1512; similar provision in Senate bill § 4906.
Section 1073 (drug-free zone enhanced penalties for drug trafficking in or near truck stops and safety rest areas) : House bill § 1511; similar provision in Senate bill § 1641.
Section 1074 (enhancement of penalties for drug trafficking in prisons) : Senate bill § 4652 and House bill § 1503.
Section 1075 (strengthened provisions relating to forfeiture of vehicles used in smuggling) : Senate bill § 4653.
Section 1076 (closing loophole for illegal importation of small drug quantities) : Senate bill § 4654.
Section 1077 (extension of "churning" authority in undercover operations) : Senate bill § 4655.
Section 1078 (authority for civil penalties and injunctions against drug paraphernalia violations) : Senate bill § 4656.
Section 1079 (conforming amendments concerning marijuana) : Senate bill § 4658.
Section 1080 (conforming amendment adding certain drug offenses as requiring fingerprinting and records for recidivist juveniles) : Senate bill § 4659.
Section 1081 (clarification of narcotic or other dangerous drug under RICO) : Senate bill § 4660.

(Page 17)

- 11 -
Section 1082 (conforming amendments to recidivist penalty provisions in drug laws) : Senate bill § 4661.
Section 1083 (elimination of outmoded parole language) : Senate bill § 4662.
Section 1084 (increased mandatory penalty for drug distribution to youth by recidivist) : Senate bill § 4663.
Section 1085 (life imprisonment on third conviction for highly serious violent crime or drug crime) : Senate bill § 2508, with amendment concerning predicate violent offenses.
Section 1086 (longer mandatory prison terms for drug offenses involving exploitation or endangerment of minors) : Senate bill § 2509.
Section 1087 (strengthened definition of prohibited drug paraphernalia) : Senate bill § 4904.
Section 1088 (mandatory penalties for drug offenses in prisons) : Senate bill § 2402.
Section 1089 (enhanced penalties for drug distribution to pregnant women) : House bill § 1505.
Section 1090 (enhanced penalties for drugged or drunk driving that endangers, injures, or kills minors) : Senate bill SS 1802-03.
Section 1091 (drug-free zone enhanced penalties for trafficking in or near public housing projects) : Senate bill § 4902; House bill § 1502 is similar.
Section 1092 (Attorney General may bring civil actions for penalties, injunctions, and evictions in relation to drug premises) : Senate bill § 2101.
Section 1093 (increased mandatory penalties for trafficking in drug-free zones): House bill § 1705.
Section 1094 (offense for coaches, etc., to induce others to use steroids) : House bill § 1501.
Section 1095 (awareness program concerning highway fund reduction for states that fail to revoke driver's licenses of convicted drug abusers) : House bill § 1508.
Section 1096 (DARE grants amendment) : House bill § 1807. Section 1097 (prohibition of misuse of initials "DEA") : House bill § 1807.

(Page 18)

- 12 -
TITLE XI -- PUBLIC CORRUPTION
Section 1101-04 (provisions strengthening federal laws against public corruption, including increased penalties, more adequate basis of federal jurisdiction, protection of whistle-blowers, and specific provisions relating to election fraud and drug-related corruption) : Senate bill SS 4801-05.
TITLE XII -- GENERAL PROVISIONS SUBTITLE A -- VIOLENT CRIMES
Section 1201 (addition of attempt liability for robbery, kidnapping, smuggling, and property damage offenses): House bill § 1721.
Section 1202 (increase in maximum penalty for assault) : Senate bill § 2501.
Section 1203 (increase in maximum penalty for manslaughter) : Senate bill § 2502.
Section 1204 (mandatory penalties for violent crimes against elderly): Senate bill § 4001.
Section 1205 (increased penalty for travel act violations) : Senate bill § 2504 and House bill § 1708.
Section 1206 (increased penalty for conspiracy to commit murder for hire) : Senate bill § 2505.
SUBTITLE B -- CIVIL RIGHTS OFFENSES
Section 1211 (increased maximum penalties for serious violent acts in violation of criminal civil rights statutes) : Senate bill § 2503.
SUBTITLE C -- WHITE COLLAR AND PROPERTY CRIMES
Sections 1221-22 (receipt of proceeds of postal robbery, extortion, or kidnapping) : Senate bill SS 4621-22 and House bill SS 1702, 1701.
Section 1223 (conforming addition to obstruction of civil investigative demand statute) : Senate bill § 4623.
Section 1224 (conforming addition of predicate offenses to financial institutions reward statute) : Senate bill § 4624.

