[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S968-S975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr.
Glenn] has asked me to yield for a question. I would be glad to.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I just want to comment briefly.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for
that purpose and retain my rights to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague and I thank the Chair.
I just wanted to comment briefly on his comments on the balanced
budget amendment before he moves on to his comments on the
consideration of S. 1.
I share his concerns in this area about whatever we do with regard to
voting on the balanced budget amendment when this comes before us here
in the Senate. We have to know what we are voting on and what we are
doing, or the forcing action that we are taking and the impact that it
is going to have on many, many programs that I think people have not
yet really come to grips with.
We talk about this Contract With America as though it is something
sacrosanct here. I think each one us here--I have a contract with the
people of Ohio and I, in turn, as a U.S. Senator, have a contract with
the people of this country myself, a contract with the people of the
United States I take very, very seriously.
And I think that we have to know what impact that is going to have on
the people out there in our respective States and across the country.
We do not know that now.
To just vote, as my distinguished colleague said, on a pig in a poke
here without knowing what is going to happen--I would say, as far as
the Contract With America, we have been down that track of voting on
something without knowing what was going to happen before, and we are
$3 trillion additional in debt now to prove that it did not work
before. And if we did not know how to make it work before, how are we
going to make it work again?
We trusted the Reagan administration. Many of us here voted for that,
voted for the tax decrease of 25 percent over a 3-year period, with the
idea that if it did not work, if all the new, higher level of economic
activity did not occur as was predicted at that time, then we would be
able to come back to the Senate floor and we would be able to address
that and say, ``OK, so it didn't work the way it was advertised. We are
going to correct it.''
The problem is, we have never been able to get the votes to correct
it. So here we are some additional $3 trillion in debt right now, not
knowing which way to turn.
Let me say this on a little bigger worldwide scale. Prime Minister
Thatcher had the same problem. She wanted to reduce the size of their
Government at the same time President Reagan wanted to reduce the size
here. What happened is, she went about reducing the programs first and
then said we will have the tax reduction. It is just the opposite here.
The proposal of President Reagan was, we will reduce the taxes and
that will force us into other action which never occurred. So now we
are being asked once again to take this on faith and we will be able to
work this thing out.
I would say to my constituents in Ohio and indeed all across the
country, I think we do have to have the definition of this, as my
distinguished colleague from West Virginia says.
Can anybody say that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, those big
items in the budget--that takes up over half of the Federal budget
right there. Then when you add the interest on the national debt and
defense, we are up to almost two-thirds or 60 percent. So where are the
cuts going to occur?
If we say those things that everybody is concerned about across the
country are off limits, then where do the limits apply? What do we take
in to consideration then?
Well, is it educational funds to the States? Is it higher education
funds that we administer mainly out of the Federal Government but
through the States? Are we going to cut the FAA, their consideration of
flying safety in this country? Are we going to consider highways for
cuts? That is 90 percent of
[[Page S969]] the Federal funding that goes to highways and only a 10
percent match. Do the people of this country want us to cut health
funds for the Centers for Disease Control that is working so hard to
try to get a solution to the AIDS problem? Are we going to cut the Food
and Drug Administration that is looking at things that might create
another thalidomide crisis in this country? All of these things are
going to have to be cut if we pass a balanced budget amendment.
I have not positively said that I am going to vote against it here. I
am still considering that. So I would say we are just buying a pig in a
poke when Social Security is off base, when Medicaid is off base, when
Medicare is off base, and when interest on the national debt is off
base.
So it just does not work. I would say to the people in Ohio in
particular that are on Social Security: Watch out. I think they are
going to have to get into that, if we vote a balanced budget amendment,
on Medicare. They are going to have to get into limiting Medicare in
one way or another, and Medicaid. We cannot say do not pay the interest
on the national debt.
And I would say the reason this ties into our debate here on the
floor today on unfunded mandates is I think the estimate is we put out
about $230 billion per year to the States for various programs. I
believe the figure is that about $70 billion of that is in
discretionary funding, the remainder in entitlements, mainly in the
Medicaid Program.
Now, it seems to me, if we pass a balanced budget amendment without
knowing in advance what the plans are for where the cuts are going do
come from with this unfunded mandates legislation, of which I am a
cosponsor, coauthor of here, I do not see how we avoid getting into
those payments to the States right now if we vote ourselves a
guillotine balanced budget amendment. And that is that. Then we will
have to look to cutting down these entitlements and the $230 billion
per year that goes to the States right now. Can we afford to continue
that kind of funding if we have a balanced budget amendment and cannot
cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national
debt and defense? I would submit that it will be very, very difficult
to do that.
So I think in fairness, to make sure that some of the other programs
are not cut, I think we have to look at the balanced budget amendment
very, very carefully.
I think people will start asking their own questions, once they look
at these things, as to how it will affect them. If we are going to have
to balance the Federal budget at least in part by cutting out what we
send to the States right now, then it undercuts what we are trying to
do with this unfunded mandates bill. I do not want to do that.
