[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1302-S1309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to curb the practice of imposing unfunded 
     Federal mandates on States and local governments; to 
     strengthen the 
     [[Page S1303]] partnership between the Federal Government and 
     State, local and tribal governments; to end the imposition in 
     the absence of full consideration by Congress, of Federal 
     mandates on State, local, and tribal governments without 
     adequate funding, in a manner that may displace other 
     essential governmental priorities; and to ensure that the 
     Federal Government pays the costs incurred by those 
     governments in complying with certain requirements under 
     Federal statutes and regulations, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I look forward to the beginning of 
this week and beginning debate on S. 1, our efforts to curb these 
unfunded Federal mandates.
  I have comments I would like to make which give an overview of the 
bill itself, what an unfunded mandate is, a couple of examples, why we 
are now on our sixth day of debate, what has transpired to this point, 
and what is the likelihood as we proceed.
  Mr. President, because the Senator from Oregon has a time constraint, 
I would like to yield so the Senator from Oregon could make his 
comments on S. 1 and following that then I would like to give the 
overview of this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President. I am speaking today as a supporter and 
original cosponsor of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I feel 
very strongly that this legislation before us strikes a balance between 
the Federal Government's responsibilities: First, to acknowledge the 
burden that unfunded mandates have on State and local governments, and, 
second, to ensure the rights of all persons contained in the U.S. 
Constitution are protected.
  The Federal Government has imposed over 170 unfunded laws on State 
and local governments which have resulted in thousands of unfunded 
Federal regulations. The Federal Government has not viewed itself as 
dependent on State and local governments in the past two decades.
  I want to underscore that point, Mr. President, because we have been 
talking about dollar obligations that are involved in these unfunded 
mandates. But much of that is because of the thousands of regulations 
that follow these mandates. In fact, it has been estimated that perhaps 
as much as $500 billion is expended each year to administer at the 
Federal, State, and local levels mandates initiated and adopted by the 
Federal Government.
  The major policies of the Federal Government have reflected a 
Washington D.C.-based arrogance; ``we''--``we'' the Federal legislators 
and ``we'' the bureaucrats--know best how to solve the problems of the 
country. In many respects, the Federal Government has overstepped its 
bounds in its relationship with State and local governments, and the 
intergovernmental system has ceased to function. This problem became 
very clear over the recent debate over health care. Washington believed 
it could prescribe a solution with a single piece of legislation. This 
approach was not the answer to health care problems and it is not the 
answer to any issue that requires intergovernmental cooperation.
  I have received numerous letters from national organizations praising 
this legislation for making the decisionmaking process for future 
Federal proposals and regulations more open, accountable, and informed. 
The number of letters and the diversity of groups which have written in 
support of this legislation speak to its importance to our Nation.
  More importantly, this national support is joined by hundreds of 
letters of endorsement from local governments throughout the State of 
Oregon. In the past few years, officials from local governments have 
written to me about the problems that unfunded mandates pose for Oregon 
communities. While the letters ask for support of mandate relief, they 
also note the need for Congress to make more informed decisions related 
to mandates for State and local governments. The Unfunded Mandate 
Reform Act of 1995 addresses both of those issues.
  My support for this legislation does not mean I will turn my back on 
my responsibility to uphold the Constitution to ensure all persons are 
treated equally in this country or protected from health and safety 
risks, and, of course, civil rights. We must not forget what good the 
Congress has done for people throughout history, including passing 
civil rights laws, voting rights laws, and ensuring the rights of the 
disabled through the Americans With Disabilities Act. Some--and I would 
say probably most--may view these bills as unfunded mandates, 
technically. I view them as the Federal Government playing its proper 
role in ensuring persons that their rights, their constitutional rights 
and their civil rights, as guaranteed under the Constitution prevail.
  We must also remember that the same Federal Government which has 
mandated certain actions in the past, is also ready to help citizens 
who have suffered enormous loses in the recent flooding in the State of 
California and earthquakes in California. It was not so long ago that 
my State was hit with an earthquake which caused severe damage--and 
that same Federal Government provided relief and assistance to 
literally thousands of people in need. The Federal Government does have 
an important role to play in this country, and we should not dismiss it 
lightly.
  Mr. President, while the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act looks into the 
future at new unfunded mandates, it does not look back at the current 
regulatory burdens that are imposed on State and local governments in 
addressing the needs of their citizens. We must look back as well as 
forward, and that is why I introduced S. 88, the Local Empowerment and 
Flexibility Act of 1995, on the first day of this Congress. The need to 
provide flexibility to local and State governments is enormous, and 
that is why I submit S. 88 as an amendment to the unfunded mandates 
bill before us.
