[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S987-S998]
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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, it was going to be my intent to seek unanimous consent 
that we proceed to a vote of the pending amendment before us, which, as 
I understand it, is the amendment on page 15, lines 23, 24, 25, and on 
page 16, line 1. But it is my understanding that there would be 
objection to that. Therefore, Mr. President, in order to continue to 
proceed forward, I move to table this amendment and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Idaho to lay on the table the committee amendment on 
page 115, lines 23, 24, and 25, and on page 16, line 1. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth], the Senator from Texas 
[[Page S988]] [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] 
are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] are necessarily 
absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bradley
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Pryor
  So, the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to and I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to table is 
agreed to.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Committee Amendment on Page 25, Line 11

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we now have before us the committee 
amendment which begins on page 25, line 11. It would be our hope that 
we could now have a meaningful discussion of this amendment which is 
properly before us, and that at approximately 1 hour from now we could 
seek a vote on this amendment. In all likelihood, that would be the 
last vote.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President I make a point of order that the Senate is 
not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as I believe my colleagues in the 
Senate know, S. 1 was considered and passed by two Senate committees, 
the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, but there 
is one issue of disagreement between the two committees. That issue is 
which committee, if any, should resolve future disputes about whether 
legislation contains mandates that may be subject to a point of order.
  During its markup, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee added 
two amendments. The first made the Budget Committee responsible for 
determining mandate costs and the second amendment gave the 
Governmental Affairs Committee a role in deciding issues related to the 
point of order.
  As I understand the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's view, the 
committee expects that during those instances when the Parliamentarian 
must rule on a point of order under this section, there may be 
occasions when there is a need for consultation regarding the 
applicability of this law.
  These two amendments provide that on all such questions that are not 
within the purview of the House and Senate Budget Committees, it is the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee or the House Government Reform 
and Oversight Committee that shall make the final determinations.
  For example, on the question of whether a particular mandate is 
properly excluded from coverage of the act or is a bill which enforces 
constitutional rights of individuals, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee would be the appropriate committee to consult. On a question 
regarding the particular cost of such mandate, the Budget Committee 
would be the appropriate committee to consult.
  Now, the Senate Budget Committee took a different view. The Senate 
Budget Committee struck these two amendments. The Senate Budget 
Committee's view is that the reference to the Budget Committee's role 
is unnecessary, for it is similar to language already in the Budget 
Act. In other words, the Budget Committee already has the 
responsibility to do the work that the Governmental Affairs Committee 
gave it.
  About the issue of having the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
consulted about points of order, the view of the Senate Budget 
Committee is that it is not needed. For the past 20 years the Senate 
Parliamentarian and the Senate Budget Committee have 20 years of 
experience with these Budget Act points of order. S. 1 follows the 
exact same process now used in Budget Act estimates.
  The Budget Committee does not believe there is a precedent for two 
committees to resolve Budget Act points of order. That is the issue as 
simply as I can explain it.
  Since the markups, Senators Domenici and Roth, the Budget and 
Governmental Affairs Committee chairmen, have discussed this issue and 
both have agreed to support the Budget Committee amendments. I believe 
that Senators Glenn and Exon, the ranking members of these two 
committees, have yet to reach agreement.
  With that as an overview, Mr. President, I believe that we have the 
chairmen of the committees, the ranking members and other Senators that 
would like to address this issue. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to correct 
something? I heard the Senator say Senator Exon has not decided. He 
supported the amendment that I put forth in the committee, so I believe 
he is here to speak in favor of the amendment.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is certainly 
correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I accept that correction.
  Really, my intent there was to point out that Senator Exon and 
Senator Glenn, as ranking members, have not yet come to an agreement. I 
think that is fair to say.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Budget Committee's 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I was elected to the Senate the same year that the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, then called Government Operations, 
enacted the Budget Act and the Budget Committee. The Senate rules 
provide that changes to the Budget Act are the joint responsibility of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee.
  We gave the Budget Committee the responsibility to provide estimates 
on direct spending and created the Congressional Budget Office to help 
determine the costs of legislation to the Federal Government, and we 
now require that committee reports contain CBO estimates of such costs.
  We have seen for many years that there have been some controversy 
that has resulted over different opinions as the costs of a particular 
bill, joint resolution, or regulation. We went through months of stormy 
debate last year over the costs of health care legislation, as my 
distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
mentioned earlier on the floor today.
  Why did we do that? Because cost estimates in most cases are highly 
sensitive to underlying assumptions as to how a piece of legislation or 
regulation will be implemented and enforced. A so-called expert in 
making cost estimates who uses an underlying assumption that is wrong 
or highly speculative will provide a cost estimate that is no better 
than a wild guess by an amateur.
  Nonetheless, for the purpose of having an orderly budget process, we 
have agreed to use CBO figures and in their absence, Budget Committee 
estimates in dealing with Budget Act estimation requirements. So we 
created the Budget Committee, gave them the jurisdiction and 
responsibility to oversee and provide technical cost estimates. And 
[[Page S989]] now here we are some 20 years later, and the claim is 
made that their experience enables them to do estimation of the costs 
of Federal mandates on some 87,000 States, localities, tribal 
governments, as well as the private sector.
  We in the minority of the Governmental Affairs Committee did not 
challenge the decision made without our input to have last year's 
unfunded mandates' bill rewritten as an amendment to the Budget Act. It 
was not written as an amendment to the Budget Act last year. Last year 
the Budget Committee did not seek or claim any jurisdiction over S. 
993, a bill that in substance forms the basis for S. 1. I repeat, we 
did not object when that was proposed that it be rewritten as an 
amendment to the Budget Act.
  Despite this decision, our staff worked with the staffs of Senator 
Kempthorne and the Budget Committee to produce another bill that we 
could support. When the minority staff on our committee were confronted 
with the fait accompli that the bill was now to be an amendment to the 
Budget Act and the demand that last year's bill had to be strengthened 
to make it more difficult to avoid a point of order on a bill, the 
minority staff worked with their Democratic and Republican colleagues 
on both the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees to try to 
produce a bipartisan result that we could all support.
  In that spirit, the Governmental Affairs Committee produced a bill 
that recognized the varied interests of those supporting the principle 
that we should legislate unfunded mandates only with full realization 
of the burdens being imposed by such mandates. As we worked through the 
bill it became clear that the procedures in the bill had the potential 
for providing significant delays that could be exploited for purposes 
not of clarifying the effects of legislation, but for purposes of, in 
effect not lobbying but filibustering for purposes of perhaps stopping 
the legislation. Accordingly, we in Governmental Affairs felt wherever 
possible, the bill's procedures should be very clearly spelled out 
along with who has responsibility for what.
  We recognize that making estimates of the cost of mandates is 
complicated and has the built-in conflict of interest produced by 
dependence on the States and local governments for most of the cost 
data. Because of the profound changes in the Senate procedures that the 
bill would allow in the case of legislation containing mandates, there 
is a quite legitimate question as to whether the Budget Committee 
alone, since budget process jurisdiction is shared with the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, should determine if a threshold has 
been breached by an amendment of a bill.
  Nonetheless, since someone should be responsible for cost data and 
for overseeing the CBO State and local cost estimating process we 
agreed in S. 1 to give the Budget Committee explicit responsibility for 
this, which in my view I think they should have but they do not 
uniquely have, under the Budget Act.
  This responsibility is actually shared with the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. We felt we had an agreement with Senator Roth and myself, 
the chair and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
Senators Domenici and Exon, chair and ranking member on the Budget 
Committee, on language in S. 1 that details the responsibilities of 
each committee in overseeing implementation of S. 1. All four of us 
cosponsor the bill.
  Then, the Budget Committee took this explicit language out of the 
bill and I thought broke the agreement that we had. They thereby 
created a situation in which the chair, advised by the Parliamentarian, 
would be the entity that would determine whether the cost of a mandate 
exceeds the threshold. In other words, is it a Federal mandate or not?
