[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1398-S1408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was very pleased that last week the
Senate took a little time out to pass a very important amendment
regarding violence at health care clinics around this country. I know
it was difficult for some of my Republican friends to stop other
business and pending matters. They have a contract they want to get
through. But as I pointed out, the world goes on, contract or no
contract, and we need to respond.
I think the fact that we did respond before the anniversary of Roe
versus Wade was very important in terms of timing. I went to a clinic
in California in Riverside County. I want to tell my friends in the
Senate on both sides of
[[Page S1399]] the aisle that those doctors, those nurses, those
patients that came out to commemorate Roe versus Wade were very
grateful to the U.S. Senate, and very grateful to the Attorney General
because marshals were sent there to ensure their safety.
As I said to those who came to the commemoration of Roe versus Wade,
this is the greatest country on Earth because we settle our problems
peacefully and we are not like Bosnia and other countries where we
decide issues through the barrel of a gun. There are going to be very
many issues that we face in our Nation that are going to divide us. The
beauty of America is that we are tolerant, or should be tolerant, of
each other's views, and we will decide these issues with the rule of
law.
Unfortunately, yesterday we heard from some of the organizations that
want to make abortion illegal in this country. We heard that they put
out a hit list of a dozen physicians. They handed out the names of
these physicians, their addresses, their photos, and the stalking
continues. The stalking goes beyond the physicians, to their families,
their children, their loved ones at their churches, synagogues, at
their homes, places where one should be at peace.
So I will call on all sides in this very difficult debate to condemn
violence. When we speak to each other, speak in terms that do not
insight violence. We cannot on the one hand say this is murder and then
take no responsibility when someone takes those words literally.
I again want to thank my colleagues in the U.S. Senate on both sides
for that overwhelming vote on that resolution, which I understand has
been extricated from this bill and stands on its own as a sense of the
Senate. I think it is very meaningful. I think we have to keep our eye
on that issue.
Mr. President, violence seems to be so common in the world today. The
tragedy that took place in Israel must be condemned as we have
condemned such terrorism before. If peace talks are abandoned in the
Middle East because of violence, then the terrorists will have won.
That is another area where I hope we can perhaps take off our green
eyeshades for a few minutes and let the world know that the U.S. Senate
condemns that kind of international terrorism.
Mr. President, I have been waiting a long time to speak about S. 1. I
am a member of one of the committees of jurisdiction, the Budget
Committee. At the time that the Budget Committee took up S. 1, my
chairman, Senator Domenici, and my ranking member, Senator Exon, asked
if I would delay my amendments until we got to the Senate floor. I feel
very strongly about these amendments, but I agreed to that because I
like the thrust of S. 1. I was in local government myself. This is a
good bill. I want to see this bill passed. I think it is a good bill. I
believe the amendments that I offered will make this bill a better
bill. I believe many of the amendments offered by Senator Levin will
also improve the bill, and I must praise him for his incredible work on
this bill. I watched until the last moment last night as Senator Levin
asked both managers for their views on certain important issues
surrounding S. 1.
I think it is fair to say both managers were very articulate but in
some cases did not exactly agree with each other on some provisions in
S. 1. These are the things that we need to work out so that we have a
good bill, so that we do not have a bill that is going to paralyze this
U.S. Senate and hurt the people of this country. That is not anyone's
intent.
But I think we have to examine this bill and see what it does. I am
going to go over these charts that explain exactly what happens under
S. 1 and whether we feel it has not crossed the line and become
paralysis by analysis.
Again, I want to say that I am in agreement with the thrust of this
bill. I was a local government official for 6 very proud years, a
member of the board of supervisors of Marin County, CA. I won my first
seat in 1976, and I saw many laws that were passed down from the State,
and Federal Governments that we had to deal with. By the way, some of
them were excellent laws. Some of them were paid for. Some of them
called for partnerships between Federal, State and local government. I,
frankly, grew up in politics with the understanding that there should
be a partnership here.
When someone comes to the U.S. Senate, it does not make them a bad
person. I am the same person I was when I was a local elected official.
I am just a little bit older and a little bit grayer and perhaps,
hopefully, a little bit wiser.
But the bottom line is that I am that same person that wants to make
life better for my constituency. I think it is important that we
discuss who our constituency is. Every day I hear letters from
Governors and so on, that they love this bill. I understand that. I was
not sent here by the Governors, I was sent here by the people of my
State. As much as I want to work with Governors and local officials--
and I have an excellent relationship with them--I have to make sure
that what we do is not to make life better for Governors, but rather to
make life better for all Californians.
As I was on the local board of supervisors, we got a mandate that
came down from the Federal Government that, in case of nuclear war, we
had to have a plan to evacuate our citizens because we were very close
to a targeted area; namely, San Francisco, and all of the ported ships
there. San Francisco was on the Soviet Union's target list for a
nuclear bomb. So, sitting as a member of the board of supervisors--and
at the time, there were three Republicans and two Democrats on that
board--we got a mandate down from FEMA saying we had to figure out a
way to get our people out of town in case there was a nuclear war. By
the way, they were counting on a 24-hour notice for the bomb to drop.
We were told that we had to evacuate to the county to the north of us,
and they named that county, Sonoma County, the host county. We were the
evacuees. We were supposed to go to the host county. FEMA said, ``You
better make sure your people bring cash because they are going to have
to fill up their cars with gasoline, and the attendants at the gasoline
stations are going to be too busy to take credit cards.
That was the most incredible mandate I had ever seen. That board of
supervisors, on a 5-0 vote, said: We do not want this mandate and this
money; this makes no sense at all. We never took the money and we never
planned it, because we know the only way to survive a nuclear war is
not to have one. That ought to be where the efforts went, not trying to
figure out ways to get people out of town because you could not escape
the range of the kind of nuclear bomb that we were talking about.
So, yes, I understand the problem with these mandates. I hear stories
like that wherever I go. So there is no question about it that we must
address the problem of unfunded mandates. We should step back and look
at what we are proposing, make sure it serves the national purpose, and
if it is appropriate for State and local government to be involved in
this. And certainly if it is an expensive mandate, we should figure out
how to pay for it.
I am disturbed by some aspects of this bill. This bill is not the
same bill that was before us last year--a bill that I supported, a bill
that was not bureaucratic, a bill that was simpler to understand. But I
think we can fix this bill. I am extremely hopeful that my amendments
will pass, and I am going to explain what they are and that many other
amendments will pass with this bill, so that it is a good bill.
We have to be careful not to prescribe a cure that is going to hurt
our people unintentionally. I want to make a point about what the
American people want. There is always talk after an election about what
they want. I think it is fair to discuss the ramifications of this
election. But there is a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll that shows
in many areas, including protecting the environment, protecting civil
rights, strengthening the economy, improving the health care system,
and reforming welfare, the public believes the Federal Government
should play a larger role than State or local governments. And those
percentages in this poll were rather dramatic. So the people are not
saying to us, ``Do nothing''; the people are saying to us, ``Get it
right.'' They are saying, ``We send you back there to care about the
environment, to care about our jobs, to care about the economy, to care
about crime, to care about welfare, but get it right.'' I do
[[Page S1400]] not think they sent us here to create a bureaucracy and
a system here that could well paralyze us as we try to meet those needs
of the environment, health care, welfare reform, and all of the things
people think we ought to address.
