[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S920-S921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           UNFUNDED MANDATES

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, not seeing any Senator seeking recognition 
at this time, I would like to take a few minutes to comment on the bill 
we will be taking up again today, the unfunded mandates bill.
  I want to emphasize again that there will be votes today. I think 
that the distinguished majority leader intends that we go forward on 
this important legislation and that there will be votes on amendments 
or otherwise. It is not clear at this time exactly how long that will 
go. But I just wanted to make sure the Members understood, to be fair, 
that we will have some votes later on this morning, or perhaps in at 
least early afternoon.
  I want to commend our distinguished majority leader and the minority 
leader for the patience they have already exhibited this year. We, I 
think, have made good progress. We have already passed S. 2, a major 
piece of legislation on congressional accountability. We are already 
now working on the next piece of major legislation, unfunded mandates. 
Members have been offering amendments freely, and that is the way it 
should be in the Senate. I am sure there will be a number of amendments 
on this unfunded mandates legislation. Perhaps there will be some good 
amendments that will be offered and actively debated, and perhaps even 
some amendments adopted as we go forward. That is what the legislative 
process is all about.
  I think the majority leader intends to make sure Members have that 
opportunity to offer amendments and have a good debate, and move this 
good legislation and improve it, if it is possible.
  There have been objections that reports were not available earlier. 
But the reports are available now. Any Senator can avail himself or 
herself of those reports. I hope they will read them and that we can go 
forward with the debate on the substance of this legislation. This is a 
good bill, well prepared over a long period of time. Yeomen's work has 
been done by the Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator 
Glenn has worked on this legislation, probably for years, and certainly 
at least for months. Senator Roth has done good work.
  So there has been a tremendous amount of thought given this 
legislation. It has been changed and improved, and perhaps in some 
respects weakened because some points go beyond what I would like there 
to be in order to get something with which we can move forward.
  This is a major step forward. This is setting up a process. This is 
not ending things that have been happening. This is giving us an 
opportunity to find out what is in a bill, to find out what it is going 
to cost and who is going to pay for it. What does it really do? That 
fact is I think most Americans would be incredulous to realize that we 
do not do that anyway.
  So there is no need to delay this. Yes, we should have amendments. We 
should think about it. But we all know this legislation is going to 
pass overwhelmingly. I am sure probably almost every Republican and a 
majority of the 
[[Page S921]] Democrats will vote for this legislation. So I hope we 
will keep that in mind. Let us not delay just for the sake of delay. 
Let us look at the substance, let us work on it in a responsible way, 
and then let us move forward because we know it needs to be done and 
because we know in the end it is going to pass.
  Let me just make a couple of points. This legislation will increase 
accountability. It places added responsibilities where it needs to be, 
on those who want to either create a new mandate or increase costs of 
an existing one. In order to do that, they are going to have to get an 
estimate of the cost of the new requirement to both State and local 
governments and the private sector. I want to emphasize this also 
includes a way, hopefully, to help control the unfunded mandates on the 
private sector.
  There has been some suggestion that maybe small business might not be 
benefit by this or might not be all for it. The National Federation of 
Independent Businesses put out a letter on January 3 on behalf of 
600,000 members of the NFIB, which really represents the small 
businessmen and women in my State, and said they support this 
legislation unreservedly, and it is going to be one of their top-rated 
votes. So the private-sector small businesses want this. I think they 
want it not only as businessmen and women, but just as individuals and 
Americans. They know this needs to be done.
  So there will be the cost estimates, and then there will be an 
opportunity to waive the requirements by a simple majority. We can 
debate that point, and I feel we probably will, on whether or not these 
requirements can go into effect or not.
  I believe this will lead to more informed decisions. Some allegation 
has been made--intended, I think, as criticism--that this might once 
again slow down moving some legislation. I have never seen the Senate 
worry about slowing things down. We are the saucer under the hot cup to 
cool it down. A little more information, a little more deliberation 
before we put another mandate on the American people, public or 
private, seems to me something we should be doing.
  The American people want it, and every State in every region, 
regardless of philosophy, even. A lot of the biggest supporters of this 
legislation are Democrats, liberal Democrats. Elected mayors and county 
commissioners have to wrestle with this. They have to find a way to pay 
for it. So, therefore, this is something that is long overdue. I hope 
the Senate, in its great deliberative fashion, will make sure that all 
of the details are analyzed, but in good time will move it forward. I 
believe it will provide relief for State and local taxpayers.
  More and more and more, the Federal Government has dumped 
requirements on States that Governors, like the distinguished Senator 
in the chair, the former Governor of Missouri, has had to deal with. He 
knows the extra costs that were put on the taxpayers of Missouri, not 
by the Missouri Legislature, but by the Federal Government, telling 
that State: You have to do this and, by the way, good luck finding the 
way to pay for it as best you can--not a few thousand dollars, but 
millions of dollars on every State, big and small, rich and poor.
  My poor State of Mississippi struggles to deal with these federally 
unfunded mandates. The Governor of our State, Gov. Kirk Fordice, has 
pleaded for relief and for flexibility to allow innovation to occur at 
the State level. They can do it better. They can save money, and they 
can give relief to the taxpayers. Also, that is true at the local 
level. I have had to wrestle in the past as a Congressman and Senator 
with these Federal mandates that have been dumped on poor, small 
cities, requirements that say: You must do this; you must clean up 
that; you must provide this service. And in communities sometimes where 
you have 70 to 80 percent minorities, they just cannot pay for it. So 
they have said: We want to do it for safety purposes or environmental 
purposes, but we do not have the money. Help us.
  So I think, at the Federal level, a cost analysis will allow us to 
see what the cost is going to be and require us, if it is in the 
national interest, if it is in the interest of safety or environmental 
considerations nationwide, to step up to the lick log and pay for it. 
Give them safe drinking water, but help them pay for it. Or, if we are 
not going to pay for it, do not dump it on them. We make criminals out 
of the elected officials, literally criminals. Good men and women are 
saying: I cannot do this. We worry about how we attract good people in 
office. It is things like unfunded mandates that drive them out. You 
get a local insurance agent or local homebuilder. Do you think he or 
she will want to continue to deal with these Federal mandates and the 
tax increases that are required by them?
  If we really want to give taxpayers some tax relief in a painless 
way, this is the way to do it, by giving them the opportunity to make 
more decisions on their own without Federal mandates and without 
increased local and State taxes.
  So, Mr. President, I am very pleased that S. 1, the first bill of the 
year that was introduced, is the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  I commend all that have been involved with it. I think we are going 
to have good legislation. The risks are small, and the benefits could 
be great. I hope that early next week, we will move to conclusion.
  Mr. President, seeing the distinguished Senator from California on 
the floor, I yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have time reserved at approximately 
9:30. So if the majority whip would like to continue, I am perfectly 
pleased.
  Mr. LOTT. In the spirit of what I just said, I do not want to 
overtalk an issue, I think this legislation speaks so loudly for 
itself, so I think I will stop at this point.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to make sure about the time 
situation. My understanding is that I control the time until 9:45, is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.

                          ____________________