  Now, I have no doubt that the Parliamentarian would probably tend to 
look to the Budget Committee for guidance on this despite the fact that 
it is the Budget Committee's experience estimating the cost of Federal 
intergovernmental mandates is not significantly different than that of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee which under rule XXVI has had the 
jurisdiction over intergovernmental relations and federalism for many 
years going beyond the length of time we have had a Budget Committee in 
existence. In other words, our committee on Governmental Affairs has 
the mandate as part of our mandate, written into law and rules of the 
Senate here, that we deal with intergovernmental matters--Federal, 
State, and local matters--and that is written into our reason for 
being.
  Should we depend on the uncertainty of the Parliamentairan's approach 
and our belief as to how he might act based on precedence dealing with 
things other than the cost of the mandates? I believe the 
Parliamentarian should be given explicit instructions in the bill to 
look to a specific committee for guidance on estimates. Since they want 
to do it, I support the Budget Committee having the responsibility to 
do the estimates. That is why both committees explicitly agreed to 
write that responsibility into the bill, not only for the Senate Budget 
Committee but also for the House Budget Committee in the case of 
legislation containing Federal mandates that come before the House.
  Now, unfortunately, what has happened in this legislation is the 
Senate Budget Committee has taken out the reference we put in giving 
them and the House Budget Committee the responsibility for doing 
estimates but then in a later section they put language back there 
giving the House Budget Committee explicit responsibility to do the 
estimates, suggesting that the Budget Act does not need something in it 
clarifying committee responsibilities in this area.
  That raises the question of why the House Budget Committee is treated 
differently than the Senate Budget Committee in this Senate amendment. 
I do not believe they should be treated differently. But, frankly, the 
question before us is not only who should do the estimates that we may 
agree on, but who determines whether a bill contains a mandate.
  This is not a trivial matter, and the Governmental Affairs Committee 
worked hard, in cooperation with Senator Kempthorne and State and local 
government organizations, to produce a definition that we think makes 
sense.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has been in existence since 1920 
and, under rule XXVI, has jurisdiction over intergovernmental 
relations. It has worked on this legislation for the better part of a 
year and is in the best position to make judgments about whether a bill 
contains a Federal intergovernmental mandate, meeting the definition in 
S. 1.
  So in S. 1, we gave Governmental Affairs the explicit responsibility 
to make this determination for the Senate, and we gave our counterpart 
committee in the House, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, the same authority with respect to House bills.
  The Senate Budget Committee, in marking up S. 1, now has removed the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee from determining for the Senate 
whether a mandate exists but has not removed the authority of the House 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from the bill. The result 
is that the House will have a process whereby the determination of 
whether a mandate exists will be made by a House Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight. But in the Senate, the 
Parliamentarian, backed up by the entire body, will have to make the 
decision every time a challenge arises.
  How will the Parliamentarian rule and to whom should he turn for 
consultation before making his ruling? There is no precedent, and there 
is no process. I think it is illogical and I think it is inefficient. I 
think it will result in further procedural delays in passing 
legislation through the Senate and more misunderstanding about what 
this process is that we are putting into place.
  If the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is 
considered the appropriate body to make a final determination for the 
House on whether a mandate exists in a bill, it makes sense for the 
Senate to turn to its sister committee, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, for that purpose. That is a responsibility, I would add, 
that we are given under the rules of the Senate as to what that 
committee is responsible for.
   [[Page S990]] Mr. President, this is more than just a jurisdictional 
issue, although jurisdiction has been injected into the issue by 
rewriting last year's bill as an amendment to the Budget Act which, in 
my view, was unnecessary. The issue here is what is logical and what is 
efficient.
  Many people have concerns that the procedures of this bill may be 
used to delay or kill legislation opposed on ideological grounds. I 
have those concerns myself, even though I am a supporter of the thrust 
of S. 1. Accordingly, I believe it is a disservice to good process to 
eliminate from this bill the specific responsibility of a Senate 
committee, the Senate committee assigned to intergovernmental 
relations, to make determinations of applicability of this legislation 
and turn that responsibility over to the Parliamentarian with no 
guidance and no precedent.
  So, Mr. President, I urge the defeat of the Budget Committee 
amendment.
  What this boils down to is, is the Senate assignment of 
responsibilities to the Governmental Affairs Committee, in this regard, 
one that the Senate wishes to carry out, or do we permit, because the 
bill was written as a change to the Budget Act, is it now to go to the 
Parliamentarian, which I think is unjustified?
  So I urge the defeat of the Budget Committee amendment for those 
reasons, as well as the fact that we are treating the House and the 
Senate differently. The responsibilities do lie over in the House, 
split between the Budget Committee and the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee over there, as it should be here.
  I think to make the processes conform and to prevent any further 
misunderstanding about this bill, I urge defeat of the Budget Committee 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Domenici amendment, 
which was reported from the Budget Committee. The amendment has the 
effect of deleting any reference in the legislation to the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Senate Committee on the 
Budget in deciding whether a point of order may lie under the proposed 
section 408 of the Budget Act.
  The Domenici amendment, reported from the Budget Committee, is 
identical with an amendment I filed but did not offer during 
Governmental Affairs' consideration of S. 1. I did not offer it because 
of opposition from the minority side of that committee and I wished to 
expedite reporting the legislation to the floor.
  Under the precedents of the Senate, the Chair rules on all points of 
order except a few that it submits to the body itself and except where 
a statute may otherwise require. The only example of the latter is the 
Budget Act, which gives the Budget Committee a special role on certain 
points of order.
  S. 1 as introduced would create a new exception for Governmental 
Affairs while making clear that the Budget Committee's role on budget 
issues also carried over to ``the levels of Federal mandates'' for any 
fiscal year under proposed section 408.
  At first look, one might assume that both committees should have 
distinct and equal roles in deciding points of order--that Governmental 
Affairs opine on whether a provision is a mandate covered by proposed 
section 408 and that Budget opine on whether provision contains 
sufficient funding. But the roles are not parallel at all. For the 
Budget Committee allows its chairman to act on its behalf because all 
that the chairman does is present the CBO figures to the presiding 
officer. The Governmental Affairs Committee would have no similar role 
in conveying its determination on whether section 408 applies or not to 
the provision against which a point of order is lodged.
  All types of questions might arise as to whether or not a bill or 
amendment falls under this legislation. S. 1 contains a list of 
exemptions on matters affecting constitutional or civil rights, 
emergency relief, other emergencies, national security, and so on. 
These questions involve a lot more discretion than matching up a CBO 
estimate of costs with a provision's level of funding.
  When an amendment is offered and a point of order is made under S. 1, 
how is it possible for an entire committee to meet and decide in time 
for the Chair to rule? It is not possible at all.
  Suppose the point of order is made against an amendment that requires 
States to buy computers and software to create a database that 
facilitates registering to vote. Does such a provision fall within the 
exclusion in section 4 of S. 1 for those that ``enforce constitutional 
rights?'' Does the provision enforce a right to vote or only make it 
easier to enjoy? Is the exclusion limited to constitutionally required 
rights or does it cover any extra measures that simply involve 
constitutional rights?
  Equally nettlesome questions may arise in determining whether a 
provision increases the ``stringency of conditions of assistance'' to 
States with respect to certain entitlement programs. Every change in 
such conditions will raise the stringency issue. Suppose some changes 
increase stringency and some relax stringency. These are not always 
quantifiable issues and may be difficult to assess.
  Since answering such questions is a far cry from delivering a CBO 
estimate to the presiding officer, I support the Domenici amendment 
deleting language which I believe is both unworkable and inappropriate.
  The crux of the distinction is that S. 1, as introduced, would allow 
the subjective decision of one committee, or even one Senator, on a 
qualitative matter to be the final authority. In contrast, the language 
of S. 1 does not give the Budget Committee's determination on the 
levels of Federal mandates the status of finality even though its 
determination is a quantifiable one informed by input from CBO, whose 
evaluations are thought to be politically unbiased. In view of such 
considerations, the language in question should be deleted. It is, as I 
said unworkable and inappropriate.
  For that reason, I support the Domenici amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not going to speak long. Senator 
Exon is here and he wants to speak also. I want to thank Senator Roth, 
as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, for supporting the 
committee amendment that is pending now, which amendment, essentially, 
would take out all reference to either the Budget Committee or the 
Governmental Affairs Committee having any new powers to pass judgment 
on a bill's relevance, on this bill fitting the definition, and on this 
bill exceeding the amount of money that are the limits in this bill.
