Policy Luncheon, June 9, 1992

Item

Other Media

lead_404_009_all_tr.txt

lead_404_009_all.docx

Transcription (Scripto)

Read Full Text Only (TXT)

Extent (Dublin Core)

19 Pages

File Name (Dublin Core)

lead_404_009_all

Title (Dublin Core)

Policy Luncheon, June 9, 1992

Date (Dublin Core)

1992-06-09

Date Created (Dublin Core)

1992-06-09

Congress (Dublin Core)

102nd (1991-1993)

Policy Area (Curation)

Economics and Public Finance

Creator (Dublin Core)

Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee

Stevens, Ted

Record Type (Dublin Core)

reports

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 404, Folder 9

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 JUNE 8, 1992

TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 9
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE KENNEDY MOTION TO TABLE THE GRAHAM (OF FLORIDA) MOTION TO RECOMMIT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, BACK TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. IF THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT IS TABLED, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT. IF CLOTURE IS INVOKED, IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE SENATE WILL ADOPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT, PRIOR TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE THIS EVENING. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR. BY A PREVIOUS CONSENT, FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT, THE SENATE WILL BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT A CLOTURE PETITION WILL BE FILED THIS EVENING ON THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. THEREFORE, A CLOTURE VOTE WILL OCCUR ON THURSDAY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 22.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. ROLL CALL VOTES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING WEDNESDAY'S SESSION.

THURSDAY, JUNE 11
THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. IF CLOTURE IS NOT INVOKED, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE BILL WILL BE RETURNED TO THE CALENDAR. FOLLOWING THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL, THE SENATE CAN BE EXPECTED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPS. CONF. REPORT
(IF RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSE)

S. 1985, THE BANKRUPTCY BILL

S. 2733, THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES BILL

THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR DURING THURSDAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.

FRIDAY, JUNE 12
THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO BE IN SESSION ON FRIDAY, HOWEVER, VOTES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR PAST THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. OR SO.

Page 2:
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, June 9, 1992

Schedule:
Pending:
Conference Report on ADAMHA -- Senator Graham motion to recommit. Senator Kennedy will move to table after lunch. If Kennedy prevails, immediate vote on cloture on Conference Report. We expect final passage later this afternoon. Senator Hatch may want to comment.

Upcoming:
Striker Replacement. Cloture will be filed. Vote on Thursday. Strongly urge vote against cloture. Senator Hatch may want to comment.

Hope for no votes on Friday so we can head south to the tournament.

Handwritten on page: Jesse

Other Issues:
1. Unemployment, Extenders, Luxury Tax, Enterprize Zones -- Packwood/Dole will have package to introduce tomorrow. Hope you'll join in. Lets show we are out in front.
2. Motor Voter -- Coming before House soon. We assume we can sustain veto. I'll be asking Howard to check with each of you.
3. · Bankruptcy
· Government Sponsored Enterprises
· Balanced Budget
-- All likely to come up prior to July recess.

Page 3:
CSK-Draft-6/9/92

Sen. Ted Stevens
contact: Chuck Konigsberg
(4-3699)

Balanced Budget Amendment Waiver for Military Conflicts,
Recessions and Natural Disasters.

Amendment to Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm Language:

Section 4. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect; (crossed out: “The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security”) or for which the Congress foresees a serious, imminent, and major military conflict; finds a serious decline in economic activity; or finds that the United States has sustained a catastrophic natural disaster, and so declares by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House of Congress, which becomes law.

EXPLANATION:
· MILITARY CONFLICTS: Amendment would broaden the majority waiver for military conflicts to include situations where the U.S. is not yet "engaged" in military conflict, but instead "foresees" a conflict. The language "serious, imminent, and major" prevents this waiver from becoming a loophole for circumventing the super- majority impediment to deficit spending.

· RECESSIONS: Amendment provides a waiver for periods in which the Congress makes a finding of a "serious decline in economic activity", which is intended to mean a recession or depression. The waiver would permit a majority, rather then a super-majority to enact temporary deficit spending measures to stimulate economic recovery. The word "decline" is intended to mean that the economy would have to be contracting, i.e., below 0% growth for at least two quarters during a fiscal year; this restriction prevents the waiver from becoming a loophole. Specific details would be provided by implementing legislation.

· NATURAL DISASTERS: Amendment provides a waiver for "catastrophic natural disasters" so that emergency spending for major disasters, such as severe earthquakes affecting a large area, will not require a super-majority. Specific details of the magnitude of disasters to be covered would be provided by implementing legislation, but legislative history should emphasize that only the most catastrophic and widespread disasters should warrant a waiver, such as a major earthquake in California, or along the New Madrid fault.

. In general, these waivers make the Balanced Budget Amendment stronger, by making it more realistic. Failure to include these waivers could prevent essential expenditures in times of military, economic, or natural peril or could force evasion of the Balanced Budget requirement, thereby demeaning the stature of the Constitution.

-- See Reverse Side –

Page 4:
CSK-Draft-6/9/92
Sen. Ted Stevens
contact: Chuck Konigsberg
(4-3699)

Preserving the Balance of Powers
Under the Balanced Budget Amendment

Amendment to Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm Language:
Section 7: (crossed out: “The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”) This article shall be enforced solely as provided by legislation enacted pursuant to this article; but the President shall enforce the limitation on debt provided by section 2.

(Section 2 provides: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.)

EXPLANATION:
· The current Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm draft requires Congress to enact implementing legislation, but does not preclude the President and Judiciary from asserting new constitutionally derived enforcement powers. This threatens to unsettle the time-tested balance of powers between the three branches of government.

· The proposed substitute language, by limiting enforcement "solely" to implementing legislation, absolutely precludes any implication of constitutionally-derived judicial enforcement powers or presidential impoundment powers to enforce this Article. However, Congress could grant limited presidential or judicial enforcement powers through implementing legislation, if Congress determines that would be appropriate.

· The substitute language also protects the constitutional "teeth" provided by the debt provision in section 2, by requiring Executive Branch enforcement in the limited area of issuing Treasury debt.

-- See Reverse Side –

Page 5:
Legislative Notice
Editor, Judy Gorman Prinkey
June 8, 1992

No. 74

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director

S. 55 - Workplace Fairness Act

Calendar No. 164

Reported: From the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, on July 18, 1991, on a straight party vote of 10-7. Minority views were filed by all seven Committee Republicans [Hatch, Kassebaum, Jeffords, Coats, Thurmond, Durenberger and Cochran]. S. Rept. 102-111.

NOTEWORTHY
· Under a unanimous consent agreement entered on June 4, the Senate will proceed to S. 55 following disposition of the conference report accompanying S. 1306, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization. A series of votes on that conference report is scheduled to occur beginning at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9.

· S. 55 would prohibit employers from permanently replacing workers engaged in economic strikes, so long as the striking workers belong to a collective bargaining unit that is either represented by a labor union or that is seeking union representation.