I am trying to treat the States fairly, as is my distinguished
colleague from Idaho, who pushed this bill for the last couple of
years, brought it out of committee last fall, and could not get it
through on the floor. I am a supporter, absolutely and unequivocally,
of the unfunded mandates bill. I know there are some questions. We have
some amendments to correct some of those. Senator Levin wants to
address this sometime today. And there are others concerned. The
Senator from Nebraska has some concerns. I see him here. I have some
concerns.
I have a couple of amendments that I think will take out some of the
doubts about how this would be administered. I am very concerned, along
with my colleague from West Virginia, about the balanced budget
amendment. I think it does tie over into unfunded mandates, because I
think once we enact a balanced budget amendment, the States will have
to look very carefully at what goes to the States right now. They are
being too hard pressed now. I think there is a tie in that direction.
I wanted to make those comments, and I appreciate the Senator from
West Virginia yielding to me for that purpose, to raise some of the
same questions he has raised. I hope we can get on with S. 1 sometime
this afternoon or sometime today so we can deal with the number of
amendments we have. I hope we can get done with it this week. That
means we will have to move expeditiously or we will not be able to
bring up all the amendments this week.
Some of the amendments that are proposed are real busters, I guess I
would call them. Some of them are not germane, necessarily, to this
bill and deal with other matters that are of very major import. Some on
the other side of the aisle and some on our side of the aisle will
require considerable debate. Some over there, for instance, go back and
say that we have to take up all past mandates, not make it prospective
but go back. That would cost trillions of dollars. I do not know
whether these amendments are talking amendments, talk a little bit and
are not serious, but when you have things like that, it will require
some time on this bill.
It all comes back, though, to whether we are dealing fairly with the
States. I think this bill, even in its present form without amending,
goes a long, long way toward addressing some of the sins of the Federal
Government, if we want to put it that way, of the past 50 or 60 years.
There were good reasons why a lot of these provisions or a lot of the
social services--a lot of reasons why some of those things moved to the
Federal levels. Because the States back in those days, back in the days
of the Great Depression, either could not or would not move to address
some of the concerns when many of our people were bordering on
starvation. Roosevelt came in with a package, the New Deal, that moved
a lot of these responsibilities out of the community and away from the
States, because communities and localities and States were not able to
address those programs at that time. So these things moved to the
Federal level.
Well, have some of them grown too far? I am the first to say they
certainly have. Are the States now willing to pick up all these
responsibilities that 50 or 60 years ago they were not able or could
not pick up? We have to be careful with that and monitor what is going
on to make certain that, as we move this unfunded mandates legislation
through, we do not see a lot of people fall in the cracks, that we are
depending on the Federal programs, excessive though they may have been.
We just want to make sure that we monitor this very, very carefully.
I am all for the unfunded mandates bill. I hope we can work out all
these details that people have concerns about.
Tying that back to the balanced budget amendment, once again, if we
pass the balanced budget, it seems to me, there will be big pressure on
the Federal Government to reduce what we send to the States now, which
is about $230 billion a year.
Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague yielding for those remarks.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio,
[Mr. Glenn].
Today's Washington Post has an editorial titled, ``More On the
Mandates Issue.'' It reads in part:
The mandates bill could well be the first major building
block of the Republican congressional agenda to pass. . . .
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.
. . . 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.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial from
the Washington Post be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
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.
[[Page S970]] 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 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. BYRD. Mr. President, the fact is that States receive massive
amounts of Federal funds. In fact, we provide so much money to the
States that it takes a separate 373-page report--right here it is, a
separate 373-page report--from the Office of Management and Budget to
list all the grants, talking about grants which we provide to States.
On page 1 of this report entitled ``Budget Information for States
Fiscal Year 1995,'' there is a table that provides a State-by-State
listing of the total Federal dollars going out in fiscal year 1995. The
total for all States is $208,910,820.
Does anyone really believe that if we try to balance the budget
without cutting defense or social security and without raising taxes
that these State grants will not be cut? West Virginia, estimated for
fiscal year 1995 is shown on the list as receiving 0.85 percent of the
total for the United States, $1,765,000. The fiscal year 1993 total to
the States was $177,984,295.
So all the States are listed with indications of the States' shares
as a percentage of the total. If one excludes interest on the debt,
that would be over $200 billion, and if we exclude defense, which is
over $270 billion, and if we exclude Social Security, which is $334
billion, where can we find the cuts? We will have to cut State grants
dramatically, and this unfunded mandates bill will not stop these
massive cuts that will come as we proceed to balance the budget over
the next 7 years.
So you Governors out there beyond the beltway, you State legislators
out there beyond the beltway, hear this: Friends, Romans, countrymen,
if we pass a balanced budget amendment and even if the Congress passes
the bill that is now pending before the Senate, which it will pass, do
not think you are getting off scot-free out there in the States. You
are still going to have to give a pound of flesh. It is still going to
come out of your hide. We will have to cut State grants that are not
mandates dramatically--dramatically--and this bill will not stop these
massive cuts as we proceed to balance the budget over the next 7 years.