  It essentially is saying that we do not need to create new authority 
in a new committee, and certainly not of the type found on page 25, 
which I really do not believe that the Senate, under any circumstance, 
would have approved. Because it says that the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee in the House and Governmental Affairs Committee in 
the Senate would make final determinations.
  Essentially what we want on points of order is whether a bill or an 
amendment or resolution fits the definition of a mandate, and then what 
we need is to find out if it breaks the $50 million mark in terms of 
cost to local government--we need that decision made by the U.S. 
Senate, not by a committee.
  Essentially what our amendment will do, and Senator Roth encapsulated 
it perfectly, is it will put the decision on what is a mandate to be 
made by the Chair upon advice of the Parliamentarian. And we have, over 
and over, tried to write language as to what a mandate is in this 
legislation. We have written language in this legislation as to what 
exceptions there are. So what Senator Roth quite properly is saying is 
that decision as to whether a piece of legislation fits that or not 
should be made by the Chair upon advice of the Parliamentarian. That is 
what happens in many instances here. A question of germaneness under 
the budget. There is language, there is germaneness language, and the 
question is put to the Chair.
  The Parliamentarian advises the Chair and the Chair rules. And if the 
Senate wants to get involved it then proceeds thereafter to say we do 
not like the decision, we will overrule it.
   [[Page S991]] The Parliamentarian determines whether a question is 
divisible. The Parliamentarian also determines questions about 
extraneous provisions under the Byrd rule. We do not send that to the 
Budget Committee to make that determination. We do not send it to the 
Government Ops Committee. We send it to the desk and the 
Parliamentarian informs the Chair based upon precedent, based upon 
language. The Chair says that matter is extraneous.
  And then who makes the final decision? The final decision is made by 
the Senate of the United States.
  What we are doing by adopting the so-called Domenici amendment is 
saying: This bill creates no new authority in any committee to 
determine the relevancy of an amendment or a bill or resolution--that 
is, is it a mandate or not. It creates no new authority. We rely on the 
definitions and the exceptions and approach the Chair. If somebody 
brings something down here and we are wondering whether it is really a 
mandate, we will just have to say I raise a point of order. I will read 
it and then read the language that is in here, in the bill itself, and 
say this seems not to be a mandate.
  The Parliamentarian will do what he does on many such occasions and 
advise the Chair. And then we will proceed as I have described before.
  Let me get to the cost issue. Frankly, I think the role of the Budget 
Committee and the Budget Committee's chairman or chairperson--the role 
is not quite understood. The reason the chairman of the Budget 
Committee has a role is because he has the Congressional Budget Office 
standing behind him. It is not his role, but the role of the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to furnish the information under the 
Budget Act that is to do the numerical evaluation. The chairman then 
delivers that to the Parliamentarian and says here is what CBO says.
  The Parliamentarian then says to the Presiding Officer: CBO says 
this. We are obliged to accept CBO's information, unless the Senate 
changes it, this is the ruling. And the Chair so rules.
  What is the chairman of the Budget Committee going to do when we have 
stricken the language? He is going to do the same thing with reference 
to what? With reference to having the CBO standing behind him or her, 
because they are charged with doing the economic evaluation and coming 
up with what? With dollar numbers. They are going to say this mandate 
only will cost local government $42 million. They are going to say 
that.
  The chairman is going to take it up to the Chair. What is the 
chairman going to tell the Parliamentarian? ``Mr. Parliamentarian, they 
say 42. The statute says unless it exceeds 50 it is not subject to the 
point of order.''
  And the Parliamentarian will not take my word or the chairman's word. 
The Parliamentarian will read it and he will turn around and say to the 
Chair, ``The Congressional Budget Office, whom we are bound to accept 
numbers from on this, has spoken. And they say 42.'' He will say to the 
Chair, ``This does not come within the purview.'' Let us not have any 
more mandates unless we pay for them.
  What is the other role? The other role has to do with when the CBO 
says it is going to cost $250 million. Therefore it is within the 
purview of the mandate legislation.
  What is the chairman of the Budget Committee going to do when the 
Domenici amendment is adopted that does not give this authority to 
anyone new--no new committee, no new chairman? The very same thing. He 
will be backed up by the CBO, who will tell him $250 million. He will 
carry it to the Chair in the same manner I have described.
  The second part of this legislation has to do with regulations on 
business. Therein, there are no points of order but, again, we have to 
know what we are doing before we pass the legislation. And to know what 
we are doing requires that we actually understand the economic impacts.
  Where are we to get them? We are not going to get them from a 
committee. No committee has final determination of that. The Government 
Ops, Foreign Affairs, Budget--we get them from the Congressional Budget 
Office. Because that is what this bill says. The chairman will bring 
that, through the Parliamentarian, to the Chair; and thus from the 
Chair the Senate will be advised.
  So frankly I do not believe we need to change the practices. I 
believe we have the Congressional Budget Office and the Parliamentarian 
interpreting the intent of legislation vis-a-vis definitions in this 
bill or exclusions in this bill and we communicate those in one way or 
another. And we are suggesting that we have had 20 years of experience 
in communicating it through the CBO--from the CBO, through the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, to the Parliamentarian, to the Senate through 
the Chair, through the Presiding Officer.
  So I would think that the issue here has both support of the chairman 
of Government Operations, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Exon, whom I will yield to momentarily, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee--and I hope we will dispose of this amendment without 
taking a lot of time tonight. But clearly that is not for me to decide. 
I do not intend to try to use any more time than I absolutely feel is 
necessary for me. With that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time is needed in 
support of the amendment offered by myself and Senator Domenici.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee and the amendment unanimously recommended by the 
Budget Committee regarding the role of the Budget and Governmental 
Affairs Committee in the application of this legislation.
  My friend and colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, makes a lot of 
sense. When we write legislation such as the broad fresh brush of this 
legislation, we must be vigilant not to set dangerous precedents. 
Unfortunately in one very troubling area, we have let down our guard. 
Granting the Government Affairs Committee sole jurisdiction to 
determine whether or not a piece of legislation is an unfunded mandate 
is a very dangerous precedent. However, if we strike the Budget 
Committee amendment we would be vesting in one committee, the 
Government Affairs Committee, the authority to make final 
determinations on the applications of a point of order.
  I am very uncomfortable with such a radical change. I have always 
relied on the good wisdom of the Parliamentarian on such matters and 
that is the time-tested course of action we should take with us on S. 
1. Currently, for all other points of order under the Budget Act, the 
Chair turns to the Parliamentarian for any such determination of law. 
The Senate Parliamentarian's office is staffed with skilled and able 
lawyers, learned in the precedents of the Senate. They do an admirable 
job, often on very short notice. When the Parliamentarian determines 
that the budget estimates are required, the Parliamentarian turns to 
the Budget Committee as required by the Budget Act.
  I am not a lawyer. But for my colleagues who are lawyers, I am 
advised that the Parliamentarian decides questions of law much as does 
a judge in a trial. The role of the Budget Committee is limited by law 
and precedent to questions of fact, not questions of law. The Budget 
Committee merely provides the budgetary numbers to the Parliamentarian, 
who then takes these numbers into account in advising the Chair. This 
system has worked well for 20 years. Over the years, the Chairs of the 
Budget Committee have fulfilled this advisory role with objectivity and 
without regard to partisan advantage. By and large, the Chair of the 
committee merely passes along a Congressional Budget Office estimate 
and only rarely does an analyst for the committee have to extrapolate 
from such estimates.
  I have full confidence that Senator Domenici will continue to fulfill 
this role with objectivity and evenhandedness now that he has regained 
the chair of the committee. He did that previously. I think he will do 
so again. But let me say parenthetically that I shall be sure to point 
out most vocally any instance in which he does not.
  Let me also say that it is altogether fitting that a single Senator 
be charged with this estimating responsibility. 
