[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S935-S941]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1, which the Budget 
Committee unanimously ordered reported on Monday, and since that time, 
we have come forth with a report that has been suggested and I believe 
that is being reviewed at the present time.
  I am an original cosponsor of S. 1. I want to take this opportunity 
to commend my distinguished colleagues and friends, Senator Glenn, 
Senator Domenici, and Senator Kempthorne, for the yeomans' work that 
they have put into this bill. We would not be where we are today if it 
were not for their dedication.
  Mr. President, unfunded mandates are not merely a thorn in the side 
of the Nation's Governors and State and local officials. They have 
burrowed deep into the Nation's landscape and present a problem of the 
utmost gravity.
  Washington passes mandates and regulations and then drops them like 
an orphan on the doorstep of the States, forcing officials to dig deep 
into their own pockets to pay for compliance, to pay for mandates, at a 
time when they are confronting their own fiscal shortfalls and the 
public's demand for greater services.
  Speak to any State or local official from Nebraska to Nevada, from a 
mayor to a town manager or a Governor, and they will tell you that this 
cost shifting from the Federal level to the State level is wreaking 
havoc with their budgets. As my good friend and colleague, Senator 
Glenn, rightly observed, we are passing the buck without the bucks.
  In spite of the cry of ``enough'' from the States, Washington keeps 
heaping unfunded mandates upon unfunded mandates and regulations upon 
regulations, and there is no end point to the mandates effect. Like an 
entitlement, they go on and on and on, to an endless life of their own. 
Unfunded mandates are relentless in their demands upon State and local 
treasuries and, unfortunately, the sky seems to be the limit.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, compliance with Federal 
legislative and regulatory mandates rose from $225 million in 1986 to 
$2.8 billion in 1991. CBO readily admits that its estimates are highly 
conservative.
  We really do not know the full extent and magnitude of the situation. 
Mr. President, it is time we brought these unfunded mandates back to 
Earth and back to the realm of reason and responsible budgeting. It is 
high time that we not only rethink the relationship between the Federal 
and State Governments, it is time that we did something about it. And 
that is what this bill does.
  The legislation before us today would create a point of order against 
unfunded mandates. Under the bill, the Federal Government must provide 
direct spending for these mandates. If it cannot, the mandate 
requirements must be scaled back to the amount of money appropriated.
  That is fair, and that is reasonable. And above everything else, Mr. 
President, that is right.
  Mr. President, this is a bill that takes in the very broad picture. 
It already enjoys great bipartisan support. My last count indicates 
that it has 57 cosponsors and probably a few more today that I do not 
know about. I predict that it will pass overwhelmingly and in a very 
reasonable period of time. But I wish to be clear that there are no 
half measures in the legislation. It meets the problem head on.
  Of course, there are those who advocate a radical approach to the 
issue, what they call a no money, no mandates backstop.
  While I commend my colleagues' enthusiasm and dogged persistence in 
righting the unfunded mandates inequities, this is a classic case of 
correctly diagnosing the problem but applying the wrong treatment, a 
treatment which I suggest could have disastrous side effects.
  The alternative backstop strategy that some are referencing would 
take us down a road which could not only swell the size of an already 
bloated Federal bureaucracy, but it could further fan the flames of the 
litigation inferno that is raging throughout the Nation.
  This draconian approach would require that the CBO reestimate each 
year--and I stress ``each year''--the cost of mandates. I do not 
believe that we can fathom how much we would have to expand the CBO 
staff to meet this formidable and I think unnecessarily forbidding 
task.
  Mr. President, over the past 2 years, we have made excellent headway 
in meeting the American people's rightful demands to reduce the size of 
Government. We have much further to go. We will have the smallest 
government, though, I would point out, since President Kennedy sat in 
the Oval Office. This is not the time to undue the good and the hard 
work that has been done in many areas. We must be cautious but we must 
be effective.
  Second, we would be doing, I suggest, a terrible disservice to our 
fellow citizens if we inadvertently fueled further litigation. That is 
exactly what would 
[[Page S936]] happen if we chose the simplistic measure. The lawyers 
would be lining up a hundred deep in the court, challenging at every 
turn the CBO reestimates. And I hope that this concern will be 
understood by all Members of the body.
  The columnist David Broder wrote a very effective piece touching on 
this subject that appeared in the newspaper a few days ago. Mr. Broder 
endorsed the bill before us today as ``a worthy effort.'' Mr. Broder 
further notes that the no-money, no-mandate alternative would ``split 
the bipartisan coalition.'' We must not split the bipartisan coalition 
that is moving aggressively forward and if followed will pass S. 1 in a 
very short period of time. If we proceed through any other course, we 
endanger the longstanding civil rights and environmental policy and 
perhaps draw a Presidential veto.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
perceptive column be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. In a similar vein, Mr. President, the proposal of some to 
raise the requirement for waiving the new point of order from a 
majority vote to 60 votes would also split the bipartisan coalition. 
Another 60-vote point of order in this context would tie the Senate in 
knots. If we have seen gridlock over the last decade, this kind of a 
60-vote point of order would lead to a glacial gridlock.
  Mr. President, I was involved in the negotiations that led to the 
unfunded mandates bill currently before the Senate. There were a few 
items of the bill that merit further clarification.
                             retroactivity