(Page 19)

- 13 -
Section 1225 (definition of S. &L. in bank robbery statute) : Senate bill § 4625 and House bill § 1710.
Section 1226 (conforming definition of one year period in 18 U.S.C. 1516) : Senate bill § 4626 and House bill § 1711.
Section 1227 (sports lottery and gambling provisions) :
S. 474; similar provisions in House bill title XXI.
Section 1228 (criminal sanctions for violation of software copyrights) : Senate bill § 4905.
Section 1229 (financial institutions fraud) : Senate bill title XXXVII.
Section 1230 (prohibition of disclosure of wiretap information with intent to obstruct, impede, or interfere with criminal investigation) : Senate bill § 4913 (a) .
Section 1231 (theft of major artworks): Senate bill § 4914.
Section 1232 (strengthening provision prohibiting unauthorized trafficking in military medals and decorations) : House bill § 1725.
Section 1233 (motor vehicle theft prevention act) : Senate bill title XXIX.
Section 1234 (knowledge requirement for stolen or counterfeit property) : Senate bill § 4651 and House bill § 1704.
Section 1235 (extension of mail fraud statute to mail carried by private interstate carriers) : House bill § 1301.
Section 1236 (amendments to statute concerning credit card fraud) : House bill § 1302; Senate bill § 4912 is similar.
Section 1237 (insurance-related crimes) : House bill § 1303 ; similar provisions in Senate bill title XXXVIII.
Section 1238 (increased penalties for trafficking in counterfeit goods and services) : Senate bill § 2507.
Section 1239 (computer abuse amendments) : Senate bill § 4909.
Section 1239A (notification concerning drugs and cash discovered in airport security screenings).

(Page 20)

- 14 -
SUBTITLE D -- SENTENCING AND PROCEDURE
Sections 1241-44 (imposition of sentence; technical amendment to mandatory conditions of probation; revocation of probation; supervised release after imprisonment) : House bill SS 1901-04 and Senate bill title XXXIV.
Section 1245 (authorization of probation in certain petty offense cases) : Senate bill § 4612 and House bill § 1941.
Section 1246 (trial by magistrate in petty offense cases) : Senate bill § 4613; encompasses House bill § 1942.
Section 1247 (authority of magistrate to revoke supervised release imposed by the magistrate) : Senate bill § 4614 and House bill § 1943) .
Section 1248 (availability of supervised release for juvenile offenders) : Senate bill §§ 4615.
Section 1249 (authority for designated Justice Department Criminal Division officer to grant immunity) : House bill § 1921.
Section 1250 (extended service of members of sentencing commission) : S. 1963 as passed by Senate.
SUBTITLE E -- IMMIGRATION-RELATED OFFENSES
Section 1251 (civil penalties for inducement of aliens to commit aggravated felonies) : Senate bill § 4702.
Section 1252 (criminal alien identification and removal fund) : Senate bill § 4703.
Section 1253 (adds as basis of deportation commission by alien of drugged or drunk driving offense resulting in death or serious injury to other) : Senate bill § 4919.
SUBTITLE F -- UNITED STATES MARSHALS
Sections 1261-73 (establishment of United States Marshals Association) : Senate bill title XLII.
SUBTITLE G -- OTHER PROVISIONS
Section 1281 (optional venue for espionage and related offenses) : House bill § 1721 and Senate bill § 4631.
Section 1282 (definition of livestock) : Senate bill § 4632 and House bill § 1712.
Section 1283 (place of holding court at Lancaster) : Senate

