[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.

                          ____________________