I also want to make a comment about the Democrats voting against the
cloture motion so that we can continue debating this bill. I have
listened very carefully to the debate, and having witnessed 2 years of
Republican filibusters--and as Bob Dole says, you are the experts, my
Republican friends; the Republicans taught the Democrats how to do it.
I know a filibuster when I see one and when I am in one, and we are not
in one, and this is not a filibuster.
This bill needs amending. This Senator said in a very bipartisan
spirit in the Budget Committee that I would withhold my amendments. I
offered one amendment to sunset the bill, and it was voted down three
times on party line votes. But as far as my amendments of substance,
this Senator said she would put off her amendments until we got to the
floor. And I voted for the bill, to move the bill forward, because I
like the thrust of it and I want to fix it, and I hope I can vote for
it.
The distinguished majority whip called me, and he said, ``Senator can
you drop some of your amendments.'' Mr. President, I did not want to
drop any of my four amendments, but I agreed to drop one of the four
amendments in a bipartisan spirit. I said, ``All right, I think Senator
Wellstone has a similar amendment to mine on the benefits of some of
these mandates, and so I will work with him and I will drop my
amendment.'' We have done that, and I will talk more about that later.
I agreed to drop one of my amendments in good spirit, because I knew
that we want to move this process forward. So we are not seeking delay,
we are seeking answers to questions--unanswered questions. I thank
Senator Byrd, once again, for insisting on committee reports. It was
very important that all views be known on this bill. I was rather
stunned when on another party line vote the Budget Committee and the
Governmental Affairs Committee voted not to issue committee reports. I
do not ever remember that happening when the Democrats were in the
majority. I could be wrong, but I have certainly no personal memory of
that.
Mr. President, I would like to show the Senators and the public the
kind of process that we are now dealing with currently under S. 1, a
process that is quite different from where the bill was last year. I am
going to go over this chart, not read everything on it, but try to make
it clear as to why I have some concerns.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator
whether I could, in less than 20 seconds just offer two amendments, en
bloc. That is all I need to do, given the unanimous consent agreement.
Will the Senator consent to that?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield
for the Senator to put forward his amendments without losing my right
to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 204 and 205
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes
amendments numbered 204 and 205.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 204
Insert at the appropriate place the following:
``( ) The term ``direct savings''--
``( ) in the case of a federal intergovernmental mandate,
means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs or burdens
to any State, local government, or tribal government as a
result of compliance with the federal intergovernmental
mandate.
``( ) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate,
means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs or burdens
to the private sector as a result of compliance with the
Federal private sector mandate.
``( ) shall be interpreted no less broadly than the terms
`Federal mandate direct costs' and `direct costs.'''
____
amendment no. 205
Insert at the appropriate place, the following:
``( ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
point of order under paragraph (1)(A) of Section 408(c) shall
be raised where the appropriation of funds to the
Congressional Budget Office, in the estimation of the Senate
Committee on the Budget, is insufficient to allow the
Director reasonably to carry out the Director's
responsibilities under this Act.''
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from
California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it was my pleasure to yield time to
expedite the business of the U.S. Senate.
I want to now start explaining this chart, or I should say, these two
charts. We could not fit all of these procedures onto one chart, so we
actually had to make up two charts to show what goes on here with S. 1.
And, again, I am not going to go through every step, but I am going
to try to take you through a little bit of it because here we are about
to pass this bill, and I venture to say not too many people in the U.S.
Senate are aware of what we are about to do here unless there are some
changes.
The legislative committee proposes the bill that will likely impact
State and local governments or the private sector. It then goes to the
committee which, if it approves the bill, now has to take two tracks.
The committee sends the bill to the Congressional Budget Office with
identification of any Federal mandate, and CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, sets its whole process in motion. That is the red. The
committee is the yellow. This is the red for CBO, and I will get back
to that in a minute.
While the CBO is making its analysis of the costs, the committee
prepares its report. It has to wait, really, until CBO gives them the
number but, hopefully, if all works right--and around here, in my
memory, I do not know that all works right most of the time--but
assuming we will give it every break, everything works right, and the
CBO, after talking to, I assume, hundreds if not thousands of folks,
because they do talk to and interview people all over to make their
analysis, now comes in with the cost.
So the committee report comes in with the expected direct cost to
State and local governments and the private sector, a qualitative and
quantitative assessment of benefits expected, and how you get to the
benefits is a whole other issue.
How will CBO quantify the benefit of immunizing a child? The benefit
of cleaning up the air? What is the benefit if people do not get asthma
and they can come to work more? That is a whole other question that
this bill does not really answer. What is the benefit of cleaning up
the water, taking the lead out, the mercury out, the bacteria out? Just
ask the people in Milwaukee, where 400,000 of them got sick and 120
died because of cryptosporidium, a parasite which got into the water
supply.
But those benefits, frankly, are not going to be calculated as part
of the net costs under the bill currently before us.
CBO will also analyze the impact on the private and public sectors
and report on the extent of change to competitive relationships between
State and local government and private business, and add a statement of
whether the bill preempts State and local law.
Now this could take a year. But it is going to be pushed through.
Under the best of circumstances, and if the mandate is less than $50
million, the bill moves to the floor and it gets to the
Parliamentarian. So that is where I am up to.
Now, first, if the bill is more than $50 million, there are
additional committee statements on an increase or decrease in Federal
assistance or of authorization of appropriations; second, whether
mandates are fully or partially funded and the rationale; and third,
whether the bill preempts State, local, or tribal law.
[[Page S1401]] And then those additional committee statements come
here to the floor.
Now, this is where the Parliamentarian gets into it. Now, Mr.
President, I think the Parliamentarians are terrific. I had the joy of
sitting where you sit for 2 years when we were in the majority. These
Parliamentarians are brilliant. There is not one question you ask them
that they will not come up with the right answer. I never had an
experience like that.
But these Parliamentarians are not elected by the people and they are
not accountants. For all of their standing and the fact that their
faces are on CNN and C-SPAN, people do not know these Parliamentarians.
They do not, in California, vote for these Parliamentarians. And yet,
the Parliamentarians have the life-or-death power over not only every
bill that may impact State and local government, but every amendment
that any Senator sends up.
So here is where we are. We now have the Parliamentarian having about
as much power as the committee. If you look at the green, the
Parliamentarian determines whether the point of order under S. 1
applies to the bill. The Governmental Affairs and the Budget Committee
might be consulted at this point. But they do not have to be, and it
goes and it moves. A point of order cannot be raised if the bill
contains costs that are less than $50 million; or if the bill contains
costs that are greater than $50 million to State and local governments
but increases direct spending.
