Policy Luncheon, June 22, 1992
Item
of 1
- Other Media
-
lead_404_013_all_tr.txt -
lead_404_013_all_tr.docx
- Transcription (Scripto)
- Read Full Text Only (TXT)
- Extent (Dublin Core)
- 23 Pages
- File Name (Dublin Core)
- lead_404_013_all
- Title (Dublin Core)
- Policy Luncheon, June 22, 1992
- Date (Dublin Core)
- 1992-06-22
- Date Created (Dublin Core)
- 1992-06-22
- Congress (Dublin Core)
- 102nd (1991-1993)
- Record Type (Dublin Core)
- memorandums
- reports
- 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 13
- 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 22, 1992
TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 23
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE G.S.E. BILL. IT IS EXPECTED THAT SEVERAL NON-GERMANE AMENDMENTS WILL BE OFFERED TO THE BILL, THEREFORE, VOTES COULD OCCUR.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24 - FRIDAY, JUNE 26
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE G.S.E. BILL. VOTES COULD OCCUR, AND A LATE SESSION IS A POSSIBILITY. MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT THE SENATE COULD ALSO TURN TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS DURING THIS WEEK'S SESSION OF THE SENATE, THEREFORE VOTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR EACH DAY OF SENATE SESSION.
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE PRICE FIXING BILL
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE HIGHER ED BILL
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE UNEMPLOYMENT BILL
S. 2532, THE SOVIET AID BILL
(page 2)
U.S. Senate
Republican Policy
Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Policy Analysis
June 22, 1992
Senate-Passed Unemployment Bill Could Provoke Showdown with White House
A Senate-passed measure to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program through next March could prompt a showdown between Congress and the White House on the eve of the July 4 recess.
The Senate adopted H.R. 5260, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992, by voice vote on Friday, June 19. The bill would extend the EUC program, which provides 33 weeks of extended benefits to unemployed people in 18 states and 26 weeks of extended benefits to the unemployed in all other states, through March 6, 1993 (see Appendix for a detailed description). The EUC program is currently scheduled to expire on July 4, 1992. The bill would also make permanent changes in the Extended Benefits (EB) program.
While the White House does not object to extending the EUC program, it does object to provisions of H.R. 5260 that are designed to offset the bill's $5.4 billion cost over fiscal years 1992-97. These provisions would raise nearly $5.9 billion in revenue over that period, but most of the bill's costs are incurred in fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Over these three years, costs entailed by the bill will exceed revenues by nearly $550 million.
By contrast, a substitute amendment offered by Senator Dole was designed to comport with the Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go provisions. The Dole substitute proposed a more modest extension in the EUC program and temporary - rather than permanent -changes in the EB program. It also contained provisions to extend a package of expiring tax provisions, to repeal the luxury tax, and to create enterprise zones. The Senate killed the Dole substitute by voice vote.
Background
Unemployment Compensation Programs
UC Program
The federal-state unemployment compensation system has three components. The basic unemployment compensation (UC) program, created in the 1930s, generally provides 26 weeks of benefits to eligible unemployed workers. It is financed through federal and state payroll taxes. The federal government and the states share the costs of benefits, but the federal government pays all administrative expenses. States
(page 3)
generally determine individual qualification requirements, disqualification provisions, eligibility, weekly benefit amounts, and potential weeks of benefits.
EB Program
In states with relatively high jobless rates, the federal-state extended benefit (EB) program supplements the UC program. Jointly financed by the states and the federal government, EB pays up to 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their eligibility for regular unemployment assistance. The EB program is activated - or "triggered" - in a state when:
(1) its 13-week average insured unemployment rate (IUR) in the most recent 13 weeks is at least 120 percent of the average of its 13-week IURs in the last two years for the same 13-week calendar period and its current 13-week IUR is at least 5 percent; or
(2) at state option, its current 13-week average IUR is at least 6 percent.
EUC Program
Last November, President Bush signed legislation creating a third program, known as Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC). EUC currently provides 33 weeks of additional benefits in 18 states (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia) and 26 weeks of extended benefits in all other states.
In order to qualify for 33 weeks of benefits, a state must have either:
(1) a total unemployment rate of 9 percent or higher over the most recent six-month period for which data have been published; or
(2) an adjusted insured unemployment rate of 5 percent or higher for the most recent 13-week period.
Unlike the UC and EB programs, EUC is temporary. It was created last November and extended through July 4 by legislation that was enacted this past February.
History of EUC Program
Passage of the measure establishing the EUC came after months of partisan turmoil. President Bush and Republican Congressional leaders agreed with Democrats on the need to give extended benefits to unemployed workers, but disagreed with Democrats over how and whether to finance them: The Democrats urged the President to declare a budget "emergency" .instead of seeking ways to offset the costs of the new program. Meanwhile, the President advocated a benefit extension that was less costly than the Democratic proposal, and which would have been fully financed.
2
(page 4)
On August 2, 1991, the Senate passed H.R. 3201 by voice vote after House passage earlier in the day. H.R. 3201 authorized $4.5 billion in emergency spending for unemployment compensation, leaving it to the President to declare a budget emergency and bypass the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. The President signed the bill into law on August 17, 1991, but declared no emergency.
The Senate took up the issue for a second time last September. This time, the Senate voted down a series of Republican amendments that would have extended benefits without increasing the deficit before adopting the bill on October 1 by a vote of 65-35. On October 16, the Senate narrowly sustained President Bush's veto of the bill, 65-35.
On November 15, the Senate, by a vote of 91-2, overwhelmingly adopted a bipartisan benefit extension that was adequately financed. On February 4, 1992, the Senate voted 94-2 to extend the program through July 4 of this year.
Congressional Action on H.R. 5260
Senate Action
Earlier this month, Congress began to move legislation to extend the EUC program beyond its July 4 expiration date. The Senate version carries a $5.4 billion price tag over fiscal years 1992-97. Of that amount, $3.9 billion would go to the EUC program in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. The measure also would make permanent changes in the EB program at a cost of $1.5 billion over fiscal years 1992-97.
H.R. 5260 finances these costs by: 1) changing rules regarding taxable years of partnerships; 2) providing for mandatory withholding of taxes on certain nonperiodic pension distributions; 3) increasing the corporate estimated tax; 4) requiring securities dealers to value their inventories on a "mark-to-market" basis; and 5) prohibiting "double dipping" by thrifts that receive certain federal financial assistance.
House Action
Senate approval of H.R. 5260 clears the way for a conference with the House. The House passed its version of the bill on June 9 by a vote of 261-150. [25 Republicans voted for passage; 131 Republicans voted against.] Before moving to final passage, the House defeated a Republican motion to recommit the measure by a more narrow margin of 219-191.
The House measure would provide 26 weeks of additional benefits in states with total unemployment rates of at least 9 percent or adjusted insured unemployment rates of 5 percent or higher. Unemployed workers in all other states would be eligible for an additional 20 weeks of benefits.
3
(page 5)
The House bill, like the Senate bill, spends more money in the first two years than it raises. Its $5.8 billion price tag would be paid off over a period of six fiscal years, but it would increase the federal deficit over fiscal years 1992 and 1993 by $4.1 billion.
These benefits are financed by:
· Increasing the amount of wages subject to taxation under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). The FUTA tax is currently levied on employers on the employee's first $7,000 of earnings. The House bill would raise that figure to $28,200 in FY 95 and index it for future years. The bill would also reduce the FUTA rate from 0.8 percent to 0.3 percent in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and 0.25 percent thereafter. This provision would raise an estimated $212 million over fiscal years 1995-97.
· Disallowing deductions for executive compensation payments in excess of $1 million. This provision, which would be effective retroactive to January 1, 1992, would raise $2 billion over six years.