                           Amendment No. 181

(Purpose: To increase the overall economy and efficiency of Government 
    operations and enable more efficient use of Federal funding, by 
enabling local governments and private, nonprofit organizations to use 
    amounts available under certain Federal assistance programs in 
           accordance with approved local flexibility plans)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 181.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility 
Act is designed to create a new spirit of cooperation among Federal, 
State, and local governments. It is important to remember that the 
solution to the problems in our intergovernmental system is a 
recognition that all of our bodies of government--Federal, State, 
local, and school districts--are interdependent. Each part of our 
system brings special talents, special skills, and special needs to the 
service of the people of the United States. It is time to transform the 
Federal-State-local relationship. This transformation must build on the 
strengths of all of the different governments in our country and must 
be based on trust, cooperation, and flexibility.
  The Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act will lead to strategic and 
realistic decentralization and deconcentration of power throughout the 
Government. The idea behind this legislation has four key aspects.
  First, different governments of this Nation have different strengths. 
The Federal Government does two things well: Effectively establishing 
broad goals that tie us together as a Nation; and achieving certain 
economies of scale which cannot be attained at the local level. The 
Federal Government often forgets that local governments bring a great 
deal of resources to the table. Perhaps the greatest strength is that 
States and local governments are innovators. Local and State 
governments have demonstrated again and again that they find the most 
creative ways to tackle problems in solutions 
[[Page S1304]] that fit the local context. This legislation recognizes 
the fundamental interdependence of governments and builds on the 
strengths of all governments that deliver services.
  I might note that many of our national laws that we feel today 
perhaps even originated at the national level did not do so. They were 
tried. They were experimented with. They were created by local 
governments at the State level, particularly Social Security, 
unemployment compensation, industrial accident compensation, and civil 
rights. Many of these things were tried at the local level as part of 
the creative nature of our federalism, our whole idea of federalism.
  Second, the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act will not only 
permit variation in how local governments meet national goals, but will 
encourage solutions that best fit the local context. Federal laws and 
regulations have tended to treat every area of the country the same. 
Universal requirements force Congress to legislate to the lowest common 
denominator, and consequently, few governments perform to their full 
capability.
  We are penalizing the progressive States like my own State in order 
to find that common denominator. We all strive to meet the average 
instead of to excel. Politically, socially, structurally, local and 
State governments are very different from one another. Why should the 
Federal Government declare that citizens in Oregon have the same needs 
as people in Florida, Kansas, or Maine? Adding flexibility to the 
Federal-State relationship will encourage local governments to find 
solutions that fit the local context. In addition, providing 
flexibility will eliminate regulations that force local governments to 
solve problems that they do not have.
  Third, this legislation will create a new system of accountability. 
Currently, the Federal Government holds State and local governments 
accountable through regulation, procedures, and paperwork. The existing 
accountability structure is very good at determining where Federal 
money is spent,
 but it tells us very little about whether we are actually achieving 
results. Hundreds of hours and dollars are invested in complying with 
these regulations, and the investment in bureaucratic processes does 
nothing to improve the quality of services that we deliver to citizens. 
Moreover, our current structure of accountability has made us very 
responsive to each other. That is, we are responsive bureaucrat to 
bureaucrat at all levels of our government, rather than to the people 
who we serve. We need to reorient our system of government and to view 
taxpayers as investors and our citizens as customers.

  Fourth, we must help retool all new governments for this new 
relationship. We need to reequip our Nation's governments to function 
in a new, cooperative environment. The Federal bureaucracies need to 
recreate the ability to listen to local governments. In the 1980's, we 
witnessed the destruction of the intergovernmental affairs offices at 
most Federal agencies. They were supposed to be the focal point of 
cooperation, of listening. The Federal Government must actively solicit 
and use the ideas and experience of State and local governments.
  I believe these two bills, Senate bills No. 1 and No. 88, strive to 
accomplish many of the same goals, including better informing the 
legislative process in Congress, stressing the need for flexibility for 
State and local governments to better meet the needs of the people they 
serve in an efficient and effective manner, and making it a goal that 
the Federal Government actively seek out and consult with State and 
local governments through the legislative process.
  Mr. President, I commend those who have worked so diligently in 
bringing this legislation before us, especially the author, Senator 
Kempthorne of Idaho. It is important that the balance contained in this 
legislation I alluded to earlier be kept intact. It is equally 
important that we pass this legislation.
  As it is not my intention to bog down this important bill, I want to 
indicate that at a particular moment in time I will withdraw my 
amendment. I will, however, pursue action on Senate bill No. 88 at the 
earliest opportunity. I am very hopeful that I can get the ear and the 
attention of the Governmental Affairs Committee. I will personally 
visit with Senator Roth, the chairman of that committee, and the 
ranking member, in order to get some assurance that this proposal, 
which has had its experience proven by the experience in my State of 
Oregon.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Senator 
from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield], for the common sense and wisdom of what he 
just stated. I know in our case, in Idaho, we know that Atlanta, ID, of 
a few hundred people is quite different from Atlanta, GA, of a million 
people. We have to have flexibility. The requirements have to fit. I 
have met with Senator Hatfield in his office and discussed the proposal 
and I was taken by the common sense of it, and by the enthusiasm by 
which he is proceeding with this. Again, I thank the Senator from 
Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we now have before us Senate bill No. 