So, in other words, if we raised the taxes, a point of order cannot
lie against it. A point of order cannot lie if the bill increases
receipts to meet the full costs of the mandate. A point of order cannot
be raised if the bill contains costs that are greater than $50 million
to State and local governments and increases appropriations to meet the
direct costs of the mandate. The bill must, one, state the yearly total
amount, state the source of the funds, and state the minimum amount
necessary in each appropriation, and provided that the appropriations
are not made available in the future, the mandate would expire or the
mandate would be reduced by the corresponding drop in funding.
So there would be no point of order in that scenario. If there is no
point of order, the bill continues on the floor, Mr. President. But
then, the bill is open to amendment.
Now, the amendment process around here is greatly valued by every
single Senator. It is our opportunity to bring our priorities for our
people to the floor of the Senate.
So here we go. The bill manages to make it through all this, if it is
still alive and on its feet. If it is amended, the whole process starts
all over again.
Can you imagine that? Every floor amendment is subjected to this
entire process, and you start all over again. Every single amendment.
I daresay, if you look at the amendments that have been offered to
bills over the last year, Republican and Democratic amendments alike,
they probably number into the thousands. Imagine this bureaucratic
nightmare being repeated for every single amendment?
Now, when the bill was first written last year, it provided for a CBO
cost estimate and if it did not have it, a point of order could be
raised on the floor. That was sensible, because we wanted to make sure
that our people were aware, if we were proposing laws, that there was
going to be a cost.
But all these new layers were added. And, by the way, I hasten to
add, Mr. President, this is all repeated on the House side. And if you
have a House bill and a Senate bill that are not the same, guess what
happens? It starts all over again with the conference report. We are
back to square one. With the conference report, it starts all over
again, and I have not even gone into all the steps CBO has to take.
They have to talk to everyone you can imagine to come up with their
estimate because, after all, this is a great responsibility on
unelected bureaucrats. We are putting so much power in this bill on
unelected bureaucrats, CBO, Parliamentarians, these may be the best
people in America, for all I know. But they were not elected by the
people of California. And if we pass a bill that says we found out from
the Kobe earthquake that we need to seismically upgrade our bridges and
our highways, and we decide that it makes sense to make sure that the
planners keep this in mind, and we want to pass such a law, but we
cannot get the votes to waive the point of order, the bill dies. Yes,
it may be a cost on State and local government. But do you know what
the savings would be?
Know what the savings would be? Mr. President, when I was on that
board of supervisors we were in a beautiful Frank Lloyd Wright
building. It was his last building that was constructed before his
death, the last public building. Unfortunately, it was very unsafe from
earthquakes. When I found out about it, I went to my colleagues and
said, ``We sit in a beautiful, magnificent building that houses 1,200
people; in case of an earthquake they will be history.''
Some of my colleagues said, ``Do not talk about it, Barbara. Do not
talk about it. We do not have the $5 million to do this.''
I said, ``We have to do it because $5 or $10 million of investment to
save 1,200 lives is a very important investment, and in the end if we
save 1,200 lives we have saved countless millions of dollars, and we
have saved heartbreak and distress.''
And we did it. So, yes, certain things have an up-front cost but they
have a payoff, by the way, not adequately reflected in S. 1.
Mr. President, I hope I have shown what this bill would do. Now, that
does not even get into what Federal agencies have to do if this bill
passes.
The orange shows all the things that agencies are required to do.
Assessment of the effects on regulations, State and local governments
and the private sector, minimizing the burden on governmental entities,
continued regulatory functions, a pilot program to reduce compliance
and reporting requirements on small government. All these things are
good. I support them all. But all these are burdens on agencies, and
seems to me, while we are doing this, now we are laying over this whole
structure a legislative process which does not even wait for the
outcome of these other, very expensive, analyses. Agency consideration
of a proposed rule, agency determination of cost, cost to local,
tribal, State governments of less than $100 million aggregate cost. It
moves on and on, all the things they have to do before they can go
forward with a rule.
Then there is this Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations,
ACIR. They are reviewing existing mandates. This is all the work they
have to do. Well, I am glad that they are looking at this. I think this
is very useful.
But it seems to me when we put this all together into one bill, we
are placing additional layers of complication on top of Government
processes which are already unwieldy. We complain about it. At least
many Senators do. We are laying on hundreds of steps, if not thousands
of steps--hundreds of millions of dollars of work. Reports, paper,
shuffling, unelected people having power. Therefore, I think since this
bill has changed so dramatically from the very straightforward bill of
last year, which I supported, I think we have to be very careful and
consider these amendments which are going to make this bill better.
I would ask the Senator from Kentucky, is he interested in sending
any amendments to the desk at this time? I would be happy to pause
while he does that.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I answer that question from the
distinguished Senator from California without her losing the right to
the floor. I have an amendment, I say to my friend from California, we
are now attempting to work it out. It may be acceptable. So I thank the
Senator for her courtesy, as always, but we may have to ask at some
point, but not now.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and this Senator
stands ready to yield at any point without losing her right to the
floor so we can expedite the bill. It is not my purpose to slow down,
but to get on the record my feelings about where we are and why I think
these amendments are entitled to be heard and why they are so
important.
There are so many unanswered questions and so many ambiguities.
Again, I want to mention that Senator Levin
[[Page S1402]] has really done this U.S. Senate a service. If Members
watched his questioning of the managers, some of the questions he
asked. How does the bill cover floor amendments? I have just explained
to Members the way I believe it covers floor amendments, that when an
amendment is presented to the bill, we have to go over the same ground
again.
By the way, I think that Senator Levin raised a very good point, does
a Member have a right to get a CBO estimate if a Member of the Senate
believes that he or she wants to offer an amendment, is that Member
entitled to get an estimate and not have to go through an authorizing
committee? How can that Member come to the floor? There will be
prejudice against that amendment if these things are not costed out. I
was heartened to see that both managers, I believe I am correct, and I
ask the Senator from Ohio, both managers agree this is a problem. The
Senator is indicating yes. These are ways we can improve this bill.
We also have to make sure that we know if a reauthorization lapses
and it is later taken up by Congress, would that reauthorization be
considered a new mandate. How would the less money/less mandate
drawdown provision work in the real world? How will the bill's
exclusions work?
Let me bring one out. Would the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances
Act that Congress passed last year have been exempted under the civil
rights exclusion? No one has been able to answer that question. If it
would not meet the exclusion, would we have to then have a vote on
whether or not to provide the States with all the funds they might
need?
Will the CBO analysis be an obstacle to efforts to protect the health
and safety of our people? For example, will it put a dead stop to the
Safe Drinking Water Act? To worker safety, earthquake safety? Will it
put a dead stop to things that people need? The Governors may like it,
but what abut the people we represent?
The bill says direct savings to a State or local government from a
mandate will offset the mandate cost amount. I applaud that. But the
bill does not define ``direct savings.'' What about the costs of not
enacting health and safety protections? Do the savings that accrue to
the American people from such protections offset direct costs from the
bill? For example, if a child's lung capacity is lower because of air
pollution and that child is chronically ill, what are the savings
associated with cleaning up the air? I want Senators to know, my
friends here in the Senate, that a child living in Los Angeles has a
significantly lower lung capacity than a child born in a clean air
area. That is wrong. We cannot put ourselves in a bureaucratic
nightmare when we want to protect kids' health. Or retrofit bridges so
they do not collapse in the next earthquake.
