[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 12 (Friday, January 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1254-S1256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATES
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I admire my new-made friend from Oklahoma.
I, too, was Governor. I came to Washington about the so-called unfunded
mandates. It was a little easier to take care of then than it is now
because we had 12 years of Republicans who ran us from $900 million to
over $4 trillion in debt in 12 years. It is a little tough for us now
to carry that load.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. FORD. Not now. I did not disturb the Senator when he was
speaking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to yield.
Mr. FORD. Then we hear something about gridlock. If the Senator had
been here 2 years ago, you would have been part of gridlock--and I say
``the Senator'' rather than ``you''; I want to be careful of my
language for the Record--because the Republican side would not let us
go with pieces of legislation we thought were important. Now they have
become part of the Contract With America. The same pieces of
legislation, basically, that were filibustered in the last session of
Congress are now in the Contract With America. Surprising, is it not?
Surprising.
We stand here in the last few days, last couple of weeks, and act
like the world has stopped.
We forgot aging in the bill that came out of committee. It would have
gone on and we would have excluded aging in the amendment. And the
manager of the bill from the Republican side, the majority side, was a
cosponsor of that amendment when he found out about it. So we have made
some contribution.
We had an amendment last night that was defeated, but utilities--and
your State ought to be very interested in utilities--wanted that very
badly, because the mandates to private enterprise stick and they do not
stick on public entities under this legislation. So it is the business-
oriented group here, I guess you would say, who have said to business:
We are going to stick it to you. Because the mayors and commissioners
out there are raising Cain, we are going to let them off the hook.
So we have incinerators: Private and public. The public does not have
to take the mandate but private will, regardless of what it costs.
Landfills: Public and private. The private will have to get stuck
with all that.
Schools--think about schools, the mandate on schools. Private will
have to be stuck with it; public will not.
Hospitals; in my hometown we have two fine hospitals. Those fine
hospitals want to come together--one is public and one is private--and
come with an HMO, to merge and try to give better service at lower
rates in my community. We better be careful because the private
hospital might have to carry out some mandates that the public hospital
will not have to.
Why jam this thing through when all those problems are there that
should be worked out? We wake up: Oh, I did not know it was in the
bill. I will guarantee not a Senator here, with few exceptions, can
tell you everything that is in the bill. You get up here and talk
about, oh, we are just gridlocked. It may be gridlock, but a couple of
things--real, I think--have happened. One, the utilities woke up and
business woke up about what is getting ready to happen to them, for
one. That is one. Then we found we left out the elderly; we exempted
everybody but the elderly. AARP, I am sure, did not know it. But last
night it was 99 to zip when you found it, and that was because we said
let us look at the bill. And Senator Levin, from Michigan, was the
individual who found it, brought the amendment up, and the Republican
floor leader became a cosponsor of that amendment. That was helpful.
You can stand here all you want to and say we have to get it through
because the American people want it. But when small business and major
businesses are being hurt, they are not able to be competitive with
public--we have local incinerators and private; we have landfills,
public and private; we have hospitals, public and private--and you are
putting a heavier burden on business and taking it off of their
competitor, which is government, I think you ought to take a step back
and see what you are doing on this.
We on this side have given you an opportunity to do that. If you want
to continue to make the mistake, continue to make the mistake of
putting horrendous burdens on business and not on the public entities,
then go ahead. When this Senator, 8 years ago, introduced unfunded
mandates legislation--the threshold was $50 million then and it has not
changed--I got two Senators, two Senators who would be cosponsors.
How times have changed. You said back, I guess in 1967 or 1968, you
were here. Where were you when I needed you 8 years ago? Where was all
this euphoria for unfunded mandates legislation? I introduced it a year
later--nothing happened. So I dropped it. Maybe I should have carried
it on. I would have been a part of the Contract With America. But I was
there 8 years ago. I was there 7 years ago. The threshold is the same.
Now you want to change some from $50 to $100 million. Things are
beginning to change. And there are now some changes being made in the
bill, I think for the better.
You can fuss at me all you want to. You just give me the devil. Devil
take the hindmost, you know? But I am doing what I think is right, and
two changes have made this bill better.
It does not go into effect until 1996. Why is the urge here to get
something
[[Page S1255]] done when mistakes are being made in the bill?
And one other thing, one other thing. Many of you, the new Members,
are from the House. Over in the House you could be paid for your travel
and be a frequent flier and you take those frequent flier miles and use
them personally. That is all right on the House side. We have never
done it on the Senate side. I am a chairman of the Rules Committee. I
said no, and that is agreeable.
So I had a little amendment here, if you recall, about a week or 10
days ago that said the House could not use taxpayers' money for
personal use. They get out here on the floor and every Republican voted
against me and said let the House take care of it. If they want to have
it for personal use, let them do it.
What is wrong is wrong and what is right is right. If you listened to
Sam Donaldson the other night, and the House let the bill go through
without making the changes and they are still getting the perk--you are
going to get that amendment again. Because 50 million people watched,
as they said the House did not take care of that personal perk. So
think about it just a little bit.