1, our efforts to curb unfunded Federal mandates.
  This begins now the sixth day of debate on this bill. During the 
course of the debate, we had concerns that were expressed because 
committee reports were not available. That has been rectified. So all 
Members of the Senate now have committee reports in their possession, 
which they have had the opportunity to read. It is, through the 
process, necessary for us to deal with any committee amendments that 
were added in through either the Governmental Affairs Committee or the 
Budget Committee. We have taken those. Whereas, in some instances, 
committee amendments will be agreed to, en bloc, with this particular 
bill, it was necessary because of concerns expressed by Members of the 
Senate that we take them one at a time. We have now dealt with all of 
those committee amendments, so that we now have the actual language of 
the bill before us and we can begin discussing the amendments that 
Members of the Senate would like to suggest be made part of this bill. 
There are something like 60 amendments that we have been notified may 
be brought forward.
  We talk about an unfunded mandate, but what does that really mean? 
Well, the definition is that it is an enforced, nonvoluntary duty 
imposed by the Federal Government on State and local governments, 
tribal governments, or the private sector. Enforced, nonvoluntary.
  In doing that, the Federal Government has not followed the practice 
of providing the funds to carry out those responsibilities of those new 
Federal programs. The reality is that it precludes State and local 
officials from being able to set their own priorities. Again, as a 
former mayor, I know when we would begin a new year and talk about our 
priorities, we knew full well that those priorities that we thought 
were important at the local level would be impacted by what the Federal 
Government then sent down as an unfunded Federal mandate saying, ``You 
will do this.'' You do not have a choice and you will provide the funds 
to do it. Oftentimes, cities and counties, for example, have no 
recourse but to use local property taxes to pay for these unfunded 
Federal programs.
  It is estimated that anywhere between 10 and 15 percent of a local 
community's budget right off the top goes to pay for the Federal 
programs. At the State level, I have heard numbers as high as 25 and 35 
percent right off the top that must go to pay for these Federal 
mandates. What are the costs of these mandates? Well, I think the 
American public has now come to realize that while we have practiced 
the imposition of these unfunded mandates, Congress has not been 
required to ask before making a decision, ``How much do these cost?'' 
They are multimillion and multibillion dollars in size and, yet, our 
practice has been that someone might ask as we are voting during that 
15-minute period, ``Does there happen to be a mandate in here and does 
anybody have an idea as to how much it might be?'' because it was not 
required.
  [[Page S1305]] I find it amazing because I cannot think of businesses 
or many other entities that can make multimillion-dollar decisions and 
not know the impact or dollar amount before they make those decisions. 
So, really, these take on the nature of a hidden Federal tax paid for 
by local property taxes. In Moscow, ID, it was pointed out that during 
1994, local property taxes and user fees went up 73.5 percent because 
of unfunded Federal mandates; a 73-percent increase. In Boise, ID, at a 
water treatment facility it was determined by the Federal Government 
that the standards needed to be adjusted. In order to do that, it 
required that that treatment facility had to be reconstructed at a cost 
of $15.5 million. Now, that cost of the reconstruction was not done 
because of any health risk, because of any increase in customer load, 
and was not done for any greater efficiency for the delivery of water; 
it was done because a Federal standard was adjusted. And so the 
ratepayers had a 30-percent rate increase.
  From Kooskia, ID, which is a community of just a few hundred people, 
I received this letter the other day from Inge Stickney, who is the 
mayor of Kooskia, ID. She started off by saying:

       On C-SPAN today, I listened to you as did a lot of my 
     neighbors. Many phone calls later, all of us agreed that you 
     served us and the State of Idaho very well today.
       The unfunded mandates are not only an impossible burden for 
     all of us to carry, most of them are senseless.
       Nobody wants to cut down the last tree, we all want clean 
     air and good, clear water. Reality is that more and more 
     people are going to require that much more of those precious 
     resources. No amount of preservation will save this planet 
     for humankind until we face the facts, all of which you well 
     know.
       I am mayor of Kooskia, a small logging town in Idaho 
     county. It is of the greatest concern to me to where we are 
     headed in the 21st century. Our small town has spent 
     thousands of dollars on water tests which do not reflect our 
     geological area. With our revenue declining, we struggle to 
     be in compliance with State and Federal laws, some of which 
     make no sense and cost too much.
       As a private small trailer court owner, I am facing the 
     loss of a business which was supposed to see us through our 
     older years. I am 68 years young now. I cannot afford water 
     testing costs in excess of thousands of dollars yearly. We 
     have 15 trailer spaces and three one-bedroom apartments. We 
     charge $50 per trailer space and $125 for the apartments. 
     Most of our renters have been there for many years. They are 
     old people who live on a monthly income averaging below $500 
     per month. We do not make enough money off this small court 
     to pay for the expensive tests. We have an excellent well 
     with beautifully clean water, never had trouble with the well 
     water. The EDQ people told me to raise the rent. Well, for 
     our renters, even $5 more a month is a problem. The EDQ 
     people told me to sell * * *, well, where will those people 
     go?