Now, I plan to offer an amendment to prevent the bill from weakening
our ability to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
There are many who say the measure of a society is the way it treats
its most vulnerable. Not its powerful. Not the healthy. Not the
vigorous. That is easy. Because those of us who are healthy, we do not
need much help. We will make it through. But the most vulnerable, the
children, pregnant women and the frail elderly--this amendment would
add bills that protect children and others to the list of mandates not
subjected to the procedural hurdles that are created by S. 1 right
here. It would be a statement.
It would say when we say we are for the children, and we are for the
elderly, and we want healthy pregnant women so they have healthy
babies, that we mean it. And the Boxer amendment will give a chance to
everyone, Republicans and Democrats, to go on the record in that
regard.
Look, there are exceptions in this bill. And they are very important.
I submit that if there were no exceptions put into this bill then I
would take that as a signal that the bill really is easy to administer.
But the bill is difficult to administer. By the way, I think that is
part of the idea, you make it tough, make it tough to spend money in
the future. But it is so tough, this new version of this bill--very
different from last year's version--that there is an exception section,
and I am suggesting we add some things to it, among them the protection
of our most vulnerable populations.
All it says is:
Any bill which provides for the protection of the health of
children under the age of 5, pregnant women or the frail
elderly would not be subject to S. 1's point of order and
other requirements.
As I said, there are exceptions to S. 1, and I support them. S. 1
currently shields bills that help secure our constitutional rights,
that prevent discrimination, that ensure national security and
implement international agreements, such as NAFTA, from its
requirements.
The bill makes exemptions, and let me quote:
To ensure Congress' and the executive branch's hands are
not tied with procedural requirements in times of national
emergencies.
That is a direct quote from the Governmental Affairs Committee
chairman's report on S. 1. So there are exceptions ``to ensure that
Congress' and the executive branch's hands are not tied with procedural
requirements in times of national emergencies.''
I submit to my colleagues that there are other things that are worthy
of not tying the hands of this U.S. Senate with this kind of procedural
nightmare, and that ought to be protecting our most vulnerable
citizens.
Why should we deny our children, pregnant women and the elderly
protections? Our most vulnerable people should not be treated like
guinea pigs. We must ensure they will not be put at risk, and they
should be exempted from S. 1.
Environmental science shows us that children, pregnant women and the
elderly are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards. And by the
way, one of the things that people are saying since this election,
``environment'' is a bad word, it is no longer in vogue, people do not
care. I do not believe that. People continue to want clean water and
clean air. People continue to want a clean and safe working environment
and living environment for themselves and their families.
The overall incidence of childhood cancer has increased, and I want
to say to my colleagues--listen to this--the overall incidence of
childhood cancer increased 10.8 percent between 1973 and 1990. That is
a huge increase. Cancer is now the No. 1 disease killer of children
from late infancy through early adulthood.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from
California allow me to make a unanimous-consent request, that I might
be recognized without the Senator losing her right to the floor?
Mrs. BOXER. I fully support that as long as I retain the right to the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 206
(Purpose: To strike a provision relating to the House of
Representatives)
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] proposes an amendment
numbered 206.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 26, strike beginning with line 11 through line 8 on
page 27.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, S. 1 contains an entire section, section
102, on enforcement of this legislation under the House rules which
create specific points of order under the House rules. This section
directly amends also rule XXIII of House rules. Therefore, my amendment
strikes the balance of section 102, and that relieves the Senate of the
responsibility of directing the House as to what they should or should
not do.
It is my understanding that the distinguished manager and ranking
member have agreed to this amendment. I hope that it can be accepted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we are more than willing to accept
this
[[Page S1403]] amendment as offered by the Senator from Kentucky. Also,
I have discussed this with the leaders in the House of Representatives.
They understand the rationale for this. Again, we are ready to accept
this.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I accept it on our side, also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 206) was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair, I thank the Senator from California. I
am very pleased to have this amendment accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from California.
Amendments Nos . 201-203
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleague from
Kentucky on getting his amendment adopted. I hope that my amendments
will have the same fate; that they would, in fact, be adopted because I
believe that every Member in this Senate, at one point or another, has
said they believe that our children must be protected, our pregnant
women, our frail elderly, and we are giving our Senators a chance to
say, yes, that is an important priority and should not have to go
through this kind of procedural hassle should there be an important law
that affects their health.
I was saying, and I will repeat it, that the overall incidence of
childhood cancer has increased 10.8 percent between 1973 and 1990,
almost an 11-percent increase in America of childhood cancers. Cancer
is the No. 1 disease killer of children from late infancy through early
adulthood. In 1993, a National Academy of Sciences report found that
children are uniquely vulnerable to the harmful effects, for example,
of pesticides. Young children are more susceptible to environmental
health threats because of their behavior. They often play at ground
level where pollutants can concentrate. Their biology makes them more
susceptible because young children drink more water, breathe more air
and eat more food as a percentage of their body weight than do adults.
It is common sense. It is common sense. And a lot of the standards
that today we have for water and for food are based on a healthy male
adult, a 170-pound healthy male adult. Mr. President, you probably fit
that category. I do not know for sure, but a 170-pound healthy male
adult is where we set the standard. A little baby is not considered
sometimes, and it is not that we have been purposely trying to harm our
children. Of course not. We are trying to be intelligent about how we
set standards. But we are now learning more that we did not know
before; that children are different, just as children who get AIDS
react differently than adults.
We have to look at children, the frail elderly and pregnant women in
a different category than 170-pound healthy male adults. And if we find
out that they are being harmed--and we have had colleagues on the other
side, right now I know of two, whose children have cancer, one a little
baby, one a young adult. I bet all of us can think in our own lives of
people we know who are young who are getting cancers.
Pregnant women and the frail elderly are particularly vulnerable. A
recent American Lung Association study cited their increased
susceptibility to air pollution. Again, I will raise the issue of
Milwaukee, WI, a 1993 drinking water disaster. Cryptosporidium found
its way past the Milwaukee water treatment plant and went into the
city's drinking water. The parasite wreaked havoc with the people of
Milwaukee causing over 400,000 serious illnesses, over 100 deaths and
$54 million in damages.
So here we are talking about getting a bill to clean up the water
from these parasites as having to go through this hurdle when, in fact,
if we would just clean it up, we would save probably more than it costs
to fix the problem. But it is unclear how those benefits would be
accounted for under S. 1. Many benefits may not be counted at all.
I want to make a point about those deaths in Milwaukee, over 100
deaths. As I understand it, most of those deaths occurred in the most
vulnerable populations: the children and the frail elderly.