In this bill you are changing the rules of the House. You are
changing the rules of the House in this bill. And I am going to ask you
to stop it because you would not--Let them have the perk. So why should
you mandate changes in the rules of the House in this bill? All the
former House Members, how mad would you get when the Senate did that
when you were in the House? You got pretty mad, got pretty upset. You
did not want it done. That was the reasoning.
But now in this bill it is all right. It is in your bill that you
want to get through immediately, and you are changing the rules of the
House. Try a look at page 26, (d), lines 1 through 5. Just take that
little section of this bill and see what it does to the House. What is
fair for the goose is fair for the gander. And you are going to have
that amendment. You are going to say no, we just want to let them have
perks. But in this bill, this is the difference. We are going to find
out the attitude, and see how you go are going to vote because we are
going to get that amendment. And it is coming pretty quickly. Maybe we
can get it early Tuesday. But some changes ought to be made in the
bill, and they will be offered. We will have a chance. The Senate will
have a chance to be for or against this piece of legislation.
Mr. President, I do not know about my time. I do not know whether I
can reserve it. But some will not use time, and I will be able to get
more time later on.
But let us be reasonable about this. Talk about having comity. We get
up and say how bad we are. I can go back and give speeches maybe of
months ago almost identical on this side that the other side made. They
are almost identical. So as times change, the more they stay the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I come here to join my colleague from Oklahoma in his
comments concerning what is happening in the Senate. I have a
statement, but I want to yield to him for a few moments to respond to
the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I might say that under the rules of the
Senate, he can get, by asking unanimous consent, all the time he wants.
The Senator does not have to yield to him.
Mr. INHOFE. I say to the Senator from Kentucky that we know the
rules. But I would like to make one short response, if I may.
First of all, Mr. President, I have a great deal of respect for this
institution, and I have studied the background and the history of how
we got into a bicameral system. I think there is a very useful purpose
for that. I served 8 years in the House of Representatives, and things
run through there quickly. The train has slowed down here. But there is
a difference between slowing down the train and stopping the train.
When a statement is made about why the urgency since it does not take
effect until 1996, the urgency is that we have many other things in a
contract, a so-called Contract With America, things that Americans
believe they were voting for on November 8. We want an opportunity to
present those. We cannot do that if we get bogged down day after day
for hours and do not get much done with a bill.
I will make one other statement that I think is very significant.
Certainly, I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Kentucky. It
is true that when the Republicans were the minority here in this body,
that there was filibustering going on. I think even though it may not
have technically been a filibuster, what we have been experiencing in
the last 6 days certainly is very close to that. The difference is
this: The difference is when they were filibustering last year in this
body, they were filibustering a bill; for example, the Government
takeover of the health care system. That was something that 80 percent
of the people did not want.
What we are talking about now is unfunded mandates, which is
something that by survey 80 percent of the American people do want, and
I draw a major distinction between the two.
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I want to do is first respond to
the Senator from Kentucky and a couple of points that he made, and then
talk in general about the problem I think we are confronting here in
this debate on unfunded mandates.
I would agree with the Senator from Kentucky that amendments have
been offered to improve the bill. I would agree that the amendments he
referred to have in fact improved the bill, and have in fact gotten
bipartisan support, and the legislative process in that respect is
working.
I also remind the Senator from Kentucky that we are in the first step
of the process. We are considering the bill here for the first time.
The House is yet to bring it up. They are going to be considering
amendments under an open rule which will allow improvement to this
bill. We will then in all likelihood pass different versions of this
bill. It will then go to conference where different ideas that have
been percolated through the legislative process get resolved, and
hopefully even a better product will come out with the best ideas of
the House and Senate.
I do not think anyone would say that any bill that passes the House
or the Senate is perfect. There are always things that are going to
come up that could have been improved. We would like to see debate. I
would like to see debate on germane amendments that deal with the issue
of unfunded mandates. I would like to see improvements to the bill. I
would like to hear the concerns of both Republicans and Democrats as to
what we can do to make this bill a better and more efficient process
for reducing the amount of unfunded mandates that we pass on to the
State and local governments.
But that is not what is going on here. What is going on here are
amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with unfunded mandates,
like frequent flier amendments, abortion clinic amendments, and going
on and on, that have nothing to do with the substance of the bill that
are in these riders.
I remember when I was running for office, people would come up to me
and say, ``When you get to the Senate, you get rid of those riders, all
of those things that they just throw on these bills that have nothing
to do with the bill, that really clog up the legislative process and
get all these things thrown in there that we do not like.''
What we are seeing here is a classic example of what the American
public does not like, which is a bill that has broad public support
that is moving through the process, that is continually being derailed
on education issues, on abortion issues, and unfortunately we are not
getting back to the subject at hand, which is unfunded mandates, and
moving that process through which has overwhelming public support.
We are happy to deal with germane amendments and improvements to the
bill. That is what we have been striving to do--limit the debate with
cloture petitions that the majority leader has
[[Page S1256]] sent to the desk. Let us have a full and open debate on
unfunded mandates. Let us deal with the amendments that are germane to
the bill that could improve the quality of legislation. That is what we
are attempting to do with the cloture petition. Let us just deal with
the things that are germane, that are improvements to the bill, and let
us put all this other stuff--which may be important--let us put it
aside and we can bring it up another day.