       Because we have another income, we have chosen to maintain 
     status quo for now. We are willing to do everything we can to 
     comply with all laws, as long as we can afford it.

  I think this drives the point home, Mr. President. In Kooskia, ID, a 
small business operator who happens to be the mayor of Kooskia, with a 
trailer community of 15 trailers, and some people in Government are 
saying, ``Well, if you can't afford it, then you should sell.'' Well, 
if Inge sells, the next owner is going to have to raise the cost of the 
rental on those trailer spaces and then, really, these people that live 
there and have lived there for years, many of whom are retired loggers 
and farmers, will not have much choice. It will push it beyond their 
income. It may push it to the point that they then need to have 
Government help in order to continue their livelihood.
  But, that shows you the extent of the decisions that we make here at 
the Federal level. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon us to have 
as much information as is meaningful before we cast these votes. So 
that is what S. 1 is all about.
  To give you just an overview of the process, the first thing that 
happens is that the committee considering this proposed legislation 
will notify the Senate Budget Committee of its intent to consider the 
legislation so that the Congressional Budget Office can begin the 
process of assembling the statistical data to develop cost estimates.
  Next, at the request of the chairman or ranking member of any House 
or Senate committee, the Congressional Budget Office shall study this 
legislation for its cost impact. In doing that study, CBO will consult 
with State and local elected officials--the very people that are going 
to be impacted--firsthand so that we have their input at that stage of 
the process.
  Also, Federal agencies are to provide the Congressional Budget Office 
with the information and assistance it needs to fulfill its cost-
estimating responsibilities. I expect that most committees would take 
advantage of this provision because they will be charged with cost 
information that they will need to ultimately write the bill. That is 
why S. 1 enhances this whole process.
  Next, the committees will have hearings, and all interests, both 
public and private, will have an opportunity to express their views. 
Both public and private interests will make known if they have concerns 
about this proposed legislation that the committee is considering.
  At any time during the process, committees have a choice. They can 
either seek to comply with the provisions of S. 1, meaning that they 
will get the cost estimates and funding for public sector mandates; or 
they can decide that they wish to have a waiver of this process. And if 
a majority of this body agrees with that, then the waiver is granted.
  Committees will then markup the bill. And for the first time, 
committees will know that the Congressional Budget Office has looked at 
cost mandates to both the public and private sectors and that State and 
local officials were consulted in that process. Armed with this 
information, committees can decide, again, either to seek the waiver of 
the point of order, or it can decide to provide direct spending for 
each fiscal year or to provide an increase in receipts or to identify a 
subsequent and specific appropriations bill that will fund the mandate.
  I want to emphasize a key point here. S. 1 says that authorizing 
committees should be responsible for funding the mandates that they 
establish. We keep the responsibility for the funding of these mandates 
on the authorizing committees, which is where the mandates originate.
  Suppose the appropriators--we have the authorizers and then, of 
course, the appropriators--that provide the actual money do not fund 
the mandates? S. 1 takes that issue into account. In the authorizing 
bill, committees need to do two additional tasks: Designate the agency 
responsible for establishing procedures for imposing less costly 
responsibilities on State and local governments to meet the objectives 
of the mandate to the extent that appropriations may pay for the 
mandate; or designate a responsible Federal agency and establish the 
criteria and procedures to declare the mandate ineffective on October 1 
of the fiscal year.
  Once committees have approved legislation that includes Federal 
mandates, they must submit the legislation to the Congressional Budget 
Office and identify mandates contained in the bill.
  Once committees have approved legislation that includes Federal 
mandates, they must submit accompanying committee reports that identify 
and describe the Federal mandates in the bill.
  The committee report must also state the degree to which a Federal 
mandate affects both the public and private sectors, the extent to 
which Federal payment of public sector costs would affect a competitive 
balance between State and local governments and the private sector, and 
whether there are any adverse impacts to the private sector as a result 
of the funding modification or termination of public sector mandates.
  Next, if the bill contains any intergovernmental mandates, the 
committee report must include a statement of the amount, if any, of an 
increase or decrease in the amount of authorization of appropriations 
to pay for the mandate, whether the committee intends for the mandate 
to be partly or entirely funded, and sources of funding to pay for the 
mandate.
  Again, if it is a mandate on the public sector that exceeds $50 
million annually, then the Federal Government should provide the funds 
for that.
  Committees must also include a cost estimate from the CBO director in 
committee reports.
  The Congressional Budget Office must estimate the direct costs of all 
intergovernmental mandates that exceed $50 million in any of the 4 
fiscal years following the first year funds are 
[[Page S1306]] provided; the amount, if any, of increase in 
authorization or appropriations under existing Federal financial 
programs that will be used to pay for the mandates that are contained 
in the bill; and the amount of private sector mandates in excess of 
$200 million a year.
  If the committee fulfills all of these requirements, then this point 
of order does not lie against the bill.