Will the provisions of S. 1 give Congress the freedom to act with all
needed speed to shield our most vulnerable populations? Obviously not,
unless we add them to the exceptions, and I hope my Republican friends
will agree to this amendment because there is new information that the
standards that are set for drinking water, for air, for other safety
issues have not been set for these populations.
My amendment will ensure that S. 1 does not hobble the ability of
Congress to protect these populations.
Let me talk a little more about children because it gets to my second
amendment, and I have three, so, Mr. President, mercifully, I am
winding down.
The second amendment is one I think should have broad support.
Senator Dodd is my leading cosponsor, and I am very proud of that
because he has been, in the Senate, a protector of children.
I plan to offer a second amendment that excludes this law from laws
that protect our children from pornography, sexual assault and
exploitative labor practices. My amendment says that any bill which is
intended to study, control, deter, prevent, prohibit, or otherwise
mitigate child pornography, child abuse and illegal child labor would
be exempt from S. 1's point of order and other requirements.
As I said before, S. 1 currently shields bills that help secure
constitutional rights, prevent discrimination, ensure national
security, and implement international agreements from its requirements.
I support that section, but it is not enough because if there is a bill
that deals with child pornography, child abuse, and child labor which
is intended to protect our children, it will have to go through these
unbelievable hurdles as will every amendment. Even if the bill goes
through all the way to here, if there is an amendment, the amendment
has to go back to square one. And I think it is time this Senate stood
up--we have before--and said we think child pornography is a problem,
we think child sexual abuse is a problem, and we intend to protect our
children from sexual assault and from child labor policies that may
harm them.
Now, let me put some facts on the table. People might say, well, is
this really a problem in America? The answer is yes. In 1992, 2.9
million children were reported abused or neglected, about triple the
number reported in 1980. That same year there were over 300,000 reports
of abuse or neglect in California. Let me repeat, in my home State
300,000 reports of abuse or neglect, nationwide 2.9 million.
Now, of those children, of that universe of 2.9 million children in
America, 49 percent suffered neglect, 23 percent physical abuse, 14
percent sexual abuse, 5 percent emotional abuse, and 3 percent medical
neglect.
Under the National Child Protection Act signed into law by the
President in 1993, States are required to place child abuse crime
information in the FBI's criminal records system so that others can do
background checks. This, my friends, is a mandate to protect our
children, and I daresay every single Senator supports it. The crime
bill passed last year requires States to register the current addresses
of sexually violent offenders with a State law enforcement agency upon
their release from prison or risk loss of Federal funding. I support
that. I daresay everyone I know in this Senate and many over in the
House do. As I remember, Congresswoman Molinari, who was very active in
this issue, supported this.
This, too, is a mandate to protect our children. There are mandates
that also protect our children from exploitation in the workplace. Now,
let me tell you about that. We thought that fight was over. But in
1994, the Department of Labor found over 8,000 illegally employed
minors and assessed over $6 million in civil penalties to employers. By
law, State and local government as well as private businesses are
prohibited from hiring children younger than 14 years of age, and teens
between 14 and 16 may work after school only in
[[Page S1404]] nonhazardous jobs. This, too, is a mandate to protect
our children, a mandate that I do not want to see taken away.
Now, will the provisions of S. 1 allow Congress to act quickly in the
future to strengthen these mandates for the sake of our children? Let
us look at some examples. According to studies conducted by the
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, over 64,000 teenagers
sought treatment in hospital emergency rooms for job-related injuries
in 1992.
Let me repeat that: In 1992, over 64,000 teenagers sought treatment
in hospital emergency rooms for job-related injuries; 670 16- and 17-
year-olds died from workplace injuries between 1980 to 1989. Let me
repeat that to the mothers and fathers of this country and to the
mothers and fathers in this Senate, of which I am one, soon to be a
grandmother: 670 16- and 17-year-olds died from workplace injuries from
1980 to 1989.
Now, in response to these trends, Congress could decide to improve
our child labor laws so that kids are not working in dangerous or life-
threatening jobs. If so, we should be able to enact legislation quickly
without going through this nightmare process that we have in this bill
which we did not have in last year's bill.
Child labor violations are escalating. In 1990, the Department of
Labor detected over 42,000 child labor violations, an increase of 340
percent since 1983. My friends, if we do not act, we are derelict.
There is a 340-percent increase in child labor violations--38,000
illegally employed children. Congress could decide there needs to be
more vigorous enforcement of this law, and we could not act fast unless
we were in the exceptions clause.
That is why I am offering this amendment, to protect our children. We
should not have to jump these hurdles. The crime bill passed last year
contained a sense-of-the-Congress resolution suggesting that States
which have not done so enact legislation ``prohibiting the production,
distribution, receipt, or possession'' of child pornography. According
to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Kansas,
Florida, and Georgia have no laws against child pornography.
Mississippi and Michigan have no laws making it a crime to possess
child pornography. Congress could well find that not enough States have
enacted antichild pornography laws and require States to do so. If so,
we should be able to act fast.
To make matters worse, those who traffic in child pornography have
found a new method--the computer bulletin board. Pornographic images
are transmitted by computer and some adults have used online
communications to lure young children and abuse them. Let me explain.
The following incident was reported in the April 18, 1994, issue of
Newsweek.
A 27-year-old computer engineer in California used his computer to
prey upon a 14-year-old boy. After many online conversations, he
persuaded the boy to meet him in person. The boy was handcuffed,
shackled, blindfolded, and taken to the man's apartment.
I do not want to go into everything that happened to this child
because of the sensitivity of those things, but they were despicable.
They were despicable. And then that 27-year-old forced the 14-year-old
to write about the abuse. The man was arrested when the boy's father
discovered this.
In response to stories like this one, Congress could require State
and local law enforcement agencies to spend more on tracking and
preventing such abuse. Could we act fast on such a bill under S. 1? No,
we could not. No, we could not unless we exempt laws that deal with
child abuse, child pornography, and child labor laws from these hurdles
and put them into the exceptions along with the one on vulnerable
populations.
Otherwise, they are going to be caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare
which, I add, was not part of last year's bill.
So I want to put my colleagues on record. Do they think the fight
against child pornography ought to be bogged down in the bureaucracy of
S. 1? Do they think the fight against child sex abuse should be bogged
down in this? Or the fight to make sure that our kids are healthy, that
our newborns are healthy, that our frail elderly are not killed because
we have not acted quickly enough--for example, to clean up a water
supply. We have documentation of what happened in Milwaukee. These are
not horror stories or scare tactics. Mr. President, 120 people died in
Milwaukee--120 people died in Milwaukee because cryptosporidium got
into the water supply.
There are other dangers lurking out there. We should not be bogged
down in S. 1, a bill that has the right thrust. As a former county
local official, I do not want people telling me what to do on an ad hoc
basis whenever they get the urge. But let us not walk away from our
responsibility to protect people and realize that what we do has
benefits and that S. 1 fails to adequately account for those benefits.
We must vote on these amendments. Let us see where my colleagues come
down on these issues. I think it is going to be very interesting,
because I have listened to many great speeches by politicians who are
Democrats and Republicans and independents. I do not think I ever heard
one politician who was loved, or elected, who did not talk about the
importance of our children and protecting their health and their safety
and making sure they can grow up and get a shot at the American dream.
