[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S961-S968]
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 hour of 9:30
having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1, which the
clerk will report.
The assistant 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 resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Committee amendment number 9, beginning on page 15, line 6,
to modify language relating to reports on Federal mandates.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, today the Senate will resume debate on
Senate bill No. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. We began
debate on this issue last week. I believe
[[Page S962]] we had thoughtful discussion about this bill. We also
made progress on the consideration of several committee amendments and
two amendments to those committee amendments.
We have stated continually, and I will do so again, that we will take
what time is necessary for us to complete the thoughtful and thorough
discussion of Senate bill No. 1 and any amendments that may be offered
by any Members of this body. My hope is that we will complete work on
this bill this week.
There have been a number of encouraging developments, also, Mr.
President, that have occurred since the bill came on the Senate floor.
I would like to reference a few letters that I have received. This one
I received from the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents
4.4 million families.
They say:
We believe that Federal mandates to State and local
governments must provide complete and continuous funding. It
is our hope that information on the costs to the private and
public sectors of proposed regulations and legislation will
lead Congress to stop imposing burdens it is unwilling to
fund.
S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, will require
the Congressional Budget Office to estimate and report the
public and private sector cost, and any Federal effort to
ameliorate that cost of proposed legislation.
That is from Dean Kleckner, the president of the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
He says:
The provision requiring this information is important if
lawmakers and the voters they represent are to make judgments
regarding the cost and benefits of proposed legislation.
Farm Bureau supports the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995 and will work to ensure its passage.
I received a letter from the Public Securities Association.
They state:
PSA supports legislation to provide relief from unfunded
Federal mandates imposed on State and local governments. PSA
is the association of banks and brokerage firms that
underwrite, trade and sell municipal securities, U.S.
Government and Federal agency securities, mortgage-backed
securities and money market instruments. PSA's members
account for over 95 percent of municipal securities market
activity.
We support S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,
and congratulate the swift action taken by the jurisdictional
committees.
That is from John Vogt, vice president, external affairs.
Then I received a letter from the city of El Monte.
The letter states:
On behalf of the El Monte City Council, we wholeheartedly
support your aggressive efforts in sponsoring legislation to
stop unfunded Federal mandates. This noble effort is
especially appreciated by cities in California, who are
facing the negative impacts of the recession along with the
State's revenue raids on local government.
The City of El Monte has raised new revenues and has cut
back on spending for the past 3 years to be reliant on other
levels of government. However, with the continuation of
Federal mandates on cities, it has become very difficult to
fund even the most essential services to our residents and
businesses.
That is from Patricia A. Wallach, the mayor of El Monte.
Then there is a letter from the Petroleum Marketers Association of
America.
On behalf of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America
(PMAA), I would like to express our strong support for the
passage of S. 1, legislation which would curtail the passage
of legislation implementing unfunded mandates. The PMAA
represents over 10,000 marketers of petroleum products
nationwide. Collectively, these marketers sell nearly half
the gasoline, over 60 percent of the diesel fuel and
approximately 85 percent of the home hearing oil consumed in
the U.S. annually.
PMAA favors passage of the ``unfunded mandates''
legislation as a necessary step to help stem the increasing
cost of federal regulations to state and local government, as
well as to provide industry.* * *
The financial burden of federal regulations in reaching
critical levels with estimates nearing $581 billion
annually.* * *
Please vote in favor of S. 1 and oppose any efforts to
weaken the legislation by removing the private sector
language. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Farm
Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, January 5, 1995.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the 4.4 million
families represented by the American Farm Bureau Federation,
I want to thank you for your leadership in addressing the
serious problem of unfunded federal mandates. We believe that
federal mandates to state and local governments must provide
complete and continuous funding. It is our hope that
information on the costs to the private and public sectors of
proposed regulations and legislation will lead Congress to
stop imposing burdens it is unwilling to fund.
S. 1, The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, will require
the Congressional Budget Office to estimate and report the
public and private and private sector cost, and any federal
effort to ameliorate that cost of proposed legislation. It
will further require the Congress to vote for a waiver of its
rules before passing any legislation that has not been
subject to this analysis, or if the cost of implementation of
any proposed unfunded obligations exceeds $50 million.
In addition, federal departments will be required to
analyze the impact of proposed regulations on the economy,
and to report those findings through the normal rulemaking
process by publication in the Federal Register.
The provision requiring this information is important if
lawmakers and the voters they represent are to make judgments
regarding the cost and benefits of proposed legislation. We
at the Farm Bureau look forward to building on this
legislation to help reform the rulemaking and legislative
processes.
Farm Bureau supports the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of
1995 and will work to ensure its passage.
Sincerely yours,
Dean R. Kleckner,
President.
____
Public Securities Association,
Washington, DC, January 12, 1995.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: We applaud your leadership on the
issue of unfunded federal mandates. PSA supports legislation
to provide relief from unfunded federal mandates imposed on
state and local governments. PSA is the association of banks
and brokerage firms that underwrite, trade and sell municipal
securities, U.S. government and federal agency securities,
mortgage-backed securities and money market instruments.
PSA's members account for over 95 percent of municipal
securities market activity.
