Policy Luncheon, March 30, 1993

Item

Other Media: lead_407_010_all_tr.txt; lead_407_010_all_tr.docx

Transcription (Scripto): Read Full Text Only (TXT)
Extent (Dublin Core): 90 Pages
File Name (Dublin Core): lead_407_010_all
Title (Dublin Core): Policy Luncheon, March 30, 1993
Date (Dublin Core): 1993-03-30
Date Created (Dublin Core): 1993-03-30
Congress (Dublin Core): 103rd (1993-1995)
Policy Area (Curation): Government Operations and Politics
Creator (Dublin Core): Dole, Robert J., 1923-2021; U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee
Record Type (Dublin Core): agendas; 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 407, Folder 10
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)

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

(Page 2)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 29, 1993

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

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

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

(Page 3)

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

(Page 4)

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

(Page 5)

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

(Page 6)

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

(Page 7)

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

(Page 8)

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

(Page 9)

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

(Page 10)

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

(Page 11)

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

(Page 12)

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

(Page 13)

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

(Page 14)

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

(Page 15)

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

(Page 16)

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

(Page 17)

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

(Page 18)

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

(Page 19)

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

(Page 20)

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

(Page 21)

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

(Page 22)

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

(Page 23)

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

(Page 24)

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

(Page 25)

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

(Page 26)

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

(Page 27)

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

(Page 28)

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

(Page 29)

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

(Page 30)

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

(Page 31)

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

(Page 32)

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

(Page 33)

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

(Page 34)

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

(Page 35)

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

(Page 36)

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

(Page 37)

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

(Page 38)

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

(Page 39)

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

(Page 40)

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

(Page 41)

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

(Page 42)

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

(Page 43)

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

(Page 44)

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

(Page 45)

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

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

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

(Page 46)

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

(Page 47)

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

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

(Page 48)

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

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

(Page 49)

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

(Page 50)

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

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

(Page 51)

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

(Page 52)

Excerpts from the Mayors’ “Ready To Go Projects”

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

(Page 53)

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

(Page 54)

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

(Page 55)

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

(Page 56)

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

(Page 57)

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

(Page 58)

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

(Page 59)

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

(Page 60)

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

(Page 61)

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

(Page 62)

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

(Page 63)

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

(Page 64)

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

(Page 65)

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

(Page 66)

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

(Page 67)

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

(Page 68)

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

(Page 69)

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

(Page 70)

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

(Page 71)

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

(Page 72)

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

(Page 73)

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

(Page 74)

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

(Page 75)

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

(Page 76)

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

(Page 77)

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

(Page 78)

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

(Page 79)

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

(Page 80)

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

(Page 81)

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

(Page 82)

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

(Page 83)

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

(Page 84)

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

(Page 85)

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

(Page 86)

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

(Page 87)

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

(Page 88)

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

(Page 89)

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

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

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

(Page 90)

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

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

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

5) CLINTON’S SUPREME COURT PICK (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 3/35/93)
Clinton should pick someone for Supreme Court who will make the Court…
More Liberal 29%
More conservative 29
Same 38
(Page 1)

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

(Page 2)

SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF MARCH 29, 1993

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

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

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

(Page 3)

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

(Page 4)

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

(Page 5)

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

(Page 6)

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

(Page 7)

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

(Page 8)

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

(Page 9)

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

(Page 10)

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

(Page 11)

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

(Page 12)

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

(Page 13)

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

(Page 14)

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

(Page 15)

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

(Page 16)

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

(Page 17)

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

(Page 18)

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

(Page 19)

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

(Page 20)

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

(Page 21)

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

(Page 22)

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

(Page 23)

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

(Page 24)

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

(Page 25)

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

(Page 26)

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

(Page 27)

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

(Page 28)

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

(Page 29)

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

(Page 30)

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

(Page 31)

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

(Page 32)

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

(Page 33)

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

(Page 34)

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

(Page 35)

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

(Page 36)

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

(Page 37)

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

(Page 38)

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

(Page 39)

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

(Page 40)

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

(Page 41)

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

(Page 42)

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

(Page 43)

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

(Page 44)

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

(Page 45)