BACKGROUND
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) recognize two kinds of strikes -economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes. Economic strikes are undertaken to secure such things as higher wages, better working conditions and improved employee benefits. Unfair labor practice strikes are organized to protest illegal employment practices, such as restraining employees from joining or forming a union. An employer may temporarily replace workers who are engaged in an unfair labor practice strike. But once the strike is over, these temporary replacements must be dismissed to make room for returning strikers. The same rules apply to "lock-outs."

The rules are different for economic strikers. Although they retain the right to be reinstated in vacant positions, an employer need not terminate replacement workers to make room for returning economic strikers.

Page 6:
The Supreme Court has recognized this right of employers to replace economic strikers for more than half a century. Its most important ruling came in 1938, in the case of Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co. v. the National Labor Relations Board. The Mackay court established the doctrine that employers can replace economic strikers, and this understanding of the NLRA and RLA has prevailed ever since.

S. 55 would reverse this ruling and others in its line. The bill would permit employers to hire temporary replacements for economic strikers, just as they can in "lock-outs" and in strikes over unfair labor practices. These temporary replacements would themselves be subject to replacement by returning strikers if the strikers belonged to a collective bargaining group that: 1) was represented by a labor union; or 2) was seeking union representation. Under S. 55, non-union economic strikers could be permanently replaced, just as they can be under current law.

The House passed its version of the striker replacement bill (H.R. 5) on July 17, 1991, by a vote of 247-182. The vote was 39 short of a two-thirds majority needed to override a threatened Presidential veto. Before passing the bill, the House overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements only during economic strikes that lasted eight weeks or less. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA), was defeated by 28-399.

BILL SUMMARY
· Amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to make it an unfair labor practice to replace permanently a striking worker whose collective bargaining unit either is represented by a labor union or is seeking union representation.

· Further amends federal labor law to make it an unfair labor practice to withhold or deny any employment right or privilege to a striking unionized worker out of preference for a worker who did not participate in the strike or who returned to work before the strike ended.

COSTS
CBO estimates that enactment of S. 55 would not increase the federal budget.

2

Page 7:
MINORITY VIEWS
Senators Hatch, Cochran, Kassebaum, Durenberger, Thurmond, Jeffords and Coats
"S. 55 overturns more than 50 years of well-established principles of labor law and may actually harm the working men and women in this country as well as the economy in general. If enacted, this bill would change longstanding labor policy by substantially altering the balance in labor relations that has been part of this country's legal framework for the last 53 years and has given us a collective bargaining system that works.

"Proponents argue that S. 55 is needed to restore the balance in collective bargaining and to protect the rights of workers. In fact, this bill would have just the opposite effect. It would significantly tilt the balance in favor of organized labor by limiting the ability of employers to operate during a strike and by favoring striking employees over those who choose to exercise their statutory right not to strike …

"Employees have the right to strike under current law - the ultimate collective bargaining weapon that unions can bring to bear on an employer's business. What proponents are now seeking legislatively is not protection of the right to strike, but the ability to force employers to accept union demands at the bargaining table, whether reasonable or unreasonable. Overturning the Mackay doctrine threatens to change the collective bargaining process in a way that would give unions control over the terms and conditions of employment free from the market forces of supply and demand …

"If S. 55 became law, it would insulate striking employees from the risks that traditionally have acted as a check on the voluntary decision to strike over economic issues and would free organized workers to command a price for their labor without regard to the market forces of supply and demand …

"The result ... would likely mean an increased number of strikes, an increased risk of anti-competitive collective bargaining agreements, or both …

"The argument that the 1980s has seen the use of replacements become the 'standard practice' and that the need for this legislation is dictated 'by the tremendous growth in the hiring of permanent replacements in the 1980s' is. . . not confirmed by the data. Most notably, in a recent report by the General Accounting Office - requested by the bill's sponsors - the GAO found that, in 1985, only four percent of striking employees were replaced by Mackay replacements …

"The right to strike is not absolute and must, under some circumstances, yield to the rights of others. The right to strike was never intended to make strikers the owners of their jobs."

3

Page 8:
ADMINISTRATION POSITION
No Statement of Administration Policy was available at press time. But a fact sheet issued on June 5 by the Labor Department stated: "The Administration strongly opposes S. 55, the 'Striker Replacement' legislation. If the Congress passes such a bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto."

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
McCain. Pertaining to the right to work.
McConnell. Pertaining to "soft money."
Nickles. Pertaining to economic impact of striker replacement legislation.
Nickles. Congressional coverage.

Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946

Keep up with Senate Floor proceedings - watch RPC TV, Senate cable channel 26, or call RPC's phone hotline at 224-6888.

4

Page 9:
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
6/9/92
1) Perot with 13 Point Lead; Bush & Clinton Tied
(TIME/CNN Poll: 974 RVs surveyed 6/3-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. CNN 6/6)
2) California Poll: Voter Commitment
(The California Poll: 1,355 RVs surveyed 5/27-30; margin of error +/- 2.8%)
3) Perot, the Parties & Politics
(Newsweek/Gallup Poll: 753 RVs surveyed 6/4-5; margin of error +/- 4%)
4) Describe Your Political Views
(Newsweek Poll: 6/15 issue)
5) Revolt of the "Center"
(Gordon Black Poll: 1,604 RVs in 3rd week of May; margin of error +/- 2.5%; rel. 6/4)
6) California Exit Polls: Perot's Ten Gallon Shadow
(VRS Poll: 2,083 Dems & 1,010 GOPers surveyed at the polls; margin of error +/- 3%)

Page 10:
1

1) PEROT WITH 13 POINT LEAD; BUSH & CLINTON TIED
(Time/CNN Poll: 974 RVs surveyed 6/3-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. CNN 6/6)

3-Way Race Certain of Your Vote? 2-Way Race Fav/Unfav 4/92 FAV
Bush 24% 65% Bush 35% 36%/51% 54%
Clinton 24 72 Clinton 38 35/40 37
Perot 37 57 Perot 40/-- 30

Q: “Does Bush deserve re-election?”
Yes 33%
No 61


Q: “Is Bush strong leader?”
NOW 4/92
Yes 45% 60%

2) CALIFORNIA POLL: VOTER COMMITMENT
(The California Poll: 1,355 RVs surveyed 5/27-30; margin of error +/- 2.8%; rel. S.F. Chron. 6/2)

3-Way 5/27-30 5/6-9
Perot 38% 37%
Bush 25 31
Clinton 25 25
Undec. 12 7

Supporters of
Q: “How committed?” Perot Bush Clinton
Very Sure about choice.. 57% 67% 63%
Might change their mind before November… 43 33 37


Supporters of
Basis of Preference Perot Bush Clinton
For candidate 39% 66% 43%
Anti other candidates 55 29 52

Page 11:
2

3) PEROT, THE PARTIES & POLITICS
(Newsweek/Gallup Poll: 753 RVs surveyed 6/4-5; margin of error +/- 4%; rel. Newsweek 6/15)

Q: “Perot voters only most important reason?”
Leadership 24%
Issues 12
Candidates 52

Q: “If Perot can’t win & your vote for him helps Bush, are you…”
Less likely for Pero 38%
Not less likely 52