We support S. 1, The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,
and congratulate the swift action taken by the jurisdictional
committees. However, S. 1 is applicable only to prospective
laws and regulations. PSA believe that municipal bonds could
play a significant role in the battle against existing
unfunded mandates by providing leveraged financing for
currently mandated requirements and developing creative ways
to deal with unfunded mandates in a responsible manner. The
federal government provides substantial assistance to state
and local governments to support their borrowing in the form
of the federal tax-exemption on municipal bond interest.
Because interest earned by investors on municipal bonds is
exempt from federal taxation, states and localities pay much
lower costs of capital than they would otherwise face.
PSA proposes creation of Mandatory Infrastructure Facility
(MIF) Bonds to assist state and local governments in
financing current federally mandated infrastructure
improvements. MIF bonds would be used for the construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation or renovation of infrastructure
facilities that are mandated by the federal government or
required in order to comply with a federal mandate. The MIF
bonds would be categorized as public purpose rather than
private activity bonds, regardless of the level of private
participation in the financed project and would be exempt
from some other restrictions on municipal securities. While
it would be inappropriate to attempt to add MIFs to S. 1, we
hope to pursue this issue in the context of future
legislation such as budget reconciliation.
We have enclosed for you review the report of the PSA
Economic Advisory Committee and draw to your attention the
concerns expressed in the report where it notes that
``economic gains from reducing the federal deficit could
prove illusory if federal programs are cut, but replaced by
unfunded mandates upon state and local governments.''
We welcome the opportunity to work with you on issues
concerning unfunded mandates. Please do not hesitate to call
if there is any further information we can provide.
Sincerely,
John R. Vogt,
Vice President, External Affairs.
____
City of El Monte,
El Monte, CA, January 4, 1995.
Re unfunded Federal mandates.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the El Monte City
Council, we wholeheartedly support your aggressive efforts in
sponsoring legislation to stop unfunded federal mandates.
This noble effort is especially appreciated by cities in
California, who are facing the negative impacts of the
recession
[[Page S963]] along with the State's revenue raids on local
government. Also, your leadership in providing legislation to
stop unfunded mandates will have an impact at the State
level, whereby State mandates have also created economic
problems for cities.
The City of El Monte has raised new revenues and has cut
back on spending for the past three years to be less reliant
on other levels of government. However, with the continuation
of federal mandates on cities, it has become very difficult
to fund even the most essential services to our residents and
businesses.
We are fortunate to have your support in sponsoring this
legislation and our appreciation and gratitude for your fine
efforts in understanding the needs of cities.
Sincerely yours,
El Monte City
Council,
Patricia A. Wallach,
Mayor.
____
Petroleum Marketers
Association of America,
Arlington, VA, January 11, 1995.
Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America (PMAA), I would like to
express our strong support for the passage of S. 1,
legislation which would curtail the passage of legislation
implementing unfunded mandates. The PMAA represents over
10,000 marketers of petroleum products nationwide.
Collectively, these marketers sell nearly half the gasoline,
over 60 percent of the diesel fuel and approximately 85% of
the home heating oil consumed in the U.S. annually.
PMAA favors passage of the ``unfunded mandates''
legislation as a necessary step to help stem the increasing
cost of federal regulations to state and local government, as
well as to private industry.
As you know, S. 1 would require the Congressional Budget
Office to conduct a cost impact analysis (or be ruled out of
order) whenever Congress wants to impose an unfunded mandate
of more than $200 million on the private sector. Federal
agencies would have to analyze and report the effects that
proposed regulations would have on the nation's economy,
productivity and international competitiveness.
Petroleum marketers have been especially hard hit by the
financial burdens placed upon them by federal and state
regulations. The financial burden of federal regulations is
reaching critical levels with estimates nearing $581 billion
annually. Providing relief from federal unfunded mandates is
crucial to the future livelihood of the business community
and the economy in general.
Please vote in favor of S. 1 and oppose any efforts to
weaken the legislation by removing the private sector
coverage language. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Phillip R. Chisholm,
Executive Vice President.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I believe this demonstrates again,
whether we are talking to farm families about the act, whether we are
talking to local governments such as El Monte City Council, or whether
we are talking to the private sector as represented by the Petroleum
Marketers Association of America, all of them strongly support this
legislation. And this week, again, we hope to be able to move forward
on this legislation so that we can enact what our partners in both the
public and private sectors have been asking for.
Mr. President, with that being said, and in the spirit of trying to
move forward now on the progress of dealing with the issues before us,
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining committee amendments be
considered en bloc, agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with the following exceptions: The amendment on
page 25, the amendment on page 27, and the amendment on page 33; I
further ask unanimous consent that all adopted committee amendments be
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Is there objection?
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
object, not for myself, but I believe we do have another Senator who
wants to come to the floor and speak on this. So I would object until
he can be here and express his views on this. I think he wanted to
object to the unanimous-consent agreement, so, on his behalf, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order, while we are waiting for the Senator to come to the floor to
express his views on this, that I be given permission to speak with
regard to the bill until he arrives on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the Washington Post this morning has an
editorial titled ``More on the Mandates Issue.'' The Washington Post
has editorialized on this before, and they very properly, in this lead
editorial this morning, point out the difference between the House bill
and the Senate bill.
