[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.
____________________