[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 144 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES


                           Motion to Proceed

  The Senate continued with the motion to proceed.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I need not belabor the next point I am 
going to make because it is in the air and it is in the media. Congress 
is at an all-time low in public esteem. This is not just a matter of 
politics and elections. This is a matter of the vibrancy of our form of 
government.
  In a democracy, when you endanger the trust that exists between those 
who govern and those for whom we work and govern, the country is in 
some significant trouble.
  I must say that one of the arguments, one of the points that I hear 
repeatedly in Connecticut when I talk to people about this skepticism 
and cynicism about Government is that ``you in Congress do not even 
live by the laws that you apply to everybody else. You create special 
privileges for yourself.''
  Mr. President, in so many ways that contention is wrong. But when it 
comes to this particular set of laws, nondiscrimination laws, fair 
labor standards, OSHA, the whole host of laws that we place on 
employers across America, the public is right. We have created a double 
standard, and it is an intolerable one, and it is time we ended it.
  Mr. President, I deeply regret that it appears that on a matter of 
process, which is to say that the report on this bill coming out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee has just been filed today and under the 
rules requires 2 days to lay over, unanimous consent would be required 
to take this measure up now. This is a bill that is not only right but 
the American people want it, demand it, and it is an opportunity for us 
to help restore the fabric, the strength of the relationship of trust 
between us and the people we work for.
  The fact that it is going to be prohibited from being taken up on a 
procedural point I think will create more skepticism, more cynicism, 
more frustration, more fury directed toward Congress.
  It has been my pleasure to cosponsor this measure with the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, who has really been a 
leader and pioneer on this, and this is a strong bipartisan group. I am 
convinced if this bill came to a vote here, it would pass by an 
overwhelming majority.
  Once again, the rules have been used to frustrate what is the will of 
not only the American people but the will of the great majority in this 
Chamber. I regret it, and I certainly will consult with the Senator 
from Iowa and see if it is possible, though not the preferable course, 
to attach this bill as an amendment to the next amendable vehicle--
perhaps it is the unfunded mandates bill--that comes up.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague from Iowa on the floor. I yield to 
him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley].
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object as well, 
but for the same purpose. As the Senator from Connecticut knows, I, 
too, join him in an expression of profound regret that presumably, 
under the guise of a late filing of a committee report, we are 
prevented at the last minute from taking this bill up.
  People out in the grassroots do not understand these shenanigans. 
They are going to wonder why we put off the inevitable, because there 
is nothing more inevitable than this legislation.
  The dam broke on this 3 years ago, when the Grassley-Mitchell 
amendment to the civil rights bill was passed. Now we have to go all 
the way and apply to the Congress all the laws that we exempted 
ourselves from. We are employers like the businesses of America are 
employers. There is no reason why we should be exempt from those laws 
if the people of the country cannot be exempt.
  It is inevitable, because you can look at the vote in the other body 
this year, 427 to 4. That is an expression of how simple and concise 
this issue is to our constituents.
  You cannot hold a town meeting, or give a rotary club speech, or 
attend any function where you have interaction with the public that 
this issue does not come up. They sense how wrong it is to we have two 
sets of laws;, one for Pennsylvania Avenue and the other one for main 
street America. We have two sets of laws, one for Capitol Hill and one 
for the rest of the Nation.
  It just does not add up. We have worked hard, the Senator from 
Connecticut and I. So have a lot of other people in this body as well. 
We worked hard to make sure that this bill could go through, satisfying 
all but except the most extreme opposition. And we have done it. We 
have done it to a point where it is bipartisan. We have done it to a 
point where it is bicameral, Republicans and Democrats in the House, 
Republicans and Democrats in this body, working together to craft a 
policy that applies to Capitol Hill the same way it applies to the rest 
of the Nation.
  The people are not going to tolerate this. It is just a question of 
when this bill passes. If it does not pass in the midnight hours of 
this Congress, it is going to pass early next year. It will pass.
  I join my colleague from Connecticut. I join him in hoping that we 
can get this on some other legislation yet this year, because it is 
something that must be done. It is something that will be done. Most 
importantly, it is something that should be done and will be done 
because the people demand it. There is nothing more easily understood. 
There is no way you can camouflage this issue with any sort of tactics 
at the closing hours of this session.
  I yield the floor and withdraw any objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in regard to the motion before us, 
which is S. 993, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to address that motion 
before us, and I would like to do so and making as part of the Record 
two letters that were issued today. The first letter is from the 
President of the United States to the majority leader in the U.S. 
Senate. It says:
       Dear Mr. Leader: As you know, this Administration supports 
     the adoption of the ``Federal Mandate Accountability and 
     Reform Act of 1994,'' as drafted by Senators Glenn and 
     Kempthorne.
       I urge you to schedule a vote in the Senate tomorrow on 
     this important piece of legislation. I believe that it is 
     important for the Senate to consider this matter and 
     encourage the Senate to adopt this legislation without 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  The next letter Mr. President, that I would like to make part of the 
Record is a letter with a letterhead that reads, the National Governors 
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, dated October 6; and it is to all Senators.

       The nation's state and local elected officials strongly 
     urge the U.S. Senate to pass the State and local mandate 
     relief bill, S. 993, before adjournment. Passage of this bill 
     is our top legislative priority.
       Not only will we oppose any amendment not supported by the 
     bill managers, Senator John Glenn, William Roth and Dirk 
     Kempthorne, but we view all amendments as an attempt to 
     defeat our legislation. We urge the defeat of all partisan 
     and extraneous amendments. Please stand with your State and 
     local officials in support of this crucial legislation.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Idaho wish to place 
those two letters in the Record?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I do. I ask unanimous consent that 
they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 6, 1994.
     Hon. George J. Mitchell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: As you know, this Administration supports 
     the adoption of the ``Federal Mandate Accountability and 
     Reform Act of 1994,'' as drafted by Senators Glenn and 
     Kempthorne.
       I urge you to schedule a vote in the Senate tomorrow on 
     this important piece of legislation. I believe that it is 
     important for the Senate to consider this matter and 
     encourage the Senate to adopt this legislation without 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____


     National Governors' Association; National Conference of State 
  Legislatures; National Association of Counties; National League of 
                   Cities; U.S. Conference of Mayors