I want to make sure that some of our colleagues who are trying to
make up their minds on support for this legislation, that they not get
confused between the two bills. This is not a long editorial, but I
would like to read it so that everyone will understand exactly what the
issue is. The title is ``More on the Mandates Issue.''
House Republicans partly disarmed critics of their unfunded
mandates bill by keeping a promise and quietly fixing one
defect last week in committee. They should fix another when
the bill comes to the floor, perhaps this week.
The mandates bill could well be the first major building
block of the Republican congressional agenda to pass. The
Senate's version is on the floor as well, and the president
has said while avoiding details that he too favors such a
measure.
Mr. President, I would add that I entered the President's letter to
us into the Record last week.
The Republicans look upon it in part as the key to
achieving other goals such as a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution and perhaps welfare reform. Governors and
other state and local officials are fearful of being stranded
by the spending cuts implicit in both of these and
conceivably could block them. The promise that at the same
time they will get relief from federal mandates is meant to
assuage them.
In fact, the legislation doesn't ban unfunded mandates as
so much of surrounding rhetoric on both sides would suggest.
It would merely create a parliamentary presumption against
them and require explicit majority votes in both houses to
impose them. That's the right approach.
Mr. President, I see our distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, is on
the floor. I know he has some comments to make on this.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial out of the Washington Post
be printed in the Record in its entirety, and I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1995]
More on the Mandates Issue
House Republicans partly disarmed the critics of their
unfunded mandates bill by keeping a promise and quietly
fixing one defect last week in committee. They should fix
another when the bill comes to the floor, perhaps this week.
The mandates bill could well be the first major building
block of the Republican congressional agenda to pass. The
Senate's version is on the floor as well, and the president
has said while avoiding details that he too favors such a
measure. The Republicans look upon it in part as the key to
achieving other goals such as a balanced budget amendment to
the Constitution and perhaps welfare reform. Governors and
other state and local officials are fearful of being stranded
by the spending cuts implicit in both of these and
conceivably could block them. The promise that at the same
time they will get relief from federal mandates is meant to
assuage them.
In fact, the legislation doesn't ban unfunded mandates as
so much of surrounding rhetoric on both sides would suggest.
It would merely create a parliamentary presumption against
them and require explicit majority votes in both houses to
impose them. That's the right approach. Though there is a
genuine problem that needs fixing here, not all unfunded
mandates are unjustified, nor are state and local
governments, which receive a quarter trillion dollars a year
in federal aid, always the victims they portray themselves to
be in the federal relationship. What would happen is simply
that future bills imposing mandates without the funds to
carry them out would be subject to a point of order. A member
could raise the point of order, another would move to waive
it and there would be a vote. That works in the Senate. The
problem in the House was that the rules would not have
allowed a waiver motion. A single member, raising a point of
order that the chair would have been obliged to sustain,
would have been enough to kill a bill. The Rules Committee
found a way around that rock last week. The bill now provides
expressly for the majority
[[Page S964]] votes that the sponsors say are its main point.
The other problem involves judicial review. The Senate bill
would rightly bar appeals to the courts by state and local
officials or others on grounds the terms of the bill had been
ignored, the theory being that is mainly an internal matter--
Congress agreeing to change its own future behavior--and a
political accommodation of the sort that courts should have
no role in. The House bill contains no similar ban, in part
because a section would require the executive branch to do
certain studies before issuing regulations and the sponsors,
or some of them, want that to be judicially enforceable. But
Congress has power enough to enforce these requirements
itself; it needn't turn to the courts. The Republicans
rightly say in other contexts that there is already too much
resort to the courts in this country. They ought to stick to
that position. In fact, because the House bill is silent on
the matter, it isn't clear whether it would permit resort to
the courts or not. The House should say not.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I have an inquiry, and that is, am I
correct that the amendment that is currently before us is a committee
amendment that is found on page 15, lines 6, 7, 8, and 9?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in light of the objection to the prior
unanimous-consent agreement, I would like to ask the Senator from West
Virginia if he wishes to debate the committee amendment found on page
15, beginning on line 6. I would like to make that inquiry without
losing the floor. And I ask this with all due respect to the Senator
from West Virginia, who has been forthright with me in communicating
his concerns. So I just wanted to try to establish a process so that we
can proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator, who is manager of
the bill, for his courtesies extended to me. I want to assure him that
it is not my desire to frustrate him. He is trying diligently to move
this bill forward, and the bill, of course, will move forward.
I am not in a position at this point to accede to the unanimous-
consent request. I do not have any particular amendment in mind, may I
say in response to the able Senator's question.
I do not want to accede to the request. For one thing, I do not want
to agree to the adoption of committee amendments en bloc and that they
be considered as original text for further amendment. Committee
amendments that are in place as they are now, as long as they are in
place can be amended by second-degree amendments. They are open to an
amendment in the second degree. And it may be that some Senators would
want to offer second-degree amendments and not have their amendments
topped with an amendment.
Once the committee amendments are adopted en bloc, then, of course,
they are open to amendments in two degrees. I have no particular
amendment in mind at this point. I just feel that there are some areas
of the bill that we need to understand. I probably will, in the final
analysis, vote for this bill if there are certain amendments adopted
thereto. I do not say at the moment that I will do that exactly for
sure, but I may very well vote for the bill.