  There has been a great deal of confusion surrounding the question of 
retroactivity in S. 1. Namely, to what mandates does S. 1 apply? And, 
will mandates already enacted into law be affected by S. 1?
  The drafters of S. 1 intended that reauthorization of existing laws 
not be subject to the requirements of S. 1 where the net costs of the 
legislation do not exceed existing costs of the mandate plus the 
thresholds established in the legislation.
  The no-retroactivity clause would apply to laws for which 
authorizations of appropriations may have expired, such as the 1987 
Water Quality Act.
  I would add that this same principle would apply equally to 
regulations that are issued pursuant to existing laws, but which have 
not yet been proposed or finalized. However, let me stress that the 
existing law must be in effect at the time S. 1 became effective 
regardless of whether an authorization of appropriations has expired.


                               exclusions

  The bill contains a broad exclusion for legislation that establishes 
or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination.
  The drafters of S. 1 believe this language to mean provisions in 
bills and joint resolutions that prohibit or are designed to prevent 
discrimination from occurring through civil or criminal sanctions or 
prohibitions.


                            points of order

  The legislation ensures that a simple majority in the House or Senate 
will be required to waive a point of order, if raised, for an unfunded 
intergovernmental mandate, or where a CBO statement does not accompany 
a bill or joint resolution.


                               procedures

  The situation may arise where a mandate--already in effect for a 
year--is declared ineffective and enforcement or judicial action has 
already commenced. In such a case, the drafters of S. 1 intend that 
where enforcement actions have begun, the mandate in question would 
continue to consider applicable law preceding the declaration of 
ineffectiveness.
  For example, in a case where a mandate is fully funded in the first 2 
years, but not in the third, the mandate is effective for the first 2 
years, but not in the third.


                administrative processes and procedures

  When an intergovernmental mandate is either declared ineffective or 
scaled back because of lack of funding, these changes in the mandate 
will be effectuated consistent with the requirements of the 
Administrative Procedures Act.
  This will ensure that all affected parties including, the private 
sector, State, local and tribal governments and the intended 
beneficiaries of the mandate will have adequate opportunity to address 
their concerns.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to say that after much though 
and analysis we have found in the legislation before us today the 
solution to the problem of unfunded mandates. It might not be a perfect 
one. Certainly we all can say that we have passed few perfect pieces of 
legislation. It does not mean that we may not have to revisit this from 
time to time. But I think it is time we move aggressively ahead to 
solve the problem of unfunded mandates.
  On January 5, the Budget Committee, of which I am the ranking 
minority member, and the Governmental Affairs Committee held a joint 
hearing on S. 1. Both of our respective committees favorably reported 
out the measure earlier this week. We have heard loud and clear the 
call from the States. It is now time that we acted and passed this 
critical legislation.
                               [Exibit 1]

