[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.

                          ____________________