Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 7 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 7 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S828-S895]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded
Federal mandates on States and local governments; to
strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and
State, local and tribal governments; to end the imposition,
in the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without
adequate funding, in a manner that may displace other
essential governmental priorities; and to ensure that the
Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those
governments in complying with certain requirements under
Federal statutes and regulations, and for other purposes.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill which had been reported
from the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, with amendments; as follows:

(The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in
boldface brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be
inserted are shown in italic.)
S. 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal
Government and States, local governments, and tribal
governments;
(2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full
consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on States,
local governments, and tribal governments without adequate
Federal funding, in a manner that may displace other
essential State, local, and tribal governmental priorities;
(3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed
legislation establishing or revising Federal programs
containing Federal mandates affecting States, local
governments, tribal governments, and the private sector by--
(A) providing for the development of information about the
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to
the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives
before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on
proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance;
(5) to require that Congress consider whether to provide
funding to assist State, local, and tribal governments in
complying with Federal mandates, to require analyses of the
impact of private sector mandates, and through the
dissemination of that information provide informed and
deliberate decisions by Congress and Federal agencies and
retain competitive balance between the public and private
sectors;
(6) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration
in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation
containing significant Federal mandates; and
(7) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of
proposed regulations affecting States, local governments, and
tribal governments, by--
(A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to
enable the elected and other officials of States, local
governments, and tribal governments to provide input when
Federal agencies are developing regulations; and
(B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider
better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations
containing Federal mandates upon States, local governments,
and tribal governments before adopting such regulations, and
ensuring that small governments are given special
consideration in that process.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--For purposes of this Act--
(1) the terms defined under paragraphs (11) through (21) of
section 3 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 (as added by subsection (b) of this section)
shall have the meanings as so defined; and
(2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office.
(b) Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974.--Section 3 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraphs:
``(11) The term `Federal intergovernmental mandate' means--
``(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that--
``(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon States, local
governments, or tribal governments, except--

``(I) a condition of Federal assistance or
``(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program, except as provided in subparagraph (B)); or

``(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount of
authorization of appropriations for Federal financial
assistance that would be provided to States, local
governments, or tribal governments for the purpose of
complying with any such previously imposed duty unless
such duty is reduced or eliminated by a corresponding
amount; or
``(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that relates to a then-existing Federal program under which
$500,000,000 or more is provided annually to States, local
governments, and tribal governments under entitlement
authority, if the provision--
``(i)(I) would increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance to States, local governments, or tribal
governments under the program; or
``(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the
Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding to
States, local governments, or tribal governments under the
program; and
``(ii) the States, local governments, or tribal governments
that participate in the Federal program lack authority under
that program to amend their financial or programmatic
responsibilities to continue providing required services that
are affected by the legislation, statute or regulation.
``(12) The term `Federal private sector mandate' means any
provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that--
``(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the private
sector except--
``(i) a condition of Federal assistance; or
``(ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program; or
``(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization
of appropriations for Federal financial assistance that will
be provided to the private sector for the purposes of
ensuring compliance with such duty.
``(13) The term `Federal mandate' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector
mandate, as defined in paragraphs (11) and (12).
``(14) The terms `Federal mandate direct costs' and `direct
costs'--
``(A)(i) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, mean the aggregate estimated amounts that all
States, local governments, and tribal governments would be
required to spend in order to comply with the Federal
intergovernmental mandate; or
``(ii) in the case of a provision referred to in paragraph
(11)(A)(ii), mean the amount of Federal financial assistance
eliminated or reduced.
``(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate, mean
the aggregate estimated amounts that the private sector will
be required to spend in order to comply with the Federal
private sector mandate;
``(C) shall not include--
``(i) estimated amounts that the States, local governments,
and tribal governments
[[Page S829]] (in the case of a Federal intergovernmental
mandate) or the private sector (in the case of a Federal
private sector mandate) would spend--

``(I) to comply with or carry out all applicable Federal,
State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in effect at
the time of the adoption of the Federal mandate for the same
activity as is affected by that Federal mandate; or
``(II) to comply with or carry out State, local
governmental, and tribal governmental programs, or private-
sector business or other activities in effect at the time of
the adoption of the Federal mandate for the same activity as
is affected by that mandate; or

``(ii) expenditures to the extent that such expenditures
will be offset by any direct savings to the States, local
governments, and tribal governments, or by the private
sector, as a result of--

``(I) compliance with the Federal mandate; or
``(II) other changes in Federal law or regulation that are
enacted or adopted in the same bill or joint resolution or
proposed or final Federal regulation and that govern the same
activity as is affected by the Federal mandate; and

``(D) shall be determined on the assumption that State,
local, and tribal governments, and the private sector will
take all reasonable steps necessary to mitigate the costs
resulting from the Federal mandate, and will comply with
applicable standards of practice and conduct established by
recognized professional or trade associations. Reasonable
steps to mitigate the costs shall not include increases in
State, local, or tribal taxes or fees.
[``(15) The term `amount' means the amount of budget
authority for any Federal grant assistance program or any
Federal program providing loan guarantees or direct loans.
[``(16) The term `private sector' means individuals,
partnerships, associations, corporations, business trusts, or
legal representatives, organized groups of individuals, and
educational and other nonprofit institutions.]
``(15) The term `private sector' means all persons or
entities in the United States, except for State, local, or
tribal governments, including individuals, partnerships,
associations, corporations, and educational and nonprofit
institutions.
[``(17)] (16) The term `local government' has the same
meaning as in section 6501(6) of title 31, United States
Code.
[``(18)] (17) The term `tribal government' means any Indian
tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (83 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible for the special
programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their special status as Indians.
[``(19)] (18) The term `small government' means any small
governmental jurisdictions defined in section 601(5) of title
5, United States Code, and any tribal government.
[``(20)] (19) The term `State' has the same meaning as in
section 6501(9) of title 31, United State Code.''
[``(21)] (20) The term `agency' has the meaning as defined
in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, but does
not include independent regulatory agencies, as defined in
section 3502(10) of title 44, United States Code.
[``(22)] (21) The term `regulation' or `rule' has the
meaning of `rule' as defined in section 601(2) of title 5,
United States Code.[''.]
``(23) The definitions under paragraphs (15) through (22)
shall apply only to section 408.''.

SEC. 4. EXCLUSIONS.

The provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall not apply to any provision in a bill or joint
resolution before Congress and any provision in a proposed or
final Federal regulation that--
(1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
(2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion,
gender, national origin, or handicapped or disability status;
(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing
procedures with respect to grants or other money or property
provided by the United States Government;
(4) provides for emergency assistance or relief at the
request of any State, local, or tribal government or any
official of a State, local, or tribal government;
(5) is necessary for the national security or the
ratification or implementation of international treaty
obligations; or
(6) the President designates as emergency legislation and
that the Congress so designates in statute.

SEC. 5. AGENCY ASSISTANCE.

Each agency shall provide to the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office such information and assistance
as the Director may reasonably request to assist the Director
in carrying out this Act.
TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

SEC. 101. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .

(a) In General.--Title IV of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:

``SEC. 408. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .

``(a) Duties of Congressional Committees.--
``(1) In general.--When a committee of authorization of the
Senate or the House of Representatives reports a bill or
joint resolution of public character that includes any
Federal mandate, the report of the committee accompanying the
bill or joint resolution shall contain the information
required by paragraphs (3) and (4).
``(2) Submission of bills to the director.--When a
committee of authorization of the Senate or the House of
Representatives orders reported a bill or joint resolution of
a public character, the committee shall promptly provide the
bill or joint resolution to the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office and shall identify to the Director any Federal
mandates contained in the bill or resolution.
``(3) Reports on federal mandates.--Each report described
under paragraph (1) shall contain--
``(A) an identification and description of any Federal
mandates in the bill or joint resolution, including the
expected direct costs to State, local, and tribal
governments, and to the private sector, required to comply
with the Federal mandates;
``(B) a qualitative, and if practicable, a quantitative
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal
mandates (including the effects on health and safety and the
protection of the natural environment); and
``(C) a statement of the degree to which a Federal mandate
affects both the public and private sectors and the extent to
which Federal payment of public sector costs or the
modification or termination of the Federal mandate as
provided under subsection (c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV) would affect the
competitive balance between State, local, or tribal
governments and privately owned businesses.
``(4) Intergovernmental mandates.--If any of the Federal
mandates in the bill or joint resolution are Federal
intergovernmental mandates, the report required under
paragraph (1) shall also contain--
``(A)(i) a statement of the amount, if any, of increase or
decrease in authorization of appropriations under existing
Federal financial assistance programs, or of authorization of
appropriations for new Federal financial assistance, provided
by the bill or joint resolution [and usable for activities of
State, local, or tribal governments subject to the Federal
intergovernmental mandates] to pay for the costs to
State, local, and tribal governments of the Federal
intergovernmental mandate; and
``(ii) a statement of whether the committee intends that
the Federal intergovernmental mandates be partly or entirely
unfunded, and if so, the reasons for that intention; and
``(B) any existing sources of Federal assistance in
addition to those identified in subparagraph (A) that may
assist State, local, and tribal governments in meeting the
direct costs of the Federal intergovernmental mandates.
``(5) Preemption clarification and information.--When a
committee of authorization of the Senate or the House of
Representatives reports a bill or joint resolution of public
character, the committee report accompanying the bill or
joint resolution shall contain, if relevant to the bill or
joint resolution, an explicit statement on the extent to
which the bill or joint resolution preempts any State, local,
or tribal law, and, if so, an explanation of the reasons for
such preemption.
``(6) Publication of statement from the director.--
``(A) Upon receiving a statement (including any
supplemental statement) from the Director under subsection
(b)(1), a committee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives shall publish the statement in the committee
report accompanying the bill or joint resolution to which the
statement relates if the statement is available at the time
the report is printed.
``(B) If the statement is not published in the report, or
if the bill or joint resolution to which the statement
relates is expected to be considered by the Senate or the
House of Representatives before the report is published, the
committee shall cause the statement, or a summary thereof, to
be published in the Congressional Record in advance of floor
consideration of the bill or joint resolution.
``(b) Duties of the Director.--
``(1) Statements on bills and joint resolutions other than
appropriations bills and joint resolutions.--
``(A) Federal intergovernmental mandates in reported bills
and resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a
public character reported by any committee of authorization
of the Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare and submit
to the committee a statement as follows:
``(i) If the Director estimates that the direct cost of all
Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint
resolution will equal or exceed $50,000,000 (adjusted
annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any
Federal intergovernmental mandate in the bill or joint
resolution (or in any necessary implementing regulation)
would first be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years
following such fiscal year, the Director shall so state,
specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis of the
estimate.
``(ii) The estimate required under clause (i) shall include
estimates (and brief explanations of the basis of the
estimates) of--

``(I) the total amount of direct cost of complying with the
Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint
resolution; and
``(II) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of
appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance
programs, or of authorization of appropriations for new
Federal financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint
resolution and usable by State, local, or tribal governments
for activities subject to the Federal intergovernmental
mandates.
``(B) Federal private sector mandates in reported bills and
joint resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a
public character reported by any committees of authorization
of the Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director
of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare and submit
to the committee a statement as follows:
[[Page S830]] ``(i) If the Director estimates that the
direct cost of all Federal private sector mandates in the
bill or joint resolution will equal or exceed $200,000,000
(adjusted annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which
any Federal private sector mandate in the bill or joint
resolution (or in any necessary implementing regulation)
would first be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years
following such fiscal year, the Director shall so state,
specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis of the
estimate.
``(ii) Estimates required under this subparagraph shall
include estimates (and a brief explanation of the basis of
the estimates) of--

``(I) the total amount of direct costs of complying with
the Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint
resolution; and
``(II) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of
appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance
programs, or of authorization of appropriations for new
Federal financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint
resolution usable by the private sector for the activities
subject to the Federal private sector mandates.

``(iii) If the Director determines that it is not feasible
to make a reasonable estimate that would be required under
clauses (i) and (ii), the Director shall not make the
estimate, but shall report in the statement that the
reasonable estimate cannot be made and shall include the
reasons for that determination in the statement.
``(C) Legislation falling below the direct costs
thresholds.--If the Director estimates that the direct costs
of a Federal mandate will not equal or exceed the thresholds
specified in paragraphs (A) and (B), the Director shall so
state and shall briefly explain the basis of the estimate.
``(c) Legislation Subject to Point of Order in the
Senate.--
``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider--
``(A) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a
committee unless the committee has published a statement of
the Director on the direct costs of Federal mandates in
accordance with subsection (a)(6) before such consideration;
and
``(B) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would increase the direct costs of
Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes
the thresholds specified in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) to be
exceeded, unless--
``(i) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report provides direct spending authority for each
fiscal year for the Federal intergovernmental mandates
included in the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report in an amount that is equal to the estimated
direct costs of such mandate;
``(ii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report provides an increase in receipts and an
increase in direct spending authority for each fiscal year
for the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report in an amount equal to the estimated direct costs of
such mandate; or
``(iii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report includes an authorization for
appropriations in an amount equal to the estimated direct
costs of such mandate, and--

``(I) identifies a specific dollar amount estimate of the
full direct costs of the mandate for each year or other
period during which the mandate shall be in effect under the
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference
report, and such estimate is consistent with the estimate
determined under paragraph (3) for each fiscal year;
``(II) identifies any appropriation bill that is expected
to provide for Federal funding of the direct cost referred to
under subclause (IV)(aa);
``(III) identifies the minimum amount that must be
appropriated in each appropriations bill referred to in
subclause (II), in order to provide for full Federal funding
of the direct costs referred to in subclause (I); and
``(IV)(aa) designates a responsible Federal agency and
establishes criteria and procedures under which such agency
shall implement less costly programmatic and financial
responsibilities of State, local, and tribal governments in
meeting the objectives of the mandate, to the extent that an
appropriation Act does not provide for the estimated direct
costs of such mandate as set forth under subclause (III); or
``(bb) designates a responsible Federal agency and
establishes criteria and procedures to direct that, if an
appropriation Act does not provide for the estimated direct
costs of such mandate as set forth under subclause (III),
such agency shall declare such mandate to be ineffective as
of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the appropriation
is not at least equal to the direct costs of the mandate.

``(2) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraph
(1)(B)(iii)(IV)(aa) shall not be construed to prohibit or
otherwise restrict a State, local, or tribal government from
voluntarily electing to remain subject to the original
Federal intergovernmental mandate, complying with the
programmatic or financial responsibilities of the original
Federal intergovernmental mandate and providing the funding
necessary consistent with the costs of Federal agency
assistance, monitoring, and enforcement.
``(3) Committee on appropriations.--Paragraph (1) shall not
apply to matters that are within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or the House of
Representatives.
[``(4) Determination of applicability to pending
legislation.--For purposes of this subsection, on questions
regarding the applicability of this Act to a pending bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report,
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, or the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives, as applicable, shall have the authority to
make the final determination.]
[``(5) Determinations of federal mandate levels.--For the
purposes of this subsection, the levels of Federal mandates
for a fiscal year shall be determined based on the estimates
made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, as the case may be.]
``(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to
consider a rule or order that waives the application of
subsection (c) to a bill or joint resolution reported by a
committee of authorization.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after
the item relating to section 407 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Legislative mandate accountability and reform.''.
SEC. 102. ENFORCEMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Motions to Strike in the Committee of the Whole.--
Clause 5 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) In the consideration of any measure for amendment in
the Committee of the Whole containing any Federal mandate the
direct costs of which exceed the threshold in section 408(c)
of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, it shall always
be in order, unless specifically waived by terms of a rule
governing consideration of that measure, to move to strike
such Federal mandate from the portion of the bill then open
to amendment.''.
(b) Committee on Rules Reports on Waived Points of Order.--
The Committee on Rules shall include in the report required
by clause 1(d) of rule XI (relating to its activities during
the Congress) of the Rules of the House of Representatives a
separate item identifying all waivers of points of order
relating to Federal mandates, listed by bill or joint
resolution number and the subject matter of that measure.
(c) Determinations.--
(1) Determination of applicability to pending
legislation.--For purposes of this section in the House of
Representatives, on questions regarding the applicability of
this Act to a pending bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report, the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives shall
have the authority to make the final determination.
(2) Determinations of federal mandate levels.--For the
purposes of the application of this section in the House of
Representatives, the levels of Federal mandates for a fiscal
year shall be determined based on the estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 103. ASSISTANCE TO COMMITTEES AND STUDIES.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 is amended--
(1) in section 202--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) At the request of any committee of the Senate or the
House of Representatives, the Office shall, to the extent
practicable, consult with and assist such committee in
analyzing the budgetary or financial impact of any proposed
legislation that may have--
``(A) a significant budgetary impact on State, local, or
tribal governments; or
``(B) a significant financial impact on the private
sector.'';
(B) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
``(h) Studies.--
``(1) Continuing studies.--The Director of the
Congressional Budget Office shall conduct continuing studies
to enhance comparisons of budget outlays, credit authority,
and tax expenditures.
``(2) Federal mandate studies.--
``(A) At the request of any Chairman or ranking member of
the minority of a Committee of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, the Director shall, to the extent
practicable, conduct a study of a Federal mandate legislative
proposal.
``(B) In conducting a study on intergovernmental mandates
under subparagraph (A), the Director shall--
``(i) solicit and consider information or comments from
elected officials (including their designated
representatives) of State, local, or tribal governments as
may provide helpful information or comments;
``(ii) consider establishing advisory panels of elected
officials or their designated representatives, of State,
local, or tribal governments if the Director determines that
such advisory panels would be helpful in performing
responsibilities of the Director under this section; and
``(iii) if, and to the extent that the Director determines
that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, include
estimates of--

``(I) the future direct cost of the Federal mandate to the
extent that such costs significantly differ from or extend
beyond the 5-

[[Page S831]]

year period after the mandate is first effective; and
``(II) any disproportionate budgetary effects of Federal
mandates upon particular industries or sectors of the
economy, States, regions, and urban or rural or other types
of communities, as appropriate.

``(C) In conducting a study on private sector mandates
under subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide estimates,
if and to the extent that the Director determines that such
estimates are reasonably feasible, of--
``(i) future costs of Federal private sector mandates to
the extent that such mandates differ significantly from or
extend beyond the 5-year time period referred to in
subparagraph (B)(iii)(I);
``(ii) any disproportionate financial effects of Federal
private sector mandates and of any Federal financial
assistance in the bill or joint resolution upon any
particular industries or sectors of the economy, States,
regions, and urban or rural or other types of communities;
and
``(iii) the effect of Federal private sector mandates in
the bill or joint resolution on the national economy,
including the effect on productivity, economic growth, full
employment, creation of productive jobs, and international
competitiveness of United States goods and services.''; and
(2) in section 301(d) by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: ``Any Committee of the House of
Representatives or the Senate that anticipates that the
committee will consider any proposed legislation
establishing, amending, or reauthorizing any Federal program
likely to have a significant budgetary impact on any State,
local, or tribal government, or likely to have a significant
financial impact on the private sector, including any
legislative proposal submitted by the executive branch likely
to have such a budgetary or financial impact, shall include
its views and estimates on that proposal to the Committee on
the Budget of the applicable House.''.

SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Congressional Budget Office $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry
out the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 105. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

The provisions of sections 101, 102, 103, 104, and 107 are
enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House,
respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only
to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.

SEC. 106. REPEAL OF CERTAIN ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE.

(a) In General.--Section 403 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 653) is repealed.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking out
the item relating to section 403.

SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall take effect on January 1, 1996 and shall
apply only to legislation [introduced] considered on and
after such date.
TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.

(a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted
in law--
(1) assess the effects of Federal regulations on State,
local, and tribal governments (other than to the extent that
such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in legislation), and the private sector including
specifically the availability of resources to carry out any
Federal intergovernmental mandates in those regulations; and
(2) seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or
significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent
with achieving statutory and regulatory objectives.
(b) State, Local, and Tribal Government Input.--Each agency
shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective
process to permit elected officials (or their designated
representatives) of State, local, and tribal governments to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory proposals containing significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates. Such a process shall be
consistent with all applicable laws, including the provisions
of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code (commonly
referred to as the Administrative Procedure Act).
(c) Agency Plan.--
(1) Effects on state, local and tribal governments.--Before
establishing any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, agencies
shall have developed a plan under which the agency shall--
(A) provide notice of the contemplated requirements to
potentially affected small governments, if any;
(B) enable officials of affected small governments to
provide input under subsection (b); and
(C) inform, educate, and advise small governments on
compliance with the requirements.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to each agency to carry out the provisions
of this section, and for no other purpose, such sums as are
necessary.

SEC. 202. STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY
ACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Before promulgating any final rule that
includes any Federal intergovernmental mandate that may
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, and the private sector, in the aggregate, of
$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation by the
Consumer Price Index) in any 1 year, and before promulgating
any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to
result in promulgation of any such rule, the agency shall
prepare a written statement containing--
(1) estimates by the agency, including the underlying
analysis, of the anticipated costs to State, local, and
tribal governments and the private sector of complying with
the Federal intergovernmental mandate, and of the extent to
which such costs may be paid with funds provided by the
Federal Government or otherwise paid through Federal
financial assistance;
(2) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the
agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably
feasible, of--
(A) the future costs of the Federal intergovernmental
mandate; and
(B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal
intergovernmental mandate upon any particular regions of the
Nation or particular State, local, or tribal governments,
urban or rural or other types of communities;
(3) a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative
assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal
intergovernmental mandate (such as the enhancement of health
and safety and the protection of the natural environment);
(4) the effect of the Federal private sector mandate on the
national economy, including the effect on productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive
jobs, and international competitiveness of United States
goods and services; and
(5)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior
consultation with elected representatives (or their
designated representatives) of the affected State, local, and
tribal governments;
(B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were
presented by State, local, or tribal governments either
orally or in writing to the agency;
(C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those comments
and concerns; and
(D) the agency's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation containing the Federal intergovernmental mandates
(considering, among other things, the extent to which costs
may or may not be paid with funds provided by the Federal
Government).
(b) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of
proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which a statement
under subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in
the promulgation a summary of the information contained in
the statement.
(c) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--Any
agency may prepare any statement required under subsection
(a) in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement
or analysis, provided that the statement or analysis
satisfies the provisions of subsection (a).

SEC. 203. ASSISTANCE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
(1) collect from agencies the statements prepared under
section 202; and
(2) periodically forward copies of such statements to the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office on a reasonably
timely basis after promulgation of the general notice of
proposed rulemaking or of the final rule for which the
statement was prepared.

SEC. 204. PILOT PROGRAM ON SMALL GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY.

(a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, in consultation with Federal agencies, shall
establish pilot programs in at least 2 agencies to test
innovative, and more flexible regulatory approaches that--
(1) reduce reporting and compliance burdens on small
governments; and
(2) meet overall statutory goals and objectives.
(b) Program Focus.--The pilot programs shall focus on rules
in effect or proposed rules, or a combination thereof.
TITLE III--REVIEW OF UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES

SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is established a commission which shall be known as
the ``Commission on Unfunded Federal Mandates'' (in this
title referred to as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 302. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY THE
COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall in accordance with
this section--
(1) investigate and review the role of unfunded Federal
mandates in intergovernmental relations and their impact on
local, State, and Federal government objectives and
responsibilities; and
(2) make recommendations to the President and the Congress
regarding--
[[Page S832]] (A) allowing flexibility for States, local,
and tribal governments in complying with specific unfunded
Federal mandates for which terms of compliance are
unnecessarily rigid or complex;
(B) reconciling any 2 or more unfunded Federal mandates
which impose contradictory or inconsistent requirements;
(C) terminating unfunded Federal mandates which are
duplicative, obsolete, or lacking in practical utility;
(D) suspending, on a temporary basis, unfunded Federal
mandates which are not vital to public health and safety and
which compound the fiscal difficulties of States, local, and
tribal governments, including recommendations for triggering
such suspension;
(E) consolidating or simplifying unfunded Federal mandates,
or the planning or reporting requirements of such mandates,
in order to reduce duplication and facilitate compliance by
States, local, and tribal governments with those mandates;
and
(F) establishing common Federal definitions or standards to
be used by States, local, and tribal governments in complying
with unfunded Federal mandates that use different definitions
or standards for the same terms or principles.
(3) Identification of relevant unfunded federal mandates.--
Each recommendation under paragraph (2) shall, to the extent
practicable, identify the specific unfunded Federal mandates
to which the recommendation applies.
(b) Criteria.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall establish criteria
for making recommendations under subsection (a).
(2) Issuance of proposed criteria.--The Commission shall
issue proposed criteria under this subsection not later than
60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
thereafter provide a period of 30 days for submission by the
public of comments on the proposed criteria.
(3) Final criteria.--Not later than 45 days after the date
of issuance of proposed criteria, the Commission shall--
(A) consider comments on the proposed criteria received
under paragraph (2);
(B) adopt and incorporate in final criteria any
recommendations submitted in those comments that the
Commission determines will aid the Commission in carrying out
its duties under this section; and
(C) issue final criteria under this subsection.
(c) Preliminary Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
(A) prepare and publish a preliminary report on its
activities under this subtitle, including preliminary
recommendations pursuant to subsection (a);
(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of
availability of the preliminary report; and
(C) provide copies of the preliminary report to the public
upon request.
(2) Public hearings.--The Commission shall hold public
hearings on the preliminary recommendations contained in the
preliminary report of the Commission under this subsection.
(d) Final Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date
of the publication of the preliminary report under subsection
(c), the Commission shall submit to the Congress, including
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs
of the Senate, and to the President a final report on the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Commission
under this section.

SEC. 303. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Number and Appointment.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members appointed from individuals who possess extensive
leadership experience in and knowledge of States, local, and
tribal governments and intergovernmental relations, including
State and local elected officials, as follows:
(A) 3 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, in consultation with the minority leader of
the House of Representatives.
(B) 3 members appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate, in consultation with the minority leader of the
Senate.
(C) 3 members appointed by the President.
(2) Limitation.--An individual who is a Member or employee
of the Congress may not be appointed or serve as a member of
the Commission.
(b) Waiver of Limitation on Executive Schedule Positions.--
Appointments may be made under this section without regard to
section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Terms.--
(1) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
(d) Basic Pay.--
(1) Rates of pay.--Members of the Commission shall serve
without pay.
(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
Members of the Commission who are full-time officers or
employees of the United States may not receive additional
pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on
the Commission.
(e) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall
receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of
title 5, United States Code.
(f) Chairperson.--The President shall designate a member of
the Commission as Chairperson at the time of the appointment
of that member.
(g) Meetings.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Commission
shall meet at the call of the Chairperson or a majority of
its members.
(2) First meeting.--The Commission shall convene its first
meeting by not later than 45 days after the date of the
completion of appointment of the members of the Commission.
(3) Quorum.--A majority of members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold hearings.

SEC. 304. DIRECTOR AND STAFF OF COMMISSION; EXPERTS AND
CONSULTANTS.

(a) Director.--The Commission shall, without regard to
section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code, have a
Director who shall be appointed by the Commission. The
Director shall be paid at the rate of basic pay payable for
level IV of the Executive Schedule.
(b) Staff.--With the approval of the Commission, and
without regard to section 5311(b) of title 5, United States
Code, the Director may appoint and fix the pay of such staff
as is sufficient to enable the Commission to carry out its
duties.
(c) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The
Director and staff of the Commission may be appointed without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be
paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an
individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the
annual rate payable under section 5376 of title 5, United
States Code.
(d) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure
temporary and intermittent services of experts or consultants
under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(e) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the
Director, the head of any Federal department or agency may
detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that
department or agency to the Commission to assist it in
carrying out its duties under this title.

SEC. 305. POWERS OF COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings and Sessions.--The Commission may, for the
purpose of carrying out this title, hold hearings, sit and
act at times and places, take testimony, and receive evidence
as the Commission considers appropriate.
(b) Powers of Members and Agents.--Any member or agent of
the Commission may, if authorized by the Commission, take any
action which the Commission is authorized to take by this
section.
(c) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure
directly from any department or agency of the United States
information necessary to enable it to carry out this title,
except information--
(1) which is specifically exempted from disclosure by law;
or
(2) which that department or agency determines will
disclose--
(A) matters necessary to be kept secret in the interests of
national defense or the confidential conduct of the foreign
relations of the United States;
(B) information relating to trade secrets or financial or
commercial information pertaining specifically to a given
person if the information has been obtained by the Government
on a confidential basis, other than through an application by
such person for a specific financial or other benefit, and is
required to be kept secret in order to prevent undue injury
to the competitive position of such person; or
(C) personnel or medical data or similar data the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy;

unless the portions containing such matters, information, or
data have been excised.
Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head
of that department or agency shall furnish that information
to the Commission.
(d) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(e) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its duties under this title.
(f) Contract Authority.--The Commission may, subject to
appropriations, contract with and compensate government and
private agencies or persons for property and services used to
carry out its duties under this title.

SEC. 306. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after submitting its
final report pursuant to section 302(d).

SEC. 307. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
$1,000,000 to carry out this title.

SEC. 308. DEFINITION.

As used in this title, the term ``unfunded Federal
mandate'' means--
[[Page S833]] (1) any provision in statute or regulation
that imposes an enforceable duty upon States, local
governments, or tribal governments including a condition of
Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program;
(2) relates to a Federal program under which Federal
financial assistance is provided to States, local
governments, or tribal governments under entitlement
authority; or
(3) that imposes any other unfunded obligation on States,
local governments, or tribal governments.

SEC. 309. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall take effect 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) In General.--Any statement or report prepared under
this Act, and any compliance or noncompliance with the
provisions of this Act, and any determination concerning the
applicability of the provisions of this Act shall not be
subject to judicial review.
(b) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this Act or
amendment made by this Act shall be construed to create any
right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by
any person in any administrative or judicial action. No
ruling or determination made under the provisions of this Act
or amendments made by this Act shall be considered by any
court in determining the intent of Congress or for any other
purpose.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would just say in a preliminary way,
Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn I believe will be here
momentarily, but this is an important piece of legislation, so
important that it does have the number 1, S. 1.
This is legislation that not only affects Governors, as the Presiding
Officer knows what it meant, unfunded mandates, what an impact it has
on States; it also affects cities and counties and other subdivisions.
The mayors support it. The legislators support it.
Right now, Senator Kempthorne is in a press conference with private
sector groups. It also affects the private sector because if an
unfunded mandate comes, it is always passed through higher taxes or
some other way. So it is strongly supported by the private sector, by
the public sector. It has broad bipartisan support and should have
broad bipartisan support.
I hope that my colleagues would limit amendments on this bill to
those that are legitimate amendments that may affect some real concern
they have with this legislation. We have gone through the other
exercise on congressional coverage, and I know that happens from time
to time on either side. But I think in this legislation it is an
opportunity for us to demonstrate in a bipartisan way that we
understand the problem; we want to deal with the problem. And so far it
has been dealt with in a bipartisan way.
I would also say to my colleagues, many of whom are not here but I
know they must be listening in their offices, their ears glued to the
TV or whatever, if in fact we can reach some agreement today on the
amendments and sort of put them all in a little bag somewhere and say
this will be all the amendments that will be offered to this bill, then
I will be very happy to try to accommodate some of my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle with reference to plans they may have out of
Washington tomorrow. As you know, Monday will be a holiday, but we will
be back voting on Tuesday.
So staffs on each side I know have been working trying to accommodate
Members, but I just suggest this is very important legislation. Senator
Kempthorne I think deserves a great deal of credit. He came here as a
mayor from Boise, ID. He made this his No. 1 priority. He has never
backed away from it. He has stuck with it. He has had a lot of help
from our colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, and others, Senator Roth
on this side of the aisle.
So we hope that we could really expedite it, demonstrate to the
American people that the Senate can act quickly when we have a matter
like this before us. Let us address the legitimate concerns, but,
please, let us not in this case offer all the other amendments that
everybody has been keeping in their files or their waste basket or
somewhere else the past several weeks.
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. KEMPTHORNE. 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to address the business
before the Senate.
Mr. President, I believe there is no mightier army than an idea whose
time has come. Today the Senate begins action on S. 1, legislation that
has two simple ideas:
First, the National Government should know and pay for the costs of
mandates before imposing them on State and local government.
Second, the National Government should know the costs and impacts of
mandates before imposing them on the private sector.
Now some people will say that without question this legislation is a
fundamental--yes, a fundamental--change in the way we do business in
the Congress and in our relationship with the States and localities.
And I say that Congress has gotten away from the fundamentals as
envisioned by our Founding Fathers. We should not be here to dictate to
the States. We are supposed to be here on behalf of our States--
representing and protecting the interests of each sovereign State. Let
me quote the tenth amendment of the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The words of Ben Nelson, an extremely successful Governor of
Nebraska, should bring this fundamental responsibility home to each of
us:

I was elected Governor, not the Administrator of Federal
Programs for Nebraska.

The reason this is an idea whose time has come is the result of an
army of State and local government officials and business leaders
telling Congress that reforming unfunded Federal mandates must be done.
Across America today that army of State and local government
officials and business leaders are eager for the Senate to pass this
bill. Their battle against Congress for inflicting harm against states
and cities is nearly over. Congress is hearing their urgent message.
Today the Senate debates S. 1, legislation that is the first real
sign that Congress wants a working partnership with those governing our
States, cities, counties and schools.
This day has been two decades in the making. For 20 years Congress
has blindly passed law after law, agencies have imposed rule after rule
telling State and local governments how to run their schools, cities,
buses, sewers, landfills, prisons, courts, and what services to provide
to whom, when, and for what purpose.
Congress passed legislation without ever knowing the costs or
consequences to State and local governments. The mandates made Congress
feel good, and for a while, even look good back home.
But those days are over. Governors and mayors got the mandates, but
never got any money to pay for the mandates. They watched helplessly as
first 5 percent, then 10 percent, then 15 percent, then 20 percent,
then 25 percent of their budgets were devoted to pay for these unfunded
Federal mandates.
Unlike Congress, States and cities have to balance their budgets.
States and cities can not borrow money like Congress. States and cities
can not print money like Congress. Governors and mayors and county
commissioners live in the real world. They have to make the hard
choices of whether to raise property taxes, or to cut other services
their citizens really want and need.
Mr. President, 1994 was the year business leaders, Governors, mayors
and county commissioners and the citizens they represent said no more.
No more unfunded mandates.
No longer should unfunded Federal mandates keep us from putting
policemen on our streets; reducing classroom instruction in our
schools; fixing our streets. We want reform. We need change.
It took a long time for this message to take hold here in Washington.
When I started the campaign to end unfunded Federal mandates 2 years
ago, few were familiar with the term ``unfunded mandate.''
But that has changed. In part that is what the November 8 election
was
[[Page S834]] about. Americans took careful aim and fired their ballots
at big government, overregulation, and unfunded mandates. Mr.
President, 1995 is the year they will see reform. They will see
Congress reform unfunded mandates. They will see the enactment of S. 1.
This legislation forces Congress and agencies to know mandate costs
it imposes on the public and private sector. It requires Congress to
pay for mandates imposed on State and local governments.
I want to pay tribute to the leaders in Congress who first heard the
message from State and local leaders and made it possible for us to be
debating S. 1 here today.
I commend Senator Dole for designating unfunded mandate legislation
Senate bill 1. That sent a powerful signal throughout the country that
this is a high, high priority of our Republican majority leader, that
we are going to deal with unfunded Federal mandates. And for that
emphasis and his assistance throughout the recess as we crafted this, I
have great appreciation.
I also appreciate my Democratic partner on this issue, Senator John
Glenn. He has been a thoughtful and an effective ally throughout this
whole process, including the last session when he was the chairman of
the Governmental Affairs Committee. And I can say that the people of
Ohio can be extremely proud of what John Glenn is doing to stop
unfunded Federal mandates. I have worked closely with the two committee
chairmen, Bill Roth and Pete Domenici, in developing this legislation.
Their insight and their strategic judgment, their willingness to act
quickly on this bill, have been enormously helpful. Their leadership
and their chairmanship roles are enormously helpful.
I also thank Senator Exon, the ranking Democrat on the Budget
Committee. As a former Governor, he understood the issue of unfunded
mandates and his help has continually been there.
I thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership on the private sector
provisions in this bill.
Mr. President, I want to acknowledge too that last year when we had
similar legislation you were the first Senate to cosponsor that
legislation. As a former Governor you too know about these unfunded
Federal mandates.
Finally, I thank those in the House of Representatives with whom I
have been working with on this legislation: Representatives Bill
Clinger, Rob Portman, and Gary Condit. I am confident once the Senate
has approved this legislation, this bill can be passed in the House of
Representatives.
What these Members of Congress have in common is a clear
understanding that all of us here in the U.S. Senate were elected, in
part, to be in charge of the Federal Treasury. It does not follow that
we are in charge of a State treasury or a city treasury or a school
treasury.
S. 1 offers the opportunity to change all that, to return the
responsibility for local decisions back to local people and to leaders
they elected. The issue of who best governs and decides local issues is
at the heart of S. 1.
Senate bill 1 also represents hope. Hope that finally Congress is
serious about building a new partnership with State and local leaders.
S. 1 tells business men and women we will not longer saddle you with
mandates without knowing their costs, and their impacts on you and what
that does to competitiveness and the economy and jobs.
Listen to these endorsements of S. 1, and you will hear the common
themes that S. 1 is a strong, comprehensive approach to the problem of
mandates.

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I want to * * *
express strong support for the new bill, S. 1. S. 1 is
serious and tough mandate reform which will do more than
simply stop the flood of trickle down taxes and
irresponsible, ill-defined federal mandates which have come
from Washington over the past two decades. S. 1 will begin to
restore the partnership which the founders of this nation
intended to exist between the federal Government and State
and local governments.--Victor Ashe, mayor, Knoxville, TN,
president, U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The more than 95,000 locally elected school board members
nationwide * * * strongly support S. 1. This legislation
would establish a general rule that Congress shall not impose
federal mandates without adequate funding. This legislation
would stop the flow of requirements on school districts which
must spend billions of local tax dollars every year.
Today school children throughout the country are facing the
prospect of reduced classroom instruction because the federal
government requires, but does not fund, services or programs
that school boards (must) * * *. Our Nation's public school
children must not pay the price of unfunded federal
mandates.--Boyd Boehlje, president, National School Boards
Association.
Of all the measures introduced to date, S. 1 is undoubtedly
the strongest, best crafted and most comprehensive approach
to provide relief * * * from the burden of unfunded mandates.
The National League of Cities commits its strongest support
for the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. We will fight any
attempts to weaken the bill with the full force of the
150,000 local elected officials we present * * * this bill
will benefit all states, all counties, all municipalities and
all taxpayers, regardless of their political allegiance.--
Carolyn Long Banks, councilwoman-at-large Atlanta, GA, and
president, National League of Cities.
On behalf of the National Association of Counties, I am
writing to express our strong support for S. 1. While this
legislation retained many of the basic principles from the
previous bill, there were many improvements. Most significant
among them is the provision that requires any new mandate to
be funded by new entitlement spending or new taxes or new
appropriations. If not, the mandate will not take effect
unless the majority of members in both houses of Congress
vote to impose the cost on state and local government.--
Randall Franke, commissioner, Marion County, OR, and
president, National Association of Counties.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Federation of 215,000
businesses, 3,000 state and local chambers of commerce and
1,200 trade and professional associations *** identified
unfunded mandates on the private sector and state and local
governments as their top priority for the 104th Congress.
Accordingly, the Chamber supports this legislation and will
commit all necessary time and resources to ensuring its
passage early in this session.--Richard L. Lesher, president,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
On behalf of the over 600,000 members of the National
Federation of Independent Business, I urge you to vote in
favor of S. 1.
Unfunded federal mandates on the states and local
governments end up requiring these entities to raise taxes,
establish user fees or cut back services to balance their
budgets. Small business owners are affected by all of these
actions.
It was not the states and cities who paid roughly $10
billion in unfunded mandates during the 1980s; it was
taxpayers--small business owners as well as everyone else. In
June 1994, a poll of all NFIB members resulted in a
resounding 90 percent vote against unfunded mandates.
I urge you to strongly support S. 1.--John Motley, vice
president, NFIB.
This bill is about information and accountability. The cost
estimate, points of order, rules changes and other provisions
contained in this legislation are absolutely necessary to get
us back on track and have the federal government take
responsibility for its actions. To make responsible
decisions, members of Congress need to be fully aware of the
financial burdens that federal legislation often places on
state and local governments, and to understand the
implications of those burdens.--Jane L. Campbell, president,
National Conference of State Legislatures.
We begin the 104th Congress with S. 1, the ``Unfunded
Mandate Relief Act of 1995,'' which is a major priority of
all state and local officials. We have reviewed the new bill,
drafted in full consultation with all our organizations, and
strongly support its enactment.--Governor Howard Dean, M.D.,
chairman, National Governors Association.

This legislation forces Congress and agencies to know mandate policy.
It requires Congress to fund mandates imposed on State and local
governments. If we do not, they can be ruled out of order and a
rollcall vote will decide whether the Senate should consider unfunded
mandate legislation.
S. 1 uses the same principles guiding last year's legislation
unanimously approved by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and
cosponsored by 67 Senators. The major feature of this bill is that it
creates a point of order against legislation that does not estimate
mandate costs on State and local government and does not pay for those
mandates. Additionally, legislation imposing mandates greater than $200
million on the private sector must have a CBO mandate cost estimate or
be ruled out of order.
But S. 1 is more than just creating parliamentary roadblocks in the
consideration of mandate legislation. S. 1 comprehensively and
responsibly reforms the Congress and Federal agencies that propose and
implement mandates.
Federal mandates are the result of existing laws, existing
regulations and new laws and new regulations on the public and private
sectors. S. 1 reforms each source of mandates and I would like to
discuss how it does so.
First, I want to explain how S. 1 approaches the issue of mandates
being proposed in new laws beginning with
[[Page S835]] new mandates on State, and local government:`
New legislation being considered in Congress that imposes on the
public sector more than $50 million in new mandates, or legislation
that makes any new mandate in the nine largest entitlement programs
that directly affect the public sector must meet three tests:
First, the legislation must have a CBO estimate of the mandate cost.
In making estimates, CBO must consult with State and local officials,
estimate the total amount of direct costs that State, local, or tribal
governments must spend above what they are spending to comply with
their own laws minus any direct savings in the legislation.
The CBO shall include in its report an estimate of the future costs
and any disproportionate effect that may be felt on particular regions
or States.
Second, the legislation must include the money or the taxes to pay
for the mandate or, if the mandate is to be paid for by a subsequent
appropriation, the legislation must either provide that the mandate
sunset if not funded or give flexibility to implement the mandate only
to the extent funded. The bottom line of this provision is that a
rollcall vote will decide whether the Senate should consider unfunded
mandate legislation. This process does not abdicate our decisionmaking
process. In fact the opposite is true. This process will enhance our
decisionmaking because we will have more information to cast better
votes.
Let us look at what legislation for the private sector must include:
Legislation being considered in Congress that imposes on the private
sector more than $200 million in new mandates:
Must have a CBO estimate of the mandate cost, including the direct
costs of the mandate and future costs. If the estimate is not done, the
legislation is ruled out of order. What this means is that the Senate
will go on record if it is willing to proceed to consider a bill that
does not have cost estimates.
In addition, committee reports are to include an analysis of any
Federal mandate affects on the public and private sectors and to the
extent the Federal payment of public sector costs would affect the
competitive balance between the public sector and the private sector.
Finally, at the request of a chairman or ranking member of any
committee, CBO shall study the effects of a mandate legislative
proposal on productivity, economic growth, full employment, creation of
productive jobs, and international competitiveness of U.S. goods and
services.
Now let me explain how S. 1 addresses mandates proposed in new
Federal regulations: On State and local government, agencies that
propose new mandates that result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments and the private sector of more than $100 million
must prepare a written statement that: Estimates present and future
costs and benefits to the public and private sector; reports on whether
such costs may be paid with Federal financial assistance; assesses any
disproportionate budgetary effects of the mandate on any particular
area of the United States, or rural or urban communities; summarizes
the agency's prior consultation with elected representatives, including
a summary of the comments received, the agency's evaluation of the
comments and an evaluation of the need to issue the regulation.
For intergovernmental mandates that affect the private sector,
agencies must prepare a written statement that states the effect of the
mandate on the national economy, including the effect on productivity,
economic growth, full employment, creation of productive jobs, and
international competitiveness of United States goods and services.
Now let us consider what S. 1 does to mandates in current Federal
laws and regulations.
On State and local government, S. 1 requires each agency to assess
effects of Federal rules--except for those specifically provided by
law--on the public sector, including the availability of resources to
carry out any mandate; seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or
significantly affect the public sector so long as consistent with
achieving statutory and regulatory objectives, and establish an
effective process for timely consultation with State and local elected
officials in the development of Federal rules.
In addition, a commission will review existing mandates and will
report to the President and to Congress action needed to increase
flexibility in mandates where terms of compliance are unnecessarily
rigid and terminate, consolidate or simplify duplicative, obsolete, or
impractical mandates, and suspend, on a temporary basis, mandates that
are not vital to public health and safety and which compound the fiscal
difficulties of the public sector.
On the private sector, each agency shall assess effects of Federal
rules--except those specifically provided by law--on the private
sector. As with any legislation, definitions are important. One of the
interesting exercises in writing S. 1 has been defining what an
unfunded mandate is, and how CBO should calculate the costs of
mandates. Here are the key definitions taken from S. 1:
Intergovernmental mandate. S. 1 defines a mandate as any act of the
Federal Government which imposes an enforceable, nonvoluntary duty on a
State, local, or tribal government. The definition goes on to include
that it has an annual cost in any year greater than $50 million, or
creates any new more stringent condition or restriction in a Federal
program with an annual budget for State, local, or tribal governments
in excess of $500 million.
Federal private sector mandate. A nonvoluntary enforceable duty upon
the private sector. A private sector mandate does not exist in
instances were a condition exists for accepting Federal assistance.
Federal mandate direct costs. When CBO makes mandate estimates, they
do so on the basis of direct costs. Direct costs are what the public
sector will be required to spend to comply with the Federal
intergovernmental mandate, but excluded from calculations are:
Amounts spent complying with existing Federal, State, local and
tribal laws and rules, and savings that will result from the mandate,
or other changes in Federal law or regulation that governs the new
mandate.
Exemptions. Exempted from the definition of mandates are bills or
resolutions which enforce constitutional rights, enforce statutory
rights prohibiting discrimination because of race, religion, gender,
national origin, or disability, require compliance with auditing
requirements, as a result of an emergency, or national security.
I also add that these exemptions are strongly supported by State and
local government officials. It shows, I believe, their good faith in
establishing a partnership with Congress by recognizing that there are
some mandates that are wise and good.
Let me sum up what this bill is and is not.
This bill is not some sort of back-door maneuver to rescind or gut
environmental, public safety, or health protection legislation. It is
not designed to give a free hand to local governments to ignore
standards protecting water, air, or soil.
This bill is not retroactive.
I want to emphasize that this legislation is not intended to stop
compliance with mandates or regulations already in place. The goal is
to stop the imposition of future unfunded mandates, to stop Congress
from passing laws and then requiring local and State governments to pay
for them.
If something is truly a national priority, in the best interest of
public health, or safety, when Congress should be honest and up-front
about it and pay for it.
S. 1 is a bill that says mandates are too important to pass on
without some thought and without answering for them after they pass.
You simply need to give Senators voting on a bill an estimate of the
mandate and how you are going to pay for public sector mandates. If you
don't want to do that, vote that way.
And, just because the Congress is responsible with a cost estimate
and funding scheme for the public sector
does not mean that Congress should be irresponsible to the private
sector. That is why we have the private sector mandate analysis in the
bill and why we added a special provision making
[[Page S836]] committees analyze and report on any anticompetitive
effects on mandates involving the private and public sector. Congress
will not be able to hide behind a cost estimate and public sector
funding and impose inequitable treatment on the private sector.
We are off on the right track. S. 1 is already supported by 60
Senators and by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities, National Governors Association,
Council of State Governments, National Conference of State
Legislatures, National School Boards Association, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the
National Retail Federation.
This bill does not abdicate our decisionmaking responsibility. It
enhances it. We will make better decisions. We will better protect the
rights of States and cities to govern our citizens.
The visionaries who founded this great country wrote the 10th
amendment to protect the States from intrusive behavior by the Federal
Government. We need to restore that federalism and allow local leaders
to set local solutions for local priorities to meet the needs of our
citizens.
I could not sum up this challenge any better than Fred Grady of
Lincoln, NE, when he said:

For years and years I yelled and screamed and bellyached
about local and state politicos around here; about how all
they did was spend money made by other people * * * and it
has always seemed to me we have gotten very little for all
that has been extorted from our pockets * * * but apparently
it is not their--the local and state politicos--fault;
apparently because the federal government is demanding all
these programs and policies and procedures without paying for
them, well, we all know what happens. On the local or state
level, we have to give up a fire truck or an ambulance or a
snowplow or a set of encyclopediae for the library, in order
to pay for something dictated by Washington, even if it is
trivial or ant as important as fire protection or education.
I guess I owe my local and state politicos * * * an apology.
I hope your resolution about mandates passes.