                           Money and Mandates

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Before George Voinovich became governor of Ohio four years 
     ago, he was a member of the Ohio legislature, a Cuyahoga 
     County commissioner and the mayor of Cleveland. That may 
     condemn him as a career politician in some people's eyes, but 
     it also placed him in a unique position to help move what may 
     become the first law passed by this new Congress--the 
     unfunded mandates bill.
       Voinovich, a Republican, last year used his friendships in 
     both parties to construct an unusually broad and solid 
     coalition of state and local government groups to press for 
     enactment of a long-overdue measure that will require 
     Congress to look twice before saddling states, counties and 
     cities with the costs of carrying out policies the federal 
     government finds desirable.
       The measure was stymied in the last Congress by Rep. Henry 
     Waxman (D-Cailf.) and some of the other veteran mandate-
     writers, but this year it has high priority in the Senate and 
     House, with their new Republican majorities. For reasons I 
     will explain in a moment, this measure may not provide all 
     the relief the states and localities expect. But it is an 
     effort to address a real problem: the increasing tendency of 
     a federal government which has spent itself into $4 trillion 
     of debt to make its partners in state and local government 
     pay for Washington's good deeds.
       The governors, legislators, mayors, and county officials 
     have griped about this for a long time. But it was not until 
     they put aside their internal differences and came together 
     last year as the State and Local Coalition that Congress 
     began to take notice. As Voinovich commented over coffee last 
     week in Washington, ``It is rare that an idea that was on no 
     one's screen in Washington one year becomes the top priority 
     in Congress the next year.'' Members of Congress ``can ignore 
     any one of our groups, but they can't ignore all of us.''
       Voinovich's political acumen also was important in keeping 
     the legislation within bounds of reason. Some conservatives 
     want to enact a ``no money, no mandate'' law that would stop 
     the federal government from requiring any cost-sharing by 
     state and local governments on programs of national 
     importance.
       Voinovich recognizes that would split his bipartisan 
     coalition, which includes many liberal Democrats, endanger 
     long-standing national civil rights and environmental 
     policies, and perhaps draw a presidential veto. So he has 
     worked diligently to persuade conservatives, including 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich, to back bills by Sen. Dirk Kempthorne 
     (R-Idaho) and Reps. William Clinger (Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-
     Ohio) that take a more measured approach.
       The bills do not repeal existing mandates, leaving an 
     examination of their financing to a bipartisan commission. 
     They exempt measures necessary to enforce constitutional or 
     statutory rights prohibiting discrimination of any kind--
     including disability.
       They allow future Congresses to pass unfunded mandates--but 
     only if, on a separate roll-call vote, before final passage, 
     a majority of the House and Senate say, deliberately and 
     explicitly, that the purpose is so compelling they believe 
     they should waive the rule against unfunded mandates. In 
     other words, senators and representatives would have to tell 
     their constituents, in effect, ``We're voting to raise your 
     state or local taxes.''
       The difficulty I mentioned earlier arises from the 
     enforcement mechanism. Somebody has to decide how much an 
     unfunded mandate would cost and whether it exceeds the 
     threshold set in the proposed law--$50 million in costs for 
     state and local governments, $200 million for private 
     business. That agency is the Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO), a nonpartisan arm of Congress.
       That is a huge power to give to a group of unelected 
     bureaucrats, even if they are required by law to consult with 
     local and state officials and are supervised by the House and 
     Senate Budget committees. Robert D. Reischauer, the director 
     of CBO, has written 
     [[Page S937]] members of Congress a letter warning that ``in 
     some of the situations that will matter most . . . [it] will 
     be very difficult if not impossible to determine'' the costs 
     the proposed mandate will impose.
       Local officials, as Reischauer delicately put it, ``are 
     likely to have a strong interest in having the costs of a 
     proposed mandate appear as high as possible''; congressional 
     sponsors, the opposite motivation. In truth, the added costs 
     will vary enormously, depending on the severity of the 
     problems in the locality and the degree of effort already 
     being made.
       Voinovich is right in arguing that the bill will force 
     Congress to consider future mandates with care. It will 
     provide a forum where the states and cites can argue their 
     case. But this law is altogether too likely to have 
     unintended consequences. I can see the same local officials 
     who are enraged now by Congress's caprice in passing unfunded 
     mandates being equally enraged--and frustrated--by future CBO 
     cost estimates.
       The unfunded mandate bill is a worthy effort. But in the 
     end, the real solution lies in sorting out more clearly what 
     responsibilities should be financed and run by each level of 
     government. Voinovich and other governors are ready for that 
     kind of dialogue to begin. President Clinton should take the 
     lead in seeing that it happens.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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 (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining committee amendments be temporarily laid aside in order to 
consider the Dorgan amendment; that no second-degree amendments be in 
order, and that at 2:30 a vote will occur on the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Will the 
Senator kindly restate the request?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. The unanimous-consent request is that the 
remaining committee amendments be temporarily laid aside in order to 