                                                  October 6, 1994.
       To All Senators: The nation's state and local elected 
     officials strongly urge the U.S. Senate to pass the state-
     local mandate relief bill, S. 993, before adjournment. 
     Passage of this bill is our top legislative priority.
       Not only will be oppose any amendments not supported by the 
     bill managers, Senators John Glenn, William Roth, and Dirk 
     Kempthorne, but we view all amendments as an attempt to 
     defeat our legislation. We urge the defeat of all partisan 
     and extraneous amendments.
       Please stand with your state and local officials in support 
     of this crucial legislation.
           Sincerely,
     George V. Voinovich,
       Governor of Ohio, Co-Lead Governor on Federalism, National 
     Governors' Association.
     Karen McCarthy,
       Missouri House of Representatives, President, National 
     Conference of State Legislatures.
     Randall Franke,
       Commissioner of Marion County, Oregon, President, National 
     Association of Counties.
     Sharpe James,
       Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, President, National League of 
     Cities.
     Victor Ashe,
       Mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, President, U.S. Conference 
     of Mayors.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this is an opportunity. We have a 
bill, S. 993, that is a bill of State and local governments. Literally 
you have advocates in every community in America that want us to pass 
this bill. In their letter today, they have stated that they want us to 
pass this bill without amendments, because this is a bill that has been 
through 18 or 19 months of tough fights, both in the Senate and the 
House. But it is bipartisan. That is evidenced by the fact that we have 
64 Senate sponsors.
  Mr. President, just to show you that the support for this bill 
continues to grow, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Exon and 
Lautenberg be added as cosponsors of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we will have the opportunity to 
discuss in great detail the bill, the mechanics of the bill.
  But I have to ask, why is it that in contradiction to what our State 
and local partners are asking for, why is it, in contradiction to what 
the President of the United States is asking for, do we wish to now 
delay this with a series of amendments?
  Why are we afraid to go forward with S. 993, so uncertain of the 
positions that we cannot stand the scrutiny of having mandates and 
identifying mandates, identifying the cost of those mandates so that we 
make the best decisions possible, and knowing full well that the 
mechanics of this legislation----
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague would yield, let me just respond to the 
question very briefly.
  I would consider not to put an amendment on his bill, but I have two 
bills that have been approved unanimously--in the one case unanimously, 
and in the other case I frankly do not know whether it was unanimous. 
But I cannot call them up, because a Senator has a hold on them.
  The only option I have is to put an amendment on a bill that I am a 
cosponsor of. I am for this bill. I do not have any other real option.
  So I say to my colleague, I understand his concern and his preference 
for not having any amendments. I hope he understands I want to get a 
vote on my bill. The Presiding Officer and I have discussed this.
  Thank you.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In just a moment, if I may. I would like to respond 
to the senior Senator from Illinois.
  I appreciate what the Senator has stated. I know we are at that point 
now where there are only hours remaining in this session and he needs 
to find a vehicle for some of these things to happen; the fact that his 
amendments do not in any way impact this legislation; this is simply a 
vehicle to allow him to go forward.
  I think that is something that can be discussed with the managers of 
this bill.
  Now I would be happy to yield, as long as I retain the right to the 
floor, to the junior Senator from Illinois
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator very much and I thank him for 
his courtesies.
  I would like to second the remarks of my senior Senator from 
Illinois. Really, as a cosponsor of this legislation also, as the 
Senator from Idaho is aware, this was my first bill. The first bill I 
filed in the U.S. Senate was a bill to end the practice of unfunded 
mandates, to call for disclosure with regard to unfounded mandates. I 
came to his committee, Senator Glenn's committee, to discuss the issue, 
to raise the point.
  I come from a background in local Government. I am fully aware of how 
important this matter is to people in State and local government.
  So I concur and encourage this legislation. I support it. I want to 
work hard for it. I would like to see it passed.
  I find myself, however, in the same situation as my senior Senator, 
having an amendment that should be unobjectionable, yet it was subject 
to a hold in the process. This is the last train out of the station. 
This is the last vehicle. This is the last opportunity to raise a 
matter that I think is very important to police and firemen all over 
this country.
  So, I would very much like to have the opportunity, I would like to 
see this bill go out, but I would very much appreciate the assistance 
of all of my colleagues, frankly, in working through this. Perhaps we 
can get an agreement that some of the single holds that have been put 
on legislation that otherwise would be noncontroversial, can be lifted 
so that we can get this legislation passed, so we can do the job we 
were sent here to do.
  Again, I thank the Senator for his courtesy, except to say I would 
very much appreciate his assistance in working through a process 
whereby we can achieve the objective that we all want to achieve with 
regard to this important piece of legislation regarding unfunded 
mandates, but that we can also attend to some of the other issues that, 
because of the peculiarities of our procedure, will not have another 
opportunity to be passed into law in this session.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to the comments by the two 
Senators from Illinois, I fully appreciate the dilemma they are in, and 
I imagine a number of Senators are in that same dilemma. I hope they 
will appreciate the dilemma I am in, in trying to help our State and 
local partners get this legislation through in these last remaining 
hours, that any of these extraneous amendments that we do allow does 
complicate the bill when it gets to the House. With just a few hours 
left, I have to tell my colleagues I will be doing everything I can to 
keep this as narrowly focused as possible because this is what our 
State and local partners have asked for. This is what the President of 
the United States has asked for.
  With that, I would like to yield the floor to the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Ohio, who will be the 
floor manager of this issue. He has been a leader in helping us get 
here to this bipartisan position on stopping unfunded Federal mandates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield to the Senator from 
Ohio? The Senator from Idaho has yielded the floor?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes, Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Senator from 
Idaho. This issue, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois said a 
few moments ago, was the subject of some of her first legislation. It 
was the subject of some six different pieces of legislation proposed 
that were directed to the Governmental Affairs Committee. We have 
considered this legislation all this year, worked out the compromises 
on it, worked out the compromises with the House, and have what I think 
is a very important piece of legislation.
  I am sure there is not a Senator in this Chamber who has not been 
approached by either Governors, their mayors, associations, their 
county and municipal government representatives, who have been 
complaining bitterly for several years about the fact that we pass all 
sorts of legislation here and we require them to do all sorts of things 
at the State and local level. But we in turn do not provide the money 
to do those things.
  In times past, up until about 8 or 9 years ago, the States could 
assimilate this and did. Some of the programs voted out of here were 
very expensive, but they assimilated these programs, put them in their 
budgets, and had enough taxing power that they could in fact cope with 
it.
  But what started along about 1985 was the fact we had, between 1985 
and right now, some I believe it is over 200 pieces of legislation that 
put so many billions of dollars' worth of requirements on the States 
and local communities that they could not cope. So there has been a 
rising tide of not only indignation --I will not say revolution, quite, 
but it has come close to that, I think, with some of the things 
expressed from some of the Governors, in particular. And I do not blame 
them. They are right. They are absolutely right. And their cry was, 
``No legislation without the bucks, without the money to go along with 
it.'' They came to Washington here, and they made the rounds of the 
offices. They have done this repeatedly over the last year, and for 
very good reason--they are being dealt with unfairly.
  What we tried to do is redress that with this legislation by putting 
into effect a procedure requiring that an estimate be made of what the 
impact is going to be when we pass a piece of legislation, giving that 
job to the Congressional Budget Office so it will be able to tell the 
Congress how much it is going to cost the States and local governments 
and, in certain cases, estimate how much it is going to cost the whole 
country, the general population at large. We put limits on that. It is 
just to make sure everybody knows exactly what we are passing.
  We say if we do not provide the money, if it is not a bill on which 
we also authorize the money to go along with whatever it is we are 
requiring, that if we do not provide the money, then a point of order 
would lie against the bill and we would have to have a second vote on 
it to say, regardless of the money, we want to see a vote on this bill.
  But it would be a majority point of order. In other words, it would 
just be a tap on the shoulder to say: ``Look, are you sure you want to 
do this to everybody? Here is the estimate on it.'' And that is all it 
is. That is all it is. It requires us to have better information, 
better estimates of what the financial impact is going to be on the 
State and local governments. And with the amendment that Senator Dorgan 
put on the bill in committee, it would also require estimates in 
certain cases of the impact on the regular civilian population. That is 
what this does. I do not think there are many people in here who would 
disagree--it is a good idea to pass something like this because it 
gives us more information to pass intelligent legislation, at the same 
time making certain we do not pass something here without due 
consideration of what the cost is going to be.
  That is so fundamental, it seems to me, it is just hard to think we 
are having any problem with it. But the problem is this. We got it 
finally pretty well worked out. What we are trying to do, since it was 
so late in the session and since we did not have agreement on it until 
late, was to bring it up on a unanimous consent request and we hot 
lined that to make sure there was not any objection to bringing it up 
on a unanimous consent request, and to pass it by acclamation, which I 
think is, in effect, what everybody here would agree should be done 
with this piece of legislation.
  We had it down on both sides to where we only had one amendment where 
we could not get the particular person involved to say yes, we will not 
put this on that bill.
  So what has happened now is, on both sides, we now have a whole raft 
of bills being proposed, already brought up here, that in effect are 
going to come up and kill this whole thing. That is what it is going to 
come down to. The President realizes this. That is the reason for his 
letter. We had one notice out of the Office of the Press Secretary at 
the White House yesterday. But this one is from the President, who 
addressed it directly and has signed the letter that Senator Kempthorne 
mentioned a moment ago. He is asking that this bill go through without 
amendment.
  I know that is a big order. I know people have their individual bills 
that they have not been able to get through, and I appreciate that. But 
this is one of them, also. And I am afraid what is going to happen here 
if we cannot get agreement to let this go through without amendment is 
it will become a Christmas tree. We will pull it down tonight and no 
bill will go through this year for unfunded mandates. I do not want to 
see that happen. It is not going to deal fairly with the people out 
there in the State and local governments.
  I am sorry the other bills have not been able to get through this 
year. But I think at this point for this to become a Christmas tree for 
amendments for other bills or proposals is going to kill it. And I 
would hate to see that happen.
  The letter from the President was addressed to our majority leader 
and reads as follows. It was written today.
       Dear Mr. Leader: As you know, this Administration supports 
     the adoption of the ``Federal Mandate Accountability and 
     Reform Act of 1994,'' as drafted by Senators Glenn and 
     Kempthorne.
       I urge you to schedule a vote in the Senate tomorrow on 
     this important piece of legislation. I believe that it is 
     important for the Senate to consider this matter and 
     encourage the Senate to adopt this legislation without 
     amendment.
       Thank you for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.