· Extending for two years (1996 and 1997) the exemption phaseout for certain high-income taxpayers. This would raise $4 billion in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Outlook
The June 19 Senate action on H.R. 5260 helped resurrect controversy over the EUC program. Congressional Democrats provoked partisan showdowns a year ago before agreeing with the White House and Congressional Republicans on an adequately- financed program of extended benefits.
With the Democratic National Convention fast approaching, the party's Congressional wing seems eager once again to engage the White House in a battle whose casualties will be jobless Americans.
Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946
4
(page 6)
Appendix: H.R. 5260 as Passed by the Senate
Bill Provisions
Part I - Benefit Provisions
· Extends the EUC program through March 6, 1993. The current schedule of benefits - 33 weeks for certain states and 26 weeks for all others (see "Background") - would change, however, as the unemployment rate drops.
- Once the seasonally-adjusted national unemployment rate dips below 7 percent for two consecutive months, the number of weeks of additional benefits will drop to 15 (instead of 33) and 10 (instead of 26). [The national unemployment rate for May was 7.5 percent.]
- Once the rate falls below 6.8 percent for two successive months, the number of weeks of additional benefits will drop to 13 and 7.
This provision is estimated to cost $3.9 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
· Modifies the "trigger" for the Extended Benefits (EB) program. A state may initiate payments under the EB program, which pays up to 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their eligibility for regular unemployment assistance, if unemployment levels have reached certain thresholds.
Under current law [see "Background"], the program can be triggered if a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the most recent 13-week period is at least 5 percent and if it is at least 20 percent higher than it was for the same period in both of the previous two years; or if its IUR is at least 6 percent.
H.R. 5260 would allow states to trigger the program if their total unemployment rate (TUR) for the most recent 3 months is at least 10 percent higher than it was for the same period in either of the previous two years; or if their TUR for the most recent three months is at least 6.5 percent.
This provision, which effects a permanent change in the unemployment program, is estimated to cost $1.5 billion over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Extends emergency unemployment benefits for railroad workers through March 6, 1993.
· Revises criteria used by states to determine whether workers are eligible for EB and EUC benefits.
5
(page 7)
· Provides continued eligibility for EUC benefits for workers who return to the unemployment rolls after taking temporary jobs. Under current law, a worker who, after exhausting regular UC benefits, takes a temporary job and then loses it is not eligible for EUC benefits once he loses his temporary job. This is because his earnings at the temporary job can be sufficient to qualify him for regular UC benefits. Since these benefits are based on wages earned at the temporary job, they are generally less than the EUC benefits that he would have received had he stayed on the unemployment rolls rather than accepting temporary work.
H.R. 5260 would preserve such a worker's entitlement to EUC benefits.
Part II - Revenue Provisions
· Changes rules regarding taxable years of partnerships. Current law restricts the ability of partnerships, S corporations and personal service corporations to elect taxable years other than the required taxable year. H.R. 5260 would allow such entities to elect any taxable year, but it also would increase the amount that such entities must pay the government when they do so. This provision, which would take effect in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1991, is estimated to raise $160 million over fiscal years 1992-97.
· Provides for mandatory withholding of taxes on certain nonperiodic pension distributions. Under current law, income tax withholding, at a 10-percent rate, on nonperiodic pension distributions is required unless the payee elects not to have withholding apply. H.R. 5260 would raise the withholding rate to 20 percent and make it mandatory, unless funds are transferred directly by the trustee to a new depository. The provision would take effect on January 1, 1993 and would raise $2.147 billion over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Increases the corporate estimated tax. Under current law, corporations are subject to an additional tax for any underpayment of estimated tax. In 1992, their estimated tax must total at least 93 percent of their actual liability in order to avoid these penalties. That figure rises to 95 percent for tax years beginning after December 31, 1992.
H.R. 5260 would require corporate estimated tax to total at least 96 percent of their actual liability for tax years beginning after June 30, 1992. This provision is estimated to raise $706 million over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Requires securities dealers to value their inventories on a "mark-to-market". basis. Current tax law requires people who deal in securities to maintain an inventory of securities held for sale to customers. Such taxpayers may choose among three methods for determining the worth of their inventories. They can "value" their inventory based on: 1) the cost of the securities; (2) the lower of the cost or market value of the securities; and (3) the market value of the securities ("mark to market").
6
(page 8)
H.R. 5260 requires securities dealers to value their inventory on a "mark to market" basis. This provision, which would take effect in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992, is estimated to raise $2.46 billion over fiscal years 1992-97.
· Prohibits "double dipping" by thrifts who receive certain federal financial assistance. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) has agreed to compensate acquirers of troubled thrift institutions for the difference between the book value and sales proceeds of certain troubled or non-performing assets. This FSLIC compensation is not subject to taxation. Moreover, those who receive such compensation can still deduct the losses for which they have been compensated.
H.R. 5260 provides that if a taxpayer disposes of an asset entitled to FSLIC assistance, the taxpayer may not claim a deduction for a loss incurred in the sale or other disposition of the asset. This provision is estimated to raise $421 million over fiscal years 1992-97.
FY 92 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 TOTAL
Additional Benefits 970 3,627 440 245 77 77 5,436
Additional Revenues 474 3,721 297 400 526 474 5,894
Net -496 94 -143 155 449 397 458
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
7
(page 9)
U.S. Senate
Republican Policy
Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Issue Alert
June 23, 1992
Congressional Action Possible As Rail Strike Looms
Three separate disputes between railway carriers and labor unions representing machinists on major freight carriers nationwide, Amtrak employees, and "maintenance of way" workers on Conrail seem likely to result in a strike as the 12:01 a.m., June 24 deadline approaches.
Should a strike occur, Congress will be confronted with conflicting positions held by the parties involved in the disputes, as well as by third parties that would be most directly affected by a strike. Industries that depend on rail service want Congress to pass legislation to end any strike and implement the Presidential Emergency Boards' recommendations. This is essentially what Congress did in a related dispute last April, when it adopted a bill that provided for implementation of a Presidential Emergency Board's recommendations covering roughly 95 percent of railway employees. The President signed that bill into law less than 24 hours after the strike began. [H.J. Res. 222 passed the Senate by voice on April 17, 1991.]
Some unions, on the other hand, seem interested in avoiding a replay of last year's action. They argue that Congress should stay out of the controversy, believing that a strike will wring more favorable terms out of the industry.
The parties also argue over the strike's potential impact, which is likely to be a key factor in determining whether Congress will intervene. Most observers believe that Congress would not let a rail strike continue for very long if it substantially disrupted rail service. Congress has intervened to stop a dozen such strikes since 1963, most of them nationwide but some confined to single railroad companies. Rail industry officials say that a strike would curtail or halt industrial operations and adversely affect commuter rail service to 500 communities in 45 states. The unions, on the other hand, argue that a strike would not disrupt the economy and would affect only certain regions of the country.
The present controversy comprises three separate disputes involving:
· Forty-one freight railroads (including most major railroads) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM);
· Conrail and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE); and
· Amtrak and various labor unions that represent roughly one-third of its employees. [Amtrak's disputes with four other unions were recently settled.]
(page 10)
These disputes date back to 1988, when contracts between railroads and the various unions representing their employees expired. After two years of failed negotiations, President Bush appointed a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB 219) to investigate and report on the dispute. The Board's recommendations, issued January 15, 1991, called for 10 percent wage increases over the life of the contract, 11 percent cost-of-living adjustments and immediate lump sum payments of $2,000 to each employee. It also provided for employees to pay a share of their health insurance premiums and for changes in certain work rules. The Board, for example, increased the "basic day" (the minimum distance a train must travel in order for its crew to get a day's wage) from 108 miles to 130 miles, and reduced the size of certain operating crews.