consider the Dorgan amendment; that no second-degree amendments be in 
order, and that at 2:30 a vote will occur on the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator who reserved the right to object 
will yield for a question to the manager.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Dorgan amendment that the Senator is referring to, as 
I understand it, is an amendment which would substitute the ACIR, in 
lieu of the new commission which the bill would create, the ACIR being 
an existing commission on intergovernmental relations. As I understand 
Senator Dorgan's amendment, it would utilize the ACIR in lieu of 
creating a new commission, as the bill currently provides; is that just 
the nature of the amendment, so the folks know what it is the unanimous 
consent refers to?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In response to the Senator from Michigan, that is 
correct.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, this seems to 
me to be a positive amendment, one that has considerable merit, as I 
understand it. I do not plan to object to setting the amendments aside 
to take up this amendment. But before I complete my reservation, I 
started out saying I wanted a committee report, so that our minority 
people on both committees--not just the Budget Committee, but on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--who had been denied the committee 
report with individual views or minority views, knowing full well 
nothing about the content of the bill, but knowing that there is a 
steamroller coming down the road, to put all these wonderful things. I 
have seen the number 10 used, 10 plans in the Contract With America--
maybe 12. All these wonderful things are in the Contract With America. 
And realizing that this bill, being No. 1, must be a very important 
bill, not just a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution, but a very 
important bill. No. 2, S. 2 was passed earlier, and I voted against S. 
2. But in this case, I said I want, on behalf of the Senate, on behalf 
of the minority, and on behalf of myself, and on behalf of all other 
Senators who do not know any more about this bill than I do, I want to 
see a committee report. I want to see the minority view. I want to see 
the votes that were taken inside the committee. I want all those things 
in the committee report that we are instructed to have in the committee 
reports by the Senate rules. Senators and listeners who do not know 
what I am talking about, read the Senate rules and find out. I wanted 
those, and I wanted an opportunity not just to have it given to me in 
my hand but an opportunity to study it. I have the reports now, but I 
want this weekend to study this bill.
  In the meantime, I do not want to appear to be filibustering, 
although I do not mind being a filibusterer when the right time comes. 
Senators will know when I am filibustering. I have been called worse 
names than a filibusterer. But I have no interest in killing the bill. 
I may be for it. I probably will be, but I am not sure. I probably will 
be for the bill. But I resist the temptation to roll over and play 
dead. I resist that temptation. I am not going to be cowed like a 
whipped dog because of threats or charges that I may be obstructing or 
filibustering. I am not doing that. I want to know what is in these 
bills. We have plenty of time. We do not have to ram them through. Let 
us take the time. This is an important bill. I hear a lot of whispering 
and murmuring about problems with this bill from my colleagues. I want 
to know what is in it. So I want to study that bill this weekend, after 
I do the mopping of the kitchen. I always mop the kitchen. Every 
Saturday that is my job and I mop the washroom where she does the 
washing, where the washer and dryer are. I mop, yes. I clean all the 
commodes. I clean all the bathroom structures. I clean out the 
bathtubs.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Not yet. I will shortly. I do all the vacuuming. I do the 
dusting. I dust the furniture in the family room and dust the furniture 
in the living room, and so on. My wife does the buying and the cooking 
and the washing and the ironing and the pressing of suits and taking 
care of my little dog, Billy. But over this weekend, whenever I get 
through with doing my chores, which I have sworn on to for a number of 
years, then I want to study this bill. That is a legitimate reason not 
to rush pell-mell at this point.
  I want to be a reasonable man. Here is an opportunity to vote on 
something that is positive. I will listen to the Senator's explanation 
of the amendment. It is my understanding, in talking with the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota and the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, that this is a good amendment. So I am not going to 
interpose an objection to setting these committee amendments aside. I 
have no objection to setting those amendments aside and letting the 
Senate go forward and dispose of the amendment by Mr. Dorgan. There may 
be another amendment that would fit into that. All I am asking is that 
I want this weekend, after I get through with mopping the kitchen and 
mopping the washroom, and all those things, I want the opportunity to 
study this bill. That is a reasonable request. I am saving my strength 
for a filibuster on another day, on another bill. I am not 
filibustering this bill. Give me a break here.
  So I have no objection to that if the leader wants to do that.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I am merely reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DOLE. Last night we talked about your dog, Billy, and my dog, 
Leader. So I have had Leader inscribe a picture for Billy, and here is 
the picture.
  Mr. BYRD. Will wonders never cease? Sweet smoke of rhetoric, my, what 
a handsome dog that is. I wish someone would call my office downstairs 
and have a picture of Billy brought up here. That is a pedigree. That 
is a blue ribbon dog.
  I will read the inscription: ``To Billy:''
  There is only one Billy, and that is Billy Byrd.
  ``To Billy, with best wishes.'' The signature, ``Leader.'' Leader; 
that is a beautiful dog. It really is.
  I thank the distinguished leader.
  But I do want to bring a picture of Billy up.
  So I have no objection to setting the amendments aside for that 
purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S938]] Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                            Amendment No. 18