  I will also make the point, Mr. President, that the point of order is 
not self-initiating. A Member of the Senate must proceed in making the 
point of order.
  Mr. President, a very important point, and that is, this bill is not 
retroactive. It does not affect existing mandates that are currently in 
place and on the books.
  While I say that, Mr. President, I would like to make this point. 
When we say this bill is not retroactive, I think the debate has been 
retroactive. I have found so often while we have debated this bill, the 
different occasions when you may have Members on this side of the aisle 
or Members on that side of the aisle who will stand up and say, ``But 
don't you remember back in 1974 when your side did this?'' ``Oh, yes, 
but don't you remember back in 1979 when your side did this?'' ``Yes, 
but that is because you had done this to us previous to that.''
  Mr. President, I think that the debate should not be retroactive. 
This piece of legislation is bipartisan. We have 63 Senators that have 
put their name on this bill saying this is a bill they are proud of and 
they want to go forward. It was developed by the chairman and ranking 
member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, my office, and many, many people from 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. President, I will close by just issuing this invitation to all 
Senators that have amendments that have been filed at the desk, or 
notified us of amendments, that, to the extent and as early as 
possible, you make copies of those amendments available to us so that 
we could determine those amendments that we find acceptable, that make 
improvements to this bill, so that we could move on through this list 
of 60-plus amendments and get to the point that we can have the final 
discussion and final vote on S. 1, our efforts to curb unfunded Federal 
mandates.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I had noticed three amendments to this 
legislation and had sent them to the desk early Friday morning. So they 
have been properly filed and called relative to a unanimous-consent 
request.
  I inquire of the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio--I 
would very much like to proceed, as well. I think the points made by a 
number of Senators are well taken. I am very interested in proceeding 
to debate the amendments that I have offered and vote on those 
amendments.
  Let me ask if it is appropriate to call up one of the amendments and 
we could set it aside. I know there is at least one other Senator who 
wishes to speak on at least one of my amendments. If other Senators are 
interested in speaking on the amendment I would call up first, then we 
could call for a vote on that amendment and have it after 4 o'clock.
  Mr. GLENN. Parliamentary inquiry. As I understand our situation, 
amendments can be called up today, we can debate them during the day, 
but it is just that no votes will occur until after 4 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, but there is an 
amendment by Senator Hatfield.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, has that order been set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this point.
  Mr. GLENN. Would we need to formally set that aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unanimous consent would have to be requested.
  Mr. GLENN. So that we can get on with the business of the Senate on 
this, I ask unanimous consent that the Hatfield amendment be 
temporarily set aside so we can continue with debate on other 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 180

(Purpose: To provide for the treatment of Federal requirements for the 
             utilization of metric systems of measurement)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) for himself, 
     Mrs. Kassebaum, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 
     180.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 38 after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 205. TERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR METRIC SYSTEM OF 
                   MEASUREMENT

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department, 
     agency, or other entity of the Federal Government may require 
     that any State, local, or tribal government utilize a metric 
     system of measurement.
       (b) Exception.--A department, agency, or other entity of 
     the Federal Government may require the utilization of a 
     metric system of measurement by a State, local, or tribal 
     government in a particular activity, project, or transaction 
     that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act if 
     the head of such department, agency, or other entity 
     determines that the termination of such requirement with 
     respect to such activity, project, or transaction will result 
     in a substantial additional cost to the Federal Government in 
     such activity, project, or transaction.
       (c) Sunset.--Subsection (a) shall cease to be effective on 
     October 1, 1997.
       On page 41, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (4) Treatment of requirements for metric systems of 
     measurement.--
       (A) Treatment.--For purposes of paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     Commission shall consider requirements for metric systems of 
     measurement to be unfunded Federal mandates.
       (B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``requirements 
     for metric systems of measurement'' means requirements of the 
     departments, agencies, and other entities of the Federal 
     Government that State, local, and tribal governments utilize 
     metric systems of measurement.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe this amendment. But before 
I do, let me also explain that I intend to speak and, hopefully, offer 
two amendments today. I have three amendments that I have noticed, one 
of which I will hold until tomorrow. The two amendments I hope we can 
consider today--and I would like to receive a vote on both--are this 
amendment, which is the issue of mandating the metric system 
requirements on State, local, and tribal governments. I will discuss 
this amendment in a moment.
  The other amendment relates to the ultimate mandate which may occur 
this week: That is, the Federal Reserve will meet again and mandate 
increased interest rates in our country. And my amendment with respect 
to the Federal Reserve is very simple. It simply says that when the 
Federal Reserve Board meets, as always in secret, and mandates an 
increase in interest rates that will affect virtually all Americans, 
that within 30 days of taking that action they shall submit to the 
Congress and submit to the President a report assessing how much that 
mandate has cost the Federal Government in interest payments on the 
debt, and has cost State and local governments and the rest of the 
private sector. So that will be the second amendment I will offer.
  Again, I have no intention of delaying these things. I would very 
much like to offer them and debate them. There are a number of Senators 
who want to speak on the Federal Reserve Board amendment. My intention 
will be to move forward these two amendments, and vote on them.