We may differ on how to get there, but I do not know of anyone who
wants to expose our kids to abuse of any sort.
So my amendments are very straightforward in this. I think this cost
issue is important. Senator Wellstone has the amendment I am supporting
that will deal with that. How could you ever find out the benefits of
making buildings and freeways and highways earthquake proof? Just ask
the people of Los Angeles. The buildings that were strong withstood
that earthquake. The freeways that were strong withstood that
earthquake. Benefits? How can you put a number to the fact that we lost
a law enforcement official because he was answering the call of the
earthquake and he did not see that the freeway had collapsed, and he
died? Can you measure what it would have been worth to his family, to
society, if he had lived and provided guidance for his family, and paid
taxes to the Government and all the things we do as good citizens?
This bill is deficient in that it fails to define direct savings. So
there is an amendment offered by Senator Wellstone that will deal with
that. The amendment would require CBO to take all such savings into
account.
The last issue, and then I will yield the floor, that I deal with in
my amendments which will be brought up at a later time is the issue of
illegal immigration. I say to my friend in the chair, his State is
beginning to feel a little of the problem. The border States right now
are feeling a tremendous amount of the problem. I asked the GAO to do a
study. It took Governor Wilson's numbers on the cost of serving illegal
immigrants in our State, it looked at other cost estimates, and it
subtracted the revenues that the illegal immigrants do in fact provide.
We came up with a net cost of $1.4 billion a year to the State of
California.
I know it is awfully difficult for people from other States to
understand this, but half the illegal immigrants in the country wind up
in my State; $1.4 billion is a conservative number of what it will
cost. The Governor will tell you it is over $2 billion. I tried to be
as fair as I could and subtracted some of the revenues. It is at least
$1.4 billion.
We say this is the unfunded mandates bill. What could be a greater
unfunded mandate than illegal immigration, where we in our State have
to provide certain services because the Constitution says we must
provide them. Of course we are going to provide health care to people
if they are bleeding on the street or if they have a disease that could
cause an epidemic.
Prop. 187 expressed the people's views on this subject. They are very
upset. We have to control our border. I hope we will use this Mexico
agreement to take steps in that regard. I have put it out there very
strongly, that if Mexico is going to have us underwrite a $40 billion
line of credit, that Mexico has to take steps to equal our effort at
the border. I have worked in a bipartisan fashion with Congressman
Stephen Horn in the House and with the administration. I am hopeful we
will make progress.
Be that as it may, we have a problem and it is costing my State and
other
[[Page S1405]] States. This is an unfunded mandates bill. If we ignore
repaying States for this biggest unfunded mandate of them all, then I
think this bill has lost its meaning. We have 300,000 illegal
immigrants enter and take up residence in the United States every year.
Our illegal immigrant population is about 1.7 million. We are getting
half of the illegal immigrants.
So my amendment is very simple. It basically says we are powerless to
reduce these costs and we want to make sure there is a section of the
bill which sets up a mechanism whereby States can be reimbursed for
these costs. By the way, we do not leave it open. We do not say:
Whatever Governor Wilson says; or other Governors. We say there is a
commission set up under the bill called the Advisory Committee on
Intergovernment Relations. That is in the bill--here it is. We are
saying they should find out a way to reimburse the States and come in
with the plan. I think it is a very reasonable amendment, and I am very
hopeful it will pass.
So, in closing, I want to restate that I think this bill can be made
into a good bill. But it cannot tie us in knots and still be a good
bill. People do not want us to be tied up in knots. There are some who
think they do. They want to make this United States irrelevant.
I read the Constitution, perhaps not as often as the Senator from
West Virginia, who carries it in his breast pocket. I do carry it in my
briefcase and I do read it. I know what our job is. We are supposed to
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, ensure
domestic tranquility, establish a system of justice. It does not say we
are supposed to do one thing, provide for the common defense, and
nothing else. Or one thing, establish a system of justice, and nothing
else. It says we have to do it all, and we have to work with other
levels of government.
According to the Wall Street Journal poll, a vast majority of
citizens want us to act when it comes to the environment; they want us
to act when it comes to crime; they want us to act when it comes to
this economy. They do not want us to be tied up in knots. They want us
to act, act wisely, act sensibly; do not waste money; do not put
unfunded mandates on the States that really make no sense, that have no
benefit. But they do not want to tie us in knots.
Last year's bill would not have tied us in knots. The reasons I am
adding exceptions, and other Members are adding exceptions, is we want
to make sure when this bill becomes law, there are enough exceptions so
things that are really crucial to our people do not get tied up in
knots. If we do not even need them and perhaps we will change our mind
on them--that is fine. But if it is so important that the life and
death of our children depends on it, or if our frail elderly depends on
it, we ought to be able to move.
We ought to be able to reimburse States that have these terrible
costs associated with the failure of Federal Government to enforce the
laws at the border.
By the way, I have to say I have worked with the Bush administration
and the Clinton administration on this. We are making some progress. We
finally have some reimbursement for incarcerated illegals. I believe
that President Clinton is going to announce, from what we see in the
newspaper, a good initiative to get more Border Patrol. But we are so
far from where we have to be to control the border and it is costing us
so much money that we need to stop the promises and deliver to these
States on that unfunded mandate.
So I like S. 993, which was authored by the Senator from Idaho last
year. I think it was a better bill. With that bill we would not have
had to amend so much. We would have just taken that bill. This bill
creates a lot of hurdles, and, therefore, I think we need to get more
exceptions. I do not think S. 993 went too far. This bill may go too
far. If these amendments do not pass, we will just have another layer
of gridlock on top of the gridlock we already face. There are
legislative hurdles here that are worse than unnecessary. But we can
fix them if we add some exceptions, if we move in these areas, if we
listen to Senator Levin and to Senator Glenn and to others who have
been, I think, so informed on this.
I do not want Congress paralyzed. I do not think that was the message
of this election. It was to get on with our work and to do it right and
to get it right.
If I am convinced, after we vote on these amendments, that this bill
will be good for California and its people, I will be very proud to
vote for it. I want to be able to vote for it. But if it really is not
improved and it becomes a mask for another agenda, which is the
dismantling of the protection and laws that help the people of my State
or leads to paralysis in the U.S. Senate that already suffers from
enough paralysis, I will not vote for it.
Again, I know the Governors love this. We do not work for the
Governors. We work for the people. The Governors always hand down
unfunded mandates to local government. As a matter of fact, it is one
of the biggest complaints I get from boards of supervisors, that they
are constantly being handed mandates from the State. So it is not as if
the Governors have not done this themselves.
We all have to shape up. We all have to stop passing laws that cost
so much money that do not have a benefit. But if they do have a
benefit, we had better calculate that into our formula. We represent
the people here, and I think, if we support some of these amendments,
this is going to become a great bill, not just a good bill but a great
bill. But if we vote lockstep against these amendments, I think history
will show--and history will unfold as soon as this bill takes over--
that this was just a mask for stopping the protections that our people
deserve, hurting environmental laws that protect our citizens, and
tying us up in knots.