(Purpose: To provide for certain studies and reports to be performed by 
 the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. DORGAN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] for himself, Mr. 
     Graham, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Kempthorne, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 18.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 39, strike out lines 4 through 11 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 301. BASELINE STUDY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations (hereafter in this title referred 
     to as the ``Advisory Commission''), in consultation with the 
     Director, shall begin a study to examine the measurement and 
     definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and 
     benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of 
     compliance with Federal law.
       (b) Considerations.--The study required by this section 
     shall consider--
       (1) the feasibility of measuring indirect costs and 
     benefits as well as direct costs and benefits of the Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal relationship; and
       (2) how to measure both the direct and indirect benefits of 
     Federal financial assistance and tax benefits to State, 
     local, and tribal government.

     SEC. 302. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations shall in accordance with this 
     section--
       On page 43, beginning with line 1, strike out all through 
     line 17 on page 49 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 303. MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) In General.--The advisory Commission shall monitor and 
     evaluate the implementation of this Act, including by 
     conducting such hearings, and consulting with such Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal governments, as the Advisory 
     Commission considers appropriate for obtaining information 
     and views about the purpose, implementation, and results of 
     this Act.
       (b) Biennial Report.--The Advisory Commission shall submit 
     a report to the President and the Congress every 2 years 
     which--
       (1) presents the findings of the Advisory Commission under 
     subsection (a); and
       (2) presents recommendations for improving the 
     implementation of this Act, including regarding any need for 
     amending this Act.

     SEC. 304. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--For purposes of carrying out 
     this title, the Advisory Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Detail of Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of 
     the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission, 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 Advisory Commission to assist it in carrying 
     out this title.
       (c) Contract Authority.--The advisory Commission may, 
     subject to appropriations, contract with and compensate 
     government and private persons (including agencies) for 
     property and services used to carry out its duties under this 
     title.

     SEC. 305. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Advisory 
     Commission--
       (1) to carry out section 301, $1,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1995 and 1996;
       (2) to carry out section 302, $500,000; and
       (3) to carry out section 303, $200,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment along with 
the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham]; the Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Levin]; and the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne].
  Mr. President, it says on page 39 of S. 1, which the Senate is now 
considering, at the top of the page, under:

             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'').