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

Subcommittee
Budget authority
Loan Authorization
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
$602,655,000
$707,623,000
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
507,555,000
2,575,558,000
District of Columbia
28,177,000

Energy and Water Development
141,822,000

Interior Department
748,842,547

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
8,814,358,000

Limitation on administrative expenses
(302,000,000)

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
924,334,000

Limitation on administrative expenses
(3,242,100,000)

Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
153,093,000

Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development
4,336,617,000

Total
16,257,453,547
2,283,181,000
Limitation on administrative expenses
(302,000,000)

Limitation on obligations
(3,242,100,000)

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

(Page 46)

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

(Page 47)

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

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY

NEW OBLIGATION LIMIT

TOTAL NEW SPENDING AUTHORITY

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

(Page 48)

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

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

(Page 49)

Spending Levels, Jobs Created, and Federal Spending per Job in H.R. 1335 (Based on OMB Director Panetta's March 9, 1993, letter (1)
(In millions of dollars)
Chart 3
Committee Request
BA
Ob. Lmt.
Loan
# of jobs
$ per job
INFRASTRUCTURE

Corps of Engineers
94

1,409
66,714
Highways/ISTEA

2,976

13,100
227,176
Airports

250

200
1,250,000
Amtrak
188

700
268,571
Mass Transit
736
16

3,800
193,684
VA maintenance
235
3,242

3,115
75,441
Subtotal
1,253

22,324
200,636
SUMMER OF OPPORTUNITY

Unemployment comp
4,000

0
N/A
Pell Grant shortfall
1,864

0
N/A
Summer youth
1,000

111,600
8,865
Chptr. 1 census/summer progs
735

20,000
36,750
Head Start summer program
500

12,500
40,000
Immunizations
300

250
1,200,000
AIDS: Ryan White CARE Act
200

0
N/A
SBA business loan subsidies
141

2,575
3,021
46,673
WIC
75

300
250,000
Childcare Feeding
56

0
N/A
BIA Schools
49

100
490,000
Title V older Americans emp.
32

5,600
5,714
Emergency food assistance
23

0
N/A
National Services program
15

250
89,820
Worker profiling
14

0
N/A
EEOC
9

156
57,692
Subtotal
9,013

2,575
153,777
58,611
TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS

NSF R&D and computing
207

1,160
178,448
SSI
150

0
N/A
IRS tax modernization
148

404
366,337
NIST, adv. Tech. & computing
117

470
248,936
NOAA equipment
81

125
648,000
NTIA Info. Highways (Commerce)
64

122
524,590
SSI trust fund
10

0
N/A
NIH computing
9

66
136,364
NASA computing
5

38
131,579
SSI disability processing
(302)

0
N/A
Subtotal
791

2,385
331,656
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING

CDBG
2,536

15,894
159,557
Supportive Housing
423

3,430
123,324
Economic development admin
94

352
267,045
D.C. deficit assistance
28

0
N/A
Minority business development
2

0
N/A
Accelerate public housing mod.
0

1,090
N/A
Subtotal
3,083

20,766
148,464

(Page 50)

Spending Levels, Jobs Created, and Federal Spending per job in H.R. 1335 (In millions of dollars)
Committee Request
BA
Ob. Limits
Loan
# jobs
$per job
RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Rural Dev. Auth. Grants
282

Incl. w/loans

Natural resources protection - FS
188

2,500
75,200
Rural Dev. Auth. Loans
67

470
84
797,619
Soil conservation watershed
47

305
154,098
Ag. research facility main
38

282
134,752
BIA road maintenance forest dev. (2)
28

6,580
4,255
BIA Constr (2) (3)
11

2,445
4,499
FMHA very low Income housing repair grants
6

90
66,667
Food safety & Inspection service
4

80
50,000
FMHA housing guaranty loans
4

235
810
4,938
FMHA very low income housing repair loans
1

3
90
11,111
Subtotal
676

708
13,266
50,957
ENVIRONMENT/ENERGY

EPA wastewater state revolving fund
845

862
980,278
NPS Natural resource protection
231

0

Fish & Wildlife
87

0

National laboratories
47

216
217,593
Weatherization
47

282
166,667
EPA watershed restoration
47

704
66,761
Vehicle energy conservation
28

235
119,149
NPS historic preservation
23

425
54,118
EPA green programs
23

169
136,095
Building & Industrial cons.
19

94
202,128
BLM
17

0

Fed. Building energy efficiency
17

85
200,000
BIA Constr (2)
15

3,525
4,255
Subtotal
1,446

6,597
219,191
TOTALS:

