[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1498-S1524]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I listened to a goodly number of our 
colleagues earlier today as they came to the floor to speak about the 
constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. I was glad to see the 
President last night give some time to that subject matter.
 I was glad that he stated that the proponents of a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget have a responsibility to let the 
American people know up front the details as to just how the proponents 
propose to achieve that balanced budget over the next 7 years.

  I listened to my friends with a great deal of interest this morning 
on the floor, and I just have a few comments to make in regard to this 
subject. Many colleagues who support such a constitutional amendment 
are sincere in their belief that such an amendment is the answer to our 
budget deficits and is necessary to impose discipline on ourselves. I 
do not quarrel with their sincerity. They have a right to their 
viewpoints just as I have a right to mine.
  I heard it said earlier today that Members of the House and Senate 
should show courage by voting for a constitutional amendment. Mr. 
President, courage is not needed to vote for a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget. Courage is needed to oppose the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. We read public polls that 80 percent 
of the American people support a constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget. Courage is not needed to vote for something that the polls 
say 80 percent of the people want. Courage is needed to take the time 
to try to convince the American people that they are being misled. So 
those of us who vote against a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget are swimming upstream, and going against the grain.
  I believe it was Talleyrand who said, ``There is more wisdom in 
public opinion than is to be found in Napoleon, Voltaire, or all the 
ministers of state present and to come.''
  I subscribe to that view. There is more wisdom in the people, but the 
people have to be informed in order to reach considered and wise 
judgments. The people have to be correctly informed if they are to form 
wise opinions. They also have a responsibility to do what they can to 
inform themselves.
  It does not take courage, Mr. President, to vote for this 
constitutional amendment on the balanced budget. It just takes a 
politician's view of what is best for him or her politically at the 
moment. I urge Senators to show courage in taking the time to debate 
this matter fully and voting against a constitutional amendment on the 
balanced budget, at least until the proponents show Senators what is 
involved here--what is in this poke, along with the pig.
  I hear it repeated over and over again that we need a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, so that we will be forced to 
discipline ourselves. Mr. President, no constitutional amendment can 
give us the political spine to make the hard choices necessary to 
balance the budget. Constitutional amendments cannot impose spine or 
courage or principle where those things may be lacking to begin with.
  We do not need a constitutional amendment. If the proponents of a 
constitutional amendment have two-thirds of the votes in the House and 
Senate, and I would say they are very close to that, I would say they 
would need 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House. If they 
have 67 votes in the Senate and 290 votes in the House for a 
constitutional amendment, they can pass any bill, now. It only takes a 
majority to pass a bill. If all Senators are here, it only takes 51 
Senators to pass a bill, and only a majority of the House to pass a 
bill. So if the votes are in both Houses to adopt a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget, the votes are here to produce simple 
majorities to pass bills and resolutions that will get the job done 
now. We do not have to wait 7 years.
  In the final analysis, the discipline that is needed now will still 
be needed 7 years from now if this amendment goes into effect. That 
constitutional amendment will not cut one program nor will it raise 
taxes by one copper penny. In my judgment it will have to be a 
combination of both in order to deal with the extremely serious problem 
of balancing the budget.
  The responsibility of balancing the budget 7 years from now will rest 
where it rests now: With the President of the United States and with 
the Members of the House and the Senate. If we lack the discipline now 
we are not likely to have much more spine, if any, 7 years from now. It 
will come right back here. Of course, many of those who vote for a 
constitutional amendment to balance theMr. Chairman, budget today 
probably will not be around, some of us, in the House and Senate, 7 
years from now.
  Mr. President, an immense hoax--that is what this is, in my judgment, 
a colossal hoax. It is supported by a lot of well-intentioned, well-
meaning people. But in the final analysis, that is what it will prove 
to have been--a hoax. It is about to be perpetrated on the public at 
large.
  It is this Senator's hope that the people will get quickly about the 
business of informing themselves of the ramifications of the so-called 
balanced budget amendment before it is too late. In my opinion, the 
American people could do themselves no better favor than to become very 
intimately involved as fast as they can with the details. And they 
should insist on their representatives in these two bodies to give them 
the details, and the probable impact of this proposal.
  For almost every benefit being claimed by the proponents of this ill-
conceived idea, the exact opposite of the bogus claim is, in fact, the 
truth. For example, the proponents claim that the balanced budget 
amendment will remove the burdening of debt from our children and leave 
them with a brighter future. This balanced budget amendment will do 
nothing of itself. The amendment would do nothing of the kind that is 
being stated. Even if we were somehow able instantly to be able to 
bring the current budget into balance, our children, our grandchildren, 
and their children would still be in debt and they would still be 
paying interest on that debt. Bringing the budget into balance so that 
there is no deficit this year or next year, or the 
[[Page S1499]] next year, is child's play compared with wiping out this 
Nation's $4.6 trillion national debt.
  What we pay interest on is our debt. The people should be made aware 
that the deficit is not the debt. The debt is an accumulation of the 
deficits built up over a period of years. A constitutional amendment 
does absolutely nothing about retiring the national debt.
  The American people are being told that by passing a constitutional 
amendment, we will somehow be relieving generations to come of the 
obligations to pay for the debt of past generations. Well, until the 
day that the national debt is completely retired, there will still be 
interest that has to be paid, and then there will be the principal, 
which future generations will have to eliminate.
  That is not to say that getting our deficits down is not important. 
It is. And we went down that track in 1990 when, under President Bush, 
we met at the so-called budget summit and a Republican President, 
President Bush, and the Democratic Congress, made up of both Houses, 
not just one, enacted legislation to reduce the deficit over a period 
of 5 years.
  The same thing happened again in 1993. President Clinton and a 
Democratic Congress passed a reconciliation measure which laid out a 5-
year glidepath to bring down the deficits, and the deficits are coming 
down.
  That was a tough bill to vote for. Not one of our Republican friends 
on the Senate side--not one--not one of those who are proposing today 
that we have a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not one 
voted for that bill in 1993, and I believe I am correct in saying that 
not a single Republican in the House voted for that package. I could be 
wrong in that. But not one vote came for that bill from the other side 
of the aisle. There was an opportunity for courage. Why was it not 
demonstrated then by the proponents on the other side of the aisle?
  There was some pain in that package--some increased taxes, some cuts 
in programs. We are operating right today with a freeze on 
discretionary spending. We are operating below a freeze in our 
discretionary spending, because we passed that package and because, 
subsequently, we have passed measures that are in keeping with the 
promise that we made when we passed that budget reduction measure. That 
is the course we ought to continue on: Bring the budget deficits down 
but do not tamper with that fundamental organic document, the 
fundamental law of our country which trumps any other law of the land.
  So let us not buy the claim that the balanced budget amendment will 
somehow take your grandchildren off the hook. These deficits and that 
debt can never be wished away, nor can they willy-nilly, over a period 
of any number of years, be erased through a simple provision that is 
inscribed into the fundamental law of the land: The Constitution.
  That balanced budget amendment will not take our grandchildren off 
the hook. It cannot and will not.
  As for leaving future generations with a brighter future, this 
balanced budget amendment is more likely to snuff out any possibility 
for a brighter future for many of America's children than to brighten 
such future.
  Getting the details about how the proponents would actually get to a 
balance by the year 2002 is like extracting blood from a turnip. The 
President said we ought to have that. But if the broad outlines of such 
a plan to get to balance are to be believed, America's future may be 
dim, indeed.
  According to reports, some proponents of the balanced budget 
amendment want to exempt Social Security and exempt defense spending 
from any cuts. Regardless of whether one agrees with those exemptions 
or not, let us just look at the arithmetic.
  If one adds to that list the interest on the national debt, which 
cannot be cut and which must be paid, then more than half of the 
Federal Government's budget will have been excluded from any effort to 
balance the budget by constitutional amendment, if those items, defense 
and Social Security and interest on the debt, are taken off the table.
  When we take those items off the menu, slide them off the table and 
totally insulate them from any review or analysis as to whether or 
where they should be cut, what have we done to the remainder of the 
Federal budget? The prime candidate then left to feel the budget ax 
becomes the domestic discretionary budget.
  Discretionary spending is made up of both domestic and defense 
spending. If we eliminate defense from the equation, then the prime 
candidate to feel the budget ax becomes the domestic discretionary 
budget. That portion of the budget is the portion left to fund 
education, veterans' medical care, pensions, protect our people's 
health and safety, fund research and development projects, build roads 
and bridges, fund crime-fighting efforts, foster U.S. economic 
competitiveness in global markets, and generally invest in our people, 
their talents, and their future.
  Obviously, if we take most of the Federal budget off limits for cuts, 
then the portion that is still eligible for cuts is going to be pretty 
badly devastated. One-point-three trillion dollars is not change for 
the streetcar or the bus.
  What then happens to the quality of life in America that we are going 
to bequeath to our children? That ought to be a prime consideration in 
our debate here on the floor, and it ought to be a prime consideration 
on the minds of the people.
  Are we really doing our children and our grandchildren a favor by 
embracing this amendment to balance the budget? We are all for a 
balanced budget. Those Senators who spoke in support of a balanced 
budget amendment this morning said we are all in favor of balancing the 
budget, and we are. If we devastate the part of the budget that keeps 
our kids educated, protects our health, advances our research, helps to 
keep our Nation competitive in the world, keeps our infrastructure in 
good repair--in other words, minds the basic needs of the Nation--what 
are we actually doing?
  Mr. President, is there an order that at 1:30 we go back----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, the Chair will state to the Senator from 
West Virginia, under a previous order, we will be considering an 
amendment at the hour of 1:30.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed out of order for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so what we are actually doing is walking 
away from these responsibilities at the Federal level and relegating 
them to the States and counties and municipal governments. Some would 
say, ``Yahoo, get the Federal Government off our backs.'' That is the 
standard talk show answer. But let us give that a little more thought.
  With the passage of this balanced budget amendment, we will actually 
be shifting traditional Federal responsibilities, many of them, to the 
States and to the State houses. We will be creating a patchwork quilt 
of a nation with some States able to meet the increased 
responsibilities dumped on them by the Federal Government's withdrawal 
of funds due to steep budget cuts and other States not being able to do 
so.
  We will have some States with enormous unemployment, some States with 
extremely dilapidated and deplorable transportation systems, some 
States booming, maybe, and others busting.
 Do we want that result?