  Let me, if I can, describe the metric system amendment that I have 
called up.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Based on your comments--and I appreciate them--this 
is how we need to proceed. Would the Senator be willing to enter into a 
time agreement?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would enter into a time agreement on 
both amendments, but before I do that, give me a little time to check 
with the other folks who want to speak. I would not expect either 
amendment to take a great length of time. Let me, if I 
[[Page S1307]] might, speak on the amendment I have called up first. 
Senator Kassebaum and Senator Reid may wish to speak and I do not know 
who else wants to speak on the metric system amendment. I do not expect 
to consume a great deal of time. At the conclusion of both amendments I 
will ask for a recorded vote on each.
  Let me describe the amendment with respect to the metric conversion. 
This country, some many years ago, decided that it wanted to proceed to 
enforce the utilization of the metric system of measurement in our 
country. I do not have any strong feelings one way or the other about 
the metric system of measurement. I do have some feelings about the 
Federal Government's enforcement of it in a manner that really defies 
common sense.
  We can, it seems to me, get to the point where the Federal Government 
says we shall move toward the metric system of measurement and we will 
enforce that by requiring the Federal Government to be the leader. What 
we do at the Federal level is tell the Department of Transportation we 
would like the Department to go out in the country and tell all the 
States to take down all their green highway signs that say how many 
miles it is to the next rest stop or how many miles it is to the next 
off ramp on the highway. We replace those signs with signs that tell 
the American people how many kilometers it is to the next rest stop or 
to the next exit or ramp.
  I have been in Congress for 14 years and I have yet to have a 
constituent write to me and ask if we could not please make some 
adjustment in the road signs. I have not had a constituent tell me it 
bothers them they cannot get into their car and access information 
about kilometers to the next rest stop or fuel stop. Not one 
constituent has ever indicated to me that that is a major problem.
  But the Federal Government says that there is a problem and here is 
the solution. The solution is we spend money to take down the English 
signs and put up metric signs.
  This controversy brings me to the floor today. I will give another 
example of one little project. We are trying to build some houses, the 
money for which has already been appropriated to house health service 
workers on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, workers that are 
desperately needed to staff a health service center that is being built 
to address very serious health problems on this Indian reservation.
  The problem is that they do not have housing available and we need to 
build some housing units. So, money was appropriated to do that. The 
plans, then, to build the houses proceeded. But then we discover that 
these houses, I believe it is some 20-housing units, to house health 
service workers, have to be built in the metric system on the Turtle 
Mountain Indian Reservation.
  Why? Because a Federal agency says they must. It is an enforced 
mandate. What is the consequence of that? The consequence is that it 
will cost more and it will take longer. The consequence is that if we 
have contractors up there that do not have workers skilled in using 
metric measurements, we have to get contractors from somewhere else. If 
we have suppliers that cannot supply in metric units, we buy from 
somewhere else.
  This does not make any sense. Does it make sense for General Motors 
to use the metric system when it is engaged in commerce in other 
countries, selling products where the metric system is standard? Of 
course it does, and they do. The market system tells them what to do 
and when to do it. But there is no market system I know of that says 
the Federal Government ought to enforce a metric system when building a 
few houses on an Indian reservation in a manner allowing us in the end 
to say this cost more and took longer because we want to satisfy a 
requirement that someone had some time ago to say we want to enforce 
the Metric Conversion Act.
  Senator Kassebaum, Senator Reid and I are proposing a 2-year 
moratorium on any Federal department or agencies requiring State, 
local, and tribal government to use the metric system of measurement.
  I am not suggesting we go back and revisit everything that has been 
done, but I am saying that in the next 2 years we should ask the 
commission that will study all Federal mandates to also evaluate the 
consequences and the costs of requiring the metric system of 
measurement on State, local, and tribal governments and who will bear 
those costs.
  My amendment would impose a moratorium on metric mandates to State, 
local, and tribal governments for a 2-year period. During that period 
the Commission that is called for to study mandates in this legislation 
will study and evaluate and report to Congress the cost of metric 
mandates.
  There are some who will argue that ``we have been through this debate 
and the metric system makes good sense.'' I will not contest that. The 
point I am making today is not that there are not some areas in this 
country where we already have moved to the metric systemn and where we 
will continue to convert to the metric system in the future. My point 
is when we are short of money and when we are discussing unfunded 
mandates, I would like us at the same time to at least put the brakes 
on this conversion--a conversion manifested by virtually every Federal 
agency with a metric enforcement officer.
  From my perspective, requiring the few little houses up on the Turtle 
Mountain Indian Reservation to use the metric system is a good example 
why some good ideas do not make much sense and have an impractical 
impact on some small projects out in the country.
  My hope is that the Senator from Idaho and others reviewing this 
amendment will decide that a 2-year moratorium will make some sense. 
Again, I am not repealing the Metric Conversion Act nor am I suspending 
all metric conversion activities in the Federal Government. I am simply 
asking for a 2-year moratorium to have the very Commission we are 
describing in this bill study it and report back to us.