Under the Railway Labor Act, the Board's action triggered a 30-day waiting period, which the parties - in view of the ongoing war in the Persian Gulf - voluntarily extended through midnight, April 17. Just 17 hours after picket lines had formed, the President signed into law legislation that had the effect of imposing the recommendations of PEB 219 on labor and management.
The unions involved in the current disputes were not covered by PEB 219, and pursued separate negotiations. Effective April 3, 1992, President Bush appointed three separate emergency boards - one to deal with the IAM (PEB 220), one to deal with Conrail (PEB 221), and a third to deal with Amtrak (PEB 222).
The May 28 submission of the Boards' reports initiated a "cooling off" period that expires at 12:01 a.m., June 24. Talks between the various parties have continued, but many observers are less than optimistic about the possibility of a settlement. People who run industries that depend on rail service already have begun urging Congress to act promptly to prevent severe economic disruption, while some unions have argued that lawmakers should stay out of the dispute.
Administration and key Congressional officials have largely remained silent as to their intentions. In a June 2 "Dear Colleague" letter, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell discouraged House members from expressing their views on whether Congress should act until after the June 24 deadline passed. "We strongly urge our colleagues," Dingell wrote, "to refrain from any activity suggesting to any of the parties that the current disputes - either by intentional act or omission of the Congress - will be settled in any manner other than by voluntary action of the parties themselves."
As the deadline nears, the likelihood of a strike grows, and Congress may have to decide whether or not to settle the strike through the legislative process.
Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946
(page 11)
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
6/23/92
1) Presidential Disapproval Ties Record High
(The Wirthlin Poll: 1,029 adults surveyed 6/3-5; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/92)
2) What if the Election Goes to the House?
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/12-14; margin of error +/- 3%)
3) Perot "Peaking" ?; Men Leave Bush
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: rel. 6/17)
4) Minnesota: Strong Dem State in Perot Column
(Minneapolis Star Truibune Poll: 1,003 L Vs surveyed 6/7-14; margin of error +/- 3%)
5) CONGRESS: An Institution in Turmoil
(Tarrance Group/Greenberg -Lake Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/2-4; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/10)
6) Our Natural Resources: An Environmental Poll
(TIMES-MIRROR Nat'l. Environmental Survey: 1,200 adults surveyed 2/28-3/10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
(page 12)
1
1) PRESIDENTIAL DISAPPROVAL TIES RECORD HIGH
(The Wirthlin Poll: 1,029 adults surveyed 6/3-5; margin of error +/- 3.05%; rel. June ’92)
Q: “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as President?”
Record Disapproval
NOW 5/92 4/92 3/92
Total Approve 42% 41% 44% 41%
Strongly approve 12
Somewhat approve 30
Total Disapproval 53% 50% 51% 53%
Somewhat disapprove 23
Strongly approve 30
Don’t Know 4
Refuse 2
NOTE: A great threat to the President’s re-election hope reflects in the fact that more Americans believe that the Democratic Congress can do a better job handling the national economy (39%) than Republican President George Bush – an issue traditionally dominated by Republicans.
2) WHAT IF THE ELECTION GOES TO THE HOUSE?
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/12-14; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/17)
Q: “How would/should your Rep. Vote if the election goes to the House?”
For candidate who won your CD 12%
Candidate who won your state 13
Candidate who won nationally 52
Candidate nominated by your Rep.’s Party 13
(page 13)
3) PEROT “PEAKING”; MEN LEAVE BUSH
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 6/17)
3-way 6/12-14 6/4-8 5/18-20 6/12-14 FAV/UNFAV 5/18-20 FAV/UNFAV
Perot 34% 39% 35% 52%/30% 50%/25%
Bush 32 31 35 44/51 48/47
Clinton 24 25 25 41/47 42/48
Undec. 10 5 5
3-way ALL MEN WOM CONS MOD LIB
Perot 34% 37% 31% 27% 42% 31%
Bush 32 30 34 52 25 11
Clinton 24 22 25 12 23 49
Undec. 10 11 10 9 10 9
Q: “How worried are you Perot would…
Be prejudiced against Women, Minorities Not respect Const./ Take too much power
ALL MEN WOM WHT NON-WHT ALL
Very 10% 7% 12% 8% 19% 14%
Somewhat 23 16 30 11 32 28
Not too 28 28 27 31 18 28
Not at all 32 43 23 38 25 26
4) MINNESOTA: STRONG DEM STATE IN PEROT COLUMN
(Minneapolis Star Tribune Poll: 1,003 LVs surveyed 6/7-14; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
3-way ALL
Perot 40%
Bush 30
Clinton 23
Undec. 7
2-way ALL
Bush 46%
Clinton 43
Undec. 11
Bush re-elect
Deserves re-election 23%
Want someone new 73
(page 14)
5) CONGRESS: AN INSTITUTION IN TURMOIL
(Tarrance Group/Greenberg-Lake Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/2-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. 6/10)
Q: “The President vs. Congress…”
To break the deadlock and get things done, I would vote Republican for Congress and give President Bush a Congress he can work with. 30%
I prefer the President and Congress to be of different parties, because that way they can balance each other out. 29%
I would like to give President Bush a Republican Congress to work with, but I like my incumbent Democrat Congressman too much to vote against him. 4%
Instead of trying to change congress, I would like to elect a Democrat President who would work with the Democrats in Congress. 27%
None of the above/Unsure 10%
Q: “The Problem with Congress….”
Deficit/Spending/Taxes 13%
Doesn’t do anything 13
Partisan fighting 12
Ethics/Checkbouncing 8
Protect Themselves 7
Pay raises 5
Special Interests 5
There too long 4
Other 20
Generic Congressional Ballot: a Time Series
June 1991 December 1991 June 1992
Republican 39% 35% 41%
Democrat 37 42 46
Undecided 25 24 12
(page 15)
4
6) OUR NATURAL RESOURCES: AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLL
(TIMES-MIRROR Nat’l. Environmental Survey: 1,200 adults surveyed 2/28-3/10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
Q: “Are there enough wild or natural areas in the U.S.?”
Right amount 58%
Not enough 32
Too much 7
Don’t know 3
Q: “Is current Wetlands protection adequate?”
More effort needed 53%
Struck right balance 24
Gone too far 8
Don’t know 15
Q: “Do you think environmental protection laws and regulations have….”
Gone too far 10%
Struck about the right balance 17
Not gone far enough 63
Don’t know 10
NOTE: 22% of those surveyed voted for/against a candidate based on his/her environmental position.
68% say biologists or environmental groups should decide which endangered species deserve the most protection.
92% surveyed believe a balance between environmental protection and economic development can be attained.
(page 16)
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnson, Staff Director
Economic Indicators
June 23, 1992
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION UPTURN: 4th MONTH
The Federal Reserve’s industrial production index increased 0.6% in May. The industrial production index measures output in the manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries.
May 92 Apr. 92 May 91 Annual
Total Index 108.8 108.1 106.4 +2.2%
Products 111.3 110.5 107.7 +1.9%
Materials 107.3 106.8 104.5 +2.6%
Manufacturing 109.8 109.0 106.6 +3.0%
Mining 98.8 99.1 100.2 -1.4%
Utilities 107.3 107.7 111.4 -3.7%
Up +0.6%
Total Index
May +0.6%
Apr. +0.5%
Mar. +0.4%
Feb. +0.5%
Jan. -0.7%
Dec. -0.6%
Nov. -0.3%
Oct. 0.0%
Sept. +0.4%
PRODUCTIVITY GAINS CONTINUE TO INCREASE
Productivity increased during the 1st quarter of 1992 at the fastest rate since the recession ended. In manufacturing, a productivity decline in durable goods resulted in a fall in the sector as a whole. In non-financial corporations overall, output rose 2.7 percent and hours fell 0.2 percent.