Q: “If Perot can’t win & your vote for him helps Clinton, are you…”
Less likely for Perot 39%
Not less likely 51

Q: Perot’s hiring of Rollins/Jordan shows Perot an ordinary pol.?
Yes 35% No 42%

Make you more/less likely to vote for him?
ALL Perot
More likely 15% 22%
Less likely 6 1
Not much diff. 74 73

“How important is it that the President be from one of 2 parties?”
ALL Bush Clinton Perot
Very important 20% 25% 36% 6%
Somewhat important 26 33 23 20
Not too important 23 18 19 31
Not imp. at all 29 21 21 42

“Does Perot need to say a lot more or do you understand him?”
ALL Bush Clinton Perot
Say more 70% 75% 70% 67%
Understand him 25 18 27 31

“How do these stories so far make you feel about Perot?”
Better Worse No Diff. Need info
Attempts to leave Navy early… 3% 13% 47% 31%
Connections to Nixon Administration… 6 10 36 42
What says/doesn’t say re: the deficit… 12 6 14 63
Position on gays… 5 9 17 65
Standards & dress code for his workers… 17 11 29 30
Efforts to find Vietnam servicemen… 47 2 18 27
His position on abortion… 19 6 20 44

Page 12:
3

4) DESCRIBE YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS
(Newsweek Poll: rel. 6/15)

“How would you describe your political views?”
ALL Voters Bush Voters Clinton Voters Perot Voters
Very conservative 8% 13% 4% 4%
Conservative 26 36 14 25
Moderate 44 38 46 50
Liberal 14 8 23 16
Very liberal 4 2 6 3

“Likelihood of voting” Total Bush Clinton Perot
Most likely (self perception) 86% 86% 81% 90%
Less likely (self perception) 12 12 16 9

5) REVOLT OF THE CENTER
(Gordon S. Black Poll: 1,604 RVs in 3rd week of May; margin of error +/- 2.5%; rel. 6/4

3-Way Match-up Northeast South Great Lakes Central (incl. TX) West
Bush 36% 35% 40% 40% 41% 26%
Perot 34 35 24 32 37 42
Clinton 24 23 32 22 19 24
Undec. 6 7 4 6 6 8

Discontent and Anger Felt Towards… ALL Perot Voters New Party Voters
President/Administration 64% 82% 83%
U.S. Senate 72 78 82
House of Representatives 69 75 80
Democratic Party 59 68 70
Republican Party 60 76 75
Governor/Administration 50 50 53

Party ID DEM GOP IND
Perot Voters 28% 29% 39%
New Party voters 30 31 35

Ideology CONS MID-ROAD LIB
Bush 50% 34% 22%
Clinton 14 23 41
Perot 32 36 32
New Party 28 51 19

CORE NEW PARTY (50%) WANT NEW PARTY (57%) ANGRY AT BOTH PARTIES (57%)
Perot 58% 44% 48%
Bush 20 28 25
Clinton 19 23 22

Page 13:
4

6) CALIFORNIA EXIT POLL: PEROT’S TEN GALLON SHADOW
(VRS Poll: 2,083 Dems and 1,010 GOPers surveyed at the CA polls through 11pm PDT; margin of error +/- 2.5-3%; rel. W. Post 6/3)

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
3-Way Match-up % VTRS CLI BRO TSO % VTRS BUSH BUCH
Bush 7% 18% 62% 14% 49% 87% 12%
Clinton 48 63 31 5 3 -- --
Perot 36 25 47 9 42 44 30
Won’t vote 6 4 84 8 2 -- --

Describe your vote DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
%VTRS CLI BRO TSO % VTRS BUSH BUCH
Strongly favor my candidate… 31 40 45 4 26 71 13
Like cand. w/reservations 40 54 39 4 43 80 14
Dislike others 27 26 48 14 29 44 42

If Perot had been on ballot
Brown 27 3 96 0
Clinton 31 94 4 1
Perot 33 31 40 9
Tsongas 4 -- -- --

Reason for Urban Unrest DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
% VTRS CLI BRO TSO % VTRS BUSH BUCH
Breakdown of family values… 35 36 43 12 70 68 22
Govt. neglect of cities… 59 46 43 4 24 59 24

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
% VTRS CLI BRO TSO % VTRS BUSH BUCH
Better Govt. w/new people:
Agree… 54 41 43 5 49 50 32
Disagree… 42 44 42 9 47 83 12

DEMOCRATS REPUBLICANS
% VTRS CLI BRO TSO % VTRS BUSH BUCH
Should DEM/GOP Platform:
Support legal abortion… 66 43 43 7 48 63 21
Oppose legal abortion 12 41 44 8 25 71 23
No official stand 20 41 42 4 25 65 25

Three-way match-up among all voters (USA Today 6/3)
Perot 39% Clinton 29% Bush 25%

Expect Bush to win in November (USA Today 6/3)
Democrats 29% Republicans 62%

Page 14:
Handwritten at top of page: UI 4.0 Bill, Enterprize Zone, Weed & (illegible) 500 (illegible) year

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPOSALS
ITEM PRESIDENT’S BUDGET PRESIDENT’S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program) VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Number of Zones Up to 50 zones. All areas meeting certain objective criteria are eligible. Up to 35 zones.
Area Size of Zones No maximum size. Presumably, would be at least as large as one census tract. No maximum size. Presumably, would be at least as large as one census tract. Urban zone size cannot exceed 12 square miles; rural zone size cannot exceed 10,000 square miles (all in one State).
Designation Period Designated over a 4-year period. Designation generally effective for 25 years. No designation period specified. Presumably, all areas meeting the criteria could become zones immediately and zone status would last 25 years. Designated over a 3-year period. Designation generally effective for 15 years.
Urban/Rural At least 1/3 of zones must be rural. No rural set-aside. Contemplates rural and Indian zones. 10 urban zones and 25 rural zones. One of the rural zones must be on an Indian reservation. (Because each urban zone receives a greater amount of incentives each year than each rural zone, the total benefit for all the urban zones is equivalent to the total benefit for all the rural zones.)
Selection Process State and local governments nominate areas. Secretary of HUD designates zones from the pool of eligible nominated areas based on subjective factors such as the strength of commitment to the area by State and local governments and by private entities. Entitlement program. No details on how it would be certified that an area meets the objective eligibility criteria. State and local governments nominate areas. Secretary of HUD designates urban zones; Secretary of Agriculture (with Secretary of Commerce) designates rural zones. Zones are designated from the pool of eligible nominated areas based on subjective factors and on average ranking with respect to poverty and unemployment (or out-migration).