(Page 21)

- 15 -
bill § 1004.
Section 1284 (authorization of funding for U.S. Attorney office construction in Philadelphia) : Senate bill § 1003.
Section 1285 (award of attorney's fees for Department of Justice employees) : Senate bill § 4918.
Section 1286 (requirement of reporting of large cash bail posting to IRS and prosecutors) : Senate bill § 2802.
Section 1287 (audit requirement for law enforcement agencies receiving asset forfeiture funds; reporting concerning administrative and contracting expenses paid from Department of Justice asset forfeiture fund) : Combines Senate bill § 4924 and House bill § 1808.
Section 1288 (DNA identification program) : House bill SS 1001-06.
Section 1289 (safe schools grant program) : House bill SS 401-03, as amended to delete mandatory bilingualism feature.
TITLE XIII -- TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
Sections 1301-07 (technical corrections, including correction of erroneous and obsolete designations and cross- references, redundant provisions, and typographic, grammatical, and spelling errors) : House bill title XXII.
TITLE XIV -- FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Sections 1401-02 (authorizations of funding, primarily relating to drug enforcement, for DEA, FBI, INS, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Marshals Service, BATF, federal courts, and federal defender ser ices) : Senate bill §§ 1001-02.
TITLE XV -- FEDERAL PRISON CONSTRUCTION
Section 1501 (authorization of $500 million for federal prison construction ) : New provision.

(Page 22)

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Rick Lawson, Staff Director
Legislative Notice
Editor. Judy Gorman Prinkey
March 2, 1992
No. 58
S. 1504 - Public Telecommunications Act of 1991
Calendar No. Calendar No. 333
Reported: From the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on November 19, 1991, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute S. Rept. 102-221

NOTEWORTHY
· U.C. on Motion to Proceed
· At Noon on Tuesday, March 3, 1992, there will be a vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1504.
· S. 1504 authorizes funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at a level of about $1.1 billion over three years (FY's 1994 through 1996) - about a 50-percent increase over the previous three years.
· Senate action on the bill has been stalled by several Republican Senators concerned with the decisions on programming made by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Critics charge that the CPB does not fulfill its legal mandate to achieve balance and fairness in programming. Also, critics charge that taxpayer funding should not be increased at a time when there is a demand for fiscal restraint.
· The House passed a similar bill, H.R. 2977, by voice vote on November 25, 1991.

BILL PROVISIONS
S. 1504 authorizes funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at a level of $310 million for FY 1994, $375 million for FY 1995, and $425 million for FY 1996. The CPB requires an advance authorization of two years to keep program grants flowing. In addition, the bill authorizes $42 million in each of FY's 1992 through 1994 to be used by the Secretary of Commerce to assist in the planning and construction of public telecommunication facilities.

(Page 23)

Also, the bill:
· Reduces the number of members of the Board of Directors of the CPB from 10 members to 9 to provide for an uneven number of directors, and extends their terms from five to six years;
· Requires CPB to include in its annual report a listing of organizations, procedures, and programming funded by CPB programming grants;
· Eliminates the financial and accounting restrictions imposed on National Public Radio (NPR) which are no longer effective;
· Reinstates the requirement that the periodic review of the community service grant (CSG) criteria be conducted through a process of consultation with public broadcasting licensees;
· Creates an alternative to annual audits of entities for which such an audit would be unduly expensive; and
· Permits the officers of the CPB to receive compensation for service on outside boards, subject to CPB Board approval.