Budget Authority
16,262

219,115
89,013(4)
Obligation Limitations

3,242

Loans Levels*

3,283

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

(Page 51)

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

(Page 52)

Excerpts from the Mayors' "Ready To Go Projects"

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Auburn, AL
New gym
$460,000
13
p.2
Florence, AL
New fences for Recreation Department
$15,000
12

Tempe, AZ
Convert 25 vehicles to Compressed Natural Gas
$75,000
4

Alameda, CA
Pathways in various parks
$85,000
2
P.9

Purchase a ferry vessel
$1,220,000
20

Fairfield, CA
Build phase 1 of a sports park
$10,000,000
50
P.13

Build a police building
$25,000,000
280

Hayward, CA
Build a neighborhood center
$2,000,000
12
p.16
Hemet, CA
Build a fire station
$4,500,000
40

Highland, CA
Graffiti abatement
$100,000
4

Build a telecommuting center
$150,000
25

Huntington Park, CA
Buy trees/tree planters
$80,000
10
P.17

Build a parking garage
$850,000
25

Lancaster, CA
Build a bike path
$8,080,000
70
P.18
Los Angeles, CA
Build a childcare facility
$1,000,000
19

Construct a rec. center with a pool
$7,000,000
71

Build a rec. center in Baldwin Hills
$1,400,000
20

Merced, CA
Build a senior center
$1,900,000
50
p.19

Build youth sports complex
$2,200,000
25

Buy bus stop signs/shelters
$40,000
5

Modesta, CA
Build an amphitheater/softball field
$1,200,000
30

Build three bike paths
$1,337,400
0

1

(Page 53)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Monterey Park, CA
Build ten bus shelters
$170,000
6
p.20

El Encanto restoration
$150,000
10

Napa, CA
Expand and restore a senior center
$1,300,000
80

Build bike paths
$500,000
20

Begin transit service ctr.
$300,000
20

Purchase traffic signals
$1,500,000
20

Norwalk, CA
Build senior citizens center
$1,700,000
57
P. 22
Placentia, CA
Staffing for projects
$50,000
2
p. 25

Graffiti removal
$100,000
5

"Outreach programs"
$75,000
10

Redding, CA
Enterprise community park - phase 1
$1,600,000
40
p. 26

Build a fire training center
$250,000
14

Mall renovation
$1,000,000
50

Build a dispatch center
$800,000
20

Build a fire station
$450,000
21

Office park
$260,000
5

Construct a bike path
$55,000
13

Riverside, CA
Boat house restoration
$200,000
41
p. 27
Salinas, CA
Build a soccer field
$1,620,000
30

Build phase 3 of a community park
$,305,000
35

San Diego, CA
Build a community park
$200,000
10

San Francisco, CA
Fund the "art ark"
$1,200,000
40
p. 28
San Gabriel, CA
Historic roof repairs
$120,000
20

Street tree planting
$250,000
12

San Luis Obispo, CA
All projects
$1,145,000
0
p. 30
Santee, CA
Recreation building
$99,000
50
p. 33
Vallejo, CA
Youth shelter
$400,000
5
p. 39
2

(Page 54)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Denver, CO
Purchase, for govt. use, an inner-cty. Bldg.
$300,000
15
p. 36

Build a media center
$1,000,000
55

Thornton, CO
Built a fire station
$993,125
15

Bridgeport, CT
Poli/Majestic Theatres
$1,000,000
20
p. 37
East Hartford, CT
Conduct historic preservation
$13,000
3

Manchester, CT
Build a new police station
$8,000,00
50
p. 38

Build a new fire station
$675,0000
25

Build an ice-skating warming hut
$30,000
5

West Haven, CT
Construct a casino building
$1,000,000
20
p. 40

Build City Hall parking garage & deck
$750,000
25

Washington, DC
Camp Simms
$5,000,000
100

Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Business incubator building
$500,000
10
p.41