[[Page S992]] The Presiding Officer must be able to turn to someone in 
the Chamber who can provide these estimates, sometimes long after the 
Congressional Budget Office has gone home for the night. Giving two 
committees this authority would almost certainly lead to confused 
advice to the Parliamentarian. The Chair must know who to turn to, as 
they have in the past, on such matters.
  The amendment proposed by the chairman of the Budget Committee and 
unanimously approved by that committee would merely continue that 
practice, indeed. If the language slipped into the draft of S. 1 that 
this amendment corrects were merely dropped and there were no 
references to the committees at all, the Parliamentarian would continue 
his practice of turning to the Budget Committee for budgetary 
estimates. What is more reasonable than that?
  I believe stripping the Domenici amendment from the bill would 
needlessly complicate the enforcement procedures in S. 1. With the 
Domenici amendment, we have the right mechanism to enforce violations 
of S. 1. Why clutter it up with a very cumbersome, clumsy, and untested 
process? The Budget Committee has for 20 years done this. They have the 
experience in dealing with language such as that contained in S. 1. We 
have served as the liaison with the Congressional Budget Office to 
provide the Parliamentarian with CBO cost estimates for all of that 
period.
  Mr. President, there is no compelling reason to set such a dangerous 
precedent as that suggested by the underlying governmental affairs 
language. There is no compelling reason to grant one Senate committee 
such unprecedented power over matters better left to the 
Parliamentarian. There is no compelling reason to change what is not 
broken.
  I urge my colleagues to accept the Budget Committee's amendment as 
unanimously accepted by the Budget Committee and clearly endorsed by 
Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
                    s.1 and budget committee's role

  Mr. ROTH. The Budget Committee's amendment strikes the roles of both 
the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee in making 
determinations regarding the point of order in this bill. The bill 
would, with the amendment, become silent on how these determinations 
should be made. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee would respond as to how the determinations of levels of 
mandates would be made under this legislation?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be happy to respond to the distinguished 
chairman's question. First of all, the Budget Act generally provides 
that the determinations of budget levels for the purposes of Budget Act 
points of order are based on estimates made by the Budget Committee. In 
practice, the Budget Committee works with CBO to provide these 
estimates to the Presiding Officer for the purposes of determining 
whether a point of order lies against legislation. In those instances 
where a CBO estimate is not available, the Presiding Officer turns to 
the Budget Committee for an estimate.
  While this legislation does not explicitly give the Budget Committee 
this authority. I do not think this authority is necessary. The Budget 
Act generally assigns this responsibility to the Budget Committee. The 
committee's intent in this amendment is that the Presiding Officer 
continue to seek the advice of the Budget Committee for a determination 
of the budgetary levels in order to determine whether legislation 
violates this point of order.
  Mr. ROTH. I understand that the Budget Committee would retain 
authority for making estimates for the purposes of determining the 
levels of mandates, but some may still have a question about the impact 
of striking the Governmental Affairs Committee's role. By striking the 
Governmental Affairs Committee's role in the bill, are we now giving 
the Budget Committee the authority to determine what constitutes a 
mandate?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The determination on what constitutes a mandate would 
reside with the Presiding Officer. The Budget Committee's role would be 
limited to providing estimates on mandate levels.
  Mr. ROTH. I wonder if the distinguished ranking minority member of 
the committee, the senior Senator from Nebraska, could respond to these 
questions?
  Mr. EXON. I concur with the remarks made by the Senator from New 
Mexico. Let me reiterate several points. In this legislation, the 
authority given to the Budget Committee for the purpose of determining 
estimates coincides with the authority already granted by the Budget 
Act. The Budget Committee would continue to work with the Congressional 
Budget Office to produce the estimates of mandate levels. This bill 
grants the committee no new authority.
  The Presiding Officer would have the final determination as to the 
applicability of this legislation. The Budget Committee would not be 
involved in this process. The committee's role would be confined to 
providing estimates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend from 
Nebraska briefly because I think there is some misunderstanding about 
what the provisions in this bill are, as well as to how the provisions 
were put into the bill. Nothing was slipped into, as he said, S. 1. 
Nothing was slipped into S. 1. It was in the bill submitted to the 
committee. We did not put it in. It was not an amendment in committee. 
It was placed into the legislation in the original language of the 
bill.
  A little while ago, the statement was made that this particular 
portion of the language was introduced in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. That is just not true. The language was put in as a part of 
the original legislation that was submitted, the part on page 25.
  So any indication that something was slipped into S. 1, as though we 
were trying to get somebody else's jurisdiction, is just flat not true. 
There was basically an agreement made by all parties that were working 
on this bill that the division of responsibilities on this would be 
that the costs would be gone through and would be monitored by the 
Budget Committee. I had no objection to that. The mandates part of 
this, though, was part of the responsibilities the Senate, in our 
written instructions to the committee, the intergovernmental relations 
part, should be a responsibility of the Governmental Affairs Committee. 
There was no taking of somebody else's jurisdiction; quite the 
opposite.
  What is in the bill now is that the amendment would provide for 
taking responsibility away from the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
where it logically resides and where Senate instructions would normally 
be interpreted, where it should reside, and give it to the 
Parliamentarian to make a judgment on what is a mandate or what is not 
a mandate.
  I did not object to making this an amendment to the Budget Act. I did 
not expect at that point that making it a part of the Budget Act would 
mean that the Budget Committee then would insist that the mandates part 
of this or a judgment on the mandates part would be taken away from the 
responsibilities of the Governmental Affairs Committee.
  If this makes sense, then let me make one other reference to change 
that was made and is included in the language on page 27 of the bill. 
It is in heavy print. This was not in the original bill. It 
specifically gives the responsibility for making cost judgments over in 
the House to the Budget Committee. And also in the House, on any 
judgment regarding mandates, it gives that responsibility to the House 
Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight.
  That was not in the original bill. That is, the Budget Committee here 
that we are mandating to the House that the Budget Committee over there 
will take up costs, and that the Committee on Governmental Reform and 
Oversight will deal with mandates. That was not even in the original 
bill.
  So we are saying: House of Representatives, here is how you have to 
take up this legislation, and here is the division of responsibilities 
on making judgments on it.
   [[Page S993]] At the same time, we come to the Senate, and instead 
of having the comparable committees in the Senate responsible for 
similar judgments over here, we say what is OK on the Budget Committee 
over here, we take it away from Governmental Affairs and give it to the 
Parliamentarian. Over in the House, you specifically made changes to 
provide specifically where the responsibilities would go and made them 
different than here in the Senate. I think that is wrong.
  I do not see why we specify that over there. If it is so wrong here, 
why is it so right in the House of Representatives? I just do not see 
the logic of this at all. So what the Budget Committee did in its 
markup was to vitiate an agreement that we had made prior to the 
introduction of the bill. There was no language introduced in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee at all. This all came out of the changes 
that the Budget Committee insisted upon. I am sorry that our committee 
chairman, Senator Roth, has left the floor because all this language we 
are talking about here was in the bill over there. Yet, he did not 
disagree with it in committee. He voted for the bill coming out of 
committee, supported the bill, moved it to the floor and wanted a vote 
on it. I was for that. I did not disagree.
  We had lost on several amendments we proposed that we thought would 
have made it stronger over there. Now we come to the floor and suddenly 
what is good for the House of Representatives, in the wisdom of the 
Budget Committee in giving it to the oversight committee over there, 
jurisdiction over mandates and jurisdiction over costs over there, when 
they come out of CBO; yet when we come to the Senate, we say the Budget 
Committee would consider costs over here. I do not quarrel with that 
one bit. I think that is a logical place to be.
  Suddenly, for reasons beyond my understanding, the Budget Committee 
tells the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, without any action on 
the Senate floor, your jurisdiction is down the tubes, and it goes to 
the Parliamentarian. It does not make any sense to me. That is the 
reason I think we were dealt with very unfairly over here.