Page 15:
ITEM PRESIDENT’S BUDGET PRESIDENT’S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program) VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Selection Criteria (Urban) 1. Continuous boundary
2. Populations of at least 4,000 (or at least 1,000 if in an SMSA with less than 50,000 people).
3. Pervasive poverty and distress.
4. Located in a jurisdiction eligible for assistance under sec. 119 of 1974 Housing Act.
5. Unemployment of at least 1.5 times the national rate.
6. Poverty rate of at least 20% for each census tract.
7. Either (a) 70% of households have incomes below 80% of local median, or (b) population declined at least 20% between 1970 and 1980.
8. State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action to reduce employment burdens in zone. Not specified. 1. No more than 12 square miles.
2. Area consists of not more than 3 noncontiguous parcels.
3. Located within one State.
4. Population of at least 4,000.
5. Pervasive poverty and distress.
6. Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate.
7. Poverty rates of at least 20% in each of 90% of area’s census tracts.
8. State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action.
Selection Criteria (Rural) 1. Continuous boundary.
2. Population of at least 1,000.
3. Pervasive poverty and distress.
4. Located within jurisdiction eligible for assistance under sec. 119 of 1974 Housing Act.
5. One of the following:
(a) Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate, (b) poverty rate of at least 20% for each census tract, (c) 70% of households have incomes below 80% of local median, or (d) population declined at least 20% between 1970 and 1980.
6. State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action.
Not specified. Unclear whether different criteria would be used for rural than for urban. 1. No more than 10,000 square miles.
2. Located in not more than 4 contiguous counties.
3. Area consists of not more than 3 noncontiguous parcels.
4. Within one State (except for Indian zones).
5. Population of at least 1,000.
6. General economic distress.
7. Two of the following:
(a) Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate, (b) poverty rates of at least 20% in each of 90% of area’s census tracts, (c) a specified decline in employment as measured by wages, or (d) population declined at least 10% between 1970 and 1980.
8. State and local government course of action.

Page 16:
ITEM PRESIDENT’S BUDGET PRESIDENT’S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program) VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Annual Limit on Incentives No dollar limit on benefits per zone. No dollar limit on benefits per zone. Each zone is subject to an annual overall limit on the amount of tax incentives that can be provided to it. Urban zones generally have an annual cap of $13 million; rural zones generally have an annual cap of $5 million. The annual limit, in certain circumstances, can be increased by up to an additional 10 percent.
Allocating Official None. None. Local official allocates incentives and ensures that annual limit is not exceeded.
Investor Level Incentives $50,000 annual up-front expensing by an individual for contributions to the capital of certain zone corporations (subject to $250,000 lifetime limit). 1. Capital gains relief – zero capital gains for investments in certain zone businesses. Not limited to individuals.
2. Ordinary loss deduction for investments in certain zone businesses.
3. $50,000 up-front expensing available in addition to items 1 and 2 for individuals who live in or work in zone; other individuals can elect expensing in lieu of items 1 and 2.
4. Passive loss limits do not apply to first $10,000 per year of losses from investment in zone businesses. $25,000 annual up-front expensing by an individual for contributions to the capital of certain zone corporations (subject to $250,000 lifetime limit).
Business Level Incentives Zero capital gains for tangible personal and real zone property used in a zone business for at least 2 years. (Applies for both regular and AMT purposes). 1. Zero capital gain applies to tangible and intangible assets (for both regular and AMT purposes).
2. Ordinary loss deductions for investments in zone assets.
3. Increased small business up-front expensing to $20,000.
4. Tax-exempt financing for certain zone businesses to buy tangible property (subject to bond volume cap). Additional first-year depreciation allowance equal to 25% of adjusted basis of certain zone property (i.e., an investment tax allowance).
Employment Incentives Low-income zone employees receive 5% refundable tax credit with respect to wages. Expand EITC to certain low-income zone employees without children. 7.5 percent nonrefundable tax credit for wages paid by small zone employers.
Other Incentives None. Exclude capital gain on sale of zone home. (Possible $200,000 gain threshold) None.

Page 17:
Draft II
June 9, 1992

POSSIBLE PACKAGE

REVENUE LOSERS
1. Unemployment.
· Dole-Packwood bill which extend benefits through March 6th of next year.

June 14 - January 2 -- 20 or 13 weeks
January 3 - March 6 -- 10 or 7 weeks

Estimate: $2.5 billion.

2. Extenders.
6 month extension:
Employer/educational assistance
Group Legal
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
Small Issue Manufacturing Bonds
Orphan Drug Credit

12 month extension:
R&E Credit
Low Income Housing
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit
Total Estimate: $3.0 billion

3. Health.
Permanent/Expansion:
Self-employed Health Deduction phased into 100% over 5 years.

Estimate: $4.0 billion

4. Luxury Tax.
· Repeal everything, effective January 1, 1992, except autos which is effective the date of introduction.

Estimate: $1.8 billion

5. Enterprise Zones.
Revised Administration proposal.

Estimate of Administration plan: $2.3 billion.

ESTIMATE TOTAL OF PACKAGE: $13.6 billion

Page 18:
REVENUE RAISERS
· The entire package would be financed by a number of tax provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee:
· Mark to market for securities dealers -- $3.5 billion
· Prohibit double dipping by thrifts -- $695 million
· Individual estimated tax safe-harbor -- $5.4 billion
· Taxable years of partnerships -- $182 million
· Revise rules for charitable contributions -- $636 million
· HI tax for state and locals -- $8.1 billion

Page 19:
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE SUGGESTIONS
DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION THE COMMITTEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS FOR CONFERENCE RULES CHANGES:

1) SENIORITY FOR SENATORS SHALL DATE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TIME OF THE CONVENING OF CONGRESS) JANUARY 3RD, AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM PRIOR TO THAT TIME SHALL NOT AFFECT THE SENIORITY OF A MEMBER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF VACANCY OCCURS BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION DATE AND THE CONVENING OF CONGRESS ON JANUARY 3RD. IN THOSE CASES WHEN A SENATOR IS APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY OR ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, THAT SENATOR SHALL HAVE SENIORITY OVER ANY NEW SENATOR ELECTED IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.

2 ) THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED A CLARIFICATION FOR SENIORITY OF A CLASS OF FRESHMEN SENATORS: IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL SENATORS CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING ORDER OF THAT DRAWING SHOULD THEN BE CONSIDERED THROUGHOUT THE COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS.

THE COMMITTEE ALSO HAD SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO STREAMLINING THE COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS:

1) TIME REQUIREMENTS - IF A SENATOR IS PRESENTED WITH SELECTION OPTIONS PRIOR TO NOON, THAT SENATOR MUST NOTIFY THE COMMITTEE OF THEIR DECISION BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS THAT SAME DAY (5 P.M. EST). IF A SENATOR IS PRESENTED WITH SELECTION OPTIONS AFTER NOON, THEN A DECISION MUST BE MADE BY NOON ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.

2) SENATORS SHOULD DESIGNATE A STAFFER AS THE CONTACT FOR COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE MATTERS. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT STAFFER COULD MAKE A FINAL DECISION FOR A SENATOR IN THE EVENT A SENATOR COULDN'T BE REACHED WAS NOT RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR MACK EXPRESSED STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT CHARGING A STAFFER WITH SUCH A RESPONSIBILITY.