  I hear the Governors boasting of having cut taxes. I heard some of 
that last night. They are cutting taxes at the State level. And they 
have further tax cuts planned. Just wait until this constitutional 
amendment goes into effect. Those Governors will not cut taxes anymore. 
They will have to increase taxes because much of the burden is going to 
be dumped on them from the Federal Government. We will have trickle-
down mandates. The Federal Government will offload the problems on the 
State governments. State governments will offload those problems on the 
county governments and municipal governments, and in the final analysis 
the same people who pay the taxes now are going to continue to pay the 
taxes.
  Do we want to have parts of America looking like a Third World 
country? I have not heard those concerns addressed by anyone. The 
American people are not being told about the very dark and dismal side 
of this balanced 
[[Page S1500]] budget amendment. Why is not anyone talking about these 
probable results of enacting such a proposal? In the opinion of at 
least one leader of the other body, the answer is, because if we talk 
about these things, the proposal will not pass. The knees of Members 
will buckle.
  Now, think of that. Are we going to hide these things from the people 
in order to pass this ill-conceived idea?
  There are other aspects of this proposal that are being hidden from 
the American people as well. All the while we are slashing away at the 
funds we have used to invest in our own people, some of the proponents 
of this amendment are busily signing on to some of the biggest tax cuts 
in our history. The U.S. Treasury Department indicates that Congress 
will have to come up with another $300 billion in cuts over the next 7 
years to pay for the tax cuts reported to be embraced by the so-called 
Contract With America.
  Now that, my friends, is not small change, either. Well, some would 
say, what is wrong with that? I want a tax cut.
  Now we have the leaders of both parties advocating tax cuts.
  Well, with a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we need 
to reduce our deficit. We do not want any cuts in defense. We say no 
cuts in Social Security. We want to balance our budget, but we also 
want to cut taxes.
  I said to Mr. Reagan, when he was President, you cannot do all these 
things and balance the budget. You cannot cut taxes in the situation we 
are in; you cannot have a massive buildup in defense spending; you 
cannot do all those things at the same time you cut taxes and still 
balance the budget. And we saw an accumulation of $3.5 trillion added 
to the nearly $1 trillion national debt which was in existence when 
President Reagan was elected--an almost $1 trillion national debt--and 
now we have a $4.5 trillion debt.
  Look again at those tax cuts in the context of the budget cuts. It 
does not make sense. All that additional chopping at the budget to pay 
for tax cuts puts even more pressure on the States to fill in the gaps 
left by the cuts in the Federal budget.
  There is some very clever sleight of hand going on here, Mr. and Mrs. 
Taxpayer. You may get the Federal tax cuts, but your State taxes are 
going to go through the roof as a result of this constitutional 
amendment on the balanced budget. And that ought to infuriate every 
thinking American taxpayer and inflame every Governor of the Nation. 
But many of the Governors are saying: No, give us a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. We are cutting taxes in the States. 
Why do we not have a balanced budget amendment? Get the Federal 
Government off our back.
  Once that constitutional amendment takes effect, the Governors of the 
States will not be cutting taxes. The load is going to shift to them. 
They are going to be increasing taxes. Federal taxes will be cut and 
paid for with cuts in Federal programs, but that means the States will 
be left holding the bag, and the States' taxes will likely climb 
through the ceiling. The poor, unwitting believer in the balanced 
budget will be given the double whammy of increased taxes and reduced 
services.
  When one takes more than half the Federal budget off the table--makes 
it off limits for cuts under the balanced budget amendment--then fully 
one-third of the remaining Federal programs are composed of grants to 
State and local governments and those are obviously going to be 
brutalized under this balanced budget amendment regardless of our 
passing this unfunded mandates bill that is presently before the 
Senate.
  I hope the Governors will listen. I hope the Governors are eager to 
raise taxes to pay for essential needs, because the Federal Government 
is going to have to take a powder under this balanced budget amendment.
  Nobody is leveling with the American people about these matters. I 
say to the American people, if there is ever a time to utilize your 
well-honed distrust for politicians, utilize it now. Demand to know 
what balancing the budget really means and how the proponents plan to 
balance it. Do not let the politicians get away with this rabbit in a 
hat, with this sleight of hand.
  What is going on here is simply politicians falling all over each 
other to embrace something that is momentarily popular. Sloganeering 
has taken the place of serious legislating and only you, the American 
people, can turn that around. I urge the American people to look 
beneath the slogans before it is too late. Demand to understand what 
will really happen to your taxes, to your quality of life, to your 
local economy, to your children and grandchildren if we 
constitutionalize this slogan. Demand to know the details. Understand 
that when Federal taxes are slashed in this instance, State taxes are 
likely to soar, likely to go up. Understand that when necessary Federal 
programs are slashed, services decline.
  I am not saying that there should not be some programs slashed--that 
is what we did in 1993; it is what we ought to do--or services decline. 
Each State then has to try to pick up the slack.
  Understand that reducing the deficit is not the same as reducing the 
debt, and do not be disappointed to learn that even after we devastate 
the only pot of money we have from which to invest in ourselves, in our 
Nation, and in our children by way of infrastructure and investment in 
the Nation's infrastructure, those children and their children will 
still be paying interest annually on the national debt.
  Also understand that the unfunded mandates legislation does nothing 
to protect States from Federal mandates already in place.
  Understand that the balanced budget amendment straitjackets the 
Nation when it comes to dealing with the economy. In a recession when 
economic activity falls and revenues fall, unless the Congress can get 
a three-fifths vote to agree to run a deficit, then the Government will 
be forced to aggravate the problem by cutting public expenditures, 
which is the easiest way I know to turn a recession into a depression.
  Fiscal policy needs to be flexible because we cannot accurately 
predict economic fluctuations. Engraving fiscal policy and political 
ideology on the marvelously flexible United States Constitution is like 
putting an ugly tattoo on the forehead of a beautiful child. It is 
inappropriate, will mar the child forever, and it serves no purpose 
whatever except to destroy something inherently fine and to deface it.
  I implore the American people to make the powers-that-be tell the 
American public how--exactly how--they intend to get the budget into 
balance by 2002. What are the proponents hiding? What about this 
sleight of hand on the subject of tax reduction? What else is there 
that we do not want the American people to know?
  I also hope to remind the American people that television and radio 
talk shows are entertainment, not hard news and not hard facts. Do not 
let the colorful talk show hosts obscure real issues by exploiting 
public anger. If you are really angry about public policy, demand to 
know the details of the so-called cures for the ills of public policy 
from the proponents. Do not buy three-line formulas as a blueprint for 
some so-called American revolution, some Contract With America.
  Here in my hand is my ``Contract With America,'' the Constitution of 
the United States of America. If revolutions are contemplated, let us 
remember Lenin's words:
  ``We shall destroy everything, and on its ruins we shall build our 
temple.'' Does that sound like some of the talk that is making the 
rounds lately?
  It might be well to remember Lenin's words in these days of talk 
about revolution.
  If revolutions are contemplated, let the public clearly understand 
what the final results may be before we so wound the Constitution and 
the Republic that they may never recover.
  We are only just now recovering from the fiscal hangover left the 
Nation by the Reagan revolution. As I recall balanced budgets, tax 
cuts, budget cuts, and sacrosanct defense budgets were all prime 
features of that last revolution and we are still paying the tab for 
that one. Let us not overdose on a frenzy of dimly understood 
procedural reform to the point where we take the insane step of writing 
fiscal policy into the U.S. Constitution.
  We are on the road to balancing the budget, and it is an important 
and laudable goal to do so and we cannot let up. We have passed 
important and significant deficit reduction measures 
[[Page S1501]] in 1990 and in 1993, the latter without a single vote, 
as I say, from the Republican majority in either House. What does that 
tell the people about the reality of expecting to get votes on measures 
that will be required to reduce the budget, measures that inflict pain?
  What does that tell the people?
  An informed and active citizenry is essential for the workings of a 
representative democracy. It is up to the people to exercise their 
right to know by demanding explanations to the many unanswered 
questions about this proposal, and it is my hope that they will be 
relentless and ruthless in their pursuit of knowledge in this 
particular case.
  Mr. President, I call attention to a poll. Mr. President, the poll 
shows that 86 percent of the people think that the balanced budget 
amendment's backers should be required to specify what cuts they would 
make before the amendment is adopted.
  I ask unanimous consent that the poll released by the Los Angeles 
Times on Monday be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Los Angeles Times Poll, Jan. 23, 1995]

Selected Results From the Times National Poll, Responses Are Among All 
                                 Adults

       A full results summary with question wording and full 
     question text will be available through the Los Angeles Times 
     Poll at a later date.
       Note: Not all numbers add to 100% because in some cases the 
     ``Don't know'' answer category is not displayed.


                 ambivalence about republican proposals

       Do you think the Republican ``Contract with America'' is a 
     realistic or unrealistic set of proposals?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1/95    10/94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realistic set of proposals..............................      31      30
Unrealistic set of proposals............................      54      55
Some are realistic, some are unrealistic................       4       3
Don't know..............................................      11      13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       As you may know, Congress is considering a proposal for a 
     constitutional amendment to require that the federal budget 
     be balanced by the year 2002. Those in favor say this is the 
     only way to force the government to bring the federal budget 
     deficit under control. Those opposed say it would require 
     increased taxes and cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid programs. Do you favor or oppose the proposal for a 
     constitutional amendments to require a balanced federal 
     budget?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................40
Oppose...............................................................53

       Do you think the balanced budget amendment's backers should 
     be required to specify what cuts they would make before the 
     measure can be passed, or should the amendment be passed 
     first, leaving the details until later?