  The President knows the importance of this because, as he has told 
the Governors, he was a Governor. He knows the impact and he is firmly 
behind what it is we are trying to do here.
  But I am afraid this whole thing will be killed at this late time. I 
am sorry that we do not have days to look ahead to where we can take up 
every amendment, vote it up or down and use this as a Christmas tree 
for all sorts of considerations.
  We do not have germaneness rules in the Senate, unfortunately, 
something I think we have to consider one of these days. But any bill, 
any amendment for any purpose whatsoever, can be attached to this 
legislation. I know that.
  So I think the only way we are going to get this unfunded mandates 
bill through is if people agree that we will not have amendments, or 
our only option other than that would be to let each one be brought up 
and, at the appropriate time, move to table and hope we will be 
successful in that and still get the bill passed. But that itself can 
be a long and tortuous process this late in the session.
  I do not know whether we can get agreement of people to hold off. If 
people are not willing to hold off their amendments, I do not have much 
doubt this thing is going to be dead, and that those who insisted on 
their amendments will be the ones who killed the bill. I hate to see 
that happen. That is a blunt statement of the facts.
  I see the Senator from Idaho nodding his assent. There are so many 
amendments that people would like to have on any piece of legislation 
they can hook something onto right now. If this becomes the attachment 
point for all these things, then I doubt that it is worthwhile even 
wasting the Senate's time. We ought to pull it down. I hate to see that 
happen.
  Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. GLENN. I will yield.
  Mr. SIMON. I will just point out the two bills I have, I believe, are 
both supported by the administration.
  Again, the one on the African-American museum has been approved 
unanimously by the Rules Committee, chaired by Senator Ford; the other 
one by the subcommittee chaired by Senator Bumpers. I would be willing 
to, on my amendments--the African-American museum might have some 
controversy--I would be willing to say let us do it in 10 minutes, 5 
minutes each side. The other one we do not even need to take any time 
on at all.
  Mr. GLENN. If we can be assured those were the only things that would 
be attached to this, why, obviously that would be quite acceptable to 
me. But we have a list that grew even during the day today. Every time 
we sent out a hot line, their people had other things they wanted to 
attach, and the list grew longer. I am afraid if we open this up----
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. I will yield.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. You mentioned germaneness. The amendment that I 
would propose has to do with allowing State and local governments to 
set retirement ages for police and firefighters. It is legislation that 
has passed the House before and has been subject to a single 
individual's hold on the Senate side.
  Frankly, it seems like it would be one of the least controversial 
amendments possible, except that, again, under our rules, in spite of 
the fact it is germane, in spite of the fact it is something that just 
about every police and fire organization in the country has endorsed, 
the House of Representatives has endorsed, we have not had a chance to 
vote on it because of the operation of our rules.
  My senior Senator has made a proposal. If there is any way possible 
we can work out an opportunity, I think this is an amendment that would 
have the support of just about everybody in this body. The National 
Conference of State Legislatures that worked so hard on the unfunded 
mandates bill supports this; the Conference of Mayors supports this 
amendment; the Association of Counties supports this amendment; the 
National League of Cities supports this amendment. I have a list that 
might take 10 minutes to read off who supports the amendment in behalf 
of police and firefighters.
  Again, because of the vagaries and peculiarities of our rules, a 
single individual has been able to stop this amendment from being heard 
in the Senate. This is our only opportunity. I do not think it is a 
matter of wanting--I want to see this legislation passed, as the 
Senator from Ohio is well aware. I do not want to kill this bill. It is 
too important a piece of legislation. I want to see it passed. I want 
to see it supported.
  At the same time, we have a matter of germaneness that is important 
to working people, police and firemen all over this country. It seems 
to me I would not be doing my job, fulfilling my responsibilities, if I 
were to let such opportunity, given the technicalities--this is an 
opportunity to get this matter passed into law. I would very much 
appreciate the help and assistance of the Senator from Ohio in getting 
this legislation added as an amendment to this important bill on the 
mandates.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not question the desirability of all 
the legislation. I am not arguing against the proposals by either of 
the distinguished Senators from Illinois. I think these are probably 
very desirable things.
  My problem is the fact that if the bill is once open, then we have a 
whole string of amendments on this, and it will probably go long enough 
that we just have to pull the bill down. At least that has been the 
indication from the hot lines we have sent out on this. We can start 
down that road. I hate to do it.
  Before we decide exactly what direction we will go with this, I know 
the distinguished Senator from Delaware would like to make some 
comments on this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, let me start out by saying that I agree as 
to the importance of this piece of legislation, and I share very much 
the concern expressed by Chairman Glenn.
  This legislation offers a significant reform in the relationship 
between the Federal Government, and State and local governments. In 
fact, it represents no less than a fundamental shift in the basic 
attitude of the Congress toward our cities, our counties, and our 
States.
  Under this legislation, we are for the first time acknowledging, in a 
meaningful way, that there must be limits on the Federal Governments 
propensity to impose costly mandates on other levels of government.
  As the representatives of those governments have very effectively 
demonstrated, this is a real problem. Cities, for example, generally 
are fortunate if they have sufficient resources just to meet their own 
local needs. Unfunded Federal mandates have put a real strain on those 
resources. This has been a practice of the Federal Government for the 
past 2 or 3 decades, but it has mushroomed in recent years to an 
intolerable level.
  This has been, at least in part measure, a result of the Federal 
Government's own budget difficulties. In the past, if this government 
felt that a particular problem warranted a national solution, it would 
fund that solution itself. Mandates imposed on State and local 
governments could generally be off-set with generous Federal grants.
  But the Federal Government no longer has the money to fund every 
governmental action it wishes to see accomplished throughout the land. 
In fact, it hasn't had the money to do that for many years. Instead, it 
borrowed for a long time, to cover these costs. But now the Federal 
deficit is so large, that the only alternative left for imposing so-
called national solutions is to impose unfunded mandates. That is, the 
Federal Government has increasingly enacted requirements on State and 
local governments, requiring that they spend their own money on the 
priorities of the Federal Government. In all likelihood, without some 
mechanism to restrain it, this practice of the Federal Government will 
continue for years to come.
  A parallel concern affects the private sector. The Federal 
Government--both Congress and the Executive Branch agencies--impose 
costly laws and regulations on the business community. It does this 
often with little understanding of the amount of these costs, or of 
their impact. This habit of the government, like that of the unfunded 
mandates on State and local governments, shows little likelihood of 
abating. Here, too, Congress needs to devise a mechanism that brings 
about some restraint.
  Now, the difficulty in devising such restraining mechanisms lies in 
the recognition that we do, in fact, have a national responsibility to 
protect the environment, guard civil rights, and promote other 
important values. A flatout prohibition on any and all Federal 
requirements that impose costs on non-Federal entities, is probably 
impractical. It is likely unwise.
  So the question has been, how best can we strike the right balance? 
How can we preserve certain important Federal responsibilities, while 
ensuring that these responsibilities are exercised cautiously? How can 
we do it, while being mindful that cities, counties, and States--and, 
indeed, the private sector--are not simply subdivisions of the Federal 
Government?
  It is here that I must recognize the extraordinary leadership of my 
colleagues--the Senator from Idaho, in rallying broad support in the 
Congress for action on this issue, and the senior Senator from Ohio, in 
overseeing the development of this important bill that is now before 
us. It has been my great pleasure to work with my two colleagues in the 
shaping of this effective, but balanced legislation. I believe it will 
go a long way toward bringing restraint to Congress in the imposition 
of mandates.
  Senator Kempthorne, as a former Mayor himself, has truly been the 
champion of bringing relief to State and local governments. And he did 
so in a tenacious, yet reasoned way, that is the hallmark of an 
effective legislator. And when I requested last June, that Senator 
Glenn, as Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, hold hearings 
on the issue, he responded favorably. He then made a sincere commitment 
to work with Senator Kempthorne and me to see that a meaningful 
solution to this challenging problem would be developed and brought 
before the Senate. In his persistence, he has honored that commitment.
  As I said, it has been my pleasure to have worked with both of them 
to get us this far. I also want to acknowledge the hard work, and good 
faith bargaining, of the major State and local government 
organizations--the so-called ``Big Seven''. Their involvement was 
vital, and their support crucial, in bringing us to this point.
  I now call upon the rest of my colleagues to join us in supporting 
this important legislation, and to not stand in the way of its 
enactment. Our governors, our State legislators, mayors, and county 
officials are watching us tonight, so let us not let them down.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would just like to----
  Mr. SIMON. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has been recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would just like to ask a question of 
the Senator from Delaware. I know that the Senator from Delaware 
realizes how critically important this is to our State and local 
partners. This is the legislation that they helped craft. They have 
asked that there be no amendment; the President has asked there be no 
amendment. The question is to the Senator from Delaware, the ranking 
member of the committee that is dealing with it: Is it accurate to say 
that among the Republicans, all Republican Senators who did have 