Unfunded mandates are not a new thing. Indeed, one might easily argue
that unfunded mandates are as old as law itself. When the Lord told
Israel that on the seventh day thou shalt not do any work, he was
imposing an unfunded mandate on the 12 tribes. The tribes may have
perceived a short-run loss in productivity, and that may have been only
partly made up for by God's provision of manna and quails, but surely
the benefits of keeping the Sabbath far outweigh the mere economic
costs of doing so.
That can also be said about a number of other mandates. We can learn
a lot by going back to that old book that our fathers and mothers read.
We think that our constitutional forebears came up with something new
when they and the Members of the first Congress set up the Federal
court system. That legislation was initiated in the United States
Senate in the very first Congress.
But those Senators and House Members were not coming up with
something that was entirely new. One needs only to read the 18th
chapter of Exodus to understand that there was a court system
established by Moses hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago
that was, in many ways, somewhat like our own Federal court system.
Moses was hearing all of the people's cases himself. It is a little
like Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, who was the seventh and last king of
Rome, who heard capital cases himself. He did not take the advice of
the Senate at that time.
But Moses was hearing all of these cases himself, and the people
stood in long lines waiting to adjudicate their grievances. Jethro, the
father-in-law of Moses, came to see Moses and saw all of what was
happening and saw that the people were waiting and Moses was being
required to take an inordinate amount of time to deal with these cases.
Jethro suggested to Moses that he should break down this work, divide
it, have a division of the work and that he should appoint rulers or
judges over tens, rulers over fifties, rulers over hundreds, and rulers
over thousands, and let those rulers over the various categories judge
the people and that Moses confine himself only to the hard causes--not
the minor matters--or to those cases that were appealed up to him.
And Moses took Jethro's advice, and instead of deciding every small
matter himself and keeping the people waiting, there would be a
division and speeding up of the work. Justice delayed is justice
denied. Moses established this plan that Jethro, his father-in-law, had
suggested. Moses appointed judges to deal with tens of people, those
who would deal with fifties, those who would deal with hundreds, those
who would deal with thousands, and he himself, Moses, would take the
major matters or those that were appealed.
And so we have somewhat the same system. We have the Federal district
courts, and we have the Federal appeals courts. We have the Supreme
Court. We also have municipal judges, county judges, district judges,
State supreme court judges.
There are Federal district judges in West Virginia. We used to have
one in the north and one in the south and we had what they called a
roving judge or rotating judge. So you have district judges and then we
have the appeals court level and then we have the United States Supreme
Court.
We can learn a lot by going back into history and seeing how the
Israelites did things.
The Federal Government's wage and hour restrictions on State and
local governmental units can trace their lineage to the Lord's
admonition to observe a weekly day of rest. But the Federal Government
does not compensate Federal, State, and local governments for imposing
those rules. We can probably all agree that some unfunded mandates
yield more in benefits to society than their simple economic costs
would reflect.
Mr. President, over the weekend I looked at the committee
reports, studied them carefully. This is what the committee report
from the Committee on the Budget has to say with respect to the
additional views of Senator Jim Exon. Here is what Senator Exon says.
In the first paragraph he speaks of his
[[Page S971]] support for S. 1, which is before the Senate. But then he
says:
Although I am an ardent supporter of this legislation I
feel compelled to criticize the procedure under which it was
taken up.
The Senate Budget Committee met on January 9th to mark up
this legislation. We adopted 8 amendments in the committee.
At the end of the markup, I asked Chairman Domenici whether
we would be filing a report on this important measure.
Senator Domenici answered that the Republican leader had
asked that the committee not file a report, so as to expedite
the Senate's consideration of the bill by Wednesday morning,
January 11th. Several members on our side of the table
objected to this procedure.
Senator Domenici then made a motion that the committee
report the bill without a report. The committee adopted that
motion on a straight party-line vote of 12-9. The following
evening, January 10th, the majority asked us whether they
could file a report on the following night, on the condition
that there be no objection to shortening the normal 3 day
period for the submission of minority views. Two Senators
objected to that request. They wanted the full 3 days to do
their minority views and review the report. The majority then
filed a statement in the record in lieu of the report.
``This morning''--this was the morning of January 12th, which would
have been Thursday of last week.
This morning, January 12th, the majority extended us the
opportunity to review the proposed report and add minority
views until January the 17th. [That is today.] Yet, this
afternoon [meaning the afternoon of January 12th] on the
Senate floor they announced that they intended to file the
report immediately. While the majority may have been prepared
to file its report, the members of the committee in the
minority did not have a straight story on when their views
were due.
This is Senator Exon.
The members of the committee in the minority did not have a
straight story on when their views were due.
For this reason, I objected to the unanimous consent
agreement requested on the Senate floor because I was not
sure that all the minority members had the opportunity to
submit their views and I was concerned that members might
still be working on their minority views. I believe that it
is extremely important that anything purporting to be a
report on this bill include such minority views.