But for now, I do not choose to agree to the request. I may agree to
it at a later point. I do not have any particular question with respect
to a specific amendment. That will be for others on the committee who
understand the bill better than I do to more clearly explain.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate that.
To the Senator from West Virginia I would point out that the
amendment that is before the Senate was unanimously agreed to by the
Budget Committee, and with this amendment properly being before the
Senate now as our item of business, if the Senator from West Virginia
does not feel compelled to debate the particular specifics of that
amendment then I would seek or ask the Chair to put the question on the
committee amendment before the body.
Again, I want to assert, because of my respect for the Senator from
West Virginia, if the Senator has a desire to debate that issue; if
not, I would like to put that question before the Chair so that we can
proceed.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator is certainly within his rights
to hope the Chair will put the question, and I can understand that. I
fully appreciate his desire to do that. The Chair is not only entitled
to put the question but the Chair is required to put the question if no
Senator seeks recognition.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Based on that, Mr. President, I ask the Chair to put
the question on committee amendment No. 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as I have indicated to my friend, the
distinguished Senator from Idaho, I have no particular thoughts with
respect to this specific amendment, but I do want to say a few things
in regard to the bill and other matters.
Mr. President, first on another matter. There is an adage among
computer users that says ``garbage in, garbage out.'' What that means,
of course, is that if unreliable or incomplete information is put into
a computer, then unreliable or incomplete information will come out of
that computer. Although ``garbage in, garbage out'' comes from the
world of computers, the basic theory applies to other disciplines as
well.
For example, consider the question: ``Do you support or oppose a
constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget?'' As of
January 4, 1995, 80 percent, we are told, 80 percent of the American
people say that they support such an amendment. My source is an article
in the Friday, January 6, edition of the Washington Post.
According to a poll taken for the Washington Post and ABC news, that
overwhelming percentage buys on to the concept of a balanced budget
amendment. Amazing, one would think that on the face of it, this
extremely popular idea would have nearly no opponents. On the surface,
if one went solely by that overwhelming percentage, one could say that
this surely is an idea whose time has come.
What is wrong with this Congress that it has not already passed this
fabulous balanced budget amendment? How can anyone question its wisdom?
That is the problem with simplistic questions. They usually provoke
equally simplistic answers. But there is nothing simple about the
constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget. If one looks a
little closer at the same poll, the problem with any balanced budget
amendment becomes glaringly apparent. There exists no consensus as to
how actually to get to a balance of the budget.
Of those who support a balanced budget amendment in the poll, the
further question was asked: ``Would you still support a constitutional
amendment to require a balanced Federal budget if it meant cuts in
Federal spending on welfare, or public assistance, for the poor?''
Fifty-nine percent said yes, they would. Now, this is not 59 percent of
the 100 percent. It is not 59 percent of the total number of persons
who are included in the poll. It is 59 percent of those who support a
balanced budget amendment.
In other words, it is 59 percent of the 80 percent of those who say
they support a balanced budget amendment.
Then the same supporters were asked if they would support the
amendment if it meant cutting national defense or the military budget.
Fifty-six percent said yes, they would. Again, that is not 56 percent
of the total. That is 56 percent of the 80 percent who support a
balanced budget amendment.
Then the same supporters were asked if they still would support the
amendment if we had to cut Federal funds for education. Only 37 percent
said yes, they would. Now, that is not 37 percent of the 100 percent.
That is not 37 percent of all those who were polled. That is 37 percent
of the 80 percent who support a constitutional amendment. That makes a
difference.
[[Page S965]] Then the same supporters were asked if they were still
on board if we had to cut Social Security; only 34 percent said they
would. We will say there are 100 apples on the table here and that the
100 apples represent the total number of persons who were polled on the
various questions. Eighty percent support, that would mean 80 of the
100 apples taken off the table. They all support the balanced budget
amendment.
But if Social Security is increased, of those who support a balanced
budget amendment, only 34 percent then would support the amendment. So
if Social Security is included, only 34 percent of the 80 apples, or
approximately 27 percent of the whole number favor the amendment.
So that would mean less than 34 percent of the 100 percent; in other
words, only approximately 27 or 28 percent of the whole number would
then support the balanced budget amendment.
I ask the rhetorical question, are we beginning to see a pattern
emerge here? There is vast agreement on a goal; in other words,
balancing the Federal budget, but virtually no agreement on how to
achieve that goal among the general public.
Let us understand one thing, if Congress passed the amendment today
and we had to start moving toward that goal, virtually all talk of tax
cuts would have to be abandoned. If Congress passed the amendment today
and we had to start moving toward that goal, virtually all talk of tax
cuts would have to be abandoned.
There is a lot of talk about tax cuts in the air. Both Republicans
and Democrats seem--according to what I have read--to be racing toward
the finish line to see who can get there first with a tax cut. And
there may be a bidding war on that subject in due time.
But this Senator from West Virginia thinks it is absolute folly--
folly--to talk about a tax cut at a time when we are talking about
passing a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget.