1st Qtr. 92 Annual
All Business +2.8% +2.1%
Non-farm business +2.7% +1.9%
Manufacturing -1.0% +2.4%
Durable goods -3.0% +1.8%
Non-durable +1.8% +3.1%
Quarter
1991 I +2.8%
’91 IV +1.8%
III +1.9%
II +2.0%
I -0.1%
Staff Contact: Joe Cobb, 224-2946
(page 17)
(handwritten) June 23, 1992 Republican Conference (end handwritten)
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE SUGGESTIONS
DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION THE COMMITTTEE 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 AN 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 THE CASE THAT 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) IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL, SENATORS' CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING RANDOMLY SELECTED ORDER 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 HIS OR HER 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 WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION (IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER) WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.
(page 18)
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, June 23, 1992
(handwritten) Joyce
Wed and Thursday
5:00
Roundtable (end handwritten)
1. Schedule:
• GSE Bill schedule to be put before Senate after Policy Lunch. Possible Amendments:
o Gramm: Balanced Budget, Crime
o Dodd: Limited Partnership Roll-up
o Kasten: Product Liability
o Specter: Trash
o Baucus: Recycling
o Bumpers: Thrift Interstate Branching
2. Other Issues:
• NO AMENDMENT LETTER – Encourage senators not to sign any letters committing to a no amendment strategy. We should wait to see what the Democrats do before giving up any options. This may be a particular problem with the extender/luxury tax bill. We know Ways and Means are planning to add other items to the bill, including changes in passive losses and enterprise zones.
• Soviet Aid Package – Senator Mitchell says he wants to move prior to recess. Numerous (over 30) amendments expected.
• Higher Education – Conference Report completed – expect to be filed this week. Senators Hatch and Kassebaum want to determine veto strength – House will not sustain a veto. Key issue is the inclusion of new government direct loan program. The White House is prepared to compromise pilot project of less than $500 million.
o Darman wants to show we have veto strength to encourage further negotiations.
o A veto bill could be tough to sustain. Most of the bill is a success for the Administration.
• Rail Strike: 12 midnight Tuesday – cooling off period expires. Unclear if there will be a move to legislate the PEB recommendations. Senator Hatch may want to comment. President Bush will likely hold major press event pressing for action by congress to prevent the strike by legislating the PEB recommendations.
• Retail Pric Maintenance: Conference Report likely to be filed very soon. Very controversial. Administration opposes and will veto. The bill passed the Senate by
(handwritten) Meet and (unintelligible) 8:30 9:30 10:15 (end handwritten)
(page 19)
2
Voice vote after a 63-35 cloture vote. Votes to sustain a veto may be tough to get. Senator Rudman strong proponent of bill. Senator Thurmond is the major opponent and believes he has votes to sustain.
• Energy Bill – Senators Wallop/Packwood comment.
o Biggest issues:
Yucca Mountain
Rockefeller Coal Provisions
• Governor Clinton’s Budget Proposal – I have asked staff to do an analysis of the Clinton plan and its major weaknesses, particularly the impact on small business. We hope to have material to you within a few days.
(page 20)
06/23/92 11:41 SEN. DOLE HART 141 PRESS OFFICE 002
June 22, 1992
TO: Senator Dole
FROM: David Wilson
SUBJECT: Higher Education Act Conference Report
Cc: Sheila
OVERVIEW
Last week, the conference on the Higher Education Act was completed and the report is expected to be filed in the next few days. A last minute insertion of a direct loan “pilot” program may jeopardize an otherwise successful bill, however. Under this lending concept, the government doesn’t insure a loan, but cuts out the banks and makes the loan itself. Although the Administration was originally supportive of direct-loans, it now ears that such loans will be difficult to administer. Department of Education did not want to veto this bill, but now Secretary Alexander is pushing for one because of the direct lending provision.
There was very little lobbying on this issue during conference, as direct lending was thought to be a dead issue. During Senate consideration earlier this year, however, we heard from the banking industry (Kansas and Nationally) and from colleges. Most colleges oppose a direct-lending program, as they would have to assume costly administration responsibilities.
POTENTIAL KANSAS CONCERNS
• A Sallie Mae Regional office is based in Lawrence and employs more than 500 people.
• More than 160 Kansas lending institutions service student loans. These same institutions provided more than $130 million in loans for FY 1991.
(page 21)
MEMORANDUM
June 23, 1992
TO: SENATOR DOLE
FROM: JIM MCMILLAN
RE: UPCOMING RAIL STRIKE
BACKGROUND. Last year Congress imposed a legislative settlement on the railroads and most of their labor force based on the recommendations of Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) 219 ending a one and one-half day national rail strike. Since that time complete language settlements have been reached between all of the labor organizations that participated in PEB 219 and the rail freight industry.
The current problems are coming from those unions that refused to join other unions in bargaining (i.e., they weren’t bound by PEB 219 or congressional action based on that report) and which have refused to accept the general industry-standard recommendations of PEB219.
The remaining disputes include:
1) The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) and the nation’s freight railroads,
2) Conrail and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE); and
3) Amtrak, the BWE and several other organizations.
On April 3, President Bush appointed PEB 220, 221 and 222 to prepare recommendations concerning the foregoing disputes. These reports have since been completed and the statutory cooling off period expires at midnight on Tuesday, June 23, 1992.
As of this morning, there appears to be no prospects of a settlement of any of the disputes (some had hopes that IAM would settle). Generally speaking, any strike by the IAM would shut many railroads down even though it represents only 25,000 employees. There are about 44 IAM workers in Kansas.
In addition, with respect to Amtrak and Conrail disputes, while negotiations continue, Jed Dodd, one of the general chairman of the BMWE, has said that he is unwilling to accept the PEB 219 pattern and intends to strike Conrail and Amtrak.
At this point there are lots of rumors floating around – ranging from a complete strike beginning at 12:01 tomorrow morning, to a rolling strike, to postponing any strike until July 7 when the Senate is out on recess.
(page 22)
RAIL AND UNION POSITIONS
Rail Position. Each of the PEB reports is based heavily on PEB 219 which governs the rest of the industry and its labor force. Generally speaking, the railroads are willing to accept the recommendations of PEB 220, 221, and 222.
Needless to say, from a policy perspective, it would be a bad move for congress to legislate an agreement that would be an improvement over the PEB recommendations. Specifically, unions should not be rewarded for refusing to bargain with their fellow unions. Otherwise, labor unions will be encouraged to fragment bargaining and bring strikes to Congress for resolution where they believe they can get the best deal.
Union Position. They want to be able to strike and negotiate on the basis of a strike without congressional intervention. They oppose the recommendations of PEB 220, 221, and 222.
Congress/Administration. While the democrats publicly state that the rail unions should be entitled to exercise their legal right to strike, they are hard pressed with respect to the rest of their constituents when national rail traffic is halted. A rail strike will, among other industries, shut down the auto industry, and any strike against Amtrak and Conrail hits the northeast particularly hard (including Ohio and Massachusetts). While it isn’t publicly stating so, the Administration has a bill implementing the PEB recommendations that it can send to the Hill if necessary.
(page 23)
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 AN 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 THE CASE THAT 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) IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL, SENATORS' CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING RANDOMLY SELECTED ORDER 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 HIS OR HER 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 WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION (IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER) WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.