BACKGROUND
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia. With passage of the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, Congress authorized the establishment of the CPB to foster the growth and development of high-quality programs for and by public radio and television. The CPB is to act as the public trustee for funds appropriated to it and it is accountable to Congress for the expenditure of such funds. The CPB's responsibilities include encouraging the full development of public telecommunications services for the American people. Grants from CPB help fund both local broadcasting stations and national programming distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
Senate Floor action has been delayed because the public broadcasting system is facing more intense scrutiny from conservative Republicans, and recently even from some liberal Democrats, regarding its discretionary funding, its management practices, and its lack of fairness and balance in programming. For years, conservative opponents have charged that public broadcasting programs often contain a liberal bias. [See "Charges of Liberal Bias Stall Public Broadcasting Bill," the Congressional Quarterly, 2/22/92.]
A Wall Street Journal editorial dated February 7, 1992, entitled "Friends of Public Television" discusses the relationship between Congress' politics and public TV's politics. A recently announced list of planned Independent Television Service (ITVS) projects (ITVS was earmarked to receive $24 million in the 1988 reauthorization) spurred the WSJ editorial to ask for "a good explanation" of "why federal money should underwrite efforts such as 'Citizen Dhoruba,' a documentary extolling the virtues of a former Black Panther convicted of shooting two New York policemen." The editorial argued the reason was
2

(Page 24)

partisan politics - pressure from Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts.
As a result, Rep. Dick Armey of Texas recently introduced legislation to "zero out" the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Also, Heritage Foundation analyst Lawrence Jarvik recently issued a brief arguing for privatizing public television. He says that public television does not need the taxpayers' money. For example, the PBS Home Video grossed $30 million last year and the Children's Television Workshop has a net income of approximately $100 million a year. ["Golden Begging Bowl of Anti-public PBS," The Washington Times, 2/22/92.]

COST
According to the Congressional Budget Office, estimated outlays for the Public Broadcasting Fund are $310 million for FY 1994, $375 million for FY 1995 and $425 million for FY 1996. The estimated outlays for planning and construction of the public telecommunications facilities are $5 million for FY 1992, $24 million for FY 1993, $32 million for FY 1994, $37 million for FY 1995, and $18 million for FY 1996.

ADMINISTRATION POSITION
Not available at press time.

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
Amendments, both related and unrelated to the legislation, are expected but are not known at this time.

Staff Contact: Judy Myers, 224-2946
Keep up with Senate Floor proceedings - watch RPC TV, Senate cable channel 26, or call RPC's phone hotline at 224-6888.
3

(Page 25)

2 MAR 1992
PROBLEMS WITH S. 1942 "REGULATORY REVIEW SUNSHINE ACT OF 1991"
S. 1942 is unworkable and unconstitutional. It would require the White House and the Executive Office of the President (EXOP) to disclose publicly (within 5 working days) :
o Summaries of all oral communications between White House/EXOP officials and the agency or public (excepting only the President, Vice President and the Cabinet) .
o All written communications between White House/EXOP officials and the agency or the public (including the President, etc.).
S. 1942 would not work because it would require disclosure of:
o All telephone calls from citizens or small businessmen to the White House.
o Notes from the President: e.g., to the Secretary of the Treasury to draft a rule to freeze Iraqi assets.
o Telephone calls from Presidential advisers: e.g., his National Security Adviser to the Secretary of the Army to prepare guidelines identifying reserve units for active duty.
o Letters from Governors, Mayors and universities to the President and his advisers on regulatory matters affecting their States, cities and institutions of higher learning.
S. 1942 would destroy regulatory review and cost jobs. Regulatory review helps prevent:
o Licensing delays retarding job and market development in the potentially $50 billion a year biotechnology industry.
o Daily disinfection of construction worker helmets regardless of need.
o $1 billion in unnecessary aircraft retirements and engine retrofits to abate noise.
o Cadmium exposure levels 50 times more stringent than in any other country, potentially forcing 3,000 jobs overseas in the U.S. battery business.
The Department of Justice states S. 1942's disclosure provisions are unconstitutional. They would inhibit (1) the ability of the public to communicate with the President and his principal advisors and (2) full and frank debate and deliberation within the Executive Branch.
If S. 1942 applied to the Congress, all staff oral and written and all Member written communications on regulatory matters would be disclosed.
THE PRESIDENT'S SENIOR ADVISORS RECOMMEND A VETO OF S. 1942.