Unfortunately despite my objects, I have been informed that
the report will be filed at 6 PM tonight, January 12th.
This is the ranking minority member of that committee who is speaking
and who is writing, Senator Exon of Nebraska.
``I was concerned,'' Senator Exon stated, ``that members might still
be working on their minority views. I believe that it is extremely
important that anything purporting to be a report on this bill include
such minority views.'' Unfortunately, he said he had been informed that
the report would be filed at 6 p.m. on the evening--p.m. on January 12.
Continuing:
And so we have discovered a means to evade both the
Committee's requirement of 3 days for the preparation of
minority views and the Senate Rules requirement for a report
to be available for 48 hours before proceeding to a bill. You
simply say that you are not going to file a report. Then you
proceed to the bill, as early as the next day. Then you file
a report. This procedure evades both the Committee and Senate
rules----
Why all this hurry? Why all the rush? It is the 17th day of January.
We have 11 months and 14 days to go yet in this year. Why all this
rush?
Senator Exon says, again:
This procedure evades both the Committee and Senate rules,
but apparently cannot be enforced in either forum.
Have they gained anything? Has any time been gained by this thumbing
of the nose at the committee rules and at the Senate rules? Has
anything been gained? Senator Exon continues, ``I find this practice
very troubling and am extremely concerned about the precedent that it
sets.''
He continues. This time he speaks of the sunset provision.
Last year's version of the Unfunded Mandates Bill, S. 993
contained a sunset date. It was my understanding, and also
that of many of the negotiators who hammered out this bi-
partisan compromise, that we would have a sunset date. It is
unclear why the provision was not included in the bill
introduced to the Senate. Despite former assurances that a
sunset provision would be included in the legislation or
added during markup, a sunset provision was voted down 3
times during the Budget Committee markup in a straight 12-9
party line vote.
I believe a sunset provision is crucial to the success of
this bill. A sunset provision will help--not hurt--this
important piece of legislation. Sunset provisions are a
common sight on the legislative landscape. For example, the
revenues used to fund to the superfund program sunset this
year. We have sunset provisions in everything from the crime
bill to school to work to the 1990 farm bill.
We are dealing with an entirely new concept. It is untried
and untested. This bill needs a trial period so that any
problems and bugs can be worked out. The Congressional budget
office has expressed concern over the analyses that are
required in the bill. In testimony before the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, Director Reischauer gave a
candid assessment of the difficulty in completing these
analyses on a timely basis, not to mention, culling reliable
information for them.
A sunset provision in 1998 would allow Congress to pause
and examine the job that CBO has performed to date. We could
then fine tune and if necessary retool the process to make
this bill even more effective.
A sunset provision is not going to kill the unfunded
mandates program. The bill's time has come and there is no
reason to believe that the bill would be scrapped four years
from now. Currently the legislation has 57 co-sponsors. If
the legislation lives up to its expectations, there should be
no problem marshalling the same support in 1998.
Lastly, the unfunded mandates bill does not operate in a
vacuum. It must be viewed in the context of the budget act.
The caps and other major provisions in the Budget Act--
including the supermajority points of order--expire in 1998.
Since we will have to revisit the entire Budget Act in 1998,
it makes sense to be consistent and provide for a 1998 sunset
provision in this piece of legislation as well.
Mr. President, may I without losing my right to the floor inquire of
the managers as to whether or not they anticipate an amendment to be
offered that will provide a sunset provision and, if so, if they feel
that there is a reasonable chance of its being accepted.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would be glad to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. I believe Senator Levin brought that up in committee and
has talked about putting an amendment in to that effect. And I think
that is what we addressed.
I favor a sunset because I think this is really landmark legislation.
I think it is the first real piece of legislation that readdresses the
relationship between the State, local, and Federal governments. As such
I think the impact of this is going to be enormous. I do not disagree
with making certain that we take another look at this because, if it is
working well, we can reauthorize it at that time. If it is not working
well, we can either make appropriate changes, or we can do away with
it, if it is just fouling things up and having unintended effects. I do
not think that is going to be the case.
I have supported Senator Levin. I do not want to speak for him. It is
my impression that at the appropriate time he will present a 3-year
sunset provision.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
Does the Senator from Idaho wish me to yield under the same
understanding?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes. I appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. With regard to the sunset provision, yes. I think we
fully anticipate that there will be an amendment offered. I do not know
how many years will be offered. I know that in the Budget Committee an
amendment was offered for 3 years, and I believe also for 5 years and
also for 7 years. All of those were rejected by majority vote.
I will tell the Senator from West Virginia that I resist a sunset
provision. To me this is going back to the fundamentals of what the
Founding Fathers intended; that is, that we have this sort of
partnership in the federalism program between the States, localities,
and the Federal Government.