3) SENATORS SHOULD DESIGNATE WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER THIS WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.
Page 1:
SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 8, 1992

TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 9
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE KENNEDY MOTION TO TABLE THE GRAHAM (OF FLORIDA) MOTION TO RECOMMIT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, BACK TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. IF THE MOTION TO RECOMMIT IS TABLED, THE SENATE WILL PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE CONFERENCE REPORT. IF CLOTURE IS INVOKED, IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE SENATE WILL ADOPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT, PRIOR TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE SENATE THIS EVENING. THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR. BY A PREVIOUS CONSENT, FOLLOWING THE DISPOSITION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT, THE SENATE WILL BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT A CLOTURE PETITION WILL BE FILED THIS EVENING ON THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. THEREFORE, A CLOTURE VOTE WILL OCCUR ON THURSDAY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 22.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. ROLL CALL VOTES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR DURING WEDNESDAY'S SESSION.

THURSDAY, JUNE 11
THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO CONDUCT A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL. IF CLOTURE IS NOT INVOKED, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE BILL WILL BE RETURNED TO THE CALENDAR. FOLLOWING THE STRIKER REPLACEMENT BILL, THE SENATE CAN BE EXPECTED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPS. CONF. REPORT
(IF RECEIVED FROM THE HOUSE)

S. 1985, THE BANKRUPTCY BILL

S. 2733, THE GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ENTERPRISES BILL

THEREFORE, VOTES WILL OCCUR DURING THURSDAY'S SESSION OF THE SENATE.

FRIDAY, JUNE 12
THE SENATE IS EXPECTED TO BE IN SESSION ON FRIDAY, HOWEVER, VOTES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO OCCUR PAST THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. OR SO.

Page 2:
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, June 9, 1992

Schedule:
Pending:
Conference Report on ADAMHA -- Senator Graham motion to recommit. Senator Kennedy will move to table after lunch. If Kennedy prevails, immediate vote on cloture on Conference Report. We expect final passage later this afternoon. Senator Hatch may want to comment.

Upcoming:
Striker Replacement. Cloture will be filed. Vote on Thursday. Strongly urge vote against cloture. Senator Hatch may want to comment.

Hope for no votes on Friday so we can head south to the tournament.

Handwritten on page: Jesse

Other Issues:
1. Unemployment, Extenders, Luxury Tax, Enterprize Zones -- Packwood/Dole will have package to introduce tomorrow. Hope you'll join in. Lets show we are out in front.
2. Motor Voter -- Coming before House soon. We assume we can sustain veto. I'll be asking Howard to check with each of you.
3. · Bankruptcy
· Government Sponsored Enterprises
· Balanced Budget
-- All likely to come up prior to July recess.

Page 3:
CSK-Draft-6/9/92

Sen. Ted Stevens
contact: Chuck Konigsberg
(4-3699)

Balanced Budget Amendment Waiver for Military Conflicts,
Recessions and Natural Disasters.

Amendment to Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm Language:

Section 4. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect; (crossed out: "The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security") or for which the Congress foresees a serious, imminent, and major military conflict; finds a serious decline in economic activity; or finds that the United States has sustained a catastrophic natural disaster, and so declares by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House of Congress, which becomes law.

EXPLANATION:
· MILITARY CONFLICTS: Amendment would broaden the majority waiver for military conflicts to include situations where the U.S. is not yet "engaged" in military conflict, but instead "foresees" a conflict. The language "serious, imminent, and major" prevents this waiver from becoming a loophole for circumventing the super- majority impediment to deficit spending.

· RECESSIONS: Amendment provides a waiver for periods in which the Congress makes a finding of a "serious decline in economic activity", which is intended to mean a recession or depression. The waiver would permit a majority, rather then a super-majority to enact temporary deficit spending measures to stimulate economic recovery. The word "decline" is intended to mean that the economy would have to be contracting, i.e., below 0% growth for at least two quarters during a fiscal year; this restriction prevents the waiver from becoming a loophole. Specific details would be provided by implementing legislation.

· NATURAL DISASTERS: Amendment provides a waiver for "catastrophic natural disasters" so that emergency spending for major disasters, such as severe earthquakes affecting a large area, will not require a super-majority. Specific details of the magnitude of disasters to be covered would be provided by implementing legislation, but legislative history should emphasize that only the most catastrophic and widespread disasters should warrant a waiver, such as a major earthquake in California, or along the New Madrid fault.

. In general, these waivers make the Balanced Budget Amendment stronger, by making it more realistic. Failure to include these waivers could prevent essential expenditures in times of military, economic, or natural peril or could force evasion of the Balanced Budget requirement, thereby demeaning the stature of the Constitution.

-- See Reverse Side -

Page 4:
CSK-Draft-6/9/92
Sen. Ted Stevens
contact: Chuck Konigsberg
(4-3699)

Preserving the Balance of Powers
Under the Balanced Budget Amendment

Amendment to Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm Language:
Section 7: (crossed out: "The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.") This article shall be enforced solely as provided by legislation enacted pursuant to this article; but the President shall enforce the limitation on debt provided by section 2.

(Section 2 provides: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.)

EXPLANATION:
· The current Simon-Thurmond-Stenholm draft requires Congress to enact implementing legislation, but does not preclude the President and Judiciary from asserting new constitutionally derived enforcement powers. This threatens to unsettle the time-tested balance of powers between the three branches of government.

· The proposed substitute language, by limiting enforcement "solely" to implementing legislation, absolutely precludes any implication of constitutionally-derived judicial enforcement powers or presidential impoundment powers to enforce this Article. However, Congress could grant limited presidential or judicial enforcement powers through implementing legislation, if Congress determines that would be appropriate.

· The substitute language also protects the constitutional "teeth" provided by the debt provision in section 2, by requiring Executive Branch enforcement in the limited area of issuing Treasury debt.

-- See Reverse Side -

Page 5:
Legislative Notice
Editor, Judy Gorman Prinkey
June 8, 1992

No. 74

U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director

S. 55 - Workplace Fairness Act

Calendar No. 164

Reported: From the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, on July 18, 1991, on a straight party vote of 10-7. Minority views were filed by all seven Committee Republicans [Hatch, Kassebaum, Jeffords, Coats, Thurmond, Durenberger and Cochran]. S. Rept. 102-111.

NOTEWORTHY
· Under a unanimous consent agreement entered on June 4, the Senate will proceed to S. 55 following disposition of the conference report accompanying S. 1306, the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration Reorganization. A series of votes on that conference report is scheduled to occur beginning at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9.

· S. 55 would prohibit employers from permanently replacing workers engaged in economic strikes, so long as the striking workers belong to a collective bargaining unit that is either represented by a labor union or that is seeking union representation.

BACKGROUND
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) recognize two kinds of strikes -economic strikes and unfair labor practice strikes. Economic strikes are undertaken to secure such things as higher wages, better working conditions and improved employee benefits. Unfair labor practice strikes are organized to protest illegal employment practices, such as restraining employees from joining or forming a union. An employer may temporarily replace workers who are engaged in an unfair labor practice strike. But once the strike is over, these temporary replacements must be dismissed to make room for returning strikers. The same rules apply to "lock-outs."