I urge each of you to accept Fred Grady's challenge and once again
exercise a U.S. Senator's fundamental role of representing the
interests of each of our sovereign States--and take this first and
fundamental step of lifting the unfair burden of unfunded mandates from
the States and localities. Your vote for S. 1 will be a powerful
affirmative response to the Fred Gradys of this great Nation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been seeking to obtain a report on
this bill. I am not on the Budget Committee, and I am not on the
Government Relations Committee. But from what I understand, this is a
very important bill, a big bill, a complex bill, far reaching in its
contents. I have been queried, along with all other Senators, I
suppose, as to whether or not they would have any objection to the
adoption of the committee amendments, en bloc. I am going to object to
the adoption of the committee amendments, en bloc, until I see the
committee report.
I have a responsibility as a Senator from the State of West Virginia
to know what is in this bill. I may be very supportive of it. But I was
assured through my own leader on this side of the aisle the day before
yesterday that the committee report would be filed that evening. That
was Tuesday. I was assured that the committee report would be filed
that evening. So yesterday, when I sought to see the committee report,
there was no report. I was told the committee report was not filed and
would be filed last evening. I would not have given my consent to take
this bill up today had I known that the assurance that I was given on
Tuesday that a committee report would be filed that evening actually
would not occur.
So I want to see the committee report. I hope other Senators will
seek to see a committee report. I might not have any objection to any
of the committee amendments.
I think we are in just a little bit too big of a hurry. The Contract
With America is a steamroller in the other body, and apparently is
going to be a steamroller here. I did not sign that contract. I do not
even know what is in it. I have been reading about it in the
newspapers, but I am not signatory to that contract. I may be
supportive of a great many of the items that are in that contract. But
I do know that it is a steamroller. I do not want to just buy a pig in
a poke when this is a big poke. This is a big poke--maybe a big pig in
a big poke. I want to know what is in it.
I would hope that the Members of the Senate on both sides would
insist on having a copy of the committee report. I would like to see
what the minority views are, as well as the majority views.
Can anyone assure me as to when this committee report is going to be
made available? Here we are, starting on a massive bill. As I say, I
may vote for it. But we are ramming these bills through. Apparently,
that is the goal now, to ram these bills through. That is why there is
a Senate. The Senate has rules that are different from those of the
other body, and we have a responsibility as representatives of the
States. This is the only forum in which the States are fully
represented. We have a responsibility to know what is in these bills.
So can anyone assure me that we are going to have that committee report
today, or before noon, or before 3 o'clock, or when? If nobody will
assure me, I can recite history on the English Kings and Persian Kings
and the Roman Emperors. I can talk a little bit on something that I
know something about.
I will direct that question to the manager of the bill on my own side
of the aisle.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia brings up a matter that has been a little vexing in the last
couple days, in that we were promised a report several times and it did
not come through at the appropriate time. As I understand it, it was
finally filed last evening, but it is not printed yet. I think that is
correct.
I would ask for any comments from my distinguished colleague from
Idaho, but that is what I have been told by staff.
I am told by staff that a printed version may be here by 1 o'clock
today--is that correct?--1 o'clock this afternoon. So perhaps that is
the answer to the question of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, if I may respond to that. It is my
understanding that all members of the committee consented to go ahead
and make their comments part of the Record, that the unanimous-consent
agreement was offered on Tuesday that we could proceed with the bill on
Thursday, and that the report will be available at 1 o'clock today.
Mr. GLENN. If I might respond to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that was not our agreement in the
committee. We did not agree to have it made part of the Record. When it
was proposed that it would suffice that just the views would be placed
in the Congressional Record rather than filing a report, we objected to
it and had a vote on it in the committee. We lost that vote.
So the normal processes of the committee, the normal filing of the
committee report was passed up. It was not agreed to by all of us on
the committee. There was a considerable number of discussions held on
the floor here and back and forth between the minority and majority
leaders as to whether we had a right to demand that report prior to
consideration of the bill or not.
We finally, late yesterday, in order to get on with this--we are not
trying to delay things, we are just trying to make a due process of the
Senate and Senators' right to know what they are about to consider;
that that be in order and not be bypassed.
I will have some comments later about steamrollers here and things
like that that Senator Byrd just addressed. But I think this is a very
serious bill. I look at this as landmark legislation. We wanted to have
all the advantages
[[Page S837]] of a report and so on. We did not agree in committee to
bypass and let the Congressional Record be a substitute for the
committee report. But, as I understand now from staff, we will have the
report by about 1 o'clock today.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I look forward to seeing the report. I have
been around here long enough to know that when the Democrats were in
control of the Senate there were times in which we did not file
committee reports. There were extenuating circumstances that led to
those decisions. But we are not up against an adjournment sine die
deadline. We are not up against the end of the fiscal year deadline. We
are not up against any deadline.
Why can we not have the time to produce committee reports on these
far-reaching bills? I think the American people are entitled to know
what is in this bill. I think we Senators are entitled to know what is
in this bill.
I am not on the Budget Committee, as I have stated already, but I
represent a State. As I understand it, the majority in the Budget
Committee voted against filing a report so as to gain time getting this
bill up before the Senate.
Well, it is an important bill, but we should at least have the time
to know what is in the bill. We ought to have the individual views of
the minority views so we could make judgments on amendments. A call
came to my office as to whether or not I would agree to a unanimous
consent to adopt the committee amendments en bloc, with the exception
of two. Well, what are the committee amendments? What are the
objections to them, if any?
I understand the Budget Committee will still not file a report until
Tuesday. Whether this information that I am receiving is correct, I do
not know.
But, I simply want to raise the flag at this point to state that I
think that Members of the Senate are entitled to have a committee
report this early in the session. There is no deadline that we are
fighting here, that we are backed up against, so what is the hurry?
So I may object to the adoption of the amendments en bloc, until I
see the report, at least. I am not setting myself up as a traffic cop
here, but I know something about my responsibilities as a Senator from
the State of West Virginia. I have been around here long enough to
realize that there is a way to do things that will give all Members an
opportunity to properly prepare themselves before they cast their
votes.
So I will yield the floor at this point, with assurances now that we
will get a committee report that has been filed by Senator Glenn's
committee and Senator Kempthorne's committee. But I still say we still
do not have the report from the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we objected in the committee to this, as I
told the Senator from West Virginia. The vote there was a party line
vote of 8 to 6, Senator Dorgan being absent and not having left
instructions on this particular matter. So we objected to it and had a
vote on it and we lost on a strict party line vote.
Let me just add that to the comments of my distinguished colleague
from West Virginia that we normally require these.
When I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the
last 8 years, we, on a number of occasions, submitted legislation
without report language, but always with the full consent of everybody
on the committee. If there was objection to it, I did not submit it
unless it had a report with it.
In this case, we were overridden by the vote and so it was submitted.
And it was suggested that publishing the information in the
Congressional Record would be adequate. We said, ``Yes, but that does
not include our minority views.'' And they said, well, publish your
minority views in the Congressional Record, then, like they were doing.
Well, I objected to that and called for a vote on it and we flat
lost. So it was submitted. So that is how we got to where we are today.
I do think, I agree with the statement of the Senator from West
Virginia, it is very poor practice. It does not let Senators be fully
informed. If this were some perfunctory little bill, just a little
thing we were passing that did not make that much difference, it would
be different. But, as I will say in my opening remarks on this bill in
a few moments, I think this could well be titled landmark legislation.
I will give a little history of this.
How did we get to the status of having such a Federal encroachment on
State and local governments? Well, this started for good reasons
perhaps and maybe some of those reasons are now gone. But it started
back about 60 years ago when this country had really lost its way, and
I mean lost its way. We were in the throes of a great depression. We
had 4 years where unemployment was over 20 percent. I looked it up last
night. In 1933, 25 percent, one-fourth of the United States, was
unemployed and gone was the ability of communities and local level
people to take care of all their own problems. The Okies were heading
for California with a mattress on top of the car and all the things we
have seen in the movies and so on. So back in those days, the old idea
of the Norman Rockwell ideal of America, where people took care of
people and the community and the church would suffice for all of our
social services, broke down. I mean it broke down.
The Senator from West Virginia and I are not too far apart in age,
but I remember those days, because I had a little paper route. I worked
to get my spending money. We planted a big garden and things I will go
into a little bit later. But then came in what was called the New Deal
and it was widely criticized even then: Well, it is a big encroachment.
But it took over from the failure of the community and local
governments to be able to handle all the concerns and the needs of
their own people and it put in national programs.
In the intervening 60 years, some of the programs have gone too far,
and when we have 125 different job training programs, we need to take a
look at this. Yes, we do. This legislation, for the first time, says
that we have to do this. We have to consider the costs up front. We can
override them. It does not take the authority away from the Senator
from West Virginia, me, or anyone else to override what is being
proposed if it is important for the people of this country.

This bill has been much maligned and misrepresented in that regard.
All it says is we have to get the estimates. We have to consider these
things up front. Then we can vote the will of the Senate. We say that
mandate goes in, and I do not care if it costs $900 billion, it goes
into effect and we will vote it and that is it, by majority vote.
The Senate's rights in this regard are absolutely fully protected, or
I would not have gone along with this to begin with or been a part of
sponsoring this legislation. It says that, if we do not do these
things, if we do not consider the costs up front, if we do not have an
estimate, then a point of order would lie. We have to have that vote on
a point of order. A point of order would lie against the bill, and we
would have to give a waiver to consider. That is fair enough, I think.
That does not take away any of the powers of the purse or powers of the
Senate or anything else.
I think as far as this being important legislation, I agree with that
100 percent. I think the idea that we should just somehow rush through
this thing because it is nice to be on a fast track around here with
the new management in the Congress, I would just think from the other
side of the aisle they would want to look at this thing very carefully.
It is one thing to go through congressional coverage and say, as we
just voted out last night, we want to keep off all the nongermane
amendments. I agree with that. My personal view is we should sometime
get around to putting germaneness rules in the Senate. But we do not
have any. People were quite justified in bringing up whatever they
wanted to bring up, and we voted them up and down and finally wound up
getting something through.
This legislation is very, very important. I give an example where we
do not want to be on such a fast track with this that we do not require
good legislation. The way it is written now, a point of order could be
called against any amendment, for instance. We might say, ``OK, we
waive the point of
[[Page S838]] order against the whole bill; we will now consider it
open for amendments,'' and people start putting in amendments. You put
in an amendment that has an impact of over $50 million, a point of
order lies against the amendment. Anybody wanting to obstruct the
activities of the Senate and stop legislation in its track, all they
have to do is put in 8 or 10 amendments, whether serious or not, that
have either a total aggregate of over $50 million or each one says $100
million or $150 million, whatever, and a point of order would lie
against those and we would be weeks and months getting through that
kind of legislation.
So what we are setting up here, if we do not correct that little
loophole, which I will propose to do later, we would be setting up a
situation where a whole new filibuster procedure by amendment could
stop any legislation right in its tracks because we do not have
germaneness rules.
We could put in something for social services in a completely
different field than the legislation being proposed. As long as it had
that excess cost, it would be subject to a point of order. We could
stop anything dead in its track around here; another means of
filibuster by just a different process.
I think there are some things like that that I would hope that our
majority leader would agree should be corrected and we not try to
freeze out amendments on this, because there are some that are very
legitimate and they are germane. They will make it better legislation.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a
question?
Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator regarding
the point of order issue which he has raised it against.
Again, however, it is not a supermajority. It is a 50-vote point of
order. So, essentially, if someone offers an amendment on the floor
relative to this bill, relative to any piece of legislation, which
amendment involved an unfunded mandate of $50 million for the public
sector, $200 million for the private sector, then the point of order
would be raised, but it would not create an extensive delay because the
amendment would either pass with 50 votes or fail with 50 votes, and
the point of order would pass or fail with 50 votes. So it would be a
fairly simple event to get a vote on it and move that issue.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reply to my distinguished colleague that
we would still have to get the estimate of the cost on that particular
thing. That might be a delay, whether to move to the point of order or
not. Debate over that would be a delay. I could just see lots of
mischief with the point of order lying against every amendment.
I am probably going to propose later an amendment saying when a bill
comes up that is obviously over $50 million, a point of order could lie
at that point, save the Senate's time, and not go through the whole
bill. Then we would not raise a point of order against each amendment,
but it would be in order at the end of the amending process. We may
have 20 amendments that have been put on a bill that then total $100
million or whatever. At that point, then, this additional cost should
be subject to a point of order after consideration of amendments, and a
point of order could be lodged, then, before the final vote on that,
after all amendments have been taken into account.
I think that is a fair way to do it. That is what I will propose a
little bit later. I hope we have support for that so we do not set up
another filibuster process.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate that point. If I may finish
briefly, I will be happy to yield the floor to the Senator from West
Virginia.
That is obviously going to be an item that will raise considerable
discussion as we go down the road. I think it is important to make the
point that the Senator from Ohio made so eloquently, that the
representation that the unfunded mandate, this bill, as a bar to
unfunded mandates, creates an onerous event that this legislature
cannot set aside or pass unfunded mandates is not accurate.
I would rather have more of a majority before an unfunded mandate
could occur. Under the terms of this bill, it is a 50-vote event in
order to place in law an unfunded mandate.
Second, the point of order can be passed or can be overruled with a
51-vote event on either the amendment or on the bill. So, as a
practical matter, this will not, in my opinion, be an unyielding bar to
the legislation itself. But I look forward to the presentation by the
ranking member of the committee of the ways we can improve this
language. I know Senator Kempthorne would also look forward to working
on that matter.
On the second issue which has been raised today, the matter of the
report, I can appreciate the concern of the Senator from West Virginia
because of his protection and commitment to maintaining the character
of the rules of this Senate. But the reports were waived by a proper
vote of the committees.
In order to be somewhat responsive to the concern of the minority--
and I recognize that the minority feels it was not totally responsive
and has expressed frustration--but there was a delay put into the
period during which the bill would be brought forward. The bill was
brought forward under unanimous consent, so any Senator who wished to
object had the opportunity to object. The report, the language, will be
published. As I understand, it will be available by 1 o'clock, and we
will not move to any sort of amendments or votes on any amendments
until 2 o'clock. So there will be time available for people to read
those.
There was an attempt, obviously, to use the Congressional Record as a
process for information here, which was not pursued.
I can understand the minority membership deciding not to pursue it.
There was an attempt to be accommodating, although I appreciate the
fact that the underlying decision to waive the report is one that the
minority finds frustrating, but in this instance the majority leader
felt it was important to move this bill forward. That is why the
decision was made. It was done in the proper course. It was done in a
correct manner through the votes of the committees of jurisdiction.

I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, addressing this matter of the amendments,
which I would like to address, we just got a letter from Bob
Reischauer, head of the Congressional Budget Office, and he addresses
this. I think it is important to read this, because it shows how this
could work in practice here on the floor.
In a paragraph here ``estimating state and local costs for floor
amendments,'' which he addresses, it says:

The second question deals with CBO's role in determining
whether a point of order lies against an amendment for
breaching the $50 million threshold for intergovernmental
mandates. S. 1 would require CBO to prepare estimates of the
cost of intergovernmental mandates for reported bills but not
for amendments, motions, or convention reports. H.R. 5, the
corresponding House bill, instructs CBO to provide such
estimates for conference reports to the greatest extent
practicable. The point of order, however, would apply to all
stages of the legislative process. How, then, would the Chair
determine how to rule on a point of order made against an
amendment, motion, or conference report? If, as in the
version of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs
Committee, the Budget Committee is charged with determining
whether the threshold is exceeded, would it have available a
CBO statement on which to base its determination?
As we have indicated in previous letters to you and others,
preparing reliable State and local cost estimates is a
complex and time consuming process. In the case of some
reported bills, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to determine, with any confidence, whether the
likely cost is above or below the $50 million threshold.
The problem becomes even greater with regard to amendments
which are not routinely provided in advance to CBO and may
not even be germane to the bill under consideration.
Furthermore, the time available for analysis is likely to
be quite short. We, therefore, expect that the process would
be similar to that used for existing Budget Act points of
order against floor amendments. In such cases, the Budget
Committee staff consults informally with members of the CBO
staff in order to make a judgment as to the budgetary impact
of an amendment.
Similar informal consultation would presumably be necessary
with regard to amendments involving State and local mandates
because CBO will not generally be preparing formal cost
estimates for such amendments. In many cases, however, it
will probably not be possible for CBO to make quick and
precise judgments as to the impact of proposed amendments on
States, localities, and Indian
[[Page S839]] tribes. In such situations, the Budget
Committee, or the Senate as a whole, would have to exercise
its best judgment.

I repeat the last sentence:

In such situations, the Budget Committee, or the Senate as
a whole, would have to exercise its best judgment.

So we come back to what I said earlier. The Senate retains final
authority. We have not abridged that in any way. I think Bob
Reischauer, as Director of the Congressional Budget Office, spells it
out very well, what the problem is and how this could well be used to
create a filibuster situation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators for their responses
and explanations. I had hoped to see a Budget Committee report. I had
hoped that we would be able to see what the minority views are, the
individual views and the majority views are with respect to the Budget
Committee, as well as this committee, which obviously has done a lot of
good work on this legislation.
But I thank both Senators. I hope that we will be able to see a copy
of the Budget Committee report in due time before we finish action on
this bill.
I see the distinguished Senator from Michigan on the floor, who is a
member of the Budget Committee. The Senator is not a member of the
Budget Committee. Very well.
Mr. LEVIN. The Governmental Affairs Committee.
Mr. BYRD. Governmental Affairs Committee. I thank all Senators.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me thank the Senator from West
Virginia for raising what I believe is a very fundamental issue here,
which is the absence of a committee report printed and made available
to Members of this body, both from Governmental Affairs and from the
Budget Committee.
Neither report is apparently yet printed. In one case, I do not think
there is going to be one, in the Budget Committee instance. Relative to
Governmental Affairs, despite efforts over the last few days to make
sure that report was available before this matter came to the floor,
that report is still not printed, as I understand it.
This process is just simply not the right process. We should not be
legislating on something this important without a committee report for
people to consider. This is a different bill from last year. It is an
important bill. I supported last year's bill. So I come into this
debate as somebody who would like to support the final product because
I believe there have been too many mandates imposed on State and local
governments, particularly on functions which are predominantly
governmental, without consideration of the impacts.
I come out of local government. Just the way the Senator from New
Hampshire is a former Governor, I am a former local official. I
understood--not just a few years ago--a decade and a half ago how
frustrating it can be when local and State governments are told by the
Federal Government they have to do certain things but are not given the
funds to do it.
So my instinct here is to try to work out a bill which is workable,
which would require us to consider the impact of mandates on both the
public sector and, frankly, on the private sector. We have not given
enough consideration to the impact of mandates on the private sector,
either. While that is part of this bill, it has been described mainly
as a public mandate bill. It really is both. It has some elements that
apply to the private sector.
This bill was introduced last Wednesday night. Now, if this were the
same bill as last year, then we might say, ``Well, we have had a chance
to debate this and consider it in committee.'' Again, I voted for last
year's bill, but this is a very different bill. The point of order
works in a very different way. The impact on the appropriations process
is very, very different this year from last year, and the impact on
spending by the agencies can be dramatically different this year from
last year. So it is a different bill.
It was introduced on Wednesday night. We had a hearing on Thursday in
the Governmental Affairs Committee. The markup of this bill was
scheduled for Friday. Introduced Wednesday night, hearing Thursday,
markup Friday. Some of us objected to that speed with something this
significant that can have a major effect on health and safety
regulations and on employment regulations. We felt there should be a
little more time. We scrambled for as much time as we could get. We
were able to get the markup delayed until Monday. We had the weekend,
at least, to consider the bill.
At that markup, there was an effort made to offer some amendments, to
make sure that this would not discriminate against the private sector,
for instance. There is some real tilt in this bill potentially against
private enterprise that might be competing with the public sector. If
you have two folks in competition, let us say, both running a waste
disposal operation, one is public, one is private, and there is a
suggestion here that we are not going to require the public operation
to clean up its emissions but we still would require the private
operation to clean up its emissions, you can create some significant
competitive disadvantages for the private sector in this bill, and some
of us feel we ought to address that issue. There are ways of addressing
that issue. We might even get some bipartisan support--we do not know--
we hope.
There was an effort made on the process question relative to the
point of order, because this point of order has some complications
which we have not even begun to consider. This version that came out of
Governmental Affairs requires the Congressional Budget Office to make
an estimate, even if it is impossible to do so. It still says you have
to do it.
Last year we said, if they cannot do it, if it is impossible, they
should say so, because intellectual straightness requires that option.
This year, no such possibility. They must do it. So an amendment was
offered in committee: What happens if it is impossible? They told us at
times they just cannot do it. This is even if they have time to do it.
The Senator from Ohio raised the question: What about amendments on
the floor, and so forth, where you do not have this time and where
these issues are critical? Even if they have time to do it, it may be
impossible. Are we going to allow them to tell us it is impossible and
then we would consider that on the issue of whether or not to impose
the mandate? No, that amendment was defeated, too, saying that they
ought to have that same option to be honest that they had in last
year's bill and that they have relative to the private mandates.
In the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, we do allow the
Congressional Budget Office to be honest and say they cannot make an
assessment; it is impossible when it comes to the private mandate but
not when it comes to the public mandate.
So we had an amendment saying let us allow them to be honest. If they
cannot make an assessment, let them do it. That amendment was shot
down, too, in Governmental Affairs.
Finally, Senator Pryor, the Senator from Arkansas, offered an
amendment: Let us have a committee report before this thing goes to the
floor. Let the Members of the Senate spend a few days at least on
something this significant in terms of private competition with the
public sector, in terms of health and safety and environment laws; let
us spend a few days at least reading a committee report.
This was the Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. President, this was
not the Budget Committee. And I do not know everything that happened in
the Budget Committee. Maybe my friend from New Hampshire is on that
committee. I should know, but he may know, in any event, whether he is
on the committee or not, what the circumstances were in the Budget
Committee.
I think the report has arrived. Lo and behold, the report has finally
been printed.
Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I first apologize for assigning the Senator
to the Budget Committee, and he is really not on that committee.
Mr. LEVIN. This does not require an apology. I would love to be on
the Budget Committee.
[[Page S840]] Mr. BYRD. I only knew that he had some concerns--I
heard he had some concerns--about the bill. I took it for granted. I
should have reviewed the list.
But in any event, I thank him for his statement. It underlines the
concerns that all Senators ought to have with respect to the absence of
a committee report. I had in mind the committee report from the Budget
Committee because I had heard--I think I read somewhere perhaps--the
members of that committee, minority members, had sought to have a
report so that they could present minority views, and so on, and that
there was a vote and the idea was rejected.
Mr. LEVIN. And if I may ask my friend to yield, there was a vote in
Governmental Affairs, too, and the idea was rejected.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Senator Pryor from Arkansas asked that there be a report
prior to this coming to the floor, and it was rejected on, I believe, a
party line vote. I am not positive.
Mr. GLENN. Eight to six, with Dorgan missing.
Mr. LEVIN. With a Democrat missing.
Mr. BYRD. That is what I just learned here in a colloquy.
I had in mind all along the Budget Committee report, and I had heard
that it was stated in that committee that, no, we are not going to have
a committee report. You people who are now in the minority--perhaps it
was not said like this--but you folks in the minority have to get used
to the fact that there were times when you did not have committee
reports, which is true. But as I said earlier, there may have been
justification other than hurrying the bill through this early in the
session.
But I heard it stated there would not be any committee report; that
the effort was in accordance with the wishes of the leadership on the
other side that the bill he brought up quickly in the Senate.
I can understand all of that. But, Mr. President, we also have
obligations, each of us has an obligation to know what is in this bill,
and I think it is very important that we see those committee reports. I
wish to see the committee report from the Committee on the Budget. I
assume there is going to be one filed. I do not know. I had heard there
would be one filed.
But that, Mr. President, was my impression when I acceded to the
unanimous-consent request to take up this bill today. I had in mind the
Budget Committee report. I did not state that specifically because I
was not thinking in terms of another committee. I was thinking in terms
of the Budget Committee because that was the committee that I had been
reading about and it was those committee members from whom I had been
hearing with respect to the denial of their rights to have minority
views and a committee report. I had in mind that committee report.
So I hold myself responsible for not having ascertained more clearly
what committee we were talking about. I am 77. I still have a lot to
learn. I am still learning. And so I have learned from this experience.
But I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his
explanation. I hope he will continue to keep us informed as to the
problems that he sees in various areas with respect to this
legislation.
I thank him.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield for a question. I did want to
complete my statement. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. GREGG. For a question, or a response.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan yields to the
Senator from New Hampshire for a question.
Mr. LEVIN. If I may clarify that, I would be happy to yield to my
friend from New Hampshire, who is, indeed, a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. GREGG. We have just received a report--ask and you shall
receive--from the Governmental Affairs Committee. I do not believe
there is going to be a Budget Committee report, as I understand it.
There are, however, additional views which are available, which include
views of members of the Democratic side of the committee. The
opportunity obviously was not afforded, as I learned earlier in the
colloquy, to present these views in the report.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GREGG. I do not have the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
yield.
Mr. LEVIN. I would be happy to yield for that purpose.
Mr. GREGG. I guess it gets to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I asked the Senator to yield only because I had just heard
that the minority members of the Budget Committee had been asked to
file their views in contemplation of the committee report that would be
printed by next Tuesday.
Mr. GREGG. I must not be current on the situation, because my
understanding was that we were going to be going with this report
language--this is not report language--these additional views. If the
decision has been made by the leadership of the committee to go with
the report, I did not know it.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Just to complete this process question, it is an important
question because this is an important bill and the Members and their
staffs ought to have an opportunity to review the committee report. My
understanding is that the Budget Committee has adopted some committee
amendments which are very different from the committee amendments that
have been adopted by Governmental Affairs on the critical point of how
do you
implement the estimate. And I am wondering if my friend from New
Hampshire would confirm if this is accurate since he is a member of the
Budget Committee.

I am wondering if I could just have the attention of the Senator from
New Hampshire for a minute. My understanding is that the Budget
Committee adopted committee amendments which struck the function of the
Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee in making the
final determination of the amount of the cost of these mandates, or
related to that subject. Am I correct in that regard?
Mr. GREGG. The Senator is correct. And the expectation is that
Senator Domenici will be addressing those, and the Senator will have
the right to object when those amendments are brought forward.
Mr. LEVIN. And I do know that at some point they will be offered. But
I would only point out also to the ranking member, to the Senator from
Ohio, if he could also then give me his attention--forgive me--on this,
that the Budget Committee has adopted a committee amendment which is
significantly different in terms of the mechanism to implement this
from the mechanism adopted in Governmental Affairs. And the Senator
from New Hampshire just confirmed that, in fact, the committee
amendment in the Budget Committee did strike the role of the Budget
Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee in making that final
determination of what the cost is.
Now, it is correct, of course, that Senator Domenici would be here
when that amendment is presumably offered. But it is critically
important that the Senate understand the difference in the process
which is being proposed in the Governmental Affairs majority position
from the Budget Committee position, and the report would be very
helpful in this regard.
This is not an insignificant thing. It is dry stuff. I know how dry
these processes can be. But this Senate, if this bill, either version,
passes, will be in a position of having our Parliamentarian decide what
is the cost of implementing mandates. Think about it. The
Parliamentarian will have to make that final decision, amendment after
amendment after amendment, bill after bill after bill. We would have to
have the Parliamentarian figure out what is the cost of implementing a
mandate against State and local governments.
It is, I think, an impossibility for the Parliamentarian to do it. I
think it is at times going to be impossible for the Congressional
Budget Office to do it, honestly. So I think we ought to allow them to
tell us that.
But there is a fundamental difference here which can confuse this
process. If
[[Page S841]] we think we have a potential for gridlock, which we do,
there is a potential for a train wreck on this floor, day after day,
unless we adopt a mechanism which is workable.
Let me close with this comment. I believe we should require an
estimate, as we did in last year's bill. I believe that. I think we
ought to know what we are doing when we adopt a mandate, both as to the
private and the public sector, and we ought to take the time and
require the Congressional Budget Office to tell us what we are doing to
people, what is the cost of a mandate, not just on local and State
governments, but also on the private sector. It is worth doing. But we
also should be straight enough with ourselves to say that at times it
may be impossible. At which point we may decide that is a good reason
not to impose the mandate, by the way. But we ought to be straight
enough with ourselves to say yes, there will be occasions when there is
no way of knowing. And we will get into that this afternoon during the
amendment process, because there are those occasions. But we also ought
to avoid putting in place a mechanism which will turn out to be a farce
or a charade, which will result in waiver after waiver after waiver, by
not having a mechanism which is workable.
We all live and work in this place. We know what will work in the
real world of the Senate, and we should have a mechanism which will
work and not one which will be just atrophied, which will be a
formalistic thing which will be waived. Because I do not think we want
to put ourselves in the position of just having almost an automatic
waiver of points of order by majority vote, which is provided for. We
have these 51-vote waivers that are possible in both bills. But I think
we want to be serious about it. We do not want to just put into place a
mechanism which will result in the Parliamentarian ruling on every
amendment about what the cost is of adopting new standards for
incinerators across the country in the year 2002. The Parliamentarian
cannot do that. And there will be times the Budget Office cannot do it,
and the Budget Committee cannot do it. And the Governmental Affairs
Committee cannot even determine that there is a mandate. We ought to
allow for that honesty. We ought to allow for it and then consider the
absence of the ability to make that estimate in our decision as to
whether to impose it on both the public and private sectors.
So I have been one who has urged that we have a report. I have urged
that we have a report from both committees. As a matter of fact, I
urged this to such an extent, may I tell my friend from West Virginia,
that 2 nights ago on the floor, it was my understanding that part of
the unanimous-consent agreement which allowed for this bill to come to
the floor today was a specific agreement that the majority report would
be submitted by midnight on the night before last, to give the Senators
a chance to read it and file concurring or dissenting views by 6
o'clock last night.
This did not happen. Apparently there was a misunderstanding, despite
what I thought--and the Senator from Ohio is here, too, and he was part
of this--was a pretty clear understanding. I do not want to lay blame.
It is water over the dam. But I want to assure my friend from West
Virginia, we made a real effort, including the leadership which was
involved in this discussion, as to how could we make sure that there
would be a report. We were talking about Governmental Affairs, that is
true. We, not being members of the Budget Committee, were not fighting
that battle. But how could we, as members of Governmental Affairs,
assure that there be a report printed, available to the Members, prior
to this bill coming to the floor?
We thought we had accomplished that with this understanding. We
failed, and I am not going to, again, point fingers. It is not
important. Apparently, it was just a misunderstanding. That can happen
around here. So that is not the point. The point is we did make that
effort for the reasons which the Senator from West Virginia indicated.
There should be a report filed before a bill of this consequence comes
to the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, when we got started off this morning,
Senator Kempthorne made his opening remarks and we got off on some
other matters here, and I did not finish my opening remarks. And I want
to do that.
I do not want anyone to get the impression that because we have been
questioning some of the means by which this was brought to the floor,
and how we are going to consider amendments and so on, that I have in
any way weakened my support for this bill. This is the Kempthorne-Glenn
bill. My name is on it. I am proud of this. I think it is something we
should have done a long time ago. The discussion this morning indicates
we think it can be made better, more workable. That is what we are
about.
I have been proud to work with Senator Kempthorne on this. No one has
devoted himself or herself more assiduously and continuously to this
than he has over almost 2 years. He has worked on this very, very hard
and kept at it. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee last
year--I said this publicly before--anytime I went a week without
getting a call from him as to when we are going to have our hearing and
when we are going to get this thing out, when we are going to get it
scheduled, it was an unusual week, if that happened. I have been with
him on this.
So we worked very hard on this and worked together. He has worked on
it, and has just done yeoman's duty on this. He has traveled all over
the country, meeting with what is called the Big Seven, the groups of
State, local, and municipal employees, and so on. I do not know how
many speeches he has given. He sought their advice, their counsel on
this, all over the country, and has traveled for the last year and a
half in that regard. He deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the
devotion to this that he has shown.
I think this is landmark legislation. We have a lot of bills go
through here. I think we have some 9,000 to 12,000 bills, resolutions,
amendments, and so on, that get submitted every year. So we sometimes
think we can just pass things through and let us give them the fast
treatment here and get them on through and out of the Senate and get
onto something else.
But occasionally something comes along that I think deserves to be
looked at very, very carefully before we enact it, and this is one of
those bills that I do not want to see rushed through. I know all the
push right now for getting things through and showing action on the
Senate side, and so on. But I think we want to do this very carefully.
The reason I say this is landmark is this changes the direction, it
changes the considerations that have to be given to matters that come
before us that affect the Federal, State, and local relationship. That
makes it an extremely important piece of legislation. It is the first
time that has been done. I submit this redefinition of the Federal,
State, and local relationship deserves some attention on how we got to
this state. What happened in the United States of America that led us
into this sort of a quagmire of relationships here that we, just for
the first time now, are beginning to try to change?
In some respects, I think we could go back 60 years on this, to where
more Federal programs became necessary. What was the genesis of that,
back in those days of 60 years ago? We can say before the 1930's,
communities basically took responsibility for social matters and social
services and the morals and mores and the ethics of the local
community. Families grew up pretty much in the local area and stayed in
the local area, by and large. They did not have the same mobility we
have today, where the last figure I heard was 20 percent of our people
moved to a different domicile each year and 16 percent of our people
move across State lines. I would have to double-check that figure to
make sure it is accurate, but that is what I recall.
In other words, back in those days, there was much more stability of
community and church and family relationships, where communities took
care of their own. And I can attest to that. I grew up in a small town
in Ohio, where that was the norm when I was growing up. In New Concord,
if a family had a problem where something was wrong, other people
pitched in, the church pitched in, their neighbors
[[Page S842]] pitched in and helped them out, and that was social
service at its finest.
It is too bad that we have gotten away from that in this country
because of the complexities of our modern day life, but it is a fact of
life that we have. Back in those days, the community helped and the
worst that could happen, maybe, was that there was a county home for
somebody to go to. And it rarely got beyond that.
Taking care of one social service, if it was a school that served the
whole State as far as training for the blind but that is about as far
as it got outside the local community or the county consideration.
(Mr. SHELBY assumed the chair.)
Mr. GLENN. That was fine up until about 1930 and the great crash and
the Great Depression. What happened then? It got beyond the ability of
communities to do for themselves and to take care of all of their own
people. I can remember those days. I am old enough to remember those
days. I was about a 10- or 12-year-old kid at that time with a paper
route, all the other things that went with earning your own money then
in those days of the Great Depression. My dad had a little plumbing and
heating shop. There was no business in that. We were hard pressed.
I remember one of the most disturbing conversations I ever heard in
my life, my father and mother sitting quietly talking at the dinner
table after dinner--I was in another room--about whether we are going
to lose our home, and whether the mortgage was going to be foreclosed.
They were very concerned. That struck terror in my heart. I did not
know what was going to happen, where we were going to go, and what we
were going to do. Along with a lot of other programs that were put in
at the time, the mortgage was not foreclosed.
But those were days when unemployment for 4 years was over 20
percent. In 1 year, 1933, it was 24.9, with almost 25 percent of the
United States unemployed. There was no money. The whole American dream
was collapsing very, very rapidly. We need to remember that as to why
this whole thing started, and what happened in the little community of
New Concord, OH. People planted big gardens. My dad rented an extra 2
acres. We planted it. My mother canned, as they called it back then.
Sometimes you talk to people now and they do not even know what this
means when you say you canned food. There were glass bottles of course.
Later when my mother and dad both passed away we were cleaning out some
of the basement back home a few years ago. Here were hundreds of the
old Mason ball jars that we used to use to can things out of this
garden.
My dad used to give to the neighbors what we did not need, and to the
people that needed the help in the community. I am not bragging about
my dad or what we did. That was the norm in those days. But we went 4
years with unemployment above 20 percent; 1 year with it up to 25
percent almost, in 1933, and it got beyond the ability of communities
to take care of themselves. The Okies were heading for California. We
see movies with the mattress on top of the car and the other things.
And that was for real.
Some of us here we can remember those days, and it is not ancient
history. It is something that happened in our own lifetime in this
country. Well, the country was literally destitute at that time with
what happened.
Franklin Roosevelt was elected, and we had the New Deal. It was
controversial. I can guarantee you. I can remember some of the
arguments about that even though I was a kid at the time--the National
Recovery Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the WPA, FHA that
saved our home mortgage and we were able to refinance the home. So we
did not loose the home back in those days.
We could go on with all the details of what happened back in those
days. But these programs came in, and even though they were extremely
controversial back in those days, they helped out. They became in many
respects a replacement for the social services that had been provided
by communities and church and family relationships on that kind of a
basis. And the State and the Federal Government had not been involved
in these things before.
There was a lot of debate about this at the time, and a lot of
argument. I remember even in the churches hearing sermons against the
NRA and what was called the New Deal, and they held up the little
spread eagle symbol of the New Deal back at that time as a symbol of
the anti-Christ, and all the dire portent of that was brought out.
But it was determined by the will of the people of this country that
we went ahead and backed the programs of the New Deal. And they in fact
became sort of the change in the delivery of social services for the
United States. That has been the norm then as we have become even a
more complex country, a more mobile, flowing population all through
these years.
Have many of these social programs and the training programs and so
on gone too far in that 60-year period? Of course. Certainly nobody in
this Chamber I think would disagree with that. When we have some 128 I
think it is different job training programs, many overlapping each
other, have we gone too far in providing some of these services that
used to be in the communities? Yes.
I bring this up for their reason. As we now move to turn more of
these things back to the State and local level, granted things have
changed in this country over 60 years. But will they pick up these
responsibilities being sent back for all the programs that we are
talking about? Will they address matters that were not addressed back
there 60 years ago? Maybe it is not right to compare the same situation
with 60 years ago. But I think it is right to ask that question. I
think as we start this process through this landmark legislation that
it is right to consider that.
Some of this reversal, some of this new federalism as it was called
back in the Reagan years, or called by some the ``Reagan Revolution'',
it went to a certain extent in starting the reversal of some of these
programs but in some respects added to the problem because the funding
did not go along with the reversal.
So we see what the current situation is. Let me quote briefly out of
last year's Governmental Affairs Committee report on the mandate reform
bill. We voted this out last year. What is on the floor right now is
not something brand new just ginned up since the November 8 election.
We have been working on this for almost 2 years now in the Governmental
Affairs Committee. We voted it out last year and had it out in the
middle of the year ready for consideration here on the floor. Then
because of the filibusters and the delays and delays that occurred it
came down to about whether we could get it through by unanimous
consent. We could not do that in the waning days. So it was not
adequately considered, not considered for a Senate vote last year.
But out of the report that came out with that bill last year, the
committee report, let me quote to show what has happened over the past
decade or so where this whole problem has increased tremendously.
In that report the Congressional Budget Office indicated that there
were 89 bills between 1983 and 1989, 89 bills that cost over $200
million each. I think as the arithmetic comes out that is somewhere
around $17 billion that we loaded onto the States with those $200
million each, some of them more than $200 million. But even at the bear
minimum it comes out to a $17 billion load you put on the States or
local communities.
There were 382 bills reported out with new costs to them and not all
of those became law. But that would have added to that total also.
Even quite apart from that, the Environmental Protection Agency
estimate is that environmental mandates to State and local governments
rose from $22 billion in 1987 alone and will rise if not changed to $37
billion by the year 2000; $37 billion. The Vice President has headed up
this National Performance Review, of course, since the new
administration came in, the Clinton administration. And the estimates
that the Vice President and the NPR group have made figures that the
environmental concerns will be consuming $44 billion. We will have
loaded the States and local communities with $44 billion by the year
2000. That is an enormous load.
What happened? Did we send money along to do that, to help take care
of that, or help mitigate this so the
[[Page S843]] States and local communities do not just say we will try
to do this but we just cannot do it? Do we help them out on this? No.
Let me tell you what happened. Aid to State and local governments
fell 28 percent in real terms during the decade of the 1980's. In other
words, while we had that new Federalism going on that was supposed to
be very good, it really impacted State and local governments
tremendously. The aid to State and local governments fell 28 percent in
real terms during the decade of the 1980's, at the very time when we
were loading them up with all these other things I just mentioned that
made it more costly for them to do business.
To add insult to injury, in 1986, even general revenue sharing was
terminated. That provided $4.5 billion a year of flexible funds. Since
1972, up to the time of its termination, that provided $83 billion in
general revenue out there for States and local communities to use for
helping take care of some of these costs. What did this do? Do we have
any specific examples? Let me read some portions of things that have
come from the city where I live. I live in Grandview, OH, which is part
of greater Columbus. The Mayor in Columbus is Greg Lishutka. He did an
article in the Wall Street Journal a short time ago, and I think it is
worthy of reading some of this into the Record just to show the impact
on a major American city. I think Columbus is the 16th largest city in
the country. So the impact on Columbus of these mandates is
representative of what happened over the rest of the country. I will
read parts of this:

Opposition to ``unfunded mandates'' has become the latest
populist cause against an overreaching Federal Government.
Oddly enough, this revolt has been led not by ordinary
citizens, but by mayors, county commissioners and governors,
on behalf of the taxpayers. When Republican and Democratic
State and local officials unite on a issue, even Members of
Congress take notice.
While Federal mandates aren't direct taxation, they have
pretty much the same effect. It's like having your Uncle Sam
take you to lunch, order your food, and then hand you the
check. Consider these examples from Columbus.

He gives examples of what happened in the city of Columbus.

After old paint solvents were found in a gravel lot that
our city wanted to pave, the EPA's initial demand was that we
ship tons of soil to a Texas incinerator at a cost of $2
million. A subsequent health-risk assessment led to a simpler
cleanup for just $50,000.
Implementation of the new Transportation Employees Act to
randomly test city truck drivers for alcohol and drug use
will cost between $50,000 and $100,000 annually.
The Underground Storage Tank Act requires us to move all
city fuel tanks above ground. The cost to our fire department
and fire division is $950,000--equal to three or four new
fire trucks.
The Federal Register estimated that obtaining a stormwater
discharge permit under the Clean Water Act would cost
$76,681. Our actual cost was $1.5 million.
When home samples of lead in tap water peaked slightly over
the Federal maximum, we were forced to mail a notice to all
our customers within 60 days, even though the event was
short-lived and an insignificant health risk. Since Columbus
does its water bills on a 90-day cycle, we had to spend
$42,000 for an extra mailing.
Faced with continual surprises of this nature, Columbus did
a first-of-its-kind study in 1991 to determine how much
mandates were affecting us. From 1970 to 1985, 20 toxic-
management mandates had been imposed on local government.
Since then, more than 75 have been added. Columbus estimated
its total spending on 14 major environmental mandates would
be $1.6 billion from 1991 to the year 2000; each Columbus
family's share, reflected primarily in water and sewer bills,
would be $850 a year. This amounts to a massively regressive
hidden tax that hits families and retired people especially
hard.
And the regulations just keep on coming.

I thought this was impressive.

Every 6 months, the Federal Register prints an index of
every new and proposed rule that might affect local
governments. As an experiment, we in Columbus decided to
request copies of the 524 rules listed in the April index. We
received 207, just 39 percent of those requested. The pile of
paper was 5 feet tall--7,067 pages of rules, along with 9,490
pages of supporting documents. The average rule was 34 pages
long.
Every city, village, and hamlet is supposed to read them
and figure out how to apply them. Columbus is America's 16th
largest city, and even we don't have the staff to handle
them. How are smaller cities supposed to cope? More
frightening still, how can business owners understand and pay
for the even greater number of employee mandates?

I will not read the next couple of paragraphs. They deal with the
trade-offs America has to make. A mayor is elected to decide these
things on behalf of his or her community. A couple of paragraphs are
there on that.
He starts again:

We must do much more. Senator Dirk Kempthorne, Republican,
of Idaho, former Mayor of Boise, and Representive Gary Condit
of California led the bipartisan charge this year to ban the
enactment of unfunded mandates, only to be thwarted by most
of the Democratic leadership.

As much as I admire Mayor Lishutka of Columbus, I have to
respectfully disagree with him on that particular issue here. I think
he got a bit too partisan in that spot, because it was Democratic
leadership last year that wanted to get this through and who asked me
to try and get it out of committee, along with the pleadings of Senator
Kempthorne directly. We had it ready for the floor by late summer. It
was on the list of things to be considered. It was because of the
filibuster, the scorched earth policy, on the Republican side last
year--since he laid this at the Democratic doorstep, I have to pass it
back--it was those delays last year that prevented the Senate from
getting through several bills, including the bill we passed last night
and this bill. Senator Mitchell, at the last minute, tried to get it
through on a unanimous-consent request, and that was blocked. We had
blocks on both sides and were unable to clear the last one on our side.
This is not fair to say the Democratic leadership, of which I was one,
on this issue last year did not try to get this through. We did
everything we possibly could to get it through. If there was a reason
it did not get through, it was because of the filibusters on the other
side and delay tactics.
I am not throwing this back at Republican leadership. I know Senator
Dole, the new majority leader, did not exactly have 100 percent control
of all of his Members last fall. There were certain Members who were
taking great pride in just blocking things. After one of the votes
where we tried to get something through, I happened to walk out in the
Hall toward the elevators out here and there were a dozen or so press
there. One of the persons leading the fight on the other side said,
``Well, we beat them on another one.'' They said, ``What was it on.''
He said, ``Who cares, we beat them.'' I deplore that kind of attitude.
I will not go into that, except to say that with all due respect to
Mayor Lishutka, the reason this unfunded mandates did not get to the
floor last year I do not think can be laid at Democratic leadership's
feet. We were trying.
Other than that, this is an excellent article. He goes on to point
out that we are going to get this through, and he wants to see rules
and regulations based on cost benefit analysis, actual health-risk
assessments. He wants the Federal, State and local governments to be
full partners in working these things out. I agree with him 100 percent
on that.
What does this legislation do, Mr. President? It is not at all that
complicated, although the effects are very far-reaching. It says
basically that on every bill reported out to the floor, there has to be
an estimate from the CBO of the costs that would apply to State and
local governments where those would be beyond $50 million. We would
further have to include an authorization for the money or propose taxes
to cover this. And if we did not do that, then and only then, if that
is all complied with in the legislation, then there would be no
problem. If we do not comply with that when it is reported to the
floor, then a point of order would lie against that bill that would
prevent it from being considered here on the floor, and if we wanted to
consider that legislation, which we could, that is fine, we can still
consider the legislation, but it would require a majority waiver of
that point of order.
It seems to me that is fair enough. We are saying for the first time
up front, we have to consider these things before the Senate works its
will on whatever it wants to do. And even in that case, we are saying
that the Senate can vote on a straight majority vote--majority rules--
to say we think this is so important for the country that even though
we have not provided this estimate or cannot provide this estimate and
we cannot tell where the money is coming from, even then we say we will
have a majority vote that says we proceed to this because it is
[[Page S844]] important for the country, whatever the cost.
But we have to do it with the knowledge up front of what the budget
impact is going to be, and what the impact on State and local
governments is going to be. It is so commonsense we should be doing
this all the time anyway.
We do have a requirement, with all due respect, that anything that is
estimated to cost over $200 million coming out of the Budget Committee,
we have to note here on the floor. So we do have that. But this goes
far beyond that.
So the Senate retains control of the situation in being able to say
something is so important that it goes in no matter what, but when
legislation comes out, it has to have the estimate of what the mandate,
if it is a mandate, will cost.
We also say that there has to be an appropriation for this, then we
will stipulate that the mandate expires if not funded or if there is a
reduced appropriation. If the Appropriations Committee says: Look, we
have so many requests, we have so many problems these days, and we
would like to fund this thing but it is going to cost X--whatever it
is--and we can only supply half of X this year in the way of dollars.
Then we would say OK; if you can scale back and do part of whatever the
mandate is, then we will try to work that out. And that is fine. I
think that is very, very fair.
The CBO further must consult with State and local officials to get
their view of what the costs are. And the rulemaking agencies over in
the executive branch must also consult with State and local officials
to make their estimates of what the rulemaking impact will be on the
cost to State and local governments.
That is not insignificant. Those of us who have been around here for
awhile know all the time we pass legislation here, we send it over to
the executive branch, and sometimes I think the people over there, we
may have a few people in some of the agencies that should have almost
the term ``zealot'' applied to them, because they are not going to see
that. They are going to see the rules and regulations go out, and they
are not going to get caught short on their watch. And they are going to
take the legislative history up here and they are going to interpret it
in a way that really backs up the legislation up here more than ever
was intended on Capitol Hill to begin with.
We have all seen examples or heard examples of the legislative and
rulemaking procedures over there that resulted in such horrendous
actions of things that never were intended here, particularly with
regard to the environment, clean air, clean water, and so on.
So the rulemaking agencies must also consult with the State and local
governments.
The private sector also is covered here. Where there would be a cost
of over $200 million, we must have CBO cost estimates there also, or a
point of order could lie against pieces of legislation, too.
Certain things obviously should be exempt from this process. Civil
and constitutional rights. Should civil and constitutional rights be
out from under this? I think they should. Those apply to every single
man, woman, and child in this country and there should not be any
question about that.
National security matters are out from under this; treaty
obligations; bona fide emergencies such as natural disasters, and so
on, are out from under this.
Also out from under this is when the States voluntarily say yes, we
think it is a good idea to put this program in and we think it should
go through, and we will voluntarily say we will assume this. I do not
know whether that would occur in many cases or not, but that provision
is in there.
Now, there are some concerns that we have which were expressed in the
Governmental Affairs Committee the other day that are very real
concerns. I certainly agree with the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd, who, on the floor a moment ago, was calling for
no steamrolling on this legislation, no rush for this legislation,
without due consideration of all aspects of it.
We expressed some of our concerns in the Governmental Affairs
Committee in our vote the other day. I had one that I think is
necessary on this and I gave an example of it a little earlier this
morning.
In other words, a point of order could lie against the bill. Let us
say we grant the waiver, so we are going to take this bill up, whatever
it is. We grant that waiver. Then amendments start coming in. Any
amendment that would provide over $50 million of costs could have a
point of order lie against that. Or the accumulation, an aggregate of
the costs to State and local governments of a series of amendments,
could go over the threshold. Right now, a point of order could lie
against each one of those amendments.
I see a hazard there in that it might make a method for people who
wanted to filibuster a bill. You just put in a whole bunch of
amendments. There is nothing in the Senate rules that says amendments
have to be germane, so we could have an issue being brought up--it
might be a farm issue--and we wind up with aid to children, foreign
aid, all sorts of things that would be very, very expensive put on
because of our lack of a germaneness rule here.
So I can see the danger there that there might be a possibility that
people could use that and that point of order applied to it as a means
of filibustering. And I do not want to see that.
I read into the Record earlier this morning the section of a letter
we just received from Bob Reischauer, who is the head of the
Congressional Budget Office, complaining about this also or pointing
out that this needed to be corrected before we enact this particular
bill. So that is one.
I know that Senator Levin, who is here on the floor, has several
amendments that he brought up the other day in committee, too, and I am
sure at the appropriate time he will want to address those.
But all we are asking is that we be given ample time for this and
that this steamroller that we had going or attempted to have going on
the congressional coverage bill, that we not try that on this one
because this bill is very far reaching. I do think it is landmark
legislation. I hope that we will have adequate time for anyone on both
sides of the aisle to really try to make changes in this so that it is
workable, good legislation, not something we have to get through in
haste and then correct later on.
Another thing I will point out is this bill is not retroactive. It
does not go back and address all previous programs. Where previous
programs come up for a reauthorization, a point of order would not lie
unless, once again, the $50 million threshold is reached. If there is
an increase for costs to State and local governments of more than $50
million in the reauthorization process of some previously ongoing
program, then the point of order would lie if there was that kind of
increase in cost, but only then.
This would apply also to some of our entitlement programs. There are
nine entitlement programs that cost the Federal Government $500 million
a year or more annually. And these are included. But if the entitlement
is changed by the Federal Government so that the cost to State and
local governments once again is more than a $50 million change, only
then would a point of order lie.
So entitlement programs that go on and are not up for a periodic
reauthorization would be included only if the costs to the State and
local governments were increased by more than $50 million. Only then
would the point of order apply.
Those particular entitlement programs where we spend $500 million a
year or more are: Medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, child nutrition, social
services block grants, vocational rehabilitation State grants, foster
care, adoption assistance and independent living, family support,
welfare services, and child support enforcement.