We seem to be going in two different directions all at once, and we
are going to meet ourselves head on. If we have a tax cut and then if
the constitutional amendment on the balanced budget is adopted, we may
have to increase taxes to balance that budget. It cannot be ruled out.
So what is going on here? We cut taxes one day and raise them the
next. It is going to be much more difficult to raise taxes than it will
be to cut them.
I think we ought to stay on the course we are on; that being to
attempt to balance the budget. And we have had two good efforts in 1990
and 1993, in both of which years Congress passed legislation that
reduced the rates by which the deficits were growing and actually made
reductions over a period in the deficits. That is the course we ought
to stay on, and that is not an easy course.
But now to forsake that course and say, ``Well, let's have a tax
cut,'' that is flying in the face of the strong efforts that have been
made in 1990 and 1993 to bring about a reduction in the deficits and to
move on a glide path toward a balanced budget. It does not make sense.
We ought to be thinking of our children and grandchildren. No, we want
to cut taxes now for political purposes, cut taxes now, do something
for ourselves, forget about the kids, forget about the children down
the road; let us shift this burden over on them, shift it over to them;
let us have the tax cut now, though; let our children, and
grandchildren and their children worry about it.
That seems to me to be very shortsighted, very shortsighted.
I would rather see the President and the Democratic Party stay on the
course we were on of balancing the budget, of reducing the deficits. I
think it is not only poor judgment but it is wrong to talk about a tax
cut now. It is easy to cut taxes. Nobody likes to vote to increase
taxes. I do not like to vote to increase taxes, but I am not going to
join in the rush to cut taxes at a time when we have budget deficits in
the $200 billion range and a national debt that is $4.5 trillion. Talk
about declaration of rights, petition of rights, bills of rights, and
all these things, I think we might better focus on a petition of
rights, declaration of rights or bill of rights for our children's
children and their children. I would not think that a tax cut for those
of us in our generation would be wise. It certainly would not be a part
of my declaration of rights for posterity.
We should not have a tax cut at this time, in my view, and we
certainly should forgo that idea if Congress adopts a balanced budget
amendment. Now, if we did that, if we abandoned all thoughts of a tax
cut, we would still need to cut spending or raise taxes from projected
levels by more than $1 trillion over 7 years, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, in order to balance the budget.
We could go ahead and cut welfare. That seems to be popular, but it
would not be nearly enough. We could go ahead and slash defense
spending. That also seems to have a fair amount of support among
balanced budget enthusiasts, but that would not get us to balance
without massive tax increases either. How popular does anyone within
the sound of my voice think massive tax increases are?
My point is that no one area of cuts would get us anywhere near a
balance by the year 2002. The cuts would have to hit most all of the
extremely popular Federal programs and those cuts would have to be
severe.
It is obvious on its face from the results of the ABC poll that the
American people have no real understanding of what passing this
amendment means in reality. The conventional wisdom around here is that
the balanced budget amendment is a forgone conclusion; that its
adoption is foreordained. Mr. President, it may be that a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget will be adopted. It may
be, but I am not going to concede that yet.
We heard that same thing last year being said. It was said last year
that the balanced budget amendment would be adopted, but it was not.
The constitutional amendment to balance the budget may or may not be
adopted. That is something that will be decided as we go down the road.
I am not going to join in the stampede to adopt a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget. I am in favor of balancing the budget
from time to time when we can, but I do not think that can be done
every year in the normal course of things, for fiscal reasons, cyclical
and countercyclical fiscal reasons.
I am not in favor of a constitutional amendment on the balanced
budget. That is not news to anyone. But let me just say again that I do
not concede at this point that such an amendment is going to be riveted
into the Constitution. Perhaps it will be. We shall see.
We in the Congress have not adequately educated our people about what
the amendment really means. It means enormous changes in the lifestyles
and in the opportunities available to every man, woman, and child in
this Nation. Furthermore, if the economy goes into a recession, which
simultaneously increases spending on programs such as unemployment
compensation and decreases revenues coming into the Treasury because of
poorer performance in the private sector, spending cuts will have to be
steeper and the tax increases will have to be larger than anticipated.
Any first-year economic student knows that raising taxes or cutting
spending during a recession is a recipe for plunging the economy into a
depression.
It is the height of irresponsibility to avoid speaking very plainly
to the American people about what is at stake here. We have to form a
consensus about how to continue to reduce the Federal deficit rather
than pass a constitutional amendment that would place our Nation's
economic policy in a straitjacket. There has to be a national debate
about the available options and their consequences. Honesty and
integrity demand it.
I have heard it said that we were sent a message with this most
recent congressional election. I believe that is a true statement. The
message was: Involve the American people. Involve the American people
in decisions that affect their lives and their livelihoods. The message
was: Do not dictate to us, the people, from on high anymore. That
Washington crowd must stop trying to tell us, the American people, what
is best for us to do, what is always best. That is one of the reasons
why we have this bill on the floor. The American people are tired of
being bossed around from Washington, told what to do, when to do it,
how much to do.