  I will not ask the Parliamentarian, but I do not know whether the 
Parliamentarian prefers to have this particular responsibility, as a 
matter of fact. This puts an enormous responsibility on the 
Parliamentarian that is supposed to rule on Senate order and rules and 
not get off into the legislative function of making judgments that no 
Parliamentarian in the Senate has ever made except on points of order 
provided under the Budget Act. We are giving House committees specific 
responsibilities, but we are saying the Senate cannot have those same 
responsibilities in our comparable committees. So that is the reason I 
get exercised on this when I think it is a little bit ridiculous. I 
repeat that this was not something slipped into S. 1, as my colleague 
referred to. This was in the bill as submitted to the committee.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, it may be a misunderstanding and we may be 
talking by each other on some of these matters. I simply point out what 
I think the ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee just 
alluded to, and that is the fact that what we are trying to do is leave 
the process the way it was. There can be no argument but what if you 
would follow the position taken by the ranking member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, we would not be making a change. The 
normal order is for the Parliamentarian to rule. The Governmental 
Affairs Committee bill would differ with that and change it. We 
objected to this Governmental Affairs proposal during negotiations. We 
did not control the process. They said they would take out the 
language, as we understood it, between meetings of the staff.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. EXON. I will say this, and then I will be glad to yield. I also 
simply say that with regard to the House of Representatives, we merely 
included what we understood our colleagues in the House wanted to do. 
We do not choose to impose any solution on the House of 
Representatives. We think we are doing here what our colleagues in the 
House want to do. Also whether it is unanimously agreed to over there 
or not, I know not. I simply say that I am not confusing the ranking 
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee in bad faith. It might be 
that we are talking past each other.
  I simply point out that S. 993 did not include the Governmental 
Affairs' language that is in S. 1 that we are asked to vote on. So a 
change, therefore, has been made. Maybe there is some misunderstanding 
on the part of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this. I simply 
point out, Mr. President, that not only the total Budget Committee--
Members on both sides of the aisle, including myself as the ranking 
Democratic Member, and Chairman Domenici, and our position is supported 
by Senator Roth, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
support the amendment. I would like at this time, Mr. President--and 
then I will yield and be glad to respond to any questions from my 
friend from Ohio that I might--to refer to part of a colloquy that will 
be included in the Record, which indicates a question Senator Roth 
asked me as part of the colloquy, and my response was--I hope this 
might help clear up the matter--``I concur with the remarks made by the 
Senator from New Mexico. Let me reiterate several points. In this 
legislation, the authority given to the Budget Committee for the 
purpose of determining estimates coincides with the authority already 
granted in the Budget Act. The Budget Committee would continue to work 
with the Congressional Budget Office to produce the estimates of 
mandated levels. The bill grants the committee no new authority. The 
Presiding Officer would have the final determination as to the 
applicability of the legislation. The Budget Committee would not be 
involved in that process. The committee's role would be confined to 
providing estimates, which is a role the committee has always played, 
and we hope the Senate, by supporting the amendment offered by the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, will continue in that traditional 
role.''
  Mr. GLENN. The Senator from Nebraska answered the question I was 
going to ask. But I do not understand yet why it is right for the 
Senate to dictate to the House, when it is in the legislation what the 
jurisdictions of different committees will be.
  My friend from Nebraska says, ``We understand they wanted it that 
way.'' Well, I do not automatically accede to the House having 
legislation over there that says, well, we think somebody in the Senate 
wants it, so that is the way we will do it. Yet, we dictate in this 
thing very specifically. The language is even almost identical from one 
part to the other in the language that provides for the assignment of 
responsibilities here in the Senate. It was in the legislation. And 
that is over in the House. Yet, we very specifically said, by action of 
the Budget Committee, OK, that is alright over in the House, we agree 
with that in the House. This is a logical definition of where things 
should go in the House. In the Senate we have to take the 
responsibility away from the Governmental Affairs Committee that, by 
the rules of the Senate, deals with matters of intergovernmental 
relations up and down the line, and we are going to take that 
responsibility away, without saying anything about it, and put it in 
this legislation and give that authority to the Parliamentarian. I just 
think that is illogical. I cannot accept the explanation by my friend 
from Nebraska as to exactly why we are doing this when it seems to me 
so logically in the other direction. If it is logical for assigning 
this to the House the way we did, then it is logical to assign it to 
the Senate the way we did.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we may be beginning to make progress on 
this, maybe we can agree to this amendment. I advise my friend from 
Ohio that this Senator did not negotiate with the House of 
Representatives on this matter. I understand that the majority side has 
been negotiating with them. I have been told by the majority side that 
the House of Representatives endorses and wants us to leave this 
matter. We are checking on that right now. I hope that I can reach 
Senator Domenici so he can come back on the floor, since I believe it 
was he or one of the Republican members of the Budget Committee who did 
the actual negotiations with the House on this and not 
[[Page S994]] this Senator, or as far as I know any Democrat or 
minority member of the Budget Committee.
  Let me emphasize once again that the Budget Committee has always 
followed the procedure, as has the Senate for 20 years, that when 
matters with regard to points of order have been raised on the figures 
supplied to the Budget Committee--which most people would agree is the 
authority on this, has the staff to follow it, and has the 
responsibility to work with CBO to get exact numbers--that those 
matters have traditionally been decided by the Parliamentarian, 
advising the Chair. We simply want to leave that the way it has always 
been and not change it.
  I hope that we will have a more definitive answer to the legitimate 
question raised by the Senator from Ohio with regard to what is the 
pleasure of the House of Representatives on this matter. It was not our 
intention to be doing anything except to try to parallel the processes 
that will be necessary to work out, I suggest, some parliamentary 
questions that are going to be raised and to which points of order 
might lie. In that instance, the Parliamentarian would be advising the 
Presiding Officer as to what the situation was.
  I emphasize again, as has Senator Domenici and as has Senator Roth, 
the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that all we are 
doing is trying to leave this the way it was.
  Now, I happen to think that the Budget Committee should legitimately 
play a role when budgetary matters are considered, and it is simply the 
position of the Budget Committee that we should leave well enough alone 
and not try to fix something that is not broken.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agree completely with what the Senator 
from Nebraska just said. I do not propose to change the point of order 
at all. We do not change that. There is nothing about a point of order 
in this particular section of this thing. It has worked well for 20 
years. I agree with that, with the Budget Committee, with the cost 
estimate and whether points of order lie, and the Parliamentarian makes 
that judgment.
  What we are talking about is what happens when it is not clear as to 
what is a mandate and what is not. Now, I think this problem would 
occur only very infrequently. I think most of the legislation put in 
will appear to be very clear when there is a mandate or when there is 
not a mandate.
  But what happens when there is a question about what is a mandate or 
what is not a mandate? That is the question.
  We do not propose to change the point of order that has worked well 
for 20 years. I agree with that. The language we are talking about here 
has nothing to do with points of order. It has to do with who makes the 
determination on what is a mandate and what is not.
  Over in the House, by the wisdom of the Budget Committee here, we 
give that authority to the Budget Reform and Oversight Committee in the 
House to make that determination in the few times it may come up. We 
see no reason why over here that should not be in the committee that 
has the assigned jurisdiction over intergovernmental matters--Federal, 
State, and local--assigned by the rules of the Senate, and the 
committee does its best to carry those out.
  So I submit it does not have anything to do with points of order. I 
support the points of order, the procedure we have had in the Senate 
for 20 years. I see nothing wrong with that. This is a whole different 
matter from that.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, with regard to the question of whether the 
Parliamentarian can do what this bill would ask him to do, let me say 
that we have given the Parliamentarian even more difficult tasks in the 
past than this one.
  For example, the Byrd rule that we are familiar with, on extraneous 
matters on reconciliation bills, which are very important, and it is a 
very complicated statute that requires many decisions of law.
  Furthermore, the War Powers Resolution, to cite another example, 
requires the Parliamentarian to make hard choices.
  In the Senate, the Parliamentarian can consult with whatever 
committee he wishes.
  The point that we are making here as members of the Budget Committee, 
supported by the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, is 
that the process in place has worked well.
  Why do we find ourselves in this debate that has taken the last 
hour's time of the Senate? Because we are passing an important new 
piece of legislation called S. 1, which has to do with mandates on 
governmental agencies. What we are simply saying, Mr. President, is 
that we are not trying to interfere at all with the responsibility that 
we in the Budget Committee recognize fully is in the prerogative and 
responsibilities of the Governmental Affairs Committee with regard to 
the affairs of different levels of Government.