Now, Mr. President, there has been some confusion, as was addressed
here on the floor earlier today, concerning the filing of the report. I
do not know whether that will still be an issue with certain Members or
not. I would hope that we could get on with consideration of this and
work out our problems on that. I think this bill is very, very
important.
[[Page S845]] We may have amendments. Senator Levin had some
concerns about employment laws, concerns about what happens when the
CBO cannot make an estimate, and concern about sunset.
Now, the bill is not airtight. Its implications, however, are very
complex. They are very, very far reaching. What it basically does, I
repeat again, it requires an upfront dollar estimate with a forcing
mechanism to make sure that that is considered in the consideration of
any legislation here on the floor; that is, the dollar impact on State
and local governments. This is a forcing mechanism to make sure that
that is considered.
Now, say that it comes out and the Senate Members feel strongly that
regardless of the dollar impact, it still should go on. That is
provided for. That is what the waiver vote would be. So the Senate does
not lose its right to say, ``Here is what is best for all the citizens
of the United States of America.'' We do not pull that back. All this
bill does, basically, is provide a mechanism, an enforcement mechanism,
to say we no longer can slide something through in the middle of the
night without a cost estimate and find out later that it costs the
States and local governments a bundle out there in their costs of doing
business and mandate it from the Federal level.
It says we have to consider that up front, and it is a forcing
mechanism to do it with this point of order. But the Senate still--I
repeat, the Senate still--could say we think it is that important that
regardless of the cost on this--say, the cost is estimated to be $70
million instead of the threshold $50 million--and we say it is
important enough that although that is a million and whatever it
figures out, a million-plus, for each State, it is important enough for
the people of this country that that legislation should go in, and we
pass it. This bill would not prevent the Senate from taking that action
at all.
Now, I would say to the people in the press that may or may not be
covering this, I hope that can be spelled out because there has been a
lot of misinformation about how we will stop things in their tracks, we
will wreck the normal procedures of government, we will wind up doing
all sorts of serious damage. All this thing does, it says we, for the
first time, require that there has to be upfront consideration of the
best estimate of the cost before we vote on this, and a point of order
would lie if that is not carried out. But, even then, there can be a
waiver of the point of order, and go ahead if we think it is that
important for the future of this country.
So, while I think that on the face of it it is rather innocuous, just
the very fact that we, for the first time, are going to require that to
be considered before we take legislation up is an enormous step forward
and very, very important.
That is the reason I think this is landmark. It puts the Senate, puts
the country, puts the House of Representatives on notice that this
relationship between the Federal, State, and local governments can no
longer be one where we pass things here and say, ``Well, States, OK,
you carry it out. We know it will be expensive, but you carry it out.
We know you can take care of it.'' That worked for the better part of
200 years in this country. But it no longer will work because what we
have done is passed so many bills, as I enumerated before, we have
overloaded the circuits and given the States and local communities too
big a load from Federal mandates for them to be able to carry out
without our help. So it means we must be very careful in what we
consider in the future as legislation and its impact on State and local
communities, and that we have a forcing mechanism to force that kind of
consideration before things are voted out. That is what this does.
So I am proud to work with Senator Kempthorne. I think he was off the
floor when I made some comments about him earlier. They were not all
bad. He has been a real leader in this. He has stayed on it and
traveled all over this country, as I said, and he has met with all the
Big Seven groups, as they are called, and talked to them, got their
counsel, advice, and been a real champion of this. I am proud to be
associated with him on this. I hope we can just get this legislation
through. I think it is needed.
One note of caution: Let Members not rush this thing to the point we
do not have time to amend it with things that need amending. I add
this: The Senate does not have germaneness rules. We know that, and we
suffer from that from time to time, as we did on the congressional
coverage bill yesterday. People are free to bring up whatever they
want.
On this bill, that could well happen on the floor when we open it up
for amendments. Whether that does or not, there are certain amendments,
as the one that I mentioned just a moment ago and the one that Senator
Levin has concern about that we brought up in committee that are
germane, they do apply, and I hope there is not such a push to get this
thing through that we do not have adequate time to have those
amendments that are valid, germane, and that will improve this. They
will improve this bill and make it workable. They will not hurt.
Mr. President, I rise to announce my support for S. 1--the
Kempthorne-Glenn bill on Federal mandate reform and relief. This is
legislation that had strong bipartisan and administration support last
year, in fact we had 67 cosponsors, and my hope is that we will be able
to pass the bill through the House and Senate and get it to the
President.
I would note that I do have concerns with some of the provisions of
S. 1 and I will be offering some amendments later to try to correct
some problems with the bill. I will discuss those amendments in more
detail at the appropriate time.
But before I go into a description of the bill, I'd like to provide
some background to the whole unfunded Federal mandates debate.
On October 27, 1993, State and local elected officials from all over
the Nation came to Washington and declared that day, National Unfunded
Mandates Day. These officials conveyed a powerful message to Congress
and the Clinton administration on the need for Federal mandate reform
and relief. They raised four major objections to unfunded Federal
mandates.
First, unfunded Federal mandates impose unreasonable fiscal burdens
on their budgets;
Second, they limit State and local government flexibility to address
more pressing local problems like crime and education;
Third, Federal mandates too often come in a one-size-fits-all box
that stifles the development of more innovative local efforts, efforts
that ultimately may be more effective in solving the problem the
Federal mandate is meant to address; and
Fourth, they allow Congress to get credit for passing some worthy
mandate or program, while leaving State and local governments with the
difficult tasks of cutting services or raising taxes in order to pay
for it.
In hearings held by the Committee on Governmental Affairs in both
this and the last Congress, we heard testimony from elected State and
local officials from both parties, representing all sizes of
government. It was clear from the testimony that unfunded mandates hit
small counties and townships as hard as they do big cities and larger
States.
I think it's worth stepping back and taking a look at the evolution
of the Federal-State-local relationship over the last decade and a half
so we can put this debate into some historical context. I believe the
seeds from which sprang the mandate reform movement can be traced back
to the so-called policy of new federalism, a policy which resulted in a
gradual but steady shift in governing responsibilities from the Federal
Government to State and local governments over the last 10 to 15 years.
During that time period, Federal aid to State and local governments was
severely cut, or even eliminated, in a number of key domestic program
areas. At the same time, enactment and subsequent implementation of
various Federal statutes passed on new costs to State and local
governments. In simple terms, State and local governments ended up
receiving less of the Federal carrot and more of the Federal stick.

a. the cost of federal mandates

Let's examine the cost issue first. While there has been substantial
debate on the actual costs of Federal mandates, suffice it to say that
almost all participants in the debate agree
[[Page S846]] that there isn't complete data on the aggregate costs of
Federal mandates to State and local governments. In fact, one of the
major objectives of S. 1 is to develop better information and data on
the cost of mandates. Likewise, there is even less information
available on estimates of what potential benefits might be derived from
select Federal mandates, a point made by representatives from the
disability, environmental, and labor community in the committee's
second hearing in the last Congress. Nonetheless, there have been
efforts made in the past to measure the cost impacts of Federal
mandates on State and local governments.
And those efforts do show that costs appear to be rising. Since 1981,
the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has been preparing cost estimates
on major legislation reported by committee with an expected annual cost
to State and local governments in excess of $200 million.
According to CBO, 89 bills with an estimated annual cost in excess of
$200 million each were reported out of committee between 1983 and 1988.
I would point out one major caveat with CBO's analysis; it does not
indicate whether these bills funded the costs or not, nor how many of
the bills were eventually enacted. Still, even with a rough
calculation, CBO's analysis shows that committees reported out bills
with an average estimated new cost of at least $17.8 billion per year
to State and local governments. In total, 382 bills were reported from
committees over the 6-year period with some new costs to State and
local governments. So if anything, the $17.8 billion figure is a
conservative estimate for reported bills.

Federal environmental mandates head the list of areas that State and
local officials claim to be the most burdensome. A closer look at two
of the studies done on the cost to State and local governments of
compliance with environmental statutes does indicate that these costs
appear to be rising. A 1990 EPA study, ``Environmental Investments: The
Cost of a Clean Environment,'' estimates that total annual costs of
environmental mandates, from all levels of government, to State and
local governments will rise from $22.2 billion in 1987 to $37.1 billion
by the year 2000, an increase in real terms of 67 percent. EPA
estimates that the cost of environmental mandates to State governments
will rise from $3 billion in 1987 to $4.5 billion by 2000, a 48-percent
increase. Over the same timeframe, the annual costs of environmental
mandates to local governments is estimated to increase from $19.2 to
$32.6 billion, a 70-percent gain. According to the Vice President's
National Performance Review, the total annual cost of environmental
mandates to State and local governments, when adjusted for inflation,
will reach close to $44 billion by the end of this century.
The city of Columbus in my home State of Ohio also noted a trend in
rising costs for city compliance with Federal environmental mandates.
In its study, the city concluded that its cost of compliance
environmental statutes would rise from $62.1 million in 1991 to $107.4
million in 1995--in 1991 constant dollars--a 73-percent increase. The
city estimates that its share of the total city budget going to pay for
these mandates will increase from 10.6 to 18.3 percent over that
timeframe.
In addition to environmental requirements, State and local officials
in our committee hearing cited other Federal requirements as burdensome
and costly. They highlighted compliance with the Americans With
Disabilities Act and the Motor-Voter Registration Act; complying with
the administrative requirements that go with implementing many Federal
programs, and meeting Federal criminal justice and educational program
requirements. Now I would note that while each of these individual
programs or requirements clearly carry with them costs to State and
local governments, costs which we have too often ignored in the past, I
believe that on a case-by-case basis each of these mandates has
substantial benefits to our society and our Nation as a whole,
otherwise I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, wouldn't
have voted to enact them. State and local officials readily concede
that individual mandates on a case-by-case basis may indeed be worthy.
However, when you look at all mandates spanning across the entire gamut
of Federal laws and regulation, you begin to understand that it is the
aggregate impact of all Federal mandates that has spurred the calls for
mandate reform and relief. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations testified in our April hearing that the number of major
Federal statutes with explicit mandates on State and local governments
went from zero during the period of 1941 to 1964, to 9 during the rest
of the 1960's, to 25 in the 1970's, and 27 in the 1980's.
However, to truly reach a better understanding of the Federal
mandates debate, we must also look at the Federal funding picture vis a
vis State and local governments.

b. federal aid to state and local governments

The record shows that Federal discretionary aid to State and local
governments to both implement Federal policies and directives as well
as comply with them saw a sharp drop in the 1980's.
An examination of Census Bureau data on sources of State and local
government revenue shows a decreasing Federal role in the funding of
State and local governments. In 1979, the Federal Government's
contribution to State and local government revenues reached 18.6
percent. By 1989, the Federal contribution of the State and local
revenue pie had steadily shrunk to 13.2 percent before edging up to
14.3 percent in 1991, the latest year that data is available.
What contributed to the declining trend in the Federal financing of
State and local governments? A closer look at patterns in Federal
discretionary aid programs to State and local governments during the
1980's provides the answer. According to the Federal Funds Information
Service, between 1981 and 1990 Federal discretionary program funding to
State and local governments rose slightly from $47.5 billion to $51.6
billion. However, this figure when adjusted for inflation tells a much
different story; Federal aid dropped 28 percent in real terms over the
decade.
A number of vital Federal aid programs to State and local governments
experienced sharp cuts and, in some cases, outright elimination during
the decade. In 1986, the administration and Congress agreed to
terminate the general revenue sharing program, a program that provided
approximately $4.5 billion annually to local governments and allowed
them broad discretion on how to spend the funds. Since its inception in
1972, general revenue sharing had provided approximately $83 billion to
State and local governments. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration
succeeded in terminating the program and the Congress followed its
lead. There were other important Federal-State-local programs that were
substantially cut back between 1981 and 1990. They include: economic
development assistance, community development block grants, mass
transit, refugee assistance, and low-income home energy assistance.
Luckily, under both the Bush and Clinton administration, we've
managed to restore some needed funding to many of these programs.
Still, in real dollars, funds for discretionary aid programs to State
and local governments remain 18 percent below their 1981 levels.

the committee's legislative efforts

In the last Congress, eight bills were referred to the Governmental
Affairs Committee that touched on at least some aspect of the unfunded
Federal mandates problem. After two hearings, we marked up a compromise
bill that borrowed the best of the various provisions and requirements
from the different bills. We worked closely in a deliberative,
bipartisan fashion with the de facto leader on this issue, Senator
Kempthorne, along with other Members and with the administration. The
Kempthorne-Glenn compromise had the endorsement and strong support of
the 7 groups representing State and local governments: the National
Governors Association; the National Conference of State Legislators;
the Council on State Governments; the National League of Cities; the
U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties, and
the International City Management Association. It had the backing of
the Clinton administration and was endorsed by the editorial boards of
the New York Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and other newspapers across
the country, both large and small. The bill we are debating
[[Page S847]] today as S. 1 largely embodies what we had last year in
S. 993.
Let me explain what the Kempthorne-Glenn bill does: it requires the
Congressional Budget Office to conduct State, local, and tribal cost
estimates on legislation that imposes new Federal mandates in excess of
$50 million annually onto the budgets of State, local, and tribal
governments. The current law requires these estimates at a $200 million
threshold. I believe that that high a figure allows a lot of Federal
mandates to slip through without being scored. $200 million spread
across equally among all States may not be much, but if it
falls particularly hard on any one region--which does happen with
legislation around here--it is substantial. Let me make clear, however,
that what CBO will score here are new Federal mandates, not what State,
local, and tribal governments are spending to comply with existing
mandates, nor what they are spending to comply with their own laws and
mandates.

Second, and I think most importantly, is that the bill holds Congress
accountable for imposing additional unfunded Federal mandates. We do
this by requiring a majority point of order vote on any legislation
that imposes new unfunded Federal mandates in excess of $50 million
annual cost to State, local, or tribal governments.
To avoid the point of order, the sponsor of the bill would have to
authorize funding to cover the cost to State and local governments of
the Federal mandate, or otherwise find ways to pay for the mandate.
This could come from the expansion of an existing grant or subsidized
loan program, or the creation of a new one, or perhaps the raising of
new revenues or user fees. The authorizing committee must also build
into the legislation contingency provisions to go into effect if funds
for the mandate are not appropriated. The committee would have to put
provisions into the bill that would direct and set criteria for the
responsible Federal agency to either declare the mandate to be
ineffective, or direct and set criteria for the agency to scale back
the mandate, to the extent that funds have not been appropriated.
S. 1 also includes provisions for the analysis of legislation that
imposes mandates on the private sector. CBO would have to complete a
private sector cost estimate on bills reported by committee with a $200
million or more annual cost threshold. Agencies would also need to
consider the private sector impacts of their regulations.
We do exempt certain Federal laws from this bill. Civil rights and
constitutional rights are excluded. National security, emergency
legislation, and ratification of international treaties are also
exempt.
I want to also point out that the bill does not prohibit Congress
from passing unfunded Federal mandates. There may be times when it is
appropriate to ask State and local governments to pick up the tab for
Federal mandates. But let that debate take place on the Senate floor
and let the majority work its will on the specific mandate in the
legislation.
The Kempthorne-Glenn compromise also
addresses regulatory mandates. We all know how the Federal
bureaucracy can impose burdensome and inflexible regulations on State
and local governments as well as on others who end up trapped in the
bureaucracy's regulatory net. In the committee's November hearing, we
heard testimony from Susan Ritter, county auditor for Renville County,
ND. Ms. Ritter noted that the town of Sherwood, in her State, with a
population of 286, will have to spend $2,000--one half of its annual
budget--on testing its water supply in order to comply with EPA
regulations. Clearly, there is no way that the town is going to be able
to meet this requirement.

So, consistent the President's Executive orders, we have required
that Federal agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses on major
regulations that impact State, local, and tribal governments. Further,
agencies must develop a timely and effective means of allowing State
and local input into the regulatory process. Given that State and local
governments are responsible for implementing many of our Federal laws,
it is not only fair that they be considered partners in the Federal
regulatory process, but it is also good public policy as well. The bill
also requires Federal agencies to make a special effort in performing
outreach to the smallest governments. Then maybe we'll be able to
minimize the occurrence of situations like the one that took place in
the town of Sherwood.

closing remarks

In closing, I'd like to put this issue into some larger perspective.
As we all know, the Federal, State, and local relationship is
complicated. It is a blurry line between where one level of
government's responsibility ends and another's begins. All three levels
of government need to work together in a constructive fashion to
provide the best possible delivery of services to the American people
in the most cost-effective fashion. After all, as Federal, State, and
local officials, we all serve the same constituents. Further, we serve
the American people at a time when their confidence in all three levels
of government is probably at an all-time low. There are numerous
explanations for this lack of confidence in government and I won't go
into them here. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review
attributes ``an increasingly hidebound and paralyzed intergovernmental
process'' as at least part of the reason for why many Americans feel
that government is wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective. We need to
restore balance to the intergovernmental partnership as well as
strengthen it so
that government at all levels can operate in a more cost-effective
manner.

Both the administration and a number of my colleagues have made
proposals to shift a number of Federal programs and responsibilities to
State and local governments. Clearly, as this mandates debate has shown
us, we ought to at least experiment to see if State and local
governments can carry out some these programs in a more effective
fashion than we have been doing at a Federal level. I know from my
years as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee that Americans
do want more efficient and less costly government and maybe one way to
help accomplish that objective is to grant more flexibility to State
and local governments and let them run some of these programs. However,
I think we should proceed with some degree of caution. Growing up in
the Depression, I learned that State and local governments don't have
the wherewithal and resources to meet all human needs. That's why
President Roosevelt came through with the New Deal. So there has been
and will continue to be, the need for Federal involvement and
decisionmaking in many domestic policy areas. But that shouldn't
preclude us from maybe loosening the reins on State and local
governments in some areas, or even dropping them entirely. But we
should be careful, and look at it on a case-by-case basis.
I believe that the Kempthorne-Glenn bill would help to restore that
partnership and bring needed perspective to future Federal
decisionmaking. I am glad that it will be the first bill introduced in
the Senate and look forward to working toward its very early passage.
I want to give special thanks to my colleague from Idaho for his role
in developing this legislation. He has been very diligent and, as a
former mayor, very passionate about this issue. But he has also been
willing to engage in the give and take that goes on in developing
legislation where there are a lot of pressures from all sides to go one
way or the other. This has truly been a bipartisan effort and he
deserves special credit for that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly what the Senator
from Ohio has just stated. He has accurately laid out the thrust and, I
think, the beauty of this bill, and he has done it in his normal,
straightforward fashion that everybody can understand and grasp.
He mentioned in his comments about last year and who may have tied up
the legislation and where the finger should be pointed. He is right.
That does not matter now. This is the 104th Congress. The bill that is
before the Senate, Senate bill 1 is bipartisan. Sixty-three Senators
already are sponsors of this bill, and more are being added all the
time. It is bipartisan, as it should be.
I can tell the distinguished Senator from Ohio that I assure him all
Senators will have ample time to discuss the amendments that are
brought out
[[Page S848]] here, to make any comments they wish about this bill. We
will make sure that everyone feels that they have had their opportunity
to speak about this bill in any areas that they may wish to find some
improvements.
I agree with him, I hope that we keep the bill clean so we do not
have amendments that are nongermane, not part of this bill. Too, I
believe there will be some amendments that we can fashion together in
managers' packages that we could then place before this body for
unanimous consent.
He made this point, and I want to stress it: This Senate bill 1 is a
process. In no way do we ever abdicate our decisionmaking
responsibilities. We enhance it through Senate bill 1 because we will
have the information upfront before we cast our votes. Is it not
interesting when you think about it, Mr. President. What organization
or entity, either in the public sector or the private sector, can make
decisions that may have multimillion dollar or multibillion dollar
impact and not know that cost upfront before they make that decision? I
cannot think of any, because they would not be successful very long if
they did.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the chairman or the ranking
member will be willing to answer some questions at this point. I would
like to ask a few questions, trying to understand the legislation,
since I am not on the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Idaho respond?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will be happy to respond.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I guess I have heard the explanation,
and I certainly agree with the basic thrust of the legislation, and
that is to try to ensure the Congress knows what it is doing before it
acts, gets the necessary information and looks at the cost that it is
imposing on State and local governments.
As I read it, though, the bill seems to do more than that. The bill--
and here I am referring to page 21 where it says:

It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider any
bill or joint resolution that is reported by a committee
unless----
A statement has been provided. I understand that is getting the
information. I certainly support that and believe that is entirely
appropriate.

But then it says:

It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider * * *
any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference
report that would increase the direct costs of Federal
intergovernmental mandates by an amount that----

Exceeds the threshold.
As I read that, I understand that you can always come to the floor
and say, ``In spite of this, we want to waive that provision of law and
we want to go ahead.'' But I am just wondering if this is somewhat
unprecedented--obviously, it is unprecedented--but is it an appropriate
thing for us to be putting in statute a statement that it is out of
order for us to consider any legislation for which the Federal
Government is not willing to pay 100 percent of the cost on Government.
That is what we are saying here, that it is out of order for us in
the Senate to consider any bill unless we, the Federal Government, are
willing to pay the entire cost to any level of government.
Really what we are trying to say is we need to stop and we need to
think and we need to get estimates before we do that, but it is
appropriate for us to do it in some cases. Is there not a more artful
way we can do this and really say we need the information before we
proceed and we need to think seriously and carefully about what we are
doing before we proceed, instead of just saying it is not in order for
us to ever proceed unless we are going to pay 100 percent of the cost?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to my friend from New
Mexico, if I may proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho may proceed.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The Senator is asking if there is a more artful way
of doing it. I really believe mandates are so important, whether or not
this is artful, it is meaningful. You have asked if there is not some
way that we can just seek the information. There has been discussion
before that maybe we could just have information that would note that,
but I really believe that we should stop that mandate, we should stop
further consideration. But we do provide for that 60-vote point of
order, a waiver. Excuse me, it will be a majority, a simple majority,
that could waive that point of order.
If you get a majority of Senators that say, ``We agree with the
Senator from New Mexico, we should not delay proceeding forward with
this bill any further, we now have this information from the committee,
from the Congressional Budget Office, and so we now vote affirmatively
to waive the point of order, then we can proceed.''
But, again, we are going to know that information up front. I do not
see that as burdensome, and it certainly is not as burdensome as has
been the placement of these mandates on our cities and States, and the
taxpayers ultimately pay for these.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I certainly understand, as I say, the importance of
getting the information. I support that. I support having the careful
consideration of what we are doing.
Let me give you an example that has come to my attention.

We passed a bill a few years ago on air transportation security where
we basically said anybody who runs an airport in this country shall
make provision to essentially put in metal detectors because we have
determined that there is a public safety compelling national interest
here that requires us to have metal detectors at all of our airports.
That is a mandate. That is saying to the city of Albuquerque, which
runs our airport in Albuquerque, that is saying you have to put in
metal detectors. Clearly, that costs them some money. The Federal
Government did not pick up the tab.
But I guess what I am saying is, should it be as an initial matter
inappropriate for us to consider legislation unless we, the Federal
Government, are willing to pay 100 percent of the cost in all cases?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will answer that I strongly believe
that we should follow this prescribed course. In that case, where you
say there was a cost to the city of Albuquerque, there was a cost to
the cities across the country that had to put in these metal detectors.
Did it exceed $50 million? I do not know. If it did not, then no point
of order would lie against the bill.
But, I say to my friend from New Mexico, nobody knows what the cost
of those metal detectors was, and we certainly did not know before we
voted for it.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I do not argue with that part of the bill. I have said
so several times in the last 10 minutes----
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BINGAMAN. That the Senate should be required----
Mr. GLENN. Let us follow this through. I think it is a good example.
With the Federal mandate saying you will do it, Albuquerque then
probably had less police out on the streets, they were not able to put
in the new sewer. They had to make choices because we put a mandate on
them.
If we, in our wisdom, say this is important enough for air safety, it
is important they do it, period, regardless of any money, all you have
to do is have a point of order that would lie against the bill if it is
over the $50 million threshold, which it would be in this case--many
times $50 million for the whole country--and we would say that is
important enough that you just are going to have to pick that up
running your airport, pick it up in an airport tax or however you do it
locally; it is up to you people to do it in the State and local
governments.
If we say, ``No, well, wait a minute, this is going to be expensive
and it is going to hit and it means Albuquerque has to take some police
off the streets''--and if you have patrol cars, you are going to have a
lot of problems--then maybe by the fact that we are forced to consider
it up front and not ignore it, as we probably did in that case, if we
are forced to take this up, it means that we have to consciously
consider this when we are considering putting it in.
We may want to see, in our wisdom, that it is fair we take half the
expense. We can moderate it like that. I am sure the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico would agree that too often in
[[Page S849]] the past, we have passed things like this and just said,
``States, do it; that's that, take care of that, go ahead and do it.''
It has gotten to be such a burden on the States and local communities,
they no longer can just absorb what we throw at them.
All this says is we can still throw it at them, we still can say you
have a requirement, you have to meet it, it is Federal law and do it.
But we have to do it after knowing the costs and having voted
affirmatively to force them to do that, and we have to go on record
saying that is what you have to do.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond and be sure the
Senator understands my point. We are also saying in the bill that it is
out of order to consider any bill where the Federal Government does not
pay 100 percent of the cost; any bill that imposes an obligation on
State and local government, where the Federal Government does not pay
100 percent of the cost, that is out of order.
Now, you are right, we can come to the floor and we can vote to waive
the point of order. But we are putting in law a statement that it is
out of order for us to consider any piece of legislation unless we, the
Federal Government, are paying 100 percent of the cost.
Mr. GLENN. That is correct, up to a point, unless we authorize--this
applies to authorizing legislation only now. If the appropriators then
come along and say, ``Well, we have a lot of other considerations. We
had to up the Army, Navy, Marine Corps''--whatever--``we can't afford
this, we can do half of this,'' we try to work that out with the
States.
In the authorizing legislation, you will have to provide for the
Federal mandate or a point of order would lie. Then the waiver vote
would determine whether, in spite of that, if you are not providing the
money for it and you want to take it up anyway, then you have that
option and the Senate does not lose its ability to do that.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say I think I understand that,
and if I was on the Appropriations Committee, I probably would think
this was a great piece of legislation, because it would mean everybody
would go to the Appropriations Committee, to an even greater extent
than they do now, when they want to see something legislated.
This goes to the authorizing committees, and this says if you were to
put together a piece of legislation that said everyone who has an
airport in the country will put in metal detectors and the Federal
Government will pay 90 percent and States will pay 10 percent, or
localities will pay 10 percent, whoever owns the airport will pay 10
percent, that legislation is out of order.
You are right, under this procedure, you can come to the floor and
you can waive the point of order, but the way you have to draft it
here, it is out of order for us to consider that legislation.
Let us suppose the Commerce Committee, which I assume would have
jurisdiction, wanted to bring a bill to the floor which had a sharing
of cost between the Federal Government, State government and local
government that involved air traffic safety. That would be out of
order. Now, you say OK, well, you can waive the point of order. I am
just getting to the point of should we be writing into law a statement
that it is out of order for Congress to consider legislation unless we
at the Federal level are proposing to pay 100 percent of the cost.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. That is a major portion of this bill. That is
what this is about. It says that we ought to pay that. And if not, we
ought to have the appropriate rationale so that a majority vote, a
simple majority would say no, we are going to waive that.
A couple of points. The Senator said that this is placed on the
authorizers. After a great deal of discussion, we felt that was most
appropriate because the mandates come from the authorizing committees.
They do not come from the appropriations committees. This puts that
responsibility on the authorizers. It will probably cause them to have
to work more closely with the appropriators, which I think is a plus.
You say other than ruling it out of order, could not we just have the
information made available to us to help us in our decisionmaking. But
that, to me, is a damage report. We want to stop the damage. And we
talk about the responsibilities. Again, we would have that information.
Yes, we should pay for it. But if we do not, again, you can come and
seek that waiver. The point of order, though, is not self-initiated. It
must be placed by a Senator.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I understand that. But I am just saying that if a
reporting committee, if the Commerce Committee determined that there
was a compelling national interest for us to have metal detectors at
our airports around the country and that the appropriate sharing of
cost was 90 percent by the Federal Government, 10 percent by the person
who owns the airport--and clearly we should require them to get the
report as to what this is going to cost, what it is going to cost
States and localities, what it is going to cost everybody up and down
the line. But once they get that information, if they still believe
there is a compelling national interest, should they have to, when they
bring that bill to the floor, face the statutory provision you are
putting here which says it is out of order to consider this bill?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, to the Senator I would say that a
committee could determine that they wanted to do a 90-10 split on the
cost. Now, because they do not provide 100 percent of the funding, yes,
a point of order could be made against that authorizing bill. But they
could come to the floor and say this legislation clearly spells out
that we are going to provide 90 percent of the funds; 10 percent will
be matched by the local communities. And you could then hold up a
series of letters from mayors around the country saying we think this
is good; we support this legislation. And I think you would have an
excellent chance of getting a waiver of the majority of Senators to say
we agree on this particular one. Go forward.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I guess, Mr. President, the point I am trying to make
is that I think that is an appropriate and necessary and essential part
of the discussion that ought to take place when that bill comes out on
the Senate floor. I just do not know that I like the idea of putting in
law a statement that it is out of order for us to consider the bill. I
think it might be appropriate to say, if they get the studies done, if
they determine and they say in their report that there is a compelling
national interest that requires this to happen, then the Senate can
agree or disagree and the Senate can say we do not believe it. We think
this has to be amended; the Federal Government should pay 100 percent,
not just 90 percent.
That is what ought to happen in the debate on the bill. It should not
be procedurally inappropriate or wrong for the Congress to consider
legislation that imposes some share of the cost on State and local
government in some instances where there is a compelling national
interest, it seems to me.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I respect the Senator's view on this.
Now, we will probably disagree, but I respect what the Senator is
saying. Congress has a bad habit of not picking up the tab on orders
that it places, and so this I think is going to help us with this
fundamental realignment of the partnership. I do not think this is an
overly burdensome requirement. I truly do not. And I think 63 Senators
are saying, yes, we think this the way we should be going on this.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator one other
example that has occurred to me. There is a bill that Senator Inouye
and Senator McCain had been considering in the last Congress--I believe
they introduced it. They certainly had various hearings on it--to put
in place a more extensive regulatory mechanism for controlling gaming
on Indian land.
This legislation, of course, would make that out of order. Any bill
that imposed an additional cost on the tribal government would be out
of order under your legislation, as I understand your legislation,
because you would be saying, if you want to engage in gaming on Indian
land, you have to do certain things to ensure that organized crime does
not get involved, that people who gamble at your facilities are treated
fairly, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, am I confused on this? As I understand the bill pending before
the Senate today, it would say that bill is
[[Page S850]] out of order. If that bill comes to the Senate floor, a
point of order can be raised that that bill is out of order because it
requires tribal governments that want to participate in gaming to incur
costs.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to that, I cannot stand
here and tell the Senator that there is an easy, quick answer to that.
We would have to go through the example. We would have to determine is
this a requirement that is now being put on the tribes? Is there a cost
to that? Does the authorizing committee determine that there is a
mandate in that new requirement? What is the cost of that mandate? Does
it in fact exceed $50 million or is there any cost at all to the tribes
to carry this out?
There are many, many hypothetical situations. But I come back to the
point that this is a process, a process that states that as we now
proceed--and we will encounter some of these issues--we now know how we
would proceed. We know the process. We would know that we can seek a
waiver of a point of order. We know that after doing this for a few
sessions we will begin to establish some precedents on what does and
does not come under this department of the mandates.
So, again, I believe that the process is in place and there is not
going to be a quick and easy answer on all hypotheticals. But at least
we know how we would get to the ultimate conclusion.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is a good example because it is a very
complex one. It gets into a lot of ramifications of tribal law, our
overriding Indian affairs legislation, and so on. So it is a very good
example. But in that case, if the cost to the tribal areas was
estimated to be more than $50 million, then a point of order could be
brought and all the point of order would say is it is more than $50
million so we should consider this legislation here in the Chamber. It
will not be eliminated from consideration. And then the Senate would
work its will and the Senate would either decide it is good for Indian
lands or it is not. This legislation, once you reach that point, would
not have anything to do with it. It would be strictly on the merits of
Indian gaming and what you want to do in other areas.
While I have the floor, too, another thing I wanted to make
absolutely sure, the Senator from New Mexico referred several times to
the point of order. I almost got the impression that he thought the
point of order, anything over a $50 million cost to State and local
governments would automatically have a point of order regardless of
whether somebody brought it up or not.
Some Senator would have to come to the floor and bring up and invoke
that point of order and then it would require then a waiver vote. And
if any Senator, I would say to my friend, thinks it is that important
that he wants to challenge this, then we better take it up. We would be
doing it with the best estimates that we possibly can have. It is a
forcing mechanism to force the Senate to consider the costs up front,
which we have not done before, and make a forcing mechanism to do that,
still with a protection, as a way of saying, yes, this bill comes on
the floor with a majority vote no matter what the cost so we can
consider it.
Mr. President, I will not belabor the issue. I do appreciate the
answers to the question. I guess my concern, very simply, is that it is
more than an enforcement mechanism. It puts into statute a presumption
that any proposed law that comes to the Senate floor that requires a
State or a locality or an Indian tribal government to incur some cost--
that any of those bills are out of order, that they are in some way
wrong, and that that presumption has to be overcome in order for us to
proceed to consider the bill.
I do not know that all those bills are inappropriate. I do not think
the taxpayers, if we get around to passing legislation governing gaming
on Indian land--I do not think it is necessarily appropriate that the
taxpayers fund 100 percent of the costs of ensuring that gaming is done
appropriately. It is possible that the Indian tribal government should
pick up some portion of that cost.
So I do not know that the idea of passing a bill that says it is out
of order to consider any legislation that the Federal Government does
not pay 100 percent of is necessarily the right way to go. I think we
will have a chance to explore this more this afternoon and this evening
and tomorrow. Maybe next week. But I did want to at least make that
point.
I have some other questions on other parts of the bill which I will
be glad to raise later.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate these well thought out
ideas. It is very apparent that the Senator from New Mexico has been
going through this bill and just truly understanding the impact and the
ramifications of this. So, again, I appreciate that. We hope to see
that sort of discussion continued.
I see the good Senator from Minnesota is here and look forward to his
comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for
Senate bill 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, and to commend
my colleague from Idaho for bringing this legislation to the floor. I
am honored to cosponsor S. 1 in the 104th Congress, and I am honored to
make my first statement as a U.S. Senator on behalf of this critically
important legislation.
To illustrate the severe problems caused by unfunded Federal
mandates, I would like you to imagine you have a distant cousin. He
used to be pretty well off; he made a decent living for himself. But
your cousin liked to spend money--a lot--and after years of living high
on the hog, his extravagant lifestyle finally caught up with him.
So he turned to his credit cards. ``Play now, pay later'' became his
motto. And so it did not take too long before your cousin was up to his
eyeballs in credit, and soon his plastic cards were not good anywhere.
That is when he decided to buy a new car. He bought top of the line,
with every bell and whistle the dealer had to offer.
Of course, his credit was no good and a new car was hardly in the
budget. But that did not stop him--he bought the car anyway, signed
your name to the purchase agreement, mailed the bill directly to you,
and worst of all, said it was for your own good.
What would you do? You would be furious, of course. You have bills of
your own. Maybe you cannot afford to send your kid to college this
year, much less buy your distant cousin a new car.
But what if it turns out that your cousin had every legal right to do
what he had done? What if you refused to pay, and found yourself
showered with fines and threatened with criminal prosecution? What
would you do then?
That is the dilemma faced every day by America's Governors, mayors,
county commissioners, school administrators, and business leaders. For
them, tie irresponsible cousin is the Federal Government. And the IOU's
being signed in their names are piles and piles of unfunded Federal
mandates.
Each year, the Federal Government takes in billions and billions of
dollars. Each year, it spends every dime and borrows hundreds of
billions more. And when the Government has exhausted its revenues but
not its appetite for spending, it passes expensive new laws, and
mandates that somebody else carry out its priorities.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution is supposed to protect the
States from such Federal meddling, but unfunded Federal mandates have
become the modern-day equivalent of taxation without representation,
turning federalism on its ear and the entire concept of States' rights
into a farce.
Over the past two decades, nearly 200 unfunded mandates have been
enacted by this institution, most of them during the 1970's and 1980's,
when Congress was running out of money, but certainly not the desire to
impose new regulations.
And the costs for Main Street America are tremendous. A recent survey
found that the 10 most burdensome unfunded mandates cost cities an
estimated $6.5 billion in 1993. The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates
that, over the next 5 years, the price tag for these mandates will
balloon to nearly $54 billion.
[[Page S851]] In my home State of Minnesota, Gov. Arne Carlson has
prepared this list: 27 pages of unfunded Federal mandates that cost
Minnesota taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each and every year,
and intrude into nearly every walk of life--from our schools to our
prisons, from our highways to our workplaces.
Many of these unfunded Federal mandates are simply bad policy. Rarely
do they take individual needs and situations into account, rarely do
they contain any sort of cost-benefit analysis, and none of them are
paid for.
I want to share this example from Minnesota. With the passage of the
1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act, States are
required to pave their highways with an asphalt mix containing 20
percent rubber from waste tires. It is a mandate which will cost
Minnesota $10 million in 1997.
Yet Minnesota does not have a problem with surplus waste tires--in my
State, they are sold for fuel to paper mills and powerplants.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation estimates that
incorporating waste rubber into the asphalt mix at least doubles its
cost, and the additional expenditure in 1997 will result in 100 fewer
miles of road resurfacing per year.
To compound the problem, our transportation officials are concerned
that using waste rubber will shorten the life of the pavement,
adversely affect its performance, and prevent the pavement from being
recycled once its service life has expired.
Finally, the Federal Government does not recognize that, in
Minnesota, there may be more cost-effective and beneficial uses of
shredded tires, such as using them as a lightweight fill material on
road construction projects. All of this to fix a problem that never
existed in the first place.
Of source, no one wants to simply repeal the ISTEA law. But my
example clearly demonstrates the problem with mandates: Good
legislation, coupled with a one-size-fits-all mandate, is bad policy.
And every State has similar horror stories.
Often, mandates are utterly unnecessary. They duplicate regulations
and requirements that are already at work on the State and local level.
And too often, mandates from the Federal Government are entirely
arbitrary.
While the goals are very often admirable and universal--for example,
we all agree on the need for clean air and clean water--the truth is
that a solution to a problem in Minnesota may not be the answer in
Montana or New Jersey.
Yet when the Federal Government enacts a mandate, it does not consult
with the folks back home who will have to implement it.
Too often, there is no flexibility for regional and local conditions
when the standards are set nationally.
Most tragically, unfunded Federal mandates divert critical resources
away from local needs. Instead of putting Minnesota dollars to work for
Minnesota priorities, unfunded Federal mandates put our scarce tax
dollars to work on Washington priorities.
That is not good for Minnesota. That is not good for America.
When the Federal Government comes calling with yet another unfunded
mandate, State and local governments are left with no choice but to
either reduce services or raise taxes.
And old mandates never die, nor do they fade away. In all its years
of passing bills and passing along the costs, Congress has never--
ever--rescinded a mandate to make room for a new one. They simply
continue to pile up.
But the people back home who keep getting stuck with the bills have
had enough. Last year, organizations representing America's State
governments, cities, mayors, Governors, counties, State legislatures,
and school boards passed resolutions calling on Congress to enact no-
money, no-mandate legislation.
Mr. President, Senate bill 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995, does exactly that.
S. 1 tackles the problem of unfunded Federal mandates by--first and
foremost--forcing Congress to know the costs of any mandates being
proposed, through estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. Once
Congress knows how much its legislation will cost, it will have to find
the money or the taxes to pay for it.
This will be radical change for a Congress that spends other people's
money with such reckless abandon, but if every American who has ever
had to balance a checkbook can do it--if States like Minnesota can do
it--then Congress can do it, too.
Legislation that does not meet these tests is ruled out of order, and
there will be no further action unless a majority of the Senate votes
to continue debate.
This is such a commonsense idea that it should hardly take an act of
Congress to ensure that it happens. But an irresponsible cousin--
equipped with somebody else's credit card--can cause a lot of damage
without some firm guidance.
Passage of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act will start Congress down
the road of fiscal responsibility, out of an era of stifling
overregulation, and back toward the Federal-State relationship
envisioned in the Constitution. It is the right bill, at the right
time, and I urge my colleagues to give this measure their full stock.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from
Minnesota for his support of Senate bill 1, and also congratulate him
on his first major speech here on the floor of the Senate. It is very
clear that Minnesota, in this Senator, has a strong, effective voice
for good government. We appreciate that so much.
I know too that the chairman of the Environment and Public Works
Committee is here and would like to make some comments on this. He is
someone for whom I have a great deal of respect. So I look forward to
his comments.
Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, first I want to congratulate the distinguished junior
Senator from Idaho for the work he has done in connection with this
unfunded mandates legislation. He took an idea that others have thought
about and have shown concerns about, and he developed it into this
piece of legislation. He is extremely knowledgeable about it. He has
been able to explain it to most people's satisfaction. It is complex,
there is no question about it. So I think Senator Kempthorne deserves a
lot of credit for what he has done.
Truly, this is a problem that exists out there, as the distinguished
Senator from Minnesota has just remarked. There are these problems out
there in the States. I might say in passing that the States sometimes
do unfunded mandates on the towns and cities below them. I must say
that it is a little ironic that the Governors are all in here telling
us to pass this unfunded mandates. I was thinking now maybe we ought to
add an amendment to this that no Governor would be entitled to the
benefits of this legislation if he had any unfunded mandates on his
cities and towns. But I think that would probably get everything a
little too complex. So I will forego that.
So, Mr. President, I just want to say that I will support this
legislation and vote for it. I see there are some difficulties. I think
the sponsors of the legislation themselves would recognize that one of
the problems we are going to have is getting the estimates from the
Congressional Budget Office in due time. As we all know, this is a
free-flowing place. Up we pop with amendments. It is no secret that we
say in the language as we send it forward: ``I send to the desk an
unprinted amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.'' That
means that it is an amendment that somebody has written on a piece of
paper, as we can do. It does not have to be printed. It does not have
to be circulated. But in the battle that goes on back and forth on
legislation, we have amendments.
I do not know just how we are going to work these Congressional
Budget Office estimates. I suppose that if in doubt, one would ask for
a waiver. That may be one of the ways to proceed. But let me also say
that my support is for the bill as it is now, as the Senator from Idaho
has presented it. If there are amendments that are adopted to the
effect, for example, as one suggested amendment is, that the point of
[[Page S852]] order has to have 60 votes to be approved, that would
lose me, Mr. President, on this legislation because I just do not think
we can conduct business like that.
I know the Senator from Idaho is himself, as I understand it,
dedicated to keeping this a clean bill, as one would say. I hope he is
successful. Certainly, I would help him do that in resisting the
amendments and trying to bring the bill forward at its conclusion as
close as possible as it exists now.
But I wanted to make it clear that while I support the legislation, I
want to say that should there be these amendments, these changes to it
of some substantial nature, I would not support it under those
conditions.
I thank the Chair.
I see no one else prepared to speak. In that event, Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COHEN. 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. COHEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the
bill that is now pending before the Senate. I wish to offer my
congratulations to Senator Kempthorne, and others, who have taken the
leadership on this issue. He has worked on this very arduously for the
past year and a half at least. I know there have been many changes that
have been made to the original legislation that he proposed. I think it
is fair to say that under the original legislation it would have been a
much more draconian approach to the problem which most of the State and
local officials have confronted over the years. I commend Senator
Kempthorne for his willingness to look at the complications and the
complexity of the issue before us. So I join my colleagues in
commending him for his efforts in this regard.
Mr. President, the entire issue of unfunded mandates really comes
back to the issue, I think, that we have confronted about Congress
being perceived as having lost touch with the rest of the country. Late
yesterday, we concluded debate on legislation dealing with extending
coverage to Congress the laws that we apply to the rest of America.
Again, inherent in the need for that legislation is the perception that
we who serve the public here on Capitol Hill are somehow living in a
place of barricaded privilege, that we do not deal with real issues or
real people, and that we do not understand the nature of the problems
that confront them. I think that was at least one facet of the
legislation we passed yesterday as we tried to dispel that perception,
and also create a sense of equity. We understand that when we pass a
bill that applies to other people, it also applies to us. So we live
under the same rules.
That perception also applies to unfunded mandates, namely, the
feeling that people in Washington go about their business of passing
laws, all of which may be quite meritorious, without fully
understanding the costs. As a matter of fact, most, if not all, of the
bills that we pass have at least a partial measure of merit that many
of us feel compelled to support. It may be safe drinking water, it may
be clean air, or it may be any number of issues which the American
people, in concept at least, support. I do not know many people who
would like to see mercury in our drinking water, toxic waste in our
soil, or needles wash up on our beaches. The American people want
protection against many types of pollution.
Again, we talked a great deal about deregulation or
``demassification.'' We talked about passing responsibilities back to
the States. Yet, there is a measure of inconsistency on all of our
parts, because the first thing that happens when there is an airline
disaster, or a situation like Three Mile Island, or a Love Canal, is
that many people want to know where the Federal agencies were?
The public asks where was the EPA or the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission? Where are the folks who are supposed to be looking out for
the Nation's safety? So we have a conflict between what the people
expect and what is delivered.
Underlying this particular legislation is the notion that somehow we
pass laws without regard to the burden that we are then shifting on to
the backs of the State or town officials. And they, of course, face a
different problem.
I, like Senator Kempthorne, used to be mayor of my hometown. I did
not have to confront at that time either the Clean Air Act or the Safe
Drinking Water Act. But, nonetheless, I felt the pressure of the
burdens that were placed upon us.
We had very little choice in how we responded to these particular
types of mandates. Our only option at the local city level is to do
what? To raise real estate taxes. And each time, of course, we raised
real estate taxes, we were putting greater and greater burdens upon
people who could not afford it. There was really no relationship
between an individual's wealth or ability to pay and the taxes that
were being raised.
I look at the city of Bangor, for example. As a result of unfunded
mandates they will have to bear a burden that may seem minor to most of
us in this Chamber, about $2 million a year for the next 15 years.
Because the city was required by the Federal Government to construct a
new secondary wastewater treatment plant, at the cost of $25 million,
water rates are increasing by as much as 20 percent a year. Real estate
taxes are getting higher and higher. We are forcing people to sell
their homes.
So we face a situation of forcing people to actually sell their
homes because they can no longer afford to maintain them by virtue of
the taxes that are being imposed as a result of actions taken here at
the Federal level.
We, on the other hand, who legislate from Washington have a number of
options. We can raise income tax rates, which has been done, or we can
simply pass a mandate and borrow the money, which is what we have been
doing for the past 10 or 15 years. So we have been spending and
borrowing. They cannot do that as easily at the State and local level
as we can here.
I mentioned before that many of the mandated laws are meritorious. I
do not think many question that. The difficulty comes about, as far as
State and local officials are concerned, because they keep cascading
down without relief. It is not just one mandate that they have to
comply with, it is a dozen mandates. It is not just clean air, but it
is clean water. Or it is a motor voter law. We debated the motor voter
legislation in the last session of Congress.
Again, I think it is important that we make every effort to ease the
process by which our citizens can become registered to vote to
encourage them to participate in the voting process. On the surface it
was a piece of legislation that ordinarily I could have supported.
However, we do not need it in Maine. In Maine, we have same-day
registration. We have constructed our own system that is tailored to
Maine's history and tradition and culture and laws.
But we passed the motor voter legislation. It was a mandate and it
was unfunded. It may not sound like much to a lot of people. There was
$47 million that we were passing on, once again, to the States and
saying, ``Here, you pick up the bill.'' Rather than let the States
decide whether they needed or wanted this type of law, we mandated that
they do it. So the mandates are relentless and there is no relief being
granted to mayors and town councils or State Governments.
In Maine, we had one former city mayor who made a very provocative
statement saying, ``We're going to have the cleanest water, but the
dumbest kids in the State.'' It shocked people when he said that but as
far as he was concerned, it was true. He could not raise taxes any
higher. He could not raise the money for education because he had to
allocate it to meet Federal mandates. Education was being deprived.
There was no balance involved.
There was no ability to prioritize and say, ``Give us a break. Could
we have a longer period of time in which to phase in this particular
mandate? We cannot raise enough taxes. We don't have the people earning
enough to pay for this.''
And the answer from the Federal Government was of course, ``No, you
don't have any choice. You have to
[[Page S853]] meet them all or you face severe financial sanctions if
you do not meet these particular deadlines.'' And, sure, the EPA or
whatever the agency might be, would try to negotiate, but there was
very little flexibility involved.
Senator Jeffords introduced legislation, which I supported, trying to
provide some relief that was called the STEP Act, to give those small
towns with populations of 2,500 or less some relief. But that was not
enough to deal with the magnitude of the problem that we are facing.
I think at the heart of this bill a cry from the people saying, as we
might when approaching an intersection with a flashing red light,
``Stop and look and listen.'' I think that is what Senator Kempthorne
and others have tried to construct here.
Communities are saying, ``We do not have the ability to measure up to
all of these mandates. Take a very careful look at what you are
mandating that we must comply with. You are not taking into account our
relative economic status. You are not taking into account any of the
impositions currently on the books. You are adding and adding and
adding and there is no relief in sight.''
So this legislation really is a flashing red light, as I see it,
calling upon Congress to try to identify legislation that is important.
Clean air is important, and clean water is important, and safe drinking
water is important and, yes, motor voter legislation is important. But
we have to take into account exactly what we are doing by passing on
the bill to those who are unable to pay for them.
(Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)
Mr. COHEN. I think we also ought to take into account that this bill
is not a panacea. It is possible it could even create as many problems
as it seeks to solve.
We need to think carefully through the ultimate consequences as to
how this all will work once it is in place.
I mention this, Madam President, in connection with another subject I
would like to talk just briefly about.
We are confronted with a Contract With America. It is a contract that
was signed by many of those in the House of Representatives; not by
any, that I am aware of, here in the U.S. Senate.
Nonetheless, I think there is great identification with many of the
issues contained in the Contract With America, especially on the
Republican side of the aisle. However, I think many of the issues
contained in that contract will enjoy bipartisan support.
The Contract With America is apparently on a very fast track in the
House of Representatives. Frankly, the House can do that. The House is
able to move far more quickly than we can, and that is because, under
its rules, it is designed to move expeditiously.
The Senate, by contrast, is a completely different institution. The
Senate, by custom and institutional history, is designed to slow things
down. It is designed to force Members to debate issues at greater
length, to engage in discourse that will raise the level of interest on
the part of our constituents, and to raise the level of scrutiny on the
part of the national press corps. Basically, the Senate is designed to
generate enough interest in an issue that the American people will be
satisfied it is the wise thing, not necessarily the fast thing, to do.