  This is a classic mandate, one which I think we should address. As I 
have said before, Senator Kassebaum and Senator Reid will be over to 
support this legislation, as well. I will be happy, after I consult 
with their offices, to reach a time agreement so we can get a time 
certain on this.
  I will be happy to yield the floor at this point.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, 
is there any estimate as to how much costs have been sent to the States 
to comply with the metric law as passed and as now being administered?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator from Ohio, I have no estimate of 
that. That is part of the problem and part of what has caused this 
legislation to come to the floor today. We have very little information 
about who does what and on whom our various costs are imposed. That is 
why I simply want to just suspend metric mandates for 2 years.
  I should say to the Senator from Ohio, there is an exception here. If 
you have an agency or other entity of the Federal Government with a 
project that is well down the road, and the termination of the metric 
requirement they now have with respect to that project would result in 
substantial additional costs, the project would be able to continue. I 
do not intend to interrupt that at all. I do not know what metric 
mandates are costing State and local governments. That is precisely why 
I think it would be useful to have this Commission study it for 2 
years.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will look at this later today, and we 
will listen attentively as others speak on this subject pro and con, 
but let me give you my impression of the metric bill that was passed 
some years ago.
  I supported it then, for a very good reason; I thought and still 
think that we have to become more metric literate in this country and 
more competitive in this particular area in our worldwide commerce. So 
it takes on a new relevance to me when we are moving with GATT and all 
the increased international trade that expands every year that we have 
more of our businesses, particularly small business, for example, that 
become metric literate so they can compete in the international 
marketplace.
  My distinguished colleague mentions some of the manufacturing that 
goes on. I think where you have the big 
[[Page S1308]] international manufacturers of Ford and GM and Chrysler, 
and others, they already have moved into metric because it is required 
in the international marketplace, and to do business, they have to have 
metric.
  So they have moved in that area. One reason I supported this 
legislation earlier--and, in fact, was interested enough in it I made a 
nomination to the metric board--one of our newspaper editors in Ohio, 
Paul Block out of Toledo, the Toledo Blade, was very interested in this 
metric conversion. He was a scientist in his own right, a chemist, and 
was concerned that we be competitive in the international marketplace 
and that we move to metric as most of the rest of the world has; that 
we are not completely alone in our adherence to the old English 
measuring system, and so on. We are certainly in the minority of the 
major manufacturing areas of the world in not basing our manufacturing 
on a metric system.
  We have seen our major industries convert, but I have been encouraged 
that we seek more metric literacy so that our students and our people 
growing up understand it better and understand how a kilogram relates 
to a pound and all the other measures and the number of screw threads 
per inch or per centimeter that is important in manufacturing. So I 
have supported this.
  I would be interested if there are any figures, or if other speakers 
today on this particular amendment can provide any figures as to cost 
estimates of how much costs have been increased to the States by this 
particular piece of legislation.
  It was my impression, and I would have to go back and check the law 
on this, that the road signs that were referred to by my colleague were 
only required to have metric on them if replaced. It was not a 
requirement that the States take down every road sign and go out and 
have metric on every single road sign. I thought that it was as those 
road signs had to be replaced, which was over a period of time, that 
then metric had to be included on them. I may be wrong on that. We have 
to go back and check the requirements on it.
  I would be particularly interested in any cost estimates as to how 
much this has cost the States to comply with this mandate.
  Let me say something else. I visit schools in Ohio on a reasonably 
regular basis. I have been encouraged to go into some of these 
classrooms and find out now for the first time they are requiring 
students to get into the metric system and really understand it, not 
just as some passing thing where you can look up in a book how to 
convert, but actually use it and understand it.
  That bodes very well for the future because as these students come 
out and move into business themselves, they are far more literate in 
this area and much more able to conduct business in the area of 
international commerce than they otherwise would be.
  So I would be interested in any estimates of costs that have been 
incurred or estimates thereof that we could use in this debate today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I observe that the appetite for agencies 
to enforce is a never-ending appetite. I would not expect the Senator 
from Ohio has a great deal of faith in the bureaucracy looking at 
enforcing mandates and then deciding, ``Well, let's do this in a 
commonsense way; let's do this only when the highway sign wears out so 
we have one highway sign that says `Next exit 30 kilometers' and then 2 
miles later, another highway sign that says `Next exit 18 miles.'''
  What happened there? One sign had worn out and the other sign had 
not. So you have a highway that has kilometers and miles.
  The fact is, the Department of Transportation and the enforcement 
officers intent on enforcing this have a scheme in mind of tearing down 
the highway signs that exist and putting up metric signs accross the 
country. The problem is, that costs an enormous amount of money. It 
costs the American taxpayers a substantial amount of money they ought 
not have to spend.
  All of the things the Senator from Ohio said I largely agree with. It 
is in this country's best interest, where it is engaged in 
international trade, to trade in units where those with whom we are 
trading are using those common units. In many cases, that is the metric 
system.