Beach parking garage
$5,000,000
50

Ft. Pierce, FL
All projects
$9,800,000
25
p. 42
Hialeah, FL
Park development
$1,000,000
25
p. 43

Park development
$2,000,000
150

Hollywood, FL
Myrtle Gray Center improvements
$42,000
15

Trolley service to beach/throughout city
$450,000
6

Jacksonville, FL
Senior center
$500,000
15

New Park
$875,000
20

Key West, FL
Parking garage
$3,500,000
25
p. 44
Miramar, FL
Park redevelopment
$1,400,000
50

Ocala, FL
Park redevelopment
$375,000
14

3

(Page 55)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Pensacola, FL
Two trolleys
$150,000
0

Port St. Lucie, FL
Whispering Pines Park recreation center
$3,000,000
200

Sandhill Crane Park
$250,000
20

Veterans Memorial Park
$200,000
15

Cameo Park
$93,000
7

Selvitz Park
$283,000
21

Atlanta, GA
Repair historic wall around cemetery
$2,500,000
0

Replace gym
$4,500,000
0

Acquisition/relocating funding for neighborhood development
$3,000,000
0

Cobb County, GA
Homeless facility
$1,500,000
75
P.47

Senior ctr.
$1,500,000
80

Senior ctr.
$1,400,000
75

Boys club
$500,000
45

Girls ctr.
$600,000
50
p.48

Two neighborhood ctr.
$1,200,000
80

Job training ctr.
$500,000
50

Gwinnett County, GA
Homeless facility
$800,000
50

Human services cluster ctr.
$1,500,000
75

Human services cluster ctr.
$2,000,000
75

Human services cluster ctr.
$2,000,000
75

Head Start Ctr.
$1,400,000
65

Human services cluster ctr.
$1,500,000
75

Boys/girls club
$500,000
50

4

(Page 56)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference

Child care ctr.
$1,000,000
50

South Gate, GA
Senior citizen center
$2,000,000
25

Maui City, HI
All projects
$1,373,000
0

Boise, ID
Three bike underpasses
$1,500,000
25
p.50

Improve bus stops
$500,000
20

Bollingbrook, IL
Enclose creek
$600,000
10

Chicago, IL
Neighborhood infrastructure
$5,500,000
90
p.51
Elk Grove Vil., IL
Pump house demolition
$15,000
8
p.52
Evanstan
Park restoration
$35,000
6

Park restoration
$15,000
6

Replace gym floor
$20,000
6

Macomb, IL
Buy/demolish old warehouses
$300,000
10
p.53
Moline, IL
Retail anchor infrastructure
$2,000,000
100

Niles, IL
Watertank repainting
$120,000
15
p.54
Rockford, IL
Park construction
$500,000
15
p.55
Anderson, IN
Neighborhood Park
$10,000
2
p.56

Watertower refurbishment
$225,000
5

Evansville, IN
All projects
$301,000
0
p.57
Fort Wayne, IN
Tree planting
$50,000
3

Gary, IN
Bus shelter/landscape
$200,000
10
p.58

Park improvements
$1,250,000
10

Farmers' market improvements
$750,000
20

Entry zone beautification
$450,000
20

Enhance central business district
$15,000,000
75

Four projects
$1,550,000
0

5

(Page 57)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Hammond, IN
Child Care center
$500,000
20

Expand shopping center
$600,000
40

Technical/vocational school construction
$3,000,000
200

Community center construction
$1,300,000
40

Boys/girls club construction
$1,300,000
40

Lake County, IN
Old Nurses home
$2,000,000
20
p.59
Terre Haute, IN
Demolition project
$250,000
12
p.60
Cedar Rapids, IA
Trail improvement
$2,880,000
100

Playground
$28,000
0

Davenport, IA
Bikepath
$430,000
11
p.61
Waterloo, IA
Fire dept. training center
$800,000
40

Two new parking ramp levels
$4,600,000
100

Kansas City, KS
New fire station
$1,300,000
50
p.62
Shawnee, KS
Period-type Street lighting in downtown
$750,000
40

Wichita, KS
Library relocation
$150,000
2
p.63
Bowling Green, KY
Industrial Park infrastructure
$1,000,000
50