                                                                Percent
Specify cuts first...................................................86
Leave until later....................................................10

       Right now, the Constitution allows Congress to pass tax 
     increases by a simple majority vote, that is, by just over 
     half of the members voting. Do you favor or oppose a proposal 
     for a constitutional amendment that would require income tax 
     increases to be passed by a larger, three-fifths majority of 
     the members voting.

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................69
Oppose...............................................................24

       Do you favor or oppose giving the President a line-item 
     veto, which would allow him to reject individual parts of a 
     spending bill, rather than having to accept or reject the 
     entire bill as current law requires?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................73
Oppose...............................................................20

       As you may know, under the current income tax system, high-
     income people are taxed at a greater rate than low-income 
     people. There is a proposal to replace that system with a 
     ``flat tax,'' under which everyone, rich and poor, would pay 
     17% of their income in taxes. Under this plan, income from 
     capital gains and interest on savings would be tax exempt, 
     but the current deduction for interest paid on home mortgages 
     would be abolished. Do you favor or oppose this proposal for 
     a flat tax?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................40
Oppose...............................................................48
Don't know...........................................................12

       As you may know, in 1993 Congress raised the percentage of 
     Social Security benefits that are subject to income tax, from 
     60% to 85% for elderly couples with annual incomes of 44,000 
     dollars or more. There is a proposal to repeal that increase 
     and restore the rate to 50%. Do you think the percentage of 
     Social Security benefits subject to income tax should remain 
     at the current 85% for these couples or should it be cut to 
     50%.

                                                                Percent
Remain at 85%........................................................43
Cut to 50%...........................................................49
Neither/Other.........................................................2

       Do you think the federal government should spend a great 
     deal more money on national defense, or somewhat more, or 
     somewhat less, or do you think the federal government should 
     spend a great deal less money on national defense?

                                                                Percent
Great deal/Somewhat more.............................................32
Somewhat/Great deal less.............................................60

       Do you approve or disapprove of a constitutional amendment 
     which would limit to 12 years the time any member of the U.S. 
     Senate or House of Representatives could serve?

                                                                Percent
Approve..............................................................75
Disapprove...........................................................21

       Do you think the term limits amendment should apply only to 
     those elected after its approval or should it also apply to 
     lawmakers who are in office now?

                                                                Percent
Apply to new members.................................................17
Apply to current members.............................................74
Oppose term limits....................................................3

       On another subject, do you favor or oppose allowing U.S. 
     troops to serve under United Nations commanders in some 
     circumstances?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................66
Oppose...............................................................35


                         crime/welfare/tax cuts

       On crime:
       Which version of the crime bill do you prefer?

                                                                Percent
The original bill which had money for crime prevention programs......72
A revised bill with no crime prevention funds........................20
Neither/Other.........................................................4

       On welfare:
       There are two proposals being considered in Washington for 
     reforming welfare. One proposal would require welfare 
     recipients to find work after 2 years on the rolls, and would 
     guarantee them a public sector job if they couldn't find one 
     in the private sector. The other proposal would simply allow 
     states to cut off a recipients' benefits after two years with 
     no guarantee of a job. Which of these proposals do you 
     prefer: the one that guarantees recipients a job or the one 
     that includes no guarantee of a job?

                                                                Percent
Version that guarantees job..........................................66
Version that does not guarantee job..................................29
Neither/Other.........................................................2

       There are two other welfare reform proposals being 
     considered in Washington. One proposal would require welfare 
     recipients under the age of 18 who have children out of 
     wedlock to live at home in order to receive benefits. The 
     other proposal would cut off all benefits to recipients under 
     18 who have children out of wedlock. Which of these proposals 
     do you prefer: the one that requires recipients to live at 
     home in order to get benefits, or the one that cuts off their 
     benefits altogether?

                                                                Percent
Version that requires living at home.................................58
Version that would cut off all benefits..............................28
Neither/Other.........................................................9

       On tax cuts:
       There are two proposals for cutting taxes being considered 
     in Washington. One proposal would provide families with 
     annual incomes of up to 75,000 dollars with a tax credit for 
     children under 13, and families with incomes of up to 100,000 
     dollars with a tax deduction for their children's college 
     tuition. The other proposal would provide families with an 
     income of up to 200,000 dollars with a tax credit for all 
     children, as well as a 50 percent cut in the capital gains 
     tax. Which of these proposals do you prefer, and I can repeat 
     them if you wish.

                                                                Percent
Version for families with incomes under 75,000/$100,000..............55
Version for families with incomes under $200,000.....................23
Neither/Other........................................................10
Don't know...........................................................12
                        various policy proposals

       Do you approve or disapprove of President Clinton's 
     national service program called ``AmeriCorps'' which provides 
     students grant money for college it they agree to perform two 
     years of national service?

                                                                Percent
Approve..............................................................72
Disapprove...........................................................19

       In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, some have 
     proposed that higher-income people over the age of 65 pay 
     extra for Medicare, the government health insurance program 
     for the elderly. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

Favor................................................................48
Oppose...............................................................46

       As things stand now, the age when people become eligible 
     for Social Security benefits will be raised from 65 to 70 in 
     the year 2034. In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, 
     some have proposed raising the eligibility age earlier than 
     2034. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................27
Oppose...............................................................67


                                                         [[Page S1502]]

       In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, some have 
     proposed a reduction in the annual cost of living increases 
     given on the pensions of retiree's from the military and 
     federal government. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................42
Oppose...............................................................49
                           unfunded mandates

       As you may know, the federal government often requires 
     state and local governments to adopt regulations and programs 
     without providing funding to pay for them. There is a 
     proposal in Congress which would bar the federal government 
     from imposing these unfunded mandates on states and 
     localities unless the federal government provided the money 
     to pay for them. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................64
Oppose...............................................................23
Don't know...........................................................13

       As you may know, currently the federal government requires 
     states governments to build sewage treatment plants so that 
     water used by residents meets federal cleanliness standards. 
     Do you approve or disapprove of the federal government 
     requiring state governments to do this, even if the state 
     must pick up the costs?

                                                                Percent
Approve..............................................................68
Disapprove...........................................................25

       As you may know the federal government requires local 
     school districts to provide special education for mentally 
     challenged students. Do you approve or disapprove of the 
     federal government requiring local school districts to do 
     this, even if the localities must pick up the costs?

                                                                Percent
Approve..............................................................68
Disapprove...........................................................28

       Do you approve or disapprove of the federal government 
     requiring state governments to provide citizens an 
     opportunity for registering to vote when they get a driver's 
     license or apply for some form of public assistance, even if 
     the state must pick up the costs?

                                                                Percent
Approve..............................................................49
Disapprove...........................................................42
                              minimum wage

       As you may know, the federal minimum wage is currently 
     $4.25 an hour. Do you favor increasing the minimum wage, or 
     decreasing it, or keeping it the same?

                                                                Percent
Increase.............................................................72
Keep the same........................................................24
Decrease..............................................................1
Eliminate.............................................................1
                           affirmative action

       Do you think affirmative action programs designed to help 
     minorities to get better jobs and education go too far these 
     days, or don't they go far enough or are they just about 
     adequate now?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1/95   9/91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go too far................................................     39     24
Don't go far enough.......................................     23     27
Adequate now..............................................     32     38
Don't know................................................      6     11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       As you may know, a measure has been proposed in Congress 
     that would make it unlawful for any employer to grant 
     preferential treatment in hiring to any person or group on 
     the bases of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 
     Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................73
Oppose...............................................................23
                         mexico loan guarantees

       As you may know, Mexico faces an economic crisis which has 
     forced it to sharply devalue its currency. In response, 
     private American banks plan to loan that country up to 40 
     billion dollars, and the U.S. government has agreed to pay 
     back those loans in the event Mexico doesn't repay them. Do 
     you favor or oppose the U.S. government guaranteeing those 
     loans made to Mexico by private banks?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................15
Oppose...............................................................81
                             spending cuts

       As you may know, there is much discussion in Washington 
     about which programs should be cut back in order to reduce 
     the federal budget deficit.
       Do you think the government should cut back spending:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Yes     No  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the arts?............................................      69      25
On Amtrak, the federally subsidized passenger railroad?.      65      26
For public television and public radio?.................      63      32
On food stamps for the poor?............................      48      45
On subsidies for farmers?...............................      39      63
On Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which is the                
 government's principal assistance program for poor                     
 families?..............................................      38      64
On unemployment insurance programs?.....................      30      64
On the environment?.....................................      27      67
For Medicaid, which is the government health insurance                  
 program for the poor?..................................      20      73
On Social Security?.....................................      12      86
For Medicare, the health insurance program for the                      
 elderly?...............................................       9      88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          mood of the country

       Do you think things in this country are generally going in 
     the right direction or are they seriously off on the wrong 
     track?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           1/95    10/94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right direction.........................................     35%     26%
Wrong track.............................................      66      66
Don't know..............................................      10       8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Do you think we are in an economic recession or not?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             1/95   9/91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No recession..............................................    49%    41%
Mild recession............................................     16     17
Moderate recession........................................     18     23
Serious recession.........................................     11     13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        clinton vs. republicans

       Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is 
     handling:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                His job      The economy      Foreign   
                            ------------------------------    affairs   
                                                          --------------
                              1/95   10/94   1/95   10/94   1/95   10/94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approve....................    54%     44%    51%     43%    46%     48%
Disapprove.................     40      50     38      50     44      46
Don't know.................      6       6     11       7     10       6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Who do you think has the better ideas for how to solve the 
     problems this country currently faces

                                                                Percent
President Clinton....................................................31
The Republicans in Congress..........................................36
Both equally..........................................................7
Neither..............................................................14
Don't know...........................................................13

       Do you think (Clinton/the GOP Congress) is working hard to 
     bring fundamental change to the way government is run or is 
     (he/it) governing in a ``business as usual'' manner?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Bill    Republicans
                                                    Clinton  in Congress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bring change.....................................        49          41 
Business as usual................................        45          47 
Don't know.......................................         6          12 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       As you may know, the Republicans now control both houses of 
     Congress for the first time in 40 years. Because of that, do 
     you expect the country to be better off, or worse off, or 
     don't you expect Republican control of Congress to change 
     things very much either way?