  What we are simply saying, Mr. President, is that we, as a Budget 
Committee, feel that we should leave well enough alone with regard to 
points of order that would affect the budget. We think that it has 
worked very well to leave that authority completely in the hands of the 
Presiding Officer with the advice and counsel of the Parliamentarian. 
It has worked well in the past and we want to continue it that way.
  I suggest, absolutely, that we think there is a matter of 
jurisdiction here, but more important than the matter of jurisdiction 
is keeping a system in place that works well. We still feel that the 
attempts by the Senator from Ohio, the ranking member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, would complicate a process that we 
think has worked very well under the jurisdiction of the Budget 
Committee.
  Now, I would certainly emphasize once again that if we have a point 
of order--and we hope that the Presiding Officer, under the advice of 
the Parliamentarian, would go back to the Budget Committee for the 
exact figures and numbers--there is nothing to say that if it is the 
opinion of the Chair or the Parliamentarian that other committees 
should also be consulted about this, then that would be something that 
could be done.
  I will simply say that what we are objecting to is the specific 
inclusion of the provision the Governmental Affairs Committee is trying 
to get approved in this legislation. That is why we have offered the 
amendment authored by the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, and supported by Senator Roth, the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I hope with that background, Mr. President, that we could come to a 
vote quite soon on this. I hope and I urge the Senate to support the 
recommendations made unanimously by the Budget Committee, by the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, by myself, the ranking 
member, and strongly supported also by the chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, the distinguished Senator from Delaware.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to comment on some of 
the remarks of my friend from Nebraska by making a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  I make the inquiry of the Chair as to whether the Parliamentarian has 
previously ruled as to whether or not language in a bill or an 
amendment has constituted a mandate on State and local governments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian has not so ruled.
  Mr. LEVIN. Now, when we say, ``Just keep doing it the way we have 
done it before,'' let us understand what we are talking about.
  We have a Budget Act--and I will get to that in a minute, because the 
Budget Act makes specific references to the Budget Committee.
  I will come to that one in a minute. What we have heard on this issue 
is just leave it the way it has been done. Let the Parliamentarian rule 
the way he has ruled for 20 years on these points of order.
   [[Page S995]] The Parliamentarian has never ruled on whether or not 
there is an intergovernmental mandate. The Parliamentarian has never 
ruled, and I will make this a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair, Has 
the Parliamentarian ever ruled whether or not a provision in a bill 
requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with 
respect to grants or other money or property provided by the U.S. 
Government? Have we ever had a ruling like that from the 
Parliamentarian?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I can go on and on through these 
exemptions. I think the point is clear. We are skating out on a new 
pond.
  The Parliamentarian has never ruled on these issues, whether or not 
language constitutes a mandate; whether or not, because it is an 
exception to the requirement provision if a bill enforces the 
constitutional rights of individuals, establishes or enforces a 
statutory right that prohibits discrimination based on rights. I can go 
through all of these with the Parliamentarian but I know the answer.
  This is a new process that is being undertaken. The Parliamentarian 
has not ruled on this type of thing before. And we are asking the 
Parliamentarian to undertake on every bill, resolution, amendment, et 
cetera, every one, subject to a point of order. This is not just a Byrd 
rule on reconciliation. This is not just a War Powers Act.
  I agree the Parliamentarian has some difficult decisions to make. I 
fully agree with my good friend from Nebraska on that issue. This is on 
every bill that comes to this floor, every amendment that comes to this 
floor, the Parliamentarian will have to rule as to whether or not there 
is a mandate on that. Because if there is, it is out of order.
  When I say he will have to rule, he may have to rule on every bill. 
He may have to rule, and will have to, if somebody raises a point of 
order. But if the language which exempts local government from paying 
for a mandate is not in a bill or resolution, and if it does not have 
that other language relative to the appropriations, and if it does not 
have an estimate, it is subject to a point of order. Anybody can raise 
a point of order on every amendment, every bill, that comes to this 
floor.
  The Parliamentarian, for the first time in history, is going to have 
to rule as to whether or not language in a bill constitutes an 
intergovernmental mandate. The Parliamentarian has never ruled on 
anything like that before. We have just heard from the Parliamentarian 
through the Chair. I could go on and on and on, by the way, as to other 
elements of the bill which constitute exceptions to the mandate 
requirement where the Parliamentarian has never ruled. The argument 
that, look, this thing has worked for 20 years, why change a good 
thing, does not work when it comes to the question of what constitutes 
a mandate or an exception to the mandate requirement. The argument 
simply is not applicable to that.
  Now, should the Parliamentarian on that issue consult with 
Governmental Affairs? I use the term ``consult'' with Governmental 
Affairs? I think the answer is ``yes.'' I think we ought to provide 
language which, in effect, says that. That is the intent of the 
language which is in the bill which would be struck by the Budget 
Committee amendment.
  While my dear friend from Nebraska is on his feet I am wondering 
whether or not I might have unanimous consent to ask the Senator from 
Nebraska a question and not lose my right to the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the Chairman 
of the Budget Committee and to the ranking member, Senator Exon.
  Is it my understanding that the way the Senator from Nebraska reads 
this bill, that the Budget Committee is bound to accept the estimate of 
the Congressional Budget Office relative to the cost of an 
intergovernmental mandate, and is simply the transmission belt or the 
liaison to transmit the data from the Congressional Budget Office?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the answer to my very dear friend is that, 
no, the Budget Committee does not have to accept in toto the dollars 
and cents on anything submitted by the Congressional Budget Office to 
the Budget Committee.
  But for all practical purposes, we do it that way.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nebraska.
  Now, the next question would be, is the Parliamentarian bound under 
the Budget Act to accept the figures given to it by the Budget 
Committee?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, my answer would be that obviously I would 
think that since the Parliamentarian does not have an estimating 
organization under his control, I would think the precedent, as the 
Senator from Michigan fully well knows, that the Parliamentarian would 
go along with whatever information he had at hand from the reliable 
source which we think in this instance is the Budget Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, is it the Senator's understanding of the 
Budget Act that in determining a figure under the Budget Act in ruling 
on scoring, for instance, that the Parliamentarian must accept the 
figure given to it by the Budget Committee?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am not an authority on that as the Senator 
from Michigan knows. I am not a lawyer so I cannot give him a 
legalistic answer to the question.
  I would simply amplify what I said before: in practice, that is the 
way it has always worked. It has worked very, very well. We do not 
think it should change.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me make a parliamentary question, 
whether or not under the Budget Act the Parliamentarian is required to 
accept the scoring figure from the Senate Budget Committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Budget Act does authorize the 
Parliamentarian to accept the figures given by that Budget Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. My parliamentary inquiry is, is the Parliamentarian bound 
to accept the figure from the Senate Budget Committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Where the law authorizes the Budget Committee 
to make those estimates, the Parliamentarian is then obliged to accept 
those estimates.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Now, that becomes a very critical point because the law in many 
places does not just simply throw the budget number at the 
Parliamentarian and say, ``here, you figure it up.'' It assigns that 
responsibility to the Budget Committee.
  I was interested in the Senator from New Mexico's comment about 
leaving this to the Parliamentarian, as though the law assigns certain 
responsibilities to the Budget Committee. The way I read the law, the 
four references out of the five in the Budget Committee's report, it is 
the Budget Committee--not the Parliamentarian, but the Budget 
Committee--which makes the determination at the budget level when there 
is a point of order.
  Suddenly, it becomes unnecessary to be specific about assigning this 
function to the Budget Committee. Why are we shy here about assigning 
the same function to the Budget Committee, which is to try to figure 
out what a mandate costs, when we have made that same assignment to the 
Budget Committee--not the Parliamentarian--to the Budget Committee over 
and over and over and over again, in the Budget Act? I said four 
``overs'' because I got four sections of the Budget Act.
  For instance, section 311(C) for purposes of this section, and this 
is a point of order section, ``the levels of new budget authority, 
budget outlays, new entitlement authority and revenue for fiscal year 
shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the committee on 
the budget of the House of Representatives or of the Senate,'' as the 
case may be. Why are we shy about doing it in this bill?