Headstart/senior center
$750,000
0

Lexington, KY
Purchase more rideshare vehicles
$250,000
75
p.64
6

(Page 58)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference

Incident management
$1,565,000
50

Louisville, KY
Restore city parks
$2,500,000
125

Renovate theater
$2,000,000
350

Renovate libraries
$804,000
40

Build fire station
$2,000,000
100

Renovate central park
$1,250,000
60

Renovate western branch library
$539,000
30

Walkway & bikeway
$2,750,000
135

Two regional transit centers
$3,400,000
125

Baton Rouge, LA
Park improvements
$500,000
40

Kenner, LA
City hall building maintenance
$600,000
4
P. 66
Lake Charles, LA
New bus stop
$100,000
5

7

(Page 59)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Monroe, LA
Historic preservation
$327,000
15

Parking Lot
$50,000
15

Ywca historic preservation
$116,000
15

Shreveport, LA
Community center
$3,000,000
100
p. 67
Augusta, ME
Civic center expansion
$5,200,000
125

Police station
$1,500,000
35

Community center
$2,000,000
45

Park and ride lot
$200,000
10

Bangor, ME
Waterfront Park
$200,000
2
p. 68

Park renovation
$75,000
2

Vacant comm. Building renovation
$2,500,000
21

Parking garage
$200,000
2

Portland, ME
Ten projects
$9,865,000
0

Baltimore, MD
Seven projects
$4,896,000
0

PG County, MD
Homeless shelter
$400,000
10
p. 69

Day care center rehabilitation
$200,000
20

Attleboro, MA
Parking garage repairs
$7,500
5

Sprinkler system
$110,000
15

Bldgs. Purchase/demolition
$350,000
15

Boston, MA
Commercial development
$1,800,000
75

Inner-city mall
$1,200,000
120

8

(Page 60)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Brookline, MA
Playground rehabilitation
$150,000
3
p.70

Park rehabilitation
$1,000,000
25

Rehabilitaiton athletic facility
$275,000
15

Rehabilitation Park
$212,000
5

Rehabilitation playground
$190,000
3

Renovate Coolidge Library
$275,000
15

Chicopee, MA
Playground improvement
$200,000
7

Fall River, MA
Fire station repair
$1,459,000
60
p.71

Clean and paint water tank
$750,000
10

Construct two police stations
$6,000,000
50

Fitchburg, MA
Abandoned building demolition
$700,000
60
p.71
Framingham, MA
Evaluate former fire station for use as medical crt.
$150,000
8

Holyoke, MA
Trees planted on street
$200,000
10
p.72
Lynn, MA
Create downtown center
$1,725,000
15

Restore tower and cottage
$2,385,498
20
p.73
Maiden, MA
Build fire station
$3,500,000
75

Parking garage
$4,000,000
100

Three park improvements
$1,500,000
24
p.73
New Bedford, MA
Walking path
$160,000
16
p.74
Somerville, MA
Tree planting
$400,000
5
p.75

Park renovation
$1,500,000
15

9

(Page 61)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Springfield, MA
Neighborhood center
$400,000
30
p. 75

Business incubator
$5,000,000
30

Tourist information center
$1,500,000
10

Bus shelter
$2,000,000
15

Battlecreek, MI
Renovate recreation center
$3,000,000
75

Dearborn, MI
Streetscaping
$50,000
8

Parking lot redesign
$300,000
30

Develop playground
$38,000
6

Detroit, MI
Replace bus shelter
$1,000,000
5

Replace bus garage air compressors
$600,000
0

Replace bus shelters
$1,000,000
5

Purchase four bus wash racks
$480,000
3

Farmington Hills, MI
Bike path
$100,000
10
p. 78
Inkster, MI
Shopping center
$600,000
50

Kalamazoo, MI
Central compost facility
$250,000
20
p. 79
Pontiac, MI
Security guards for public housing
$100,000
5
p. 80

Counseling for self-defeating behavior
$50,000
5

Portage, MI
Improve bike path
$70,000
10

Saginaw, MI
Remodel restrooms, build basketball fac.
$150,000
12
p. 81
Troy, MI
Bike path
$462,000
30
p. 82
Minneapolis, MN
Convert brewery to industrial park
$5,000,000
60

