[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.

                          ____________________