If there is a problem with Senate bill 1, once it is implemented and
it is clearly identified that there is a problem, I would not contend
to wait 3 years. There is nothing to preclude us from going in and, if
there is need for modification, make any modification as necessary.
But I am reluctant to say that after we have worked so hard, and the
Senator from West Virginia has referenced the rush and the 100 days
measured that has been put on this. I would just say that this bill in
getting to this point has taken 600 days in the making because much of
the core of Senate bill 1 comes from Senate bill 993 of the last
session.
[[Page S972]] So again, I resist the idea that we are just going to
get it implemented and in 3 years it will sunset. If there are problems
with it, I would like to see us modify them. There is nothing to
preclude that from happening.
Mr. BYRD. Were there not sunset provisions in the legislation last
year?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. The Senator from West Virginia is correct. I can tell
him that is something that--and I will defer to the Senator from Ohio
who was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee at that time
when that provision was included. Again, I was not a strong proponent
of it being placed in that. But that was not my decision at the time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators.
I personally favor a sunset provision in this legislation. We are
reading and hearing a great deal about welfare reform. I think that if
we had had a sunset provision in the laws regulating and governing
welfare in this country we would have had sunset provisions. A great
many of the perceived flaws in the legislation would have been
corrected.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point for a
question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, without losing my right to the floor. I do not intend
to hold the floor much longer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wanted to inquire of the Senator if he
had perhaps seen the testimony of the Governor of Michigan in the House
of Representatives last week. I saw it replayed this weekend.
As we start out the discussion of the proper relationship between the
Federal Government and the States, his testimony in the House is very
important. He told the House of Representatives that the role that he
saw for the Federal Government was just to send the money. He said, you
in the Federal Government, you just send the money back and we will
decide how it is spent at the State level. I must say I was very
troubled when I saw this notion of what the Federal-State relationship
is supposed to be. I was very troubled by the Governor of Michigan, who
was on the committee determining the welfare reform policy for the
party on the other side of the aisle, suggesting that the role ought to
be that the Federal Government levies the taxes, raises the money, and
has nothing to say about how the money is spent. Now, if that is not a
perverse notion of Federal-State relations, I do not know what is. I
told my staff this morning, ``in his dreams,'' as far as this Senator
is concerned.
My own notion is that there should never be a separation between the
responsibility for raising the money and the responsibility for
spending the money. That ought to be a fundamental principle that we
adhere to in this Chamber. And I believe that because, if we raise the
money and the States decide how to spend it, it is free money for the
States. They did not have to go through the political risk of levying
the taxes to raise the money. They just eat the dessert. They just
spend money. Oh, no. That is not going to be the relationship, at least
if this Senator has anything to say about it. I must say that I thought
it was arrogant in the extreme for a Governor to say all we ought to do
is write the checks. We raise the money, levy the taxes, and then send
them the money and they will decide how to spend it.
I was going to ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia his
reaction to this notion that we raise the money, and then have no say
in how it is spent. We just send it back to the States and they will
decide how to divvy it up. I am very interested in the Senator from
West Virginia's reaction to that notion.
Mr. BYRD. I reacted the same way that the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota reacted. It is arrogance. It is a new ``Caesarism.'' It is
the same arrogance that is displayed by those who beat the drums for a
constitutional amendment on the balanced budget without at the same
time being willing to lay out the plan to let the American people know
what is in the offing, what is the price to be paid for this approach.
How would the taxes be cut? What taxes will be cut? How much will they
be cut? What cuts will there be in programs? What programs will be
exempted? What programs will not be exempted? And it is an arrogance
that is being manifested within this institution, the Congress of the
United States, when it says you folks up there just pass a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and do not tell us what
it entails; do not tell the people in the legislatures what action we
are going to have to take to continue programs from which we are
presently receiving grants in our States, and so on. Do not tell us
that. We do not want to know that.
So the big folks up there in Washington--us big folk--we know it all.
That Governor is saying: You fellows just send the money down to the
States with no strings attached. That is the same thing on both
subjects. Just pass a constitutional amendment and let the American
people find out, in due time, where the pain is.
(Mr. SMITH assumed the chair.)
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BYRD. With the same understanding, Mr. President.
Mr. CONRAD. I am asking a question. First of all, with respect to
what the Governor from Michigan was saying, I would say to him, look,
if the Federal Government raises the money, the Federal Government is
going to have something to say about how the money is spent. If the
Governors want to make all the decisions on how the money is to be
spent, then they raise the money. That is an appropriate State-Federal
relationship. It is ridiculous and extreme to say that the Federal
Government should levy the taxes and raise the money but the States
will decide how it is spent.
I will follow up with a question on the matter of a plan to balance
the budget. Last week, I came down to the floor and gave a speech on
something I have detected that I call the Republican credibility gap.
