[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?

                          ____________________