(Page 26)

WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR DELAWARE
104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING TELEPHONE 202-224-2441
COMMITTEES GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS FINANCE BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
United States Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 March 3, 1992
Dear Colleague:
Soon the Senate will consider S. 1942, the so-called Regulatory Review Sunshine Act. The bill is not sunshine but a third-degree burn. Recent Presidents, including one Democrat, have wisely sought through regulatory review to insure that regulations to achieve the goals of a clean environment, a safe workplace, better health, or a color-blind society do not unnecessarily restrict our competitiveness, employment, productivity, or economic growth. S. 1942 attacks regulatory review as an attempt to frustrate these goals and responds by tying up all regulatory review with red tape and burdensome public disclosure requirements. Prompted by current tensions between the White House and the Congress over regulatory review, S. 1942 would inflict permanent damage on the executive's ability to manage the government. No President -- Republican, Democrat, Federalist, or Whig -- could ever accept a bill like S. 1942.
The bill does not focus only on White House personnel who review regulations routinely, as you might expect, but everyone in the executive office who talks about and writes about any regulation or regulatory policy. The bill contains no substantive exceptions, none for national security, foreign policy, defense procurement, formulating the budget, grant and loan procedures -- none. All oral and written communications regarding a regulation or regulatory policy between the executive office on the one hand and the agencies or the general public on the other hand must be disclosed within five days. Only the President, Vice President, and 16 others are spared the task of preparing summaries of their oral communications for public disclosure.
Such disclosure requirements would not only bury the White House in paperwork but would chill the full and frank exchange of views so necessary to achieving the best solutions to regulatory problems. No Senate office could operate under such requirements. OMB believes that the bill is unworkable and the Justice Department believes the bill is unconstitutional.
S. 1942 should be defeated.
Sincerely, Bill Roth
William V. Roth, Jr. United States Senate

(Page 27)

Poll Watch A Review of Recent National Polling Data
From the Office of the GOP Conference Secretary Bob Kasten, Secretary
Bill Canfield, Staff Director Rick Dearborn, Deputy 202-224-3496

Contents
3/4/92
1) Bush Approval 39%, But Picked To Win General 65% to 25% (Times Mirror Poll: 1,227 adults surveyed 2/20-23; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 2/28)
2) GOPers & Dems by Region, Age & Education Level (Times Mirror Poll: 2/28)
3) Nation-Wide Polling Update (State Polls include: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas & Washington)
4) South Dakota Exit Polls (Voter Research & Survey Poll: 1,248 DEM PVs/628 GOPer PVs, leaving 38 polling places throughout SD; margin of error +/- 4% Dems - +/- 5% GOP; rel. 2/27)
5) 57% Say Press Should Live in Same Glass House as Politicians (Yankelovich Clancy Shulman Poll: 1,250 adults surveyed 2/20; margin of error +/- 3%)

(Page 28)

BUSH APPROVAL 39%, BUT PICKED TO WIN GENERAL 65% TO 25% (Times Mirror Poll: 1,227 adults surveyed 2/20-23; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 2/28)
Q: "Who Will Win?" Bush 65% Dem 25%

GOPERS & DEMS BY REGION, AGE & EDUCATION LEVEL (Times Mirror Poll: 2/28)

Region
GOP
ALL
MEN
WOM
E
MW
S
W
Bush
77%
78%
77%
74%
79%
79%
77%
Buchanan
18
20
16
23
14
18
17

AGE
EDUATION
GOP
18-29
30-49
50+
<HS
HS
SC
COL
Bush
71%
82%
77%
59%
75%
86%
80%
Buchanan
26
16
15
30
19
11
18

DEMS

REGION
w/leaners
ALL
MEN
WOM
WHI
BLA
E
MW
S
W
Clinton
32%
36%
29%
28%
49%
26%
25%
48%
22%
Tsongas
27
26
28
29
20
29
31
17
37
Brown
11
10
12
11
13
12
8
4
8
Kerrey
7
7
6
8
1
9
8
4
8
Harkin
6
9
4
7
2
8
9
4
5
Other/DK
17
12
21
17
15
16
19
15
16