It is more than a gap now. It is a chasm. In fact, it is approaching
Grand Canyon size. This chart shows what would need to be done to
balance the budget over the next 7 years. According to the
Congressional Budget Office, we would need over $1 trillion in cuts
over the next 7 years. That is if we did nothing to make the problem
worse before we started.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to
the Senator briefly--I only want to hold the floor for a few more
minutes--without losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I am interested in the Senator's reaction to the
credibility gap I have detected. This chart shows we need $1 trillion
over the next 7 years if we do not do anything to make the situation
worse before we start to solve the problem. But look what happens with
our Republican friends' plan. The first thing they do is propose $364
billion of tax cuts, not spending cuts, but $364 billion of tax cuts.
This is according to the Treasury Department. So now the $1 trillion
problem over the next 7 years is nearly $1.4 trillion.
The next thing they do is say, well, we want to cut spending
someplace. We do not want to be too clear on exactly where we are going
to cut spending, but before we start cutting spending, we want to
increase spending. We want to increase spending on defense by $82
billion. So now the problem that started out as a $1 trillion problem
has turned out to be a $1.48 trillion problem. That is the amount that
would have to be cut in order to balance the budget over the next 7
years. We start with $1 trillion, and we add their $364 billion in
proposed tax cuts, according to the Treasury Department, then we add
the $82 billion of increased defense spending, and the problem now is
$1.481 trillion. That is a big number. That is not a million; that is
not a billion; that is a trillion.
The interesting thing is to look at what they have come up with by
way of specific proposals to cut spending. This is where we get to what
I call the credibility gap. The credibility gap really is a chasm,
because we need to find $1.481 trillion of cuts. But so far the
Republican side has identified $277 billion in specific spending cut
proposals. It is a paltry amount in comparison to what is needed to get
the job done.
So I say to the Senator from West Virginia, it looks to me like they
have
[[Page S973]] a $1.2 trillion credibility gap--the difference between
what is necessary to balance the budget over 7 years and what they have
outlined to balance the budget over 7 years. I say to my colleague from
West Virginia, $1.2 trillion--that is one thousand two hundred
billion--is a lot of money. Even in Washington talk that is a lot of
money.
I think our friends on the other side owe it to us, and they owe it
to the American people, to come forward with a plan to tell us
specifically, precisely, how are they going to cut an additional $1.2
trillion. Are they going to take it out of Social Security? They say
not. Are they going to take it out of Medicare? They say not. They say
they are not going to take it out of defense. They cannot take it out
of interest on the debt. That means well over half of all Federal
spending is off the table.
I ask the Senator from West Virginia for his reaction to what I see
as this enormous credibility gap by our friends from the other side.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. The $1.2 trillion, it
seems to me, represents $1,200 per minute since Jesus Christ was born.
To count $1 trillion--so that we might have a little better sense of
the numbers that the Senator is talking about--at the rate of $1 per
second would require about 32,000 years. It would take 32,000 years to
count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second.
So the Senator is talking in terms of big money. There is a gap.
But there is another gap I am thinking about, also. If those from
behind this steamroller--this constitutional amendment on a balanced
budget--if they can mount 67 votes--and the conventional wisdom around
of late is that that amendment is a sure thing and it is going to be
adopted. In the discussion, they are already talking about how it will
fare at the State level. If the 67 votes are found in this Senate, and
two-thirds of the 435 Members of the House are going to vote for that
constitutional amendment, why can those who support the amendment not
lay out the road plan now? Why do they not bring in their plan now if
they have 67 votes in the Senate and two-thirds of the 435 votes in the
House that will vote for a constitutional amendment on a balanced
budget? Why do they not simply bring in the plan now and start voting
on it? It would only take 51 votes in the Senate. It only takes a
majority to pass legislation. Why do they not do that? They have all
the votes. They have all the votes that are necessary to raise taxes
now. Instead they are going in the opposite direction and everybody is
talking about cutting taxes--not everybody.
The administration is for cutting taxes, the Republican Party is for
cutting taxes. But also the Republican Party wants--the Republican
Party on the Hill--a constitutional amendment on a balanced budget. Why
not start on it today? Why not start to deal with balancing the budget
today, next week, next month? All they need is a majority of the votes
to do that. They do not need two-thirds to do that, as they will need
for a constitutional amendment. So that is a big gap. I cannot
understand why it is easier to get 67 votes than it is to get 51.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. BYRD. I am going to give up the floor shortly. I will yield, if I
may, without losing my right to the floor. I just wanted to ask another
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Hearing
none, the Senator is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I just want to go further on this point.
It just strikes me there are those of us who very much want a balanced
budget. I am in that camp. The Senator from West Virginia knows that I
feel strongly that we ought to balance this budget; we ought to do it
the right way.
Mr. BYRD. That is why I voted for the 1990 package that was developed
at the summit among the Republicans and the Democrats, when Mr. Bush
was President. That is why I voted for the 1993 package. Not a Member,
not one of our friends on the other side of the aisle, voted for the
1993 package, as I recall. I voted for it. It was tough to do it.