                                                                Percent
Better off...........................................................32
Worse off............................................................18
No change either way.................................................39
Too early to tell.....................................................6

       When dealing with the Republican Congress, do you think 
     President Clinton should compromise to get things done even 
     if he has to sacrifice some of his beliefs, or should Clinton 
     stand up for his beliefs even if that means less might be 
     accomplished?

                                                                Percent
Compromise...........................................................56
Stand up for beliefs.................................................38

       What is your impression of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Bill     Hillary              Newt  
                                   Clinton   Clinton  Bob Dole  Gingrich
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Favorable.......................        64        47        41        26
Unfavorable.....................        38        36        28        39
Don't know......................         8        17        31        36
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          assault weapons ban

       Congress has passed legislation banning the future 
     manufacture, sale or possession of rapid-fire assault 
     weapons. The measure does not affect those weapons already in 
     existence and exempts many types of guns used by hunters and 
     other sports enthusiasts. Some people in Congress would like 
     to repeal this assault weapons ban. Do you favor or oppose 
     maintaining a ban on the future manufacture, sale and 
     possession of rapid-fire assault weapons?

                                                                Percent
Favor................................................................67
Oppose...............................................................16
                       how the poll was conducted

       The Times Poll interviewed 1,353 adults nationwide by 
     telephone, Jan. 19 through 22. Telephone numbers were chosen 
     from a list of all exchanges in the nation. Random-digit 
     dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed 
     numbers could be contacted. Interviewing was conducted in 
     English and Spanish. The sample was weighted slightly to 
     conform with census figures for sex, race, age and education. 
     The margin of sampling error for the total sample is plus or 
     minus 3 percentage points. Selected questions were asked of a 
     half sample of approximately 675; these carry a sampling 
     error margin of 4 points. For certain other sub-groups the 
     error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be 
     affected by other factors such as question wording and the 
     order in which questions are presented.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
resume consideration of amendment No. 173, and that the amendment that 
was scheduled to be debated at 1:30 be set aside for 5 minutes so we 
can 
[[Page S1503]] proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 173.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I just want to make it clear we will not 
lose 5 minutes from our side because we have many Senators who wish to 
debate my amendment. I have no objection if the unanimous consent 
request includes the fact that we will not lose 5 minutes from the 90 
minutes that we have been promised on our amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe to the Senator from 
California that under the previous rule that has been adopted the time 
would not be deducted from her time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 173

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 173 corrects a problem in 
this bill. The bill does not provide that individual Members can seek 
an estimate from the CBO that is so critical to the survival of their 
amendments and bills. This is a different bill from last year. This 
bill creates a new point of order which was not in last year's bill. It 
basically keeps the points of order that were in last year's bill, but 
it adds a new, critical point of order that makes a bill out of order 
if the estimate of the CBO is not in the bill, if there is not an 
authorization estimated for what it will cost local governments. But 
the new point of order has severe ramifications relative to the 
appropriations process.
  Because there are such severe ramifications in this year's point of 
order, it is critical that individual Members have the power to seek an 
estimate from the Congressional Budget Office because if that estimate 
is not there--if certain other things are not there--there is going to 
be a point of order against our amendments and our bills. And even 
though it is a point of order and a procedural matter, that stands for 
something. Points of order mean things, they are not just little 
procedural hurdles. They can make the difference whether or not an 
amendment is considered or not considered, and whether or not a bill is 
considered or not considered.
  On page 14 and on page 18 there are references to committees of 
authorization obtaining the estimates from the CBO in two different 
provisions. And there is also a provision on page 29 for the chairman 
or the ranking member of the minority of a committee of the Senate or 
the House, to the extent practicable, to obtain a study of a Federal 
mandate. There is no provision in here for an individual Member to 
obtain that estimate from the CBO, which is so critical for that 
Member's amendment or bill to survive a point of order.
  So the amendment which I have asked unanimous consent now be 
considered, amendment No. 173, would correct that problem with the 
bill. I hope this will be adopted by the Senate.
  At this point, with the understanding of the managers, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order to seek a rollcall on this 
amendment at this time, and that the rollcall occur prior to a 
rollcall, if ordered, on the Boxer amendment, which will come 
immediately after this amendment.
  I am not sure if the manager heard my unanimous consent--whether 
either manager heard that. I am seeking unanimous consent that it be in 
order to seek a rollcall on this amendment at this time, but that the 
rollcall be delayed until immediately preceding the rollcall on the 
Boxer amendment if one is ordered.
  I will modify the unanimous-consent request so that it read 
immediately after the vote on the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent-
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to very strongly support the 
amendment proposed by my colleague from Michigan. I do not think any 
Senator here wants to give up his or her rights to request the same 
information that anybody else has--whether a committee chairman or not. 
I think this is a key amendment here. I do not see this as any small 
amendment.
  To say that only chairmen of committees or only ranking minority 
members are the only ones who could ask CBO for a budget estimate gives 
up a right for a Senator to represent his or her State. And I do not 
think that is right. I think this was more of an oversight in the bill. 
It was not intended that Senators' rights be trampled on, but that 
would be the effect of this. So I see this as a very, very important 
amendment.
  Every Senator representing his or her State has a full right to ask 
for whatever information may be required to get an amendment through or 
to propose legislation. In this case, that means that Senator has to go 
to the Congressional Budget Office and get an estimate. Otherwise, when 
they try to bring something up in committee and it is brought up and 
someone says what is the estimate on this, that Senator would not be 
able to have an estimate. So they would be precluded, in effect--they 
would be precluded from putting in amendments that other Senators could 
put in, if the other Senators were committee chairmen or ranking 
minority Members.
  I do not think there was any intention to take away the rights of 
individual Senators. But lest there be any doubt about it I think we 
should pass this amendment. I hope it will be unanimous, if we pass it. 
To me it makes such common sense. So I rise in strong support of this 
and hope it could be accepted. If it cannot be accepted on the other 
side I hope the leadership on the other side could support this. We 
will have an overwhelming vote of support for this particular amendment 
because this really does correct something that needs to be corrected, 
something we should have done in committee but we did not have that 
opportunity. So here we are on the floor doing it, and I think this is 
a very important amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the amendment of the 
Senator from Michigan. I am supportive of that amendment. I will 
encourage my colleagues on this side of the aisle to support that 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendment be in order to the Levin amendment prior to its disposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I want to thank the 
managers of the bill for their support of the amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 202

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of amendment No. 202 offered by the Senator from 
California. Pursuant to that order, there will be 2 hours of debate; 90 
minutes of debate will be controlled by the Senator from California, 
and 30 minutes of debate will be controlled by the Senator from Idaho.
  The Senator from California.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for a 
unanimous-consent request?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.


                     Amendment No. 217, As Modified

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment which has already been entered and is qualified, amendment 
No. 217. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 217), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 5, beginning with line 22, strike out all through 
     line 2 on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof:
       ``(I) a condition of Federal assistance;
       ``(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program, except as provided in subparagraph (B)); or
       [[Page S1504]] ``(III) for purposes of section 408 
     (c)(1)(B) and (d) only, a duty required under section 6 of 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206); or