Age
Education
DEMS
18-29
30-49
50+
<HS
HS
SC
COL
SWM
WCG
Clinton
35%
26%
35%
37%
32%
32%
25%
45%
19%
Tsongas
30
29
24
16
22
29
46
17
47
Brown
7
17
7
11
11
13
9
5
9
Kerrey
8
7
6
2
8
11
6
4
7
Harkin
5
8
6
7
8
6
4
10
3
Other/DL
15
13
22
17
19
9
10
19
15

NOTE: SC= Some College, SWM= So. White Males. WCG= Women College Graduates

(Page 29)

NATIONWIDE POLLING UPDATE (State Polls listed: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia)
Arizona
(KAET-TV Poll: 2/22-23 surveyed 553 voters; margin of error +/- 4%; party subsamples +/- 6%; rel. ASU 2/28)
DEMOCRATS
Tsongas 26%
Clinton 19
Brown 3
Harkin 3
Kerrey 3
No Opinion 46

REPUBLICANS
Bush 60%
Buchannan 18
No Opinion 22

Colorado
(Denver Post Poll: "slightly more" than 300 Dems & GOP RVs surveyed over 3 nights; margin of error +/- 5.7%; rel. 3/2)
DEMOCRATS
2/28-3/1
REPUBLICANS
2/28-3/1
Tsongas
29%
Bush
66%
Clinton
23
Buchanan
22
Brown
18
DK/Other
12
Kerrey
5

Harkin
2

Uncommitted
10

DK/Other
13

Georgia
(Mason-Dixon/Media Research Poll: 803 likely voters surveyed 2/24-25 - 352 DEMS/ 233 Gopers; margin of error +/- 3.5%; rel. 2/27)
Republicans
Bush 63%
Buchanan 27
Undec. 10
(Atlanta journal-Constitution Poll: 724 likely Dems surveyed 2/24-27; margin of error +/- 3.6%; rel. 2/29)
Democrats
Clinton 40%
Tsongas 20
Brown 10
Kerrey 5%
Harkin 2
Undec. 24

(Page 30)

NATION-WIDE POLLING UPDATE - Continued
(State Polls listed: Maryland, Minnesota, Texas & Washington State)
Maryland
(Potomac Survey Research Poll: 607 Dems LVs/300 GOPer LVs surveyed 2/26-28; margin or error +/- 4%; rel. PSR 3/2)
DEMOCRATS
Tsongas 34.5%
Clinton 24.3
Brown 6.5
Kerrey 4.5
Harkin 3.8
DK/Other 26.4

Republicans
Bush 64.0%
Buchanan 22.9
DK/Other 13.1

Minnesota
(Political Media Research Poll: 218 DEM LVs/203 GOPer LVs surveyed 2/21-24; margin of error +/- 7%; rel. 2/25)

DEMOCRATS
Tsongas 21%
Clinton 17
Brown 14
Kerrey 9
Harkin 7
Undec. 32

Republicans
Bush 73%
Buchanan 15
Duke 2
Undec, 10

Texas
(Houston Chronicle Poll: 835 DEM LVs/374 GOPer LVs surveyed 2/12-19; margin of error +/- 4%; rel. 2/23

DEMOCRATS
Clinton 40%
Tsongas 9
Brown 4
Kerrey 3
Harkin 1
Undec. 42

Republicans
Bush 78%
Buchanan 11
Duke 1

Washington
(Political Media Research Poll: 808 RVs surveyed 2/21-24; margin of error +/- 7%; 2/26)