amendments they wished to offer to this bill have withdrawn those 
amendments in the spirit of this agreement?
  Mr. ROTH. Yes. I say to my distinguished colleague, that is the 
situation as I now understand it. I applaud and appreciate the fact 
that there were a number of our colleagues on this side of the aisle 
who had amendments they wished to offer. But in the spirit of 
compromise and willingness to move ahead on an important piece of 
legislation, a piece of legislation, as I said, of critical importance 
to our State and local governments, they have agreed not to offer those 
amendments. So I hope that the same approach, the same willingness to 
cooperate and work together, will be true of our friends on the other 
side.
  And so, yes, that is my understanding. Again, I want to congratulate 
the distinguished Senator for his leadership role in developing this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank very much 
the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the motion?
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. CRAIG. It is for the purpose of debate on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much.
  I am pleased to join with the chairman and my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Kempthorne, this evening in debating a piece of legislation 
that has been a long time overdue in the Halls of this Congress.
  To address the issue of Federal mandates is without question one of 
the most important issues with which this Congress can deal. We have 
seen for well over a decade across this country the growth of Federal 
policy that places on local units of government an obligation to 
fulfill a certain Federal responsibility, a Federal requirement that 
ultimately costs that unit of government a great deal of money, and yet 
the Federal Government and the Congress of the United States pass on no 
Federal dollars by which to assist the local unit.
  I remember very well when I was in high school and my father became a 
county commissioner. He came home one night grumbling because the Idaho 
Legislature had just passed a piece of legislation that was going to 
require Washington County, my home county, to expend a certain amount 
of money to fulfill a State responsibility, and the county simply did 
not have the money. And so that commission of county commissioners had 
spent all day deciding how much they would increase the levy on the 
taxpayers of the county to fulfill a responsibility that the Idaho 
Legislature said was important to the State, but the county 
commissioners and the citizens of the county had not yet deemed it so.
  That is a perfect example of what the Congress of the United States, 
as a big brother to State and local units of Government, has been doing 
now for nearly three decades, especially since the days of the Great 
Society legislation of the Johnson administration. But unlike now, when 
they required State and local units of government to do something, at 
that time they sent along a little money, whether it was in the form of 
direct grants in the total amount or whether it was sharing amounts in 
which State and local units of government had to participate.
  At least at that time, when the Federal Government deemed it was 
important to do a certain thing at the local level, they sent along a 
little money to help do it. But you, Mr. President, and I know what 
began to happen in the early 1980's. As budgets became very difficult 
around here, as we began to sort out the public resources of this 
country to make a decision over expenditures for defense, which we all 
knew were important, and, of course, which helped win the cold war and 
change dramatically, my guess is, the landscape and the history of the 
world, it was during those debates and our desire to stimulate the 
economy of our country through tax reduction and therefore a general 
reduction in the rate of increase in Federal revenues that we began to 
progressively cut back on moneys that would flow to State and local 
units of government where there was a requirement to fulfill an 
obligation, whether it was a drinking water requirement, whether it was 
a curbing requirement, whether it dealt with handicapped people, or 
whether it dealt with areas of safety in transportation.
  All of them began to tumble out to State and local units of 
Government, and you and I began to hear the hue and cry from city 
councils and county commissioners and State legislatures saying: Do not 
do this to us. If you are going to ask us to participate in a certain 
way, please send a little money along with it, because what you are 
forcing us to do in essence at your mandate, at your bequest, is to tax 
our citizens. We get the blame for the taxation. You can go around--and 
I am talking about your being the Federal legislator--taking great 
credit for a certain piece of legislation but with no obligation or, in 
some instances, no wrath from the taxpayer.
  Senator Kempthorne, when he served as mayor of our capital city in 
Boise, clearly saw firsthand these kinds of problems. He began to 
recognize that if he was going to fulfill the responsibility of the 
city--and that was to address the obligations of the Federal Government 
in areas of transportation, recreation, public safety, and all of those 
kinds of things--he then would be caught up as a mayor and city council 
in raising levies for the purpose of taxation to fulfill the 
responsibility of the Federal mandate.
  Clearly, at that time it becomes the responsibility to ask the 
question: Is this the right thing to do? Is this going to make the 
world better? Will it improve the condition under which our people 
live? Or is it clearly a form of taxation with not the kind of 
representation that our Founding Fathers intended?
  So I watched as my junior colleague came to the Senate with a great 
sense of determination that has produced and brought to the floor this 
evening S. 993, the Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act. Not 
only has he tugged our coats and brought us an awareness but he went 
out across the country to deal with the national mayors group, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors. He spoke to them. He brought them along. He got 
their endorsement because they were the ones that were experiencing 
firsthand the problem and the nagging frustration of the Federal 
mandate. He spoke and brought along the National Association of 
Counties and the National League of Cities, and the National Governors 
Conference and the National Conference of State Legislators, and the 
Council of State Governments, and the National School Boards 
Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And I have never seen 
such a cadre of support from such a broad base of the citizenry of this 
country on an issue of such concern.
  I found it interesting because I know what some of my colleagues told 
Senator Kempthorne. Well, that is an important issue. That is an issue 
that if you bring it up now we can spend several years debating. This 
is an issue that is really important and we really ought to talk about 
it. What they were saying to this freshman legislator was in a polite 
way you are a freshman and that is a good idea. Why do you not work on 
it? I do not think many realize--but I do--the determination of this 
freshman Senator that this is something you do not play around with. 
This is an issue whose time has come. This is an issue where the 
American people and all of these public servants across this broad 
array of associations and organizations that I just spoke to are 
beginning to say to their Federal Government, stop it. Let us govern 
our citizenry. Let us decide what is good for our people. Let us with 
our ability both to determine and their ability to pay make the 
decision on what is good for public safety, what is good in the area of 
transportation, what makes sense in water quality and all of those 
kinds of things that local and State units of government must address 
for their citizenry but were being forced to address in many instances 
well beyond their capability because of the requirement of a Federal 
mandate.
  The bill you have before you and the one that I so strongly support 
is a very straightforward and simple piece of legislation. I am sure 
that both Senator Glenn, who has been very cooperative in working with 
Senator Kempthorne in moving this legislation through, will spend a 
good deal more time discussing it this evening. But it is without 
question an unprecedented protection from unfunded mandates at State 
and local levels that we have not seen before. And it is going to be a 
fundamental and critical tripwire to all of us, a tripwire that will 
force us to stop and analyze the legislative process we are in to 
determine whether in fact the public policy we are advocating is going 
to be a Federal mandate to a local unit of government. And it will then 
require us to determine what kind of cost is involved.
  We all love to talk about the good things that will flow from the 
public policy, how we are helping people and causing a better world to 
exist. But most of us do not really like to talk about the cost of it, 
and as a result we have not very often. It gets put into the base, it 
gets put into the broad funding mechanism, or in this instance it gets 
passed through to the city councilman or to the State legislator or to 
the county commissioner. And it says, you do it. It is a requirement. 
It is the law. It is a Federal law. And you pay for it. And you levy 
the tax. Then of course, the national politician is not faced with that 
very unpopular task of raising a tax to pay for a Federal program, an 
underfunded Federal mandate that we passed back through to a local unit 
of government.
  The legislation imposes that mandates greater than $50 million in any 
fiscal year on a State or local unit of government can be considered by 
the Senate if a certain process goes forward. An estimation of the 
cost--my, a simple idea, is not it? But it has not been done before 
because we do not worry about it if we do not have to pay for it. It 
authorizes funds in the bill and it requires that they fully be paid 
for if it reaches a certain threshold level. In other words, it puts 
the burden back on us. If it is such a good idea, then why do we not 
pay for it? Why should we not ask the taxpayers to do it? Why should 
not we face the burden and responsibility of the impact of the public 
policy that we so anxiously and excitedly push forward to the American 
people so that we can claim credit and we can be reelected?
  This is a very important piece of legislation. For us, it is 
accountability. But for the American people it is a realization of the 
fact that for the first time in well over 3 decades this Federal 
Government is going to turn to them and suggest the novel idea of 
asking their permission in certain instances or not doing it at all if 
we cannot bear the heat of the fiscal responsibility that is required 
in the legislation that we pass.
  There are a variety of other tests. But the entire amount of the 
mandate for the life of the bill must be included, the cost, not just 
the amounts over $50 million. A lot of important steps and processes 
have been put into this bill--a simple test that we as a Government and 
as legislators are going to be required to use or ask of the 
Congressional Budget Office when we produce a piece of legislation that 
will have an impact or a responsibility for a State or local unit of 
government to carry out.
  So once again, let me praise the work of my colleague, Dirk 
Kempthorne for not only the tremendous energy that he has put forth 