[[Page S966]] When I was in the State legislature 49 years ago, my
feeling as to my associates in the legislature was--and I think it was
a consensus among the West Virginia legislators in the House at that
time and also in the West Virginia Senate where I later served--those
fellows up in Washington, we do not need them to tell us what to do. We
do not even want our Senators, who were Democrats like most of us were
in the legislature, we do not want them telling us legislators at the
State level what to do. They have enough to do. We will take care of
our work here.
Well, that just applied to the members of the legislature. But the
American people generally are tired of the heavy hand of Washington.
They do not want to be dictated to anymore. They are tired of it. They
are fed up to the earlobes with being told from Washington how to
plant, when to plant, and how much to plant. And here we are caught in
a headlong rush to pass, to adopt, a balanced budget amendment, rivet
it into the Constitution.
Now we have a bill before the Senate that deals with unfunded
mandates, and it is going to pass the Senate. As I say, my vote may be
one of the votes that helps it to pass. But the balanced budget
amendment will be the largest unfunded Federal mandate of all time--the
largest Federal unfunded mandate of all time. A constitutional
amendment to balance the budget would dump huge new responsibilities on
the States because of massive and precipitous cuts in Federal dollars.
At virtually the same moment in time when we are poised to pass
legislation curtailing the Federal Government's ability to enact
unfunded Federal mandates on the States, here we are hot and bothered
about passing a constitutional amendment to balance the Federal budget
without a hint as to how we will actually bring the budget into
balance.
``Oh,'' they say, ``well, let's get the amendment into the
Constitution and then we will talk about that.'' Well, then it is too
late. Once that amendment is in the Constitution, it will take some
years--it will not be a matter of days or weeks or months to remove
that constitutional amendment, but it will take some years to remove
that amendment from the Constitution if it develops, as I think it very
well may be develop, that the amendment proves to be unpopular with the
American people in the long run.
It is arrogant, Mr. President, it is the acme of arrogance for us as
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to put forward a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget without laying on the
table, so that the American people can see what it is, the plan by
which we expect to achieve that balanced budget by the year 2002.
It has been said, ``Oh, well, we must not do that. If the American
people know the details, we will never get that amendment adopted
around here.'' Well, that is the height of arrogance--arrogance. If we
let the American people know what is good, what is bad about balancing
the budget under a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we
let them know, we will not pass it. We will not have the votes to adopt
the amendment. In other words, do not let the American people know.
Keep them in the dark as to where the pain will be, keep them in the
dark as to where the cuts will have to be made, keep the American
people in the dark as to what tax increases will have to be made,
because if the American people are told that, the 80 percent of those
who answered the polls to which I earlier alluded will dwindle away. We
will not have the votes even here in the Senate to adopt that
amendment, because the American people will rise up. They will be
disturbed. They will become excited. And they will contact their
Senators and House Members and tell them to slow down, slow down. So,
``We do not want to tell them that. They are just like children.'' That
argument assumes the attitude that the American people are children;
they should not be told the truth, if the truth hurts. It takes the
attitude that the American people do not have a right to know what the
problems will be, what their burdens will be, where the cuts will be
applied, where the taxes will be increased if a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget passes.
That is superarrogance, on the part of those of us who are not
willing to lay out the course which the American people will have to
follow in order to balance that budget. That is being superarrogant.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would like to just note and acknowledge what the
Senator from West Virginia stated, in the fact that he has been a State
legislator. I think as State legislators across the United States
realize that he has sat in their very circumstances, he has an empathy
for what they are trying to do in establishing their priorities, I
think they take courage in knowing that we have another champion who
has been in their shoes, whom we hope will help champion this unfunded
mandate legislation.
I would like to make an inquiry then. Because we are having this
discussion--and I point out that there are points the Senator has made
which I agree with and I appreciate the Senator has stated them--since
we are having this discussion as this amendment is pending, would the
Senator be willing to enter into a time agreement so we could have some
sense as to how long we would have discussion before we would put this
amendment to a vote?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, that is a legitimate question. I would not
be willing to do so at this point.
May I make it clear to my friend and to all who are listening and
viewing what is going on here, I am not out to kill this bill. I may
vote for it. And I am in no position to know--I am in no position to
say how soon we will pass this bill. It may be today, it may be
tomorrow, it may be Friday. I do not know.
Others who are on the committees that were involved, the Governmental
Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee, are very much closer to the
facts and to the problems that are being addressed than I am. I am not
a member of either of those committees.
But, first of all--and I hate to say this again, but sometimes
repetition bears being repeated--I was a bit astonished and taken aback
when both committees, the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget
Committee in the Senate, by rollcall votes declined to submit committee
reports. I was, in a manner, offended as a Senator, as a Senator who
has been here many years, who is accustomed to having committee reports
on major bills, as a Senator who has always stood for the rights of the
minority. I have always stood for the rights of the minority in this
body. I felt that the rights of the minority were being trampled
underfoot by the rejection in both committees of minority requests that
there be committee reports, and the minorities in both committees were
refused. That was not in accordance with my views as to what the
minority has a right to expect here. I understand that the votes were
party-line votes.
Mr. GLENN. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BYRD. By denying the minority, the American people were likewise
denied. Again, this is arrogance, arrogance, to deny the minority the
right to present its individual and minority views in a committee
report.