Preserve historic landmark
$2,500,000
25

Build grocery store
$1,400,000
250

Build bike path
$5,000,000
40
p. 83
10

(Page 62)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
St. Charles, MO
Replace playground equipment
$13,900
4
p. 85

Basketball court and restrooms
$64,000
30

St. Louis, MO
Restrooms
$1,250,000
10

Helena, MT
Bike path
$250,000
30
p. 86
Lincoln, NE
Infant headstart complex
$363,000
10
p. 86
Clark County, NV
Parking lot
$139,400
9
p. 87
Henderson, NV
Restroom & playground
$250,000
10

Las Vegas, NV
Art center
$1,000,000
4

Reno, NV
Playground equipment
$10,000
3

Replace playground equipment
$160,000
3

Replace modular equipment
$20,000
16

Soundwalls
$205,800
6

Replace playground equipment
$300,000
8

Concord, NH
Renovate restrooms & locker rooms
$50,000
5
p. 88

Industrial park
$1,297,000
66

Manchester, NH
Rehabilitate Park
$100,000
8
p. 89

Bike path
$130,000
6

Nashua, NH
Recreation facilities
$280,000
14
p. 89

Victory gardens
$65,000
7

Camden, NJ
Park improvements
$3,500,000
100

Park rangers
$100,000
20

East Orange, NJ
Arcade improvement
$40,000
0

Newark, NJ
Performing Arts Center: Phase 1
$15,000,000
600
p. 92

Rehab. Neighborhood service ctr.
$14,000,000
500

Noirth Bergen, NJ
Recreation building
$1,000,000
100
p. 93
11

(Page 63)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Perth Amboy, NJ
Tennis court reconstruction
$80,000
11
p. 94

Pool
$350,000
15

Park
$35,000
5

Gymnasium
$700,000
25

Parking lot/roof
$120,000
12

Recreation space
$500,000
20

Teaneck, NJ
Tennis court reconstruction
$110,000
20

Lighting fields
$130,000
20

Basketball courts
$150,000
20

Trenton, NJ
Theater site preparation
$250,000
5
p. 95
Farmington, NM
Remodel jail
$500,000
25

Remode alcohol treatment center
$180,000
10

Auburn, NY
Cultural arts center
$10,000,000
118
p. 96

Day care facility
$754,795
47

Baseball stadium
$2,750,000
23

Landscape planting on highway
$325,000
20

Binghamton, NY
Carousel enclosure
$50,000
5
p. 97
Elmira, NY
Sports & rec. building
$756,000
12

Poughkeepsie, NY
Parking deck
$4,000,000
30
p. 99
Rome, NY
Hike/bike bridge
$750,000
20

12

(Page 64)

City/State
Project
Cost
Jobs
Reference
Troy, NY
Conversion of atrium to cultural center
$3,500,000
80
p. 100

Theater roof repair
$50,000
4

Utica, NY
Playground improvement
$250,000
15

Refurbish parking garage
$600,000
50

White Plains, NY
Playground
$25,000
3
p. 101

Playground
$35,000
5

Pool
$35,000
5

Yonkers, NY
New library
$5,000,000
250

Grand Forks, ND
Playground equipment
$120,000
3
p. 103
Cincinnati, OH
Playground
$425,000
11
p. 105

Research park infrastructure
$2,700,000
68

Columbus, OH
Parking lot development
$300,000
4

Movie theater
$2,700,000
33

Youth and family development
$215,000
200

Shopping services
$190,000
4

Dayton, OH
Nature center
$500,000
20
p. 106

Bike path extension
$250,000
25

Bike path extension
$750,000
25

Lima, OH
Baseball diamond and pool
$650,000
60
p. 107
Newark, OH
Bike path
$250,000
10
p. 108

Bike path
$250,000
25

Toledo, OH
Park renovation
$1,250,000
34

Environment clean-up
$1,250,000
10
p. 109

Pedestrian concourse
$2,700,000
40

Muskogee, OH
Rails & trails
$868,170
25
p. 110
13

(Page 65)

City/State
Project
Cost
Job
Reference
Corvallis, OR
Bike/parking facilities
$200,000
6