(page 1)
SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF JUNE 22, 1992
TODAY, TUESDAY, JUNE 23
THE SENATE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:15 P.M., AND BEGIN CONSIDERATION OF THE G.S.E. BILL. IT IS EXPECTED THAT SEVERAL NON-GERMANE AMENDMENTS WILL BE OFFERED TO THE BILL, THEREFORE, VOTES COULD OCCUR.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24 - FRIDAY, JUNE 26
RESUME CONSIDERATION OF THE G.S.E. BILL. VOTES COULD OCCUR, AND A LATE SESSION IS A POSSIBILITY. MAJORITY LEADER HAS INDICATED THAT THE SENATE COULD ALSO TURN TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS DURING THIS WEEK'S SESSION OF THE SENATE, THEREFORE VOTES CAN BE EXPECTED TO OCCUR EACH DAY OF SENATE SESSION.
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE PRICE FIXING BILL
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE HIGHER ED BILL
CONF. REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE UNEMPLOYMENT BILL
S. 2532, THE SOVIET AID BILL
(page 2)
U.S. Senate
Republican Policy
Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Policy Analysis
June 22, 1992
Senate-Passed Unemployment Bill Could Provoke Showdown with White House
A Senate-passed measure to extend the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program through next March could prompt a showdown between Congress and the White House on the eve of the July 4 recess.
The Senate adopted H.R. 5260, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992, by voice vote on Friday, June 19. The bill would extend the EUC program, which provides 33 weeks of extended benefits to unemployed people in 18 states and 26 weeks of extended benefits to the unemployed in all other states, through March 6, 1993 (see Appendix for a detailed description). The EUC program is currently scheduled to expire on July 4, 1992. The bill would also make permanent changes in the Extended Benefits (EB) program.
While the White House does not object to extending the EUC program, it does object to provisions of H.R. 5260 that are designed to offset the bill's $5.4 billion cost over fiscal years 1992-97. These provisions would raise nearly $5.9 billion in revenue over that period, but most of the bill's costs are incurred in fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Over these three years, costs entailed by the bill will exceed revenues by nearly $550 million.
By contrast, a substitute amendment offered by Senator Dole was designed to comport with the Budget Enforcement Act's pay-as-you-go provisions. The Dole substitute proposed a more modest extension in the EUC program and temporary - rather than permanent -changes in the EB program. It also contained provisions to extend a package of expiring tax provisions, to repeal the luxury tax, and to create enterprise zones. The Senate killed the Dole substitute by voice vote.
Background
Unemployment Compensation Programs
UC Program
The federal-state unemployment compensation system has three components. The basic unemployment compensation (UC) program, created in the 1930s, generally provides 26 weeks of benefits to eligible unemployed workers. It is financed through federal and state payroll taxes. The federal government and the states share the costs of benefits, but the federal government pays all administrative expenses. States
(page 3)
generally determine individual qualification requirements, disqualification provisions, eligibility, weekly benefit amounts, and potential weeks of benefits.
EB Program
In states with relatively high jobless rates, the federal-state extended benefit (EB) program supplements the UC program. Jointly financed by the states and the federal government, EB pays up to 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their eligibility for regular unemployment assistance. The EB program is activated - or "triggered" - in a state when:
(1) its 13-week average insured unemployment rate (IUR) in the most recent 13 weeks is at least 120 percent of the average of its 13-week IURs in the last two years for the same 13-week calendar period and its current 13-week IUR is at least 5 percent; or
(2) at state option, its current 13-week average IUR is at least 6 percent.
EUC Program
Last November, President Bush signed legislation creating a third program, known as Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC). EUC currently provides 33 weeks of additional benefits in 18 states (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia) and 26 weeks of extended benefits in all other states.
In order to qualify for 33 weeks of benefits, a state must have either:
(1) a total unemployment rate of 9 percent or higher over the most recent six-month period for which data have been published; or
(2) an adjusted insured unemployment rate of 5 percent or higher for the most recent 13-week period.
Unlike the UC and EB programs, EUC is temporary. It was created last November and extended through July 4 by legislation that was enacted this past February.
History of EUC Program
Passage of the measure establishing the EUC came after months of partisan turmoil. President Bush and Republican Congressional leaders agreed with Democrats on the need to give extended benefits to unemployed workers, but disagreed with Democrats over how and whether to finance them: The Democrats urged the President to declare a budget "emergency" .instead of seeking ways to offset the costs of the new program. Meanwhile, the President advocated a benefit extension that was less costly than the Democratic proposal, and which would have been fully financed.
2
(page 4)
On August 2, 1991, the Senate passed H.R. 3201 by voice vote after House passage earlier in the day. H.R. 3201 authorized $4.5 billion in emergency spending for unemployment compensation, leaving it to the President to declare a budget emergency and bypass the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. The President signed the bill into law on August 17, 1991, but declared no emergency.
The Senate took up the issue for a second time last September. This time, the Senate voted down a series of Republican amendments that would have extended benefits without increasing the deficit before adopting the bill on October 1 by a vote of 65-35. On October 16, the Senate narrowly sustained President Bush's veto of the bill, 65-35.
On November 15, the Senate, by a vote of 91-2, overwhelmingly adopted a bipartisan benefit extension that was adequately financed. On February 4, 1992, the Senate voted 94-2 to extend the program through July 4 of this year.
Congressional Action on H.R. 5260
Senate Action
Earlier this month, Congress began to move legislation to extend the EUC program beyond its July 4 expiration date. The Senate version carries a $5.4 billion price tag over fiscal years 1992-97. Of that amount, $3.9 billion would go to the EUC program in fiscal years 1992 and 1993. The measure also would make permanent changes in the EB program at a cost of $1.5 billion over fiscal years 1992-97.
H.R. 5260 finances these costs by: 1) changing rules regarding taxable years of partnerships; 2) providing for mandatory withholding of taxes on certain nonperiodic pension distributions; 3) increasing the corporate estimated tax; 4) requiring securities dealers to value their inventories on a "mark-to-market" basis; and 5) prohibiting "double dipping" by thrifts that receive certain federal financial assistance.
House Action
Senate approval of H.R. 5260 clears the way for a conference with the House. The House passed its version of the bill on June 9 by a vote of 261-150. [25 Republicans voted for passage; 131 Republicans voted against.] Before moving to final passage, the House defeated a Republican motion to recommit the measure by a more narrow margin of 219-191.
The House measure would provide 26 weeks of additional benefits in states with total unemployment rates of at least 9 percent or adjusted insured unemployment rates of 5 percent or higher. Unemployed workers in all other states would be eligible for an additional 20 weeks of benefits.
3
(page 5)
The House bill, like the Senate bill, spends more money in the first two years than it raises. Its $5.8 billion price tag would be paid off over a period of six fiscal years, but it would increase the federal deficit over fiscal years 1992 and 1993 by $4.1 billion.
These benefits are financed by:
· Increasing the amount of wages subject to taxation under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). The FUTA tax is currently levied on employers on the employee's first $7,000 of earnings. The House bill would raise that figure to $28,200 in FY 95 and index it for future years. The bill would also reduce the FUTA rate from 0.8 percent to 0.3 percent in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and 0.25 percent thereafter. This provision would raise an estimated $212 million over fiscal years 1995-97.
· Disallowing deductions for executive compensation payments in excess of $1 million. This provision, which would be effective retroactive to January 1, 1992, would raise $2 billion over six years.
· Extending for two years (1996 and 1997) the exemption phaseout for certain high-income taxpayers. This would raise $4 billion in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Outlook
The June 19 Senate action on H.R. 5260 helped resurrect controversy over the EUC program. Congressional Democrats provoked partisan showdowns a year ago before agreeing with the White House and Congressional Republicans on an adequately- financed program of extended benefits.
With the Democratic National Convention fast approaching, the party's Congressional wing seems eager once again to engage the White House in a battle whose casualties will be jobless Americans.
Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946
4
(page 6)
Appendix: H.R. 5260 as Passed by the Senate
Bill Provisions
Part I - Benefit Provisions
· Extends the EUC program through March 6, 1993. The current schedule of benefits - 33 weeks for certain states and 26 weeks for all others (see "Background") - would change, however, as the unemployment rate drops.