The rules are different for economic strikers. Although they retain the right to be reinstated in vacant positions, an employer need not terminate replacement workers to make room for returning economic strikers.

Page 6:
The Supreme Court has recognized this right of employers to replace economic strikers for more than half a century. Its most important ruling came in 1938, in the case of Mackay Radio and Telegraph Co. v. the National Labor Relations Board. The Mackay court established the doctrine that employers can replace economic strikers, and this understanding of the NLRA and RLA has prevailed ever since.

S. 55 would reverse this ruling and others in its line. The bill would permit employers to hire temporary replacements for economic strikers, just as they can in "lock-outs" and in strikes over unfair labor practices. These temporary replacements would themselves be subject to replacement by returning strikers if the strikers belonged to a collective bargaining group that: 1) was represented by a labor union; or 2) was seeking union representation. Under S. 55, non-union economic strikers could be permanently replaced, just as they can be under current law.

The House passed its version of the striker replacement bill (H.R. 5) on July 17, 1991, by a vote of 247-182. The vote was 39 short of a two-thirds majority needed to override a threatened Presidential veto. Before passing the bill, the House overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would prohibit employers from hiring permanent replacements only during economic strikes that lasted eight weeks or less. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA), was defeated by 28-399.

BILL SUMMARY
· Amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to make it an unfair labor practice to replace permanently a striking worker whose collective bargaining unit either is represented by a labor union or is seeking union representation.

· Further amends federal labor law to make it an unfair labor practice to withhold or deny any employment right or privilege to a striking unionized worker out of preference for a worker who did not participate in the strike or who returned to work before the strike ended.

COSTS
CBO estimates that enactment of S. 55 would not increase the federal budget.

2

Page 7:
MINORITY VIEWS
Senators Hatch, Cochran, Kassebaum, Durenberger, Thurmond, Jeffords and Coats
"S. 55 overturns more than 50 years of well-established principles of labor law and may actually harm the working men and women in this country as well as the economy in general. If enacted, this bill would change longstanding labor policy by substantially altering the balance in labor relations that has been part of this country's legal framework for the last 53 years and has given us a collective bargaining system that works.

"Proponents argue that S. 55 is needed to restore the balance in collective bargaining and to protect the rights of workers. In fact, this bill would have just the opposite effect. It would significantly tilt the balance in favor of organized labor by limiting the ability of employers to operate during a strike and by favoring striking employees over those who choose to exercise their statutory right not to strike ...

"Employees have the right to strike under current law - the ultimate collective bargaining weapon that unions can bring to bear on an employer's business. What proponents are now seeking legislatively is not protection of the right to strike, but the ability to force employers to accept union demands at the bargaining table, whether reasonable or unreasonable. Overturning the Mackay doctrine threatens to change the collective bargaining process in a way that would give unions control over the terms and conditions of employment free from the market forces of supply and demand ...

"If S. 55 became law, it would insulate striking employees from the risks that traditionally have acted as a check on the voluntary decision to strike over economic issues and would free organized workers to command a price for their labor without regard to the market forces of supply and demand ...

"The result ... would likely mean an increased number of strikes, an increased risk of anti-competitive collective bargaining agreements, or both ...

"The argument that the 1980s has seen the use of replacements become the 'standard practice' and that the need for this legislation is dictated 'by the tremendous growth in the hiring of permanent replacements in the 1980s' is. . . not confirmed by the data. Most notably, in a recent report by the General Accounting Office - requested by the bill's sponsors - the GAO found that, in 1985, only four percent of striking employees were replaced by Mackay replacements ...

"The right to strike is not absolute and must, under some circumstances, yield to the rights of others. The right to strike was never intended to make strikers the owners of their jobs."

3

Page 8:
ADMINISTRATION POSITION
No Statement of Administration Policy was available at press time. But a fact sheet issued on June 5 by the Labor Department stated: "The Administration strongly opposes S. 55, the 'Striker Replacement' legislation. If the Congress passes such a bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto."

POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS
McCain. Pertaining to the right to work.
McConnell. Pertaining to "soft money."
Nickles. Pertaining to economic impact of striker replacement legislation.
Nickles. Congressional coverage.

Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946

Keep up with Senate Floor proceedings - watch RPC TV, Senate cable channel 26, or call RPC's phone hotline at 224-6888.

4

Page 9:
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
6/9/92
Perot with 13 Point Lead; Bush & Clinton Tied
(TIME/CNN Poll: 974 RVs surveyed 6/3-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. CNN 6/6)
California Poll: Voter Commitment
(The California Poll: 1,355 RVs surveyed 5/27-30; margin of error +/- 2.8%)
Perot, the Parties & Politics
(Newsweek/Gallup Poll: 753 RVs surveyed 6/4-5; margin of error +/- 4%)
Describe Your Political Views
(Newsweek Poll: 6/15 issue)
Revolt of the "Center"
(Gordon Black Poll: 1,604 RVs in 3rd week of May; margin of error +/- 2.5%; rel. 6/4)
California Exit Polls: Perot's Ten Gallon Shadow
(VRS Poll: 2,083 Dems & 1,010 GOPers surveyed at the polls; margin of error +/- 3%)

Page 10:
1

PEROT WITH 13 POINT LEAD; BUSH & CLINTON TIED
(Time/CNN Poll: 974 RVs surveyed 6/3-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. CNN 6/6)


3-Way Race
Certain of Your Vote?

2-Way Race
Fav/Unfav
4/92 FAV
Bush
24%
65%
Bush
35%
36%/51%
54%
Clinton
24
72
Clinton
38
35/40
37
Perot
37
57
Perot

40/--
30

Q: "Does Bush deserve re-election?"
Yes
33%
No
61


Q: "Is Bush strong leader?"

NOW
4/92
Yes
45%
60%

CALIFORNIA POLL: VOTER COMMITMENT
(The California Poll: 1,355 RVs surveyed 5/27-30; margin of error +/- 2.8%; rel. S.F. Chron. 6/2)

3-Way
5/27-30
5/6-9
Perot
38%
37%
Bush
25
31
Clinton
25
25
Undec.
12
7


Supporters of
Q: "How committed?"
Perot
Bush
Clinton
Very Sure about choice..
57%
67%
63%
Might change their mind before November...
43
33
37



Supporters of
Basis of Preference
Perot
Bush
Clinton
For candidate
39%
66%
43%
Anti other candidates
55
29
52

Page 11:
2

PEROT, THE PARTIES & POLITICS
(Newsweek/Gallup Poll: 753 RVs surveyed 6/4-5; margin of error +/- 4%; rel. Newsweek 6/15)

Q: "Perot voters only most important reason?"
Leadership
24%
Issues
12
Candidates
52

Q: "If Perot can't win & your vote for him helps Bush, are you..."
Less likely for Pero
38%
Not less likely
52

Q: "If Perot can't win & your vote for him helps Clinton, are you..."
Less likely for Perot
39%
Not less likely
51

Q: Perot's hiring of Rollins/Jordan shows Perot an ordinary pol.?
Yes
35%
No
42%

Make you more/less likely to vote for him?