                           Amendment No. 202

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I want to again thank 
the managers of the bill for agreeing to a time limit which I believe 
will be sufficient so that Senators who wish to be heard on my 
amendment can come to the floor and be heard.
  My amendment will ensure that this unfunded mandates bill will not 
threaten the health of children, of pregnant women and of the frail 
elderly. If we stand for anything in this Chamber, I hope it would be 
to stand up and be proud to defend the health of our most vulnerable 
populations.
  I want the U.S. Senators to know that I support the thrust of this 
bill. I thought last year's bill did exactly what it should do. It was 
an important move forward. I myself, coming out of local government, 
had experiences which I had detailed on this floor which basically said 
to me that local and State officials certainly have brains, certainly 
know what their priorities are and certainly should not be treated in a 
way that is unfair to them or to their budgets.
  Having said that, I think it is important that we not go too far in 
this bill, that we have a bill that makes sense, that essentially says 
we will not put unfunded mandates on the States but, in fact, we will 
let them know the cost and, to the greatest extent possible, we will 
provide the dollars.
  Having said that, I think it is important to note that many of the 
things we do around here are for the good of the people. I will bring 
that out as I put forward my arguments.
  I feel I must at this point speak to something the majority leader 
said, the distinguished majority leader, the Republican leader. He said 
today that Democrats were trying to block a bill they support. I 
personally feel that is a very unfair statement. I am on one of the 
committees of jurisdiction, Mr. President. I am on the Budget 
Committee. And my committee chairman, Senator Domenici, for whom I have 
the highest regard, and the ranking member, Senator Exon, for whom I 
have the highest regard, asked me if I would withhold most of my 
amendments until I came to the floor. I agreed to do that, with the 
exception of a sunset provision which we debated very swiftly in 
committee, and on a party-line vote the Republicans voted not to sunset 
this legislation. But I agreed to hold off.
  What I came up with were four amendments that I thought were 
important. I had a call from my good friend, the majority whip. He 
said, ``Senator, can't you try to cut down your four amendments to two 
amendments?'' I said, Look. I think all four of my amendments are 
important. They protect the children, the elderly, they deal with 
benefits, and they deal with illegal immigration. But, I said, let me 
see if I can do it. I am happy to say that I was able to cut back on 
one of the amendments because Senator Wellstone had a similar 
amendment, although really the amendment that he had, in my opinion, 
does not go as far as I wanted to in terms of weighing the benefits of 
some of our laws. But I agreed in the spirit of bipartisanship to cut 
back.
  Today, I have agreed to time limits on two of my amendments, and the 
third one I think we can dispose of very, very quickly.
  So I want to make the point to the majority leader, if he happens to 
be listening, or to those who are perhaps monitoring the floor so that 
he can know what is being said, that truly I know of no Democrat who is 
trying to stall this bill. We want it to be a good bill. We want to be 
able to vote for this bill.
  I also think it is important to note that my Republican friends have 
voted lockstep against every single amendment the Democrats have 
offered. I have gone back through the record book to the last Congress 
and I could not come up with more than one or two occasions when that 
has happened.
  So we have our Republican friends voting lockstep against amendments 
that could make this bill a better bill, in my opinion. The Senator 
from Idaho authored the bill in the last Congress. I supported that 
bill. But I very briefly want to tell you what this bill does because I 
have gone through this once before on the floor. I will not take a lot 
of time going over this chart. But I think, if you just look at this 
chart, you can see the kind of hurdles that we are putting our 
legislation through should this bill pass as it is without amendment.
  In the initial bill, we asked for a Congressional Budget Office 
statement on cost, and a point of order would lie against any bill that 
did not detail that cost. That made sense. We are adults here in this 
Chamber, and we should know what we are doing. And when we have the 
facts to know what the numbers are we ought to determine if the 
benefits are worth the cost. That makes sense.
  If that bill had been before us, this chart would have ended, Mr. 
President, essentially right here. All of this would not have been 
added. All of this green deals with the legislative process and the 
power of the Parliamentarian here in the Senate. No matter how fine and 
wonderful the Parliamentarians are--and, by the way, I think they are 
fine and wonderful--the people of California who I represent, 31 
million of them, did not send me here to abdicate my responsibility to 
unelected Parliamentarians and to unelected bureaucrats at the CBO, 
faceless, nameless people who, if they are politicized--and that has 
happened in the past--one way or the other may come up with a number 
that is questionable. And there is not much we can do about it. In any 
event, we set up a huge hurdle. That does not even get into this chart, 
which is what our Federal agencies must do regarding this issue of 
unfunded mandates.
  So the reason I have these charts here is to make my argument, Mr. 
President, that there are certain priorities that we will not want to 
send through this incredible maze. By the way, this chart looks like it 
is describing a one-shot process. It is not. This process may be 
repeated 10 times for one bill. Let me explain what I mean.
  The bill starts here. It goes through all of this rigamarole through 
CBO, it goes through the committee, it passes to the Parliamentarian, 
all kinds of points of order may be heard, may be waived, and then it 
goes to a vote. But guess what? If anyone offers an amendment, you 
start all over again. Thank God for Carl Levin pointing out that not 
one U.S. Senator had a right to find out what his or her amendment 
would cost, to come to the floor with a CBO estimate and try to compete 
to get an amendment. Only the authorizing committees have that right 
under the bill.
  So this is a nightmare. I have to smile because I remember when my 
Republican friends had charts like this on some of the Democratic 
proposals.
  (Mr. COATS assumed the chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. I have to smile. This makes that look like a birthday 
party, because if I was really being totally straightforward, I would 
have 10 of these charts, because every time you have an amendment, you 
have to start all over again. By the way, every time you have a 
conference report, you have to start all over again. And by the way, 
every time the House takes up a bill, they have to start all over 
again. So this does not even really reflect the bureaucratic maze we 
are putting legislation through. That is why the exceptions clause in 
this bill is so very important. That is why I am so pleased that the 
bill, as it now stands, makes certain exceptions for national security, 
for emergencies, for international agreements. But since we have set up 
this maze, it seems to me that we better be darn sure that we are not 
stopping legislation that protects the health and the safety of our 
most vulnerable populations, and that is what my amendment is about.
  I am very proud to tell colleagues that we have today received a 
letter from Carol Browner, who heads the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. I would like to read it into the Record.