As many Senators from both sides of the aisle said, we are in early
January. We have a lot of time in this session to deal with a variety
of issues.
But this is a bill that has the support that has been worked on for
at least 8 years, and has had bipartisan support for a long period of
time.
I just got off a conference call 2 days ago with mayors all across my
State. We did a conference call talking to them. The comments that I
got were just overwhelming. I have been getting calls from my county
commissioners from both sides of the aisle saying, ``Please move this
bill forward. We need this help. We need this assurance that you are
not going to continue to push more and more costs on local government
and State government without providing the needed funds to pay for
these programs.''
So we have the consensus. I agree the details need to be worked out.
The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. We have improved the
bill. There will hopefully be other amendments on which we can make
improvements, at least that we can discuss, to this bill. But let us do
that. Let us focus in on that.
I came from the House of Representatives. I have been reminded many,
many times that the House and the Senate are different bodies, and they
are. I appreciate the difference. I understand the Senate is a more
deliberative body. That is a wonderful thing.
I look back at last year, and look at the bills that were stopped
here in the Senate that were rammed through the House because of the
rules of the House, that were rammed through the House, that came here
to the Senate and were slowed down and in many cases changed, and in
some cases stopped completely. It was a benefit.
The Senator from Oklahoma referred to the health care bill. He is
absolutely right. That process was slowed down dramatically here in the
Senate, and I think to the benefit of the American public in the long
run.
So the Senate does have an important role to play. But when we have
pieces of legislation that have broad support, in fact have broad
bipartisan support in this body--we have 60-some cosponsors on this
bill--we have, hopefully, more that will actually vote for the bill.
When you have that kind of support, when you have the support here, the
support in the public, and you have--with this last election--a clear
mandate to move, then I think it is the obligation of the people who
support this measure, on both sides of the aisle, to stand up and say
that it is time to move forward.
So I hope that Republicans and Democrats can join together and push
this package forward and limit the debate to amendments that are
germane to improving the quality of this bill, so we can produce the
best product here in the Senate, so we can come up with the best piece
of legislation that the best minds in the country here in the U.S.
Senate can work on and craft and send to the House. And maybe if they
recognize the great handiwork that we have done here, they will just
accept what we have done.
They did that with the congressional accountability bill--another
bill that was slowed down for a week with spurious amendments on a
whole variety of different topics that had nothing to do with
congressional accountability. We did such fine work on the germane
amendments, such good handiwork here in the Senate on the underlying
bill, that we kept it, in a sense, clean from all these other
amendments. And when it came to the House, the House said: You folks
did a pretty good job; we will just pass your bill. In fact, it is now
on the President's desk.
That is the kind of action the folks in Pennsylvania want. I think
that is the kind of action folks all over the United States of America
want from this body. They want us to get down to business. They want us
to focus in, one by one, on the issues that are important to America.
The Senator from Kentucky is absolutely right. The frequent flier issue
is an important issue. It is a perk that the House should not have.
When I was in the House, I did not accept my frequent flier miles. I
did not use them for personal use. It was my office policy. The Senator
from Kentucky is right that that privilege is available and it should
not be. It should not be. I hope that we can work together and make
that happen. I hope the House acts quickly to do that. But I would not
be averse to putting some pressure on the House to do that.
Let us focus on what we all now agree should be passed, what needs to
be passed to restore to this institution the faith of the American
public that we are a body that listens, that we are a body that can
act, and that we are a body that understands our obligation to serve
the American public. I hope that is what we can do when we return for
votes Monday and Tuesday--that we can focus the attention back on the
bill, that we can improve the quality of the bill, that we can move the
bill forward quickly, that we can get to the other pieces of
legislation that are waiting in line behind unfunded mandates, like the
balanced budget amendment, that are important pieces of legislation
which, again, the public wants us to take up and move in a timely
fashion.
I do not want to stop debate on any amendment that improves the
quality of this bill, not one. Offer them, debate them. It is needed.
The Senator from West Virginia is absolutely right that there are
things in this bill that concern a lot of Members and a lot of people
in this country, and they should be debated. That is what we want to do
with this cloture motion. If we get an agreement to limit the number of
amendments and the time in which they can be offered, that is what we
want to do.
That is what this side of the aisle is trying to do. We are trying to
move the bill forward, trying to be accommodating. We are trying to
keep our promise with the American public to move this institution, to
get bills passed, to get it done in a prompt fashion, and to deliver on
the November election.
I think we can do that, and I hope that with the support of Members
on both sides of the aisle, we will be able to accomplish that.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] is
recognized.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair, what would be
the procedure now since we are limited to 15 minutes and no other
Senator is seeking recognition? What would be the parliamentary
procedure, so that we might understand that for the rest of the day?
I felt the Senator from Oklahoma could have gotten the floor in his
own right without----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair finds that as long as we are in
morning business, any Senator can be recognized for 15 minutes at a
time.
Mr. FORD. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for
an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would find that every time the
Senator is recognized, he would have 15 minutes; it is not necessary to
ask unanimous consent.
Mr. FORD. Now, that is clear.
____________________