- Once the seasonally-adjusted national unemployment rate dips below 7 percent for two consecutive months, the number of weeks of additional benefits will drop to 15 (instead of 33) and 10 (instead of 26). [The national unemployment rate for May was 7.5 percent.]
- Once the rate falls below 6.8 percent for two successive months, the number of weeks of additional benefits will drop to 13 and 7.
This provision is estimated to cost $3.9 billion in fiscal years 1992 and 1993.
· Modifies the "trigger" for the Extended Benefits (EB) program. A state may initiate payments under the EB program, which pays up to 13 weeks of additional benefits to workers who have exhausted their eligibility for regular unemployment assistance, if unemployment levels have reached certain thresholds.
Under current law [see "Background"], the program can be triggered if a state's insured unemployment rate (IUR) for the most recent 13-week period is at least 5 percent and if it is at least 20 percent higher than it was for the same period in both of the previous two years; or if its IUR is at least 6 percent.
H.R. 5260 would allow states to trigger the program if their total unemployment rate (TUR) for the most recent 3 months is at least 10 percent higher than it was for the same period in either of the previous two years; or if their TUR for the most recent three months is at least 6.5 percent.
This provision, which effects a permanent change in the unemployment program, is estimated to cost $1.5 billion over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Extends emergency unemployment benefits for railroad workers through March 6, 1993.
· Revises criteria used by states to determine whether workers are eligible for EB and EUC benefits.
5
(page 7)
· Provides continued eligibility for EUC benefits for workers who return to the unemployment rolls after taking temporary jobs. Under current law, a worker who, after exhausting regular UC benefits, takes a temporary job and then loses it is not eligible for EUC benefits once he loses his temporary job. This is because his earnings at the temporary job can be sufficient to qualify him for regular UC benefits. Since these benefits are based on wages earned at the temporary job, they are generally less than the EUC benefits that he would have received had he stayed on the unemployment rolls rather than accepting temporary work.
H.R. 5260 would preserve such a worker's entitlement to EUC benefits.
Part II - Revenue Provisions
· Changes rules regarding taxable years of partnerships. Current law restricts the ability of partnerships, S corporations and personal service corporations to elect taxable years other than the required taxable year. H.R. 5260 would allow such entities to elect any taxable year, but it also would increase the amount that such entities must pay the government when they do so. This provision, which would take effect in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1991, is estimated to raise $160 million over fiscal years 1992-97.
· Provides for mandatory withholding of taxes on certain nonperiodic pension distributions. Under current law, income tax withholding, at a 10-percent rate, on nonperiodic pension distributions is required unless the payee elects not to have withholding apply. H.R. 5260 would raise the withholding rate to 20 percent and make it mandatory, unless funds are transferred directly by the trustee to a new depository. The provision would take effect on January 1, 1993 and would raise $2.147 billion over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Increases the corporate estimated tax. Under current law, corporations are subject to an additional tax for any underpayment of estimated tax. In 1992, their estimated tax must total at least 93 percent of their actual liability in order to avoid these penalties. That figure rises to 95 percent for tax years beginning after December 31, 1992.
H.R. 5260 would require corporate estimated tax to total at least 96 percent of their actual liability for tax years beginning after June 30, 1992. This provision is estimated to raise $706 million over fiscal years 1993-97.
· Requires securities dealers to value their inventories on a "mark-to-market". basis. Current tax law requires people who deal in securities to maintain an inventory of securities held for sale to customers. Such taxpayers may choose among three methods for determining the worth of their inventories. They can "value" their inventory based on: 1) the cost of the securities; (2) the lower of the cost or market value of the securities; and (3) the market value of the securities ("mark to market").
6
(page 8)
H.R. 5260 requires securities dealers to value their inventory on a "mark to market" basis. This provision, which would take effect in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1992, is estimated to raise $2.46 billion over fiscal years 1992-97.
· Prohibits "double dipping" by thrifts who receive certain federal financial assistance. The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) has agreed to compensate acquirers of troubled thrift institutions for the difference between the book value and sales proceeds of certain troubled or non-performing assets. This FSLIC compensation is not subject to taxation. Moreover, those who receive such compensation can still deduct the losses for which they have been compensated.
H.R. 5260 provides that if a taxpayer disposes of an asset entitled to FSLIC assistance, the taxpayer may not claim a deduction for a loss incurred in the sale or other disposition of the asset. This provision is estimated to raise $421 million over fiscal years 1992-97.
FY 92
FY 93
FY 94
FY 95
FY 96
FY 97
TOTAL
Additional Benefits
970
3,627
440
245
77
77
5,436
Additional Revenues
474
3,721
297
400
526
474
5,894
Net
-496
94
-143
155
449
397
458
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding.
7
(page 9)
U.S. Senate
Republican Policy
Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnston, Staff Director
Issue Alert
June 23, 1992
Congressional Action Possible As Rail Strike Looms
Three separate disputes between railway carriers and labor unions representing machinists on major freight carriers nationwide, Amtrak employees, and "maintenance of way" workers on Conrail seem likely to result in a strike as the 12:01 a.m., June 24 deadline approaches.
Should a strike occur, Congress will be confronted with conflicting positions held by the parties involved in the disputes, as well as by third parties that would be most directly affected by a strike. Industries that depend on rail service want Congress to pass legislation to end any strike and implement the Presidential Emergency Boards' recommendations. This is essentially what Congress did in a related dispute last April, when it adopted a bill that provided for implementation of a Presidential Emergency Board's recommendations covering roughly 95 percent of railway employees. The President signed that bill into law less than 24 hours after the strike began. [H.J. Res. 222 passed the Senate by voice on April 17, 1991.]
Some unions, on the other hand, seem interested in avoiding a replay of last year's action. They argue that Congress should stay out of the controversy, believing that a strike will wring more favorable terms out of the industry.
The parties also argue over the strike's potential impact, which is likely to be a key factor in determining whether Congress will intervene. Most observers believe that Congress would not let a rail strike continue for very long if it substantially disrupted rail service. Congress has intervened to stop a dozen such strikes since 1963, most of them nationwide but some confined to single railroad companies. Rail industry officials say that a strike would curtail or halt industrial operations and adversely affect commuter rail service to 500 communities in 45 states. The unions, on the other hand, argue that a strike would not disrupt the economy and would affect only certain regions of the country.
The present controversy comprises three separate disputes involving:
· Forty-one freight railroads (including most major railroads) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM);
· Conrail and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE); and
· Amtrak and various labor unions that represent roughly one-third of its employees. [Amtrak's disputes with four other unions were recently settled.]
(page 10)
These disputes date back to 1988, when contracts between railroads and the various unions representing their employees expired. After two years of failed negotiations, President Bush appointed a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB 219) to investigate and report on the dispute. The Board's recommendations, issued January 15, 1991, called for 10 percent wage increases over the life of the contract, 11 percent cost-of-living adjustments and immediate lump sum payments of $2,000 to each employee. It also provided for employees to pay a share of their health insurance premiums and for changes in certain work rules. The Board, for example, increased the "basic day" (the minimum distance a train must travel in order for its crew to get a day's wage) from 108 miles to 130 miles, and reduced the size of certain operating crews.
Under the Railway Labor Act, the Board's action triggered a 30-day waiting period, which the parties - in view of the ongoing war in the Persian Gulf - voluntarily extended through midnight, April 17. Just 17 hours after picket lines had formed, the President signed into law legislation that had the effect of imposing the recommendations of PEB 219 on labor and management.