ALL
Perot
More likely
15%
22%
Less likely
6
1
Not much diff.
74
73

"How important is it that the President be from one of 2 parties?"

ALL
Bush
Clinton
Perot
Very important
20%
25%
36%
6%
Somewhat important
26
33
23
20
Not too important
23
18
19
31
Not imp. at all
29
21
21
42

"Does Perot need to say a lot more or do you understand him?"

ALL
Bush
Clinton
Perot
Say more
70%
75%
70%
67%
Understand him
25
18
27
31

"How do these stories so far make you feel about Perot?"

Better
Worse
No Diff.
Need info
Attempts to leave Navy early...
3%
13%
47%
31%
Connections to Nixon Administration...
6
10
36
42
What says/doesn't say re: the deficit...
12
6
14
63
Position on gays...
5
9
17
65
Standards & dress code for his workers...
17
11
29
30
Efforts to find Vietnam servicemen...
47
2
18
27
His position on abortion...
19
6
20
44

Page 12:
3

DESCRIBE YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS
(Newsweek Poll: rel. 6/15)

"How would you describe your political views?"

ALL Voters
Bush Voters
Clinton Voters
Perot Voters
Very conservative
8%
13%
4%
4%
Conservative
26
36
14
25
Moderate
44
38
46
50
Liberal
14
8
23
16
Very liberal
4
2
6
3

"Likelihood of voting"
Total
Bush
Clinton
Perot
Most likely (self perception)
86%
86%
81%
90%
Less likely (self perception)
12
12
16
9

REVOLT OF THE CENTER
(Gordon S. Black Poll: 1,604 RVs in 3[rd] week of May; margin of error +/- 2.5%; rel. 6/4

3-Way
Match-up
Northeast
South
Great Lakes
Central (incl. TX)
West
Bush
36%
35%
40%
40%
41%
26%
Perot
34
35
24
32
37
42
Clinton
24
23
32
22
19
24
Undec.
6
7
4
6
6
8

Discontent and Anger Felt Towards...
ALL
Perot Voters
New Party Voters
President/Administration
64%
82%
83%
U.S. Senate
72
78
82
House of Representatives
69
75
80
Democratic Party
59
68
70
Republican Party
60
76
75
Governor/Administration
50
50
53

Party ID
DEM
GOP
IND
Perot Voters
28%
29%
39%
New Party voters
30
31
35

Ideology
CONS
MID-ROAD
LIB
Bush
50%
34%
22%
Clinton
14
23
41
Perot
32
36
32
New Party
28
51
19


CORE NEW PARTY (50%)
WANT NEW PARTY (57%)
ANGRY AT BOTH PARTIES (57%)
Perot
58%
44%
48%
Bush
20
28
25
Clinton
19
23
22

Page 13:
4

CALIFORNIA EXIT POLL: PEROT'S TEN GALLON SHADOW
(VRS Poll: 2,083 Dems and 1,010 GOPers surveyed at the CA polls through 11pm PDT; margin of error +/- 2.5-3%; rel. W. Post 6/3)


DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
3-Way Match-up
% VTRS
CLI
BRO
TSO
% VTRS
BUSH
BUCH
Bush
7%
18%
62%
14%
49%
87%
12%
Clinton
48
63
31
5
3
--
--
Perot
36
25
47
9
42
44
30
Won't vote
6
4
84
8
2
--
--

Describe your vote
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS

%VTRS
CLI
BRO
TSO
% VTRS
BUSH
BUCH
Strongly favor my candidate...
31
40
45
4
26
71
13
Like cand. w/reservations
40
54
39
4
43
80
14
Dislike others
27
26
48
14
29
44
42

If Perot had been on ballot




Brown
27
3
96
0
Clinton
31
94
4
1
Perot
33
31
40
9
Tsongas
4
--
--
--

Reason for Urban Unrest
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS

% VTRS
CLI
BRO
TSO
% VTRS
BUSH
BUCH
Breakdown of family values...
35
36
43
12
70
68
22
Govt. neglect of cities...
59
46
43
4
24
59
24


DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS

% VTRS
CLI
BRO
TSO
% VTRS
BUSH
BUCH
Better Govt. w/new people:







Agree...
54
41
43
5
49
50
32
Disagree...
42
44
42
9
47
83
12


DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS

% VTRS
CLI
BRO
TSO
% VTRS
BUSH
BUCH
Should DEM/GOP Platform:







Support legal abortion...
66
43
43
7
48
63
21
Oppose legal abortion
12
41
44
8
25
71
23
No official stand
20
41
42
4
25
65
25

Three-way match-up among all voters (USA Today 6/3)
Perot
39%
Clinton
29%
Bush
25%

Expect Bush to win in November (USA Today 6/3)
Democrats
29%
Republicans
62%

Page 14:
Handwritten at top of page: UI 4.0 Bill, Enterprize Zone, Weed & (illegible) 500 (illegible) year

MAJOR DIFFERENCES AMONG ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPOSALS
ITEM
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
PRESIDENT'S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program)
VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Number of Zones
Up to 50 zones.
All areas meeting certain objective criteria are eligible.
Up to 35 zones.
Area Size of Zones
No maximum size. Presumably, would be at least as large as one census tract.
No maximum size. Presumably, would be at least as large as one census tract.
Urban zone size cannot exceed 12 square miles; rural zone size cannot exceed 10,000 square miles (all in one State).
Designation Period
Designated over a 4-year period. Designation generally effective for 25 years.
No designation period specified. Presumably, all areas meeting the criteria could become zones immediately and zone status would last 25 years.
Designated over a 3-year period. Designation generally effective for 15 years.
Urban/Rural
At least 1/3 of zones must be rural.
No rural set-aside. Contemplates rural and Indian zones.
10 urban zones and 25 rural zones. One of the rural zones must be on an Indian reservation. (Because each urban zone receives a greater amount of incentives each year than each rural zone, the total benefit for all the urban zones is equivalent to the total benefit for all the rural zones.)
Selection Process
State and local governments nominate areas. Secretary of HUD designates zones from the pool of eligible nominated areas based on subjective factors such as the strength of commitment to the area by State and local governments and by private entities.
Entitlement program. No details on how it would be certified that an area meets the objective eligibility criteria.
State and local governments nominate areas. Secretary of HUD designates urban zones; Secretary of Agriculture (with Secretary of Commerce) designates rural zones. Zones are designated from the pool of eligible nominated areas based on subjective factors and on average ranking with respect to poverty and unemployment (or out-migration).