  Why are we shy about being explicit in this bill the way we have been 
explicit over and over again in the Budget Act, assigning a 
responsibility to the Budget Committee, so it is clear?
  Do we want to leave ambiguity--there is enough ambiguity in this bill 
already, I must say. We have a new point of order which is incredibly 
complex which, in many instances, is going to be made against a bill 
for not containing an estimate which cannot be made. A point of order 
is going to lie 
[[Page S996]] against a bill for not containing an estimate when we 
know now some estimates cannot be made. We have been told by the Budget 
Office. And yet a point of order is going to lie.
  We are creating a point of order for the absence of something which 
cannot be supplied. That is pretty complicated for being straight with 
ourselves and with all those local officials and State Governors. It is 
pretty complicated. We know it cannot be supplied at times, and yet we 
are telling them that a point of order is going to be made for the 
failure to supply an estimate which is impossible to be made. You watch 
those points of order being waived like mad down the road. But that is 
neither here nor there. The point is we have a complicated bill.
  We have a complicated bill with a new point of order which was not in 
last year's bill. And, by the way, the reason for the language which 
the Senator from Nebraska objects to in the bill and seeks to strike 
through the Budget Committee amendment is, there is a new point of 
order and there was an effort made to clarify who would make a 
determination.
  Do we want to just leave it to the Parliamentarian and kid ourselves? 
The Parliamentarian is not in a position to determine how much it would 
cost 87,000 local governments to put in a new scrubber on an 
incinerator to get rid of mercury. Come on. That is not the job of a 
Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian is going to be handed a number by 
the Budget Committee and they will have been given a number, maybe, if 
we are lucky, by the CBO. That is the way it is going to happen, just 
the way the Senator from Nebraska has indicated. The CBO will try to 
make an estimate. If it cannot, precedent is the Budget Committee is 
just going to be the liaison, the transmission belt. Even though 
legally, I think the Senator from Nebraska is correct, it is not 
obligated to do so, it will as a matter of precedent.
  But this is a very, very complicated bill, and we should not leave 
ambiguity on purpose. We should not leave it on purpose. If it is going 
to be the Senate Budget Committee which is going to make a 
determination and hand it to the Parliamentarian, let us say it is the 
Budget Committee. Let us just say it. We do it in other places in the 
Budget Act. I read one of them, and I will not read the other. There 
are many places in the Budget Act. We say that the Budget Committee 
shall make the estimate.
  We know where the Budget Committee gets it. That is where they should 
get it: the Congressional Budget Office. That is exactly the right 
place to look. But why be ambiguous.
  I was intrigued by the committee report of the Budget Committee, 
where it says that:

       The committee does not believe that the authority needs to 
     be explicitly stated . . .

  Why?

       In the absence of a CBO estimate--

  Here they talk about an absence of an estimate, which is news to me 
because we did not think it was possible. Now there is acknowledgement 
there may not be one.

     the committee intends that the determinations of levels of 
     mandates be based on estimates provided by the Senate Budget 
     Committee.

  The argument here is you do not have to make it explicit because it 
is implicit that the Senate Budget Committee is going to give to the 
Parliamentarian the figures, if it has any, from the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  What everybody knows would happen. That is what my friend from 
Nebraska referred to when he said it has worked for 20 years. Estimates 
come in from the Congressional Budget Office to the Budget Committee, 
the Budget Committee hands them over to the Parliamentarian, and the 
Parliamentarian rules. But we have been explicit about that. We have 
said that the estimates would be made by the Budget Committee.
  One of the sections which is being stricken by the amendment before 
us makes it clear that it is the Senate Budget Committee which will 
make the estimate. I do not know why there is any reluctance to do 
that. It has been done over and over again.
  But I think what the Senator from Nebraska is saying is that there is 
some reluctance to have the Governmental Affairs Committee be involved 
on the question of whether or not there is a mandate. This is no longer 
a question of the number of or the cost of something. This is now a 
question of whether or not there is a mandate at all. The cost issues 
under the language of the bill are left for the two committees. How 
much is for Budget; whether it was left to the Governmental Affairs.
  I believe that it is proper for Governmental Affairs to be at least 
consulted--at least consulted--on the question of whether or not an 
intergovernmental mandate exists when the Parliamentarian has had no 
experience in doing that, and I think properly should not be put in a 
position where they are going to have to make decisions of this nature.
  So I hope that the committee amendment from the Budget Committee will 
be defeated and that we can work out some language which would at least 
require consultation with the Governmental Affairs Committee on the 
question of whether there is a mandate or whether or not there is an 
exclusion from the mandate, leaving it to the Budget Committee to, 
again, determine the amount of the cost, which is the traditional thing 
that the Budget Committee has determined.
  So I thank my friend from Nebraska for responding to my questions, 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have listened with keen interest to my 
friend from Michigan and the points he has made.
  I will simply reply that in the first interest, several sections vest 
the Budget Committee with decisions on matters of fact, not matters of 
law. Under the situations we are talking about, the Parliamentarian is 
the chief legal advisor to the Presiding Officer. He is the official in 
whom we should vest this power. I believe from the beginning that is 
what we intended to do. It is inappropriate to vest that power in 
another committee.
  I will simply say that the Senator from Michigan could have conducted 
a similar set of inquiries with regard to any new point of order. Of 
course, the Parliamentarian has not ruled on a point of order that has 
not yet been adopted or enacted into law. I do not know that there 
would be a different ruling from a Parliamentarian in the future, but I 
hope that that Parliamentarian will continue to rule on the precedents 
of the past.
  But neither does the Governmental Affairs Committee have any 
expertise at all in this matter. And certainly I would simply say to 
the U.S. Senate that regardless of the twists and turns of this matter, 
and regardless of this debate, which has carried not so much on the 
specifics of the amendment offered by the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici from New Mexico, but has carried over into 
some concerns that I know the Senator from Michigan has on the whole 
matter of mandates and how they are going to be enforced.
  I simply say that those kinds of considerations and arguments that 
are going to be made in very articulate fashion, I suggest, by my 
friend from Michigan, probably refer to--and may be appropriate on--
passage of the whole mandate bill. I have talked with the Senator from 
Michigan. He has done a lot of research on this. I was very much 
interested and impressed with the information that has been brought to 
his attention in the form of a letter, after inquiry by the Senator 
from Michigan, from the Congressional Budget Office that raises a whole 
set of new questions about whether or not CBO can make these estimates, 
and they have said in some instances they have no way of making these 
estimates.
  I believe part of the argument that is being made against the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico are arguments that 
will be made along the same lines, but possibly in a little different 
fashion, by the Senator from Michigan. The Senator from Michigan talks 
about allowing consultation with the Government Affairs Committee. I 
have no objection to that. But the language of the bill provides no 
such compromise. The bill says that the Government Affairs Committee, 
``shall have the authority to make the final determination.'' That is 
what we are trying 
[[Page S997]] to strike in the pending committee amendment.
  It is open to a compromise, I suggest, regarding consultation. But to 
get to the compromise first we have to adopt the Budget Committee 
amendment to page 25 that strikes the exclusive power--and I emphasize, 
Mr. President, exclusive power--of the Governmental Affairs Committee 
that they want to maintain as they wrote S. 1, and is a part that the 
Budget Committee and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee is 
trying to correct for the reasons that we have outlined.
  The basic reason is why change a system that has worked well? Leave 
well enough alone. That is the heart of the argument. And that is why 
we hope the Senate will adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. President, I had hoped and had agreed earlier, a couple of hours 
ago, on a time agreement--an hour equally divided. I think the Record 
will clearly show the Senator from Nebraska felt, when we started this 
debate, we were on controlled time. I find out later that has not been 
the case.
  May I suggest in the interests of moving the Senate along in 
expeditious fashion, since we have been on this a long time and I 
suspect not a great deal new is going to be said pro and con on the 
amendment by the Senator from New Mexico, that we agree to, I suggest, 
a 20-minute extension of time equally divided from this time forward 
and then have a vote? Is there any objection to that?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, 5 minutes; 3 minutes?