DEMOCRATS
Tsongas 29%
Clinton 21
Kerrey 11
Brown 8
Harkin 6
Undec. 25

REPUBLICANS
Bush 69%
Buchanan 14
Duke 1
Undec. 16

(Pages 31)
4
4) SOUTH DAKOTA EXIT POLLS
(Voter Research & Surveys Poll: 1,248 Dem PVs/628 Goper PVs, leaving 38 polling places throughout SD; margin of error +/- 4% for Dems/ +/- 5% for GOPers; rel. NYT 2/27)
QUESTION
DEMOCRAT
REPUBLICAN
SEX

Male
49%
48%
Female
51
52
Issues That Mattered Most

Economy or Jobs
37%
30%
Health Care
33
25
Taxes
--
23
Farm Policy
24
--
Federal budget deficit
--
22
Other Factors

Farmers
25%
20%
Veterans
24
--
Satisfied w/ Party's Cand.
--
54
Would like to see someone else
--
39
Concerned about Clinton's Character
32
--
Concerned about Tsongas's Health
26
--

57% SAY PRESS SHOUD LIVE IN SAME GLASS HOUSE AS POLS
(Yankelovich Clancy Shulman Poll: 1,250 adults surveyed 2/20; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 2/25

Q: "Should members of the press covering candidates undergo the same scrutiny of their private lives as the Candidates undergo?"

Yes 57%
No 37
Undec. 6

(Page 32)

Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C 20530
March 2, 1992
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Roth:
I am writing to express the views of the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of S. 1942, the "Regulatory Review Sunshine Act of 1991." The Department believes that the bill's disclosure requirements are unconstitutional. If the bill were to be enacted in its present form, I and other senior advisors to the President would recommend that he veto the bill. In a letter dated February 25, 1992, together with attachments, ("the Hodsoll letter") , Frank Hodsoll, Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget, has separately communicated to you OMB's objections to the bill.
The disclosure provisions of S. 1942 represent an unprecedented intrusion by Congress into the deliberative processes of the Executive Branch that would chill innovation and the candid exchange of ideas with respect to rulemaking. In essence, the bill would require disclosure of nearly all written and oral communications within the Executive Branch or from members of the general public to the Executive Branch with respect to any rulemaking.1 The only communications that would
1 The bill would apply to review by "any agency or other establishment in the executive branch" of "any activity involving rulemaking" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. Sections 2(2), (3) & (5). It would require disclosure of "all written communications, regardless of format, including drafts of all proposals and associated analyses, between the reviewing entity and the rulemaking agency." Section 3 (a) (1) . The reviewing entity would be required to provide the agency with "a written explanation of any significant review action" -- a term broadly defined in section 2(4) -- "concerning an agency rulemaking activity," section 4(c), which the rulemaking agency then would be required to place in the public record. Section (continued ... )

(Page 33)

be exempt from disclosure would be direct "[o]ral communications with the President, the Vice President, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of executive departments . . . . " Section 8. The bill would not require disclosure with respect to any communications concerning the rulemaking process by Congress and congressional staff.
The disclosure requirements of sections 3, 4, 5, and 7 would severely encroach upon the President's constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch deliberations. A unanimous Supreme Court recognized that authority in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The Court found that the deliberative process privilege is "fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution." Id. at 708. The Court explained that "[a] President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately." Id.
We believe that S. 1942's encroachment upon the President's authority in this area is so severe as to render it unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent. In reviewing this kind of regulation of the Executive Branch, the Court has focused on the disruption to the Executive's exercise of its constitutional responsibilities: "[I]n determining whether the [bill] disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 433 (1977). Where the potential for disruption of this balance exists, the legislation may be upheld only if it is "justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress." Id.
As explained in the Hodsoll letter, S. 1942 would cause significant disruption to the President's responsibility to oversee the formulation of regulatory policy. For instance,
1 ( ... continued)
5(b) . The bill also would require disclosure of "summar[ies] . . . of all oral communications relating to the substance of an agency rulemaking activity, including meetings, between the reviewing entity and the rulemaking agency . . . . " Section 3(a) (3). Finally, the bill would require disclosure of communications between the reviewing entity and any person not employed by the federal government, sections 3 (a) (2) & (3), 4 (a) & (b) , 5(b), and would require the reviewing entity to invite the head of the rulemaking agency or a designee "to all scheduled meetings involving such communications." Section 4 (b) .
- 2 -