I thought that was what the American people, in part, were sending us
a message about. They are tired of this arrogance: ``They know it all,
in Washington. They know it all.'' No, there was such a hurry, such a
big rush. ``We have a Contract With America. It has to be accepted
within 100 days.'' That seems to be the big rush. Up to this point I
have been remonstrating and protesting that kind of procedure in the
committees. I hope it will not be done again.
I am not saying that the same thing may not have happened in times
gone by. I would never be one to defend the trampling of a minority's
rights in this respect on a major bill, a bill which may be
controversial. I think that my colleagues on this side of the aisle
deserve to have some time to study the committee report. We finally
received the committee reports and over the weekend I have had an
opportunity to read them.
I am not a major player on this bill at all. But I just think we
ought to slow down and take a little while to study what this is all
about and know what is in the bill. I can best understand the pros and
cons by reading the committee reports. That is why we
[[Page S967]] have committee reports--one reason why we have committee
reports. I cannot just read the bill and understand it fully. I need to
read the committee reports. I need to see what the minority thinks. I
always--always look to see what the minority is saying in a committee
report because if there are problems with the bill, with a given bill,
the minority is likely to raise those problems, give them visibility.
So that, by way of explanation, again, is why I have become involved
here. I want to hear what my colleagues on this side of the aisle have
to say about this bill. I will probably hear a little of that, or some
explanation in the conference that is coming up.
But I do not propose to be rushed. I may be run over by the
steamroller, but I do not propose to get out of its way or just jump
upon it and ride along with it, necessarily, at least. There may be
some parts of the Contract With America that I will support. Mr.
President, I do not put it on the level however, with the Federal
Constitution. I do not put it on a level with the Declaration of
Independence. I do not put that document--I have not read it, as I say.
I have never read a Democratic platform. Why should I read this
Contract With America? I did not have anything to do with it. I am not
a part of it. I do not put it on a level with the Federalist Papers. So
it does not have all of that aura of holiness about it or reference
that I would accord to some other documents.
I say to my friend from Idaho that he is doing what he thinks is
right. I assume that he believes in all particulars of the bill. Or he
may not. He may not believe in every particular. And the Senate will
have its opportunity to work its will on that bill. I fully recognize
the need to do something about unfunded mandates. I recognize that
need. We have gone down that path too far in many instances.
I just have a little more to say on this particular subject, and then
I will talk a little about the matter before the Senate.
But here we all are hot and bothered about passing a constitutional
amendment to balance the Federal budget without a hint as to how we
will actually bring the budget into balance. Furthermore, there are
those in this body who are completely unwilling, as I have said, to
share the details of any plan to balance the budget with the people
before we pass the amendment. Now I ask Senators. How does that comport
with the so-called ``message'' that we just got in the November
election? How is this bringing Government back to the people? How is
this putting vital decisions back into the hands of the voters of
America?
A member of the other body's leadership was quoted in the newspaper
last week as admitting that, if the details of getting to a balanced
budget by the year 2002 were public, there would be virtually no
possibility--no possibility--of passing the amendment. Is it all that
bad? In other words, for Heaven's sake, do not tell the people what we
are about to do to them. Do not tell them. Keep them in the dark. They
want the amendment. Eighty percent said so in that poll. Keep them in
the dark. Let us give it to them. They do not need to know what getting
to balance entails. They do not need to know that. They do not need to
be bothered with that.
If we exempt further tax increases or cuts in Social Security and
defense, then what are we left with? In fiscal year 1995, the current
fiscal year, Federal expenditures will total slightly more than $1.53
trillion. Excepting Social Security at $334 billion, defense at $270
billion, and of course, interest on the national debt of $235 billion,
any cuts required to balance the budget would have to come out of the
remaining $692 billion. It has been estimated, with a fiscal year 1995
budget deficit of $175 billion, those cuts would have to total 25.4
percent across the board on that $692 billion. And in fiscal year 2002,
using the same assumptions, those cuts would have to equal 28 percent
in order to eliminate a projected deficit of $322 billion.
Not discussing the options with the American people is like a suitor
telling his prospective bride, ``Marry me and I will make you happy.''
But when she asks what he has in mind, he simply answers, ``Trust me,
baby. You don't need to know the details. Trust me baby, you don't need
to know the details.'' Talk about a pig in a poke; that is a hog in a
rucksack.
This is big, arrogant Government going completely hog wild. This is
us big guys, we big guys in Washington, saying to the American public,
``We refuse to give you any idea of how we are going to enact over $1
trillion of spending cuts and tax increases over the next 7 years.''
Note carefully that the 7-year period puts many of us in this body
safely through the next election, by the way. It puts us safely through
the next election. If this constitutional amendment is going to be sent
out to the people, why do we not amend it; instead of having 7 years,
make it 5. Make it 5 years. That is not customary. But there is no
reason why it cannot be done. Make it 5 years so that the chickens will
come to hatch during the terms of those of us who are here now who were
elected in the past election, and they will certainly come to hatch
during the terms of those who will be running next year, those who will
be reelected or those who will be elected. It does not have to be a 7-
year period. Make it a 5-year period. The 7 years puts us all safely
through the next election.