Mr. CONRAD. I think we should say that that 1993 package has, in
fact, reduced the deficit. We had a Federal budget deficit in 1992 of
$290 billion. In 1993, that was reduced to $255 billion. Last year, it
was further reduced to just over $200 billion. This year, the estimate
is it will be further reduced to some $176 billion.
The fact is, on that plan that the Senator from West Virginia and I
both voted for, we did not get a single vote from the other side of the
aisle; not a single vote. And voting for that plan took political
courage, because it did cut spending. It cut over 100 programs by over
$100 million. It also raised taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent.
People, of course, do not want to pay more taxes. I do not want to
pay more taxes. I levied more taxes on myself in that vote; I wound up
paying more in taxes. But I did it because I recognized we have a
national crisis. We have to get our fiscal house in order. And if we
are to do that, it requires a plan.
The point I wanted to make is that our friends on the other side of
the aisle say they are for a balanced budget, but they have not come
forward with a plan to do it. Talk is cheap. Talk is cheap. It is easy
to say, ``I am for it.'' The difficult thing is to put down a plan that
actually starts to do it.
I think it is terribly important that the American people know that
there is this extraordinary gap between what our friends on the other
side have said they are going to do and what they have identified to
get the job done--a $1.2 trillion gap.
I said last week that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase,
``don't ask, don't tell,'' because that is what they are asking here.
``Don't ask, don't tell'' the American people. They are saying to the
people, ``We are going to pass this balanced budget amendment, but we
are not going to tell you how we are going to do it. We are not going
to tell you where we are going to make $1.2 trillion in cuts over the
next 7 years.''
I think the American people deserve better; I think our colleagues
deserve better. I know the Senator from West Virginia believes that
they have an obligation to come forward and be specific. I think that
ought to be central to any debate we have.
I again thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy and
just ask him once again: Does not the other side have an obligation to
come forward with a plan? Do not the American people deserve to know
where they intend to cut $1.2 trillion over the next 7 years? Do not
the people have a right to that plan?
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator, Mr. President.
Of course they are entitled to know what is in the plan. And we have
a responsibility, in my judgment, before we rivet this piece of garbage
into the Constitution, we have a responsibility to tell them what our
plans are, how we expect to achieve this goal.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope he will
expound further at some point on the subject matter concerning the
constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. I hope he will use
those charts. I hope he will elaborate on the matter further.
I do not intend to discuss that matter further right now. There will
be a time, when we will be talking about the constitutional amendment
on the balanced budget, that like Shallow, in ``The Merry Wives of
Windsor'', ``I will make a star chamber matter of it.''
Right now I just want to ask one more question of the distinguished
managers. In looking over Mrs. Boxer's views, minority views, I have
noted--and I will not read her entire views as expressed in the report,
but she says, in part:
I am also disappointed that the bill fails to directly
address one of the biggest unfunded Federal mandates faced by
California: the costs imposed by illegal immigration. I
therefore plan to offer an amendment on the floor to ensure
that the costs to States and local governments of illegal
immigration be addressed in the bill.
Mr. President, I share her viewpoint on this. I share the view that
she has expressed with regard to the costs imposed by illegal
immigration. As a matter of fact, the full Appropriations Committee,
under my chairmanship last year, conducted some hearings on this
matter. The members were very concerned about illegal immigration,
about the costs of illegal immigration that are being imposed on States
like
[[Page S974]] California, and the various Governors appeared at that
time.
Do the managers feel that it is likely that we will have an
opportunity to debate this amendment? Mrs. Boxer says she is going to
offer an amendment ``to ensure that the costs to States and local
governments from illegal immigration be addressed in the bill.''
What is the likelihood of such an amendment being adopted?
She also expresses concern that the amendments to sunset the bill
were rejected by a party-line vote. What can we expect? Can we expect
any relief for those States that have such humongous problems at this
time with respect to illegal immigration? Can we expect them to get any
relief?
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from California
raises a very important issue when she raises this question of
immigration. The Senator from Florida, the Senator from Texas, the
Senator from Arizona, and many others have raised this issue.
But in listening to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia as
he talks about the process and the fact that he believes there is a
process where the committee should be involved, this issue of
immigration is a monumental issue. I do not know that, by bringing that
to the floor, this is the forum for us to finally resolve that.
I have also spoken to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming [Mr.
Simpson] who has also been providing leadership on this issue. My
concern is that I do not believe this is the bill to attach it to.
But, am I empathetic to what those Senators are saying? Absolutely.
This Nation needs to deal with that issue of immigration, but I do not
believe this is the vehicle to accomplish that.
Mr. BYRD. I do not mean for the Senator to address that particular
aspect of it. That was not my point. I do not expect this bill to
address that aspect of it.
But Mrs. Boxer and others are obviously very concerned with respect
to the unfunded mandate or mandates that are being placed upon the
States to deal with this problem. My question goes to that aspect, not
to dealing with a solution to the overall problem.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would just read to the Senator about 10 lines from
the bill. This is on page 3, under the purpose of the bill. It states:
(A) providing for the development of information about the
nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
(B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to
the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives
before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on
proposed legislation;
(4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by
Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any
particular instance.