over the year in moving this legislation along here in the Halls of 
Congress, and working both sides of the aisle as successfully as he 
has, but the tremendous energy he put forth to rally a Nation, to rally 
all of these national organizations, to focus them on a single piece of 
legislation and to bring them to support it. It is clearly a statement 
of a quality legislator at work to resolve this issue.
  I ask my colleagues this evening to support this legislation. While I 
know we are in the final hours of this Congress, I think it is 
important to move this bill as far as we can this year. I hope the 
House could address it also. Clearly, to pass it through the Senate is 
a very real statement, not just for this Senator but for this Congress 
to begin to say to the American people and to the units of government 
that we believe are the most important, those that are the closest to 
the people, that we are going to stop handing down these kinds of 
Federal edicts unless we send money with them. We are going to attempt 
a method of measuring it and it is embodied within this legislation.
  And I congratulate both Senator Kempthorne and Chairman Glenn for 
their work on this issue to bring this to the floor.
  Mr. President, with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold the quorum call, 
the Senator from Illinois has requested the floor. Does the Senator 
insist on his quorum call?
  Mr. CRAIG. I do not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Idaho.
  I would like to point out that the substance of my amendment is to 
require information, and it is an important amendment that I care 
deeply about. I also care deeply about the issue in the underlying 
legislation. Again, as I said earlier, I was one of the people on this 
side of aisle who came to this Senate concerned about the impact of 
Federal decisions on State and local government.
  My legislation called for the disclosure aspect of this bill. It was 
not as broad as the current legislation worked out by the committee, 
but it was in that direction. So I recognize how important this issue 
is to State and local governments. I support that.
  I support the legislation and I want it to get passed. It is in that 
vein, Mr. President, that I would like to propose or suggest to my 
colleagues the following: I would be willing to withdraw my intention, 
or withhold my intention to file the Age Discrimination Employment Act 
as an amendment, assuming no other amendments are accepted or pending 
on this bill. That is to say, if there is a unanimous consent agreement 
achieved that allows this bill to go forward without any amendment at 
all, then I will withhold and not persist in attempting to filing the 
Age Discrimination Employment Act. I would not want to see the unfunded 
mandate bill imperiled in any way, even though this is a very important 
issue.
  I point out further that, again, it is a difficult call for me to 
make at this time. This legislation has the support--and I would like 
to put this in the Record--of the Fire Department Safety Officers 
Association; the Fraternal Order of Police; the International 
Association of Fire Fighters; the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police; the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; the 
International Society of Fire Service Instructors; the International 
Union of Police Forces; AFL-CIO; the National Association of Police 
Organizations; the National Sheriffs Association; the National Troopers 
Coalition; AFSCME, the American Federation State and County Municipal 
Employees; the National Public Employee Labor Relations Association; 
the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police; City of Chicago 
Department of Police, along with the National League of Cities; the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; and 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  As you can imagine, this legislation would be consistent with the 
whole notion of giving State and local governments the capacity to make 
decisions with regard to local issues. That is all this legislation 
would do.
  I think it would be something that this body would support if given 
an opportunity to do so. However, the sponsors, as you can see from the 
little meeting occurring on the floor, there is a sense that any 
amendment on this bill imperils the entire bill.
  As a result, again, in the event that we fail to reach a unanimous 
consent agreement regarding a bill, without amendment, in the event 
that fails, I will present my amendment, and it is my intention to 
present it if we cannot achieve a unanimous consent agreement. On the 
other hand, if a unanimous consent agreement is achieved, then I will 
withdraw this amendment and wait until the next session to submit it as 
freestanding legislation.
  But I have to tell you that I am greatly disappointed. This was 
something that were it not for the vagaries of the Senate rules that 
allows one individual to hold up what would otherwise be in the public 
interest or in the interest of the other Members of this body, this 
legislation would have passed by now. I regret being in this position, 
and I would not want any misconceptions to arise that there was any 
reticence on this side of the aisle, or by this Senator, to the passage 
of the underlying legislation.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. SIMON. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I will object to any 
unanimous consent agreement to no amendments. I respect my colleague 
from Illinois for what she has said. I have two amendments that are 
genuinely--with the exception of, I believe, one Senator--
noncontroversial, that the administration can accept. I hope we can get 
it worked out. I am going to insist on my right to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we all know we are in, hopefully, 
the last 24 hours of this session. It does not take but one Senator to 
block anything. Sometimes it is frustrating, particularly if it is 
blocking something you have an interest in.
  I have just visited with the distinguished majority leader and 
suggested maybe there would be a way. We have two major pieces of 
legislation--unfunded mandates and congressional coverage. We have 
interests on both sides who want to offer amendments. It seems to me 
that there may be some way that we could reach an agreement between now 
and tomorrow morning where each of those bills could be passed without 
amendment. They are both very important. I think we have Members on 
this side who may have amendments on congressional coverage, and if 
unfunded mandates is going to have a turkey shoot, I assume we will 
have people over here who want to add a few amendments to unfunded 
mandates.
  I must say, having met with a group this afternoon, along with 
Senator Kempthorne, who feels very strongly about unfunded mandates--
and these were mayors and counties' and Governors' representatives, a 
bipartisan group--they feel very strongly about it, and they very much 
applaud the efforts of Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn. It is not 
a partisan issue. It affects every county, every city, every Governor 
in America, and a lot of people are beginning to understand what 
unfunded mandates really mean.
  So it would be my hope--and we on the Republican side are always 
accused of blocking legislation. We are making a proposal now that we 
think has great merit. We would have to do our work on our side, and 
there would be work done on the other side. But we can just say, OK, 
let us pass congressional coverage without amendment and unfunded 
mandates without an amendment. Unfunded mandates have to go back to the 
House. They are going out some time late tomorrow night, or early 
Sunday morning, or Saturday morning. So there is an opportunity here 
that may slip away on both these issues until sometime next year.
  So I want to thank both Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn for 
their efforts to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor. I think we 
should act on it before we leave. But everybody knows if there are 
going to be 12 amendments--and that is the last count I had --on the 
other side on unfunded mandates, you can forget it, it is not going to 
happen. I assume the Senator from Idaho or the Senator from Ohio put in 
the Record the letter from the President, along with a letter from 
other groups I have referred to, indicating the importance of this and 
the President himself indicating that it is important to proceed on 
this legislation without amendment.
  So if we can be helpful on this side and work out such an 
arrangement, we are prepared to do that. But if people are going to 
insist on their amendments, I assume we will do that on this side--and 
I do not see anything wrong with that; it happens every year about this 
time--then I assume unfunded mandates will not pass this year, and 
congressional coverage will not pass this year.
  So there is an opportunity to pass them both, and do it very quickly, 
before we complete our business either tomorrow night, Saturday, or 
Sunday of this week.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] is 
recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. I do not know if the majority leader is seeking 
recognition.
  Mr. MITCHELL. No.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was not here for the whole statement of 
the distinguished minority leader but enough of it to understand what 
the proposal is with respect to the possibilities of moving forward.
  I want to make it very clear to the colleagues who are proposing to 
adopt the unfunded mandate bill as it is that there are many of us who 
share a very commonly felt, broadly felt feeling in the country--that 
unfunded mandates are unacceptable. I accept that. And I want an 
unfunded mandate bill to pass. I would like that to happen. But it is 
unfair to suddenly hold this bill up in the closing hours of the Senate 
debate to not necessarily be subject to some refinement. I mean, after 
all, it was friends on the other side of the aisle who, on health care, 
talked about this huge piece of legislation that needed refinement. So 
we worked at it. There were countless other bills that came up where we 
needed refinement.
  There are problems, definitionally, in some of the articles, some of 
the sections of this bill.
  For instance, I do not believe that my colleagues on the other side, 
or any of those--even Senator Glenn here, who I respect greatly and I 
know wants to pass a good unfunded bill, I do not think he wants to 
tear apart every aspect of Federal-State partnership with respect to 
funding for programs where we may decide that we want to have a 20 
percent contribution by the States or a 30 percent contribution or a 50 
percent contribution.
  The language, as it is defined currently in the bill, would in fact 
in many people's judgment make it dubious as to whether or not that 
would continue. So you would, in effect, wipe out all current 
relationships between the Federal Government and the State where we can 
mandate that there be a match. I do not think we want to do that. I do 
not think my friends intend to do that.
  If they do not intend to do that, for instance, on water treatment 
facilities, are we about to say here in the U.S. Senate tonight in the 
span of just a few hours that the entire relationship of the sixties, 
seventies, and eighties, continuing to the present, where the Federal 
Government says we are willing to put up a few dollars, but we think 
the States ought to also put up a few dollars, are we about to say that 
is just wiped out?