That occurred last year during the debate on health care reform, a
major piece of legislation that could, under the right circumstances,
have been gavelled through in the House with a limited measure of
debate. In the Senate that was not possible. It was not possible
because under our rules we needed more time to really ventilate the
complexity of the issues involved.
I think we did a great service to the country. Now, a lot of people,
especially in the press, are saying, can the Senate measure up to the
House? Will the Senate be able to pass the ``Contract With America'' on
a fast track? How is Senator Dole going to measure up with Speaker
Gingrich in meeting these targets?
If it is a race to the finish line in 100 days, I think it is
probably no contest. If it is a question of wise leadership, then, I
think the conclusion could be quite different.
I might say I am raising this issue in connection with this
legislation. I am looking at my colleague from Ohio, a gentleman I have
more than a great deal of respect for. I consider him to be one of the
true heroes of this country not only based upon his past experience as
an astronaut but, in the way in which he has carried out his
responsibilities as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I have served with him
on the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and
the Armed Services Committee. I have traveled the world with him. I
think that he is someone to whom we are deeply indebted for the quality
of leadership he has brought to public service.
During the debate on this particular matter before the Governmental
Affairs Committee, the Senator from Ohio raised some valid points. Had
we given sufficient consideration to all of the permutations involved
in this legislation? Had we given sufficient consideration to the
consequences? How is it going to work procedurally? Parliamentarily?
How is it going to work realistically as it applies to the country?
Yet, we rushed it through. We rushed it through with very little
debate.
We voted down every amendment. There was a good reason for that. We
are trying to give Senator Dole, our leader, an opportunity to say that
we can take legislation up, we can debate it, we can move quickly. We
do not want to see the same kind of tactics, stalling tactics, that we
engaged in years past. Let us see if we cannot exercise some ability of
governance.
I say this because it seems to me as this legislation comes forward,
as it did on the Congressional Accountability Act, many amendments will
be offered. Again, many of the amendments offered to the Congressional
Accountability Act had merit individually but, as a practical matter,
no application to the bill that was under consideration. They were
designed--I say this with all due respect to the other side--
politically, to put the Republicans on notice that there will be a lot
of tough issues coming up for which we will have to be accountable and
make us vote on each and every one of those issues. That was the whole
purpose behind them. We understand that. As a matter of fact, we did it
when we were in the minority.
That, it seems to me, is part of the problem that I see in the
country, as to why this institution is not held in high regard. People
look upon the Senate as playing tactical games. It is only January
1995, but already posturing is going on for 1996. After all, 2 years is
a very short time in politics, and some on the other side feel that if
they can just put the Republicans on the defensive, we will look bad.
Maybe they think we will have a hard time holding on to that majority
next time around. So the amendments are offered.
Again, I say this not in the way of any moral posturing here. We are
guilty, or were guilty, of the very same thing. It has been going on
for years and years and years. I think, from my perspective, we are
coming to a point when it has to stop. It really has to stop or at
least slow down. We ought to, if we cannot strike some kind of accord
with our colleagues as we look at legislation, try to tailor amendments
to either improve or modify the legislation in a way that we think is
in the best interests of the country, but to stop the gamesmanship.
There will be time enough as we get into the final stages of next
year where we can take our philosophical positions and try to gain
tactical advantage. But for now, at least, we ought to try to focus on
the legislation before Members. I believe the Senator from Ohio has
offered amendments in the very finest tradition and from the best of
motivations.
I might say, my colleague from Michigan--he is not here--also raised
valid points about this legislation before us today. How is it going to
work? These are the kind of amendments we should be willing to openly
debate and give serious consideration to. I know we are all motivated
by a desire to make this conform as closely as possible to the
legislation that the House will pass. I also think that we should give
serious consideration to those issues that we are not clear about.
So it is in that regard that I hope the amendments come forth during
this, I expect, several days' debate. Frankly, that it might take
several days or a week is not troubling to me; this is an important
piece of legislation. We should consider issues thoughtfully and
[[Page S854]] try to work with our Democratic colleagues in fashioning
amendments that really do pertain to the legislation. I know there will
be some that will be emotional but have nothing to do with this bill.
And they will be voted down, probably on a straight party line.
I urge my colleagues that, if we really want to show the American
people that we have an opportunity and an ability to govern and we are
doing so in a fashion that we think is consistent with the Nation's
best interest, that we try to approach it on that basis and not seek
tactical advantage. I think all of us feel the pressure to go along
this fast track as quickly as we can to show that we, the Republicans,
who have not had control of both Houses in over 40 years, can govern in
a way that is consistent with the Nation's goals and needs.
I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to offer amendments
that have absolutely no relevance to this bill. I know there is the
tactic to present the Republicans as simply wanting to make the trains
run on time. They just want to throw off the trains the homeless, the
helpless, the handicapped, and the children, to make sure they run on
time. That is the tactic on the part of some. That is the goal. That
should not be. What we are trying to do is to carry out what we believe
to be a responsibility to the American people. I hope that we can, at
least on this legislation and for the foreseeable future, try to
address ourselves to the issues at hand.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I certainly support what the Senator is
talking about here.
I thought for a long time we should have some sort of germaneness
legislation worked out here. They have germaneness rules in the House,
and I think we should do something. I do not try to talk down to
personal interests of people who have a particular interest, whether
social matters, economic or whatever it is, and they will avail
themselves of the opportunities to trot that out as their interests.
They have committed to the people back home that they will do that. And
they will bring that up unless we have germaneness rules that apply.
I hope, also, that we can keep the debate on this and keep the
amendments submitted to those that are germane. However, we have not
all been around here for a while as the Senator from Maine has, along
with me. It is futile to think that will occur. We saw the
congressional coverage bill draw an awful lot of things, as far as
amendments go, that were not germane. So we consider them, and we have
to take them up. I certainly support some effort to get germaneness to
apply in the Senate sometime in the near future, hopefully, in this
Senate.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, in the absence of changing the rules, I
say to my good friend, I hope we will exercise some restraint, because
I think the very things that we do on this floor to gain tactical
advantage are what contribute to the criticism. The characterization of
the Senate and the House is something I think we need to address. I
hope it is something we can minimize, certainly on this bill and in the
future. Republicans are going to be voting down amendments which are
not germane, for the most part. There may be some exceptions on some
issues seen as being so overwhelming in importance that we cannot
resist them.
For the most part, those amendments that are going to come forward
that are not relevant to this legislation will be voted down probably
on a party line, again, with the notion we are trying to work with our
House counterparts. We cannot work on the same timeframe--it is
impossible--but we will do our level best.
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for a further comment? And that is
this: I hope there is not a feeling of voting down all amendments on
this because there are really some very substantive matters that need
to be corrected in this bill if we are going to make good, workable
legislation.
We were not able to get any of those considered the other day in
committee, and the idea then was that we would consider those on the
floor. That was so stated. If we can do that, that is fine. That will
improve this legislation.
So I hope this opposition to amendments on the Republican side does
not include anything that really is substantive and germane to this,
because I think it important we get some of those things considered.
Mr. COHEN. I think this legislation is serious. There is still some
confusion, frankly, among a lot of Members in terms of exactly how it
will work. So I think we will take as long as necessary to work our way
through that. I think that is the spirit with which the sponsor of the
bill has approached this. He has made a number of very positive and
constructive changes since he originally introduced the legislation. I
think he is going to be willing to work, in whatever fashion we can, to
strike strong bipartisan support for the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, first of all, I want to commend the
distinguished Senator from Idaho, without whose energy and hard work
and determination we would not be here today considering this
legislation. Obviously, the committees with jurisdiction had important
roles to play as well because they considered the legislation and
reported the bill favorably. Both the Governmental Affairs Committee
and the Budget Committee worked expeditiously to get this done.
My strong commendation includes the leaders of those committees, as
well. I must say that as a member of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, it has been my pleasure to work on this legislation for some
time now, and I do not know of any bill where there seems to be such
strong support among local elected officials, Governors associations,
and others who would be directly affected by this legislation as we
have seen with this bill. Letters have poured in, last year
particularly. In 1993, when we were considering the legislation, I can
recall the Mississippi Municipal Association very strongly endorsing
this concept and urging that we act in the way we plan to act in the
passage of this bill.
It is not a problem that has just developed overnight, either. It is
one I can recall back as far as my early service in the other body when
we were enacting legislation to help provide education opportunities
for handicapped children, to ensure that they would not be denied an
opportunity to learn and grow and develop in our public school systems
just because of some physical or mental impairment that made it
difficult, maybe, or more expensive to provide those educational
opportunities to them.
But the catch was that the Federal Government, while it was imposing
this rule and requirement on local school districts, was providing no
funds whatsoever to pay the additional costs that were going to be
incurred. Many of us tried to get the legislation amended to provide a
Federal funding matching program of some kind, and we were
unsuccessful. The costs of that were enormous. I am not saying we
should not have enacted the legislation because the goal is certainly
worthy and honorable, but what the Federal Government did is shift all
of the costs of compliance to local governments.
I can also remember as a Member of the other body on the Public Works
and Transportation Committee trying to develop ways to help clean up
our rivers and streams, our groundwater resources, so we were
directing, as a part of that effort, local governments to build
wastewater treatment facilities, with a lot of Federal rules, a lot of
Federal specifications, EPA issuing regulations about the kinds of
facilities that had to be constructed.
What was missing in all of that, again, was any kind of real effort
to help withstand the enormous costs, particularly in those communities
that had no way to really pay for what had to be done, according to the
Federal Government.
It seemed to me at that time--and later, too--that we needed to be
more cost conscious. We needed to try to design programs that had
flexibility so local governments could figure out a better way or less
expensive way to achieve the same results, maybe, in many cases. But
even then, the Federal Government is hard to deal with on issues like
that. The tendency is, if you are not having to pay the bill here, let
the local government officials worry about how to do it, how high they
have to raise the taxes, and how much burden they have to impose to
comply with Federal mandates.
[[Page S855]] We are going to do something, finally, about that
problem by passing this bill, and it is because of the strong
leadership of Senator Kempthorne, and others I mentioned, that we are
able to see this come to pass.
One issue that has arisen--and I want to ask the distinguished
Senator if he can help me answer this question--from my constituency is
about those entities in the private sector who provide services that
are sometimes in competition with municipal or other government
services. I have in mind particularly a request that I had to consider
offering an amendment that would prohibit any private utility, for
example, being put at a competitive disadvantage because of this
legislation.
My reaction when I had the request put to me was, ``Sure, I'll be
glad to offer that amendment. That sounds fair. We don't want to put
anybody at any disadvantage.'' Then I began looking into the situation,
and I heard from my friend from Idaho that this might start a process
of unraveling the bill, and I do not want to do that, either. I am for
this bill. I am a cosponsor of the bill. I want the bill to pass, and I
do not want it to be unnecessarily weakened by any amendment that I
might offer.
But what is my friend's response to my constituent who says, ``We
don't want to be in competition with Government utilities; we don't
want to be put in the position because they are going to have these
Federal mandates somehow minimized or satisfied with Federal dollars,
whereas the private utility is not going to have that kind of help from
the Federal Government under this legislation''?
I am happy to yield to my friend for the purpose of responding to my
question.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Madam President, I appreciate the question. I say to
the Senator from Mississippi, that is precisely the issue that caused
us to put into this legislation a request--not a request, but a
requirement that the committee report will address what impact does a
mandate have on both the public and the private sector and what sort of
impact could it have on that competitive balance between the two of
them, because nothing here is done that would in any way cause the
private sector to be adversely impacted by this legislation. That is
why I think you see such strong support for this bill by hundreds of
the organizations that represent small business and industries
throughout the United States.
So, again, we have addressed that question of competitiveness and
also, if we were to provide funds to the public sector in an area where
they are also seeing the private sector carry this out, that that would
cause unfair competitive advantage. That would be the sort of rationale
that you could then come to the floor, based on that information, and
seek to have a waiver of this point of order because of that
competitiveness.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I
hope that I am understanding the Senator correctly then that the
amendment that I am describing is really not necessary to help ensure
that this balance, this fairness will exist as between private and
public sector entities that may be providing the same kinds of
services.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will respond to the Senator from Mississippi, that
is correct. We have worked with our partners in the private sector to
go over this language so that they, too, can feel that this addresses
it. But in the event that we find that something down the road may
cause an impact on the competitive issue, that is what we can then
discuss and bring before this body.
Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, will the Senator yield for further
comment?
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. I have examined the same issue, I will say to the
Senator, because I feel very strongly that private enterprise should
not be put at a disadvantage. I think the misunderstanding comes from
some of these private entities who think that passage of this
legislation will automatically mean Federal funding of local
facilities.
In fact, what is happening now, at least in my State, is that the
Federal Government is putting a mandate on the public facility in the
State and then requiring by virtue of that mandate local taxpayers to
come up with the money. So that the public facility is in fact funded,
but it is funded on the backs of local taxpayers or State taxpayers
rather than Federal taxpayers. And if there is going to be a
competitive disadvantage, it may well be the Federal Government says we
are not going to come up with the money and the locality says we can in
fact achieve the standards more cheaply, and therefore we will have
less funding at the local level, and thereby lowering the cost of the
public facility.
Having been in the competitive business world most of my life, I do
not shy from competing with somebody who is dealing with honest costs.
And I think the way this legislation will work will be to make the
costs more honest rather than dishonest. And it is a fallacy to think
that passage of this legislation is automatically going to mean a flood
of Federal funding to local projects. I do not believe that will be the
case. Therefore, I intend to support the legislation without that
amendment in spite of my strong private industry background.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Utah for his comments and again reiterate my support for the
legislation. I commend the Senator from Idaho. I look forward to
working with him through the debate, the amendment process of this
legislation, to make sure that it does achieve the results for which we
all are striving.
I thank him for his courtesies.
(Mr. ABRAHAM assumed the chair.)
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that. If I may just to take this one
more step, I referenced that we spoke to different organizations,
businesses in the private sector, about this very issue and I would
just like to reference a letter from Browning-Ferris Industries. In the
letter they state in one of the paragraphs:

After reviewing the legislation that will be considered on
the floor and after discussions with your office, we
recognize that among your objectives for S. 1 is creation of
a favorable climate for the private sector. In fact, S. 1
seeks creatively to address a concern expressed in some
quarters that unfunded mandates legislation could
disadvantage the private sector where public-private
competition takes place.
With your commitment to assure equality for the private
sector--no more but no less--where competition exists between
the public and private sectors, we are pleased to strongly
support S. 1.

Also, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, reading a portion of that
letter, it says:

I particularly want to thank you for responding to our
concerns about the role of the private sector in this debate
and the potential impact it could have had on the business
community, especially small businesses. Your willingness to
include the private sector in title II of S. 1, ``Regulatory
Accountability and Reform,'' and your recognition of the
potential unfair competition issue between business and State
and local governments, make this a much stronger bill that
can have a significant impact on the current regulatory
burden.

And again strong support.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that these two letters be
made a part of the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Browning-Ferris Industries,

Washington, DC, January 11, 1995.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
Dirksen Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: We appreciate the attention you
have given to views we previously expressed in connection
with unfunded mandates legislation. We expressed our previous
views at a time when one of our concerns was that unfunded
mandates legislation could have retroactive effect. It is
evident that S.1 has a prospective effect only, which we
understand was your intent all along.
After reviewing the legislation that will be considered on
the floor and after discussions with your office, we
recognize that among your objectives for S.1 is creation of a
favorable climate for the private sector. In fact, S.1 seeks
creatively to address the concern expressed in some quarters
that unfunded mandates legislation could disadvantage the
private sector where public-private competition takes place.
Moreover, after many years of experience in working with
you--most of
[[Page S856]] them prior to your tenure in the Senate--BFI is
convinced that your dedication to free enterprise is
unsurpassed.
With your commitment to assure equality for the private
sector--no more, but no less--where competition exists
between the public and private sectors, we are pleased to
strongly support S.1.
Sincerely,
Richard F. Goodstein.
____

Chamber of Commerce of the,

United States of America,

Washington, DC, January 3, 1995.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Dirk: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Federation of 215,000 businesses, 3,000 state and local
chambers of commerce, and 1,200 trade and professional
associations, I sincerely commend your hard work and tenacity
on the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,'' S. 1. The
Chamber membership identified unfunded mandates on the
private sector and state and local governments as their top
priority for the 104th Congress. Accordingly, the chamber
supports this legislation and will commit all necessary time
and resources to ensuring its passage early in this session.
I particularly want to thank you for responding to our
concerns about the role of the private sector in this debate
and the potential impact it could have had on the business
community, especially small businesses. Your willingness to
include the private sector in Title II of S. 1, ``Regulatory
Accountability and Reform,'' and your recognition of the
potential unfair competition issue between business and state
and local governments, make this a much stronger bill that
can have a significant impact on the current regulatory
burden.
Again, Dirk, we appreciate your commitment to this issue. I
look forward to working with you to secure passage of S. 1 as
well as other issues that we can join forces on for the 104th
Congress.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lesher.

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his support.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments and
answers to my questions. I look forward to working with him through the
remainder of this process of this bill, to bring it to passage and deal
with the amendments so that we will achieve the result that we are all
seeking.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I assume, the hour of 2 p.m. having arrived, the bill is
not only open for discussion but for amendments now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct and the pending
question is the committee amendment on page 10, line 15 through page
11, line 3.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has the floor.
Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, it would be my intention at this point
to seek a unanimous-consent agreement that we could move forward and
that all committee amendments reported with respect to S. 1 be agreed
to en bloc and considered original text for the purpose of further
amendments with the exception of two amendments as follows: The
amendments found on page 25.
And so again that would be my intent. I know that the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia had expressed concern earlier, so I would
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would make that in the form of a
unanimous-consent request to see if there is objection.
Mr. GLENN. I would support that on this side with the exception that
he mentioned, the two changes on page 25, line 11 through 25 at the
end. We want to have a debate about that later on, the applicability of
those items stricken by the Budget Committee. We will have a debate on
that a little bit later when we can deal with it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. BYRD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will say at the beginning that I may vote
for this bill. I do not know in my own conscience and in my own heart
as to whether or not I will vote for this bill or against it. I think
there are some things about it that I have read in the press which lead
me to believe that some parts of it have some merit. Perhaps the whole
bill does.
So I am not making an attack on the bill. But I know something about
the process here. And I feel that Senators are entitled to have a
committee report on this bill, the committee report which I thought was
going to be filed the day before yesterday, the evening of the day
before yesterday, and even when that did not materialize I thought that
the Budget Committee report would be filed last evening. Well, today
the report that has appeared on the floor is the report by the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
I am glad we have that committee report. I compliment the committee
on preparing the report and having it here even though it is a little
bit late. But I wish to see the Budget Committee report.
I was opposed to taking this bill up without our having--when I say
our, I mean Senators having an opportunity to know what was in the
bill, having an opportunity to see the committee report, having an
opportunity to see minority views.
I had heard that the minority on the Budget Committee had wanted a
committee report, had wanted to file minority views, and that there was
a vote which occurred in the Budget Committee, and that they were voted
down, the minority were voted down on that point and that the
objections to having a committee report went to the point that the
leadership of the majority wanted to bring the bill up quickly on the
floor of the Senate. Therefore, there was opposition to having a
committee report. That would slow the matter down.
And so the battle was lost by the minority, there.

Now, I am not close enough to this bill to have realized that the
measure was also making its tracks in the Committee on Governmental
Operations and Governmental Affairs, and the bill that had been
reported out by that committee would be the bill that would be taken up
on the floor. I was not aware of all that. I was only aware of what I
have already stated, namely that the minority in the Budget Committee
have wanted a report, have wanted to file minority views, and that the
objections to that course of action were based on the need to move this
bill to the floor quickly and to take it up quickly.
I was assured there would be a report filed on the evening of the day
before yesterday. It was not filed. I asked for it yesterday morning
and found there was no committee report. But in releasing my objection
to the unanimous-consent request to take this bill up today, I thought
that the majority was going to file a report that evening of Tuesday,
and of course I had in mind the Budget Committee report, for the
reasons I have already stated. I was not close enough to the matter,
had not followed it closely enough to realize it was on a two-track
committee referral system, or whatever, and that the report that was
really going to be filed at some point was the committee report that
has come to our attention today from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs. Had I known that that was the committee report, I still would
have objected to taking the bill up today because I wanted to see the
Budget Committee report and I thought that the Budget Committee
minority had a right to have a report and had a right to file minority
views.
Now, it can be said, and rightly so, that we who were in the majority
have, upon occasions, filed measures without committee reports to
accompany them. I do not recall any specific occasion but there have
been occasions and I think there probably was some justification for
that. But I cannot see that justification in this instance. The Senate
is not up against a deadline. We are not up against a deadline such as
the beginning of the new fiscal year or the need to pass legislation to
increase the debt limit. We are not up against an adjournment sine die.
We are not up against any deadline that should preclude the minority in
the Budget Committee from having a committee report and having an
opportunity to file minority views.
I understand the same thing happened in the Committee on Governmental
Affairs. That was stated by the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr.
[[Page S857]] Glenn] earlier today. They, on that committee, sought to
have a committee report, the minority view. I may be misstating--I may
be misstating the circumstances.
Mr. GLENN. We did, and called it for a vote, and lost.
Mr. BYRD. I am assured by Senator Glenn that that is the case, that
the minority called for a committee vote and lost.
Now, Mr. President, if this were an emergency piece of legislation or
if it were a piece of legislation that had to pass before next week or
before the week after, had to go to conference--with some justifiable
emergency deadline facing us, I could understand the necessity,
perhaps, for bringing it to the floor without a committee report. But
those circumstances do not obtain here. There is just a rush to get
this through the Senate.
We have heard a great deal of late about the Contract With America,
or some such. I have not read the Contract With America. Perhaps I
ought to read it. And there may be things in the Contract With America
that I could support. I was not a signatory of it, and I do not feel
bound to emasculate the legislative process here, that we have a right
to expect as Senators--I do not feel bound to emasculate that process
in order to get this so-called Contract With America fulfilled.
I am reserving my own judgment about the Contract With America
because I have not studied it. I am in no position to say it is good or
bad, that I object to this or do not object to that. I make those
decisions in due time, as and when it is necessary. But I have been led
to understand this is an important bill. It is far-reaching in its
consequences. Why all the hurry? Why all the rush? Why can Senators,
like the Senator from West Virginia, who are not on either of these two
illustrious committees, not have an opportunity to read a committee
report on something that is being rushed through, something that is
far-reaching and important, as is this bill?
I am not--I make it clear--I am not attempting to set myself up as a
traffic cop here, with respect to taking up legislation. But I think I
know something when I see it. And I see this as something that is being
pushed too fast and I think I am reasonable in expecting a committee
report so that we can know what is involved here, what the minority
views are, what the individual views are if there are such. That is a
reasonable request.
I raised the question this morning while I was still on the floor.
The report by the Committee on Governmental Affairs appeared, and I am
glad for that. I compliment the committee now, as I did then, on
producing the report. I still have not had a chance to read it.
But I think that we will be unwise, as legislators, to rush to pass
legislation of such far-reaching consequences--and perhaps they are
good ones, good consequences. But I, as a Senator, am entitled to
expect a committee report. We have one of the reports now, just made
available today, by one of the distinguished committees. I do not say
this--anything I have said--in criticism of any Senator. I certainly
think highly of the Senators from these committees, and the two
managers who are on the floor today. There can be no more reasonable
men than these two Senators. I know that they are doing what they think
is best. They have had an opportunity to study the legislation. They
believe in it, and perhaps with good cause, as I might myself agree if
I knew more about it.
Mr. President, the time has come now to start voting on amendments. I
hope we will not vote on any amendments until we get the Budget
Committee report. The bill which is going to pass the Senate is a bill
that is before us, if it passes the Senate. I have no doubt that it
will. Most everyone seems to be in favor of it. I am simply trying to
reserve my own opinion on S. 1. But the Budget Committee is very much
involved. I am not on the Budget Committee. It is very much involved.
I think the report of the Senate Budget Committee on this unfunded
mandate bill is very important, that committee which has the
responsibility to work with the Congressional Budget Office and to
determine whether the CBO has the necessary resources to adequately
carry out its responsibilities under the bill--the Budget Committee,
not the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, but the
Budget Committee. It is the Budget Committee that will have to
determine whether or not there is a cost of more than $50 million on
all future legislation as it relates to mandates. That committee's
views, in my opinion, are very critical.
So, Mr. President, I do not want to take the floor here and fight the
legislation. I am in no position to fight the legislation. I do not
know anything about it; very little. I have been busy on other matters.
I have some responsibilities to deal with, and I cannot be ubiquitous,
everywhere at the same time. I am not omniscient. I do not know
everything about this bill. What I do not know, I know very little
about it.
I have a great deal of confidence in the managers. I know Mr. Glenn
has been working on this type of legislation for years. I have absolute
confidence in Mr. Glenn. I have known him for years, and have served
with him all these many years. I believe him. But honest men do differ
in viewpoints. He has had an opportunity to study the matter for years.
So he has had an opportunity to reach his conclusions. I have not had
any opportunity, and there are many other Senators--I am just talking
about myself--in this body who have simply not had the opportunity to
study this bill. This is not just some little sense-of-the-Senate
resolution that suddenly popped up here on the floor. This is a major
bill.
So I urge the leadership of the body on both sides to find a way to
put off action on the amendments and on amendments that may be offered
from the floor until such time as most of the Senators here have had an
opportunity to know more about what is in the bill.
I do not think that is an unreasonable request because this is a big
piece of legislation. It is one of the major components--as I
understand it from listening to other Senators and reading in the
press--of the Contract With America. So it is not just some little
sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It must have some far-reaching
consequences.
I am simply standing on the principle that before I buy into this
legislation, I know something about it. As it is now, I feel I will
have to vote against it. I voted against the measure that passed the
Senate yesterday. I was the only Senator who voted against it, and I
stated my reasons. And what I said at that time is that I tried to keep
in mind the fact that I can be wrong, am often wrong. I thought that
was not a piece of legislation that I could support.
Mr. President, I do not want to hold up the Senate unnecessarily. I
am not an obstructionist, and never have been. I do not want to become
one. I understand that there are ways to keep us here a long time. I am
not trying to be an obstructionist. I am not suggesting a filibuster. I
do not want to be in that position. But there is a principle involved
here. That is a principle that the people have a right to know and
their elected representatives have a right to know--not only have a
right to know, we have an obligation to know; we have a responsibility
to know--what is in this legislation. I think we have a responsibility
to urge that an important report--that we as Senators may study, that
our staffs may study, and that people on the outside of this Capitol
Building may wish to read--be made available.
Would either of the managers be in a position to comfort me, console
me, in some way give me assurance that the Senate will have an
opportunity to see a report from the Budget Committee? I understand one
has been prepared, is being prepared, and is being filed, I am told. I
would be very happy to have some assurance on that point.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, Mr. President, I yield.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. It is my understanding that the chairman of the
Budget Committee is on his way over here. So he can address the
specifics of what the Senator has raised.
On the other matter about which the Senator asked--that is, that we
have full opportunity in this body to thoroughly debate this bill--
anyone who wishes to offer an amendment may certainly do so, and feel
that they have had ample opportunity to debate it. I
[[Page S858]] can assure the Senator of that. I know Senator Glenn also
made that point.
So again, we are not going to cause anyone at this point to feel that
they are being rushed. We are here because we believe that the merits
of this legislation will stand up to the discussion that we look
forward to having.
So I can only assure the Senator on that point.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
I thank the Senator. I do not express by way of any exaggeration my
respect for the distinguished Senator. I have great respect for him. I
have been impressed by him since his swearing in here some 2 years ago.
I guess what I am asking is: Can we forego the voting on amendments
until we have an opportunity to know what they are about? That is the
only reason I came to the floor. I understood we were going to start
voting on amendments at 2 o'clock. And I would hope we would not have
voting on Monday. I do not know what the committee amendments are.
Perhaps with some time I could be aware of what the committee
amendments were we are voting on, but right now I am not. It would be
very helpful if there were a committee report from the Budget Committee
before we start down the road of making decisions here.
There are minority views that are set forth in the committee report
that is available, the report of the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
So there are minority views. Apparently, there is not unanimity on the
committee. If there were unanimity on the Governmental Affairs
Committee, then there would not be any minority views.
Perhaps I ought to read into the Record what the minority views are.
I do not want to take the time to do that if it is not necessary. There
are six pages of minority views, and then there are the changes to
existing law and various definitions and so on in the language that is
in the bill. It is all set forth.
Mr. President, I can assure the Senate that there will not be any
vote on this amendment until I get some kind of satisfaction. I am not
saying I will hold the floor, but there will not be any vote on this
amendment until I get some satisfaction. We ought to have more than we
have access to here before we start down the aisle. We can have
rollcall votes on all of the amendments. That would take a little time
of the Senate.
How many committee amendments are there, may I ask the manager of the
bill? I ask unanimous consent that I may ask a question and still
retain my rights to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. How many committee amendments are there?
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we have a total of 14, in answer to my
distinguished colleague from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for responding to my
question.
Mr. President, before I yield the floor, let me state that I am not
at this point against this bill. I may vote for it. I am not seeking to
kill the bill. But I am seeking a committee report from the Budget
Committee, who is very deeply involved in this matter.
Mr. GLENN. I may have given erroneous information. There were eight
committee amendments, eight on the budget side, too. A total of 16
amendments now, I am told.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I want to make it indubitably clear
that I am not seeking to be a traffic cop. That is the third time I
said that today, but some things bear repetition. I feel that we are
justified in knowing more about this bill before we cast our votes and
make our decisions on it. I believe this is the second bill to come up
in this Senate session, and it is important. The number is S. 1, which
indicates that it is a matter of very high priority to the leadership
on the majority side, else it would not necessarily be in that number.
It is important to many Members on both sides.
This bill has supporters on both sides, one of the supporters being
Senator Glenn, the manager of the bill. He believes in it. Mr.
President, there is a principle involved here. In this particular
instance, this early in the session, we are not backed up against a
deadline. There is no reason to rush this bill through without our
being able to see a committee report--being able to see both reports.
We are entitled to that. The people from West Virginia expect their
Senators to know what they are doing, what they are voting on. It would
be a good thing. In that case, we all may join hands in the end and
say, whoopee, it is a great bill and I am for it. I may vote that way.
But I am not prepared to vote today on this, and I can assure you that
under the Senate rules, as long as the Good Lord gives me strength, I
can jerk my limited tolerance in a way that will make it obvious that
we are going to have an opportunity to have a little more time to study
this bill.
I am prepared to yield the floor if any other Senator wishes to
speak. But do not count on a vote on this amendment. May I say to the
new Senators, do not be misled by someone using a motion such as, ``Mr.
President, I move the amendment.'' Do not feel that that would get a
vote. There is no such motion recognized in the Senate rules, ``I move
the amendment.'' Senators can move the amendment all they want. If
someone else wants to speak on it, under the rule, the Chair will
recognize the first Senator who seeks recognition from the Chair. By
seeking recognition, I do not mean just standing on one's feet,
but, I mean, standing on one's feet and addressing the Chair, ``Mr.
President,'' seeking recognition.

So Senators ought to try to relieve their overburdened vocabulary of
the words ``I move the amendment''; relieve their vocabulary of those
words, ``I move the amendment,'' or ``I move the resolution,'' or ``I
move the bill.'' Nobody is going to pay any attention to that. The
Chair will not put the question. The Chair will simply say, ``Do other
Senators wish to be heard?'' The Chair is under no obligation to put
that question simply because a Senator moves the amendment.
I take this opportunity to say that for the benefit of new Members,
because a lot of our Members who have been here a long time have fallen
into the habit of saying, ``I move the amendment.''
This is the U.S. Senate, and it operates under the Senate rules;
under the Senate rules.
There are other Senators who are standing.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator. I was
going to ask the Senator whether I could get unanimous consent to lay
the committee amendment aside so I could offer an amendment. From
listening to what the Senator has now said, I gather the answer would
be no; am I correct?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am disappointed, because I am anxious to get going
with an amendment. But as I understand what the Senator is trying to
say to other Senators of both parties, and for that matter, to people
in the country, the position he is taking has nothing to do with what
might be his final decision, pro or con, but more with his firm
conviction that this is a major, important piece of legislation and he
believes Senators should have an opportunity to carefully analyze it
and understand it; is that correct?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator has correctly stated my position.
Mr. WELLSTONE. So that is the reason I would not be able to move now
on an amendment?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I respect the Senator from West Virginia. I understand
what he is trying to do.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
I am going to yield the floor. Any Senator who wishes to get the
floor can get it, but we will not vote on this amendment or any other
amendment as of now.
Before I yield the floor, let me say once again, I am not trying to
stand in the way of progress but I want, and I think other Senators
certainly would want to know what they are voting on.
I will yield the floor for now.
I object to the previous request.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for me to answer Senator Byrd's
inquiry with reference to the report of the Budget Committee?
[[Page S859]] Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to consider a
unanimous consent request that includes my retention of the floor, if I
might ask the Budget Committee chairman how long a rebuttal or response
he might need.
Mr. DOMENICI. Well, why do we not say 7 minutes?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
able to yield the floor and that the Chair will recognize the Senator
from New Mexico for a period up to 7 minutes, without my losing my
right to the floor.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for an addition to your
unanimous consent request? If you would include my statement to be
immediately following yours?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I will return to
the floor in due course and answer the Senator's question. I do not
want to hold up the Senator from New Jersey. He has been waiting a long
time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois will
forgive me, I do not want to extend the unanimous consent request
beyond that which the Budget Committee chairman has asked for in
response to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Byrd, might I suggest
that in the process we followed in the committee, or to this point on
the floor of the Senate, we did not intend to hoodwink anyone. We did
not intend to deny anyone the information necessary to participate and
respond to this bill.
As a matter of fact, consistent with the rules, in open public
hearings, the Committee on the Budget voted that we were not going to
file a report. I do not need to stand here and explain to you that that
is perfectly legal; it is within the rules. So what we have filed is
legitimate and within the rules of the Senate.
And my good friend from West Virginia constantly reminds me, as I
grew up in this place, that you are governed by the rules. So let us
make sure we all understand that we are playing by the rules. The rules
did not require a report and we did not file one.
On the other hand, because people were concerned about it and we
wanted to get this bill up, we filed in the Record, as if a report,
everything that would be in a report. It is in the Congressional Record
when the bill was called up. We have extracted it and given it to every
Senator. So my good friend can have it, and it is exactly the same
thing as a report.
In addition, we stand willing, if it is the technical printing of a
document that concerns our good friend from West Virginia, Mr.
President, to file a report shortly. It is almost ready. It is just
another duplication of what is already printed but, so everyone will
know, it will be called a report, which is what our friend from West
Virginia says we should have.
Now, I repeat, we do not have to have it. There have been many bills
called up without reports.
I noticed my good friend from West Virginia covered himself when he
said, other than in emergencies, he does not do that. But I have been
sitting in a committee hearing when somebody wanted to file an
amendment and he said, ``I don't want amendments. I want to get it out
without amendment.'' And they insisted and he said, ``There will be no
report,'' and out went the bill. That was an emergency but,
nonetheless, it occurred. That was the emergency supplemental for
disaster flooding in the Midwest. I happen to be on the committee, and
so I hear those things, too. That is irrelevant from my standpoint.
If the absence of a report--this document--is bothering the Senator,
it will be ready.
I want to ask a parliamentary inquiry. I think I know the answer, but
I just want to make sure.
Since the bill is already pending, if we come down here in 30 minutes
and file a report, that does not entitle anybody to any amount of time
like the 2-day rule on a report. The report is filed and there are no
additional rights that stem from that; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will need to study the question.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, maybe we will make it as simple as we
can.
If we call for the report after a bill is pending, then call it up,
clearly nobody can ask for additional time for views. There are views
already filed. That is all I wanted.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I can assure his filing that report as of
today, if he files it, does not give anyone the right to claim the 2-
day rule. The bill is before the Senate.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is what I understood.
Mr. BYRD. The bill is brought before the Senate by unanimous consent.
I would have objected had I known that there were miscommunications
around here, misunderstandings, everybody was not singing out of the
same hymn book.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in any event, the answer to my
parliamentary inquiry has been answered by the distinguished Senator
from West Virginia.
Mr. President, might I ask the Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will restate the question.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there are no additional days to be
granted if I file this report today? The bill is already pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2-day rule has already been complied with
by calling up the bill. The 2-day rule will no longer apply.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you.
Now, Mr. Parliamentarian, I want to file a report so my distinguished
friend and others similarly situated will have an opportunity to have
it.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does that report contain minority views?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, yes, the views that we filed heretofore.
We made an understanding in the committee that minority views will be
filed with these views. They are here in the Record now. They are now
part of this report, also, made by Senator Boxer and Senator Conrad.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I ask this question of the Senator, with
the indulgence of the Senator from New Jersey.
The committee had a vote and rejected the request of the minority by
a committee vote. So the committee vote states in essence there be no
committee report. Now, can the Senator--and I do not believe he can--
can the Senator come to the floor now and without unanimous consent
file this committee report without talking to the minority members on
that committee and finding out whether or not they still want a
committee report?
They were rejected in the committee. We had a committee vote saying
there would be no committee report. Would not the Senator from New
Mexico require unanimous consent to now file a committee report, which
flies in the face of the objections that were made by the committee by
rollcall vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am aware I have to ask that. I intend,
before I submit it, to ask unanimous consent that it be in order that I
submit the report. If the Senator desires to object, he may object, or
anyone may.
But the report is completed and ready. The exact same thing has been
ready for 24 hours although not called a report.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to file a
report by the Committee on the Budget of the U.S. Senate at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
just take 2 or 3 minutes, if I may, in explaining my reservation.
The distinguished Senator indicated earlier, in essence, as I
understood him, that to have the statement in the Record or a statement
that he is handing to me on the floor today which incorporates the
majority and minority viewpoint should serve the purpose of having a
document.
I do not agree with that. A committee report is important to any
court in which a case is filed. It is important to any court in
determining what the legislative intent is with regard to a particular
bill. A committee report may
[[Page S860]] not carry great weight. The Journal carries considerable
weight. The hearings probably carry less weight. The statement of the
Senator on the floor would carry a certain amount of weight. But a
committee report carries some weight.
So I would suggest we ought to have the committee report.
Now, Mr. President, I am not going to object at this point. The
Senator has stated that the minority views are included.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, they are.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, he has asked unanimous consent, which means
that if the Senate gives its consent--I do not believe I as a Member of
the Senate should agree with that request until I know what the members
of that Budget Committee, how they feel; they were voted down. So,
until I am sure that all the minority members on the Committee on the
Budget now agree by unanimous consent, I would interpose an objection.
I will not interpose the objection at this point. I want to hear what
the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee has to say.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, further reserving the right to object, and
possibly I shall not object if we can reach some understanding, but
reserving the right to object, let me give my views as the ranking
Democrat on the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, I wish to join with the Senator from West Virginia in
questioning the rush to judgment on this bill without a report from the
Committee on the Budget. Now, I say that, Mr. President, as a cosponsor
of the bill, which clearly indicates that I am for it.
Let me just take a moment or two to recount what transpired in the
Budget Committee and thereafter with regard to the committee report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Nebraska suspend? The
Senator from New Jersey was to be recognized at this point at the
conclusion of the statement of the Senator from New Mexico. It would
take unanimous consent to continue.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask my friend from New Jersey if he might
allow me such time as is needed without losing his right to the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
original order be extended to include the comments from the Senator
from Nebraska for as much time as he needs, which I hope will be brief,
to be included.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Jersey, and I
thank the Chair.
The Budget Committee met this past Monday to mark up the pending
bill, of which I am a cosponsor. We adopted eight amendments in
committee. At the end of the markup I asked Chairman Domenici, my
friend and cosponsor of the bill, whether he would be filing a report
on this important measure. He answered that the Republican leader had
asked that the committee not file a report so as to expedite the
Senate's consideration of this bill as early as yesterday morning.
Several members on our side of the aisle objected to this; notably,
Senator Dodd and Senator Simon. Senator Domenici then made a motion
that the committee report the bill without a report. The committee
adopted that motion on a straight party-line vote, 12 in support
thereof and 9 opposed.
The next day, which was Tuesday of this week, the majority asked us
whether they could file a report Wednesday night on the condition that
there is no objection to shortening the normal 3-day period with the
submission of the minority view, which I believe is in essence what the
Senator from West Virginia is making his stand on.
Two Senators objected to that request. They wanted the full 3 days to
do their minority views and review the report. So then the majority
filed a statement in the Record in lieu of the report. This morning, I
was advised that the majority leader extended members the opportunity
to review the proposed report and add minority views until Tuesday
next. This is Thursday. Now they say they want to file it right away.
Now, Mr. President, let me emphasize once again that I think this is
good legislation, but it is not legislation that does not have a far-
reaching impact. Mr. President, it is my view that nothing would be
changed. Nothing would happen. In fact, it would be far better--even as
an enthusiastic cosponsor of the amendment --that we took the time as
suggested by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to give
Members a chance to look at this.
I simply say, Mr. President, that I am not going to be caught up in
this 100 days to do everything that is important for America. I am not
going to be an obstructionist, as I think my friend from New Mexico
knows full well. I am not sure that my friend from New Mexico
necessarily disagrees with what I am suggesting. I do not know.
But I suggest, Mr. President, that the Senator from New Mexico may be
caught up in what the majority view is: We have to do away with all
procedures, we have to do away with all caution because we have to get
all this done in the next 100 days. The Senate of the United States and
the House of Representatives is going to be in session more than 100
days in calendar 1995. I simply say I think that it is important,
again, that reporting the bill be done to include such minority views
as may be wished by the minority. I, therefore, believe we must consult
with the members of the committee, the minority members, before we can
consent to any such agreement.
Until that consultation has been done, I would feel constrained to
object to the unanimous consent request. I would not like to object to
all of this, but I want to be sure that the minority rights are
protected and that such a far-reaching measure, such as this one--again
that I am a cosponsor of--has a time to let the Sun shine in.
And so, Mr. President, the majority may be ready to file its report
right now, but we in the minority of the committee have not read and
have not had an opportunity to tell our side of the story. And when we
tell it, it will be a straight story, recognizing that there is
legitimate room for disagreement as to how fast we should move on this
other bill.
I am not sure that all the minority members have had an opportunity
to submit their views. In fact, I am all but certain that they have
not. Some members may be still working on their minority views.
Therefore, I appeal to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, whom
I work very closely on the Budget Committee with, to define for us, if
he could, why is it necessary to rush full speed ahead on this in
violation of the traditional rules of the Senate on introducing
legislation, especially legislation as far-reaching and important as
this one. I hope, since I am a cosponsor of the bill and strongly
support it, that we would give those who may not share the enthusiasm
of those who are sponsoring the bill do, to have the right to make
their point. Therefore, I will be one of those who will object to any
unanimous consent request in this area.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request,
and I will merely file the report at the desk as permitted. I yield the
floor.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, just a parliamentary inquiry, if I could. I
am not sure that the Parliamentarian is the right person to answer this
question, but he perhaps could find out the information.
We had the same problem on the Governmental Affairs Committee report.
We wanted a report. Many of us filed. There was an effort to obtain
that report. I am not a cosponsor of this legislation but, frankly, I
support its purpose. I did vote for last year's version of it, which is
somewhat different from this year's version. I am very sympathetic of
the goal being achieved here.
On the other hand, I am also one who thinks certain amendments should
be considered. We wanted a report to be filed, just like on the Budget
Committee there was a decision not to file a report. The purpose, by
way of seeking the report, was not to trigger this 2- or 3-day rule,
whatever it is in terms of delaying it coming to the floor, it was
[[Page S861]] to have a printed report with both views because there
are a number of very critical questions, and nobody knows this better
than the chairman of the Budget Committee as to how points of order
might work in future years under what circumstances. I do not have to
give him any pointers on this. He is way ahead of me on this subject.
We did, however, want a committee report, and we did object to this
matter coming to the floor without that committee report and thought
that we had worked out an agreement, relative to the Governmental
Affairs Committee report, that the committee report would be filed
prior to the bill coming to the floor. Through a misunderstanding,
despite what we thought were clear discussions on the floor, that did
not happen. We finally did get the Governmental Affairs Committee
printed report this afternoon, and we are going through it. There are
some things in there which are very important.
My question to the Parliamentarian now, I guess, is, or of the Chair,
is this, if the Chair is able to tell us: How long will it take for
that report, which was just submitted by the Budget chairman with the
minority views, as I understand it, to be printed and circulated to the
membership and any of the staff? Is this an overnight job?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair has been advised that normally it is
an overnight job. The next morning it is available.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises Senators, the Senator from
New Jersey has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just 1 minute
that I might inquire of the distinguished Senator?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will be happy to yield until this part of the
debate concludes, and I ask unanimous consent to confirm that and I
still have possession of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, first, I want to thank the distinguished
Senator from New Mexico, with whom I have served many years and for
whom I have fondness and respect and admiration. We are on the
Appropriations Committee together. I thank him for seeking to get a
committee report now, even though it is late, a committee report which
will be helpful.
As I listened to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon],
I thought I heard him indicate that not all the members of the minority
may have been contacted and given time to have their minority views
included.
Now I ask the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, if that is the
case and there are minority members who have not yet been contacted,
will they be given an opportunity, now that the Senator has filed a
report, will they be given an opportunity to file their minority views
before the report goes to the Government Printing Office for printing?
Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have time for me to answer? I say to the Senator
from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, first let me thank him for his kind
remarks. The feelings are mutual, if not more so on my part, with
respect to Senator Byrd as he spoke of me.
I cannot answer the question at this point because, frankly, none of
what the Senator from New Mexico has done heretofore was intended to
prevent Senators from filing views. I understood if they wanted to,
they were going to file them. I understood that they were all given
opportunity to file those, which are now incorporated in this report
because they were part of the committee's views, both majority and
minority.
I will just have to inquire as to what it might mean if we grant the
Senator's request, and paramount in that, we will make sure that my
understanding is they were given an opportunity, albeit short, but that
happens around here.
I just want time to state for the Record, while the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia has every right to inquire about a report,
there is no requirement under this circumstance that we have one. We
are glad that we can file one now. It might help somebody, but we did
not have to, so we did not violate any rules.
Senator Exon asked about expediting legislation. I am all in favor of
expediting this bill. I think our leader, our majority leader, had the
perfect prerogative of saying, ``Let's get on with business.'' So I am
on the majority leader's team trying to get that done, make no bones
about that.
I thank the Senator very much, and I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
May I say, too, that I compliment the majority leader for trying to
move the business of the Senate. That is why we are elected, to do the
business of the Senate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Exactly.
Mr. BYRD. I congratulate him that we do not have 10 days or 2 weeks
for a recess between the day we were sworn in and some later date. That
is all the more reason why we have ample time to study these matters.
That is what I am hoping to be able to achieve here.
I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nebraska lodged an
objection, did he not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico withdrew his
motion.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. My purpose in rising is not to
engage in the current debate but obviously one needs always to be
reminded in this body about the fact that we are a body of rules and
process that at all times has to be observed, and in particular when
the senior Senator from West Virginia takes the floor there are always
significant lessons to be learned.
Since we have such a large number of new Members in this Congress as
Members of the Senate, it is not only a functionally good experience
but a good learning experience as well to hear the distinguished
Senator from West Virginia. He is without peer when it comes to
knowledge of the rules.
I would also, Mr. President, note for the record that the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, is someone whom I have worked with over my years here in
more than one committee and have always found the Senator from New
Mexico, even if we disagree on a particular policy or program, to be a
man inscrutably honest and always willing to play by the rules. So what
we saw was a challenge but a good interchange, and I commend my
colleagues for highlighting the process so clearly.
I want to talk about something else, Mr. President. I wish to talk
about the general proposition of the legislation that is now under
consideration. I wish to commend the Senator from Idaho, Mr.
Kempthorne, and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Glenn, for bringing this
issue finally to the floor so we can make decisions about it and get on
with the business. I certainly share that view.
However, I want to challenge all of us to consider as we review the
bill and amendments to look very carefully at what is in them. This is
the first day to begin this debate on the several bills that propose
some very sweeping changes in the relationship of the Federal and State
government and could drastically alter the role of the Federal
Government in our Nation's life. We will make some needed changes
during this Congress, but as we move to be smarter and smaller, we must
remain compassionate and committed to equity, tolerance, opportunity
and fairness in our national policy.
Despite overwhelming public cynicism, I have enormous respect for our
democratic institutions, and I intend to fight to restore faith in
American government and let our people know that their voices are being
heard in Washington.
I am certain that every Member who will speak in the Senate today
will focus on the need for Congress to be more sensitive to the
financial burdens that we place on both the public and private sectors
in our society. The American people feel overtaxed and that too much of
their tax money goes to programs structured of little value.
I understand those feelings, and we should be more careful before we
decide to increase Federal spending or pass requirements on to the
States which result in raising State or local taxes.
[[Page S862]] As we increase our sensitivity to imposing unfunded
mandates on the States, there are a few things we must acknowledge that
are problems which require national solutions and national policies.
This is true particularly where there is more than one State involved
or where there are legitimate and broad national interests at stake. It
is especially striking in addressing environmental concerns but also
holds true for economic, health, immigration, welfare, and educational
policy, to mention just some of the issues that have been of concern to
the Congress.
In today's political climate, this premise has become controversial
and may even sound backward. And coming from a business background, I
know as well as any Member of the Senate that Federal requirements can
create very heavy financial burdens for business. But even if Members
would dismiss the premise that we have a fundamental responsibility to
set the tone and framework for our national life--to keep opportunity
alive, to set minimum standards of decency and economic security, or to
prevent discrepancies in State policies that result in so-called
``State shopping'' behavior, where people might wander or travel from
State to State looking for a State that has better programs because
there are more funds available to finance them--it is incontestable
that certain issues are interstate in nature and can only be
effectively addressed at the Federal level.
Further, I would argue that in our Federal system of Government, and
in a society which is complex and closely integrated, we cannot address
certain problems, like spiraling violence and gunrunning, or the spread
of HIV-contaminated blood, or illegal immigration, or pollution which
is interstate in nature, without a national policy. And some of these
policies will necessarily involve unfunded mandates.
At last week's Budget Committee hearing, I cited an example from my
State of New Jersey which clearly illustrates the need for Federal
mandates.
Tourism is New Jersey's largest employer, and our seashore represents
a major recreational resource for our citizens. The great majority of
tourists in New Jersey go to our beaches, and we rely on our shore for
our economic health and our way of life. But just a few years ago, in
the late 1980's, New Jersey had to close many of its beaches when raw
sewage and medical wastes were washing up on our shores. This problem,
which could not be remedied within New Jersey's boarders, resulted in
the loss of billions of dollars and was a major setback to the State's
economy, image and our quality of life.
Under Federal law, the Federal Government stepped in to require the
State of New York to install a wastewater treatment facility, to
regulate the disposal of hospital and medical wastes and to require
cover for barges that transported garbage from Manhattan to Staten
Island. This created a mandate, an unfunded mandate. Under S. 1, it
would not have been permitted without a majority of the Senators
agreeing to waive its application.
Now, I wish to make the point very clearly that this action could not
have been taken if we pass the present bill in its current form.
Now let us assume S. 1 becomes law in its current structure. Let us
also assume that the problems New Jersey had in the 1980's recur. Would
enough Senators come to the defense of New Jersey or any other State to
provide full Federal funding to prohibit one State suffering from
another's inaction or negligence? Would 51 Senators vote to waive the
procedural requirements of this bill to remedy a problem potentially
affecting only one State?
Halting interstate pollution is an important responsibility of the
Federal Government. And I am concerned that this act may have a
chilling effect on future Federal environmental legislation.
Another issue that may get loss in this debate is the benefit that
States and their citizens derive from Federal mandates--even those not
fully funded.
States may say, we know how best to care for our citizens; a program
that may be good for New Jersey, may not be good for Idaho or Ohio.
But, I would argue that there is a broader national interest in some
very fundamental issues which transcend that premise.
I would argue that historically, not all States have provided a floor
of satisfactory minimum decency standards for their citizens and that,
as a democratic and fair society, we should worry about that. Further,
as a practical matter, I would argue that the policies of one State in
a society such as ours will certainly affect citizens and taxpayers of
another State just as certainly as unfunded mandates can.
Let us look at our welfare system. There has been a lot of discussion
about turning welfare over to the States, with few or virtually no
Federal guidelines or requirements. What would happen if we do that?
Would we see a movement of the disadvantaged between States, putting a
heavier burden on the citizens of a State that provides more generous
benefits?
Let us look at occupational safety, or environmental regulation. With
a patchwork of differing standards across the States, would we see a
migration of factories and jobs to States with lower standards? I think
so. But by mandating floors in environmental and workplace conditions,
the Federal Government ensures that States will comply with minimal
standards befitting a complex, interrelated, and decent society.
Or let us look at gun control. My State of New Jersey generally has
strong controls on guns. But New Jerseyans still suffer from an
epidemic of gun violence--in no small measure because firearms come
into New Jersey from other States. Without strong national controls,
this will remain a problem. That is why we passed a ban on all assault
weapons and why we passed the Brady bill.
Currently the Federal Government discourages a scenario whereby a
given State decides not to enforce some worker health and safety laws
as a way of lowering costs and attracting industry. A State right next
door might feel compelled to lower its standards in order to remain
competitive. In the absence of a Federal Standard, we would likely see
a bidding war that lowers the quality of life for all Americans.
These are some of a host of very fundamental, very basic, and even
profound questions raised by the notion that we should never have
unfunded mandates. These are questions each Member of the Senate should
consider long and hard, before moving to drastically curtail--or make
impossible--any unfunded mandates.
During the course of this debate, some important amendments will be
suggested to this bill.
First, I understand the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] will seek
to add a sunset provision to S. 1. I hope my colleagues will support
this amendment because it will guarantee that we revisit this issue in
a few years to assess the consequences of our actions. Some of us have
spent years working to enact laws that protect our environment and the
health and safety of our workers. If this bill does lead to an
unwelcome reduction in that protection, or inequitable differences
between the States, we will need to make a mid-course correction.
The Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, will be offering an
amendment to exempt from this bill legislation that affects the public
and private sectors equally. I support this amendment because I do not
believe the Federal Government should be promoting anticompetitive
behavior between the public and private sectors.
As a corollary, we need to examine the impact of this bill on the
longstanding concept, particularly in matters affecting superfund, of
polluter pays, a premise on which much of our environmental legislation
rests. In cases where a State or local government is the polluter, the
notion that a polluter should pay the costs of cleaning up the mess
amounts to an unfunded mandate.
Under S. 1, if the polluter is a State government, the Federal
Government will have to pay to clean up that pollution. This would
subvert the policy and effectiveness of polluter pays, which aims to
discourage would-be polluters. Why would a State not pollute if it
knows someone else is picking up the tab? Why should the taxpayers of
one State pick up the tab for lax practices in another? What is the
incentive?
This legislation addresses important issues. It strives to increase
our sensitivity to imposing Federal mandates without providing
resources to pay for
[[Page S863]] their implementation. But, it also could take us backward
to a time of wanton pollution and unsafe workplaces, and aggravate our
social problems and rising crime rate. I hope we will have a thoughtful
debate, refine the bill to address some of the very real problems that
have surfaced with S. 1 as it is being rushed through the Congress, and
that we will resist amendments that have the potential to deal real
damage to the fabric of our Nation.
I salute the notion of not imposing further burdens on States. I do
not want to see my State put in a position where it has to raise taxes,
has to raise revenues to carry on responsibilities assigned to it by
the Federal Government, unless there is a national interest. Unless of
course we affect the well-being and the condition of those who reside
in neighboring States. Those are the things, I think, that we have to
be aware of, that we have to address here. Because it will be very,
very tough for many of us to be able to explain why it is that we are
not intervening when one State's lifestyle, when one State's business
is being damaged by another State's practice.
I am sure the discussion will be long, perhaps even arduous, but it
is worth doing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum--I
withhold.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, just so everyone will know where our status
is right here, I will give a recount right now. The committee
amendments were submitted and there was objection to agreeing to those.
Other amendments are not in order until that is disposed of, as I
understand it, unless they would apply directly to that particular
amendment itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. GLENN. So our previous order that amendments could be addressed
here on the floor after 2 o'clock is sort of held up; is held up
because of objection to--that committee amendment not being accepted.
This would mean that anyone who did not get to give an opening
statement, who wished to make comments, could be free to come to the
floor now. But other amendments would not be addressed at this time. I
think that is correct and I ask the Chair if I stated it correctly?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has stated it correctly.
Mr. GLENN. So the floor would be open for any statements or opening
statements that anyone else wishes to make, I guess with unanimous
consent, on that or any other subject at the moment. But right now, we
will not be able to do it unless they are addressing that committee
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. 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. ROTH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, I am very pleased to have been able to hold a hearing on,
and to have reported, the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act during the first
week of this Congress--so it could be brought to the floor today.
As the first bill introduced in the Senate this year, S. 1 is truly
landmark legislation, that begins a fundamental shift in the basic
attitude of the Congress toward our cities, counties, and States. In
doing so, it will help serve as a bulwark for our system of federalism.
It ensures a recognition that State and local governments are not
simply subunits of the Federal Government.
Under this legislation, we are acknowledging for the first time, in a
meaningful way, that there must be limits on the Federal Government's
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 adequate resources just to meet their own
local responsibilities. Unfunded Federal mandates have put a real
strain on those resources. This has been the practice of the Federal
Government for the past several decades, but in recent years it has
mushroomed into an intolerable burden.
This has been due, at least in part, to the Federal Government's own
budget crisis. In the past, if Congress felt that a particular problem
warranted a national solution, it would often fund that solution with
Federal dollars. Mandates imposed on State and local governments could
frequently be offset with generous Federal grants.
But the Federal Government no longer has the money to fund the
governmental actions it wishes to see accomplished throughout the
country. In fact, it hasn't had the money to do this for many years.
Instead, it borrowed for a long time, to cover those 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.
In other words, the Federal Government has increasingly enacted
requirements on State and local governments, mandating that they spend
their own money on priorities set in Washington. Without some mechanism
to restrain this practice, it would likely continue for years to come.
The State legislators and Governors know this. This is why they feel
so strongly that legislation regarding this practice must first be in
place, before they are asked to ratify a balanced budget amendment.
Otherwise, in the drive to achieve a balance Federal budget, Congress
might be tempted to mandate that State and local governments shall pick
up many of the costs that were formerly Federal. This is why any effort
to add a sunset provision to this bill ought to be opposed. Our
commitment to protect federalism ought to be permanent.
S. 1 is designed to put in place just such a mechanism. In this
regard, it may truly be called balanced legislation. First of all, it
helps bring our system of federalism back into balance, by serving as a
check against the easy imposition of unfunded mandates. And second, it
does so in a way that strikes a balance between restraining the growth
of mandates and recognizing that there may be legitimate exceptions.
The legislation sets up a presumption that before Congress imposes
any significant new costs on State and local governments,
it must first know how much those costs will be, and then it must
fully fund that amount. If it does not do so, then the legislation is
subject to a point of order. However, if the Senate decides, in a
particular instance, that either requirement is infeasible or
inappropriate, it can vote to waive the point of order against the
bill. The mandate can also provide for a ``less money, less mandate''
option to outright repeal, in case sufficient funding is not later
forthcoming from the Federal Government.