  And then it goes on in subsequent pages to describe the duties and 
responsibilities of this commission.
  My amendment would substitute the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations for this new commission.
  I offer this amendment because, prior to a week or so ago, all of the 
drafts of this legislation, going back to last year, written by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Glenn, 
and more recently negotiated in biparitisan discussions, all of those 
drafts included in this section a commission to study unfunded mandates 
and that commission was going to be the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations. It is called ACIR. ACIR is an organization 
that has been in existence a long, long time, one with which I have a 
great deal of familiarity from the time when I was a statewide elected 
official.
  ACIR has done a substantial amount of research in many, many areas 
dealing with intergovernmental relations. Its membership includes 
members from virtually all levels of government, members appointed by 
the President, members appointed by the Presiding Officer of the 
Senate, the House; we have mayors and Governors and we have private 
citizens.
  The fact is, it is an outstanding commission that has done 
outstanding work for a long, long while. And it has especially done an 
enormous amount of work on the subject of unfunded mandates. It has for 
over 10 years done credible and thoughtful studies on this subject of 
unfunded mandates.
  If this organization, the ACIR, one with such a distinguished 
reputation, one which I have worked with personally for over 20 years 
on many intergovernmental issues, if this organization has been the one 
that has done over a decade's worth of research and work on unfunded 
mandates, the question for me was: Why would we pass legislation that 
creates a new commission to give us some studies and some answers on 
unfunded mandates? That does not make any sense. In fact, it did not 
make any sense over recent months to all of those Republicans and 
Democrats who were constructing this. Only in the last week or so was a 
new commission put in here in substitute for ACIR.
  My amendment says, let us replace it with the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations. It makes little sense to create a new 
commission. We are in Government these days talking about reinventing, 
about downsizing, about trying to be more efficient, trying to avoid 
duplication and overlapping of duties.
  And this amendment simply moves us in that direction, to say a 
commission already exists, a commission that has expertise in this very 
matter, and that is the commission that ought to appear on page 39.
  So my amendment is relatively simple. It simply substitutes the ACIR 
for the new commission that otherwise would be created.
  The advantages to this are obvious. First of all, the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is ready to do this work. No 
new commission has to be created. No new members have to be appointed. 
No new staff has to be hired. No new space to house a staff need be 
created. No new rules. No new relationships. It already exists. It can, 
because of that, realistically, in my judgment, meet all of the 
timetables. So it is a perfect fit.
  I indicated that the ACIR has done studies going back 10 years on 
this very issue. In fact, they have done five major studies and have 
been the major resource used by most of us in the Congress who have 
been concerned about unfunded mandates. The mission of the Advisory 
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is to strengthen the Federal 
system, strengthen the cooperation between levels of government. And 
so, again, it is uniquely situated, in my judgment, to perform this 
task.
  I have watched with interest the discussion on the floor of the 
Senate recently about unfunded mandates. As I conclude and prepare to 
allow my distinguished friend from Florida and others, hopefully, to 
support this amendment, I just want to say that it is not without 
merit, in my judgment, for us to proceed with deliberation and proceed 
in a manner that allows all Members of this body to have some comfort 
that they understand exactly what is 
[[Page S939]] in this legislation. This will be a better bill if we 
proceed in a manner that allows everyone to understand it, ask all of 
the questions, improve it, modify it, change it, accept it and then 
finally vote on it and move this along so that it becomes law.
  I expect, in the end, to cast a ``yes'' vote on a piece of 
legislation that I think has great merit. But there are questions that 
will be asked. I have two additional amendments I will offer next week. 
But I believe that this bill moves us in the right direction of being 
more responsible on a subject where we have acted in the past without, 
in my judgment, full information.
  And so I appreciate very much the discussion that has gone on among 
the principal sponsors of the legislation and Senator Byrd and many 
others on this floor in recent hours and recent days. I thank him for 
his willingness to allow this amendment to be offered and allow the 
other amendments to be set aside. It demonstrates, I think, that we 
want to make some progress on this legislation. And this amendment 
itself is one with merit and one that I think will demonstrate 
progress.
  I know Senator Graham and Senator Kempthorne and others wish to speak 
in support of it. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator allow me to compliment him, and also I 
would ask that he add my name as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  As I understand, the pending bill authorizes more Federal staff at 
CBO and more Federal spending, $4.5 million per year, to hire 
additional CBO personnel to carry out their new, largely unachievable, 
responsibilities under the bill. In addition, the bill would set up yet 
another Federal commission.
  And we have in the bill that was passed earlier this week--which I 
was against, the so-called coverage bill--we have in that bill a new 
bureaucracy under the auspices of a so-called bicameral commission that 
will spend almost unlimited funds. That was one of the reasons why I 
voted against the bill. Is this what the Senators mean by Government 
reform, continuing to establish commissions?
  A bill which passed earlier this week, as I say, S. 2, created a 
whole new board and authorized that board to employ such staff and 
consultants as were considered appropriate. I voted against that bill 
for a number of reasons, one of which, I opposed the creation of that 
new board.
  Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from North Dakota on his 
amendment, and I hope he will allow me to be a cosponsor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much for his 
generous remarks. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Byrd] be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, thank you.
  First of all, let me congratulate Senator Dorgan on this amendment. I 
think he has experience in intergovernmental relationships. I believe 
he has actually served on that commission, although I may be mistaken. 