Page 15:
ITEM
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
PRESIDENT'S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program)
VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Selection Criteria (Urban)
Continuous boundary
Populations of at least 4,000 (or at least 1,000 if in an SMSA with less than 50,000 people).
Pervasive poverty and distress.
Located in a jurisdiction eligible for assistance under sec. 119 of 1974 Housing Act.
Unemployment of at least 1.5 times the national rate.
Poverty rate of at least 20% for each census tract.
Either (a) 70% of households have incomes below 80% of local median, or (b) population declined at least 20% between 1970 and 1980.
State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action to reduce employment burdens in zone.
Not specified.
No more than 12 square miles.
Area consists of not more than 3 noncontiguous parcels.
Located within one State.
Population of at least 4,000.
Pervasive poverty and distress.
Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate.
Poverty rates of at least 20% in each of 90% of area's census tracts.
State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action.
Selection Criteria (Rural)
Continuous boundary.
Population of at least 1,000.
Pervasive poverty and distress.
Located within jurisdiction eligible for assistance under sec. 119 of 1974 Housing Act.
One of the following:
Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate, (b) poverty rate of at least 20% for each census tract, (c) 70% of households have incomes below 80% of local median, or (d) population declined at least 20% between 1970 and 1980.
State and local governments agree to follow specified course of action.

Not specified. Unclear whether different criteria would be used for rural than for urban.
No more than 10,000 square miles.
Located in not more than 4 contiguous counties.
Area consists of not more than 3 noncontiguous parcels.
Within one State (except for Indian zones).
Population of at least 1,000.
General economic distress.
Two of the following:
Unemployment of at least 1.5 times national rate, (b) poverty rates of at least 20% in each of 90% of area's census tracts, (c) a specified decline in employment as measured by wages, or (d) population declined at least 10% between 1970 and 1980.
State and local government course of action.

Page 16:
ITEM
PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
PRESIDENT'S NEW PROPOSAL (An Entitlement Program)
VETOED BILL (A Demonstration Program)
Annual Limit on Incentives
No dollar limit on benefits per zone.
No dollar limit on benefits per zone.
Each zone is subject to an annual overall limit on the amount of tax incentives that can be provided to it. Urban zones generally have an annual cap of $13 million; rural zones generally have an annual cap of $5 million. The annual limit, in certain circumstances, can be increased by up to an additional 10 percent.
Allocating Official
None.
None.
Local official allocates incentives and ensures that annual limit is not exceeded.
Investor Level Incentives
$50,000 annual up-front expensing by an individual for contributions to the capital of certain zone corporations (subject to $250,000 lifetime limit).
Capital gains relief - zero capital gains for investments in certain zone businesses. Not limited to individuals.
Ordinary loss deduction for investments in certain zone businesses.
$50,000 up-front expensing available in addition to items 1 and 2 for individuals who live in or work in zone; other individuals can elect expensing in lieu of items 1 and 2.
Passive loss limits do not apply to first $10,000 per year of losses from investment in zone businesses.
$25,000 annual up-front expensing by an individual for contributions to the capital of certain zone corporations (subject to $250,000 lifetime limit).
Business Level Incentives
Zero capital gains for tangible personal and real zone property used in a zone business for at least 2 years. (Applies for both regular and AMT purposes).
Zero capital gain applies to tangible and intangible assets (for both regular and AMT purposes).
Ordinary loss deductions for investments in zone assets.
Increased small business up-front expensing to $20,000.
Tax-exempt financing for certain zone businesses to buy tangible property (subject to bond volume cap).
Additional first-year depreciation allowance equal to 25% of adjusted basis of certain zone property (i.e., an investment tax allowance).
Employment Incentives
Low-income zone employees receive 5% refundable tax credit with respect to wages.
Expand EITC to certain low-income zone employees without children.
7.5 percent nonrefundable tax credit for wages paid by small zone employers.
Other Incentives
None.
Exclude capital gain on sale of zone home. (Possible $200,000 gain threshold)
None.

Page 17:
Draft II
June 9, 1992

POSSIBLE PACKAGE

REVENUE LOSERS
1. Unemployment.
· Dole-Packwood bill which extend benefits through March 6th of next year.

June 14 - January 2 -- 20 or 13 weeks
January 3 - March 6 -- 10 or 7 weeks

Estimate: $2.5 billion.

2. Extenders.
6 month extension:
Employer/educational assistance
Group Legal
Mortgage Revenue Bonds
Small Issue Manufacturing Bonds
Orphan Drug Credit

12 month extension:
R&E Credit
Low Income Housing
Targeted Jobs Tax Credit
Total Estimate: $3.0 billion

3. Health.
Permanent/Expansion:
Self-employed Health Deduction phased into 100% over 5 years.

Estimate: $4.0 billion

4. Luxury Tax.
· Repeal everything, effective January 1, 1992, except autos which is effective the date of introduction.

Estimate: $1.8 billion

5. Enterprise Zones.
Revised Administration proposal.

Estimate of Administration plan: $2.3 billion.

ESTIMATE TOTAL OF PACKAGE: $13.6 billion

Page 18:
REVENUE RAISERS
· The entire package would be financed by a number of tax provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee:
· Mark to market for securities dealers -- $3.5 billion
· Prohibit double dipping by thrifts -- $695 million
· Individual estimated tax safe-harbor -- $5.4 billion
· Taxable years of partnerships -- $182 million
· Revise rules for charitable contributions -- $636 million
· HI tax for state and locals -- $8.1 billion

Page 19:
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE SUGGESTIONS
DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION THE COMMITTEE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS FOR CONFERENCE RULES CHANGES:

1) SENIORITY FOR SENATORS SHALL DATE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL TIME OF THE CONVENING OF CONGRESS) JANUARY 3RD, AND APPOINTMENT TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM PRIOR TO THAT TIME SHALL NOT AFFECT THE SENIORITY OF A MEMBER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IF VACANCY OCCURS BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION DATE AND THE CONVENING OF CONGRESS ON JANUARY 3RD. IN THOSE CASES WHEN A SENATOR IS APPOINTED TO FILL A VACANCY OR ELECTED TO THE SENATE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, THAT SENATOR SHALL HAVE SENIORITY OVER ANY NEW SENATOR ELECTED IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS.

2 ) THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED A CLARIFICATION FOR SENIORITY OF A CLASS OF FRESHMEN SENATORS: IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL SENATORS CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING ORDER OF THAT DRAWING SHOULD THEN BE CONSIDERED THROUGHOUT THE COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS.

THE COMMITTEE ALSO HAD SEVERAL SUGGESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO STREAMLINING THE COMMITTEE SELECTION PROCESS:

1) TIME REQUIREMENTS - IF A SENATOR IS PRESENTED WITH SELECTION OPTIONS PRIOR TO NOON, THAT SENATOR MUST NOTIFY THE COMMITTEE OF THEIR DECISION BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS THAT SAME DAY (5 P.M. EST). IF A SENATOR IS PRESENTED WITH SELECTION OPTIONS AFTER NOON, THEN A DECISION MUST BE MADE BY NOON ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.

2) SENATORS SHOULD DESIGNATE A STAFFER AS THE CONTACT FOR COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE MATTERS. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT STAFFER COULD MAKE A FINAL DECISION FOR A SENATOR IN THE EVENT A SENATOR COULDN'T BE REACHED WAS NOT RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE. SENATOR MACK EXPRESSED STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT CHARGING A STAFFER WITH SUCH A RESPONSIBILITY.

3) SENATORS SHOULD DESIGNATE WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER THIS WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.