The provisions of this bill, in other words, are both firm and
flexible--recognizing the complexity of the issues involved. They
clearly indicate our general intention that Congress refrain from
further imposition of unfunded costs on State and local governments.
They are also an excellent reason why we ought not add further
categories to the exclusions section of the bill. We already provide
that certain type of laws are outside the scope of the legislation's
requirements, such as those protecting civil rights. It is in the
opportunity to seek a waiver of the point of order that any further
exceptions ought to be made. In this way, we can judge each item on its
own merits, case by case.
I also want to point out that S. 1 does contain provisions requiring
that there be cost estimates for mandates imposed by Congress on the
private sector. I am aware that there has been some concern expressed
that this does not go far enough--that it does not fully address the
problems faced by businesses in complying with costly or unreasonable
legislative and regulatory mandates. I certainly agree that there is a
problem, which is why in less than a month I have scheduled the first
in a series of hearings to develop legislation that addresses those
issues directly and thoroughly. The problems ought to be dealt with
comprehensively, and not piecemeal. I hope that
[[Page S864]] my colleagues will refrain from the temptation to try to
exercise all of Governmental Affairs' broad jurisdiction in just one
bill.
Mr. President, S. 1 is before us because State and local government
officials across the country have made it their top Federal legislative
priority. Mayors, Governors, county officials, and others have pleaded
that we quit spending money out of their treasuries. They are all to be
commended for the effectiveness with which they have made their case,
and with which they have helped develop this legislation. I urge my
colleagues not to lose sight of this legislation's purpose, in offering
amendments.
In addition to the State and local officials I noted, I particularly
want to acknowledge the active involvement of two legislators from my
own State of Delaware. Senator Bob Connor was very involved with this
issue as president of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Representative David Ennis, of the Delaware House of Representatives,
testified at the Governmental Affairs Committee's first hearing on
unfunded mandates. I want to state my personal appreciation to both, in
bringing the seriousness of this problem to our attention.
I think we all know that it was Senator Kempthorne who has championed
this issue in the Congress. He is truly the father of S. 1, having
labored long and hard to get us this far. He has been persistent and
unstinting in his efforts to see an effective bill developed, while
being fair and reasonable in his negotiations with interested parties
on all sides. I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle will acknowledge this fact. And he has marshaled an extensive
list of cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat, behind this bill. In
this, he has been the model of an effective legislator.
It must also be noted that Senator Glenn, along with the Senator from
Idaho, has been a major force behind the development of this landmark
bill. In 1993, as the then-chairman of the Governmental Affairs
Committee, he held the first hearings on unfunded Federal mandates.
Last year he led an extensive effort to ensure that we brought to the
floor a meaningful solution. The Senator from Ohio has shown repeatedly
over the last year that he recognizes that the problem is real. He has
been diligent in his efforts to develop effective legislation.
It has been my great pleasure to have worked with my colleagues,
Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn, along with the representatives of
the various State and local government organizations, to bring forth
this major reform of our Federal system. I also want to express my
appreciation to the majority leader, who saw the great importance of
this issue and gave this bill the number S. 1. In doing so, he has
underscored how vital it is that we preserve and protect our cherished
system of federalism.
In conclusion, S. 1 does not prohibit the enactment of any Federal
mandate. It does not fund any Federal mandate. It does not create any
Federal mandate. What it does do is to establish accountability in the
Congress. What it does do is to foster informed decisionmaking in this
body. What it creates is a process--and an attitude. It revives a long-
lost respect for our federal system of Government. It is about time.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give this bill their strong
and enthusiastic support.
Mr. President, I yield back the floor.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks
by the very distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] with
respect to the haste with which we are being asked to consider S. 1,
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
I fully agree that this is very important legislation. Several
communities in my own State have indicated an interest in it. I may
well decide to support it when it comes to a final vote.
But I am aware that there are a number of issues--many of them
dealing with quantitative impacts and budgetary consequences--that need
to be discussed and clarified. And we in the minority have not just a
right but an obligation to make sure that these questions are
appropriately considered.
So I certainly agree that the Budget Committee, which had shared
jurisdiction on this legislation, owes us a full report in the usual
course and form, before we should proceed with any votes on the bill.
And I urge the leadership to schedule action accordingly.
I yield the floor.
Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to first of all congratulate
and commend the Senator from Idaho for his leadership in bringing this
very important legislation to the floor of the Senate and the Senator
Glenn for being a leader on this issue as well.
Mr. President, I also rise today to join the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Association of Cities, the National Association of
Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Governors
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and
countless State and local governments in support of S. 1, a bill
curbing the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates.
I have consistently fought to return accountability to the Federal
Government and fiscal priority-setting and decisionmaking to the levels
of Government closest to the people. In the 102d Congress, I introduce
the first bill that would have banned all future unfunded Federal
mandates. I reintroduced this bill in the 103d Congress, and have now
offered it here--in the Senate--as S. 139.
My first preference is for this sort of legislation, that eliminates
all unfunded mandates, of any kind. But I recognize the importance of
moving forward on this important legislation, and taking steps
necessary to curb and ultimately eliminate unfunded Federal mandates.
This is why I am particularly pleased that the majority leader has
made this legislation to curb unfunded mandates a priority in the 104th
Congress. As one of the first pieces of legislation we will consider,
we have an outstanding opportunity to enact this legislation into law
and ensure more fairness for State and local governments in the future.
Moreover, as a new member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will work
closely with my colleagues on the committee, including the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, to ensure that laws requiring
State and local spending are paid for. Our relationship with State and
local governments must be built on trust, and this legislation will
help us to build on a foundation of that trust.
During my 5\1/2\ years as a State legislator, and 16 years as a
Member of Congress, I have seen the burden of unfunded Federal
mandates. For 8 years, I watched as my husband, as Governor of Maine,
worked to balance a State budget in the face of declining Federal
support. Yet Maine saw fit to do the right thing, the honest step for
our citizens. We banned unfunded mandates.
Maine's motto, Mr. President, is Dirigo, which means ``I lead.'' And
we took a crucial leadership step in the debate on unfunded mandates.
Maine has eliminated unfunded mandates from State government onto
county and local governments. State government--albeit belatedly--is
regaining the trust of local governments. And the partnership between
governments is beginning to work again.
Perhaps that is why I prefer to simply ban unfunded mandates. My
philosophy is simple: ``No money, No mandate.''
Unfortunately, the trend has been just the opposite. As budgets have
grown tight and spending became more and more an issue, Congress and
the Federal Government have relied increasingly on mandates that pass
costs along to local and State governments. The Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations recently conducted a study of Federal
statutes that created explicit mandates. The study found that from 1941
to 1960, no laws were enacted with unfunded but mandated costs on local
governments.
From 1960 to 1969, nine laws were enacted with unfunded mandates.
From 1970 to 1979, 25 unfunded mandates were created. And in the
1980's, 27 of these mandates were created. And the cost of these rose
even more. A Federal Funds Information Service study shows that between
1981 and 1990, Federal discretionary funding for programs rose from
[[Page S865]] $47.5 to $51.6 billion. After making adjustments for
inflation, however, this results in a decrease of 28 percent in funding
for local and State governments--despite our mandates.
Mr. President, during debate of congressional reform legislation this
past week, we have talked a great deal about the need for change and
about changing the status quo. I believe that is exactly what the
American people want us to do.
While we have already adopted legislation to make Congress
accountable to the laws it passes onto the American people--we must now
make Congress a more responsible institution.
One of the most important components of our mission of change is to
restore the faith and trust that once existed between the Federal
Government and States and local governments and to reestablish an
institutional partnership.
In my view--and in the view of the vast majority of the American
people and State legislators--the key to restoring that faith and trust
is passing legislation prohibiting unfunded Federal mandates, and
giving State and local governments a voice in regulatory development.
Mr. President, what better way to show the American people that we
can not only act quickly to change the fiscal status quo, but to show
them that we can do so in a bipartisan manner that brings together
elected officials from both parties, from all levels of government, and
from the smallest town mayors to the biggest State Governors?
While the concept of accountability and responsibility has always
been clear to the American people, the Federal Government has denied
one simple fact throughout the recent history of unfunded mandates:
unfunded Federal mandates are nothing less than a hidden Federal tax.
And every one of us is paying the price for this lack of responsibility
and lack of accountability.
Mr. President, it is time for us to stop the seemingly endless burden
of unfunded mandates on State and local governments. In order for
Government to work, we must uphold a trust with governments at other
levels. We should work cooperatively to identify policies that will
offer solutions to problems; to pass laws that implement those
policies; to offer funding support for those policies we deem most
important. We have already opted to terminate the general revenue
sharing, which gave State and local governments a stake in tax
structure. The General Revenue Sharing Program was terminated in 1986,
saving $4.5 billion annually.
And, just as top-down management rarely leads to a dynamic and
responsive work force--regulations drafted in isolation and sanitized
in the Washington beltway rarely address the unique and ever-changing
circumstances of State and local governments.
That is the spirit of S. 1, the Federal Mandate Accountability and
Reform Act of 1995. This legislation will go far in restoring the
faith, trust, and partnership that should exist between the Federal
Government and States and municipalities. It will also demonstrate our
willingness to change the fiscal status quo and make the legislative
process more responsible as well as more accountable. This legislation
is not only timely, but reasonable and necessary as well. Above all, it
is absolutely vital to the economic survival and financial stability of
our State and local governments. The passage of S. 1 can and will alter
the course of our country, allowing us to meet our true priorities and
address the needs of our taxpayers, families, and workers at the State
and grassroots level.
At last year's annual meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, its
200 members passed a resolution stating that, ``the increase in * * *
mandates to cities is having a profound adverse financial impact on
America's cities. That resolution may explain why S. 1 has the support
of a majority of U.S. Senators from both parties in this Chamber, as
well as the consideration of the President of the United States, who,
as a former Governor, knows first hand the damage done by unfunded
mandates passed on year after year. And, today, it is worthwhile to
note that the Senate majority leader has kept a pledge he made to the
Nation's Governors at a recent meeting in Williamsburg, VA. It is a
tribute to Mr. Dole's leadership, resolve and vision that we are
considering legislation to bring a stop to unfunded Federal mandates so
early in the 104th Congress.
Every year, Congress passes laws telling local and State governments
what to do, and then refuses to give them the funds necessary to
enforce the regulations. It is far too easy to pass a bill with
ambitious and worthy goals and forget that the legislation comes with a
price. Perhaps in Washington, with our bottomless bank account, we can
say ``a million here, a million there--pretty soon, we're talking real
money.'' Well, in my home State of Maine, there is no bottomless bank
account. Every program, every goal and every project is paid for with
real money.
This is an appalling arrogance of Government, Mr. President.
Year after year, we abdicate an enormous responsibility that we have
been entrusted with by the people who elected us, and we simply return
the favor by placing the burden squarely on the shoulders of States,
counties, and small towns. Congress assumes that since it doesn't have
to balance its budget, it can simply pass along the cost of legislation
to State and local governments--most of which are required to balance
their budgets each year. As my colleague from Idaho stated recently,
``unlike Washington, most cities just can't print money when they're in
a bind.''
And make no mistake about it--when we adbictate this repsonsiblity,
we may as well send a tax bill directly to each American family. It is
they who pay the price for our inaction on unfunded mandates.
That price, that cost, is growing larger and larger each year. The
facts paint a grim picture. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
the Federal Government imposed only 17 cost-bearing regulations on
cities and States between 1960 and 1985. Only a few years later,
however, the Federal Government found its financial escape
hatch: from 1982 to 1992, the Federal Government mandates 88 such
regulations in the area of toxic management alone. The Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the cost to State and local governments of
unfunded mandates enacted in this period exceeded $200 million each.

The cost of unfunded mandates, a figure which I am sure will be
repeated many times on the floor of this Chamber today, amounts to $430
billion each year. Half a trillion dollars--and I assure you that is no
typo.
There was a time when Federal mandates were imposed on State and
local governments, and funding were provided through block grants and
revenue sharing programs. Funding for the programs ceased in the
1980's, even as Federal aid to State and local governments sharply
declined. In fact, over the last 15 years, the Federal contribution to
State and local governments has actually shrunk--from 18.6 percent in
1979, to about 14.3 percent in 1991--the last year data was available--
and that even includes a recent upswing. Adding insult to injury, one
hundred new mandates were forced on States during the same decade.
This decrease isn't small change, either. This is precisely what
unfunded mandates cost the American economy and American taxpayers
every single year--a figure that represents almost 2\1/2\ times the
size of our national budget deficit. About $231 billion each year in
Federal aid now goes to State and local governments--unfunded mandates
amounts to almost twice what the Federal Government gives back to
States and localities. With figures like that, it's no wonder the
American people still feel that our economy is on the wrong track.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cumulative
cost of new Federal regulations imposed on State and local governments
between 1983 and 1990 exceeded $8.9 billion. And according to the Vice
President's National Performance Review, environmental mandates alone
are expected to increase by an estimated $44 billion by the year 2000,
when adjusted for inflation.
A 1990 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency titled
``Environmental Interests: The Cost of a Clean Environment'' estimated
the annual costs of environmental mandates will increase from $22.2
billion in 1987 to $37.1 billion in the year 2000. That's an increase
of 67 percent in costs--
[[Page S866]] costs that State and local governments are powerless to
control.
Price Waterhouse concluded in November 1993 that unfunded mandates
will cost local governments $90 billion over the next 5 years. Cities
will pay $6.5 billion this year and $54 billion over the next 5 years.
These same cities report that Federal mandates consume an average of
11.7 percent of locally raised funds. America's counties fare no
better. They will pay $4.8 billion this year and $33.7 billion over the
next 5 years, even as 12.3 percent of their revenues are absorbed by
mandates. The study also showed that, since 1960, Congress has enacted
42 major statutes that impose new regulations and requirements on
States. This is nearly equal to all such laws enacted during the
previous two decades combined.
The harsh truth is that my home State of Maine has paid dearly for
this avalanche of unfunded mandates. The Maine State government
estimates that Federal unfunded mandates will cost Maine $234 million
in fiscal year 1995. Maine's small cities and towns currently face a
combined
cost of $1.5 billion in order to meet mandates stemming from the
requirements of environmental legislation alone. This amount is more
than Maine communities collectively raise in property taxes in an
entire year. This figure doesn't even include the cost of mandates
relating to labor, Medicaid, voter registration or others passed down
by the Feds.

Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city, is my home town. In 1992, my
neighbors and I were saddled with $75.87 million in unfunded mandates--
all for a city of 40,000 people. This amounts to a burden of $664 per
year, per household in Lewiston. In Auburn, city officials estimate
that to comply with Federal unfunded environmental mandates alone, the
city will be forced to find $2 million.
Bangor, which is the hometown of Maine's distinguished senior
Senator, Bill Cohen, city efforts to comply with clean water
requirements on the sewer system will cost $22 million. Bangor's sewer
fees have increased 10 percent every 6 months for the past 5 years,
while the same rate of increase is expected for the next 4 years.
Finally, in Maine's capital city of Augusta, implementation of new
sewage treatment requirements would raise the average yearly user
charge by more than $1,500 per year over a 30-year period and ensure
that the next generation will be faced with the same crisis as ours.
And we cannot ignore the fact that many of my State's small towns have
local tax caps which make it difficult--if not impossible--to raise the
revenue needed to comply with these mandates.
What this has meant for these cities and towns is a curtailing or
even elimination of vital local service programs. Unfunded mandates
have forced local budget planners like Bob Mulready in Lewiston to
choose between meeting the bottom line of unfunded mandates and meeting
the needs of Lewiston's taxpayers. In Lewiston, this has caused
cutbacks in such services as fire protection resources, the local
police force, and it has forced the abandonment of plans to minimize
property tax increases.
Are unfunded mandates important? They are so important that taxpayers
everywhere--at the State, county, and local levels have declared an
annual National Unfunded Mandates Day to draw attention to the problem
of these unfunded mandates. But the problem has become so large that
Dana Lee--the town manager of Mechanic Falls in southern Maine--said in
his statement on National Unfunded Mandates Day that every day should
be declared unfunded mandates day.
Mechanic Falls residents will face numerous mandates in the coming
years, including the requirement for sand and salt shed replacement--
the removal of underground tanks. All told, the cost of Federal
mandates alone will total $300,000 for this small town--an alarming
cost for taxpayers, and a cost that eats in to the other vital services
that communities and States provide, from local law enforcement
protection to job creation and infrastructure investments.
Clearly, the grassroots of America are crying foul over Washington's
practices, and they're crying out for our help. They understand full
well what is at stake here. It's high time for Congress to get with the
program and stop bankrupting our Nation's cities, counties, and States.
Yet Congress continues to speed toward more and more unfunded
mandates--many of them worthy programs, but programs that are
unaffordable for an already bankrupt Federal Government, and
unaffordable to State and local governments, either in the red or on
the brink. Regardless of how worthy or well-intentioned a mandate is,
someone needs to pay for it--and that someone has rarely been the
Federal Government.
It's been said, in fact, that the road to bad legislation is paved
with good intentions. If this is true, Mr. President, then the National
Motor-Voter Registration Act just built a new interstate highway in
Maine. You see, in rural Maine--which comprises more than three-
quarters of the State--town clerks frequently sit adjacent to the
general assistance officer--sometimes, in fact, the town clerk is in
charge of general assistance. It would make sense that someone applying
for general or welfare assistance would be advised to walk the
additional 20 or 30 steps to reach the clerk's office to register to
vote. But that would be too easy.
Instead, motor-voter has been interpreted to mean that the general
assistance office must offer voter registration each and every time GA
eligibility is determined--which is at least every 30 days, in Maine--
and file a report on why the individual did or did not register. As a
result, the general assistance office is required to complete a
blizzard of voter registration paperwork on a continuous basis, and at
greater cost, all while voter registration in person is just a few
steps away.
Good intentions. Bad legislation.
That is why the legislation before us today is a major step forward.
S. 1 is similar to the bill that gained wide, bipartisan support in
this Chamber last year--one that simply said ``If Congress is willing
to pass the bill, it can no longer pass the buck.'' It stems from the
simple logic that, if Congress believes Federal legislation is
important enough to place mandates on States and communities, then the
Federal Government has a responsibility and obligation to pay for them
as well.
Not only does this legislation seek to control the proliferation of
unfunded mandates, but it also gives State and local governments a
voice in the regulatory process. Too often, agencies in Washington
draft regulations with little or no input from the communities and
regions affected by the rules. This bill will give State and local
governments a voice in Washington and a voice in their own future.
S. 1 will link together good intentions with good deeds, so that the
Government actually pays for its mandates--and upholds its trust with
the State and local governments on which it relies to implement these
programs.
But let me close, Mr. President, by saying that I believe many of the
mandates passed by the Federal Government do serve useful and important
environmental, health and safety purposes. I am not arguing that these
important laws be banned. But I do even more firmly believe that if
Congress considers a mandate important enough to pass onto State and
local governments, then it surely must be important enough for the
Federal Government to provide accompanying funds. We simply cannot
continue to pass new laws and expect State and local governments to
pick up the entire tab.
I know Mainers deserve better. My colleagues know that America
deserves better. That's why I believe that if the Federal Government is
willing to pass the buck, the Federal Government must be willing to
foot the bill. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this critical and historic bill.
S. 1 does not undo the damage already done to State and local
budgets. But it does take Congress in the right direction. State and
local governments only ask that we allow them to prioritize spending in
response to actual needs, and in conjunction with the tight fiscal
restraints they face. I do not believe that they are asking too much.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
[[Page S867]] The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). The Senator from
New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would try also to support this
legislation.
I wish to congratulate the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from
Ohio in moving this bill forward in such a prompt and expeditious
manner. I also wish to congratulate the Senator from Delaware and the
Senator from New Mexico who chaired the committees which have
jurisdiction for their willingness to move this bill in an expeditious
manner. I especially, as I mentioned, wish to applaud the Senator from
Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], who has made this a cause of inordinate
proportions in his daily activities here since being elected 2 years
ago by his friends and neighbors from Idaho. They have been
extraordinarily well served by his efforts.
This is S. 1. It is the No. 1 piece of legislation which this
Congress is going to take up, that the Senate will take up in this
year. The reason it is S. 1 is because of the significance of the
legislation.
But the reason that it is here is because of the dogged and
unwavering commitment of Senator Kempthorne to making sure that we pay
attention to this critical issue. I have had the pleasure of working
with Senator Kempthorne on this matter over the last 2 years. We both
happened to come to the Senate at the same time, and both making this a
high priority. I admire his efforts and congratulate him for them.
On my own part, I strongly endorse the nature of this bill. First,
because it addresses the issue; and second, because it has such strong
bipartisan support. Especially the support of the Senator from Ohio has
been critical in that area.
During the last 2 years we have raised this issue on a number of
occasions on this floor and talked about the issue of unfunded mandates
in considerable depth. During the taking up of the bill Goals 2000, and
during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, we
were able to put into both of those pieces of legislation very
aggressive unfunded mandates language. For the first time in the
history of this body we actually had language which specifically banned
unfunded mandates in legislation that was passed by both Houses and
signed by the President in those two pieces of legislation.
In addition, we have debated this issue on a number of amendments
that have been brought forward over the last 2 years. I recall one
amendment I offered, called No Funds/No Fine, dealing with the issue of
unfunded mandates.
The matter has come to our attention on a number of occasions, and on
each occasion the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Idaho have
aggressively committed themselves to trying to look at the problem in
an overall way and develop a procedure where we could address unfunded
mandates in a more systematic way rather than in a haphazard way, and
by developing this bill they accomplish that.
The passage of this bill will put the brakes on what has been a
rather insidious process of legislating over the last 15 to 20 years by
the Federal Government. It has been talked about at length here but it
is worth mentioning again. What unfunded mandates are is, essentially,
a decision by one legislative body to take the credit for passing a law
and to get the political goodwill for passing legislation that sounds
good and accomplishes worthwhile goals. But that same legislative body
does not have the courage to step forward and pay for them and make the
difficult decisions of raising the revenues to undertake the costs that
are incurred by generating that legislative directive. Rather, they
pass that cost down on to a lower level of government and thus skew the
capacity of that lower level of government to manage its own business
of administering the issues to come before it.
I have had a bit of a personal experience in this because prior to
serving here in the Senate I did have the great honor of serving as
Governor of my State. Certainly, the problems which we confronted of
unfunded mandates were staggering, not only staggering at the State
level but staggering at the communities' level. In innumerable
instances at the State level and at the communities' level, there would
be occasions when dollars which we felt should be intended in one way
would have to be allocated in another way as a result of a Federal
mandate.
And, thus, we were unable to manage effectively the dollars which we
were raising under our category of responsibility, whether it was at a
State level or at a community level.
In the past, the Congress has passed approximately 20 laws which have
fallen into this category and which have contained unfunded mandates,
and it is not a practice which has abated all that much over the years.
In fact, just in the last session of Congress, unfortunately, we passed
the motor voter bill, which is a significant unfunded mandate and a
tremendous burden to many of the small communities in my State.
It is not fair, it is not right, it is not appropriate if one group
of legislators passes a law and does not have the courage to pay for
the expenditures which that law generates.
In a small community which has as its basic form of revenue
generation the real estate tax, there is a tremendous demand for the
allocation of those dollars among the school systems, among the fire
prevention departments, among the police and public safety departments.
And yet in many, many instances, that local tax dollar, the real estate
tax dollar, has to be spent first on a project which has been defined
not by the local town council or select persons or city government, but
by us here in Washington. And that is not right.
We have huge revenue sources at the Federal level. We have the
capacity to level a national income tax, which we do with,
unfortunately, excessive aggressiveness. We have innumerable other
revenue sources at the Federal level. Certainly, it is not right for us
to invade the revenue sources of our communities and invade the revenue
sources of our States to pay for the programs which we deem appropriate
at the Federal level.
Those programs should be paid for with revenues from the Federal
level through our own decision on what is right and what is not right
in our own setting of priorities.
We estimated, when I was Governor, that it cost us approximately $150
million a year to pay for unfunded mandates in our State at the State
level. But in the communities, that is where it really impacted, in the
small communities--for example, Groton, NH, population 318. In Groton,
a Federal mandate became simply too expensive to meet. The town now
pays to truck their trash over 50 miles away. They must also install
groundwater monitoring wells for annual testing. Over the next 30
years, and with no factories or stores in this town, all the cost of
that Federal mandate has to be borne by 318 citizens.
They did not ask for that cost and, to be quite honest with you, I
think the people of Groton are probably responsible enough so they
could have accomplished the goals of that piece of legislation without
having to have borne that cost.
The city of Nashua, the second largest city in the State of New
Hampshire, has 80,000 people in it. Nashua's estimates are that
mandates cost them literally millions of dollars. Their combined sewer
overflow charge is somewhere between $40 and $100 million.
The Solid Waste Disposal Act mandates cost them $1 million.
The Wetlands Act mandated costs of approximately $65,000.
The Americans With Disabilities Act mandated costs of approximately
$80,000.
The Underground Storage Tank Act generated costs of $36,000.
The Clean Air Act responsibilities generated costs of approximately
$35,000.
And by 1997, the solid waste disposal mandates will cost the city of
Nashua approximately $6 million.
There are literally millions and millions of dollars going out of the
local real estate tax base to pursue activities which, I am sure, the
city of Nashua intends to pursue but which it would rather be able to
do without a Federal mandate telling it how and where to spend the
money.
Another example is a moderate-sized town in New Hampshire, Meredith,
NH. In Meredith, the town will have to spend millions of dollars to
install catch basins in the road. The town will
[[Page S868]] have to spend $500,000 to $1 million to put a cap on its
landfill, which it was forced in close in 1987. The town, on top of
that, has to pay an additional $150,000 to take away its waste. The
list goes on and on.
In the town of Lancaster, for example, the town manager relates that
the town of Lancaster raises approximately $1.4 million in revenues
each year. Complying with the safe drinking water requirements alone
will cost it $2 million more than it raises in revenues each year,
reflecting the desperate situation that many of these towns are
confronting. She writes:

There is no way the town can keep up with that sort of
cost.

So this bill comes to us as an effort by Senator Kempthorne and the
many folks who have been joining him in this undertaking to make the
Congress act responsibly in this area.
It should be pointed out that this does not ban unfunded mandates. It
simply requires, if there is going to be an unfunded mandate, that the
U.S. Congress must step forward and say that that is what it is doing
and Members of the Congress must put themselves on record that that is
what is going to happen.
That is important, because I know when I am in New Hampshire, I hear
the concerns about this issue all the time. No matter where I go or
what group I am meeting with, inevitably the issue of unfunded mandates
comes up.
Now there will be accountability, full disclosure: Who in this body
is voting for unfunded mandates, who is not voting for unfunded
mandates. And the people have the opportunity at the ballot box to
express their views as to those Members of the Senate who make
decisions to continue to promote the unfunded mandate approach to
Government and to setting requirements on local communities.
That disclosure, I think, will have a significant impact on the
process. I believe that it will cause us to look very hard as a body
before we make the decision to go forward with any additional unfunded
mandates.
It is also a significant piece of legislation because it represents a
fundamental shift in philosophy of this Government. There has been a
lot of discussion over the last few weeks and months as to what the
historic significance is of the fact for the first time in 40 years,
the other body has changed control. This bill reflects what that
historic significance is.
This bill points out that the American people have asked us to act
responsibly and that we are going to try to comply with that. It is a
bill which inherently, in its function, works to lessen the size of the
Federal Government, control its rate of growth, and put brakes on the
manner in which we expand our Federal role in oversight in the areas
that have traditionally been reserved to States and local communities.
That is a fundamental shift.
For 40 years, and especially over the last 20 years, this Government
has expanded radically. It has viewed with almost indifference the
concept of separation of power, the concept of States rights, the fact
that communities have an inherent right to govern themselves over
certain aspects of their daily management of affairs, that States have
an inherent right to govern themselves over certain aspects of managing
their local affairs, and that the Federal Government has a role which
is separate from and different from the responsibilities of States and
of communities.
For the last 40 years, we have seen the Federal Government step with
impunity into the role of the States and into the role of the
communities; and not only step into that role, but in stepping into
that role, doing it in a manner where it did not even have the self-
respect or self-consideration to be willing to pay for the costs which
we were putting on the States and on the towns.
With this bill, that philosophy of Government is called to account.
We are saying, if that is going to occur, there must be disclosure. If
this Congress is going to step forward and try to take over the
authority which has traditionally been vested in a State or a
community, and not pay for the cost of taking over that authority, if
this Congress is going to step forward and try to demand action on the
part of a private sector and not pay for the costs of that action, then
there will have to at least be a vote which will show who believes that
is the right way to go and who does not believe that is the right way
to go.
I am very strongly supportive of this bill. It is an excellent piece
of legislation. And again I wish to congratulate the managers of this
legislation for having brought it forward at this time. I do hope the
delays we are seeing right now in the process of moving the bill into
the amendment process can be overcome because this is too critical a
piece of legislation to be tied up in that sort of parliamentary and
procedural minutia.
This piece of legislation has been awaited for too long by the
Governors, by the mayors, by the State legislators, by county
officials, and by citizens who pay the real estate taxes throughout our
country and the local taxes throughout our country to be tied up in
what amounts to a debate over procedural minutia within the terms of
the way the Senate manages itself. So I would hope those who are
concerned about the issue of how the reports were filed and when the
reports were filed and what reports were filed and what reports were
not filed would be willing to allow this amending process to go forward
so that we could begin the process of relieving the very serious
problem of unfunded mandates.
I yield back my time.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as a coauthor, I rise in support of S.
1, and like my good colleague from New Hampshire join in expressing
thanks to the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] for the extended,
longstanding pursuit of this fundamental change that he proposes along
with others in the governance of this Republic.
The good Senator from Idaho comes with a very appropriate background,
I might add, to deal with the subject because he is a former mayor of
Boise, ID. In my part of the country, we say that is where the rubber
hits the road, where you are dealing with the day-to-day issues of
managing the citizens' lives of our Nation. And so no one could come
with a more personal knowledge of the issue embraced in unfunded
mandates.
From my perspective, we are engaged in a debate between two very
different fundamental views about this Republic. Are we a Federal
republic or are we a central republic? I believe any student of the
Constitution of the United States would understand very quickly that,
indeed, the forefathers saw us as a Federal republic, and the
Constitution very clearly delineates that there are certain powers for
the central government but they are limited, and those powers not
delineated to the central government are left to the Federal
Governments'--the States, the cities, the counties, the school
districts.
Interestingly enough, I think the forefathers had it right because I
believe they felt decisions made by people who have to look those
affected in the eye sometime during the next week are going to be more
fair, are going to be more frugal and are going to be more orderly in
terms of what the real priorities are.
Mr. President, when I first went to the State senate in Georgia quite
a number of years ago, I was confronted with a dilemma whereby
contemporary policymakers were making decisions about public pension
systems. It was a very unique center of the law. What you had were
people who could make very grandiose promises but only future
generations would have to pay for the promises.
In a sense, that is what we have here because you have a situation
with unfunded mandates where one arm of the Government is making
decisions and policy and setting priorities but leaving it up to other
policymakers somewhere else to live with the consequences--the costs,
the inflexibility, the irrational timetables. It is a mayor like the
Senator used to be, it is a county commissioner, it is a principal of a
school or a school superintendent that is confronting this rash of
legislation coming from the central government with no real knowledge
of the circumstances or priorities in that local community.
[[Page S869]] Now, Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
Idaho will allow--I am sure he will--I would like to use a contemporary
example of an unfunded mandate to explain this dilemma. On the first
day of the session, I introduced legislation that would take an
unfunded mandate of the 103d Congress, the most recent, and amend the
legislation in such a way that unless the Federal Government pays for
it, it is not in effect. The proposal is the motor-voter bill. The good
Senator from New Hampshire alluded to it.
In the 103d Congress, we passed legislation that rewrites the manner
in which people are registered to vote in every one of the 50 States.
We changed where you can register, how you can register, whether it
would be by mail or not, the computer information that has to be
maintained, the integrity of the system.
Mr. President, I would suggest circumstances in Alaska about how you
register people to vote, or a rural State, are very different from
citizens who may live in one of our urban States or States where
proximity to where you live and the county courthouse are very near.
But, no, Washington in its eminent judgment decided that it more than
the local policymakers, more than the Governors, more than the mayors,
knew better how to meet the registration process in each State.
Now, first, going back to my point that this is a debate between
those who believe in a total central government management and those
who believe in the Federal Government, first I would say that this
central government, this Senate, this House did not have the authority
under the Constitution to impose this policy; that that authority was
left to the several States, and correctly so.
Second, Mr. President, because we did not have legislation such as
the Senator from Idaho has offered, no one had an idea as to what this
was going to cost the good citizens of Georgia, North Carolina, Idaho,
and Alaska.
We did not know what the impact would be. I guess we did not care
because the consequences had to be borne by someone else, not us.
Now we are a year later. In my State, the first year's bill is $6.5
million. In California it is over $30 million. In Illinois it is over
$30 million.
It does not end there because this is a process that goes on year in
and year out. So, in my State it would cost $2 to $3 million a year, or
by the end of the decade, approaching $30 million.
Mr. President, I do not have to tell you that is a lot of money. What
we have ended up doing is, over a decade, spending about $\1/2\ billion
of somebody else's money. It is interesting. The Federal Government has
spent every dime it has, $5 trillion that it does not have, and now it
is in the business of appropriating the property tax base of America;
ordering other governments to put the thumb on people who own a home or
a business or a farm. In fact, these unfunded mandates, like the one I
am discussing, currently consume about 30 percent of the property tax
bill of every citizen in America. As they come to understand this, they
will rise up. They will rise up. And that is why it is so important, in
terms of protecting the integrity of this institution, and the Federal
Government, that we bring some order to this process of unfunded
mandates.
I have said it is a debate between those who would have the Federal
Government manage everything and those who believe that local
government is more equipped to deal with priority-setting. I have used
this motor-voter as an example of the folly we have been engaged in
here. We passed a bill meddling in affairs in which we should not, nor
had the authority to do so. We did not know what it would cost. We are
now finding that it costs millions upon millions of dollars that we are
unwilling to pay; it is not a high enough priority for us. But we are
ordering that it should be a priority for somebody else.
Now we come to the third point I would like to make, Mr. President.
For what? For what would we override the constitutional division of
powers? For what would we exact this horrendous bill on all the
citizens across our land?
Mr. President: For nothing. Nothing is being accomplished except
turmoil and expense, as with so many of our ideas that we seem to
generate in this capital city. Take the States of North and South
Dakota. One has a provision that is virtually the same as this motor-
voter. That was their choice, which is appropriate. The other State has
a version that is more like my State. Is there any difference in the
voter turnout between the two? No. Not a bit. Of the 10 States that
have been studied, that have implemented on their own--again,
appropriately--some of the provisions, 7 of the 10 have lower turnout
of voters since they have implemented the changes.
I do not know about my colleagues, but I do not believe I have ever
received a letter requesting that all the registration processes across
the land be changed. I have not seen any pickets around the Nation's
Capitol, no public outcry, no demand. It is not a burning issue that
has commanded the elections of 1994 and 1992. It was never mentioned.
Yet we would impose these millions of dollars of costs, because, I
guess someone, some special interest group huddled somewhere in this
city thinks it will somehow improve the lot and life of the citizens of
this great country.
I can think of no better example than this particular measure to
describe what the bill of the Senator from Idaho is designed to stop.
It is designed to slow down the train. It is designed to make us more
knowledgeable about what the consequences of these actions are. I
cannot imagine any businessperson in our country trying to make some
plan for some new program and be blind to what it was going to cost his
or her company. The unfunded mandate bill makes it possible for us to
understand. If we had it, we would have known the folly of this motor-
voter thing we dealt with in the last Congress. We would have known it.
And I suggest we would not have passed it. Because there is no one here
who would want to go home and say we spent millions of your dollars on
this concept.
Mr. President, when I first came to the Senate, very shortly
thereafter I came to understand that we were in a very serious
confrontation between two groups of people who have very different
ideas about how this country is going to be governed as we move to the
new century. One group thinks that for this country to be managed
properly and fairly and efficiently, every decision about everything we
do has to be made here; somehow that this is a magnet for knowledge. We
know better than that local mayor. We know better than the local county
commissioner or Governor. We have all the right answers here.
Then there is another group represented here who believe, as I said
earlier, that the Forefathers were correct when they empowered the
local citizen, the local family, and community leadership. And that is
what this debate is about right here. That is what this is about. Are
we going to continue to usurp the power from local government and
manage everything from Washington? If you are for that, you do not want
to vote for this bill, if that is what you believe. If you believe all
these decisions have to be made up here, we have to tell them how to
protect their environment, what is a wetland, how to register somebody
to vote, what doctor they can see or cannot see, then you are not for
this bill.
But, on the other hand, if you do believe in the immense capacity of
the people of this country to govern themselves, to make correct
decisions about what is right for their communities, to be able to sort
out whether it is more important to build a new wing on the school or
to spend money getting new computers so that you can do what we have
said is the right way to register people to vote, if you believe they
can make that decision better than we, then you are for this proposal,
you are for what the Senator from Idaho is endeavoring to do.
I can tell you where the American people are. The American people
want us to back off from being a force intervening in their local
decisions. They expect us to protect the land. They expect us to deal
with the broad national policy, monetary policy, broad national tax
policy. But they do not want us to manage every corner and every stop
sign and the manner in which they register to vote in their State and
in their community. They want us to stop doing that. In fact, I would
say that on November 8 they said: Look, you folks in Washington, you
start downsizing that Federal Government because we
[[Page S870]] are having to do that out here in Main Street America.
And you get the economic pressure off our back. We are tired of
working from January to June for a Government before we can keep the
first dime for ourselves, and you quit pushing us around, which is what
this is all about.