I know I have served on that commission.
  There is no reason for Members to be creating another commission. It 
is the last thing we ought to be doing when we are reinventing 
Government.
  This bill, I believe, was deficient in that regard by creating 
another commission. Unlike last year's bill 993, which used the 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, an existing 
commission, this bill before Members created a new commission. It was 
unneeded. It will lead to delay and expense.
  I congratulate Senator Dorgan on going back to what was in last 
year's Senate bill 993, which was utilizing the ACIR for this purpose. 
I am pleased to cosponsor his amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to first express my support for the objectives of S. 1, and I 
look forward to voting for it on final passage. I believe that there 
has been a tendency, particularly during a time of restrained Federal 
resources, to look to the imposition of obligations on State and local 
government as a means of accomplishing national objectives which we at 
the National Government are either unable or unwilling to pay for. This 
will not preclude such behavior in the future, but it will require the 
Congress to understand what it is doing and make a discreet judgment 
that that is the course of action that it is willing to undertake.
  Having said that, I think there is going to be a surprise and 
disappointment, however, upon the final passage of the bill if it is in 
basically the form that is currently before Members. That is that many 
feel it is going to undo existing mandates.
  I have seen news accounts of Governors and other executives at the 
local level who have talked about the amount of savings that will be 
derived as a result of passage of this bill. As I read the bill and 
understand its processes, it is all prospective in operation. That is, 
it will make it more difficult to impose new unfunded mandates, but it 
in no way deals directly with those mandates that are already in place. 
That is what makes this amendment so important.
  What title III does is it sets up a parallel process that gives us a 
greater capacity to look at current unfunded mandates and, on a case-
by-case basis, particularly through the reauthorization process, to 
begin to deal with those unfunded mandates.
  I recognize that the bill provides that in a reauthorization, 
whatever the current status of unfunded mandates is does not trigger 
the mechanisms of this bill. It is only if we elevate further an 
additional $50 million of imposition on State and local governments, 
will the mechanisms of this specific bill relate to existing, enhanced, 
enlarged, engorged, unfunded mandates.
  But what title III--which is what we are amending--provides is there 
will be a systematic look back at all of the unfunded mandates. That 
will provide Members the opportunity to receive a thoughtful, 
quantitative analysis of the unfunded mandates which are in the current 
law, present those to the appropriate authorization committees so that 
when bills are being considered at the committee level in hearings and 
then later considered on the floor to final adoption, we will be in a 
position to offer amendments that relate to those current levels of 
unfunded mandates. And if successful, if we believe it is appropriate 
and wise, to eliminate, reduce, or redirect the nature of the current 
unfunded mandates.
  The reason it is so important we pass this amendment and place that 
responsibility for doing that analysis of existing unfunded mandates in 
the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations is because it is 
competent to do that job; it has a high level of confidence by persons 
at the local, State, and Federal level. It has been in business since 
1959.
  It is not an entity which is going to be new to this issue, as 
Senator Dorgan said. In fact, the ACIR has conducted some five major 
studies of unfunded mandates within the last 10 years. So it will bring 
a tremendous amount of expertise to this issue, and the ability to 
apply that expertise on an expedited basis.
  There are some very important reauthorizations which contain some of 
the most egregious examples of unfunded mandates that are going to be 
coming before this 104th Congress. It is very much in our interest that 
we have an entity which can quickly move to do that analysis and make 
that information available to Members so that during the course of the 
next 2 years, we will be in a position to make some thoughtful 
judgments in existing legislation as to whether we wish to continue 
existing unfunded mandates.
  Mr. President, for those reasons, I want to commend Senator Dorgan 
for having offered this amendment and I am very pleased to join with 
Senator Dorgan and his colleagues in its support.
  I urge to my colleagues its adoption.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I, too, appreciate what the Senator 
from North Dakota has carried out. It just makes a great deal of sense 
to use an existing commission where we already have different 
representatives from the impacted organizations serving as opposed to 
creating a new commission. I think that makes very good sense.
   [[Page S940]] Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the regular 
order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for inquiry?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order will be to vote on the 
Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. A further parliamentary inquiry. And I appreciate my 
friend from North Dakota yielding for this purpose. Further 
parliamentary inquiry. Does that mean absent unanimous consent we would 
have the vote that originally had been scheduled at 2:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Unmodified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Further reserving the right to object--I probably will 
not, but further reserving the right to object, if it would be in order 
for me to ask the distinguished majority leader, might he tell me, if 
this modification occurred, how many more votes we would have and when 
we would finish voting?
  Mr. DOLE. I would like to accommodate the Senator from Vermont and 
others by having back-to-back votes and have the Senator out of here by 
5 after 3 or 6 or 7 after 3. I do not know whether that accommodates 
the Senator or not. So if we work it out, if we have back-to-back 
votes, that will be it for today.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will not object. I would only note, not that it affects 
it, if we had had the vote at 2:30, I would have been able to make my 3 
o'clock flight to Vermont to be with my family today. This way I will 
not.
  On things that we know we can work out, I would hope, for those of us 
who do have families and do have homes in our home States and do prefer 
to be there on weekends, that we might be able to have some more 
exactness when some of these votes will occur. I know the leaders on 
both sides were working hard on it, but it is unfortunate something is 
happening now that could easily have happened 1\1/2\ hours ago.
  I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.