The unions involved in the current disputes were not covered by PEB 219, and pursued separate negotiations. Effective April 3, 1992, President Bush appointed three separate emergency boards - one to deal with the IAM (PEB 220), one to deal with Conrail (PEB 221), and a third to deal with Amtrak (PEB 222).
The May 28 submission of the Boards' reports initiated a "cooling off" period that expires at 12:01 a.m., June 24. Talks between the various parties have continued, but many observers are less than optimistic about the possibility of a settlement. People who run industries that depend on rail service already have begun urging Congress to act promptly to prevent severe economic disruption, while some unions have argued that lawmakers should stay out of the dispute.
Administration and key Congressional officials have largely remained silent as to their intentions. In a June 2 "Dear Colleague" letter, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell discouraged House members from expressing their views on whether Congress should act until after the June 24 deadline passed. "We strongly urge our colleagues," Dingell wrote, "to refrain from any activity suggesting to any of the parties that the current disputes - either by intentional act or omission of the Congress - will be settled in any manner other than by voluntary action of the parties themselves."
As the deadline nears, the likelihood of a strike grows, and Congress may have to decide whether or not to settle the strike through the legislative process.
Staff Contact: Doug Badger, 224-2946
(page 11)
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
6/23/92
1) Presidential Disapproval Ties Record High
(The Wirthlin Poll: 1,029 adults surveyed 6/3-5; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/92)
2) What if the Election Goes to the House?
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/12-14; margin of error +/- 3%)
3) Perot "Peaking" ?; Men Leave Bush
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: rel. 6/17)
4) Minnesota: Strong Dem State in Perot Column
(Minneapolis Star Truibune Poll: 1,003 L Vs surveyed 6/7-14; margin of error +/- 3%)
5) CONGRESS: An Institution in Turmoil
(Tarrance Group/Greenberg -Lake Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/2-4; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/10)
6) Our Natural Resources: An Environmental Poll
(TIMES-MIRROR Nat'l. Environmental Survey: 1,200 adults surveyed 2/28-3/10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
(page 12)
1
1) PRESIDENTIAL DISAPPROVAL TIES RECORD HIGH
(The Wirthlin Poll: 1,029 adults surveyed 6/3-5; margin of error +/- 3.05%; rel. June '92)
Q: "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George Bush is handling his job as President?"
Record Disapproval
NOW
5/92
4/92
3/92
Total Approve
42%
41%
44%
41%
Strongly approve
12
Somewhat approve
30
Total Disapproval
53%
50%
51%
53%
Somewhat disapprove
23
Strongly approve
30
Don't Know
4
Refuse
2
NOTE: A great threat to the President's re-election hope reflects in the fact that more Americans believe that the Democratic Congress can do a better job handling the national economy (39%) than Republican President George Bush - an issue traditionally dominated by Republicans.
2) WHAT IF THE ELECTION GOES TO THE HOUSE?
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/12-14; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/17)
Q: "How would/should your Rep. Vote if the election goes to the House?"
For candidate who won your CD 12%
Candidate who won your state 13
Candidate who won nationally 52
Candidate nominated by your Rep.'s Party 13
(page 13)
3) PEROT "PEAKING"; MEN LEAVE BUSH
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 6/17)
3-way
6/12-14
6/4-8
5/18-20
6/12-14 FAV/UNFAV
5/18-20 FAV/UNFAV
Perot
34%
39%
35%
52%/30%
50%/25%
Bush
32
31
35
44/51
48/47
Clinton
24
25
25
41/47
42/48
Undec.
10
5
5
3-way
ALL
MEN
WOM
CONS
MOD
LIB
Perot
34%
37%
31%
27%
42%
31%
Bush
32
30
34
52
25
11
Clinton
24
22
25
12
23
49
Undec.
10
11
10
9
10
9
Q: "How worried are you Perot would...
Be prejudiced against Women, Minorities Not respect Const./ Take too much power
ALL
MEN
WOM
WHT
NON-WHT
ALL
Very
10%
7%
12%
8%
19%
14%
Somewhat
23
16
30
11
32
28
Not too
28
28
27
31
18
28
Not at all
32
43
23
38
25
26
4) MINNESOTA: STRONG DEM STATE IN PEROT COLUMN
(Minneapolis Star Tribune Poll: 1,003 LVs surveyed 6/7-14; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
3-way
ALL
Perot
40%
Bush
30
Clinton
23
Undec.
7
2-way
ALL
Bush
46%
Clinton
43
Undec.
11
Bush re-elect
Deserves re-election
23%
Want someone new
73
(page 14)
5) CONGRESS: AN INSTITUTION IN TURMOIL
(Tarrance Group/Greenberg-Lake Poll: 1,000 RVs surveyed 6/2-4; margin of error +/- 3.1%; rel. 6/10)
Q: "The President vs. Congress..."
To break the deadlock and get things done, I would vote Republican for Congress and give President Bush a Congress he can work with.
30%
I prefer the President and Congress to be of different parties, because that way they can balance each other out.
29%
I would like to give President Bush a Republican Congress to work with, but I like my incumbent Democrat Congressman too much to vote against him.
4%
Instead of trying to change congress, I would like to elect a Democrat President who would work with the Democrats in Congress.
27%
None of the above/Unsure
10%
Q: "The Problem with Congress...."
Deficit/Spending/Taxes
13%
Doesn't do anything
13
Partisan fighting
12
Ethics/Checkbouncing
8
Protect Themselves
7
Pay raises
5
Special Interests
5
There too long
4
Other
20
Generic Congressional Ballot: a Time Series
June 1991
December 1991
June 1992
Republican
39%
35%
41%
Democrat
37
42
46
Undecided
25
24
12
(page 15)
4
6) OUR NATURAL RESOURCES: AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLL
(TIMES-MIRROR Nat'l. Environmental Survey: 1,200 adults surveyed 2/28-3/10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 6/18)
Q: "Are there enough wild or natural areas in the U.S.?"
Right amount
58%
Not enough
32
Too much
7
Don't know
3
Q: "Is current Wetlands protection adequate?"
More effort needed
53%
Struck right balance
24
Gone too far
8
Don't know
15
Q: "Do you think environmental protection laws and regulations have...."
Gone too far
10%
Struck about the right balance
17
Not gone far enough
63
Don't know
10
NOTE: 22% of those surveyed voted for/against a candidate based on his/her environmental position.
68% say biologists or environmental groups should decide which endangered species deserve the most protection.
92% surveyed believe a balance between environmental protection and economic development can be attained.
(page 16)
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Don Nickles, Chairman
Kelly D. Johnson, Staff Director
Economic Indicators
June 23, 1992
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION UPTURN: 4[th] MONTH
The Federal Reserve's industrial production index increased 0.6% in May. The industrial production index measures output in the manufacturing, mining, and electric and gas utilities industries.
May 92
Apr. 92
May 91
Annual
Total Index
108.8
108.1
106.4
+2.2%
Products
111.3
110.5
107.7
+1.9%
Materials
107.3
106.8
104.5
+2.6%
Manufacturing
109.8
109.0
106.6
+3.0%
Mining
98.8
99.1
100.2
-1.4%
Utilities
107.3
107.7
111.4
-3.7%
Up +0.6%
Total Index
May
+0.6%
Apr.
+0.5%
Mar.
+0.4%
Feb.
+0.5%
Jan.
-0.7%
Dec.
-0.6%
Nov.
-0.3%
Oct.
0.0%
Sept.
+0.4%
PRODUCTIVITY GAINS CONTINUE TO INCREASE
Productivity increased during the 1[st] quarter of 1992 at the fastest rate since the recession ended. In manufacturing, a productivity decline in durable goods resulted in a fall in the sector as a whole. In non-financial corporations overall, output rose 2.7 percent and hours fell 0.2 percent.