The only thing I would say in regard to the procedure, I think
everybody here should have an appropriate opportunity to be heard and
seen on this measure. But if procedural, parliamentary maneuvers are
used to delay the passage or prohibit the passage of this, it can only
be concluded that that effort is designed to keep the ability of the
Federal Government to impose mandates and costs on local government.
The American people will see through this debate. The bottom line
will be, are you for moving the Federal Government back a bit? Do not
impose these costs on us locally. Or are you for it? You want more
Federal Government intervention. This bill is right at the heart of
that question, pure and simple.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1. I was one of the sponsors
of the legislation in the previous Congress. I am delighted that the
leadership has chosen to make this a top priority in this Congress
because I think it is a fundamental reform issue that many people in
the United States have overlooked.
When I first decided to run for the Senate, I discovered somewhat to
my dismay that my name recognition around the State was about 3 percent
with a 4-percent margin of error in the poll. In other words, in spite
of all the work that I thought I had been doing in the public eye and
in the public service, governmental work and so on, and being the son
of a Senator and thinking that everyone would know who I was, I
discovered no one knew who I was.
So I set out to try to widen my net of acquaintances and, at the same
time, my understanding of what would be involved if I should be
elected. I instructed my campaign staff therefore to set up
appointments with me for all of the mayors that would see me. I thought
if I at least got the mayors of the small towns around Utah, and the
larger towns, to say, ``This fellow Bennett came in to see me and
talked about running for the Senate,'' that that would be a beginning
of a network of conversation. I have always felt that word of mouth is
the best kind of advertising, and at this point in the campaign, that
is what I needed.
I remember very well the first mayor that I went to see.
He looked at me as if I were a little bit strange for being in his
office. And he said, ``Why are you here?'' I said, ``I am going to run
for the Senate.'' He repeated the question. ``Why are you here?'' I
said, ``Well, Mr. Mayor, if I should be successful this quest, I have a
feeling that you are the closest to the people and you are in the
position to tell me what I should be doing in Washington. So I am here
to ask you what it is you would say to a U.S. Senator if you had one in
this kind of one-on-one circumstance as part of my education to be
here.'' I was disingenuous enough that I did not disclose the campaign
purpose of my being there. I just asked that question directly. The
mayor said, ``Well, you know, if I had a U.S. Senator in front of me
with his undivided attention, the one thing I would say to him is stop
the unfunded mandates.''

Mr. President, I did not have the slightest idea what he was talking
about. I had no idea what an unfunded mandate was. So I had to pretend
to be a little smarter than I was and draw him out and get him to
explain it to me. He explained it to me in these terms. It was very
clear. He said, ``This is how an unfunded mandate works.'' He said,
``The Federal Government gives us an order and then does not send us
any money to carry it out, which means that we have to raise the taxes
to comply with the order. The Federal Government gets the credit for
solving the problem and we get the bill. The taxpayer gets mad at us
and votes us out of office, and the people in Washington are the ones
who did the whole thing.'' I said, ``Well, Mr. Mayor, I thank you very
much. I appreciate that. I will certainly do what I can if I am elected
to the Senate to deal with unfunded mandates.''
I went on to my next appointment, and sat down with the next mayor
and had the same kind of conversation. ``What are you doing here?''
``Well, I am here to have you tell me something about government.'' He
scratched his head and said, ``Well, the most important thing you could
do for us if you get to the U.S. Senate is get rid of unfunded
mandates.'' I said, ``Mr. Mayor, I've heard that before. I know all
about that.''
I went on to the next mayor and the next mayor and the next mayor.
Pretty soon, I decided I was going to see how long it was going to take
for me to run across a mayor who did not bring up unfunded mandates as
his number one issue. You know, Mr. President, I never found one. All
the mayors I went to see in that process, and I went to see a lot,
without any prompting on my part, just by asking the open-ended
question, ``What do you see a Senator being able to do for you,'' every
single one of them--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives,
people who would vote for me, people who told me they could not
possibly support me--every single one of them spontaneously raised the
issue of unfunded mandates.
So when I arrived here in the Senate, I decided I had better try to
do something about unfunded mandates. Who is one of my class members in
the freshman class of 1992 but a former mayor, this time the mayor of
Boise outside of my State. I did not have to have a conversation with
him. I knew what his No. 1 priority would be, he having been a mayor.
His No. 1 priority was unfunded mandates. We got together as a freshman
class. There was the mayor of San Francisco, Senator Feinstein. What
was her No. 1 priority? It was unfunded mandates. There was a member of
the local government in Chicago, Carol Moseley-Braun. What did she have
on her mind? Unfunded mandates. There was the former Governor of New
Hampshire, Judd Gregg. What did he talk about? Unfunded mandates.
Well, it was very clear that I did not have anything to add to this
debate. These were experts who had worked at the local level, and
understood it. And I was very happy to line up behind Senator
Kempthorne, the former mayor of Boise, as he brought this zeal to this
fight. I commend him, as others have done, for the doggedness with
which he has pursued this.
I can tell you, Mr. President, from my experience with the other
mayors in my State, I know that if any of them were to be catapulted
into the U.S. Senate, they would have had the same doggedness that
Senator Kempthorne has displayed--probably not the same skill that he
has displayed, because he has done a superb job of hanging onto this
issue, keeping it from being diluted, keeping it from being stolen from
him, and keeping our focus on it.
So, I share that bit of personal history with you, Mr. President, to
make it clear why I am here in support of this bill.
One of the issues that has been raised with respect to this, which in
my opinion is a red herring trying to get us off the focus, has been
the issue of fairness in terms of the public and private sector, the
suggestion that there is something about this bill that would make the
public sector more competitive than the private sector.
Mr. President, I have spent most of my career in the private sector.
I have bid on government jobs. I have bid against government for
particular assignments. I have sold things to the government. I am
familiar with the way things go back and forth between the private
sector and the public sector.
I can tell you from that personal experience that this issue of
competitiveness is indeed a red herring. If a private company is going
to compete with a public entity for garbage disposal, for water
treatment, for schools--there are some circumstances in the country
where private schools have competed with public schools--in every case,
the private entrepreneur goes into it knowing that he or she is going
to be competing against public funds. The issue is, where do the public
funds come from? Going back to the first conversation I described with
my first mayor,
[[Page S871]] remember what it is he says happens: The Feds give us
this requirement, and we have to raise the taxes to fund it because
they do not give us any money, and the taxpayers get mad at us.
This bill is not going to magically create the money at the Federal
level. This bill is going to say to the local mayor: You get to make
the right choice as to how to solve this problem, and if you solve it
with public funds raised by your taxpayers, you are doing exactly the
same thing you are doing now. The difference is that you get to choose
what makes sense.
I have a favorite example of the way these mandates work does not
make sense. In Utah, we have the world's largest salt sea. It is called
the Great Salt Lake. I do not know why the Great Salt Lake is a lake
and the Dead Sea is a sea when the lake is about 10 times bigger than
the sea. But that is neither here nor there. That is the way the
language works out. The Great Salt Lake is absolutely undrinkable,
uninhabitable. It is as foul a place to be, in terms of an environment
for a human being, as you can find. I have one of my constituents who
says the Great Salt Lake is good for two things only. No. 1 is sunsets.
We have spectacular sunsets over the Great Salt Lake. No. 2 is salt.
They block it off in salt fonts and go out with bulldozers and gather
the salt together and process it, and we sell salt in the world's salt
market. That is all it is good for. I tell you that because of the
example of the unfunded mandate.
Here is a city along the front of the Wasatch Mountains, between
those mountains and the Great Salt Lake. Here comes the Federal
Government and says to the city: ``Your water purification system is
inadequate.''
The city says: ``What? We have never had any cases of any disease of
any kind in our city. Our water purification system works perfectly for
the residents in our city.''
``No, no,'' says the powerful, all-knowing Federal Government. ``It
is the people downstream from you that are getting water from you that
is not drinkable. So you must change your water purification plant in
such fashion that it not only purifies the water so that your citizens
can drink it, but that the citizens downstream from you can drink it.
The citizens downstream from this city are the brine shrimp in the
Great Salt Lake, because the water that comes out of the water system
of this city ends up in the Great Salt Lake, where it is instantly
rendered undrinkable by Mother Nature. But this fella says to me: ``The
Federal Government is requiring us to spend $600,000 to clean up our
water to the point that it is drinkable just prior to its being emptied
into the Great Salt Lake, where it instantly becomes undrinkable.''
That is an example of a stupid mandate. He says, ``If the Federal
Government wants to give us $600,000 to pay for that facility, I guess
we will take it, but, Senator, it really makes more sense for the
Federal Government to trust us to make the right decision and stop the
mandate altogether.''
In all of my touring of all of those mayors, Mr. President, I never
met a single mayor who was committed to poisoning the population of the
city. I never met a single mayor who needed to be prevented from doing
that. Yet, the Federal Government comes in with these mandates saying,
you do not know what is best for your citizens. We will mandate these
things to be done, and we will require you to raise your taxes to pay
for it.
One final point, Mr. President. I discovered, as I got into this,
that it was not just the mayors. I was talking, in the course of the
campaign, about my newfound knowledge in the unfunded mandate field
with some members of the State legislature. One looked at me and said:
``Unfunded mandates will bankrupt this State within 5 years.'' He said:
``We are being forced to come up with money to meet the Federal
mandates, and I tell you, I sit there in the State legislature and I
see the financial trends. And unfunded mandates will bankrupt this
State within 5 years.'' I thought, holy mackerel, that is really
serious. Then I looked at him and I decided he is an alarmist. There is
something wrong with him. He cannot possibly be right. So I went to
another member of the State legislature that I knew to be a very
reasonable, solid guy and I said: ``Tell me about this unfunded
mandates thing. So and so over here says in 5 years the State of Utah
will be bankrupt from the burden of unfunded mandates.'' ``No, no,'' he
says. ``He is much too alarmist, no.'' I said, ``I am glad to be
reassured.'' He says, ``No, it will take 7.''
This is a serious problem, Mr. President. It is something that could
threaten to bankrupt my State in between 5 and 7 years if it is not
turned around, and that is something we must address.
So I close by, once again, paying tribute to the leadership, the
tenacity, and the skill of the junior Senator from Idaho, who
remembered from whence he came as the former mayor of Boise and brought
that experience to the floor, brought that experience to this body and
has almost single-handedly brought us to the point where we are
debating this vital issue in this vital way.
I do, at the same time, wish to recognize the leadership of the
Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn]. I have had the privilege of serving on
the Governmental Affairs Committee when he was its chair, being present
at the first hearing which he held where Senator Kempthorne, Senator
Moseley-Braun, Senator Feinstein, and others, came and testified on
this issue. I remember his commitment that this would become a priority
and he would move it. Even as we pay tribute to Senator Kempthorne and
the work he has done, we must recognize that if it had not been for the
cooperation and leadership of Senator Glenn, we could not have laid the
predicate in the last Congress that makes it possible for us now to
take this action in this Congress.
This is a battle in which I am happy to be a soldier, because I
recognize those who lead have more experience and background. I want to
make it clear that the soldier status does not in any way diminish my
enthusiasm for the battle. I will be here and will do whatever I can to
see that this is done.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, last year, the President and the
administration backed S. 993, which was the predecessor bill to S. 1 of
this year. There were a few changes made this year as we moved to S. 1,
and it became the prime bill this year. Senator Dole selected it as the
No. 1 bill to be considered. There were just a few changes. I did not
think they were major enough that the President would have any problem
with still supporting this legislation. But I asked that they check on
this with the administration and make certain that the President still
supported this bill.
The President does support this legislation, Mr. President. I am glad
to announce that. In a letter dated yesterday, delivered to us this
morning, a letter that he sent to both Senator Daschle and to Senator
Dole, he states as follows:

Dear Mr. Leader:
As you know, this Administration supports legislation to
address the burgeoning growth of federal unfunded mandates.
I am pleased that tomorrow the Senate will begin
consideration of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995. I believe it is critical for the Senate to act on this
matter.
Let us not miss this opportunity to work in bipartisan
cooperation to strengthen our Federal, State and local
partnerships.
Sincerely,
Bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record so
that everyone will know that the administration does support this.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

The White House,

Washington, January 11, 1995.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: As you know, this Administration supports
legislation to address the burgeoning growth of federal
unfunded mandates.
I am pleased that tomorrow the Senate will begin
consideration of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995. I believe it is critical for the Senate to act on this
matter.
Let us not miss this opportunity to work in bipartisan
cooperation to strengthen our Federal, State and local
partnerships.
Sincerely,
Bill.

(Mr. BENNETT assumed the Chair.)
[[Page S872]] Mr. GLENN. I know, from having talked to the President
last year, Mr. President, that his previous service as Governor of
Arkansas left him with a particular appreciation of this problem
because he was faced with it as Governor. So I did not think there
would be any question about his support this year and there is not from
this letter.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and supporter of S.
1.
I wish to congratulate Senator Kempthorne, especially for his
leadership on this issue. I am delighted to have it up on the floor of
the Senate so we would not have to listen to him every week saying that
unfunded mandates should now be considered on the floor.
I also wish to compliment Senator Glenn for his leadership on this
bill, as well as Senator Roth and Senator Domenici for their
contributions in making it happen and making it happen this quick.
Most of all, I wish to compliment Senator Dole, because he made it S.
1 and made it one of our highest priorities. The first priority was to
make Congress abide by the laws like everybody else, and I compliment
him for that. That is long overdue, in some cases as much as 50 or 60
years overdue. I am pleased the Senate was finally able yesterday to
pass that piece of legislation. Some of us have been working on that
legislation for years.
Some people have expressed dismay at the fact that it took the Senate
a week to pass the congressional compliance bill. Well, there are 10
different statutes. Some of us, as I mentioned, have been working for
years to make pass congressional coverage legislation and we passed it
in a week. It maybe took longer than some of us would like--I know the
managers of the bill would liked to have passed it a little quicker--
but at least we passed it.
Now we are on the second item of our legislative agenda, which I
think is equally important. Both of these items--making Congress abide
by the laws like everybody else in the country and, two, making sure
the Congress does not pass unfunded mandates on cities, counties, and
States--are vitally important.
Any of us that have had town meetings and talked to our elected
officials, know they repeatedly complain about the imposition of
Federal mandates that are not funded. Localities tell us, ``You're
always telling us what to do. You don't give us the money to do it. You
are telling us we have to spend our resources in a way that maybe is
not the best use of those resources.''
They complain, and legitimately so. And I believe this legislation
will rectify that.
So I compliment the authors of the legislation. I think it is a giant
step in the right direction.
And I note that it has been pointed out that Senator Kempthorne is a
former mayor of Boise, ID, which shows his influence. A lot us have
held different legislative offices. I have heard former Governors speak
here. Senator Gregg mentioned his experience as a Governor; Senator
Bennett mentioned his experience as a businessman. I too had a business
in the private sector.
I also used to serve in the State legislature. And we really resented
the idea that the Federal Government would come in and mandate how we
would spend our resources, because we did not have ample resources to
meet all the demands that were there, and yet the Federal Government
was telling us how we would spend those resources.
So I think this legislation is long overdue and I compliment the
authors.
In addition, I will just mention that if we continue the practice of
unfunded mandates that just allows Congress to pass hidden taxes, we
make the cities and counties and States increase their taxes to pay for
what we consider a good idea. We should be up front and if we think it
is a good idea, we ought to pay for it. We certainly should not mandate
it without providing the funds. This legislation will correct that.
Is this legislation perfect? No. I made a suggestion to the authors
of the legislation that I think we can improve it a little bit and hope
that we will.
The legislation will prohibit, basically, unfunded mandates on cities
and counties and States. The legislation requires a point of order to
lie against any legislation which has a mandate unless you provide an
estimate of how much it costs and pass the funding to do it. This is
the requirement on the legislative branch.
Well, there are two ways that cities and counties and States are
impacted. One is, we pass legislation that tells them they have to do
something. Another way is if the executive branch, through the
regulatory agencies, impose a mandate through regulations. In regards
to the public sector, this legislation would prohibit the regulatory
mandate going into effect unless funding is provided. In addition, it
requires that regulatory agencies have to calculate the costs of those
mandates on public sector. And I think that is positive. In regards to
the private sector there is not a requirement to provide cost estimates
of private sector mandates. We cannot prohibit the mandate on the
private sector, at least up to now we have not figured out how to do
that, but at least we should know what the costs on the private sector
are. The regulatory agency should have to state what those costs are
before they would have an unfunded mandate on cities or counties or
States.
If the regulatory agencies are going to put an unfunded mandate on
the private sector, we should know what it costs.
This legislation does not prohibit the mandate on the private
sector, like we do on the public sector.
But on the regulatory side, we say if they are going to pass
regulations that have a negative impact on the public sector, we at
least should know how much it costs, but on the private sector the
legislation is silent.
Mr. President, we can remedy that, I believe, with just a couple of
words changed to make sure that we have cost impacts on the private
sector as well if it exceeds the threshold level, $100 million. So,
hopefully, the authors of this legislation will support that small
amendment.
I might mention I have addressed the National Association of County
Governments, over 2,000 or 3,000 people, for the last couple of years
and it was on this subject. We have all made speeches that have been
well received at various times, but when I talked about prohibiting
unfunded mandates, I remember an overwhelming reception, because county
officials, county commissioners, county clerks, and so on think this is
the highest priority.
I might also mention, at the same speech, I was with our friend and
former majority leader of the Senate, Senator Mitchell, who also made
similar statements.
And so I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for this
legislation. I think it is long overdue. Some of us tried to get it
enacted last year. We were not quite successful. We ran out of time or
it was postponed. The majority leader did not bring it up until late.
I am pleased the majority leader this year, Senator Dole, said, no,
this is going be the number one priority; we are going to bring this up
at the beginning of the session. It is the second legislative item we
have before the Senate and I am very optimistic it will pass.
I am a little concerned about delaying tactics, but that is not
totally unexpected. I hope that our colleagues would come together and
let us offer the amendments that are germane and pertinent to the
legislation. Maybe the legislation can be improved upon. Let us
consider those amendments and deal with those amendments and pass it.
This bill has overwhelming support throughout the country from
Democrats, from Republicans, from independents, from mayors to county
officials to Governors and it should be enacted. I am optimistic that
it will.
Mr. President, the legislation does not do everything I think it
should do. I am concerned about the overwhelming number of regulations
that are now pending from the executive branch. This legislation deals
primarily with the legislative branch. And we have thousands of
regulations that are now in the pipeline, thousands of which we have
become aware of since the election.
So, Mr. President, I am going to be introducing today legislation
that will
[[Page S873]] provide a 6-month moratorium on regulations that have
been proposed since the election, November 9.
And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go into morning
business for the purpose of introducing this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 219
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, do I understand we return now to regular
legislative action?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. GLENN. I listened very carefully to my distinguished colleague
from Oklahoma, and I must respond although very briefly. I think to say
that the people on the other side of the aisle are the ones that are
trying to slow things down by putting in amendments rings a little
hollow with me after what happened all--not 90-some days ago we were
trying to get things through, including congressional coverage,
including the S. 993, the predecessor of this bill, and it was being
delayed 100 percent of the time on the other side of the aisle, until
we did not have time left to get it done--the policy of delay for
delay's sake.
In fact, as I said earlier today, I followed one Member out who had
been very vocal in opposition to a particular amendment from over here.
And out in the hall with the press, he said, ``Well, we beat another
one. We beat it down.''
They said, ``What was this one on?''
He said, ``Who cares, we beat them.'' I am sorry that was the
attitude, but to think that--I just cannot let it go--that Democrats
are the ones slowing it down, had it not been for the Republican
filibuster on the other side, by amendment and by direct filibuster,
and more clotures filed than any time in history in a comparable period
of time, as then-Senate Majority Leader Mitchell pointed out repeatedly
on the floor, we probably would have had both of these bills done and
gone before this session of the Congress.
So I know until the Senate gets its germaneness legislation some day,
which I will certainly support, we are going to have delays. But to
indicate that this is somehow a Democratic shortcoming over on this
side, after what we were going through on the Senate floor just about
90 to 100 days ago, I cannot accept without objecting.
So I yield the floor.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's sentiments. I
do not totally concur with his statement. I do remember in 1993, I
introduced congressional coverage as an amendment on the floor, and I
remember Senator Mitchell, who was then the majority leader of the
Senate, objecting, and he was successful in defeating us by a few
votes.
I also remember the makeup of the vote, and it was predominantly
supported by Republicans, predominantly opposed by Democrats. That is
history. That was a couple years ago. My point being, history shows,
and the Congressional Record will show, many on the Republican side
tried to make Congress abide by the laws, and we had a difficult time.
I am delighted we passed a bill almost unanimously yesterday. I think
that is a good signal. The House did pass it unanimously and,
hopefully, the small differences will be resolved in conference.
Concerning the unfunded mandates bill, I will just say there may have
been objection to considering it on the unanimous-consent request, but
many of us wanted to consider it much earlier.
Granted, in the last or waning days of session, one Member may be
able to block a particular item. I know that many of us were interested
that the bill to prohibit unfunded mandates on public sector
governments--county, city, State government--we wanted to have that
early in the year. For the crowd of the session or because of the
administration's interest in pushing health care, or for whatever
reasons, Senator Mitchell talked about getting it up but never really
made a concerted effort, at least in my memory or my recollection,
until the last waning days of Congress when it is possible for any one
person to block a particular bill.
That does not really make any difference. I am not trying to revisit
history. I also understand my comment made that people on the other
side were loving the legislation we had on the floor last week--they
had a lot of amendments. My statement on the floor at that time is some
of those amendments were good. Senator Bryan had an amendment dealing
with congressional pensions, and I urged him to do it on a separate
piece of legislation. It should be considered on its own merit. I think
it is a serious piece of legislation, one that I intend to support.
Maybe we can improve it. Maybe it will go through Governmental Affairs
or go through the Rules Committee and we can handle that, but we do not
have to do everything on one particular piece of legislation.
I do not know if that is going to happen on this bill. I am ready and
I think most of us on this side are ready to consider amendments to
this bill. We would like to pass this bill this week. We may not be
able to. Let us pass it next week. Let us take up and consider
amendments. Right now, it happens to be Members on the other side of
the aisle who seem to be obstructing us in our ability to consider
amendments to the unfunded mandates bill and work our way through it.
I hope that we can overcome whatever roadblocks we are now
encountering and take up amendments to this bill, work our way through
them, and decide how we are going to vote on them. Some of them may be
good; some of them possibly should be adopted. And then let us pass
this bill. If we pass a bill that prohibits Congress from mandating or
passing unfunded mandates on cities, counties, and States, if we pass a
bill that says Congress should have to comply with the law, if we pass
a constitutional amendment to make us balance the budget, if we do that
in the first few weeks of Congress, I think we will have had a pretty
productive start to the 104th Congress. I hope that will be the case.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will reply briefly, but I was handed a
few moments ago a list of possible amendments. They include amendments
by people on both sides of the aisle, and that is fine. I say to my
friend from Oklahoma, there are a couple here that are very, very major
that have been put in from the Republican side.
I am not here to debate all this. Both sides of the aisle have
problems enough in keeping germaneness under control when we get to
these things. Obviously, there was a scorched-Earth policy against
anything we were trying to do last year. Last year, appropriations and
authorizations bills were delayed, as well as other things. It was not
all health care and things like that. That may have been part of it.
I will note, S. 993 was voted out of committee last year on August
10, and George Mitchell, our majority leader, wanted to get it on the
floor and he talked to me about scheduling it. It was because of the
delays on other bills that we could not get it up. We tried to do it by
unanimous consent in the last few days of the session, and that failed.
At that time, there were objections on both sides of the aisle. We
wound up with one objection on our side we could not work off.
I do not think it does much good to do finger pointing. With the
change of leadership, I certainly look forward to cooperating. I think
the more we stay away from this finger pointing of the past and try to
make certain we cooperate in things that are important for this
country, like this bill, the better off we are.
So I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to, first of all, say to my
colleague from Montana, I will be very brief. After having heard
Senator Glenn just emphasize the importance of not doing any finger
pointing, I am reluctant to do so. But, Mr. President,
[[Page S874]] I just want to make a couple of very basic points.
One is if, in fact, I hear the argument much more about delay or
obstructionism, I will come to the floor and perhaps just go through
every single amendment offered on the other side of the aisle which was
not germane or relevant to different bills that we had on the floor. It
is really rather amazing--really rather amazing. So I think we have to
move forward, and the past is the past, but I would not want to let
certain Senators get away with that argument.
My second point, Mr. President, which has nothing to do with the past
but has to do with the now of this session, is having been a Senator
out on the floor this past week with some amendments, I just would like
to say to my colleagues--though I did not hear some of the arguments
that were made--that if we are going to talk about congressional
accountability, I think to talk about gift ban, I think to talk about
trying to make this Congress more accountable, this process more open,
this process more honest, is hardly irrelevant.
The third point I want to make, not at all in a defensive mode but it
is something I feel very strongly about, is I think if my colleague
from Oklahoma would check with my colleague from Iowa, Senator
Grassley, one of the things he will find out is that unlike the past
Congress where there was discussion of offering hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds of amendments and not agreeing to time limits, I always
said to the Senator from Iowa on the last bill, ``I am going to vote
for the piece of legislation. I will be willing to do this within a
reasonable period of time. Here I am on the floor, ready to go with
amendments.''
So, A, this sort of finger pointing does not work because, frankly,
it is not credible given what happened last Congress. The fact that the
obstructionism and the filibusters of last Congress is not credible
does not mean that we on this side of the aisle should do the same
thing.
But I would like to say, since the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Byrd] is not here, that I do believe a Senator has a right to make what
I think is a reasonable request, which is that when we deal with a
piece of legislation--which, by the way, I may vote for as I am not
necessarily opposed to this piece of legislation; it depends upon how
it all works out on amendments--a Senator has a right to say this deals
with the very core of the interrelationship between the Federal
Government and State governments. We do not have the budget report. I
want to be able to look at that. I want this to be a thoughtful,
important debate. We are about to make major, major decisions.
That hardly represents obstructionism. That is called careful
analysis of legislation, and that is what I think we will do. I think
we will have an important debate. I am sure there will be amendments,
and I think we will move forward.
But, Mr. President, having been someone who was working very hard on
campaign finance reform, on gift ban lobbying legislation, much less
health care--all of which was stopped toward the end in one way or the
other--I find it a little difficult to let some of these arguments go
by.
I certainly will be back in the Chamber. As a matter of fact, I say to
my colleague from Oklahoma, I was hoping the Senator from West Virginia
would be willing to lay the committee amendment aside so I could get
started on an amendment today. I am ready to do so. I am ready to have
a vote. And by the way, it will deal with children. And by the way, it
will deal with making sure that we have an amendment to this piece of
legislation that says when we look at the impact of the legislation we
pass on State and local governments or on businesses, we certainly can
look at the impact of this legislation on children.

We all want to have photo opportunities next to children, and before
we pass bills or amendments or we make cuts that in fact could impose
some real pain on children in this country, I think we ought to be
willing to look at the impact.
I cannot do it yet because the Senator from West Virginia has made I
think a credible argument, which is we need to have the full analysis
of this legislation.
So, Mr. President, I have no more to say now. I yield the floor. I
did not want to, while I just was kind of passing by the Chamber, let
other Senators talk about gridlock and filibusters and obstructionism
based upon what happened last session, based upon a very valid set of
concerns the Senator from West Virginia has, and based on the fact that
I am going to be here in the Chamber with amendments holding colleagues
accountable. I hope to pass those amendments, to do it because I love
being a legislator, having the honor of being a Senator from Minnesota,
and I am not going to let anybody call that obstructionism.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This just did not start with this
Senator in 1995 or even 1994. I can remember back in 1992 when the
manager of this bill was running for this office, and it was one of his
priorities then. He was mayor of Boise. I went to Idaho on his behalf.
Coming out of county government, I understand the impact of some
actions that are taken by this Congress, signed into law by the
President, and then meant to be carried out by State and local
government. I think probably the best job I had in politics was my
first elected job which was commissioner in Yellowstone County, MT.
Believe me, we learned the impact of unfunded mandates because when I
went in there was an initiative passed in the State of Montana called
I-105. Our taxpayer revolt started way back in the middle eighties. I
do not know whether yours started then, but that is when ours started.
It said that you cannot raise taxes unless you do certain things in
your tax code both locally and at the State level. That put a lot of
pressure on county budgets.
But where it differs at this level from that in Yellowstone County,
one has to remember we had to maintain reserves. In every line, every
department you maintained reserves because you only collected taxes
twice a year, and through some of those areas you had to operate your
Government but you also always maintained a reserve for unexpected
things happening in your county in every line. I wish we could do that
at the Federal level, that there would be something that tells us we
have to maintain a reserve for emergencies and it takes an emergency to
go into the reserve funds that you have.
So we understand the impact especially of unfunded mandates on
budgets of county government. I can go home and talk to people now--our
legislatures are in session now--and the budget people tell you that
right now Medicaid is driving State budgets, an entitlement is driving
State budgets, and that is why there are so many legislatures that are
really wrestling with this situation called tax time and then the voter
resentment or the ire of the voter during this taxing time.
We hear a lot about accountability, and we passed a bill yesterday
that I favor. But accountability as far as we as legislators starts at
this level right here. This is where accountability starts. We can talk
about all those other things--campaign finance, all these other areas,
and, no, that is not accountability. Accountability is what we do to
and for this Nation and the constituents we represent because not every
State does it the same, not every county does it the same. So we have
to be aware of this.
With the stroke of a pen, we mandate that local governmental entities
do certain things without sending them a check with which to carry out
the edict. In my State, where folks are still rebelling against taxes,
the only practical way to achieve these mandates is to cut something
somewhere else or comply or work to where you can get around I-105.
Budgets are already lean, so basically we are asking those folks who
represent us at the local level to balance their budgets. By the way,
they have a mandate, too. In fact, they have a law. Your budget has to
be balanced. You have to account for the dollars.
It is estimated that counties are spending about $4.8 billion each
year to comply with 12--only 12--of the many
[[Page S875]] unfunded mandates in Federal programs already in
existence. That cost is expected to rise--in fact, some estimates have
the pricetag rising to as much as $33.7 billion in a 5-year period
between 1994 and 1998.
The Senator from Oklahoma raises a very good point. Yes, we can maybe
pass this bill, but what happens to those entities that would do
business by administrative edict or fiat? What implications might that
have also on county and State governments?
We can look around, and we can see a lot of areas where, yes, we
probably need some help--underground storage tanks, safe drinking
water, Endangered Species Act, immigration. We can name all kinds of
laws passed by this body that have to be carried out by local
governments. In fact, in Yellowstone County those cost almost $400,000
in fiscal year 1993. In Gallatin County--that is Bozeman over in the
south central part of the State--a county with less than half the
population of Yellowstone County, the cost of those same things is
around $900,000. That does not sound like a lot of money to Washington,
DC, or this Hill, but in my State where I only have about 850,000
folks, it is a lot of money. And so no wonder folks turn around and say
you guys back there are out of touch.
Now, I am not saying that we should stop legislating, although some
in my State think maybe a breather would not hurt right now. But we are
not going to do that. I am saying we here, who are thousands of miles
away, should stop, look, and listen before we pass that legislation and
see the impact it has on our neighborhoods. Stop mandating those
expensive, sometimes unnecessary programs without providing some means
to pay for them.
I think I would take a look at the rules and regulations handed down
in a discussion we had about 4 years ago on the situation that was
passed on to small business, principally those folks in the filling
station, service station business, this business of underground storage
tanks. One rule written by the EPA here, sort of one-size-fits-all, did
not fit some of the areas in the rest of the country. What works in
Virginia in the soil type and everything else did not work as far as
the more drier area we have in Montana or the West or whatever.
If so, our inability to write rules and regulations that consider the
problems on a case-by-case basis almost seems impossible as far as
those folks who write administrative rules.

So what we should do is take a look at this. If Congress really
thinks it is essential, if we have a situation where public health is
at stake, or national security, then I think it provides in this bill
that we can go ahead and get that job done. Yet we are still drawn to
the fact that for all others we have to find some means of financing
the rule or regulation or the impact of the legislation.
I am sure many of my colleagues have seen the publication that the
National Conference of State Legislatures puts out. It is called
Federal Mandate Watch List. I looked at the April-June 1994 issue that
covers mandates on State and local governments just introduced in the
103d Congress. They list 190 bills that are unfunded mandates, 49 bills
that are listed as mandate relief bills; 190 bills just in one
Congress. I would say probably some folks would classify that as
irresponsible, not taking a look and seeing what we are doing. And that
is what we are talking about here in this piece of legislation.
What a difference one election makes, when we start talking about
what is important and what is not important in the agenda, and the
priorities as far as this body is concerned, of trying to fix a
situation that has been broken a long time. So, if we really think a
mandate is necessary then let us find out a way to pay for it; provide
a way so that they can afford the mandate that is being thrust on them.
But let us start listening to our Governors and our county
commissioners and our mayors, and working with those folks to make this
thing called Government work for the people. After all we serve the
people. Otherwise, we just cannot stay on the path that we are on. It
is just the Government, like the camel, continuing to get its nose
under the tent. I know Montanans do not want that. I cannot imagine
they are any different than the folks in Kansas, or Florida, or
Massachusetts, or even, yes, our great neighbor to the south, Utah.
Our county governments and State legislators know the priorities for
their residents a whole lot better than we do here. We must remember,
in most city government and county government the names of those
commissioners or councilmen are in the phone book. Folks can call them
at supper time and register their complaints. That is the way it is in
our part of the country, anyway. And that is good. So they are pretty
much in touch with the people they serve because they see them on the
street, they see them at the local basketball game and the local
football game, at their churches and their schools. They understand the
problems that their communities face. And they also work pretty closely
with the citizens to solve some of those problems.
So I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. Yes, there will be some
amendments. Some I will support and some I will not support. But I
think if there was a reason, one reason, why most of us are here, it is
to represent truthfully and be accountable to the people we represent.
And it starts with this right here: Knowledge of the impact this
legislation will have on our neighborhoods.
A great Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, said, ``All politics is
local.'' He was right. We are not exempt from that here. We are not
exempt from that here. Most of us still represent that neighborhood in
which we were raised.
So I urge my colleagues to look at this legislation, study it,
support it. If you want to see true accountability, and especially with
the bill that was introduced by our friend from Oklahoma on the
moratorium, as far as the issuance of rules and regulations, it makes
sense to me that the body that passed the legislation, or the committee
of jurisdiction, maybe should take a look at the final rule before it
goes into the Federal Register to make sure that it does do what the
legislation was intended to do. All of us have, from time to time,
taken a look at rules and regulations written as a result of past
legislation and it looks nothing like the law. We have people who say:
We have this law, let us just do anything we want to, we will write the
rules and then we will worry about it later.
That I think is one of the situations I can see where we fall down in
this body. Maybe we serve on too many committees. Maybe we get too
busy. We do not spend enough time, us personally, getting involved in
the business of oversight, especially in the writing of the
administrative rules of the legislation that is passed and signed by
the President.
I think this is a step in that direction. I think it makes us look,
makes us study. Maybe we can answer those hard questions when we go
home about some of the legislation that we should be accountable for
because of how we vote down in that well.
Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this piece of
legislation. It is important. The leader has made it number one, and
that is where it should be. I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I enthusiastically support this
legislation. I am pleased we are addressing this vital issue early in
the session, to show how important it is. The mayors, council members,
Governors all across this country have been crying out for relief of
the regulatory and financial burdens imposed by the Federal Government.
I applaud them for their diligence in this effort, but they really had
no choice. Their constituents simply cannot take it anymore.
Those of us who have served in State and local government--Dirk
Kempthorne, the manager of this bill; Judd Gregg, Bob Graham, John
Ashcroft, and others know so well the impact of these mandates on the
budgets of State and local governments. We can empathize with the
problems unfunded mandates have caused for State and local officials,
and the tough choices they force for those precious State and local
funds.
Passage of this bill will send a clear message to State and local
government leaders that we have heard their cries, that we want to work
with them to reduce these pressures on the taxpayers of America. It
will also send a message that we intend to return to the proper role of
the Federal Government.
[[Page S876]] James Madison said it clearly. He said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to
remain in State governments are numerous and indefinite.

This is the third time in my very short tenure in the Senate that I
have spoken on the floor on this issue. But we have yet to pass this
bill. We need to pass it because if we do not, the States are going to,
rightly, reassert the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
In Texas, Representative Robert Talton states in a ``Dear Colleague''
letter to Texas House members, ``Almost one-third of the increase in
the State budget over the past 3 years has been the result of unfunded
Federal mandates''--one-third.
It is time to put an end to this malicious abuse of the 10th
amendment. Seven resolutions are now pending in the Texas Legislature
to send a clear message right up here to us to stop the unfunded
Federal mandates.

A recent Texas Legislative Budget Board study showed Texas spending
$9.7 billion on unfunded Federal mandates from 1990 to 1995. Here are a
few examples of how that spending adds up for our local government in
Texas.
Dallas has seen its storm water treatment costs triple to $16 million
in 5 years. They will face logistical and financial problems meeting
Clean Air Act requirements of having 30 percent of its municipal fleet
of vehicles use compressed natural gas by 1998. First of all, with
other cities clamoring to meet the same requirement, there will be an
inadequate supply of gas powered vehicles available. Conventional
vehicles will have to be retrofitted to meet the requirement and the
residents of Dallas will have to pay that bill. Refueling will be
troublesome because they don't envision the convenience of natural gas
they now enjoy with gasoline.
EPA has mandated centralized vehicle inspection to meet standardized
emission testing requirements of the Clean Air Act in El Paso. Not only
will that cost them additional money, it eliminates a service currently
provided by privately owned gas stations. Here is an example of the
private sector suffering from unfunded mandates because those gas
station owners will lose revenue. And we know what that means--
eventually the loss of jobs.
Houston estimates that it has the second highest water and wastewater
rates in the Nation. The $42 monthly payment for residential usage is
second only to Boston's $51 a month. To comply with the Clean Water
Act, Houston began improvements on its sewer system 3 years ago, a
project that will take another 4 years and run $1.1 billion in capital
expenditures and $65 million annually for operation and maintenance.
Amarillo, a city of 158,000 residents, has had to triple its budget
for wastewater treatment, from $10 million to $31 million, to meet EPA
treatment renovation requirements. Their northwest plant, which was a
state-of-the-art facility when constructed in 1988, had to be
retrofitted to meet EPA's new permit requirements. That cost them $10
million--$10 million they had not budgeted for this because they
thought they had built a more than adequate system. They did not
expect, EPA to change the requirements every 5 years.
Nacogdoches, a Texas town that my mother was born in--30,000 people
live in Nacogdoches today. Nacogdoches happens to be the town in which
my first predecessor also lived, Thomas Jefferson Rusk. The first
person to hold this seat came from Nacogdoches. It probably had about
30,000 then, and it does now. They have seen the cost of operating
their landfills triple due to changes in subtitle (b) landfill
requirements.
I mention the populations of Amarillo and Nacogdoches to give my
colleagues a sense of the burden unfunded mandates place on citizens of
small cities and towns especially. They simply do not have the
resources to cover the costs of these mandates. One-size-fits-all
solutions cripple these smaller towns.
Every State in America can duplicate the story that I have just told
about a range of cities, from the largest to the smallest, in my State.
I hope we can move swiftly to enact this legislation. Let us live up
to our responsibility to address the impact of unfunded Federal
mandates.
I know this bill does not apply retroactively. I wish it did. But at
least we can say we got the message to State and local leaders that you
can be assured that we are not going to bombard you anymore in the
future, that we will have the facts, and that we will send the money if
we decide something is important enough to do that we tell you you have
to.
That is part of our charge and it is part of the charge that Senator
Bond of Missouri and I have on our Regulatory Reform Commission. This
is what Americans are saying they want changed: Give us relief. Give us
relief from our local tax burdens caused by the Federal Government, and
give it to us in our businesses so we can get about the business of
competing again and creating new jobs in this country.
So we need to make sure that we take the steps for the future. And
then Senator Bond and Senator Nickles and I are going to try to come
back in and look at what we have to do through the regulations that are
now on the books because a lot of mayors have told me, well, you have
done a lot of damage. Even if you change it now, we still cannot live
with all of the changes that we are seeing that have come from the
past.
So we can do something about that, but let us take the first action
first. Let us keep the faith with our States and local leaders, and
most importantly, with the taxpayers who are footing the bill at the
State and local level, as well as at the Federal level; all the same
people. They need relief and they said so on November 8. This bill will
be the first step in the right direction to show that their votes did
send a message. The message is received, Mr. President.
I want to especially thank my colleague, Senator Kempthorne, from
Idaho. He is a former mayor of Boise. He has done a wonderful job of
staying with this bill. As I said, we have had it up before and it has
gotten knocked down for one reason or another. But he stayed in there
because he knew how important it was. And a mayor is the person on the
front line. Senator Kempthorne should be thanked for his dogged
determination to try to correct the force of this Federal Government as
it relates to our State and local governments under us.
So I thank him and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kemp-
thorne. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill myself. I hope that
we can pass it and put it on the President's desk and say to the people
of America ``Signal received.''
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise to revisit an issue that I
addressed in the last Congress, the problem of unfunded Federal
mandates on State and local governments.
I have always been generally opposed to unfunded Federal mandates on
States and localities, and I introduced a bill in the last Congress to
address this problem, Senate Resolution 69. Revenue sharing, in my
judgment, was an excellent program. Unfortunately, it was terminated.
But nevertheless it provided funds to local and State governments to
carry out mandates that were imposed on the States and local
governments by the Federal Government.
This is not to say that all the mandates have been bad. I think there
have been a number that have been good. We have generally followed the
carrot approach relative to mandates by saying that if certain programs
were adopted, then the Federal Government would come forward with
revenues to assist them.
The November Elections have given advocates of ending unfunded
mandates momentum, so I am confident that Congress will soon pass
legislation addressing this issue once and for all. I believe the
proper vehicle for achieving this goal at this time is the bill that we
are now debating, S.1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, of
which I am an original cosponsor.
I think the fact that it was designated as S. 1 indicates the
priority that was given to it by the sponsors and the leadership. They
wanted local
[[Page S877]] and State governments and the American people to know
that this was a top priority on the part of the U.S. Senate.
As you know, because of the new federalism mood which prevailed in
the 1980's, responsibility for the provision of several public services
was shifted from the Federal Government to the State and local
governments in an effort to shrink the size of the Federal Government.
In some instances, the Federal Government simply failed to provide
public services, creating a void that State and local governments had
to fill; while in others it mandated that State and local governments
and businesses fulfill them--without providing the necessary funds to
finance their implementation.
When I use ``business,'' I use it in a broad sense to include farmers
and self-employed people.
At the same time these responsibilities were shifted from the Federal
Government to State and local governments, funding from the Federal
Government to States and localities was cut dramatically. As a result,
State and local governments have been given additional responsibilities
but less funding with which to carry them out.
The magnitude of the costs to State and local governments of
complying with unfunded Federal mandates is staggering. Recent surveys
estimate that the most Federal mandates are currently requiring annual
expenditures of $11.3 billion by cities and counties, and that the
cumulative costs over the next 5 years are expected to total $88
billion. Cities and counties reported that the costs of complying with
these mandates consumed an average of 12 percent of their locally
raised revenues.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors surveyed 314 cities regarding the costs
of complying with 10 specific mandates affecting cities. The current
year costs were found to be $6.5 billion. Three Alabama cities were
included in the survey: Birmingham, Gadsden, and Huntsville. By way of
providing an example of the costs of compliance to localities, the
total costs of complying with these unfunded mandates for fiscal year
1993--the last year for which figures are available--were as follows:
Birmingham: $2,445,300; Gadsden: $373,000; and Huntsville: $9,076,087.
Likewise, the National Association of Counties surveyed 128 counties
across the country and found that counties are spending an estimated
$4.8 billion annually to comply with 12 specific Federal mandates.
In a federal system of government, such as ours, it does not make
sense for one level of government, such as the U.S. Government, to
dictate how other levels of government spend their locally collected
taxes. This violates the basic principles of a federal system of
government in which the various levels of government are autonomous
units of government, independent in their sovereignty and subordinate
not to other levels of government, but to the Constitution and
ultimately to their citizens.
The recent trend toward dictating unfunded Federal mandates on State
and local governments is not consistent with traditional American
federalism and has therefore caused serious strains between the various
levels of government in our federal system as these mandates have been
passed down. Instead, a policy of reliance on unfunded mandates is
consistent with a unitary form of government, such as Great Britain's,
in which all authority is in the hands of the central or national
government and local governments are subordinate, and can be considered
branches, in effect, of that central government.
Therefore, resolving this issue is not just a matter of providing
much needed assistance to our State and local governments by reducing
the burden of unfunded mandates. It will also serve the larger purpose
of restoring American federalism by reestablishing the proper balance
between the levels of government in our federal system.
I hope my colleagues will support S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act of 1995. It will promote greater accountability and responsibility
on the part of Congress with regard to the Federal Government's impact
on State and local governments, and will therefore serve to restore the
integrity of American federalism by ending the scourge of unfunded
mandates.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as a former State senator, I appreciate
how important this bill is. I have been there, and I have had to trudge
through, and try to figure out how to pay for Federal programs.
Two years ago, I came to this city as a reformer.
Mr. President I know this legislation speaks to the whole
relationship between the Federal Government and the States. It is about
our very rights and obligations as Americans. And, for that reason, I
am concerned, Mr. President. This bill is very broad. It is a 10-second
sound bite with years of implications. In some cases, it might go too
far. In some cases, it might not go far enough.
But, I wonder, how many of my friends and neighbors understand it?
How many ordinary Americans have even heard of it? How many of us truly
understand the long-term implications?
This legislation will affect just about everything we do in the
Senate, and it will essentially affect the lives of every American.
So, Mr. President, why are we rushing through this? We need a lengthy
discussion of this bill. The American people need to understand the
very real implications of this bill. Ordinary Americans should be part
of the dialog. In this debate, and in every debate in this Congress, we
should be prudent. We need to realize that every action we take here
affects millions of Americans' lives and rights. And, I have to say,
Mr. President, I am worried about the implications of this bill.
It seems to me that Senators have very different goals. Some want to
use this bill to gut environmental protection laws. Some want to gut
laws which protect people with disabilities. Some want to eliminate
labor laws, like workplace fairness. And, the laws which combat crime,
And, laws that go after child abusers.
These laws--which I guess we're just going to call mandates from now
on--these laws protect the rights of ordinary Americans.
That is why I think we need to keep some balance here. I want to make
sure before I cast my vote that we are not acting rashly, and we are
not ignoring people's very rights.
Mr. President, perspective and balance are two important concepts I
think we need to keep in mind as we go through this debate.
I commend the work of our colleagues, Senator Glenn and Senator
Kempthorne. They have provided real leadership here by educating us on
the issue of unfunded mandates. They have certainly put that issue in
perspective. And, so has my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin.
I firmly believe Congress has to assume the responsibility of
ensuring a quality of life for the people we represent. That is why we
are here. And, we also have the responsibility to tell people that this
quality of life costs something.
Every American wants to go through the day knowing they are secure,
because we live in a country where we have basic protections. I want to
be sure when I wake up in the morning and make oatmeal for my kids, the
water that comes out of the faucet is safe to drink.
Every parent wants the assurance that the school bus their children
are on has been built under tough safety standards, so it will not fall
apart on the way to school.
Every American worker wants to be assured they will not get cancer
from a video display terminal, that they will be protected by labor
laws, and by OSHA laws. All of that can happen in this country because
of Federal mandates--the laws we pass--laws that say, ``as an American,
you can be sure there are basic protections and assurances you will
have.''
Last year, we passed the National Child Protection Act. This bill
requires a State to report child abuse crime information to a national
criminal background check system. That is a Federal mandate, and it is
keeping our children safe from abusers.
Last year, my good friend and colleague--the senior Senator from the
State of Washington--worked hard to include in the crime bill a very
important provision on sexual predators. States will now register the
addresses
[[Page S878]] of convicted sexual predators when they are released from
prison.
That is a Federal mandate, and it's making our streets safer.
Several years ago, the Congress and President Bush made life better
for people living with disabilities. The Americans With Disabilities
Act has improved the quality of life for people across the country.
And, the ADA directly helps many people important to me--like the women
and men who have served our country in uniform, and were injured in
war.
The ADA is a Federal mandate. And, it is making life better for our
disabled and paralyzed veterans.
And, in my corner of the country, look at all the progress we have
made because of the Federal Government's involvement.
Lake Washington has been cleaned up and so will be Puget Sound and
Commencement Bay. And, that is because of a Federal mandate.
Mr. President, I am the first one to agree that Congress should not
require local jurisdictions to conduct unnecessary and costly studies.
And, I strongly believe in streamlining and eliminating the
bureaucracy.
But, Mr. President, if we did not require environmental impact
studies, could the Government just come in and string a thousand
megawatt powerline over your house? Could the Government just bulldoze
a superhighway around your neighborhood? Could the Government just
place a landfill at the end of your road? What would that do to private
property values?
It would devastate them. And, that would be wrong. It is certainly
not what the American people want.
These are all examples of why we need to go slowly; why we should
take our time and really have a serious discussion of this issue; why
we cannot rush through this process.
Mr. President, this bill might be too sweeping. As I said, it might
go too far.
And, on other hand, it might not go far enough. For example, the
State of Washington is home to Indian reservations and many military
installations. And, in Washington, there are more than 60,000 students
enrolled in schools on reservations and military bases.
As we have heard here many times, Mr. President, the tax bases of
local jurisdictions are seriously affected by all sorts of Federal
activity. That is certainly true of educating these children. And,
Congress recognized that.
In order to compensate for his influx of the Federal Government into
local school districts, we established the Impact Aid Program.
It is a good program. It acknowledges our society's responsibility to
educating all American children and the Federal Government's
responsibility to local school districts. It is a good program--in
theory. But, in reality, it does not work out so well.
Unfortunately, local taxpayers--not the Federal Government--have to
pick up about 60 percent of the cost of educating these children. Local
jurisdictions cannot tax these Federal facilities. Local jurisdictions
are forced to pay for the education of children on Federal lands. The
Federal Government has not been picking up the tab.
The Federal Government brings kids to bases all over the country, and
then tells local neighborhoods, ``you have to pay.''
My State also contains the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. We have been
struggling for years to clean up nuclear waste at this site.
So, Mr. President, you see, I understand the concern of some Senators
about inadequate Federal support.
But, if we are discussing the State and Federal relationship, if we
are discussing the philosophy of taxation, if we are discussing our
rights and obligations, why are we not discussing the Federal
obligation to educate American children of military parents and native
American children?
Why are we not discussing the education of the children in public
housing? And, why are we not discussing the cleanup of Hanford?
Lets' not assume that just because we are reformers--and I assure my
newly elected Republican colleagues they are joining many reformers
here in the Senate--let us not assume that everything we are doing in
the name of reform in flawless; let us keep things in perspective. Let
us stop talking about theory, and start talk about reality. Let us talk
about how this bill affects ordinary Americans. The people in America's
neighborhoods.
Mr. President, I must say, I am very concerned about how this bill
will work out in the long-run.
And, so, Mr. President, I will listen carefully to this discussion. I
am still undecided on this bill. And, I will want to see a great deal
of balance and a great deal of common sense before I cast my vote.
And, I will have to know that the interests of the people in
Washington State are protected.
I know we need reform. But, this approach is like a meat cleaver. It
is very broad--and it seems to me sometimes clumsy. It hacks at
everything, without regard for the substance of the laws it affects.
I know we need reform, But, when I stand in this body, I cannot
forget my responsibilities as a mother. And, I am not convinced this
type of legislation will protect our families and children.
I know we need reform. But, I will not stand here and allow this bill
to create a new bureaucracy of unelected analysts and political
appointees at the Congressional Budget Office.
Who will decide which bill to score first? How long will these cost
estimates take? And, what about the costs contained in amendments
pending on the floor?
The American people do not want to see a new monster bureaucracy in
this city.
Mr. President, I know we need reform. So, I would suggest some
balance--like returning this to the committees; like holding more
public hearings so every American citizen can really understand how
this bill might impact their life, their community, their neighborhood;
like considering mandates on a case-by-case basis. Last year, for
example, the Senate reached consensus on the need to review and changes
mandates in the Safe Drinking Water Act. And, we passed a
reauthorization bill that had fairly broad support.
That is a more delicate approach. That is a commonsense approach.
That is the proper role of legislation. That is good, solid bipartisan
work on behalf of all of our constituents.
And I believe that is what the American people want.
I thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the first
committee amendment is pending, which is a Levin initiative that was
offered and was adopted unanimously by the committee. As far as this
manager is concerned, we have no further requests for time on the
amendment.
I would ask the Chair to put the question on the committee amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I honor and respect my friend. He is doing what he
ought to do. He is fulfilling his responsibility. He is seeking to get
a vote on the amendment. I respect him and admire him for that.
But, Mr. President, as I said earlier today, we want to see the
committee report issued by the Budget Committee and have an opportunity
to study it a little bit. We are not ready to vote. This Senator is not
ready to vote.
I assure my friend that, in the final analysis, I may vote for this
bill. I say that sincerely. I may not. I do not know. I have thought
there are some good reasons for legislation of some kind that will deal
with at least some unfunded mandates.
But I want to know what is in this legislation. I think my colleagues
are entitled to that knowledge. Our staffs need to see the committee
report. I will not be in a position to allow a vote on any amendment
tonight, at any hour tonight, or tomorrow, at least until that report
is available and we have some opportunity to digest it. Mr. President,
I say this not in any dogmatic way, I hope. I do not intend to appear
to be laying down the gauntlet and say ``This shall not pass,'' but I
am prepared to say that we will not vote
[[Page S879]] on amendments until we get that report and have an
opportunity to study it. That is a reasonable position. I hope I am
perceived as a reasonable man. That is only fair--to not only be seen
as a reasonable man but to be a reasonable man.
I know I stand on solid ground. And I stand for a principle here that
I think is in the interest of all Senators in the final analysis and in
the interest of the Senate and in the interests of the American people.
So I would say to the Chair that I am prepared to talk at length in
order to keep a vote from occurring at this point.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, obviously, the Senator from West
Virginia can delay this bill as long as he wants. He can filibuster it
if he would like. He can talk all night tonight and talk all day
tomorrow. But I think the facts of the matter are that this bill is
clamored for by Governors, mayors and everybody that understands what
has happened to the U.S. Government, taking over responsibilities from
the States and mandating what they ought to do with States, cities,
counties and others and then not paying for it.
There should not be any doubt. This is a readjustment of the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States. This bill,
with a few little exceptions with reference to enforcement that, if
somebody is serious about, we can explain and debate in half a day,
this bill had cleared the Governmental Affairs Committee last year and
was not before the Budget Committee as far as a report because we added
a point of order to enforce a part of the Budget Act. That is the only
significant enforcement change.
As a matter of fact, nobody is entitled to the report that the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia suggests tonight that we must
have. Because we have been asked for it, we said we will have it.
Nobody should be of any misunderstanding that every single bit of
information that is in that report was available to the Senators today,
because it is extracted in the Record in views of the majority and
minority and put into a document that everybody has.
The Senator, in honesty, asked for the report. We said we will
produce it. It is just a matter of putting ``Report'' on the cover page
and getting it printed. Everybody should understand that that is really
not any reason to hold this amendment up. If you will hold up the bill
because you want to hold up the bill, that is fine. Everybody has that
opportunity, including our distinguished friend, former majority
leader, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, but actually
this amendment is 11 amendments, agreed to unanimously in the
Governmental Affairs Committee, I say to my friend, and the
Governmental Affairs Committee filed a report.
I have been doing everything I can to tell Members that, really,
there is no relationship between delaying this bill and waiting for a
report. If one wants to delay the bill, fine. Now, nobody as far as I
understand from our side has said we want to get this bill through here
in 24 hours. Nobody said that. Our majority leader, I say to my friend
from West Virginia, said, ``Let's get started on it.'' He asked his
committee chairman and we respect him and the institution, ``get the
bill here as soon as members can.'' We did that.
All we are doing is saying to the Senate, now take all the time
Members want in the normal course of doing business--save a filibuster,
which we have to object to--and tell the American people what somebody
is up to. Save and except for that, there will be time.
I hear Senators say this is too big a deal, too important. How many
days do we want? Three more days? Five more days? Clearly, nobody has
even offered an amendment and we have been here for how many hours, 5,
6? I think that is enough time to consider an amendment. I was coming
down here tonight thinking there were no amendments, and I was going to
speak. I would yield for a moment to anybody that has an amendment. Let
us get on with it.
Essentially, I think the distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia makes a point and has the rules on his side. He is merely
saying that he is not going to let Members vote. I hope he is saying
``for now.'' I hope he is saying that ``for now'' that will disappear
pretty soon so we will get on with the business of the Senate and the
business that our majority leader in deference to the Senate and the
people of this country has asked us to help him with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to talk in a moment about a statement made by
the Senator from Georgia.
The more things change the more they stay the same. It is just on
that side now, not on this side. Last year I listened to all of the
speeches that we made that were similar to the distinguished chairman
of the Budget Committee. We were filibustered on practically
everything, and the bills that were filibustered last year are now 1
through 5. You did a great job. People out there think that we could
not do anything. Now you all can do it all.
So, we will have a little fun. If the shoe fits, wear it. If it does
not, the rule is on our side. I heard that. I would hope that we would
be accommodating here and not try to steamroll. We are just getting
started. We do not have a bunker mentality yet. And the bunker has not
been built.
I would think that the speeches that were made last year we can
almost go back to the Record and read them, except that side is making
them now instead of this side. So we will get around to all these
things.
Earlier in the debate the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, spoke
of the Motor-Voter Act as an example of the type of legislation the
unfunded mandate bill is designed to prevent. He argued that if this
bill, S. 1, the unfunded mandate bill had been in effect, the Members
who had been made aware of the costs of motor-voter when they voted,
and it probably would not have passed. That was his statement today.
Mr. President, motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate as defined
under S. 1. Let me repeat that: Motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate
as defined in S. 1. It is not a new bill. I offered it 8 years ago. I
am glad it is out here now and we are talking about it. I got two
Senators that agreed with me. It has become a large slide out there. I
can hardly wait to feel the tidal wave come over me when we finally do
vote on it. Eight years ago I got a couple of Senators here to help me.
Now, if this bill had been law, S. 1, at the time motor-voter was
considered, the motor-voter bill would not have been subjected to a
point of order. I want that understood. Contrary to what the Senator
from Georgia has asserted, we did know--we did know--what the cost of
motor-voter was going to be, as we all know all bills reported by
committee have to have a cost analysis by the Congressional Budget
Office. CBO did a very thorough analysis, and even consulted State
officials in its review of that bill.
Its estimate included the cost impact on the States. CBO estimated
the bill to cost the States $20 million to $25 million total. That
amount would not have triggered the provisions of this bill. Therefore,
by definition, motor-voter is not an unfunded mandate.
Furthermore, the CBO analysis found that those direct costs to the
States would be offset by savings. For example, CBO estimated that
local election officials would save up to $10 million annually because
it would reduce the need for extensive temporary staffing close to each
election.
Also, it estimated an additional savings of $4 million in postage.
That is subtracted from the $20 million to $25 million. So this
statement of the Senator from Georgia--I hope he will read the bill and
look at it and see that motor-voter would not have triggered this bill
as now before the Senate.
In the committee report on motor-voter, the minority set forth
inflated estimates of State costs. Those estimates have not stood up to
those States that have gone ahead with implementation, and 37 of them
have. Maybe 38 now. The actual cost of States' implementing motor-voter
have been much lower than the minority's initial estimates and closer
to the costs projected by CBO.
Opponents continue to rely on inflated cost estimates, which
includes
[[Page S880]] the cost of computerization of a State's entire
registration rolls.
Mr. President, computerization of the registration rolls is not
required by motor-voter--not required. What they are trying to do is to
load this on the cost and say they have to do it and go out and spend
the money, and then they are fussing about unfunded mandates. It is
just not true.
The Senator from Georgia questioned whether there was any benefit
gained by motor-voter. I never claimed at any time, that I can recall,
that motor-voter would increase voter turnout. What I claimed was that
it would increase the number of registered voters and those that could
vote if we got them out.
The record on this, I think, is extremely clear. In the first 2
working days in which motor-voter was in effect in Georgia, it added
1,853 new registered voters, almost a thousand a day.
In Florida, on the first working day of implementation, 4,640 new
registrants--4,640--were registered the first day in the State of
Florida.
In the first week in Indiana, it was reported that 10 percent of
motorists getting new or renewed licenses took advantage of motor-voter
and registered.
I suggest that these numbers speak for themselves, and it is clear
from these figures that motor-voter is working. I suggest--only
suggest--that the real concerns of the opponents of the motor-voter
bill is the fact that it is working and it is really not the cost of
implementation of this piece of legislation.
I have never engaged in a filibuster in 20 years. I have used some
parliamentary procedures and used some strategy as it relates to the
rules of the Senate, but with the reports we have from the States that
are involved--and if there is an attempt to put this amendment on this
piece of legislation, I will have to object and I will have to object
vigorously. I will have to use whatever means are available to me as a
Senator to see that as we move along and as things are really happening
out there, and that people are being registered and the cost is much
less and it does not trigger S. 1, then I feel like we have made a good
start in a good direction.
Mr. President, I hope I do not have to and I hope that there will not
be an attempt to put on an amendment as relates to motor-voter on S. 1.
I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, point of order. The Senator from Alaska
has been here and waited through two other Senators who spoke. I do not
know whether I have been overlooked or what. I had a brief statement. I
ask unanimous consent that I may be allowed to give it at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. What was the request?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to make a brief statement on the subject matter that is before
us at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator does not need consent to do
that. He has the floor. He can talk as long as he wants.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state the Chair has recognized
the Senator from Idaho. At this point, the Chair also states to the
Senator from Alaska there was a speaker on this side, and I then
recognized the Senator from Kentucky, and the floor manager asked for
recognition. That is where the Chair stands.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I can
yield time necessary to the Senator from Alaska to make his comments,
but that I will retain the floor upon the completion of his comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague from Idaho.
Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor of this
Unfunded Mandate Relief Act of 1995. Unfunded Federal mandates
certainly become one of the tools of business as usual in today's
legislating to improve the quality of living in America. But in
reality, they counteract what we are trying to achieve as legislators
by forcing exorbitant compliant costs on our State, local and tribal
governments.
Change is what Americans called for during this last election. This
bill takes, I think, a comprehensive approach to changing the way we do
business here. It has bipartisan support in both the House and Senate
and the support of the States and their respective industries and, I
believe, the support of a wide segment of America's taxpaying public.
So I am ready to support the passage of this bill when we move to a
vote in the Senate.
The future of unfunded Federal mandates is about to be changed, and
the next step is to move toward providing relief for existing
regulations that impose an unbearable cost on State and local
governments.
Yesterday, I was visited by residents of the small community of
Unalaska, near Dutch Harbor. It is a small island community in the
Aleutian chain of southwest Alaska. It is a rather interesting
community because it ordinarily has a population of about 4,300. But
for about 3 months out of the year, that population increases by about
10,000. The rationale is that it is the largest fishing port in the
United States, and the fish that are processed there are processed
primarily by workers coming from all over Alaska, as well as other
States.
The community is accessible only by air and water. There are no
roads. There is a ferry service that makes approximately six trips each
year. The residents of Dutch Harbor and Unalaska, one can imagine,
could hardly be affected by the proposed legislation on unfunded
Federal mandates. But I stress that the heavy financial burdens caused
by existing regulations stacked with unfunded mandates reaches out that
far.
These folks are not alone. Throughout Alaska and across the country,
communities, large and small, are faced with the impossibility of
trying to meet the mandates of the Congress. We simply need to provide
them with relief.
In Dutch Harbor, the EPA recently issued a notice requiring
filtration of drinking water to the city of Unalaska. The filter plant
requirement would appear to be in the public health interest, but
Unalaska's water system has never, ever been associated with water-
borne disease. Their primary source of water is a small stream with its
headwaters encompassing an area of undeveloped mountain and volcanic
regions.
And when a storm occasionally passes through, it stirs up the silt in
the stream and the water occasionally exceeds the EPA's accepted
turbidity level of 5 units.