  I do not think that is what my colleagues want to do. I think we want 
to be permissive enough to suggest that we ought to understand the 
costs. I absolutely agree with that.
  The days of the Federal Government suggesting that we ought to pass 
something and requiring the States to participate, and nobody even 
knows what the cost is are over. They ought to be over.
  So I am not here to slow this down. I am absolutely not here to stop 
it. We should not pass a lot of the kinds of unfunded mandates that we 
pass. We should not mandate States to do X, Y, and Z where there is no 
partnership from the Federal Government, and all we are doing is 
suggesting that they pick up the entire cost and there is no mechanism 
or even judgment as to how much that would be and the mayors and the 
Governors are left holding the bag. I do not want that to continue. My 
colleagues do not want that to continue.
  Now, I am convinced, in the same spirit with which we approach a lot 
of legislation around here, that in the next hours those of us who want 
to meet in sort of a commonality of spirit here to try to pass 
something ought to be able to find some amendments that are acceptable. 
I would like to see this passed. I do not want the Federal Government 
continuing to irresponsibly press on to the States a whole set of 
mandates that have no sense of what they cost, no end game, no basis 
that is rational or fiscally responsible, or otherwise.
  But I do not also want to end forever the ability of the Federal 
Government to demand responsible activity by the States in which we are 
also willing to participate with a sufficient level of match.
  I think there are a number of areas in this legislation as it is 
currently designed which would prohibit that. I do not think it is 
intended. I hope it is not intended.
  So if we were to get together in the next hours--my suggestion is we 
try to do that--I am sure we could work out an acceptable number of 
amendments and hopefully pass the other legislation which apparently is 
being offered up as a quid pro quo. I will not personally be put in a 
position where the quid pro quo of the other bill that most of us want 
and think is a good idea is going to become the hostage taker of a 
piece of legislation that is not ready to be passed.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that, 
as well as any people here, because we have heard those arguments an 
awful lot on this floor over the course of the last months.
  So I think if we get to work and take a look at these amendments, we 
ought to hopefully be able to come to some rational agreement and reach 
a compromise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I was not aware of the remarks of the 
distinguished minority leader, but I have just been told approximately 
what he proposed, which he had discussed with me a few minutes before 
that privately.
  I favor the congressional compliance bill. I favor the unfunded 
mandates bill. I also favor the lobbying disclosure and gift reform 
bill. Now we have three reform measures that are pending here. I hope 
we can pass all three.
  We have been told in the last 2 days that the objection to the 
lobbying disclosure and gift reform bill was the provision which 
affected grassroots lobbying organizations and membership issues.
  So we have proposed this evening to simply drop those provisions from 
the bill. That is what our colleagues say is an objection, and that is 
what they have said is the objection over and over again. Well, we do 
not agree with their characterization of the issues but we accept the 
fact that we cannot pass the bill with that provision in there. So even 
though a majority of the Senate favors it, then we ought to pass it 
without those provisions in there.
  My hope is that we can pass all three measures. Let us make this a 
reform session of the Senate. Let us pass congressional compliance. Let 
us pass unfunded mandates. Let us pass lobbying disclosure and gift 
reform.
  Now, all of this discussion is not going to get us anywhere until we 
get started on the bill. I attempted to bring up earlier this evening 
the congressional compliance bill. Objection was made by a Republican 
colleague, and we could not do that.
  So I made a motion to proceed to the unfunded mandates bill. Why do 
we not now adopt the motion to proceed and start on the bill? If we are 
ever going to pass it, we have to start on it. In the meantime, perhaps 
we can get an agreement from our colleagues, since they have said over 
and over again their objection to the lobbying disclosure and gifts 
reform bill are those provisions which deal with grassroots lobbying 
and membership issues. Since they have said over and over again that is 
not a smokescreen to obscure other provisions, time and time again it 
was said here when some on our side, myself included, suggested that 
that was a smokescreen to obscure other issues; no, no, we were told 
that is not a smokescreen.
  Well, we accept the fact that we cannot pass the bill with those 
provisions in it. So let us take them out, as our Republican colleagues 
have suggested, and if that is in fact the reason for the opposition, 
as our colleagues have said it is, let us pass that bill.
  So why do we not do all three, and as a way to get started, why do we 
not now adopt the motion to proceed to the unfunded mandates bill and 
get on the bill? Senators will then want to talk about it. Debate it. 
If the Senator wants to offer an amendment, the Senator has a chance to 
do that while we are trying to work this thing out and get all the 
bills passed.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to let us proceed now. I have made 
a motion to proceed to the bill. I hope we can simply adopt it right 
here and now. Then we will be on the bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would very much like to proceed, but 
I would like to have the majority leader call for the yeas and nays on 
the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader yield for that 
purpose?
  Mr. MITCHELL. If the Senator wants a vote, then we have to give 
Senators notice of that.
  So, Mr. President, what I suggest is that we have a vote on the 
motion to proceed at 9:30, which is 20 minutes, and it will give 
Senators a chance to be notified and to come back before the vote, 
since I believe not all Senators are present on the floor. That way we 
can proceed to the bill.
  So I will present the request.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 
this evening the Senate vote on the motion to proceed to consideration 
of the unfunded mandates bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think all 
of us want to move ahead as the leader has expressed. I think there is 
some concern about some of our Members who may well be farther away 
than the 20-minute time factor he has suggested. I would suggest some 
greater flexibility. I am told it will be important before we can agree 
on a time certain for a vote.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I understand it is a 20-minute vote. So 
that gives people 40 minutes to get here. We have been told that our 
colleagues want to proceed, and I know the distinguished junior Senator 
from Idaho has been anxious to proceed on this. So what would the 
Senator like; 30 minutes?
  We cannot act on the bill until we proceed to it. I am trying to get 
us to proceed to it.
  Mr. CRAIG. I say to the leader, I appreciate his expression earlier 
about the lobbying reform legislation. I must suggest to him, as I 
think he knows, that that legislation, in the form that was very 
acceptable to the Senate and that this Member voted for, passed the 
Senate by a very large vote some months ago until it was changed 
significantly by the House.
  And so, I am one who welcomes that opportunity.
  I would suggest that the argument of the smoke screen does not serve 
this side at all; that we were concerned truly about the grassroots 
provisions that were put in in the House and in the conference. And if 
we can do that and move these other two pieces of legislation, I think 
we could solve that.
  I am told that a time of 9:45 would accommodate a good many more 
Senators than the 9:30 time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I just want to say, this is the last 
night before the stated target date for adjournment. I do not know what 
Senators are thinking, when every 5 or 10 minutes over the last few 
days I have had a Senator--Democrat and Republican --come up to me and 
say, ``Now, we want to get out of here Friday night.''
  We have not had late nights. Every night, I have tried very hard to 
accommodate everyone. Now here we are, the next to the last night, and 
we are told that Senators are not here, cannot be here for a vote. And 
yet, at the same time, we are hearing, ``Oh, we have to pass this bill; 
we have to take this bill up.''
  Well, a Senator can object to any vote other than at 9:45, so we have 
no choice.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to 
proceed to the unfunded mandate bill be at 9:45 this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, a Senator here has requested the yeas 
and nays, as he has a right to do.
  So I request the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have now been notified by the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho that he is prepared to accede to my 
original request of 9:30, and I appreciate that. Five minutes have 
elapsed since I made that initial request, so why do I not now ask that 
the vote be at 9:35. We want to keep as many people as we can happy 
around here.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I appreciate 
the leader's accommodation here. The signals got crossed here; 9:35, as 
he proposed in his unanimous consent request, is acceptable to our 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing none, the vote will occur at 9:35.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to say to my colleagues on the 
other side, if we could get together now and perhaps try to work 
through some of these amendments, it might save us a lot of time.
  For my part, I want to make it clear: I do not intend to talk a long 
time or tie these amendments up. I am willing to have 51 votes decide 
what we do.
  But I would like to see if we cannot reach some agreement. We may 
save the Senate a lot of time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would just want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts. I think 
that, in the interest of the process, it would be very helpful if we 
could get together and try to work through some of these proposed 
amendments. It does now appear that we will proceed to the legislation 
and we will, therefore, have amendments to it.
  So I again associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from 
Massachusetts and look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
time between now and the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge what the 
junior Senator from Illinois stated earlier in her suggestion that she 
would withdraw her amendment based on certain conditions. I think that 
is in the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish. I know that all 
the State and local partners will appreciate that gesture.
  I would just ask that she consider the modification, being that she 
said no amendments. But there are some managers' amendments just to 
correct some of the provisions of this. So that it would be no 
amendments, other than the managers' amendments.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, I would like to visit with the Senator from 