Any plan to do that kind of violence to the Federal budget and to the
national economy simply must be shared with the American people before
we take an action that mandates that the violence be done. Let us not
be a party to trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people who
sent us here. We do not allow it in other matters. We do not expect
anyone to buy a used car without knowing whether or not that car has
defects.
We do not expect anyone to buy a house without knowing if the roof
leaks. We could not allow anyone to take out a mortgage on that house
without requiring the lending agency to fully disclose the terms of the
loan. Mr. President, we have truth-in-advertising statutes in this
country. We have truth-in-lending requirements. Why, then, should the
American people be expected to accept the constitutional balanced
budget amendment that would lock this Government into a rigid and
unforgiving economic straitjacket without knowing precisely what that
means?
Mr. President, in August 1993, the Congress passed a reconciliation
bill that accomplished well in excess of $450 billion of deficit
reduction, certainly well in excess of $400 billion. Every single
dollar of spending cuts and every single dollar of revenue increases
were laid out in plain language for Members and the American public to
see. Obviously, those cuts were difficult to vote for. The revenue
increases were difficult to vote for. But that package is something
that needed to be enacted then, and it is something that needs to be
enacted now.
Most importantly, Mr. President, that deficit reduction was passed
without a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution.
Mr. President, if those who have signed on to the Contract With
America are so sure that they have the necessary 67 votes to pass the
balanced budget constitutional amendment, then they should lay down a
plan that will actually balance the budget. If they have 67 votes to
pass the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget in both Houses,
they should not have any concern that their budget plan would not pass.
After all, a budget resolution requires only 51 votes, only a simple
majority--16 votes less than would be required for a constitutional
amendment, if all Members were present and voting.
So why not accomplish through a statute a plan which can begin to
take effect immediately, instead of waiting for the year 2002? If they
can produce 67 votes for a constitutional amendment, they can produce
51 votes to pass the tough legislation required to achieve that
balanced budget. Why do they not do it?
Let us not undermine the Constitution of the United States and the
people's faith in that Constitution by putting off the bitter medicine
that will surely come if a constitutional amendment to balance the
budget passes in the House and Senate and is ratified at the State
level. There will have to be some tough, tough decisions. Well, why not
make those tough decisions now? We do not need a constitutional
amendment, if there are 67 votes in this body now. And if two-thirds of
the 435 Members of the other body can
[[Page S968]] produce the votes for a constitutional amendment now, or
next week, or the week after, or next month, why go through all these
motions and why go to all that extent to fool the American people and
to perpetrate on the American people a hoax? If they have the 67 votes,
let them bring forward their budget plan now; let us adopt it. Sixty-
seven votes can pass any budget plan in this Senate.
If we are going to go down this road, we need to begin to take the
first steps now. Waiting will only make the tough decisions tougher for
the proponents. I say let them showdown now if they are really serious
and they have the votes.
So let us involve the American people. Let us hear their voices. Let
us have them weigh in on this most critical of decisions. Let us heed
their wisdom, once they fully understand the ramifications of such a
massive endeavor. Let us not literally thumb our noses at the very
public who just put us into office and who also put us on notice they
were tired of our arrogance, with this most arrogant and disingenuous
of acts--a constitutional amendment on a balanced budget.
I favor a balanced budget as much as anybody favors it. There are
those who say, ``Well, the American families out there have to balance
their budgets, why should we not?'' That is a bit disingenuous, also.
Not many families, relatively speaking, really balance their budgets. I
have been married 57 years, going on 58 years, and it was only
yesterday that I came across an old contract that I kept--not the
Contract With America but the contract with Kopper Stores. I was a meat
cutter. I worked at Kopper Stores. I married on May 29, 1937. And on
May 25, 1937, I entered into a contract with the store at which I
worked for some bedroom furniture, a bedroom suite--four or five
pieces, I believe it was. I will bring up the contract one day and
speak of it again briefly. But in that contract I was to pay $5 down on
a new bedroom suite, and I was to pay $7.50 every 2 weeks, either in
cash or in script; $5 down, $7.50 every 2 weeks. That was to continue
until I had paid the entire amount of $189.50 for that bedroom suite.
Now, did I balance my budget? I had to go into debt. I was in debt. I
had to go into debt to buy a bedroom suite. Most people in this country
have to go into debt to buy a car, to buy a bedroom suite, to buy a
living room suite, to buy a house. So, if the American families who are
watching via that electronic eye there will stop and think, they will
agree with me. We do not really balance our budgets, do we? ``Now,
those politicians up there are saying that the American people balance
their budgets. Why don't we balance the Federal budget?''
Well, I will go into that more at a later time.
But I have had a hard time at times in my life making ends meet, even
with borrowing money.
So we are in debt. The American people have to go into debt. They do
not all balance their budgets and end up at the end of the year, scot-
free, slate-clean, not owing a penny.
The public trust is low, but it will surely sink lower if we go down
to this unworthy path of insisting on a constitutional amendment on a
balanced budget without laying out the roadmap, without laying out the
plan.
If we have the 67 votes to pass a constitutional amendment, then we
have the votes to pass the bitter pills of cutting programs or raising
taxes. And we can begin to do that now.
Now, Mr. President, I want to give my attention to the committee
report on the budget.
Mr. GLENN. Would the Senator yield for a comment?
____________________