Now, Mr. President, the result is that these people, the majority, as
I have said, year-round residents, some 4,300, who have been drinking
that water untouched by human development for several thousand years
are now forced to implement a $6 million water filtration plant, plus
foot the bill for operating expenses to solve a problem that does not
exist. They simply cannot afford it, but they are mandated under law.
The local officials potentially face liability and criminal penalties
if they do not adhere to this demand.
This is only one example of many in Unalaska. They must also
construct an advanced primary or secondary sewage plant in compliance
with Federal regulations at a cost of another $6.3 million, with
$200,000 yearly in operating costs. They simply cannot afford it.
They also face extremely high costs of complying with the Clean Air
Act. They are forced to reduce emissions from their power generation
facilities to meet reduced 1995 emissions.
What are the circumstances here? There are approximately eight
generating plants throughout the community. Their power is diesel
generated. The EPA monitors over the exhaust. They compile data
collectively and they find them out of compliance.
What is not understood is that Dutch Harbor, AK, is probably the
windiest place in North America. On an average day it will blow 60, 70,
100 miles an hour in a storm, they have registered 170 miles an hour.
Yet the EPA maintains they are not meeting their air quality emissions.
[[Page S881]] One might ask, well, why not put up windmills. The
problem with the windmills is they simply cannot stand the ice that
forms on the blades; they tear themselves apart.
These are real people who come to Washington asking us to address a
legitimate problem, and it is legitimate in the sense that it affects
their livelihood. We talk about millions and billions. These are people
who come in to try to explain their circumstances and are asking for
relief. This is a fishing community that has been forced to turn away
members of the industry seeking a power source because they have
already reached the maximum capacity that EPA dictates. They are so
caught up in efforts to comply with Federal regulations, as I have
said, to avoid civil and criminal penalties, that there are no
resources remaining for expansion to meet additional community needs.
In my opinion, Mr. President, the real criminals are the agencies
forcing these unbearable cost burdens on our communities as regulatory
dumping grounds, if you will. Now this community has teamed up with 40
other communities to pass resolutions calling on Congress to address
the impact of these unfunded Federal mandates.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of those communities be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Municipality

Aleutians East Borough.
Fairbanks North Star Borough.
City and Borough of Juneau
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
Kodiak Island Borough
City and Borough of Yakutat
City of Akutan
City of Atka
City of Atqasuk
City of Bethel
City of Brevig Mission
City of Coffman Cove
City of Cordova
City of Fairbanks
City of False Pass
City of Haines
City of Kaktovik
City of Kasaan
City of Kenai
City of King Cove
City of Klawock
City of Kodiak
City of Kotzebue
City of Larsen Bay
City of Nenana
City of Nome
City of Ouzinkie
City of Palmer
City of Petersburg
City of Sand Point
City of Seldovia
City of Shishmaret
City of Soldotna
City of Thorne Bay
City of Togiak
City of Unalakleet
City of Unalaska
City of Valdez
City of Wainwright
City of Wasilla
City of Whittier
City of Wrangell

Chamber of Commerce

Kodiak
Unalaska/Dutch Harbor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. These communities are openly committed to providing
high-quality public services to the residents, but as a result of the
numerous unfunded mandates and restrictive time schedules, are
sacrificing other local priorities. The intent of Congress in passing
environmental statutes was not to deplete our States' economic
resources. If we are truly committed to changing the future of unfunded
mandates in our legislating, we should be willing to go a step beyond,
and that is what I am prepared to do.
So, Mr. President, reform of unfunded mandates is not a job well done
until we have provided relief from those regulations now in effect, and
I am committed to finding that balance which raises the quality of
public service for Americans at a reasonable cost. If a less costly
course of action is available to achieve the same result, we should not
limit that window of opportunity but encourage the cost savings. This
is possible when solutions are tailored to fit the local needs, not
mandated by an out-of-control Washington bureaucracy.
Mr. President, I wonder if I could just insert in the Record by
unanimous consent at this time the entire statement concerning the
announcement that one of our American sons was killed while serving
with the special forces on duty in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and is the
first American service man to die while on the mission, and the
difficulty of course, is the reality that this soldier died while he
was monitoring toll booth operations on a road in Haiti. I will repeat
that, Mr. President. The first American soldier to die in Haiti died
while he was monitoring toll booth operations. He was shot by a
passenger in a car at a toll booth.
Mr. President, why are American troops still in Haiti? General Cedras
is gone. Aristide has been in power for more than a month and still
American forces remain in Haiti. What are we doing monitoring toll
booths and cleaning streets? In this Senator's view, the return of our
soldiers from Haiti is long overdue. Our mission has been accomplished
and we should not be performing local civil service functions
associated with police work. It is a sad day, Mr. President, when any
American soldier loses his life defending freedom. Mr. President, it is
totally absurd that this soldier was killed while performing a job he
was neither trained for nor should have been doing. I urge the
President to bring home our troops now.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By previous order of the Senate, the Senator
from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, first may I say I appreciate the comments made by the
Senator from West Virginia about the fact that I was carrying out the
role and responsibility as floor manager. May I say that I have the
utmost respect for the Senator from West Virginia, and I intend to
learn a great deal from the Senator from West Virginia, as we will have
much time, probably in terms of years, together here.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield without losing his
right to the floor?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator from West Virginia can learn a lot from the
Senator who is now managing this bill. I am sure I will learn something
probably before the day is over.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. BYRD. Because he has some reason for asking consent that he be
recognized, which is fine. I respect that. But the fact that he is
doing his best to advance the bill does not but increase my admiration
for him. I simply state that I hope we would not have to stay around
too much longer inasmuch as there will not be adoption of any
amendment. There might be a motion to table and get a vote one way or
the other on that. But on an amendment to table, why, then Senators
have to make a decision as to whether or not they want to try to
reinstitute that amendment at some time.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. President, I also want to make this point. We have had discussion
about last year and about, well, what happened. Why is it that S. 993
did not ultimately come out of the Senate? That is history. That is
behind us.
This is the future. S. 1 is the future. And S. 1 is a bipartisan
piece of legislation; 63 Senators have said that they sponsor this
legislation. The amendment that is before us, which is the Levin
amendment, was agreed to by the Governmental Affairs Committee, of
which we do have the report from the Governmental Affairs Committee, so
that that particular issue is contained within this report. I hope that
we can move forward. But again I respect other Senators' asserting
their rights.
We need to deal with this, though, Mr. President. And as I have said
throughout the day, we will take whatever time is necessary so that all
Senators fully realize they have had every opportunity to debate this
issue thoroughly. Those who wish to offer amendments may offer
amendments, and we will debate those amendments thoroughly because this
is significant legislation. It will fundamentally change how this
Government operates. But it is simply that we are going to go back to
the fundamentals of what the Founding Fathers intended, and that is
that we will know what federalism is, and that is Federal-State-local
government partnerships.
[[Page S882]] In our current system of mandating, too often, Mr.
President, we have seen, on those 15-minute votes, that we come down to
the well and we say, ``Well, is there a mandate in this legislation?''
And rarely do you hear anyone say, ``Well, how much does it cost?''
Because there is absolutely no calculation of the cost.
This is a process. S. 1 is a process that we are trying to implement
so that when we have these multimillion dollar decisions and
multibillion dollar decisions, we will have that information before the
vote. We will have the analysis as to what impact does this have upon
the public sector; what impact does it have upon the private sector;
what impact might it have upon any competition between the public and
private sector where they may be carrying out similar responsibilities;
what impact might these decisions have upon the national economy, upon
jobs, upon international competitiveness of this country with the rest
of the world. We will know that before we cast our votes.
And so it will not be this little time, for 15 minutes somebody might
say, ``Is there a mandate?'' We will know because we will have
information that tells us there is a mandate. The authorizing committee
will establish there is a mandate; we have had it costed by CBO; we
have had an analysis.
I believe that because this is bipartisan, because this has the
support of, it is fair to say, the Nation's Governors, the Nation's
mayors and county commissioners and school board administrators,
because it has the support of the private sector. The majority leader
and I had the great opportunity this morning to meet with a number of
representatives of the private sector and, in front of the press of
this country, to have the private sector say how strongly they believe
in this; that this is exactly the sort of legislation they want to see
coming from Congress.
All those groups that I just mentioned, they all had an opportunity
to help us craft this legislation, as did other Senators who had an
interest. It did not matter if you were Republican, Democrat,
conservative, liberal--if you had an interest and you wanted to be at
the table, you helped us craft this. And it is meaningful as to what it
is going to help us do in realigning the responsibilities of Congress
with the partners in both public and private sector.
S. 1 is not about the merits or demerits of individual mandates. It
is about having accurate information; about having a separate debate
where Congress is encouraged to consult--to consult--with State and
local partners. There have been a number of occasions where I have been
a member of a Senate committee and we have witnesses who may testify
upon some issue before us. And I have often heard State and local
elected officials referred to as special interest groups. On those
occasions, I point out those are not special interest groups, those are
our partners. We say it, but we are not treating them as partners. This
is going to establish a new partnership.
It is time that take place. I do not mean today. We are going to
spend a few days on this legislation so, again, we can have a thorough
discussion on this. This legislation is not retroactive. This is
prospective. This legislation is not going to stop mandates. It does
say, though, that if we have a Federal mandate on public entities such
as cities or States, we need to pay for it.
I believe that the citizens of this great Nation have a simple
message for us, and that is if you truly believe--if you truly
believe--that we need to have a national program that may require a
national mandate because that is in the best interests of this Nation,
because that has a direct bearing upon our national environment,
national public safety, national health, then just be up front and say
it. Discuss it. We will understand.
But then, if you feel you must have this program, this mandate, do
not shift the responsibility of the payments off to somebody else and
somehow say we do not know how it will be paid for. We know how it will
be paid for.
While we talk about unfunded Federal mandates, there is really no
such thing as an unfunded mandate. They are all funded. And by and
large they are funded by the taxpayers. That was the message of the
private sector, the business people today. They are the ones at the
local level who pay for these mandates.
While this term ``unfunded mandate'' is relatively new, there are
different entities throughout the United States that have known for
years what an unfunded mandate has been--teachers, for example.
Teachers have known for years that every time a new Federal program
came down the pike without the funds, it meant that the local budget
would shrink even further. It would mean the difference between whether
or not you could buy new textbooks for the kids. It meant whether or
not you could shrink the size of that student-teacher ratio. It meant
whether or not teachers might get a salary increase that particular
year. But we keep shrinking it.
We should not be paying for national programs that are in the
Nation's best interests with local property taxes. That is one of the
few sources of revenue that these local governments have. Yet we say,
because of what we do in Congress, you now must implement this and you
have no choice. Approximately 15 percent of the local government's
budget right off the top goes to pay for these unfunded Federal
mandates. They do not have a choice.
You may have been a local official. When you run for office you say:
These are the priorities of this city. If I am elected, this is what I
will accomplish. If you are fortunate enough to be given that honor of
serving those people in that local community, and you go in there with
your list of priorities--guess what. Congress takes precedence over
your priority list. It does not matter what the people who elected you
believed that you would do for them. It may mean the difference of
whether or not you can add additional police officers on the streets;
whether or not you can fix the streets themselves. It has a direct
bearing.
We had one of the Nation's leaders, Carolyn Long Banks, who is the
president of the National League of Cities, who talked about this. She
talked about the problem of crime in urban areas, cities, in rural
towns; the fact, again, right off the top we have to take the money to
pay for these Federal programs that may be hundreds and thousands of
miles away from your community. But it is the difference whether or not
you can put on an additional police officer who may help you curb some
of that crime that is happening in your streets. Because you know it is
a priority. Your citizens do not feel safe at night.
But what do we do? Now we say, if you have a problem where you do not
have enough money back at the local level, then the Federal Government
will provide the funds so you can hire additional police officers. If
we would just leave that money at home in the first place and not use
the Federal Government as the middleman--with the extremely expensive
carrying charge of the Federal Government--you would be able to afford
more police officers on the streets. But we say we know better. Local
law enforcement is the prerogative of local government. Yet, now we
have this national program that says if you need more police officers,
we have a program and we will give you back your money. But it is now
Federal money because we brought it to Washington, DC. That is not the
way it should work.
S. 1 will allow us to have a constructive debate, a debate and a
recorded vote, before we impose new mandates without the Federal funds
to carry them out. That is the process. I do not know how people can
object to that because, rather than abdicating our decisionmaking
ability, we are going to enhance it. We are going to enhance our
decisionmaking ability, and I think the American public will say:
Hallelujah. Our Congress is now going to make these millions-upon-
millions-of-dollar decisions based upon the information it needs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am sorry I have not been here earlier but
we have been working with the President, trying to cooperate with the
administration on the matter of Mexico, which is very important. So we
have been spending most of the day on that down at the White House.
[[Page S883]] I understand we have a slight problem here. I might
say I did receive a letter from the President today supporting this
measure, if that will have any impact on the other side of the aisle.
But it is our intent to finish this bill, and we will have some
votes. As a former majority leader I learned all about votes. As a
former majority leader, I learned how to get votes and one way is to
move to table the committee amendment. I move to table the Levin
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
Mr. DOLE. We will just have two votes that way.
Mr. FORD. I understand that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. 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. BYRD. I Object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to
call the roll.
The bill clerk resumed the call of the roll, and the following
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
[Quorum No. 2]

Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Craig
Daschle
Dole
Domenici
Exon
Faircloth
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gramm
Gregg
Kempthorne
Levin
McCain
Moynihan
Murkowski
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces that a quorum is not
present.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A parliamentary inquiry is not in order at
this time.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole]. The yeas and nays were ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is
necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 15 Leg.]

YEAS--88

Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bradley
Brown
Bryan
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Robb
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone

NAYS--3

Breaux
Helms
McCain

NOT VOTING--9

Biden
Bumpers
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Nunn
Reid
Rockefeller
So the motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.

committee amendment, page 10 line 15-page 11, line 3

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the Senate
majority leader's motion to lay on the table the first committee
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the amendment which is subject to the tabling motion
the first Governmental Affairs Committee amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and
the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr.
Johnston], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator
from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 16 Leg.]

YEAS--53

Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--38

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Robb
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--9

Biden
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Nunn
Packwood
Reid
Rockefeller
So the motion to lay on the table the first committee amendment was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, the majority leader is physically
unable to come to the floor for the next several minutes, so I am going
to proceed, now, on his behalf.
The next six committee amendments are purely technical in nature.
They deal with renumbering paragraphs. These will be necessary when we
do the managers' amendment and add back in the last committee
amendments that we just dealt with.
It is with this in mind that I would like to ask the Senator from
West Virginia if we could adopt committee amendments numbered 2 through
7 en bloc?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator make that as a unanimous-
consent request?
[[Page S884]] Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that would be my
intention, yes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will yield.
Mr. BYRD. Without his losing his right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will have no objection to that request, if
I understand it. The distinguished majority leader came over to me
during the vote and explained to me that the committee amendments, to
which the distinguished Senator from Idaho has referred, are merely
renumbering amendments. They are not substantive amendments. And he
indicated that he would like to get consent en bloc to--if I understand
it?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, to the Senator from West Virginia, you
are correct. This is simply renumbering paragraphs.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I do not intend to object.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.
Mr. BYRD. And I will not take but a few minutes.
Mr. President, this illustrates why we should have time to study the
bill and the committee report. And we have now been assured that there
will be, not only the committee report by the Committee on Government
Affairs but also a report of the Committee on the Budget, made
available. And I believe that report is expected tomorrow, to be
available.
I am not here to filibuster this bill. I made that clear, eminently
clear, I think, earlier today. If I, indeed, wanted to filibuster I
would not agree to this request. I would simply have a vote on each of
these amendments. But I do not intend to do that. I do not intend to do
something that at this point is unreasonable, in my judgment. I am not
filibustering the bill. I am not against the bill. I want to know what
is in it before I vote, one way or the other.
It is a clear indication I did not know what was in these amendments,
even. I asked the managers of the bill earlier today, how many
amendments there were, committee amendments? I could have gone through
the bill and I could have noted the strikeouts and inserts and counted
them myself. But I had not done that. I have been very busy doing other
things. I think I know how Napoleon felt when he was banished to Elba.
I have a nice little corner room down here now. I had a great suite,
Appropriations Committee suite of five rooms. When the electorate
turned out a few weeks ago and votes had been counted, I called Senator
Hatfield after the election to congratulate him. I said, ``I want to
congratulate you. Now that you are going to be chairman of this
committee again, I want you to know that I am moving everything out and
taking the pictures off the wall so that you will be able to move back
in.'' So he thanked me, and he said, ``Robert, I want you to have that
corner room down there.'' That corner room was part of the
appropriations suite. And I thanked him. I was very appreciative of
that.
So I have been joking, after having had to give up four other
spacious rooms, that I am now in the corner room. I have said to
various and sundry people that I think I know how Napoleon felt now as
he stood there banished to Elba with his hands crossed behind him and
looking out upon the sad and solemn sea. I feel like Napoleon. Here I
am in this little room here, and all I can look out upon is the
Reflecting Pool.
So I have been busy. I have been pretty busy moving out of five rooms
and trying to condense everything into one. So I have been very busy. I
have not read the bill. And I simply felt that we ought to move a
little more slowly, have an opportunity to study this bill, and study
the committee report so we would know what is in it.
Mr. Dole said to me that these amendments, to which the distinguished
Senator from Idaho has referred, are simply renumbering amendments.
They are not substantive amendments. I do not want to do something
vain. The Scriptures tell me that all men are vain but one should not
do a vain thing. That would be a vain thing for me to put the Senate
through several votes. If I were filibustering, I would not mind that.
But I will not want to do that. But Senators put requests on five or
six amendments that are real but amount to nothing but renumbering
amendments.
So I am not going to object to that request. I must say, however,
that I had indicated earlier that the Senate would not vote on any
amendments. And to Senators who may be unfamiliar with the procedural
senatorial process around here, voting on an amendment is voting up or
down. To table an amendment is voting in relation to an amendment. It
is not a vote on an amendment one way or the other. It accomplishes the
purpose of killing the amendment.
So my question to the distinguished Senator would be--and I voted
with the majority to table this amendment. I frankly did not know what
I was tabling. I have not had any opportunity to know what is in this
bill. That underlines my point that we need a committee report, and we
need to slow this thing down a little so we can study it. Would it be
the intention of the majority at some point to attempt to restore this
first amendment which was tabled?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from West
Virginia, that is correct. We believe that the amendment that was just
tabled, which was a committee amendment agreed to unanimously by the
committee, yes, that should be restored. In speaking with Senator
Glenn, it would be our intention that be included in the managers'
amendment package.
Mr. BYRD. If that amendment is restored, then the Senate would also
need to restore the numbers on the committee amendments that are
included in the request of the distinguished Senator from Idaho and
restore those numbers also, I assume.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia,
by moving to these numbers now, that would prepare us, as I understand
it, so that when we do add back in the amendment we just tabled this
will now wind up.
Mr. BYRD. You would have to change the numbers back, though.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. No; this is really in preparation for that.
Mr. BYRD. So what we are doing at this point, let us see if I can
find it, we would be saying by the Senator's unanimous consent request
that amendment 2, which is numbered, which has the number 17, and by
his request is being made 16? Is that correct?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that is correct.
Mr. BYRD. Does it not follow then that if in due time amendment No. 1
is restored, would the number, the numbers that are being renumbered
now, would they not have to be restored to their present stature?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, no. In response to the Senator from
West Virginia, if we look at page 10, line 15, and line 19, where we
see the numbers 15 and 16, that amendment dealt with both of those that
we had a motion to table. So by proceeding then with this current what
will be a unanimous consent request, when that is added back in, these
numbers that we are altering and at this point--I go to page 11, line
4--that would then read 16.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. So that, again, once we add back what has been
referred to as the Levin amendment, these numbers that we are now going
to alter, realign, will be lined up in anticipation of adding the Levin
amendment back in.
Mr. BYRD. Very well. These are not substantive amendments, and I, of
course, have already stated that I do not intend to impose an
objection.
May I ask this question: Does the Senator have any additional
information with respect to the committee report that we have been
promised would be available to Senators tomorrow? Does he have any
information as to what time tomorrow the committee report might be
available?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from West
Virginia, we anticipate that the latest would be 10 a.m.. We will try
to get
[[Page S885]] that even sooner. But we anticipate no later than 10 a.m.
Mr. BYRD. Very well.
Mr. President, I have no objection to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. GLENN. If I might ask a question on what we just struck with the
tabling motion, I believe the distinguished Senator from Idaho said
that we would put that back in the committee amendments that would be
approved later. Since it has just been struck by, or will be tabled,
will we need separate action to officially put that back in, or can we
legally put that back in?
Mr. BYRD. No; it would take an action by the Senate.
Mr. GLENN. It would take action by the Senate to undo what we just
did, I gather. Is that correct?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Mr. President, that is my understanding. What I
would anticipate is that the two floor managers would agree that we
would include that in a managers' amendment that would then be brought
before the body.
Mr. GLENN. Since it was just tabled, can we legally do that without
further action of the Senate, to put back in what was just tabled? I
guess that is a parliamentary question. Will the Chair give us advice
on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will restate his question.
Mr. GLENN. We just tabled a provision that was in the bill when it
came over here. We are proposing--or the floor manager on the other
side is proposing that--and it is an important part we want to get back
in the bill some way--he is proposing that this be part of the
committee's amendments which was part of the original unanimous-consent
request. Having just tabled this as an official action of the Senate,
can we do that on our own and put it back in without official action of
the Senate to permit us to do that--to approve putting that back in the
committee amendment in toto with all of the others that are lined up in
that? I think I stated that clearly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order for the Senate to adopt
an amendment that contains that language as well as other language.
Mr. GLENN. Well, I am not sure I understand yet. We could put that
back in. If we agree to it, we can put that in as part of the committee
amendment, without any further action by the Senate, in light of what
occurred on the tabling motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate would have to adopt that amendment.
Mr. GLENN. There would have to be official action to undo what we
just did to permit us to put that back in the committee amendment; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is correct. Is there
objection to the request?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not think the Senator made the request.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. That is correct. I appreciate the courtesy of the
Senator from West Virginia for allowing us to proceed with this.

Excepted Committee Amendments 2 through 7

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment
Nos. 2 through 7 be considered, en bloc, and agreed to, en bloc, and
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to
object, I want to be sure about this. This is the first time I have
really had an opportunity to look at this bill, when the majority
leader came over and explained to me that all we are talking about is
numbers. I want to make sure that the Senator is not including the
amendment on page 12, beginning on line 7.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that is correct. This does not include
that which begins on page 12. It would be my understanding that the
item that the Senator from West Virginia is referencing would be the
next amendment before us, after we deal with this unanimous-consent
request.
Mr. BYRD. I have no objection.
Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I just want
to make certain what we are doing. One part of this we thought was
important, on page 25, lines 11 through 25, deals with the jurisdiction
of committees, that part that was stricken by the Budget Committee. And
I want to make certain that that section I just referenced is not dealt
with in the amendments the Senator is proposing.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes, that is correct. In fact, this unanimous-consent
request only deals with those amendments, or changes to this
legislation, up through page 11, and no further.
Mr. GLENN. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, I thank very much the Senator
from West Virginia for his understanding and his courtesy in allowing
us to move this bill forward.
We have talked a great deal about the process itself. We have talked
about a number of issues. But I thought, if I may, I would like to just
bring it home, literally, and give you a few ideas from my State of
Idaho on what this is about.
Fairfield, ID, is a rural community of about 450 people. It is
located along U.S. Highway 20 between Mountain Home and Sun Valley. It
is a great spot, with wonderful people that live there. You will not
find finer people. This tiny town is facing a staggering expense
because of unfunded Federal mandates. In fact, the mayor says he is
fighting to keep the city from going bankrupt from costly Federal
regulations. New water standards required $3,000 in copper and lead
tests just last year. The sewer discharge regulations forced the city
to make $360,000 in repairs to its treatment lagoons. Now, $40,000 of
that cost came from the city's budget. That is over half of the entire
water-sewer fund's annual budget; over half of the annual budget was
required to be utilized for that purpose. Potentially, the costs are
even higher.
Mayor Reuben Miller says that Federal storm water management programs
would cost Fairfield about $5 million to pave roads, install gutters,
and build drainage ponds. If carried out, it would cost each Fairfield
household $175 per month for the next 20 years. That is $175 per month
for the next 20 years for the households in Fairfield, ID.
``The solution,'' says the mayor, ``is to allow us flexibility to
figure out how we will do it and over what period of time.'' If we go
on with business as usual, there will be a lot of towns in trouble. The
mayor sums up the whole problem simply: ``Let the local people
determine their own fate.''
Mr. President, that is not to say that we are going to turn our backs
on some of these very meaningful programs that may be in the Nation's
best interest. But I do believe it allows latitude so that once we
establish standards, let us recognize that based on local geography,
geology, climate, and economy, that they should have flexibility in
using their own innovation and utilizing what resources they have to
meet those standards.
Senate bill No. 1 gives us a process so that we can go through this
and so that we can ask, ``Is this truly in the best interest of the
Nation? Does it exceed $50 million? And if it does, how do we pay for
it?''
St. Maries, ID, has some very serious problems. It is in the northern
part of our State. It is a beautiful community, where the St. Maries
and St. Joe Rivers come together. Their problems are coming from the
Federal Government. Like every other community in America, they have to
figure out a way to meet new Federal drinking water standards. Since
the 1930's, their water has come from the same crystal-clear mountain
source, and for 65 years the people of St. Maries have gotten along
just fine with their drinking water system. But because their drinking
water is surface water, the 2,800 residents of St. Maries are looking
at a $3 to $5 million price tag in order to comply with the new
standards.
For the last year, St. Maries has been working with the State of
Idaho on some interim measures, and they have worked well together. But
the bottom line is that, at some point, they are going to have to come
into compliance. St. Maries will have to go to its residents to figure
out a way to raise up to $5 million to fix a problem that does not
exist. That is $1,785 for every man, woman, and child in St. Maries. To
make matters worse, St. Maries is already trying to pay an $870,000
bill from the last Federal mandate. The
[[Page S886]] bottom line is that is a lot more money than that
community has. So city leaders are struggling with how to come up with
the money to meet the Federal mandate requirements. I imagine their
frustration as they discuss a 30-year bond, knowing full well somebody
is going to change the standards on them long before the note matures.
In Moscow, ID, where the University of Idaho is located, property
taxes and user fees went up 73.5 percent in fiscal year 1994, largely
because of unfunded Federal mandates. Property taxes and user fees went
up 73 percent. User fees have gone up to pay for a new solid waste
transfer station and a $15 million upgrade to the city's waste water
treatment plant.
Sewer rates for single-family households in Moscow, ID, population
about 18,000 people, tripled to pay for these unfunded Federal
mandates.
I can tell you about a situation from Boise, ID. I was the mayor of
Boise, ID, for 7 years. We had a water treatment plant in that
community and because standards were changed, the Boise Water
Corporation had to go and put in a new treatment plant. This was done,
Mr. President, not because of any increase in customer load, it was not
done not because of any health risk, it was not done to increase the
efficiency of the delivery of water, it was done because some standards
were changed, at a $15 million cost to those citizens, which equated to
about a 40-percent increase in their utility payment for water.
The Parks Department spent $1.9 million for removal of underground
storage tanks meeting Federal playground standards and remodeling
facilities to meet the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The city personnel department ran up $610,000 cost for complying with
the Fair Labor Standards Act. There are many, many of these different
examples.
Now does that mean that every one of these things should not be
carried out? I am not saying that. Does it mean that there is no way
that the communities would not be required to continue funding these
programs?
S. 1 is not retroactive. It is not retroactive.
And also there may be instances where we just determine that, for
whatever reason, we are not going to provide those Federal dollars to
carry out some portion of the program. But in order to do that, Mr.
President, the process says that you need to come to the floor of the
Senate, because a point of order will lie against that. Because if you
do not provide 100 percent of the funds, then it is ruled out of order
from the Chair. But a Senator can seek a waiver. And, perhaps, based on
the CBO analysis, based on this analysis, based on these cost figures,
we believe that we should have a waiver, and then the majority rules
and we grant that waiver. That is how the process should work.
But all across this country, you hear the mayors, the county
commissioners, the Governors saying, ``Please restore the relationship
of a partnership with Federal Government. We are your partners.''
And I know that some people will pose different hypothetical
situations, and when they pose those hypothetical situations they will
say now, ``How will it be? Give us your determination. Does this fit or
does it not fit?''
And the answer is, Mr. President, in many of those hypotheticals, I
cannot make that determination. But the process will work where if, in
fact, we meet some of those hypotheticals in the future, then we will
determine if a point of order really does apply.
A point of order is not self-initiating. A Senator has to make that
point of order. But we will then make decisions as we then take what
today may be a hypothetical but tomorrow is a real situation, then we
can discuss it. But we will not be discussing it based upon just what
some of us may or may not know from some conversation or something we
have read. We will be discussing that based upon information provided
to us both by the authorizing committee and by the Congressional Budget
Office. We will know if there is a fiscal impact. We will know the cost
of that impact. So that when we have that discussion, we will know
exactly what it is all about and then we can make that determination of
does it apply or does it not apply? I think that is how it should work.
But we will be reestablishing that process.
And as we have worked with this process, I have received a number of
letters from people all over the country. A lot of folks tune into C-
SPAN and stay abreast of what is taking place in this Nation's capital,
the issues that we are dealing with. And they say, ``You know, we did
not understand what these unfunded Federal mandates were before, but we
now are realizing that they are hidden Federal taxes. And we realize
that you are advocating that we ought to discuss that instead of just
pass them without any understanding of what the cost or impact will
be.''
These mandates that we may place upon the private sector without an
understanding of the impact--what impact do those mandates on the
private sector have upon the Nation's economy, upon jobs, upon
international competitiveness? We will know that ahead of time, because
we will now require it.
A chairman or a ranking member can require that that sort of
information be brought forward so that we will make informed decisions.
All of these different examples that we have discussed somehow cause
some people to say that if we do not put all of these costs off on
somebody else, if we do not put these costs off on the States and the
cities, then the Federal Government will turn its back on some of these
national issues that may deal with the environment, may deal with
public safety.
That does not speak very well of Congress. That says we do not have
much resolve. If we cannot use somebody else's money, we will not do
it? Again, that is a real criticism of Congress.
Then people sometimes make the argument, because the U.S. Federal
Government has a $4 trillion debt, there is no way that we could pay
for any of these mandates. We do not have the money in the first place.
But that is supposing that somehow the State governments are flush
with money, the local governments are flush with money, and so we will
let them pay for it. We will make the decisions and then we will
dictate how much out of every one of their treasuries must be used to
carry out these Federal programs. That is not right. It is as though
someone is saying, ``Well, but the Federal taxpayer is tapped out. The
Federal taxpayer has a $4 trillion debt against his or her ledger and
therefore we will just let the State taxpayer or the local taxpayer pay
for this.''
The reality is there is only one set of taxpayers--the American
taxpayers. They write out a check to the Federal Government, they write
out a check to the State government, they write out a check to the
local government. And so they would say to us, ``If it is a program
coming from the Federal level, we just ask Congress to be up front
about it. Take it out of the Federal account.''
That is straightforward. That is how we have to do it with our own
budgets at home. Just stand up and be accountable. That is what S. 1 is
about--accountability. So that we will know exactly what the impacts
are, what the costs will be.
When we continue with this debate, we have discussed the fact that we
want to make sure it is thorough. We want to make sure that every
Senator who takes part in this discussion knows that they have been
able to ask every question they need to ask to understand this
legislation.
Those who choose to offer amendments will know that they have every
right to offer those amendments and that they will be considered with
all respect. We will debate those amendments and determine what
aspects, which amendments, may be worthwhile.

In my discussions with Senator Glenn, who is managing this for the
other side, I believe we will be able to determine some of those
amendments that we can agree on. We will put those in a managers'
amendment and place them before this body so that we can accept them.
Some will be perfecting in nature so that we can make some of those
improvements to this bill.
I also know there will be amendments that people will offer that may
be to provide exemptions. I do not know why people would want to exempt
themselves from getting the information that this Senate bill 1 will
provide. This is a critically important
[[Page S887]] piece of legislation. This is something that absolutely
has the support of the Nation's Governors and mayors, county officials,
and school officials. It has 63 Senators that support this, both sides
of the aisle. And as Senator Glenn points out, the President, in a
letter which we received this morning, supports this legislation, is
ready to sign this legislation into law. That will send such a clear
and joyous message to our cities, our counties, and our States. It has
been absolutely bipartisan in its nature, as it should be.
Mr. President, when I say the bipartisan nature and the fact that
other Senators have spoken earlier today, this evening, there have been
a lot of nice comments made. I want to again, if I may just acknowledge
that Senator Glenn, as chairman of that Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee during the last session--before unfunded mandates was the
politically hot topic--joined in this effort and played a key role in
fashioning legislation that we could bring forward. Now Senator Roth,
as chairman of that committee, and the role that he is playing, Senator
Roth, Senator Domenici, and Senator Exon, chairmen and ranking members
of those committees, the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs
Committee, put in many hours during this last recess to fashion this.
It was fashioned with the assistance of our partners in the public and
private sector.
When we elect somebody at the local level, they tell their
constituents that they will establish the priorities for those
communities. But the irony is, with unfunded Federal mandates, we rob
them of the ability to set priorities because they first and foremost
must deal with what the Federal Government tells them they must do.
That impacts what might be the normal list of priorities that they had.
The irony, to continue, is the fact that without this process that we
are now advocating, I do not know that we have had a meaningful
discussion of our national priorities. So we would rob the local
communities of their right to establish priorities, and yet at the
national level because we have somebody else pay for it, because we do
not have to determine that this particular program is more important
than an existing program, therefore, perhaps, we should reduce that
existing program to pay for this new program. It does not happen. But
it should. And it will with this legislation.
I mentioned a little while ago about the responsibilities, the
resolve of Congress. I believe that, as Members of Congress, if we
identify that there is a true national need, whether it is public
safety or public health, we need to identify it. The second thing we
need to do is to develop the means or the program to correct it. The
third thing is to provide the funds to carry it out. Why is it that we
balk at that last responsibility? Why is it that we think that a
national program that is enacted here in Washington, DC, should be paid
for with local property taxes and Boy Scouts or St. Mary's or Moscow or
Fairfield? Why would we do that? We talked about a representative
government and yet that is not the sort of representation that our
citizens expect from Members.
What other entity in the country could make multi-million-dollar/
multi-billion-dollar decisions and have no idea what the real cost is
before they make those decisions? If you did that in the business
world, you would not be there very long. At the local level you cannot
do that. Unfortunately, that is how the Congress of the United States
has been operating.
Mr. President, with this bipartisan effort that has been fashioned,
with the fact that the President of the United States in his letter
today affirmed his strong support for this, I hope that we can keep
this process moving. We are not going to rush through debate. Everyone
will have every opportunity to say whatever they wish to say. I hope
that we can keep this process moving forward so that we are not in a
situation that good legislation is left sitting. There is too much at
stake here. Too many citizens are saying, ``We want to have this
legislation become law. We want to have this legislation become law
now.'' That is what we will do with S. 1.
Let me, if I may, Mr. President, go over just a few of the items of
this process itself. S. 1 defines a mandate as ``any act of the Federal
Government which imposes an enforceable, nonvoluntary duty on a State''
if it has an annual cost in any year greater than $50 million or
creates any new, stringent restriction in a Federal program which has
an annual budget for State, local, or municipal governments in excess
of $500 million.
Now, exempted from the definition of mandates, are bills or
resolutions which enforce constitutional rights or enforce statutory
rights prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender,
national origin or disability; and require compliance with auditing
requirements; or the result of an emergency or national security.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I have just come from a discussion with a number of
others who were asked a series of questions about the legislation
before Members, and we were asked a series of questions that I did not
know the answer to. I would be pleased to have a chance to put them to
one of the authors of the legislation.
The first question that was put to me some time ago, some moments
ago, was, if we pass an increase in the minimum wage, would that
require us to reimburse local and State units of government for the
expense of that increase in the minimum wage?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, to continue my comments, and in
response to my friend from North Dakota, using that as an example, as a
hypothetical, again based on what I stated earlier--I am not here to
make all of the determinations--but let us just follow that for a
second.
A minimum wage, following S. 1, would say that CBO would give an
estimate as to cost. A point of order may or may not be placed against
that. It would require, of course, a majority vote of the Senate to
vote to raise the minimum wage.
Then the question is, is that impact greater than $50 million on the
public sector? If it is, then, again, a point of order may or may not
be made against that.
I would imagine that if there were an increase in the minimum wage,
there would either not be a point of order made against that, with
regard to the public sector, or if there was, I would think that a
waiver, in all likelihood, would be granted because I do not envision
that we would feel that we need to pay the minimum wage increase for
the public sector, knowing that the private sector must pay for that.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for that answer.
If the Senator would permit. Another question that was just asked of
me was a question with respect to the Federal Reserve. If the Federal
Reserve took action to increase interest rates and States that were
issuing bonds, as a result of that, had an increase in their expenses,
would a point of order lie against that action? Would there be the
possibility that local units or the State governments could say to the
Federal Government: ``You have to reimburse us for the increased costs
we experienced because the Federal Reserve Board has ordered an
increase in interest rates.''
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, we would go through it. I do
not know that that would be a nonenforceable voluntary duty. But the
committee where this would originate would make a determination in the
committee whether or not they felt that was a mandate. That authorizing
committee's report would go to CBO, and they would cost this out.
But, again, I do not know that a point of order would be made against
that. This is one of many hypotheticals that would be presented. But
the key to this whole legislation is that if a point of order lies
against that, then you come down here. You may have from CBO or from
the committee itself the analysis as to the rationale as to why a
waiver should be granted, and a majority vote would make that
determination.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield for a
question as a result of that question just asked?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. I believe there are a number of independent agencies not
covered by this bill and, therefore, to
[[Page S888]] which this bill would not be applicable. Maybe I am not
current of the present status of the bill, but as it left the Budget
Committee, as I recall, the Federal Reserve was not included as a
covered agency under this bill, and, therefore, Federal issues of
raising the interest rate, as I understood, would not be subject to
this bill on the face of the bill itself; is that incorrect?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. CONRAD. So in that case, it would seem to me, it would not
qualify because the Congress is not taking any action with respect to a
Federal Reserve action. And so we would not have a legislative vehicle
before us that would relate to an action by the Federal Reserve.
If I might ask a third and final question that has been asked of me
and, in this case, was asked of me yesterday. Utilities back home have
now become concerned about this legislation. At least they have
expressed concern to me.
The concern that they have raised is, ``Look, if public units can be
in a position to avoid mandates, let's say certain provisions of the
Clean Air Act or other environmental legislation that might be
considered by Congress, and the private sector is not exempt, that
could put us at a competitive disadvantage against public power
authorities.''
And so private sector companies have contacted me in the last 24
hours and have said, ``Gee, we're concerned about this. Are we going to
be put in a position in which we are placed at a competitive
disadvantage over and against public power authorities?''
Will the Senator have any answer for that question?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. Mr. President, that is an issue that I have
discussed with some private entities, and the Senator is correct. Some
utilities have expressed a concern about that. Senator Cochran earlier
today also brought that issue up, and we were able to have a discussion
along these same lines.
The point is, in the legislation itself, and as a result of some of
those discussions with the private sector, we have language which says,
and I will quote:

. . . a statement of the degree to which a Federal mandate
affects both the public and private sectors and the extent to
which Federal payment of public sector costs or the
modification or termination of the Federal mandate is
provided under subsection--

Such and such--

would affect the competitive balance between State, local or
tribal governments and the privately owned businesses.