Bike path widening
$450,000
13

Bike lanes
$150,000
5

Eugene, OR
Youth campus
$2,500,000
35

Bike path
$750,000
15

Research for bike path
$808,000
30

Lake Oswego, OR
Pathway
$250,000
4
p. 111

Restore bike facility
$200,000
4

Pathway
$200,000
4

Wash. County, OR
Park
$144,277
10
p. 112
Philadelphia, PA
Extend bike path
$660,000
15

Pittsburgh, PA
Playground rehab
$1,000,000
50
p. 115
Williamsport, PA
Park improvement
$51,400
10

Ciales, PR
Agr. marketing facilities
$3,000,000
150
p. 119

Sports facility
$5,000,000
90

Cidra, PR
Recreation complex
$1,709,568
80

Culebra, PR
Park construction
$1,500,000
25

Expand plaza
$500,000
20

Guanica, PR
Construction of boardwalk
$400,000
20

Reconstruct town square
$400,000
15
p. 120
14

(Page 66)

City/State
Project
Cost
Job
Reference

Multi-purpose recreation center
$1,000,000
20

Guayama, PR
Convention center
$1,250,000
25

Restore public library
$200,000
10

Park
$600,000
45

Improve art center
$200,000
15

Recreation & sports facility
$3,700,000
165

Guayanilla, PR
Two trollies
$150,000
3

Jayuya, PR
Tourism infrastructure construction
$2,000,000
60

Mayaguez, PR
Baseball fields
$1,000,000
50

Parking lot
$1,000,000
50

Penuelas, PR
Construction of observatory
$400,000
10

Rio Grande, PR
Commercial center
$778,000
25
p. 122

Three trolleys
$135,000
6

San Juan, PR
Improve rec center
$500,000
40

Improve gymnasium
$225,000
15

Traffic safety learning ctr. For kids
$1,200,000
25

Santa Isabel, PR
Construct athletic facility
$400,000
10
p. 123

Construct sports/fitness center
$2,000,000
50

Utuado, PR
Tourism/rec infrastructure
$12,000,000
300

Art craft marketing center
$1,500,000
50

Improve recreating/sports facilities
$2,000,000
75

Vega Baja, PR
Pool
$1,200,000
40

Athletic Park lighting system
$340,000
22

Regional arts center
$800,000
30

Central Falls, RI
Ren. Historic mill/sports complex
$200,000
15
p. 124
15

(Page 67)

City/State
Project
Cost
Job
Reference
Cranston, RI
Calise Field
$450,000
25

E. Providence, RI
Senior citizens center
$2,000,000
35
p. 125

Playground
$100,000
15

Carousel renovations
$400,000
25

Columbia, SC
Ballpark
$430,000
15

Pool
$360,000
30

Community center
$510,000
40

Gym/field renovation
$330,000
30

Fontain Inn, SC
Senior/multi purpose addition
$175,000
40
p. 126
Greenville Cty., SC
United Ministries New Life Bldg.
$500,000
75

Recreation center
$900,000
135

Day care center
$500,000
40

Park
$50,000
30

Greer, SC
Integration complex center
$900,000
100

Jcakson, TN
Observatory construction
$400,000
10
p. 128
Nashville, TN
Park improvements
$175,000
44
p. 129

Library expansion
$150,000
38

Beaumont, TX
Pool
$1,000,000
40
p. 130
Brownsville, TX
Park
$200,000
20

Killeen, TX
Jog path/benches
$2,500,000
50
p. 133
Lubbock, TX
Daycare facility expansion
$35,000
10
p. 134
Mesquite, TX
Ballfield construction
$60,000
0

Midland, TX
Three swimming pools
$1,000,000
0

San Antonio, TX
Retail/commercial/service center
$2,000,000
100

16

(Page 68)

City/State
Project
Cost
Job
Reference
Sandy City, UT
Culinary master plan
$75,000
150
p. 137
Chesapeake, VA
Police department renovation
$664,200
0
p. 139
Danville, VA
Park improvement
$100,000
10