                     Amendment No. 18, as modified

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment. I have 
sent the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 39, strike out lines 4 through 11 and insert in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 301. BASELINE STUDY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations (hereafter in this title referred 
     to as the ``Advisory Commission''), in consultation with the 
     Director, shall begin a study to examine the measurement and 
     definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and 
     benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of 
     compliance with Federal law.
       (b) Considerations.--The study required by this section 
     shall consider--
       (1) the feasibility of measuring indirect costs and 
     benefits as well as direct costs and benefits of the Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal relationship; and
       (2) how to measure both the direct and indirect benefits of 
     Federal financial assistance and tax benefits to State, 
     local, and tribal governments.

     SEC. 302. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations shall in accordance with this 
     section--
       On page 43, beginning with line 1, strike out all through 
     line 17 on page 49 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 303. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--For purposes of carrying out 
     this title, the Advisory Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Detail of Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of 
     the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission, 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 Advisory Commission to assist it in carrying 
     out this title.
       (c) Contract Authority.--The Advisory Commission may, 
     subject to appropriations, contract with and compensate 
     government and private persons (including agencies) for 
     property and services used to carry out its duties under this 
     title.

     SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Advisory 
     Commission--
       (1) to carry out section 301, and section 302 $1,250,000 
     for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just in brief seconds explain 
the modification. The modification is one that we have discussed with 
the sponsors of the amendment, and it would make a change with respect 
to the number of years and the number of dollars and the duties of this 
commission. It would eliminate something called section 303, and it 
would provide funding for the exercise of duties under section 301 and 
302 for $1.25 million each of the years 1995 and 1996. This new version 
still comports with this bill's original thinking of what the 
commission would do. It accomplishes the result of the amendment. And I 
appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues to explain the modification.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Does the Senator request the yeas and nays?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, also we have another amendment. I am 
going to ask unanimous consent that it follow immediately after the 
vote that is going to occur on the amendment of Senator Dorgan. This 
simply deals with that issue, to further clarify that S. 1 will be able 
to, in a report, define if there is any area of competitive 
disadvantage to the private sector.
  So I ask unanimous consent a rollcall vote on the Kempthorne-Cochran-
Levin amendment regarding committee reports on competitive balance 
immediately follow the vote on the Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we cannot 
order rollcall votes by unanimous consent.
  I have no objection to setting the amendment aside for this 
amendment. I think it improves the bill and that is what I have been 
advised by Senator Levin and others. But we cannot get that consent.
  Mr. DOLE. Set it aside, offer it, and then have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection, if the Senator makes the request to 
set the amendment aside and that a vote occur immediately on the 
second. I have no problem with that but we have to order the yeas and 
nays by a show of hands.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Then my unanimous consent would embody what the 
Senator from West Virginia has so stated, and following that, so we 
would have a recorded vote, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection that it be in order to 
order the yeas and nays at this time? Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Idaho please send the 
second amendment to the desk.


                            Amendment No. 19

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I now send the second amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S941]]

  The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], for himself, Mr. Cochran and 
Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 19.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 15, line 12, after ``nesses'' insert the following: 
     ``including a description of the actions, if any, taken by 
     the Committee to avoid any adverse impact on the private 
     sector or the competitive balance between the public sector 
     and the private sector.''


                        vote on amendment no. 18

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 18, offered by the Senator from North Dakota.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], and the 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms], the Senator from Utah [Mr. Jeffords], and the Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 18 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     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
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Warner
  So, the amendment (No. 18), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                        vote on amendment no. 19

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 19, offered by the Senator from Idaho [Mr. 
Kempthorne]. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from 
Virginia [Mr. Warner] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Helms] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], the 
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. 
Inouye], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], the Senator 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     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
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Gramm
     Hatch
     Helms
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 19) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________