1[st] Qtr. 92
Annual
All Business
+2.8%
+2.1%
Non-farm business
+2.7%
+1.9%
Manufacturing
-1.0%
+2.4%
Durable goods
-3.0%
+1.8%
Non-durable
+1.8%
+3.1%
Quarter
1991 I
+2.8%
'91 IV
+1.8%
III
+1.9%
II
+2.0%
I
-0.1%
Staff Contact: Joe Cobb, 224-2946
(page 17)
(handwritten) June 23, 1992 Republican Conference (end handwritten)
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEE SUGGESTIONS
DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION THE COMMITTTEE 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 AN 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 THE CASE THAT 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) IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL, SENATORS' CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING RANDOMLY SELECTED ORDER 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 HIS OR HER 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 WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION (IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER) WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.
(page 18)
POLICY LUNCHEON AGENDA
Tuesday, June 23, 1992
(handwritten) Joyce
Wed and Thursday
5:00
Roundtable (end handwritten)
Schedule:
GSE Bill schedule to be put before Senate after Policy Lunch. Possible Amendments:
Gramm: Balanced Budget, Crime
Dodd: Limited Partnership Roll-up
Kasten: Product Liability
Specter: Trash
Baucus: Recycling
Bumpers: Thrift Interstate Branching
Other Issues:
NO AMENDMENT LETTER - Encourage senators not to sign any letters committing to a no amendment strategy. We should wait to see what the Democrats do before giving up any options. This may be a particular problem with the extender/luxury tax bill. We know Ways and Means are planning to add other items to the bill, including changes in passive losses and enterprise zones.
Soviet Aid Package - Senator Mitchell says he wants to move prior to recess. Numerous (over 30) amendments expected.
Higher Education - Conference Report completed - expect to be filed this week. Senators Hatch and Kassebaum want to determine veto strength - House will not sustain a veto. Key issue is the inclusion of new government direct loan program. The White House is prepared to compromise pilot project of less than $500 million.
Darman wants to show we have veto strength to encourage further negotiations.
A veto bill could be tough to sustain. Most of the bill is a success for the Administration.
Rail Strike: 12 midnight Tuesday - cooling off period expires. Unclear if there will be a move to legislate the PEB recommendations. Senator Hatch may want to comment. President Bush will likely hold major press event pressing for action by congress to prevent the strike by legislating the PEB recommendations.
Retail Pric Maintenance: Conference Report likely to be filed very soon. Very controversial. Administration opposes and will veto. The bill passed the Senate by
(handwritten) Meet and (unintelligible) 8:30 9:30 10:15 (end handwritten)
(page 19)
2
Voice vote after a 63-35 cloture vote. Votes to sustain a veto may be tough to get. Senator Rudman strong proponent of bill. Senator Thurmond is the major opponent and believes he has votes to sustain.
Energy Bill - Senators Wallop/Packwood comment.
Biggest issues:
Yucca Mountain
Rockefeller Coal Provisions
Governor Clinton's Budget Proposal - I have asked staff to do an analysis of the Clinton plan and its major weaknesses, particularly the impact on small business. We hope to have material to you within a few days.
(page 20)
06/23/92 11:41 SEN. DOLE HART 141 PRESS OFFICE 002
June 22, 1992
TO: Senator Dole
FROM: David Wilson
SUBJECT: Higher Education Act Conference Report
Cc: Sheila
OVERVIEW
Last week, the conference on the Higher Education Act was completed and the report is expected to be filed in the next few days. A last minute insertion of a direct loan "pilot" program may jeopardize an otherwise successful bill, however. Under this lending concept, the government doesn't insure a loan, but cuts out the banks and makes the loan itself. Although the Administration was originally supportive of direct-loans, it now ears that such loans will be difficult to administer. Department of Education did not want to veto this bill, but now Secretary Alexander is pushing for one because of the direct lending provision.
There was very little lobbying on this issue during conference, as direct lending was thought to be a dead issue. During Senate consideration earlier this year, however, we heard from the banking industry (Kansas and Nationally) and from colleges. Most colleges oppose a direct-lending program, as they would have to assume costly administration responsibilities.
POTENTIAL KANSAS CONCERNS
A Sallie Mae Regional office is based in Lawrence and employs more than 500 people.
More than 160 Kansas lending institutions service student loans. These same institutions provided more than $130 million in loans for FY 1991.
(page 21)
MEMORANDUM
June 23, 1992
TO: SENATOR DOLE
FROM: JIM MCMILLAN
RE: UPCOMING RAIL STRIKE
BACKGROUND. Last year Congress imposed a legislative settlement on the railroads and most of their labor force based on the recommendations of Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) 219 ending a one and one-half day national rail strike. Since that time complete language settlements have been reached between all of the labor organizations that participated in PEB 219 and the rail freight industry.
The current problems are coming from those unions that refused to join other unions in bargaining (i.e., they weren't bound by PEB 219 or congressional action based on that report) and which have refused to accept the general industry-standard recommendations of PEB219.
The remaining disputes include:
The International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers (IAM) and the nation's freight railroads,
Conrail and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE); and
Amtrak, the BWE and several other organizations.
On April 3, President Bush appointed PEB 220, 221 and 222 to prepare recommendations concerning the foregoing disputes. These reports have since been completed and the statutory cooling off period expires at midnight on Tuesday, June 23, 1992.
As of this morning, there appears to be no prospects of a settlement of any of the disputes (some had hopes that IAM would settle). Generally speaking, any strike by the IAM would shut many railroads down even though it represents only 25,000 employees. There are about 44 IAM workers in Kansas.
In addition, with respect to Amtrak and Conrail disputes, while negotiations continue, Jed Dodd, one of the general chairman of the BMWE, has said that he is unwilling to accept the PEB 219 pattern and intends to strike Conrail and Amtrak.
At this point there are lots of rumors floating around - ranging from a complete strike beginning at 12:01 tomorrow morning, to a rolling strike, to postponing any strike until July 7 when the Senate is out on recess.
(page 22)
RAIL AND UNION POSITIONS
Rail Position. Each of the PEB reports is based heavily on PEB 219 which governs the rest of the industry and its labor force. Generally speaking, the railroads are willing to accept the recommendations of PEB 220, 221, and 222.
Needless to say, from a policy perspective, it would be a bad move for congress to legislate an agreement that would be an improvement over the PEB recommendations. Specifically, unions should not be rewarded for refusing to bargain with their fellow unions. Otherwise, labor unions will be encouraged to fragment bargaining and bring strikes to Congress for resolution where they believe they can get the best deal.
Union Position. They want to be able to strike and negotiate on the basis of a strike without congressional intervention. They oppose the recommendations of PEB 220, 221, and 222.
Congress/Administration. While the democrats publicly state that the rail unions should be entitled to exercise their legal right to strike, they are hard pressed with respect to the rest of their constituents when national rail traffic is halted. A rail strike will, among other industries, shut down the auto industry, and any strike against Amtrak and Conrail hits the northeast particularly hard (including Ohio and Massachusetts). While it isn't publicly stating so, the Administration has a bill implementing the PEB recommendations that it can send to the Hill if necessary.
(page 23)
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 AN 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 THE CASE THAT 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) IF ALL PRIOR SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ARE EQUAL, SENATORS' CONFERENCE SENIORITY AND POSITION FOR SELECTION OF COMMITTEES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DRAWING. THE RESULTING RANDOMLY SELECTED ORDER 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 HIS OR HER 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 WHICH COMMITTEE THEY WISH TO RELINQUISH AS THEIR THIRD "A" COMMITTEE. THIS DESIGNATION (IF NOT STATED IN A LETTER) WOULD BE UNDER THE SAME TIME CONSTRAINTS AS SUGGESTED ABOVE.
Position: 3316 (4 views)