       Dear Senator Boxer: I applaud your efforts to ensure that 
     sensitive subpopulations such as the elderly, infants, and 
     pregnant women are protected in statutory and regulatory 
     decisionmaking.
       A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that some 
     subpopulations may be disproportionately affected by some 
     contaminants. For example, it is well documented that high 
     levels of lead exposure contribute 
     [[Page S1505]] to learning disabilities in children. The 
     National Academy of Sciences has published two reports 
     confirming the need to consider differing effects in 
     subpopulations when performing risk assessment and in 
     regulatory decisionmaking.
       Your amendment to S. 1 will ensure that Congress is free to 
     act to protect the health of our children, pregnant women and 
     the elderly and it has my full support.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  Mrs. BOXER. Carol Browner comes out of State government. She is very 
sensitive to the need not to put burdensome regulations on our States. 
In fact, she is very well supported by people in State government. But 
she agrees that my amendment is necessary. Why? Because she knows that 
if in fact S. 1 passes as it is, without amendment, and we do not fix 
it up, bills that deal with the health and safety of the frail elderly, 
children under 5, and pregnant women, will go through this maze. I 
think we owe it to our children and their children, and the children 
after them, to stand up and be proud and vote for this amendment.
  I want to tell you that we are in a time when we keep trying to 
simplify issues. Somebody said, ``Oh, the President's speech was 
long.'' It was long last night, but do you know what? There are a lot 
of issues that need discussion, intelligent discussion. The American 
people are a lot smarter than 30-second sound bites and they deserve to 
hear more. Do you know what is happening in this country? They are 
hearing it. They are hearing it. Yes, there is a contract--a Republican 
contract--that somebody said they are going to get through in 100 days. 
Well, I am going to tell you that where I agree with that contract, I 
will walk hand-in-hand with my Republican friends. But if it hurts the 
children, if it hurts the frail elderly, if it hurts pregnant women, if 
it hurts the economy, if it hurts job creation, if it hurts deficit 
reduction, I am going to be on this floor and this is one of those 
times I personally, as one individual Member of the Senate in my 90 
minutes that I have, and I will be joined by others, we are going to 
stand here and say ``no'', because this legislation sets up 
unbelievable hurdles to legislation.
  This chart is just a hint of it because every amendment goes through 
it again and every conference report goes through it again. And it 
happens in two legislative bodies. I think the least we can do is 
exempt from that, in addition to the other things that are exempted in 
this bill, the most vulnerable people in our society.
  Mr. President, there was a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal 
that I would like to share, a national poll that asked: ``Which do you 
think should have more responsibility for achieving the following goal, 
Federal or State government?'' Protecting the environment. Fifty 
percent of the people say it ought to be our responsibility; 38 percent 
say the State. Protecting civil rights? Sixty-seven percent say Federal 
Government; 26 percent say the State. Strengthening the economy? Sixty-
four percent say the Federal Government; 24 percent say the State. When 
I ran for this office, I was very honest with the people in my State 
and I said, ``I am going to fight for you, and I am going to fight for 
what you believe is right and what is best for you and your children.'' 
They trust me to do that. There are many other Senators who did the 
same. So I am very proud to offer this amendment.
  I would like to retain the remainder of my time. I know there is 
opposition on the other side of the aisle. I would like now to yield 
the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of the bill manager, I yield 
myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is good legislation--trying to have a 
process to get some control on the incredible burden of Federal 
unfunded mandates. It has broad support at the local level --the 
mayors, county commissioners, Governors, and the private sector. All 
across America people are saying this needs to be done and asking, 
``Will you not at least have a process to look at the burden that is 
being created by Federal unfunded mandates, the burdens you are passing 
to individuals and to county and city governments, the taxes you are 
putting on people?'' This is good legislation. It has had broad 
support, building over a period of months--in fact, years.
  I understand there are 62 or more cosponsors of this legislation. 
Republicans and Democrats have joined together in drafting this 
legislation. We had the bill last year. The bill that got to the final 
hours of the session last year has been improved on. Changes have been 
made that make it better. It has been brought to the floor with this 
broad base of support across the country and in this Chamber.
  Even the President, last night in his remarks, singled this out and 
said we may have some disagreements and maybe some improvements can be 
made, but this is something that we can have and he supports it. Great. 
We are going to find things we can work together on, such as 
congressional accountability, line-item veto, unfunded mandates. We are 
making progress. The American people are going to be the beneficiaries. 
We are working together. And then what happened?
  A funny thing happened on the way to passage, on the way to the 
President's desk. Every amendment conceived by the minds of men has 
been pulled up and has been offered or is pending to be offered to this 
legislation.
  This is the ninth day on this noncontroversial, bipartisan bill. This 
is delay. This is not just finding ways to improve it. It has a 
purpose. Now, I am not real sure what the purpose is. I presume it is 
to try to delay the taking up of the constitutional amendment on the 
balanced budget. That is the only thing I can figure. Maybe it is just 
to try to score points along the way.
  When the President says, ``Let's work together,'' he gets applause on 
both sides. But he needs to convey to his agents in the Congress that 
we need a little help. We cannot make progress if we are going to have 
these amendments that are unrelated, nongermane, that are not going to 
be accepted. Let us get to the end of this process and pass this 
legislation.
  The ninth day already, and it looks to me like it is going to be all 
day today and into the night and all day tomorrow and into the night, 
perhaps Friday, Saturday. But I think we need to get used to it. The 
leader said we are going to vote this week. The only way we are going 
to get to a vote is if we begin to dispose of these amendments.
  Now, what kind of amendments are we talking about here over the past 
9 days? We have had amendments on both sides of the aisle, I admit 
that, that have dealt with history standards, abortion clinic violence, 
one on Social Security, I understand one on pornography, now this one 
on elderly and children.
  And, again, as has been said on this floor, I am not diminishing the 
importance of any of those, but on most of them I ask, why here? Why 
now? They do not relate to this bill.
  This is just making points, Mr. President. And I think it is damaging 
the image of this institution, and it is certainly, at a very minimum, 
delaying this bill.
  Now, there are those who say, ``Wait a minute. I'm not talking about 
damaging this bill. Even if it is unrelated or nongermane, or maybe if 
it is germane, I just want to try to improve it. Could we exempt this 
little thing? Could we add this or that to the little list of 
exemptions?''
  Well, after a while, if you exempt this, you exempt that, what are 
you going to have left? If it is going to in any way affect anybody or 
any group of individuals, then we want to exempt them.
  And this bill has exemptions, carefully selected exemptions drafted 
by the committee, by the Members most intimately involved and 
knowledgeable in this legislation, that have already been worked out 
and put in the bill.
  In fact, there are at least six categories of exemptions in the bill. 
In addition to the ones that came to the floor originally in this bill, 
a couple have been added--age, color. But we have the exemption if it 
involves enforcing the constitutional rights of individuals; we have an 
exemption if it establishes or enforces any statutory rights that 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, 
national origin, or handicap or disability status--and now we have 
added age and 
[[Page S1506]] color. We have an exemption of any provision in the 
Federal laws that requires compliance with accounting and auditing 
procedures with respect to grants or other money or property provided 
by the U.S. Government; that provides for emergency assistance or 
relief at the request of any State, local or tribal government or any 
official of a State, local or tribal government; that is necessary for 
the national security or the ratification of or implementation of 
international treaty obligations; or the President designates as 
emergency legislation and the Congress so designates in statute.
  This has been worked out. It has been carefully crafted in the 
committee. The exemptions that really need to be in the bill are in 
here. We cannot keep adding to it and adding to it and adding to it. We 
can all come up with some category that maybe we would like to say, 
``Oh, exempt that.'' I can certainly think of some I would like to have 
in my State of Mississippi.
  But I think the committee has done a good job. I think the managers 
of the bill have done a good job. They have been willing to accept a 
couple of additions, a couple of changes.
  I think we have to stop that process where we keep adding to it. And 
remember this: This is a process. It has been said over and over again, 
but I repeat it again. This is not saying that it must be this way or 
that way. It sets up a process for Congress to be able to think about 
what we are doing with these mandates, to know what the impact is, so 
that we can raise a point of order. What is the cost analysis? Who 
would be affected? And it allows us to have a process or forces us to 
consider what the impact is and deal with it. And if it unfairly deals 
with the frail elderly, there will be a way to deal with that.
  You know, when the American people realize that we pass all these 
bills and all these mandates and that we do not know what the costs 
are, we do not know what the impact is on individuals and cities and 
counties and States, they are horrified. They cannot believe it.
  But at least now we will have a process to analyze what the impact 
would be, what the cost would be. We can make a decision that this is 
in the national interest and we are going to go forward with it. And 
that decision could include providing the money or not providing the 
money if that decision is made by the Congress. But it forces us to 
deal with this issue.
  So you do not need to add every possible, conceivable exemption that 
you can possibly dream up because they are not being cut out. We would 
still have a process to review it and think about it.
  It will help all of the people, including people of all races and 
colors and age and children, if we pass this legislation. This 
legislation will begin, hopefully, to get a grip on stopping some of 
the burdens we have dumped off on individuals, on cities, that leads to 
tax increases, causes the loss of jobs.
  What about the people that want a job that cannot get one because of 
Federal unfunded mandates? We are going to at least force ourselves to 
think about those things.
  There are a lot of groups and individuals that have written us in 
favor of this legislation as it was drafted in the committee--business 
groups, industrial groups, groups of private individuals, governmental 
associations, the National Federation of Independent Businesses. I have 
a long list of supporters.
  Mr. President, if my time has expired, I yield myself 2 more minutes 
to wrap this up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi yields himself 2 
more minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. There are groups that are on record as supporting this.
  But, also, to again clarify the depth of the support and that there 
is a lot of Democrat and Republican support for this, I have letters in 
my hand here. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have these 
letters printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                    Chicago, IL, January 18, 1995.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I am writing to urge your support for 
     the Mandate Relief Legislation (S. 1) currently being debated 
     on the floor of the Senate and I encourage you to work with 
     your Democratic colleagues to oppose any weakening 
     amendments. I am pleased that the new Congress is acting 
     quickly, with bipartisan support, to move this legislation.
       My support for effective mandates legislation goes back 
     several years. Along with countless other mayors, governors 
     and county officials, I have long tried to make clear to the 
     Congress and the Administration the adverse impacts unfunded 
     mandates have on our ability to conduct the people's business 
     and be accountable to our taxpayers. Chicago's 1992 study, 
     Putting Federalism to Work for America, one of the first 
     comprehensive studies of this issue, conservatively estimated 
     that mandates cost the City of Chicago over $160 million per 
     year--a figure that has only increased since then.
       The legislation being considered in Congress will begin to 
     address this problem by setting up a strong process to 
     discourage the enactment of new mandates, and to require that 
     new mandates be funded if they are to be enforced. I 
     recognize that it does not cover existing mandates, an issue 
     which I believe Congress also needs to address.
       Fundamentally, this issue is all about giving local 
     governments the flexibility to make the best use of local and 
     federal dollars. The importance given the mandates issue 
     gives me hope that the new Congress--Democrats and 
     Republicans alike--will be paying close attention to the real 
     issues that face our communities and our citizens. Please 
     work to expeditiously enact a strong, effective version of S. 
     1.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard M. Daley,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                    National League of Cities,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the elected officials 
     of the nation's cities and towns, I thank you for sponsoring 
     the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act and for working against 
     amendments that threaten the effectiveness and bipartisan 
     spirit of this legislation. Local governments and the 
     taxpayers we serve have borne the federal government's fiscal 
     burden for a long time. We will not have such an important 
     relief opportunity again if this measure is thwarted in the 
     final hour by special interests or partisan politics.
       We urge you to oppose amendments that would provide blanket 
     exemptions of certain types of mandates from the points-of-
     order contained in S. 1. We believe that exemptions for labor 
     mandates and/or environmental mandates (sometimes termed as 
     legislation relating to ``protecting public health and 
     safety'') would undercut the fundamental purposes of S. 1, as 
     well as reduce the capacity and flexibility of the nation's 
     cities to focus our resources to protect public safety. 
     Historically the most onerous unfunded mandates to local 
     governments have fallen into the two categories of 
     environment and labor.
       We also strongly oppose amendments that would exempt 
     mandates related to services which both the public and 
     private sectors provide. The argument that S. 1, as it is 
     currently written, gives the public sector a ``competitive 
     advantage'' over competing private sector entities is an 
     unfounded fear, as the private sector entities and the U.S. 
     Chamber of commerce, who support S. 1, would likely confirm. 
     Furthermore, we would note that the ``Motor-Voter'' bill is 
     one of the very few bills we are aware of which imposes 
     mandates upon the public but not the private sector. 
     Therefore, we are apprehensive that any so-called 
     ``competitive advantage'' amendment would largely eviscerate 
     your NLC-supported legislation.
       Our strongest objection to such ``competitive 
     disadvantage'' amendments is that they contradict the purpose 
     of S. 1--to provide relief to state and local governments 
     from unfunded mandates. The legislation and its sponsors 
     recognize that the public sector is distinctly different from 
     the private sector, both in the services each provide and how 
     they are affected by unfunded mandates. Local governments 
     have the responsibility to provide services such as clean 
     water, drinking water, public safety and garbage disposal. In 
     contrast, providing these same services are an option for the 
     private sector--which can provide such services, for a 
     profit, to those who can afford to pay. Local governments 
     act, not as a matter of choice or motivated by profits, but 
     as a duty to all citizens. In the case of private entities, 
     the motivation is to gain a profit.
       It is one issue to set certain standards so that any 
     private corporation can understand the rules before it 
     chooses to ply a trade. It is a different issue when the 
     federal government requires a local government to provide a 
     service in a one-size-fits-all manner to every citizen. This 
     distinct difference between the two sectors means that the 
     federal government must be sensitive to mandates it imposes 
     on state and local governments.
       Thank you for your continued efforts to maintain the 
     integrity and bipartisan spirit of S. 1.
           Sincerely,

                                           Carolyn Long Banks,

                                 President, Councilwoman-at-Large,
                                                      Atlanta, GA.