Police patrolling
$100,000
4

Norfolk, VA
Waterfront improvement
$17,700,000
354
p. 141

Parks
$4,224,000
84

Virginia Beach, VA
Homeless shelter
$400,000
15
p. 142

Bike trail
$1,500,000
15

Park & ride lot
$2,000,000
15

Kennewick, WA
Senior center parking lot
$60,000
10
p. 143

Portable dental school
$90,000
35

Seattle, WA
Replace rec centers
$1,000,000
56

New children's play area
$600,000
34

Park development/landscapes
$60,000
3

Ten thousand trees
$5,090,000
288
p. 144
Spokane, WA
Pool renovation
$3,250,000
32

Small business incubator
$1,020,000
37

Market historic renovation
$1,745,000
45

New trail paths
$800,000
10

Tacoma, WA
Rehab. Rail to Mt. Ranier Nat'l. Park
$3,000,000
50

Vancouver, WA
Homeless shelter
$750,000
20
p. 145
Wheeling, WV
Playground renovations
$142,000
20

Biking/jogging trail
$250,000
15

Green Bay, WI
Buy/demolish property
$1,000,000
3
p. 146

Park renovation
$125,000
10

17

(Page 69)

City/State
Project
Cost
Job
Reference
Janesville, WI
Land Acquisition for Ice Age Trail
$65,000
0
p. 147

Develop Ice Age Trail
$100,000
12

Madison WI
Industrial incubator facility constr.
$600,000
18

New health & cmty. Services facility
$2,000,000
60

New Neighborhood Ctr. Facility
$700,000
20

Racine, WI
Raze bldg./develop industrial park
$500,000
25
p. 148

Gaslight Pointe Lake walk
$300,000
70

Cheyenne, WY
Six new buses
$240,000
0

Historic preservation
$175,000
18

Bikeway/park development
$1,500,000
50

Homeless shelter
$100,000
20

New Headstart center
$200,000
20

Four/five new softball fields
$325,000
25

18

(Page 70)

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

(Page 71)

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

(Page 72)

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

(Page 73)

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

(Page 74)

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

(Page 75)

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

(Page 76)

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

(Page 77)

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

(Page 78)

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

(Page 79)

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

(Page 80)

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

(Page 81)

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

(Page 82)

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

(Page 83)

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

(Page 84)

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

(Page 85)

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

(Page 86)

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

(Page 87)

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

(Page 88)

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

(Page 89)

The Polling Spotlight
From the Office of the GOP Conference Secretary, Trent Lott, Secretary Dave Hoppe, Staff Director 202-224-3496
Released 3/30/93
1) IF NOVEMBER ELECTIONS WERE HELD TODAY
(CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 1,003 adults surveyed 3/22-24; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. CNN 3/25)
November election held today:

ALL
DEM
GOP
IND
2/28
Clinton
40%
76%
7%
30%
45%
Bush
32
7
71
23
28
Perot
22
14
16
37
22

2) CLINTON ECONOMIC PLAN (CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll: 3/25/93)

NOW
2/28
2/17
Support
55%
59%
79%
Oppose
34
29
16

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

(Page 90)

3) ON CLINTON ECONOMIC PROPOSALS (Fabrizio/McLaughlin: 3/23) Strongly favor 19%, Somewhat favor 30%, Somewhat oppose 22%, Strongly oppose 17%
Asked of Strongly/Somewhat support: If we learned that... would you still favor Clinton's program or oppose it?

STILL FAVOR
NOW OPPOSE
NO DIFF.
It contains largest tax hike in US history...
43%
33%
19%
It means gas/energy taxes of $430/avg. family...
46
38
14
It will add nearly $1.2 Trillion to the national debt...
20
61
14
One economist says it will cost 3.2 million jobs by '96...
19
62
13
It has $4 in taxes to $1 in cuts, even though in the campaign he promised $3 cuts for $1 taxes...
24
52
18
It would raise taxes on Soc. Sec., so seniors getting $28k in benefits would pay more than a couple in their 40s making $90k....
20
66
10
It actually ups non-defense spending by $31 billion...
33
44
15

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

4) COURSE CLINTON SHOULD TAKE TO COVER THE UNINSURED (Harris Poll: 1,255 adults surveyed 3/3-10; margin of error +/- 3%; rel. 3/23)

All
Fewer taxes and slower phase-in (within 5-8 yrs)
70%
Raising add'l taxes for quick coverage (3-4 yrs)
26

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

Position: 4173 (2 views)