So we have asked that there be a statement, there will be an analysis
as to whether or not in any way does this create some sort of imbalance
between the public and private sector.
One of the companies, one of the successful companies in the country,
Browning-Ferris, had a concern about this, along these lines. If I may,
I would like to read the Senator a letter that I received January 11.
It says:
We appreciate the attention you have given to views we
previously expressed in connection with unfunded mandates
legislation. We expressed our previous views at a time when
one of our concerns was that unfunded mandates legislation
could have retroactive effect. It is evident that S. 1 has a
prospective effect only, which we understand was your intent
all along.
After reviewing the legislation that will be considered on
the floor and after discussions with your office, we
recognize that among your objectives for S.1 is creation of a
favorable climate for the private sector. In fact, S.1 seeks
creatively to address the concern expressed in some quarters
that unfunded mandates legislation could disadvantage the
private sector where public-private competition takes place.
Moreover, after many years of experience in working with
you--most of them prior to your tenure in the Senate--BFI in
convinced that your dedication to free enterprise is
unsurpassed.
With you commitment to assure equality for the private
sector--no more, but no less--where competition exists
between the public and private sectors, we are pleased to
strongly support S.1.
So I believe while we have acknowledged there may be an issue there,
we have provided the language and the vehicle so it can be exposed. And
then based upon that information, that would be, again, the rationale
to come forward and make your case with your fellow Senators.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his response to the question.
Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I know there are others waiting to take the
floor. One point to make here is if the $50 million is adequately
funded in the bill, then the point of order would not lie. If it was
not funded in the bill, then the point of order would lie. But at that
point, a waiver then could be voted by a majority vote, and then it is
taken up and considered, whether or not the funding is there, on what
is right or not right.
Some of these issues that the Senator properly brings to our
attention, like would minimum wage apply--things like that--those would
be taken into account by the wisdom of the Senate at that point.
So it is not that we say you absolutely have to do this, or you
absolutely have to do that. There is always that provision for coming
back, and the Senate would debate it, the Senate would express its will
and the Senate would say minimum wage does apply or might not apply, or
whatever the other problems were my distinguished colleague suggested.
But you always have that come back for the Senate vote as to whether
it will apply or not apply. So it is not an automatic thing that
somebody gets knocked out and there is an arbitrary decision without
the Senate being able to have full debate on the issue and decide how
we should go.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Ohio, and I thank the Senator
from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. President, it is my understanding I still retain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from
California has been here really many times today to speak on this
issue. So I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
California be allowed to make her comments but that I would be able to
retain the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. President, I would like to rise in support of the pending
legislation, and I would like to compliment both Senators Kempthorne
and Glenn.
Mr. President, let me speak for a few moments as someone who in the
1970's was President of a Board of Supervisors in local government and,
through most of the 1980's, was Mayor. I saw the development of these
unfunded mandates firsthand, and, in so doing, I think I probably speak
for the mayors and the local officials all across this Nation.
Mr. President, in the 1970's, 22 new statutes were enacted imposing
new regulations on State and local governments or significantly
expanding programs. During the 1980's, while I was Mayor, 27 new laws
with Federal mandates were added. The Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that new regulations enacted between 1983 and 1990 imposed
total costs of about $8.9 and $12.7 billion on States and local
governments, depending on the definition of mandates used. Federal
dollars during this time declined. Between 1981 and 1990, Federal
dollars declined 28 percent, when the figures are adjusted for
inflation, to satisfy these mandates.
The drop in Federal dollars shifted more of the costs on State and
local governments, draining their resources and making it increasingly
difficult for State and local governments to meet their budgetary
requirements.
Let me speak about something I know well--California.
Unfunded mandates now cost the State $8 billion annually. Just in
providing health, social services, educational and correctional
services to illegal aliens, unfunded mandates are costing California
more than $2 billion annually. The State of California, since 1978, has
been under proposition 13 whereby local jurisdictions effectively
cannot raise revenues to meet these mandates.
Now, rather than talk about my time in local government, let me give
you some specific, current, ongoing examples of the impact that
unfunded mandates are having throughout the State of California right
now.
[[Page S889]] Let's talk about some specific California cities.
Let us take, for example, a city of about 120,000 people known as
Sunnyvale, California. The city has identified a total of 202 mandates
that they must meet. It has incurred costs for 103 of these mandates
during the last 5 fiscal years. The total cost of these mandates has
been approximately $77 million, representing 18 percent of Sunnyvale's
total operating budget.
For example, Sunnyvale's compliance with environmental mandates
accounted for 62.4 percent of the total costs of these mandates.
The general and other nonutility funds of Sunnyvale were impacted by
a total of $7 million in the 1993 budget. This represents in excess of
10 percent of the total operating costs of the city government, roughly
equivalent to the costs of operating the library plus half of the parks
in a given year, or roughly equivalent to 70 percent of fire services
for that community.
Again, the community cannot raise taxes to pay for it. The city
estimates that one-third of the total single-family residence utility
bills this year will be earmarked for compliance with State and Federal
mandates.
Mr President, let me take the city of Los Angeles. Unfunded mandates
again have placed a recent burden on that city. Federal mandates will
cost Los Angeles $4.2 billion over the next 5 years. For example, the
Federal underground storage tank regulations require leak detection
systems and corrective action affecting 206 sites and 431 storage tanks
in Los Angeles. Corrective action will cost in excess of $31 million
over the next 5 years.
Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act will cost the city in
excess of $245 million over the 5-year period. Costs to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act are estimated to exceed $30 million.
This includes costs for curb cuts, ramps, special bathrooms in public
buildings, whether or not they are actually used.
Federal law now requires all highway projects financed with Federal
gas tax funds be designed and constructed in metric measurements
starting September 30, 1996. Revisions to all city standards, manuals,
standard plans, ordinances, and other documents will be required. Also,
new drafting and design equipment will be needed, along with some
training. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation will have to
replace 14,000 speed zone signs at a one-time cost of $1.2 million. The
total cost to comply with this program--that is, just changing to a
metric system--is $2.6 million. And this is just one small change.
Did anyone ever add up or, again, even know the cost when this bill
was promulgated? I doubt it.
Let us take Los Angeles County. To meet Federal mandates and still
balance its budget, the county of Los Angeles has to significantly
curtail other programs. For example, this year, Los Angeles County
employees will have to forego cost-of-living and other wage
adjustments, and aid to indigents will be substantially reduced.
Several libraries are being closed and all others will be open for a
reduced number of hours. Recipients of welfare and public health
services will face longer waits due to minimal county staffing levels.
Looking at the impact of immigration, Los Angeles County found that
in 1991-1992, net county costs for services provided to legal
immigrants, amnesty aliens, and illegal aliens and their citizen
children were about $947 million, while county revenues received from
this segment accounted for only $139 million.
Another example. The city of Fresno is required under the Safe
Drinking Water Act to fit each of its 217 wells with expensive radon
filtration systems. The city estimates the total capital costs of the
system in the Fresno metropolitan area at $191 million and an annual
operating cost of $26 million.
Considering the city currently has a $567 million budget with a very
small percentage of discretionary dollars, the initial outlay and
annual costs to comply with the radon standards could have a
significant impact on Fresno.
According to the city, the cost of compliance with the proposed radon
regulation would force water systems to drop more compelling programs
with greater public health and environmental benefits.
For Stockton, CA, a city of 215,000 people, compliance with Federal
mandated stormwater provisions of the Clean Water Act will cost the
city approximately $1.2 million per year over the next 5 years or $15
to $20 per home. The city has the choice of either decreasing park and
recreation, library services, or police services if the public will not
accept the addition of a fee increase.
The Clean Air Act requires Stockton to spend approximately $2.2
million in capital costs and $100,000 in annual operating expenses to
control landfill gas. Again, the city must either increase user fees or
shift funding from parks and recreation, library services or public
safety.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires Stockton to pay overtime to
firefighters who work more than 53 hours a week. As a result, the
overtime costs Stockton an additional $400,000 a year and affects the
city's ability to add public safety officers.
Let me give what I think are rather egregious examples from my own
city, San Francisco.
The City of San Francisco is required under the Safe Drinking Water
Act to comply with filtration mandates. The city would prefer to put
more funds into watershed protection, which is cheaper and would make
filtration unnecessary. But instead it is forced by Federal regulations
to the more costly expenditure. Building a filtration plant would cost
the city $500 to $700 million, while the cost for nonfiltration options
range from $40 to $60 million.
Let me give another example. Candlestick Park, this weekend, will be
sold out--a major NFL game.
A while back one person sued the City saying she did not have a seat
as a disabled person at a game. The city came together and formed an
agreement. But under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Department of Justice is now saying that the agreement is not good
enough. The city will have to spend $5 million to build another 600
seats for disabled at Candlestick Park.
What is the rub? The stadium is sold out this weekend. There are
7,000 seats for disabled already, and they are not filled. Yet someone
in Justice is saying the city must build another 600 seats.
I submit, the real problem is that once the bills are passed and the
regulations are drafted by someone in a department, there is no telling
what can happen.
While I was Mayor we would engage in consent decrees with all parties
and someone in the Federal Government would say no, that is not
acceptable to us. You must spend more money and to it our way. I think
this is what is happening throughout the United States. It certainly is
throughout the State of California.
Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act will cost San
Francisco $8.2 million in fiscal year 1995 in spite of conflicts with
other code requirements. For example, safety cells for suicidal inmates
in the new jail built to meet strict Federal codes say there should be
no hard objects, such as bars, inside, and that there must be a lip on
the floor by the door to keep fluids inside. However, the Americans
with Disabilities Act requires bars by the toilet and a floor that a
wheelchair can roll into.
San Francisco faces other costs in fiscal year 1995 arising from
unfunded mandates--$149.1 million for sewage treatment facilities
required by the Clean Water Act; $830,000 for scrubbers and boiler
retrofit to comply with the Clean Air Act; $3,090,000 to remove
asbestos; $2,910,000 to test for lead, and $500,000 to implement drug
and alcohol testing programs for employees responsible for operating
certain vehicles as a condition of receiving Federal transportation
funds.
Mr. President, I believe it is unfair for the Federal Government to
impose mandatory regulations on localities without providing the
necessary funding to implement them. I feel very strongly that Congress
must be responsive to the fiscal constraints under which local and
State governments operate.
Mr. President, S. 1 provides the kind of relief which State and local
governments want and need.
It requires:
Any bill or amendment imposing a Federal mandate of more than $50
million on a State or local government
[[Page S890]] must include a Congressional Budget Office estimate of
the mandate's cost and the funds to pay for the mandate.
If the bill or amendment imposing the mandate is to be paid for by
future appropriations, the bill must provide that the mandate will be
eliminated if moneys are not appropriated or scaled back to the level
moneys are appropriated.
Any bill or amendment without the CBO cost estimate and funding will
be ruled out of order, but a point of order can be laid against it and
overturned by a constitutional majority.
CBO must consult with State and local governments in determining the
costs of Federal mandates. Good. Finally.
Federal agencies must consult with State and local governments in
determining the costs of mandates in Federal regulations. Good.
Finally.
Any bill or amendment imposing a Federal mandate of more than $200
million on the private sector must include a CBO estimate of the
mandate's cost. Good.
Laws or Federal rules enforcing civil and constitutional rights,
national security or treaty obligations, emergencies, and voluntary
programs, as exempted.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will my colleague yield just for a unanimous
consent request that when she finishes her statement, that I be given
the floor rather than the Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne? I ask
unanimous consent that I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from
California. As a strong supporter of the Americans With Disabilities
Act, I think as in every case where you have regulation or regulators,
some become too zealous. We have had examples in our State.
I happen to think the Americans With Disabilities Act was a major
civil rights piece of legislation. But, unfortunately, many people feel
we ought to make drastic changes because the rule of reason has not
prevailed in some of the regulations. And those are certainly some
examples I had not heard, but there are other examples that I think
make the same point the Senator from California just made.
So I hope we can revisit some of these things that we have done,
supported, believe in, and, hopefully, apply the rule of reason in some
of those cases.
Mr. President, I just say to my colleagues, I do not want to stay
here too much longer this evening but we will be here tomorrow. And we
will have votes tomorrow.
Hopefully we can work out some arrangement. I think the staff is now
looking at a number of other committee amendments that are technical in
nature, to see if the Senator from West Virginia might be willing to
let us adopt those committee amendments. If not, there will be probably
at least--maybe--no more than one additional vote this evening.
Mr. President, what I will propose in a few moments, after I have had
an opportunity to understand what I have here before me fully, is that
we consider the remaining amendments en bloc with three exceptions.
I think we started out this morning with two exceptions. We would add
a third exception because one of these amendments, I understand, is a
bit controversial. So it would be my hope if we could sort of get back
to where we were this morning we have not lost everything today, 10
o'clock to 10 o'clock, if we could then probably table the other three
amendments. There will be one this evening and the other two tomorrow.
I do not know if my colleague from West Virginia has had an
opportunity to look at the request.
I will just indicate that I will not propound the request, but the
request would be that the agreed-to committee amendments be 8, 9, 10,
and 14, and except out amendments 11, 12, and 13. Committee amendment
11 starts on page 25; committee amendment 12 on page 27; and committee
amendment 13 on page 23. It is my understanding that those amendments,
those three amendments, are somewhat controversial. So I would not ask
unanimous consent that they be agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let us try to
make something clear here. The distinguished majority leader, of whom I
am very fond and for whom I have a great deal of admiration, and whom I
want to congratulate for keeping the Senate in following the swearing
in--not going out, staying here, and getting some work done--I
congratulate him on that. I think the distinguished majority leader
probably does not understand why I have taken the role that I have
taken today. He was not on the floor when I explained it.
I am not for this bill; I am not against this bill. This bill was
brought to the floor. There was a unanimous-consent agreement to call
it up today. I had some problems in acceding to that agreement. I was
told that there would be a committee report. I want to see a committee
report. I was told in good faith, I am sure, that there would be a
committee report filed on the evening of the day before yesterday,
Tuesday evening, and that this bill would then be called up on
Thursday. I agreed to that. I had in mind the Budget Committee report.
I am not on the Budget Committee. I am not on the Governmental Affairs
Committee. I have not had an opportunity to study this bill. But I read
somewhere that in the Budget Committee, the minority Members wanted a
committee report to be filed. They wanted to file some minority views.
I read, or was told, that those Members of the minority were denied
that right and that a vote was taken, and they were voted down, which
is all right. There is nothing that says that the measure has to have a
committee report. Nothing says that. But the minority wanted one. If
all Members had agreed there would be no committee report, that would
have been one thing. But the minority was denied what it wanted, a
committee report.
I daresay if the shoe had been on the other foot, the distinguished
majority leader--and he is truly a distinguished majority leader; he is
the only Senator here, other than myself, who has been majority leader
twice and has been minority leader twice--the majority leader would
have been on this floor doing his very level best to get a committee
report, and I would not blame him. He would stand right here and use
his extensive knowledge of the rules to try to get a committee report.
That is all I have asked for is a committee report.
Well, I was told that there would be a committee report, told in good
faith. I am sure everybody acted in good faith. But there was a
miscommunication, a misunderstanding. I was told in good
faith there would be a committee report filed that evening. So I came
in the next day and asked for it; no committee report. So then I was
told it would be filed last evening. I came in this morning and asked
for it; no committee report. And on the first occasion when I was asked
by our Democratic leader if I would have any objection, I said, ``Yes,
I want a committee report.'' He came back and said, ``There will be a
report filed this evening'', meaning Tuesday, and they would have that
report, and the effort would be made to bring up the bill on Thursday.
He said, ``Do you have any objection to that?'' I said, ``Well, that is
all right with me. We will be getting a committee report.'' That is
what I want, and would have a day in which to study it. I said,
``Please ask Senator Exon and Senator Boxer,'' I mentioned those two in
particular, ``and the other Senators of the minority on the Budget
Committee, if that is agreeable to them.''
Obviously, if I had known that the bill that was going to be called
up here would be a bill reported out of the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, I would not have asked the leader to go check with Senator
Exon and Senator Boxer. I am not blaming anybody for that. I was just
operating on the understanding that I had read some comments in the
news after we talked about the Budget Committee report. Here we are
today, and the effort is being made to rush this bill. I took the
position that we should not be in a hurry, that we ought to have a
committee report. It seems to me that is a reasonable request. I am not
on the committee. I can agree to a committee report and have some
understanding of it. But I am sure I am not the only
[[Page S891]] Senator here who needs to see a committee report.
Inasmuch as one had been requested and the request has been voted down,
I felt that there must be some minority views and we ought to be able
to read them.
So my purpose today, Mr. President, has not been to filibuster this
bill. I have said that. I have not acted like a filibusterer yet on
this bill. When the motion to table was made, if I wanted to
filibuster, I would move to recess. That motion has precedence over a
motion to table, and I can make other ones if I wanted to be dilatory.
That is not what I am seeking to do. I am not seeking to stop this
bill. All I am seeking is to stop action on it until we know what we
are doing, those of us who are not on the committee and who do not have
access to a committee report.
This is an important bill. This is not just a simple sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. This is an important bill. I have not asked for a
committee report on many of the bills that come up here, but I have
read that this is a major bill.
I have read that this is a major bill in the Contract With America. I
do not know what is in the Contract With America. I have been very busy
trying to readjust to moving, to being banished to the Island of Elba.
It has taken me a little time to readjust to that situation. I hope I
will have the sympathy of all Members in that respect. So I have been
right busy trying to readjust pictures on the wall. I put a picture on
my desk of my little dog Billy. You know what? Well, I felt pretty low
after the election and especially after being ``banished to Elba,'' and
but for the kindness of the new chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, I would not even have ``Elba.'' I would be standing
there like Napoleon with my hands folded behind me and looking out to
the sad and solemn reflection pool. I have a picture of my little dog
Billy on my desk--and, of course, I have my wife's picture on there,
too, but I cannot get a quick laugh looking at my wife like I can
looking at Billy. When I get low, I look at Billy and then I laugh. It
gets me out of the doldrums. I have been busy, I say.
But I want to make it clear to the majority leader that all I am
trying to do is get a committee report before we take action on the
amendments. We are not going to act on amendments. We might table
amendments. If the distinguished majority leader wants to emasculate
this bill by moving to table amendment after amendment of the Senate,
fine, I will help him. I will vote with him. I do not know what I am
voting on, but I will just vote with him to emasculate the bill, and we
will start on another amendment. We are not going to vote on an
amendment--meaning up or down on an amendment. If the distinguished
leader wants to emasculate the bill, that is one thing. I want to make
it clear that I have no problem, no problem, with having some votes on
substantive matters, up or down, once we get a committee report from
the Budget Committee and have an opportunity to study it. That is all I
am trying to accomplish. I have been assured we will have the committee
report. So, in essence, I have accomplished what I set out to do. I
still do not think we ought to vote on any matter involving this bill.
If the distinguished majority leader wishes to call up something else
and vote on it--any nomination or something--I have no objection to
voting. But I do not intend to vote up or down on any amendment to the
bill until we get the committee report and have an opportunity to study
it.
I say, again, something else the majority leader did not hear me say
earlier today, I am not seeking the role of being a traffic cop. I have
been majority leader and minority leader. I got irritated when people
on my own side, I thought, set themselves up to be traffic cops. I am
not seeking that role. But I think I have a legitimate peeve here, if I
might use that word. I am making a legitimate request. I think we are
entitled to a committee report from the Budget Committee, and I stated
earlier today why the Budget Committee. I think the American people are
entitled to know what is in this bill. I am entitled, and the Senators
are entitled, to know what is in the bill. That is all I am seeking.
That is all I am seeking.
If the distinguished Senator wants to move through the rest of these
amendments and move to table, I will vote with him on it, but we are
not accomplishing much when we just table something. I do not know what
I am tabling, but I will help him if he wants to move to table. But I
must say to the distinguished majority leader that I cannot give
consent to adopting these amendments, en bloc, because some of them are
really substantive amendments. I do not know what we are adopting en
bloc. The majority leader is a reasonable man, and I try to be a
reasonable man. That is why I had no problem with agreeing to the
renumbering, en bloc, of those amendments a while ago. I stated in the
Senate that until the majority leader pointed out to me what those
amendments were, I did not know.
So I will sit down in a minute, but I will object to this request for
the reasons stated, and I do so apologetically, in a way, because I
just do not want to put Senators in the trouble of having to sit around
here. I would rather go home to see my little dog Billy and my wife
Lady Byrd. The Senator knows I continue to love him, but I cannot
accede to his request at this time.
Mr. DOLE. Well, I thank my friend from West Virginia. I would like to
get my little dog, Leader, and your little dog, Billy, together, but
not tonight.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator would do me a big favor. I have seen Leader; he
is quite a dog. I do not have a picture of him to put on my desk to
lift my spirits. All I have is my little dog, Billy.
Mr. DOLE. I think Truman had it right. In any event, I do not really
quarrel--I think there has been a miscommunication, I say to my friend
from West Virginia. And maybe I will accept the blame, although I
thought I understood it properly. But we have had available, as of
today at 11:40, the report from the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
That report is available, with minority views.
The Budget Committee report is printed in the Record at page 783.
Senator Domenici put that in the Record last night. It is in this
morning's Record. I understand that report will be available at 10
o'clock tomorrow morning with, I guess, minority views from three
members of the Budget Committee.
But I say to my friend from West Virginia, I think we believed we
were acting in accordance with an agreement we had made--the two
leaders--so we could take up the bill Thursday and hopefully get an
agreement on amendments, total up a finite number, not be in on Friday,
out on Monday; but I think because of the lack of communication, we
have not been able to obtain that agreement. We have not given up
trying.
It is my hope that at 10 o'clock tomorrow when that report is
available,--I do not want to keep Members here just moving to table.
And you are right, you can move to recess. We can do a lot of things.
But I do believe we will have to be here tomorrow and, hopefully, when
the report is available, then we can proceed. If we table all these
amendments--we have accepted No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7; No. 1 has been
tabled. Would the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be agreeable
to having one motion to table all the remaining committee amendments
rather than having seven or eight votes?
Mr. BYRD. If the leader will yield, I have no objection if the
Senator wants to move to table them all. I am not here fighting this
bill or supporting it. Before we vote up or down on an amendment, I
want to know what we are voting on. If the distinguished majority
leader wants to table them, fine. There will have to be action by the
Senate to put them back in at some point. I say to the distinguished
majority leader, I am not playing any games.
Mr. DOLE. I am just suggesting that might be one way. But if the
report is available at 10 o'clock tomorrow, I assume the Senator from
West Virginia has no objection to us proceeding. One report is
available and has been available.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I know that. May I say to the leader that it would
depend upon the circumstances at the time. We may want a little time to
look at the report.
Mr. DOLE. But it is available in the Record.
Mr. BYRD. That is not a committee report. I do not know whether all
the members of the minority had an opportunity to present their views
or not.
[[Page S892]] There is a great difference between the committee report
and the statement of the Senator in the Record.
Mr. DOLE. The majority views will be identical to what you now find
in the Record at page 783.
Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to tabling. I am not going to vote up
or down on any committee amendment, until we get this report. If the
report had not been denied to the minority, I would not have been
alerted. But that raised a flag with me. So I simply am trying to be
honest and sincere with the leader.
I do not want to vote on any amendment until we get that Budget
Committee report, because it is that Budget Committee report that I
think Senators ought to have, in addition to the report that is here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I indicated earlier that in the Budget
Committee statement--maybe not technically a report--it contained all
but the minority views. But I am advised now that it does contain the
minority views of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] and the
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer]. The only minority views that are
not included are the views of the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon].
So I think, again, not to belabor the point, but somewhere along the
line there was a miscommunication. And I do regret that it happened,
because I think in this instance we have some legitimate amendments to
this bill that ought to be debated. It is a bill that is supported by
the President. It has strong bipartisan support. We would like to at
least start getting into it.
We have a number of amendments on this side. I do not know how many
amendments on that side; somebody said as many as 30. That does not
mean they will all be offered. But it is an indication that we have a
lot of work to do even to complete action on this bill by, say,
Thursday of next week.
We will do our best to have the other committee report available. The
same thing is in the Record, except for the views of Senator Exon. We
hope to have that available no later than 10, maybe as early as 8 a.m.
in the morning.
In the meantime, I will move to table the next committee amendment,
and announce that this will be the last vote this evening.
I know there is a very important briefing tomorrow that I think every
Member should attend on Mexico. I believe that would be at 10 a.m. in
room HC-5. It is in the new add-on to the Capitol. All Members,
Senators and Members of the House, are invited. Mr. Greenspan will be
there. Mr. Rubin will be there and other members of the administration.
It is a very important briefing. We met with the President today. I
hope that everybody on both sides of the aisle will be there at 10
o'clock.
There is some morning business, so I would suggest we come in at 9,
and at 10 o'clock we recess from 10 until 11 and be back on the bill at
11. I will get that consent later, but just so Members will know, there
will be no further votes after this vote. And I will ask for the yeas
and then yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BYRD. Has the Senator completed his motion?
Mr. GLENN. I ask that he withhold that.
What is it we are about to vote on?
Mr. DOLE. It is committee amendment No. 8. It adds a new section to
the Budget Act. The amendment stipulates several of the definitions
which are unique to this new section of the Budget Act would only apply
to this section. It is on page 12, line 6 through line 9.
Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator move to table?

Committee Amendment on Page 12, Line 6 through Line 9

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to table the committee amendment and
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. DOLE. This will be the last vote tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole]. The yeas and nays have been ordered
and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Helms], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], and the Senator from
Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] are necessarily absent.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr.
Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from
Georgia [Mr. Nunn], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator
from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 17 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Santorum
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--35

Akaka
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Robb
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--11

Biden
Bumpers
Helms
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
So the motion to table the committee amendment on page 12, line 6
through line 9 was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support for S. 1,
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, which I have cosponsored with
Senator Kempthorne. I cannot think of a more fitting topic for the
first bill to be introduced in the Senate in the 104th Congress, and I
thank Senator Kempthorne and his staff for the hard work and leadership
that they have provided in bringing S. 1 to the floor today.
Despite the warning over 200 years ago by Senator Randolf against
``the most delicious of privileges''--that of spending other peoples
money, Congress has repeatedly indulged itself by creating Federal
mandate after Federal mandate without any consideration of the costs of
these programs to States, local governments, and private citizens. The
concept is quite simple--Congress creates Federal requirements, but
shifts the bill for these programs to State and local governments and
private citizens.
Unfunded mandates have inflicted serious harm on this Nation. First,
they threaten to destroy the dual federalism envisioned by the
Constitution. Unfunded Federal mandates attempt to reduce States to the
role of collection agents and enforcers for the Federal Government; a
role that violates the letter and spirit of the 10th amendment. Second,
unfunded Federal mandates destroy the ability of people to decide for
themselves what role they want for State and local governments.
Unfunded Federal mandates reduce the amount of money available for law
enforcement, education, healthcare, and
[[Page S893]] economic development, which are most efficiently provided
at the State and local level. Third, unfunded Federal mandates have
allowed Congress to avoid taking responsibility for raising taxes to
pay for Federal programs. These mandates have been painless for
Congress, because it made other people pay for its pleasures.
However, in November 1994, the American people made it very clear
that they would no longer tolerate the imposition of unfunded mandates
from afar, particularly by a Congress that would not even live under
the same laws that it established for others. S. 1 represents the first
step towards forcing Congress to ensure that it pays for Federal
mandates and respects the role of States and local governments in our
Constitutional system. S. 1 also helps to fulfill our obligation to the
American people that we legislate openly, fairly, and in their best
interest.
The core principal of S. 1 is that unfunded Federal mandates must be
identified in advance so that Congress can make an intelligent decision
about the relative costs and benefits of proposed legislation. A
fundamental principal of responsible behavior is that you must at least
stop and think about the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately,
Congress has often violated this principle by enacting laws creating
Federal programs without even
any knowledge of, information on, or thinking about the nature and
scope of the Federal mandates contained in the legislation. As a result
of the irresponsible imposition of unfunded mandates:

The State of Colorado is forced to spend over 23 percent of its
general fund on Federal mandates.
Garfield County may be forced to close a branch office that was
opened so that country residents would not have to drive 40 miles to
the county seat.
The city of Trinidad must close the only landfill in Las Animas
County, and its citizens will be forced to truck their trash to a new
landfill over 100 miles away.
The town of Haswell, with a population of 69 people, has been told
that it must spend one-fifth of its annual budget of $30,000 on
drinking water tests alone.
A small mobile home park was told that its 20 families may have to
spend $500 per family annually for testing their water supply.
S. 1 will help stop this irresponsible behavior because Congress will
have information from the Congressional Budget Office about most
Federal mandates which would be created by proposed legislation. This
information will also allow people to hold Congress accountable for its
decisions to spend their money. With S. 1, Congress will no longer be
able to evade the consequences of its actions on States, local
governments, and private citizens.
Spending other people's money is bad enough. It is even worse when we
spend borrowed money that must be repaid by future generations. That is
one of the reasons why I have also cosponsored a resolution for an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit deficit spending.
However, as Senator Tom Norton, President of the Colorado Senate, and
Representative Chuck Berry, Speaker of the Colorado House of
Representatives, testified at the January 3, 1995, field hearing on the
Balanced Budget Amendment, States are concerned that the Federal budget
not be balanced by the use of unfunded mandates to shift the cost of
Federal programs to the States. While S. 1 takes a significant step
toward providing States with assurance that the Federal budget will not
be balanced at their expense, I share the concerns of the leadership of
the Colorado General Assembly, and will soon introduce a resolution for
a Constitutional amendment that would provide permanent protection
against unfunded mandates.
The time has come to respect the sovereignty of the States and to
treat State and local governments with fairness. The need for S. 1
cannot be questioned. As others have mentioned today, it is supported
by a bipartisan coalition of States and local governments from across
this Nation. I ask unanimous consent for leave to include within my
remarks today some of the many requests for help on the issue of
unfunded mandates from local governments in Colorado.
Finally, I would note that one of the reasons that Senator Kempthorne
speaks with so much authority on this issue is that but a short time
ago the distinguished Senator was the mayor of the city of Boise, where
he experienced the consequences of unfunded Federal mandates on the
citizens of Boise. The obvious value of the Senator's experience in the
real world provides an example of the need for term limits so that we
ensure that Senators and Representatives do not lose touch with the
people we serve.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Board of County Commissioners,

Delta, CO., January 5, 1995.
Hon. Hank Brown,
Grand Junction, CO.
Dear Senator Brown: In support of your ``Unfunded
Mandates'' bill introduced today, please use these comments
at your discretion.
Delta County, being a poor rural county, cannot accept the
further burden of federal unfunded mandates: be they full or
partial.
Serving our constituency through already existing mandated
programs, i.e., Social Services, EPA policies on landfills,
and other federal programs has stretched our budget beyond
redemption at this point.
We fully support your actions in relieving local government
of that burden.
Respectfully,
Donna R. Ferganchick,
Vice-Chairman.
____

Garfield County

Office of Administration,

Glenwood Springs, CO., January 6, 1995.
Re unfunded Federal mandates.

Senator Hank Brown,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Brown: I am writng you this letter at the
request of the Chairman of the Garfield County Board of
Commissioners, Commissioner Buckey Arbaney, on the subject of
unfunded Federal Mandates. These mandates have cost our
citizens a lot of money. Although some of them are desirable
in regards to purpose, they all basically go far beyond
common sense and waste taxpayers' dollars in trying to
accomplish these purposes.
The most recent mandate that comes to mind is the American
with Disabilities Act (ADA). The intentions of the act are
good, but unfortunately the way it was drafted leaves a lot
of interpretation up to litigation and the courts. From our
perspective, this is a mistake. Also, in our opinion, the act
goes far beyond what makes sense. While the ADA does have
wording that relates to financial feasibility, our attorney
tells us this ``feasibility'' criteria does not apply to
government because we have the ``power to tax''. Therefore,
the reasoning goes, nothing is not feasible to government in
the long run.
Specifically, we have a building in the west end of the
county that we purchased approximately 10 years ago for
$250,000.00. This building houses various county functions in
Rifle, such as Social Services, Nursing, and the County
Clerk. This building is the primary source of these services
for citizens living in the Rifle and Parachute area of
Garfield County that would otherwise have to travel 30 and 42
miles respectively, one way, often times in inclement weather
conditions. The engineering report we recently received put
the cost to minimally comply with the ADA at $330,000.00. In
spite of our ``power to tax'', this is not reasonable. We
will have to consider closing this building. If this happens,
all residents of these areas, regardless of their
disability or lack thereof, will have to make the trip to
Glenwood Springs. I guess this does accomplish ``equal
access,'' but it really does not make sense.
We are also operating our jail under a Federal court
``consent decree.'' Basically this decree has us offering
more services to our inmates than some of our law-abiding
citizens are able to obtain and live under. The total cost of
this decree would be difficult to quantify, but in the last
year we have paid the American Civil Liberties Union and
Federal Court designated attorney approximately $20,000.00 as
well as a comparable amount of county staff expense just in
trying to figure out how to comply with this ``consent
decree.'' We feel the requirements imposed upon local jails
are not reasonable. It is currently costing the county
$300,000.00 per year to transport and board prisoners in
other jails due to perceived overcrowding of our facility by
the Federal court. A considerable amount of these funds could
be saved if we were allowed to manage our jail without the
constraints of the ``consent decree.'' Prisoners would still
have a reasonable living environment. It seems like more
reasonableness should be imparted to this ``process.''
Subtitle ``D'' is another mandate that we do not know the
total cost of because they still can't tell us what it is we
have to do. As you are probably aware, this legislation and
subsequent regulation tells us how we must run our landfill--
or does it? The latest word we have received is that we will
probably have to drill our required monitoring wells to
water. Our current wells are a little over
[[Page S894]] 100 feet. It is estimated that they will have to go 700
plus feet to reach moisture. We still don't know if we will be required
to line our landfill cells. Many of the rules drafted assume the worst
possible environment and do not consider Garfield County's impervious
soil, arid climate and geographic location at our solid waste facility.
While the intentions of this legislation are generally good, again it
is not being applied with common sense.
``Social Services'' or ``Welfare'' is another mandate that
is causing a lot of expense but yet does not seem to be
solving any problems. In the last 20 years expenditures for
this program have increased 795%. This does not include food
stamps. Our population has about doubled. In spite of this
expenditure increase the problem is worse, not better. Could
it be that we are treating symptoms here instead of causes?
Doesn't this indicate that we are doing something wrong and
that maybe we should try something different? This is an
immense expense and one the county has no choice about. This
program is mandated by the Federal Government and the State.
If we try to do something different, the threat of sanctions
and the Federal court are hanging over our head. Yet our
county taxpayers contribute a substantial sum to this program
over which they have little or no control. Our direct
property tax contribution to this program in 1994 was
$529,000.00, and that does not include other substantial
items such as specific ownership tax and the county incentive
money relating to child support enforcement.
I could continue on but I think this is enough to
illustrate the point. If you need any further information,
please let me know. Thank you for this opportunity for input.
Very truly yours,

____
Charles E. Deschenes.
Mayor, City of Fort Collins,

January 5, 1995.
Hon. Hank Brown,
U.S. Senator,
Greeley, CO.
Dear Hank: I write you about two points. The first is
unfunded federal mandates. The second is the problem created
by uncoordinated, overreaching federal agencies.
Thank you for asking local elected officials for their
concerns about federal mandates. Yes, we are concerned with
unfunded Federal mandates. Local governments often become
impoverished in their attempt to meet mandates.
For example, problems include complicated, overreaching
legislation and regulations; extreme funding demands; and a
resulting mushrooming of bureaucracy. Since tax money is
limited, local funding of federal mandates also means
important local needs may go unfunded.
We all agree, federal government must recognize the need
for resources to develop solutions. It is critical fiscally
and constitutionally to recognize the problems with unfunded
mandates.
On beyond the mandates, it's the regulations, Hank. As you
know, the U.S. Forest Service has withheld USFS lease
renewals with Front Range cities in order to obtain water
rights without going to water court as required by state and
federal law. To complicate matters, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service entered the picture via the Endangered
Species Act and, finally, the EPA joined in under the Clean
Water Act. This has been extremely frustrating. These
agencies acted independently of each other and failed to
understand the needs of local citizens or state laws.
Further, when agencies develop regulations to implement
federal statutes, we are often amazed at their interpretation
of the statutes and the overreaching regulations or agency-
by-agency interpretation of regulation which results.
Through you, we ask these regulators to coordinate their
efforts so we can proceed instead of finding our efforts at
responsible government stymied. I also am asking Congress, as
our leaders, to help assure a spirit of unity. Not only would
balanced organization decrease costs, but a true inter-
governmental relationship would be enhanced. We need your
help to lead more coordinated efforts.
Sincerely,
Ann Azari,
____

Mayor.
Office of County Commissioners,

Pagosa Springs, CO, January 5, 1995.
Senator Hank Brown: Due to the increasing demands of the
federal and state governments to implement unfunded mandated
programs, the Board of County Commissioners of Archuleta
County Colorado is finding it extremely difficult to fulfill
the demands of its citizens for needs that the county is
itself responsible for. It has been the county's experience
in the past few years that the federal government wants local
governments to administer more and more of these programs
without subsidizing the funding that is associated with these
programs.
Sincerely,
Dennis A Hunt,
Archuleta County Manager.
____

Montezuma County Board

of Commissioners,

Cortez, CO, January 5, 1995
U.S. Senator Hank Brown,
Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Brown: On behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners for Montezuma County, we would like to take
this opportunity to express our concerns about Federal
manadates that are placed upon local Government without
consideration for funding. Over the past two years we have
completed a sub-title ``D'' landfill and complied with the
Americans With Disability Act Both pieces of legislation have
cost Montezuma County approximately $650,000 to comply with
the new Federal legislation. We appreciate the opportunities
to make our comments. If we can be of any assistance, please
don't hesitate to give us a call.
Sincerely,
Thomas K, Colbert,
Chairman.
____

Mesa County, Colorado,

Board of County Commissioners,

Grand Junction, CO, January 5, 1995.
Senator Hank Brown's Office.

Attention: Craig Glogowski.

Dear Craig: Here is some information for you. Please feel
free to call me at 244-1605.

Unfunded Mandates Costs to Mesa County

Social Services (Diann Rice): $2,527,000.
Personnel--ADA (Nancie Flenard): $920.00--To produce
manual.
Drug Testing (Dyreng): $32.00/test-drug.
Subtitle D (Landfill): $200,000 yr.
Courts (Judy Vanderleest): None--reimbursed by State.
Sheriff's Office: None--generally mandated by the State.
ADA-FTA req. on MesAbility: $4,000 yr. + $8,500 per
vehicle.
Road & Bridge (Bob Carman): None.
Facilities (Mike Serra)--Tank Pulls 1992-1997: $469,338;
ADA: $418,000 projected; Air Quality: $267,000.
Health Department: Not available at this time--in the
middle of a measles epidemic.
Endangered Species: Not available today--staff member out
of office today.
Sincerely,
John Crouch,
Chairman.
____

Woodland Park, CO, January 5, 1995.
Re unfunded mandates effect on the city.

Senator Hank Brown.
Dear Senator Brown: The following is a list of unfunded
federal mandates which have had significant negative
financial impact on the City of Woodland Park and its
citizens. Not included in the listing are the costs of
overhead and administration of these mandates.
1. Compliance with the recently enacted Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA) has resulted in a City budget of
$20,000 in 1994 and $10,000 in 1995 for expenditure to meet
these regulations. A continuing budgetary appropriation
eventually totaling an estimated $250,000 is anticipated over
the next several years in order to reach compliance with the
minimum standards contained in the Act.
2. In addition, the City will be required to randomly test
a pre-determined percentage of our population of Commercial
Drivers License (CDL) licensed employees for drug and/or
alcohol use on an annual basis beginning January 1, 1996.
These federal testing regulations also include the
establishment of treatment and rehabilitative programs for
those employees who may test positive. Estimated costs
$2,000-$3,000 annually.
3. The City of Woodland Park recently completed a
federally-funded road improvement project to install asphalt
pavement, curb and gutter, grading, and roadside drainage
improvements over 2.6 miles of existing streets. The cost of
this project was $695,000, approximately $267,300 per mile.
The City is presently under contract with the same contractor
to provide the same kinds of improvements built to the same
engineering standards but locally funded throughout the City,
a project of 26 miles length, at a cost of $4.95 million,
approximately $183,300 per mile. The Davis-Bacon wage
requirement raised cost approximately 45.8 percent.
4. The City of Woodland Park recently constructed new
wastewater consolidation and treatment facilities at a total
cost of almost $6 million. The financial impact of compliance
with Davis-Bacon wage laws increased the City's share of the
project cost by an estimated $200,000.
5. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires testing for
possible contaminants that have an extremely low probability
of existence or of ever being a problem in our community. Our
annual cost for this testing is about $5,000 per year. The
SDWA also requires the City to treat the active water supply
so that it will not be likely to corrode lead from solder
joints in the small percentage of homes that were constructed
just prior to banning lead based solder. This will be done at
an annual cost of about $10,000, even though the repeated
testing shows that simple flushing of lines before drawing
drinking water does eliminate the problem.
We hope this is helpful and we wish you success in your
efforts to address and correct these inequities.
If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Clarke D. Becker,
Mayor.

[[Page S895]]

Rio Grande County,

Board of County Commissioners,

Denver, CO, December 28, 1994.
Hon. Hank Brown,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Brown: Thank you for requesting our input
concerning unfunded mandates. It seems each passing day there
are more and we do appreciate your efforts to correct this
problem.
The first to mind and most costly to Rio Grande County has
been Subtitle D of the EPA regulations concerning the
construction and operation of landfills. Rio Grande County
and Alamosa County have formed a Regional Landfill Authority
for the construction and operation of a new landfill due to
these regulations. Our present landfills do not meet these
requirements. This one regulation will cost us over $1.7
million in construction. This figure would be considerably
higher, but we have done as much as possible with county
staff and equipment.
The second unfunded mandate that the County has been faced
with is the Water Quality Act and Air Quality Act. We have
been mandated to replace all fuel tanks which cost thousands
of dollars. We also are having to obtain Storm Water Permit
for our small airport and we believe shortly these Permits
will also be required for our County shop facilities. This
costs us in staff time to just keep up the quarterly, semi-
annual and annual reports, and the updating of the policy.
The third unfunded mandate that we have had to comply with
is the Department of Transportation's regulations concerning
CDL's and now the new drug and alcohol testing. The County's
Road and Bridge employees must obtain a CDL to operate our
trucks which means the County is now paying the physical
examines and paying for the CDL tests which run over $100 per
test. Starting the 1995, we now have to do drug tests on 25%
of all CDL's with hazardous ratings and then in 1996 all
CDL's will need drug testing. Also in 1996 we will have to do
testing for alcohol on 50% of our drivers. There are only
several labs in the United States that are certified to do
the testing of the samples. We are looking at around $42/drug
test and presently do not have the fees for the alcohol test.
The regulations also mandate comprehensive
policies concerning the testing and the actions by the
employer if a positive result is found. If a positive test
for an employee is found, disciplinary action must be in
compliance with the American's Disability Act (ADA). Under
ADA, alcoholism is a protected disability. Drug use is
not.
ADA and American Family Leave also are unfunded mandates
that have impacted Rio Grande County. Just the staff time
alone to get the policies written and adopted and educate all
the employees has been very time consuming. Every employer
has employees that will try to use these new ``rights'' other
than the basic intent of the legislation.
Other unfunded mandates that are difficult to place an
exact price tag on, are all the programs and regulations for
welfare and medicaid. Many of these regulations are passed to
the state and then to local governments without the local
officials really knowing who is responsible for the drafting
of the regulations. Eligibility for most of these programs is
being lowered every day which results in more clients and
more match by local funds.
Even though you requested information on unfunded mandates,
we would also like to take this opportunity to express
several other areas of concern we have, namely such
regulations as the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands
Act. These two Acts are having major economic impacts on Rio
Grande County. We basically have no timber sales in our
National Forests due to the Endangered Species Act and
environmentalists who are ``protecting'' us from ourselves.
Having 75% of Rio Grande County owned by the Federal
government and most being the National Forest Service, the
timber industry is a major employer. Presently, the one
lumber mill in Rio Grande County is obtaining their timber
from New Mexico and northern Colorado. They cannot continue
to do this and stay financially competitive. Agriculture and
general development is being impacted by the Wetlands Act and
many people are fearful to do any type of land improvement
because of stories over zealous regulators who carry this Act
to extremes.
We also want to urge your assistance in obtaining the
balanced budget. We feel strongly that this legislation must
be passed to save the nation. We urge your assistance in
getting this legislation carried, but we want to see it as a
Constitutional Amendment, not just an Act. This will make it
very difficult in the future for other politicians to erode
or repeal.
In closing, we are sad to hear of your retirement, but do
thank you for the wonderful job you have done in representing
Rio Grande County!
Sincerely,
Vern Rominger,
Chairman of the Board.
____

Mt. Princeton Mobile Home

and Recreational Vehicle Park,

Buena Vista, CO, June 9, 1993.
Hon. Hank Brown,
U.S. Senate,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Dear Senator Hank Brown: We do support Bill S2900--
regarding safe drinking water.
We do support safe drinking water, but the Government is
imposing so many water tests, with a very high cost of
testing being passed on to the water supplier.
In our mountain area of Colorado we have many small
community water systems of which the Government will be
putting out of business.
The State of Colorado tells us that our Laboratories here
in Colorado are not equipped to do all of the testing that is
required.
Our wells here in the Arkansas Valley have passed every
test so far imposed with flying colors.
Our biggest problem is Congress passing these Bills,
requiring so many more water tests which we have willingly
provided in the past years. Now there is a High Dollar Cost
with the increased testing of our water. A Quote from our
State of Colorado--``Cost will be as high as $10,000.00, we
are told to budget $1,000.00 per year.''
I received a letter regarding an Inorganic Test, the fee
will be $1,600.00. They say our Labs can not handle all the
Government Required tests--We'll have to send the test to out
of State labs to meet the requirements.
We do not want the E.P.A. to take over, as all cost for
their Job Security will be passed on to us.
We will be having a Water meeting in Buena Vista, Colorado
on June 14, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at the American Legion Hall, E.
Arkansas and Railroad, Buena Vista, Colorado 81211. You are
invited to attend. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
____

State of Colorado,

Executive Chambers,

Denver CO, January 4, 1995.
Hon. Hank Brown,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC
Dear Hank: I am writing to urge you to co-sponsor S. 1, the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, and to vote for the bill
without weakening amendments.
As I said at the recent Senate Subcommittee hearing on the
Balanced Budget Amendment, I believe most unfunded federal
mandates are too burdensome and costly to the states and
local governments. We have no room in our budgets for
unfunded mandates which push important state services down
the priority list. It is critical that states be given real,
permanent protection against new unfunded federal mandates.
It is my understanding that the Senate Budget Committee and
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee will hear testimony
on the bill later this week and will send it to the Senate
floor for final action next week.
Congress now has a critical opportunity to redefine the
federal-state relationship. I hope it will take advantage of
the new political climate in Washington and enact
constructive unfunded mandate reform legislation.
Again, I urge your strong support of this important
measure.
Sincerely,
Roy Romer,
Governor.

____________________