[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1309-S1310]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           UNFUNDED MANDATES

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if urgent work comes up on behalf of the 
managers, I will step aside. But I just want to make some brief 
comments about a fascinating activity observed here by me on the Senate 
floor for these past several days.
  I noted this with some whimsy, because I recall that after the 
November election returns there was a great deal of speculation as to 
how the minority party would act, now, in its wake. What would the 
President now try to do to, say, out-Republican the Republicans? Would 
the Democrats hop on board the Republican train or would they lie down 
on the tracks?
  Interesting questions, all of them. Questions were also asked about 
how the Republicans would deal with having the majority. Would the 
House Republicans provide for a more open process, more consideration 
of minority views, or would they resort to the same ramrod tactics that 
the Democrats employed with some apparent relish, at least as I have 
observed it for 16 of the past 40 years?
  Somehow lost to the media amid all of this questioning is a 
fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats as to how, 
really, willing the two parties are to be on record, to have their 
votes scrutinized, and to be held up to the folks back home. Anyone who 
has watched the proceedings here in the Senate or the House the last 
several years has witnessed the strain and the energy that the 
Democratic Party has had to employ to avoid being put on record on any 
number of sensitive issues. Let me just cite a few examples I could not 
help but think of.
  When we had the pullout from Somalia, and that was considered, the 
House Rules Committee attempted to protect the Democrats by adopting a 
``King of the Hill'' rule. You remember that one--the rule that enables 
you to vote for one pullout date and then immediately following another 
one, a different one that supersedes it. We have another name for 
those. The Democrats seem to truly, truly enjoy those ``CYA'' 
amendments, one after another, so you can send the press release home, 
still having not done anything, but cover yourself nicely.
  Then you remember the balanced budget amendment. Do you remember that 
one? We had enough cosponsors to pass that one last time around. But 
every manner of contortion was used to enable the Democratic sponsors 
of the balanced budget amendment to find some reason to vote against 
the balanced budget amendment which they had cosponsored--a little bit 
of hypocrisy; just a touch.
  I think we recall the vexations facing the House Rules Committee last 
year when they were confronted with health care legislation of the type 
which the Republicans favored more than did the President. They had to 
keep it from getting to the House floor because they knew it would 
pass.
  You name the issue--whether it is the death penalty, gun control, 
term limits, balanced budget--the list is endless. And the struggle in 
this Chamber for years has been between Republicans trying to force 
votes on these issues and the Democrats attempting to prevent them, 
with all sorts of rationale, all thinly veiled, and all of that veil 
remarkably pierced on November 8.
  So the Democrats would shriek ``gridlock'' when we would introduce 
one of these amendments for Senate consideration. But it was nothing of 
the sort. Those bills favored by the majority--virtually every one of 
them--did eventually pass but not before Senators had put themselves on 
record on a number of issues. Finally, all the chickens came home to 
roost in November. Finally voters across the country realized that the 
man or woman they had sent to Washington really did not believe in the 
death penalty after all, did not really believe in lower taxes, did not 
really believe in spending cuts, did not really support the balanced 
budget amendment, and they sent them all packing.
  Why do I review this litany of activity? Because it is highly 
relevant to the situation we find ourselves in and found ourselves in 
this past week. I found in speaking to my Republican colleagues on the 
House and Senate side that the question has come up as to how open and 
inclusive our legislative process should be. Invariably, the answer has 
been, ``Of course. Of course, we can keep it as open as is humanly 
possible because unlike the previous Democratic overlords of years 
past, we have precious little to fear from the Democrats forcing votes 
on various issues. What can they possibly make us vote on that we are 
less willing to confront than are the Democrats? Where, precisely, are 
we out of step with the body politic, while they are in step, 
especially with our constituents?''
  Put that way, it becomes clear that the Republican majority have 
precious little to fear from the various stonewalling tactics from the 
other side. So I personally, having watched the Democratic minority at 
work here, am not in the least troubled by this remarkable strategy. It 
has deprived me of some light rest, but not of any certainty that we in 
the majority will prevail. In fact, I wonder with which political 
consultants they are working? Has 
[[Page S1310]] someone advised the Democrats that there is a political 
benefit to be gained from trying to block the unfunded mandates 
legislation, congressional accountability legislation, and the balanced 
budget amendment, or any one of a host of measures so eagerly awaited 
by the American public? If my Democratic friends wish to be shown to be 
on the wrong side of those issues, while at the same time pretending to 
support them, by all means I would hope they would be my guest because 
I will enjoy watching it.
  I feel many of those measures are going to pass anyway because of the 
overwhelming support they enjoy from the American public and the 
majority in both Chambers. Many are going to pass.
  I must say it astonishes me--and somewhat amuses me and bemuses me 
greatly--that somehow the opposing party has found someone who is 
willing and who is telling them to be seen as a party of trying to 
delay this train, to continue to support endless Federal mandates on 
States, counties, localities--and that means local taxpayers. We all 
know the saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. The Democrats 
seem to want to add a fourth option--lie down on the tracks.
  I actually read in the paper the other day that the Democrats were 
considering making a court challenge to the rule recently passed in the 
House requiring a supermajority to raise taxes. Now there is a 
political masterstroke. Sue the Representatives and the American public 
in order to be able to raise their taxes. How stunningly brilliant that 
is.
  So let me just close by thanking my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle for tactics employed this week and last on the unfunded 
mandates legislation for a piece of legislation that has been requested 
by most thoughtful people who administer local government. I think it 
makes me even more certain that the Republicans will enjoy a majority 
for many years to come.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________