                                               [[Page S1507]]

                                                 The United States


                                         Conference of Mayors,

                                Washington, DC, December 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of The United States 
     Conference of Mayors, I want to thank you for your continued 
     leadership in our fight against unfunded federal mandates and 
     to express strong support for the new bill, S. 1.
       S. 1 is serious and tough mandate reform which will do more 
     than simply stop the flood of trickle-down taxes and 
     irresponsible, ill-defined federal mandates which have come 
     from Washington over the past two decades. S. 1 will begin to 
     restore the partnership which the founders of this nation 
     intended to exist between the federal government, and state 
     and local governments.
       S. 1 which was developed in bipartisan cooperation with the 
     state and local organizations, including the Conference of 
     Mayors, is even stronger than what was before the Senate last 
     year in that it requires Congress to either fund a mandate at 
     the time of passage or provide that the mandate cannot be 
     enforced by the federal government if not fully funded. 
     However, the bill is still based upon the carefully crafted 
     package which was agreed to in S. 993 and which garnered 67 
     Senate cosponsors in the 103rd Congress. The ill would not in 
     any way repeal, weaken or affect any existing statute, be it 
     an existing unfunded mandate or not. This legislation only 
     seeks to address new unfunded mandate legislation. In 
     addition, S. 1 would not infringe upon or limit the ability 
     of the Congress or the federal judicial system to enforce any 
     new or existing constitutional protection or civil rights 
     statute.
       The mayors are extremely pleased that our legislation, 
     which was blocked from final passage in the 103rd Congress, 
     has been designated as S. 1 by incoming Majority Leader Bob 
     Dole. We also understand and appreciate the significance of 
     the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees holding a 
     joint hearing on our bill on the second day of the 104th 
     Congress at which our organization will be represented.
       I remember the early days in our campaign when many 
     questioned our resolve. How could a freshman Republican 
     Senator from the State of Idaho move the Washington 
     establishment to reform its beloved practice of imposing 
     federal mandates without funding? We responded to these 
     doubters by focusing the national grass-roots resentment of 
     unfunded mandates into a well orchestrated political machine, 
     and by joining with our state and local partners in taking 
     our message to Washington.
       The United States Conference of Mayors will continue in its 
     efforts to enact S. 1 until we are successful. We will not 
     let up on the political and public pressure. And we will 
     actively oppose efforts to weaken our bill.
       The time to pass our bill is now. Those who would seek to 
     delay action will be held accountable, and those who stand 
     with state and local government will know that they have our 
     support and appreciation.
       Thank you again for all of your hard work and commitment, 
     and rest assured that we will continue to stand with you.
           Sincerely yours,

                                                  Victor Ashe,

                                               Mayor of Knoxville,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                Washington, DC, December 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: The National Conference of State 
     Legislatures enthusiastically supports S. 1, the Unfunded 
     Mandate Reform Act of 1995. We join you in urging your 
     colleagues to cosponsor this bill and approve this 
     legislation in Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The 
     National Conference of State Legislatures commends your 
     efforts, along with those of Senator Bill Roth, incoming 
     Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
     Senator John Glenn, the outgoing Chairman of the Senate 
     Governmental Affairs Committee, in forging the bipartisan 
     mandate relief bill that is to be presented to the Senate 
     next week as S. 1. We deeply appreciate your leadership in 
     developing legislation that takes significant steps toward 
     correcting the problem of unfunded federal mandates and for 
     your openness to listen to our concerns during the 
     negotiation process.
       Your bill is a fitting first step in restoring the balance 
     to our federal system by recognizing that the partnership 
     with state and local governments has been significantly 
     weakened by the growing federal practice of imposing unfunded 
     mandates. No government has the luxury of unlimited 
     resources, and the taxpayers of this country, our shared 
     constituents, recognize that having the federal government 
     pass its obligations down to the state and local governments 
     does nothing to reduce their overall tax burden.
       This bill is about information and accountability. The cost 
     estimate, points of order, rules changes and other provisions 
     contained in this legislation are absolutely necessary to get 
     us back on track and have the federal government take 
     responsibility for its actions. To make responsible 
     decisions, members of Congress need to be fully aware of the 
     financial burdens that federal legislation often places on 
     state and local governments, and to understand the 
     implications of those burdens.
       As has been said often over the past year, the level of 
     cooperation among state and local governments and members of 
     the United States Senate during the negotiation process is 
     unprecedented. Again, we appreciate your efforts, and those 
     of the other Senators who helped forge this compromise, and 
     wholeheartedly support passage of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate 
     Reform Act of 1995.
           Sincerely,

                                             Jane L. Campbell,

                                  President, NCSL, Assistant House
     Minority Leader, Ohio.
                                                                    ____

                                    National League of Cities,

                                Washington, DC, December 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: I am writing on behalf of the 
     elected officials of the nation's cities and towns to commend 
     you for sponsoring the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. 
     Of all the measures introduced to date, this legislation is 
     undoubtedly the strongest, best crafted, and most 
     comprehensive approach to provide relief for state and local 
     governments from the burden of unfunded federal mandates.
       The National League of Cities commits its strongest support 
     for the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. We will fight any 
     attempts to weaken the bill with the full force of the 
     150,000 local elected officials we represent. Local 
     governments and the taxpayers we serve have borne the federal 
     government's fiscal burden for too long. We will not have 
     such an important relief measure thwarted in the final hour 
     by special interests.
       We commend you for continuing to foster the bipartisan 
     support which your original mandate relief bill so 
     successfully garnered in the last Congress. We will work hard 
     to gain bipartisan support for mandates relief in the 104th 
     Congress, because, as you are well aware, this bill will 
     benefit all states, all counties, all municipalities, and all 
     taxpayers, regardless of their political allegiance.
       Again, please accept our sincere gratitude for your 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,

                                           Carolyn Long Banks,

                                       President, Councilwoman-at-
     Large, Atlanta, GA.
                                                                    ____

                           National School Boards Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, December 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: The National School Boards 
     Association (NSBA), on behalf of the more than 95,000 locally 
     elected school board members nationwide, would like to offer 
     its strong support for the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 
     1995'' (S. 1). This legislation would establish a general 
     rule that Congress shall not impose federal mandates without 
     adequate funding. This legislation would stop the flow of 
     requirements on school districts which must spend billions of 
     local tax dollars every year to comply with unfunded federal 
     mandates. We commend you and your unending leadership on this 
     critical issue.
       Today, school children throughout the country are facing 
     the prospect of reduced classroom instruction because the 
     federal government requires, but does not fund, services or 
     programs that local school boards are directed to implement. 
     School boards are not opposed to the goals of many of these 
     mandates, but we believe that Congress should be responsible 
     for funding the programs it imposes on school districts. Our 
     nation's public school children must not be made to pay the 
     price for unfunded federal mandates.
       S. 1 would prohibit a law from being implemented without 
     necessary federal government funding. S. 1 would allow school 
     districts to execute the future programs which are required 
     by the federal government without placing an unfair financial 
     burden on the schools.
       Again, we applaud your leadership in negotiating and 
     sponsoring this bill which would allow schools to provide a 
     quality education to their students. We offer any assistance 
     you need as you quickly move this bill to the Senate floor.
       If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact 
     Laurie A. Westley, Chief Legislative Counsel at (703) 838-
     6703.
           Yours very truly,
     Boyd W. Boehlje,
       President.
     Thomas A. Shannon,
       Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                             National Association of Counties,

                                Washington, DC, December 29, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the National 
     Association of Counties, I am writing to express our strong 
     support for S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. We 
     sincerely appreciate the leadership you have provided in 
     crafting this new, strong bipartisan bill to relieve state 
     and local governments from the growing burdens of unfunded 
     federal mandates. Our NACo staff has 
     [[Page S1508]] reviewed the latest draft and they are 
     convinced it is much stronger than S. 993, the bill approved 
     in committee last summer.
       While this legislation retained many of the basic 
     principles from the previous bill, there were many 
     improvements. Most significant among them is the provision 
     that requires any new mandate to be funded by new entitlement 
     spending or new taxes or new appropriations. If not, the 
     mandate will not take effect unless the majority of members 
     in both houses vote to impose the cost on state and local 
     governments. Although the new bill will not prevent Congress 
     from imposing the cost of new mandates on state and local 
     taxpayers by holding members accountable we believe it will 
     discourage and curtail the number of mandates imposed on 
     them.
       Again, thank you for your leadership on this important 
     legislation. County officials across our great nation stand 
     ready to assist you in anyway we can to ensure the swift 
     passage to S. 1. If you have any questions, please contact 
     Larry Naake or Larry Jones of the NACo staff.
           Sincerely,

                                               Randall Franke,

                                  Commissioner, Marion County, OR,
                                                   NACo President.

  Mr. LOTT. I have a letter from Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; 
another one from the National League of Cities. They support the 
legislation. But there are some key words in here. They support the 
legislation without weakening amendments. And that is what this is. It 
is a weakening amendment.
  I will just read the first sentence in the letter from Mayor Daley.

       I am writing to urge your support for the Mandate Relief 
     Legislation (S. 1) currently being debated on the floor of 
     the Senate and I encourage you to work with your Democratic 
     colleagues to oppose any weakening amendments.

  That letter was to the minority leader, Tom Daschle.
  In a letter to the manager of the bill, the Senator from Idaho, 
Senator Kempthorne, from Carolyn Long Banks, president, and 
councilwoman-at-large, Atlanta, GA, on behalf of the National League of 
Cities, the first sentence of the second paragraph:

       We urge you to oppose amendments that would provide blanket 
     exemptions of certain types of mandates from the points-of-
     order contained in S. 1.