  Mr. EXON. How about right now?
  Mr. LEVIN. I need about 3 minutes.
  Mr. EXON. OK. I still have the floor. Before I lose the floor, let me 
make one more try.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 more minutes of debate, 5 
minutes controlled by the Senator from Ohio or his assignee and 5 
minutes controlled by the Senator from Nebraska?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agree to a time limit but I want to make 
a couple of phone calls first before I agree to a specific time limit. 
I think the Senator from Michigan had a couple of comments to make and 
I will make the phone calls while he is doing that.
  Mr. EXON. Let the Record show I tried.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I just have one additional question 
of the Senator from Nebraska. That has to do with the House of 
Representatives. We are in a position here where he, as ranking member 
of the Budget Committee, has said it is inappropriate to vest power in 
the Governmental Affairs Committee. Yet that is exactly the power that 
is being vested in the House Committee on Government Operations in this 
bill. And this amendment does not touch that.
  If it is inappropriate to vest that power in a committee of the 
Senate, it seems to me it is equally wrong to vest it in a committee of 
the House.
  But in terms of vesting power in committees, the Budget Act vests 
power in the Budget Committee. I want to just make reference to four 
sections of the Budget Act where, on points of order, the power is 
vested in the Budget Committee.
  I think I have made reference before to section 311(c), for purposes 
of this section the levels of new budget authority--et cetera:

       Shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives or 
     the Senate, as the case may be.

  There is power vested right in the Budget Committee.
  In section 313(e), and these are points of order sections: For 
purposes of this section the levels of new budget authority, budget 
outlays, et cetera, ``shall be determined on the basis of estimates 
made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.''
  Power is vested in the Budget Committee directly, right in the Budget 
Act. Yet one of the two sections which is being stricken here is 
exactly that. It puts the power to make the estimate of the cost of any 
mandate in the Budget Committee, exactly as we have done over and over 
again. There is nothing unusual about that at all. The Budget Committee 
has explicit power vested in it over and over again in the Budget Act 
to make these kinds of determinations of outlay. Yet in the bill as 
introduced, it wants to put that precise power of the Budget Act here--
suddenly we find there is a committee amendment by the Budget Committee 
striking that clear grant of power.
  I think it is useful, just in terms of avoiding ambiguity itself. 
This thing is going to be complicated enough. We might as well not 
build in an ambiguity. Make it clear. The budget committee has the 
power. Relative to Governmental Affairs, there is this power granted in 
the House which is left in place. The Budget Committee apparently does 
not want this power to be granted to the Governmental Affairs Committee 
here. It seems to me what is sauce--fair for the goose is fair for the 
gander. If it is right for the House, it is right for the Senate. My 
understanding was the Senator from Ohio had worked out an agreement 
relative to this kind of reference and if that, in fact, was correct, 
then it seems to me this would be a move away from what was in the 
original bill agreed to by the Senator from Ohio.
  Finally, I would say, Mr. President, I hope that this amendment would 
either be defeated or be tabled, because unless you have clarity as to 
where the responsibility lies to both determine whether there is a 
mandate or an exception, and to determine the amount of the mandate--
unless you have clarity on that, we are making into law ambiguities 
which are going to bedevil us just about every day we operate around 
here.
  We ought to clarify where the responsibility lies. We have done it 
before. It was in the original bill. We should leave it the way it was 
in the original bill and defeat the Budget Committee amendment. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
my suggestion of the absence of a quorum, that when we come back after 
the order for the quorum call is rescinded that I retain the right to 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I will look to 
the Senate from Ohio to make a request.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 11th reported committee amendment is the 
pending question.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from Oregon 
[Mr. Hatfield], and the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``nay.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] are necessary absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] is absent 
because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 66, as follows:
               [[Page S998]] [Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Robb
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--66

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bradley
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Pryor
  So the motion to lay on the table the committee amendment on page 25, 
lines 11 through 25, was rejected.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Idaho 
give me just a moment of his time so I might ask him a question or be 
involved in a colloquy?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will be happy to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President two things have happened that bother this 
Senator considerably.
  Last week, I made an effort to stop the House from using frequent 
flier miles that were paid for by taxpayers for personal use. I was 
admonished by my friends on the majority side for trying to tell the 
House what they should do or should not do. The amendment was amended. 
I lost.
  It said to the Senate that under those circumstances, the Senate 
ought to take care of itself and we ought not to tell the House what to 
do. Now, as we are, in this amendment and in this bill, setting out a 
lot of proposals that the House must comply with--change their rules, 
assign to committees, things of that nature--I keep hearing that this 
is what the House is asking the Senate to do.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like for the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho to respond to who in the House is telling the Senate what to do, 
or what the leadership over there is saying, whether they want this in 
the bill so that it will apply to the House. Can you give the Senate 
this information tonight? If not, in the morning. I would like to have 
an answer.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Sure, Mr. President. The Members of the House with 
whom we have been working closely, and I will name them, are the 
Chairman, Bill Clinger; Congressman Robert Portman, and Congressman 
Gary Condit. Those are the individuals with whom we worked most closely 
on this companion legislation in the House.
  Mr. FORD. So they are saying to put it in the Senate bill to make the 
House comply with the rules of the bill we passed?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, to further answer that, that is 
correct. They have said in the inquiry, Could you put this in the bill?
  However, I tell you there has been further clarification that if the 
Senate were to determine that it just did not feel appropriate for the 
Senate to put that House language in there, they can deal with it in a 
different setting.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's being candid with 
me because I think we are making a mistake. One week, we will not apply 
the rules to the House and the next week we apply the rules to the 
House. Something has to be consistent. One was not a very important 
amendment. This one is.
  So I hope that in the discussion with the Senators, between now and 
maybe working out something on this amendment in the morning, I 
understand, I hope Senators will look at the whole aspect of saying to 
the House ``You must comply with the rules that we pass.'' I am not 
sure that that is right.
  I might say to the Senator, with all respect, that I think we are 
going to have to start being consistent, regardless of what bills we 
are on, and we will have to say that these rules passed on the Senate 
do not apply to the House unless the House wants to do that.
  So, at some point, if there is not an agreement to the imposition of 
our rules on the House, we will offer an amendment that will take the 
application of this legislation to the House.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FORD. I will be glad to. I have no problem.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, just in response to that--and I 
appreciate the idea of consistency--in this particular legislation, it 
was really many, many hours of working together with the House.
  I was not privy to what sort of arrangements the Senator had worked 
out with the House on his amendment last week.
  One of the things that I think may help us to be consistent is when 
we see that it deals with the House of Representatives, probably part 
of our information that we exchange with one another is to state to 
what extent this really is coming from the House. This was a strong 
request.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator says he is working with the chairman. That is 
fine. The House leadership, at some point, is going to have to put it 
all together. I would not want to take a chairman here and say that his 
advice to me is above the majority leader's. I would go to the leader 
and to the Senator's elected leadership, and I would get my direction 
from them rather than a committee chairman, unless they have acquiesced 
their authority to them.
  I am glad the Senator and I wanted to know that. We keep saying, ``As 
the House has advised us, as the House has advised us.'' I just wanted 
to know who was advising the Senator, and I am still concerned about 
applying our rule to the House or passing legislation saying the House 
must comply. Oh, it has been done, but I think if we are going to stay 
out one way, we ought to stay consistent. I will be observing it very 
closely.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at the heart of the unfunded mandates 
legislation we continue to debate today is the 10th amendment to the 
U.S. Constitution.
  This is an amendment that many here in Washington seem to have 
forgotten over the years, as more and more power has been taken away 
from the States and placed in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.
  As I said in my remarks on the first day of this session, if I have 
one goal for the 104th Congress, it is that we will dust off the 10th 
amendment and restore it to its rightful place in our Constitution.
  As a reminder of that goal, I also promised to insert the 10th 
amendment into the Congressional Record every week that we are in 
session, and I would like to do so now.
  Mr. President, the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

  Let us always keep those simple yet powerful words in mind, as we 
continue our work of returning government back to the American people.


                          ____________________