Idaho and have a discussion in this regard.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Also, Mr. President, I say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, I would like to respond to a point that was raised, if I 
may.
  Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend from 
Massachusetts concerning a couple of points that he made. He said, for 
example, if we have an existing system that is currently a matching 
format, 20 percent is offered by the State or local government; 80 
percent is paid for by the Federal Government, that under this new 
provision that would no longer exist, that it would require 100 percent 
funding.
  We need to be aware that the process, as it is laid out, it is not 
retroactive. So an existing--in this case--80 to 20 split would 
continue until such time as that legislation may be up for 
reauthorization.
  At the time that it is up for reauthorization, then CBO would do a 
complete analysis of the mandate, come up with the cost of that 
mandate. The germane committee would include in its legislation the 
cost that has been identified by the Congressional Budget Office. It 
would also identify the funding source.
  But if the committee determined that it felt it was still equitable 
to maintain an 80 to 20 split, it could so. That legislation would come 
to the floor of the Senate. Because it does not comply with providing 
100 percent of the funds, then a point of order is proper. A point of 
order would be raised saying this is not in compliance with provisions 
of S. 993.
  But the committee chairman, members of the committee, at that point 
on the floor of the Senate on that bill, that specific bill, would say 
to our colleagues, ``We believe that an 80 to 20 split is 
appropriate.'' They would make their arguments. There would be debate. 
Then a vote would be called on that point of order and a majority would 
rule.
  If the majority of the Senate said that we ought to continue the 80 
to 20 split, so be it--majority rule.
  I cannot think of anything that is more fair, more tailored. But, 
finally, we are operating with numbers that mean something and we are 
no longer just saying to our State and local partners, ``Well, we do 
not know what it is going to cost you, but your going to pay it.''
  So, on a case by case, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, using 
the point of order that is now contained in this legislation, we can 
have those sorts of debates.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, I appreciate the comments of my 
friend.
  What I would like to do is sit down and discuss this. I think his 
intent has been well described and I do not question what he has set 
out as the intent.
  I think the language that was set out raises sufficient questions as 
to whether or not what the Senator described would happen. And maybe I 
can sit down with him and we will go through it.
  I assure him there is no larger agenda here, there is no push in 
trying to delay this if we can arrive at an agreement or understanding 
so that we are both clear that the mutual interests are protected, the 
prospective capacity of legislating an appropriate Federal-State 
partnership with a match, and also the interest of guaranteeing that 
the U.S. Congress is responsible for the kind of mandate and the level 
of contribution that it is requiring.
  I just want to make sure--that language, as I currently read it, 
raises some problems--I would like to make sure those problems are not 
there. I appreciate what the Senator is saying.
  Again, points of order, I think, are subject normally to 60 votes, 
not a majority vote. So you wind up with a majoritarian--supermajority, 
rather than a simple majority, which is one of the complications of the 
current construct under which we are legislating in the U.S. Congress. 
So, again, that is also a concern.
  So, let us try----
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. This legislation does provide for a majority vote, 
not for 60-vote margin. That was done deliberately so a majority would 
rule on that type of point of order.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the Senator's answer on that. I think what is 
advisable here--I will have the language of the three amendments 
momentarily--if we can discuss those we can either agree to disagree or 
perhaps agree that they might be acceptable. And, hopefully, we can 
proceed forward.
  I would like to see the unfunded mandate legislation passed. I assure 
my colleagues, if we can work through this reasonably, there is 
certainly going to be no delay from the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts very much.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about 
this bill until we vote. Or if anyone else wants to be recognized, I am 
happy to yield. But I would like to say a few words.
  I am a cosponsor of this bill because I think it is so very important 
that Congress take one step in the right direction to say to the State 
and local governments in our country, we are no longer going to pass 
laws that create regulations that are going to cause you to have to 
raise taxes in your State or at your local government level.
  I cannot walk through an airport in my State, or through a 
restaurant, that a mayor or city councilman does not stop me and say: 
Senator, we just cannot take--fill in the blank--regulation anymore. 
Some cities are telling me they are spending 20 percent of their entire 
budgets on unfunded mandates from the Federal Government.
  Of course their local taxpayers are saying, why are we increasing 
taxes? Why can't you balance your budget in the city of Odessa or 
Midland or Lubbock? Of course they are balancing their budget, but they 
have an unfunded mandate they cannot do anything about, and it is 
causing the city of Abilene to have to put a clay liner in their 
landfill. They already have a clay liner in their landfill in the city 
of Abilene, but they are having to spend $1 million to put in another 
clay liner.
  Then I talked to the city of San Antonio where they are having to 
spend $1 million to test the surface water runoff. Then I talked to 
another city that is having to allocate money now, for covering up 
their landfill when they are finished using it 10 years from now.
  The fact of the matter is the environmental mandates and regulations 
are being used to such a degree that it is causing a great hardship on 
the cities of this country. When I just multiply what I am hearing in 
Texas for the rest of America, I know it is time for Congress to do 
something. I commend my colleague, the junior Senator from Idaho, for 
taking this first step and for really getting on top of this. He is a 
former mayor. In fact the cosponsors of this bill are former mayor, 
Dirk Kempthorne; a former Governor, Judd Gregg; a formerly State 
Treasurer, Kay Bailey Hutchison; a former State Senator, Carol Moseley-
Braun--people who have dealt with the Federal Government from another 
vantage point and that is State and local government. We know what 
these unfunded mandates are doing to our States and our local 
governments.
  What are our State and local governments? They are the taxpayers of 
America. But it is not a Federal income tax they are paying, it is a 
local property tax or State sales tax. Yet our Governors and our mayors 
and our county judges are having to bear the brunt of the wrath of the 
taxpayers when it was not their fault. It was an unfunded Federal 
mandate that caused the clayliners in the landfills and the water 
runoff legislation that we are passing here. And we have to give them 
relief.
  That is what Senator Kempthorne's bill is going to do. I hope in 
these last few hours that we will take the responsibility--let us take 
the responsibility for the local taxpayers of America and say enough is 
enough. Because I really believe if the Senators know what that 
unfunded mandate is going to cost we will pass a lot fewer laws and 
regulations through here that are going to hurt our State and local 
governments. And that is the point.
  If we just had the information we can make a rational decision. I 
think we will be more responsible in our actions. But to say we do not 
want the information, to say we do not care how much it costs, is just 
not rational. It is not responsible. And it is abdicating our 
responsibility.
  The Heritage Foundation estimates the indirect costs of Federal 
regulation added to the direct cost of compliance equals $900 billion. 
That is $900 billion on the taxpayers of America in addition to the $1 
trillion that is now taken in, in Federal income taxes. It doubles the 
Federal income tax payment that citizens are paying for other Federal 
laws that we just do not take responsibility to say we are doing.
  So I appreciate what Senator Kempthorne is doing, and Senator Glenn 
has joined forces with him. This is a very important bill. We should 
not delay it. If we can have it go into effect early next year, perhaps 
some of these cities that are struggling with 20 percent budget 
increases will be able to say maybe there is relief on the way.
  I commend Senator Kempthorne, I commend Senator Glenn and the 
cosponsors of this bill. I just hope very much the Senate will proceed 
to this very important bill. We could cut the overall tax burden on the 
people of this country 50 percent, if we can just get control of this 
situation.
  Mayors from across the Nation are in an uproar because the financial 
burdens of environmental mandates on towns and cities resulting from 
Federal environmental laws and regulations may soon be intolerable. 
According to a 1992 survey of the National Council of State 
Legislatures, there are at least 172 major, unfunded Federal mandates 
on the books.
  The Heritage Foundation estimates that the indirect cost of Federal 
regulation added to the direct cost of compliance equals at least $900 
billion. That puts the cost of Federal regulation on par with the $1 
trillion in Federal income taxes paid each year.
  There are major shortcomings in the way Congress and the executive 
branch make decisions on environmental protection:
  Environmental issues are addressed in a vacuum, without examining the 
impacts mandates have on local government costs, personal incomes, 
private property rights, and the economy in general.
  Mandates often respond to preconceived rather than real risks and 
benefits. For example, in order to meet requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, residents of Plano, TX, are paying to have their 
water tested for a chemical banned 20 years ago that was used to grow 
pineapples. Pineapples were never grown in Plano, why do they have to 
test this chemical?
  Federal funding for its mandates has decreased, leaving communities 
with the responsibility of raising tax revenues to meet the 
requirements.
  By EPA's own admission, its share of total environmental spending its 
expected to decrease from 18 percent in 1981 to 8 percent in the year 
2000. Correspondingly, in 1981 local governments paid 76 percent of 
environmental costs, but will be responsible for 87 percent in 2000.
  Texas cities will spend more than $25 billion on Federal 
environmental mandates during the 1990's. An estimated $7 billion over 
just the next 5 years will be spent to meet Federal clean water 
standards alone. That is money being taken away from schools, health 
care, housing, law enforcement, and fire protection that hard-working, 
tax-paying citizens want and need.
  Federal mandates are enacted with a ``one size fits all'' mentality. 
Here are only a few of the many examples brought to my attention during 
my trips throughout the State:


                                lubbock

  The city of Lubbock, with a population of 190,000, is located in an 
arid area. It receives less than 20 inches of rain a year. Here are two 
examples of the problems they are having:
  Subtitle D regulations, governing landfills, require landfills to 
have, among other things, clay liners to protect from ground water 
contamination. Because it is an arid area, there is little threat of 
ground water contamination due to rains which might cause landfill 
leaching. Over the next 8 months, it is going to cost Lubbock $500,000 
for a clay liner for one cell in the landfill. It is being paid for by 
an increase in garbage rates.
  The Clean Water Act requires municipalities with a population of 
100,000 or more to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System [NPDES] permits. Due to staff limitations, and the real need to 
conduct other city business, to meet the deadline for submitting the 
permit application, Lubbock had to spend $750,000 to contract an 
outside consultant to prepare the voluminous documentation required for 
a permit application. Once the permit is issued, they can expect 
additional compliance costs of between $500,000 and $900,000.


                               brownwood

  In April 1990 and again in December 1991, the city of Brownwood 
experienced floods. Brownwood is in the area where it is only expected 
to flood once every 100 years. The EPA, under its effluent discharge 
regulations, requires storm water treatment plants to make plans to 
upgrade when they reach 75 percent of capacity, and be under 
construction to upgrade when plants reach 95 percent of capacity. 
Because of the back-to-back floods, Brownwood exceeded 95 percent of 
plant capacity for 3 months in a row. That's how the EPA makes its 
determination that additional construction is necessary--exceeding 95 
percent of capacity for 3 months in a row, regardless of natural 
disasters, such as floods.
  Brownwood is being required to spend $8.1 million to accomplish this. 
This is on top of the $2.5 million spent in 1982 and the $3.6 million 
spent in 1986 to upgrade the plant. Brownwood is still paying debt 
service on the 1982 and 1986 construction.
  On subtitle D landfill regulations, Brownwood is required to be 
bonded for $300,000 per landfill cell for a 30-year period.
  Over the next 5 years, the citizens of Brownwood will spend $7.2 
million to comply with landfill regulations. To accomplish this, 
landfill use rates will increase 28 percent this year, an additional 28 
percent in 1994, and another 10 percent in 1995. Sewer charges will 
increase 17 percent this year and another 17 percent next year.
  Brownwood city officials estimate that 37.5 percent of the budget for 
the water department, the sewer department, and the landfill is 
directly related to unfunded Federal mandates.
  Brownwood has a population of 18,300.


                                ABILENE

  Abilene is spending $1 million for a clay liner for their landfill. 
Abilene has clay soil and no problem with leaching.


                            COLLEGE STATION

  College Station is being required to set aside $500,000 per year for 
13 years to assure that the landfill will be covered when it is no 
longer in use.


                                 ODESSA

  In Odessa, 18 percent of the $65.7 million 1994 budget is allocated 
to pay for unfunded State and Federal mandated projects. Perhaps one of 
the most costly items is the $1.2 million that the city must spend to 
install a clay liner and monitoring wells at the municipal landfill in 
order to comply with tough environmental regulations.


                              SAN ANTONIO

  In order to meet its EPA mandated water requirements, San Antonio 
tacked $1.99 per month onto every household water bill and hundreds per 
month onto every commercial water bill. To affect the increase, the 
city council of San Antonio had to pass a bill, which it appropriately 
titled, ``The Federal Storm Water Fee.''
  Of the 10 most costly unfunded mandates, 8 deal with environmental 
matters. This is what these mandates cost some selected Texas cities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Town                          Cost       Population 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amarillo....................................   $27,092,500       157,615
Bryan.......................................       984,284        55,002
Plano.......................................     6,642,015       149,188
Nacogdoches.................................     1,257,564        30,872
Waco........................................     2,894,039       107,000
Lubbock.....................................    11,199,789       186,206
Brownsville.................................     1,633,435       102,000
Corpus Christi..............................     5,674,303       273,677
Grand Prairie...............................     4,263,036       102,557
San Marcos..................................     1,266,133        28,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  These towns are put in a position of paying for unfunded Federal 
mandates while sacrificing the things they want and need most: Local 
police and fire protection, schools and the like.
  States and municipalities must be given the flexibility to ensure 
good environmental quality through rational, logical, and affordable 
approaches. There must be a way to address legitimate environmental 
concerns without bankrupting our towns and cities. S. 993 goes a long 
way toward doing that.
  I want to applaud the Senator from Idaho for his diligence in getting 
this bill to the Senate floor and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas, 
Senator Hutchison, for her comments. We are very fortunate to have her 
perspective from the State government, to be here in the U.S. Senate, 
helping us with these types of issues. She has been one of the prime 
movers, also, on bringing about the end to unfunded Federal mandates. 
So I thank her for her leadership. Again, we are fortunate to have her 
insight and perspective to help us deal properly with our partners, the 
State and local officials.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Texas--not at all other than out of curiosity, following through on the 
last statement--I wonder if the Senator from Texas would tell me, I am 
rather stupefied by the notion that this bill is going to save the 
taxpayers of the country more than 50 percent of their tax burden. Is 
there some analysis that articulates that? Can the Senator share with 
me how much money we are actually going to save with this and why? That 
may raise a few more alarm bells that we thought existed in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I was referring to a Heritage 
Foundation report that estimates that the indirect costs of Federal 
regulation added to the direct cost of compliance, equals $900 billion. 
The intake of our income taxes is about $1 trillion. So it is about the 
same.
  Not necessarily will we not have any more regulations to cut it back 
to 50 percent. But I certainly think, if we had the information on what 
it is costing us in indirect costs to comply with Federal regulations, 
it is going to help us put this in perspective.
  Let me just reemphasize a few examples. In College Station, they are 
being required now to set aside $500,000 per year for 13 years to 
assure that the landfill will be covered, when it is no longer in use--
which is 13 years from now.
  When I am in College Station, TX, they tell me that they cannot 
afford to add this much to their local sewage treatment garbage fees.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could interrupt the Senator? I share that feeling and 
I understand what the Senator is saying.
  I share that and understand what the Senator is saying. I do not 
dispute the existence of those kinds of regulations and burdens. I am 
just trying to understand how the specific figure of savings is arrived 
at, because clearly there is no way to predict with specificity what 
the Congress is going to wind up rejecting or accepting. It is exactly 
hard to say what your savings is going to be, is what I am getting at.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
is absolutely right. We do not know how much of that $900 billion will 
actually be saved, but we can certainly take one step in the right 
direction by having the information about the added costs, because if 
you add up the costs of the added regulation for landfills, or the 
added regulation for water runoff it does, indeed, begin to approach 
the amount that we are also paying in income tax. When someone is 
paying their tax bill, they do not differentiate on what the total 
taken out of their paychecks or their property tax bills are going to 
be. So we may not save $900 billion.
  But I think we are going to start in the right direction toward 
having an accountability about all of these hidden taxes that we are 
causing to the local taxpayer that we are not really getting credit for 
right now. So the point of the Senator from Massachusetts is well 
taken. We cannot say for sure that it will save $900 billion, but I do 
think that we will be able to cut back on these hidden taxes and help 
the taxpayers of this country, and this is certainly a step in the 
right direction to do that.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer of the Senator from 
Texas, which I think clarifies it a little bit. I think we have to 
realize that we ought to be understanding a lot better and entering an 
entire new age of responsibility in the relationship between the 
Federal Government and States. There is no question about that.
  I agree with the Senator from Texas; passing this would significantly 
increase the level of responsibility that we are exercising in what we 
demand of others who are going to pay and of what the amount that they 
are going to pay is going to be. There has really been a rather 
remarkable disconnection between the level of bureaucracy and 
regulation that is required to implement many of the things that we 
look for.
  So we take these very good intentions and turn them into absolutely 
horrendous bureaucratic nightmares that wind up giving a bad name, not 
just to Government itself, obviously, but to the good intentions which 
I think most people on both sides of the aisle would support.
  Again, I think the basic thrust of this legislation is obviously very 
good and very strong. But I just want to understand exactly what the 
implications are going to be. And within a very few minutes, I will 
have the language available so I can sit down with the appropriate 
people to be able to pursue that.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for the clarification.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time do we have left before the 
vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 30 seconds left.
  Mr. GLENN. In that case, I will resist the temptation to speak.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, a few of my colleagues have taken the 
time. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 3 minutes to speak on 
this subject.
  MR. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object, will this be the last 3 
minutes?
  Mr. THURMOND. As far as I am concerned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from 
Idaho for the stand he has taken on this matter, and also the able 
junior Senator from Texas for the stand she has taken, and all those 
who have taken that position.
  After all, I wonder sometimes if we really follow the Constitution in 
our dealings. When this Constitution was written, the idea was to make 
the States the main agencies of Government. As time has passed, we are 
shifting more and more power to the Federal level.
  Article I, section 8, and the 26 amendments adopted since the 
adoption of the Constitution mainly comprise authority of the Federal 
Government under this Constitution. All other powers are reserved to 
the States. Unless a power has been specifically delegated to the 
Federal Government, it is reserved to the States.
  It certainly is not right for the Federal Government to place 
mandates and demands on the States. They have no authority under the 
Constitution to do it, and I certainly hope this bill will pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
proceed to S. 993.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Campbell], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini], the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the 
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Rhode Island 
[Mr. Pell], and the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], and the Senator 
from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], are neccessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Biden
     Boren
     Campbell
     DeConcini
     Durenberger
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Pell
     Pryor
     Stevens
     Wallop
  So the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________