I believe, I say to the Senator, that if S. 1 were in place right
now, this would be the process that would help, for example, the
Senator from California in dealing with what may be further Federal
mandates where there are costs imposed on the States under that title
of immigration.
This is a process before we cast our vote. Because, the Senator is
well aware of how many times, when we have a 15-minute rollcall vote,
we will go down there and we may confer with one another during those
15 minutes and we will ask, ``Is there a mandate in here?'' That is the
extent of the knowledge we have today.
This is going to give us a process so that we will know that there is
a mandate or there is not. We will know the cost of it. We will know
the impact on both the public and private sector. And we will know that
information up front before we cast our vote.
So that is why I am so desirous to get on with the implementation of
S. 1, because then we can take some of these very important issues that
the Senator has raised.
Now we have a process to allow Members to deal with it so that it is
informed as opposed to the current process.
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for an additional reply to his
question?
This bill is prospective. It does not try to go back and undo what
may have happened or what may have built up in the past.
I see our distinguished colleague from Iowa on the floor, and I am
sure he may want to address this because I understand he had a proposed
amendment that we go by. But this bill is strictly prospective. It
tries to address what has been the major problem with regard to the
Federal-State relationship, and that is that we have specifically
passed a lot of laws that impose mandates on the States.
Now, we do not propose in this legislation to try to correct the
situation where the Federal Government has had a responsibility--for
example, immigration control--and that responsibility has been
inadequately met to the point where it is developing into a major
problem, at a major cost to States. We do not try to address some of
those things.
Now, that has to be addressed. I do not think it necessarily needs to
be addressed in this legislation, because if it is, then, we are into a
real quagmire of considering every situation where States or particular
Senators from States have a feeling that because the Federal Government
did not meet the States' responsibilities--say, in flood control or in
whatever area it might have been--that we then have to come back and
assume responsibilities for that later in this legislation.
Now, I think it is very fair and proper that we address the
immigration problem, but we made no attempt in this bill, nor do I
really feel that we should in this bill, to address something like
immigration, which is where the Federal Government, obviously, has not
met its responsibility to control immigration for the United States of
America. We have not been doing it, particularly in California, Texas,
the border States along our southern border, and to some extent in
other States, also.
That is where the major problems have occurred, because the Federal
Government did not meet its responsibilities. Then I think there should
be separate legislation that deals with this. But this bill is not set
up to address something that is of that nature and that is already
behind us.
I would say this: The major problem for most States--although that is
a major problem for California, for instance--but the major problem for
most States has not been of that nature where the Federal Government
did not meet its responsibilities. The major problem we are trying to
address here is where the Federal Government has in many respects gone
too far, maybe, in meeting this responsibly and tossing this
requirement downhill to the States and local communities and saying,
``You pick it up''--the States--``we are not going to do it.'' That was
not done intentionally from the Federal Government with regard to
immigration, although we have to address that.
So, what we are trying to do, and the major cost to most States has
come from the unfunded mandates where we have passed laws that require
clean air, clean water, clean whatever it was, and said, ``OK, States,
but you pick up the bill on this.'' We have not tried to address
something that has happened where a Federal responsibility is not met
and tried to address that in helping States like California, or Texas,
or New Mexico--Arizona in particular, pick up the costs that they have,
I feel, unfairly, been saddled with. I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator. I thank both
Senators for their responses to my questions.
I have over the weekend, as I say, read the reports. I found some
positive things in the reports which have an attraction with respect to
this legislation.
At some point I would like to ask some further questions, but I yield
the floor at this time. I thank both Senators for their courtesy.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, many of the points raised by
the Senator from West Virginia I may happen to agree with. In fact, I
do agree with many of the points that were made this morning.
The discussion about the balanced budget amendment, now while that is
an important issue, this is not the legislation dealing with the
balanced budget amendment. That will come sometime in the future. This
is about
[[Page S975]] Senate bill 1. This is about a process so that we can
finally start casting votes around here based upon information before
the act instead of after the act.
Therefore, Mr. President, with all due respect, I now move to table
the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, under the previous order, I believe it was
agreed that we would go out for our recess for the respective party
conferences at 12:30. The hour of 12:30 having arrived, is it the
Chair's opinion we should recess?
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair will
recess.
Mr. GLENN. The hour of 12:30 having arrived, are we in recess now
then, or does the Chair propose to put us in recess?
Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
having arrived, the Senate is prepared to stand in recess, but the
Senator from Iowa is seeking recognition.
Mr. GLENN. Is it, Mr. President, under the previous order or is it
the desire of the Senator from Iowa to speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, as a courtesy, will recognize the
Senator from Iowa first. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that,
irrespective of the previous order, I be granted 7 minutes to speak as
in morning business on a subject unrelated to unfunded mandates.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, on the condition that upon the completion of the Senator's
statement, the Senate then stand in recess under the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 7 minutes.
____________________