So I want to thank both managers. They have been extremely patient. I
withheld all my debate and all my amendments until I got to the floor
at the request of the Budget Committee. I feel very pleased that I had
a chance to lay out these issues. When my amendments are called up, I
will not need an hour to go into all of them because I will have laid
this out on the record and I will be able to summarize my charts and my
feelings on my amendments.
I again thank the managers. I wish them well.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from
California, who, as always, has a thoughtful discussion as to her
points. I know that she indicated that it may be her view that this
bill goes too far. I must note that I have a number of Senators who
think this bill does not go far enough.
So I think maybe we have found something here which is a bill that
can accomplish what we need to have done. That is why both the public
and private sectors are so supportive. I think everyone would say, yes,
we can make some changes, what have you, but also what we think about
all of the concerns of what these unfunded mandates have done for years
to our cities, to our counties, to our States, and many times I think
they have exacerbated the very problems that you have pointed out this
morning. I appreciate that.
I appreciate, too, that the Senator from California stated she felt
she had the opportunity now to lay out her case. When we call her
amendments up for debate--there are some Senators who would like to
discuss them, and I have comments I would like to make specific to
them--at that point would she be willing to enter into a time
agreement?
Mrs. BOXER. I reserve my right to agree or disagree depending on how
many people on this side wish to speak on my amendments. I assure the
manager that I will attempt to find that out and be very reasonable. I
think the Senator has been most reasonable. I greatly appreciate it.
I am not here to slow down this bill. I am here to make it a better
bill. I have to say to my friend that this is a different bill from
last year's bill. The Senator knows that. I would say that is why the
exceptions are so crucial because we have made it much more difficult
to get legislation through. As I pointed out on the charts, the red,
the yellow, and the green, if someone has an amendment, it has to go
back through the process and this all happens. There is a difference.
In the original bill it stopped right here with CBO. The exceptions
part of
[[Page S1406]] the bill, which I commend the Senator for, really has to
be looked at because we do not represent the Governors, we do not
represent local government or the private sector. We represent all the
people, people of all walks of life and people in local government,
people in the private sector. To me what is crucial is that we look at
how this is going to affect the average citizen of our Nation.
I have to tell you, I say to the managers, if you ask one of the
families that lost its member because of cryptosporidium in the water--
and the Senator and I are working on safe drinking water, we are on the
Environment Committee together--if you ask one of those people, should
the Government have acted to prevent cryptosporidium from getting into
the water supply that their grandma, grandpa, a child died from, they
would have said it would have been a real benefit.
I want to make sure, as a Senator from California, that we do not get
some of these laws bogged down in such a way that we have more of those
tragedies. I know the Senator from Idaho has no interest in having that
outcome; absolutely none. He and I have been working hand in hand to
make sure it does not happen. I am just pointing out that when we do
this legislation in the name of preventing unfunded mandates, let us
get to the real issues of the people, which is, are they going to live
or die by this. In some cases there may be some legislation that gets
caught up in this, such as child pornography, sexual abuse, clean water
standards, that we may not want to have to get caught up in this. That
is why I offered my amendments today.
I assure you I took a long time just zeroing in on those two areas. I
could have had 10 amendments for other issues. I just picked the issues
that I feel are so crucial to the health and safety of our people that
we do not want to get tied up in this process if we can avoid it.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as we talk about this process, it was
at the urging of the mayors and Governors that we took S. 993, which
was last year's bill and is the core of this introduced bill. It was a
great first step. But we have taken it another step, again at the
urging of the mayors, the county commissioners, the school boards, the
Governors, and the private sector. So I think as we take these steps
forward, they are all forward.
I would also note that when we look at the legislative process--and
Senate bill 1 is a process--that at any point, if you feel you have a
compelling argument--and the Senator from California has a good knack
for making compelling arguments--you can come to the floor and just
seek a waiver at that point or at any point during the process. If a
majority of the Senators agree with you, then you have waived that
point of order.
Yesterday, I read a letter from Inge Stickney, who is the mayor of
Kooskia, ID--she is 68 years young--a community of just a few hundred
people. In addition to being the mayor, she and her husband have a
small trailer court where they have, as I recall, about 15 spaces. They
rent them for $50 per space. They are continually having problems with
requirements of Government for further studies of the water which has
served them for generations there. The water does not pose a health
risk. They continue to have this escalating cost to the point that some
bureaucrat has now suggested to them, ``Well, you should just sell the
trailer court.'' That is what Government is saying: ``You ought to just
sell.'' Well, if Inge and her husband sell, then new owners would have
to increase the costs of the rental for those trailer spaces all
because of the requirement to spend more on testing water that does not
have a problem.
As she pointed out, a $5 increase to many of these people, who are
retired farmers and retired loggers who have lived there for their
entire lives, would pose a real hardship to the point that if she were
just to sell, wash her hands of it, it could really put in peril many
of those people who live in that trailer court because the costs would
go up. They will not have the funds to cover it.
They then might have to look to government to provide for their
livelihood, for their well-being. Thank goodness we have people like
Inge Stickney and her husband, who, while being good business people,
also have a heart and determined that, while they can make a profit,
they would just as soon retain that trailer court because that is good
for those people who are relying on them.
But that is part of what the Senator from California is talking
about, the elderly. And Inge Stickney is a strong supporter of S. 1, as
is virtually every mayor in the country.
I appreciate the arguments of the Senator from California.
I see the Senator from Texas is here, and I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I would like to speak on the amendment that Senator
Boxer from California has put forward.
I, like the main sponsor of this bill, am a former State official. He
was a former mayor. I know what it is like to have to make those
decisions on a State budget when you are getting mandates from the
Federal Government and you have to say, ``Do I increase the elderly's
light bill or the water bill of an elderly person because I have this
mandate from the Federal Government?'' It is very difficult for elderly
people to make ends meet.
So when we are talking about eliminating a category of the elderly or
children and their effects, I wonder if we have considered the effects
of raising a water bill because of an environmental mandate that
perhaps does not meet a cost-benefit analysis. All of these things that
we are trying to prevent the Federal Government from passing to the
States are going to have an impact for the good on children and the
elderly. In fact, I think we have to say what this amendment really is.
It is an amendment that will gut the bill.
Now, I know that the Senator from California is sincerely interested
in the elderly and the welfare of children. She has expressed that many
times, and I have no doubt of her sincerity. But I do think this
amendment is going to have the opposite effect from what she wants.
The purpose of this bill is to set up a process. The process has
really two results. One is to give us the information that we need so
that we can judge how much a bill we are going to pass will cost. If it
is going to be passed to State and local governments, that will then be
passed on to their constituents in the form of new taxes or increased
fees. That is one part of the bill.