(Page 34)

disclosure of drafts and associated analyses, required by the bill, would reveal policy positions taken by the agency before a final decision is reached. The requirements for disclosure of all written materials and summaries of oral communications provide no basis for the protection of policy views expressed by the agency or the reviewing entity during the review process. It should be self-evident that the process would be significantly impaired if, for example, briefing materials for Cabinet meetings or confidential communications between Presidential assistants and agency heads were required to be publicly disclosed during the development of agency regulations.2 We do not believe that Congress would tolerate such a disclosure requirement for its own closed committee meetings or other confidential communications among members of Congress and staff.
In light of the severe disruption S. 1942 would work on the functioning of the Executive Branch, we do not believe that the bill's provisions are supported by the "overriding need" that would be necessary to find the legislation constitutional. Requirements of existing law give the public full opportunity to comment on regulatory proposals that emerge from the Executive Branch. For example, the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires that the public be provided notice of a proposed rule and an opportunity to comment before the rule goes into effect. In addition, many agencies are required to maintain a public docket of comments received. Finally, we note that such rules are subject to judicial review under existing provisions of law.
What S. 1942 seeks to add to this panoply of opportunities to comment on and challenge Executive Branch rulemaking is access to the deliberative predecisional component of the rulemaking process within the Executive Branch. It is precisely that component, however, that the Supreme Court has recognized is
2 The exemption in section 8 for certain oral communications does not lessen the force of our constitutional objections. First, by its terms, the exception does not preserve the President's constitutional authority to protect deliberative material in written, rather than oral, form. Second, the Supreme Court's exposition of the deliberative process privilege is not limited merely to the President himself and selected senior officials of his Administration; rather, the Court's acknowledgment of the need for frank exchanges of policy views extends to deliberations involving other officials as well. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705 (referring to the confidentiality of deliberations involving "high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties"). Third, the exception in section 8 would not extend to other components of the Executive Office of the President -- in addition to OMB -- that the President may wish to involve in the regulatory review process.
- 3 -

(page 35)

constitutionally protected. We are unable to identify any overriding need for the nearly unrestricted access that would be afforded by S. 1942 prior to the point at which concrete decisions regarding regulatory proposals emerge from the Executive Branch.
We also believe that the provisions of sections 3, 4, and 5 requiring disclosure of public contacts are an unconstitutional encroachment upon Presidential authority under the Administrator of General Services standard. Requiring public disclosure of communications received from outside the government by the "reviewing entity" during the regulatory review process would substantially impair the ability of the President and his principal advisors to receive confidential advice from private citizens. Again, we cannot conceive that Congress would be prepared to require similar disclosure of contacts between constituents and members and staff. We know of no "overriding need" to inhibit the President's ability to consult with the public.
Finally, we note that the bill gives rise to an additional strong constitutional objection. Under the constitutional provision obligating the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," U.S. Const. art. II, § 3, the President has the authority to supervise and guide Executive Branch officials. See Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) . The disclosure provisions of the bill constitute a direct and substantial limitation on the President's ability to exercise that constitutional authority in the rulemaking area. "[W]here the Constitution by explicit text commits the power at issue to the exclusive control of the President, [the Supreme Court] has refused to tolerate any intrusion by the Legislative Branch." Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 485 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (emphasis in original). Under this analysis, S. 1942 could be viewed as a direct regulation of the President's exercise of his constitutional authority to oversee rulemaking and held unconstitutional without regard to the extent of the intrusion or the strength of the legislative need.
In conclusion, the Department of Justice believes that S. 1942 is unconstitutional. I would join with the President's other senior advisers in recommending Presidential disapproval if it were enacted in its present form.
Sincerely
William P. Barr Attorney General
- 4 -

Position: 3316 (4 views)