 In trade-sensitive industries, they have long since converted to 
metric. But you get a perverse result, it seems to me, when we have an 
enforcement mechanism in the Federal Government to require State, 
local, and tribal governments to convert to metric.

  That is my only point. I really believe that every good idea is taken 
to the end of its pendulum swing by someone whose belief it is to be an 
enforcement officer. I would like us to find out what is the answer to 
the question the Senator from Ohio raised. What is the ultimate cost to 
the taxpayer? And then maybe we can evaluate the cost-benefit with 
respect to a mandate.
  So that is the purpose of my amendment. Again, I have no quarrel with 
the notion that in order to trade internationally we ought to deal in 
those units. Last week, we discovered with last month's trade figures 
that this year we well have the worst trade deficit in the history of 
civilization. Not just this country, but the worst trade deficit anyone 
in the world has ever known. So it may just be that with that kind of 
trade strategy and those kinds of trade deficits, we will someday, of 
course, be directed to do certain things by others who now have enough 
American dollars in their pockets to order mandates in this country 
that they choose. But my hope is that we will straighten out this trade 
mess and redefine what global responsibilities are long before we get 
to that point.
  I thank the Senator from Ohio for his comments and think that we do 
not disagree on the merits of using the metric system where it is 
important and where it is useful for the interests of this country or, 
conversely, the merits of using the English system of measurement where 
that is important and where that is useful to the interests of this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in response, I do not know who the Senator 
referred to as those who are scheming, as he put it, to go beyond what 
was originally intended with this law. If there are those in the 
agencies who are doing exactly that, then we have to disabuse them of 
that and bring them up short in a very short period of time.
  I am interested in what the law actually provided, period. What we 
required the States to do, what we required schools to do, 
universities, whatever. We gave some latitude to the metric board, the 
commission that was formed to administer this. But as far as other 
people being able to scheme to force the States to take highway signs 
down or to force action like that, quite apart from what was provided 
in the law, then I think we ought to be very careful of that. We all 
could give chapter and verse of examples where the people over in the 
agencies writing the rules and regulations pursuant to well-intentioned 
legislation passed here in the Congress go too far and they have to be 
brought up short.
  There are two ways we do that in our regular, normal scheme of things 
in Government. One, all the regulations are to be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, and they are to pass on what rules and regulations 
are legitimate and permit them to go forward and make sure at that 
point, at OMB and OIRA, the requirements of law are being carried out 
and nothing more.
  So we do not propose to let the people over in the executive branch 
of Government in a particular agency administer the laws up here to 
their own liking. And if that is being done, then I will join my 
distinguished colleague today or any time in the future in seeing that 
we bring them up short on that and make sure they do not go beyond the 
realm of what was in the law itself as written here and what the 
legislative history shows is the intent of the law. If they are going 
beyond that and requiring things that the law as written and signed 
into law by the President did not provide, then we should stop them 
immediately.
  So I would join him in that effort here. But I have not seen any 
evidence 
[[Page S1309]] yet that that really is a major problem. I have not 
heard any real major complaint from the States in that regard.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might make one additional comment, 
there are some areas where the mandate will require someone to pay more 
and take more time because there is a conversion and some areas where 
it will not. Let me give you an example with respect to the highway 
signs.
  The taxpayer is the one who pays for the replacement of the highway 
signs. Whether it is the taxpayer paying Federal taxes or State taxes 
probably has less importance to the taxpayer because they still have to 
pay the taxes.
  In August 1993, DOT announced in a notice in the Federal Register 
that ISTEA now permitted Federal aid to reimburse States for costs that 
will be incurred when they install the metric highway signs.
  What they said is we are now prepared to give you funds for 
converting those signs. They are not talking old signs or new signs. 
They are saying here are the funds available, and of course what they 
will do is find devices to say there are no funds, there is no cost to 
this mandate. But this is a mandate. Go do this.
  My point is I do not want the American taxpayers to have to be paying 
out of any pocket for any mandates that are not mandates considered by 
this Congress. And that is the reason I bring this to attention in this 
piece of legislation. The fact is they are paying for an activity the 
American taxpayer should not have to bear at this point. We do not have 
to take down perfectly good highway signs and put up new signs with 
kilometers. That is an enormous waste of money, in my judgment.
  I just have, I guess, enough experience to know that the bureaucratic 
system, left to its own devices, will try to find the end of this 
pendulum swing, and I think it will end up costing the taxpayers money. 
That is why I would like to put on the enforcement brakes for 2 years 
and have this commission study it. Now, if the study determines that 
this is not imposing any significant costs on anyone, is not very 
troublesome, then that is fine. That is an answer, I guess, that we 
would have then that we do not now.
  If they find, on the other hand, that this can impose a substantial 
amount of additional costs with very little additional gain, I say let 
us step in here on the part of the American taxpayer and give them a 
little help. At least let us get the facts before someone runs ahead 
with the mandate.
  That is the point I am making in the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might speak in 
morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________