And then the second part of the bill is to determine what is that
impact and to say, this Congress has a policy we are not going to pass
these bills without sending the money. If it is over $50 million, we
are just not going to do it because the State and local governments
cannot absorb it. So it is finding out what the costs are and then
saying we are not going to do this unless we pay for it.
Now, we have the option of paying for it. If we decide that something
is very important and it fits within the budget priorities, I think the
Federal Government should pay for it. I may vote against a point of
order or vote to uphold a point of order and override the point of
order later because it is important to me that we do what the bill
before us would do that would be beneficial to the elderly or to
children or to the working people of this country.
So we have the option of overriding the veto. We have the option of
saying we think this is important and we are going to put a mandate on
the States.
But the purpose of this bill is to say we are going to decide what
the Federal priorities are within a budget and we are going to have the
integrity to say, if we think something is important, that we will pay
for it. Or we will not tell the States they have to do it; we will say
to the States we suggest you do it but we will not mandate they do it.
So we have a choice. If it is a good program, we can tell the States we
are going to override all of the things we have said and require you to
pay for it, or we can step up to the line, which is what we should do,
and pay for it ourselves.
So I think it is very important that we not pass an amendment that
will, in
[[Page S1407]] effect, gut the bill. Because everything we do is going
to affect the elderly and the children. And if we say anything that
effects them is not going to be eligible for this bill, it means we can
pass everything we have already passed which causes--let us take the
clean drinking water bill. Let us just take that for an example.
We are talking about testing for certain carcinogens or certain
elements that might be in water. Now, what we are saying in this bill
is, we want to make sure that if we require the city of Plano to test
for elements in their water, that it is something that is relevant to
the water supply of the city of Plano. That is not the case today. The
case today is that the city of Plano and the city of Columbus, OH, may
be having to test for a solvent or something used to eradicate bugs in
pineapples, and they do not have pineapple plants in Plano or Columbus,
OH. So the people of Columbus, OH, and Plano, TX, are having to pay for
a test that is not relevant to them.
Well, what happens? What happens when that occurs? It increases the
water bill for that elderly person who is having a hard time making
ends meet. That is what we are trying to prevent with this bill. That
is what we are trying to change. The impact on the elderly is every bit
as much, with a mandate on clean drinking water that does not make
sense, as it is for a social program that would be a welfare check.
The bottom line is, we all want to make sure that we do the best for
the people who cannot help themselves in this country; in many
instances the elderly, in many instances the children. But I think we
differ on the way to best come to the end of the line.
This amendment by the Senator from California will gut this bill, and
it will allow the continuing increases of water bills and electricity
bills, utility bills, rent, property taxes that hurt the elderly and
hurt the children of this country, when what we are trying to do is
say, ``No, we are not going to tell the local governments that they
have to raise property taxes and water bills and electricity bills. We
are going to have the integrity of the process.''
If my colleagues agree that we must keep the integrity of the process
and the integrity of this bill, it is very important that we defeat
this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from
Texas for her statements and for her strong support. She was one of the
original cosponsors, both of Senate bill 1 and the effort last year.
From her experiences as the former State treasurer of the State of
Texas she has just demonstrated time and again her total understanding
of this issue and the fact that we need to curb these unfunded
mandates. I thank the Senator from Texas.
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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 207
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that Federal agencies
should evaluate planned regulations, to provide for the consideration
of the costs of regulations implementing unfunded Federal mandates, and
to direct the Director to conduct a study of the 5-year estimates of
the costs of existing unfunded Federal mandates)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 207.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 32, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
SEC. . COST OF REGULATIONS.
(a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that Federal agencies should review and evaluate planned
regulations to ensure that the costs of Federal regulations
are within the cost estimates provided by the Congressional
Budget Office.
(b) Statement of Cost.--Not later than January 1, 1998, the
Director shall submit a report to the Congress including--
(1) an estimate of the costs of regulations implementing
each Act containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408
of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974, as added by section 101(a) of this Act; and
(2) a comparison of the costs of such regulations with the
cost estimate provided for such Act by the Congressional
Budget Office.
(c) Cooperation of Office of Management and Budget.--The
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall provide
to the Director of the Congressional Budget Office data and
cost estimates for regulations implementing each Act
containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as
added by section 101(a) of this Act.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment just read expresses the
sense of Congress that Federal agencies should issue regulations with
costs that are in keeping with the Congressional Budget Office's
estimated cost.
In addition, my amendment just read will require that the CBO submit
a report 2 years after this bill by Senator Kempthorne, S. 1, goes into
effect. That report should detail whether agency regulations are in
line with the CBO's original estimates when the legislation is passed.
If I could engage in discussion with the Senator from Idaho, Mr.
President, I would like to at this time also present another amendment
that I would like to have before this body. It is my understanding that
both of these amendments will be discussed after the midafternoon
deadline.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would yield, but that is correct.
Amendment No. 208
(Purpose: To require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members
to waive the requirement of a published statement on the direct costs
of Federal mandates)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment that I just presented be set aside so that I can offer
another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment
numbered 208.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 26, line 6, redesignate subsection (b) as
subsection (c), and insert the following:
(b) Waiver.--Subsection (c) and (d) of section 904 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 are
amended by inserting ``408(c)(1)(A),'' after ``313,''.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment will require 60 votes to
waive the requirement in S. 1 of a published statement on the direct
costs of the Federal mandates.
I want to make something clear to my amendment so that it does not
get confused with a much stronger amendment, what is my understanding
will be offered by Senator Gramm. Because my amendment does not require
60 votes to waive the requirement in S. 1 to pay for unfunded Federal
mandates, that is the goal of other amendments, I am sure, we will be
discussing. My amendment might be confused because it does have a 60-
vote requirement in it. That requirement is to the simple waiving of
the requirements in S. 1 to obligate what is a much more simple
approach, the original estimate from the Congressional Budget Office of
the costs of the Federal mandates.
In other words, let me make clear: it is one thing to have an
amendment before this body that we would have to have majority to waive
the requirement of a mandate; but it is quite another thing to have a
60-vote requirement just to waive the CBO doing the estimate of what
might be the cost of a mandate.
[[Page S1408]] My amendment does the latter, not the former. I do
not oppose the former. I understand that there is lots of opposition to
going to the 60 votes. I presume that there is even opposition to have
a have majority to even waive having CBO even do some estimating.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that it is one thing to have a
supermajority that we are going to go ahead even though we do not fund
the mandate. But it seems to me that we cannot intellectually and
honestly approach the subject of public policy without knowing what
that cost is.
My amendment would simply make it more difficult for this body to
avoid even finding out what a particular mandate is going to cost. I
would like to have that be a supermajority because it seems to me that
there is no way we can defend passing mandates or maybe even any other
public policy without knowing what that cost is.
I will have, Mr. President, further to say on each of these
amendments at a future time this afternoon and particularly on the
first amendment that I have sent to the desk. Senator Snowe, the new
Senator from the State of Maine, has been very helpful to me on this
amendment and she would like to speak a few minutes on that amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is no other Senator on the
floor to offer an amendment, I ask unanimous consent to speak no more
than 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Minnesota? Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________