  Right on point with this amendment--``oppose amendments that would 
provide blanket exemptions of certain types of mandates.''
  And this is from a city officeholder in Atlanta on behalf of the 
National League of Cities, not your basic, you know, Republican 
organization. Mr. President, I really think that we should defeat this 
amendment, all other similar amendments. Let Senators bring this thing 
to closure. Let Senators pass this bill tomorrow night and celebrate, 
having done the right thing for all Americans with this unfunded 
mandates legislation.
  I reserve the time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 74 minutes and 
30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will speak for about 1 minute 
in response to the Senator from Mississippi, and I plan to yield 10 to 
20 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, whatever time he might wish 
to consume.
  Mr. President, I want to say to my friend from Mississippi, and he is 
my friend, that I am rather distressed at his comments. But I am not 
surprised. It is the intent of the Republicans to make it look as if 
the amendments we are offering are so-called frivolous amendments. They 
are not important amendments. They are only meant to slow things up.
  I understand he has a Contract With America that he likes. Hey, I 
like some of the things in the contract. I will help him when I agree 
with him. But I will not be railroaded so that he can make his 100-day 
deadline, when the people of California sent me here to protect the 
children, protect the frail elderly, to make sure that I stand up and 
fight for my State to get reimbursement for illegal immigration, the 
biggest unfunded mandate of them all that is not even addressed in this 
bill.
  I liked the bill as it came out last year. As a matter of fact, it 
did exactly what the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished whip, 
says this bill does. Today he said, ``We want a process to look at the 
burden we are putting on the other levels of government.'' I agree. 
That is exactly what the bill did last year. It stopped right there. 
CBO came in with the estimate. If we did not have an estimate there was 
a point of order against the bill. This whole green area here was added 
this year. It is a bureaucratic nightmare.
  I believe we should think very carefully before we pass a law that 
will impact local and State government. I served on local government. I 
come out of local government. I had some mandates that were ludicrous 
that came down from the Reagan administration. Ludicrous. But I do not 
want to go too far because we can take a good bill with a good concept, 
which is what this bill is, and we can destroy it if the real agenda is 
to stop this U.S. Senate from acting in behalf of the people.
  I am very clear in my mind that the people sent Senators here to do 
something. They did not send us here to walk away from our 
responsibility. Now, every day I hear of letters from mayors of cities, 
small cities and big cities, and members of boards of supervisors, and 
that is great. But I do not represent mayors and Governors and city 
councils and boards of supervisors. I like them a lot. I have a 
responsibility to the people that elected me. There were, as I 
remember, 6 million of them. And the others who voted for my opponent, 
they want me to work, too.
  I find it interesting, because the majority leader last week said, 
``What is wrong with the Democrats? You do not want to work. We are 
ready to work.'' First he says we do not want to work in January; then 
he criticizes us for having 100 amendments. It is work to put together 
an amendment that we believe in and fight for it as I am doing and 
others are doing. It is not fun and games, especially since the 
Republicans are voting lockstep against us on every single amendment.
  I urge the American people to look at that. On the Congressional 
Accountability Act, they even voted in lockstep--lockstep--to allow 
lobbyists to continue to take them out to dinner and pay for their 
weekends. They voted in lockstep against the Lautenberg amendment that 
said if there is an across-the-board cut, we should take a cut in pay. 
They voted against that. They are voting in lockstep. There is a 
contract, and I am not here to help them get a contract through which, 
in part, I think will hurt Americans.
  I think this bill is a good one, but we have to make it better. I am 
very glad to see that the managers of the bill support Senator Levin's 
amendment, which will allow an individual Senator to get an idea of 
what his or her amendment will cost so that they can participate in 
what is now becoming a nightmarish scenario of how to get a bill into 
law.
  When I was a kid I read how a bill becomes a law. It was complicated 
enough then. Wait until the kids have to learn about this. They will 
wonder what are we up to. So, I could say to the mayors who are 
listening and the city councils, I do not intend to vote on anything 
that will lay an unfair burden on you. But I say to the mayor of 
Milwaukee, and I don't know if anyone has heard from him, but when 
cryptosporidium killed 100 people in his city and caused 400,000 
serious illnesses because a parasite got into the water, he would have 
been glad if we had passed a law here that told them they had to get 
rid of cryptosporidium which killed his constituents.
  So, I will yield time to the Senator. I will reserve my time to 
continue to debate this very important amendment. I am proud that the 
EPA, the person in charge of the environment in this great Nation has 
sent a letter to every Senator, asking for this amendment. I am very 
proud that the Senator from Connecticut is here now. He will talk not 
only about this amendment on protecting the frail elderly, children 
under 5, and pregnant women from this bureaucratic maze, but also on my 
amendment on child pornography that he supports. I yield to him at this 
time, 15 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me thank my colleague from 
California. I may not need all 10 minutes, and I will reserve the 
balance of time if I do not use it.
  Let me first of all commend the Senator from California for offering 
the amendment that is before the Senate, and, as I understand it, a 
second amendment which she will offer later this afternoon involving 
vulnerable constituencies.
   [[Page S1509]] The first amendment, the one which is before the 
Senate now, would provide protection for the health of children under 
5, pregnant women, or the frail elderly. They would not be subjected to 
the procedural hurdles imposed by S. 1. The second amendment, which the 
distinguished Senator from California will be offering, would exempt 
laws that protect our children from pornography, sexual assault, and 
exploitive labor practices. And I think both are very sound and 
responsible amendments.
  Let me just echo the comments of my colleague from California. First 
of all, I am a supporter of this bill, the unfunded mandates bill. I 
was a supporter of the bill that we could have passed last September, 
had it not been stopped through the gridlock and filibusters that took 
place here.
  I do not know if there is much debate, there may be some who are 
opposed to the idea of amending the present situation which allows 
unfunded mandates to foist incredible burdens on our State and local 
governments. As the Presiding Officer knows, and others, a year ago I 
offered an amendment on this floor with the support, I might point out, 
of my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, on the Budget Committee 
and again on the floor.
  We tried to do something about the cause of special education, which 
today the Federal Government contributes about 7 percent of the cost of 
educating a child with special needs, despite we made a commitment some 
20 years ago that we would make up to 30 or 40 percent of the cost. I 
tried a year ago to get this body to support an amendment that would 
have raised our commitment to the costs of special education to 30 
percent. That failed at the time. But that was again an unfunded 
mandate, in a sense, by saying special needs children must be educated. 
We said that should be the case, and yet we are not willing to back up 
that mandate with the kind of resources to support the States deferring 
those costs. That is one example.
  Here we are talking about a generic law dealing with a lot of issues. 
I do not take a back seat to anybody in my support for the concept of 
trying to be more of a partner in meeting the desirable goals of our 
Nation. That, I do not think, is in debate. The question is, are there 
certain areas that we ought to exempt from those procedures?
  Now, when we are sitting here debating a situation where there are 
absolutely no exemptions. We were taking the position, or there was a 
position of the majority here, that there should be no exemptions. 
Discrimination laws, national security issues, we are going to subject 
every mandate to the same standard and test. Then I think the argument 
that we should not be accepting or supporting the Boxer amendment would 
have value because we are applying the same standard to every single 
constituency and every single issue that comes before this body where a 
mandate is involved.
  Mr. President, that is not the case. We have already decided to 
exempt some areas. And I agree with them, by the way. I am not 
disagreeing with the exemptions that have been made. We said, for 
instance, on the basis of sex or race or national origin, that you 
cannot require a procedural process dealing with the funding or the 
mandates in those areas.
  We have already taken categories of people based on their gender, 
their national origin, and their race, and we have said, ``If there is 
a mandate here to the States that involves those issues, then you are 
exempt from the procedures.'' I think that is wise. I think that is 
right.
  We have also done that in the area of national security and 
international agreements, again I think for good cause. We said, 
``Look, this is a very sound idea. Unfunded mandates, we ought to be 
funding them, helping our States or not requiring them. But there are 
areas in which we think that these procedures should not apply for 
certain constituencies. Certain people, certain circumstances ought to 
be exempt from that process.''
  What the Senator from California has said is we agree. We also think 
there are some other people here, in addition to the ones mentioned, 
that we think also fall into that category, and circumstances that fall 
into that category. Not every State has laws which prohibit the mailing 
or communication of pornography. I know which States they are. I will 
not bother listing them here today, but there are States that have no 
laws in this area whatsoever.
  So if we do not fund these things, it is conceivable through the 
computer practices today--and all of us have read the stories about 
Internet, and so forth, how you can cross State lines very quickly. The 
days of just only affecting your neighborhood in these areas is long 
since behind us. In fact, there are some horrid stories involving the 
use of computers, on-line computers, Internet, and what happens to 
young children who get caught up in this.
  What the Senator from California is saying, when it comes to 
pornography and to child abuse and neglect, is that we ought to also 
carve out an exception, as we have carved it out for the others. Now 
that we are no longer being pure on the issue, we are carving out 
exemptions, this is one we think also ought to be carved out.
  In addition to the question of children under 5 and frail elderly, I 
do not think any of us want to be in the position of having some huge 
procedural hurdles put in front of us despite our commitment to dealing 
with the unfunded mandates issue. This idea that we have to be so pure 
when it comes to the process, the process becomes more important, far 
more important than the constituencies we are trying to serve.
  I think we have to get some balance here. Try to have an intelligent, 
thoughtful process, but let us not lose sight of what happens. The 
process becomes, in a sense, the Holy Grail, rather than the people who 
are supposed to be served by the process. I think we lose sight of 
that. It is possible to have a sense of equilibrium here, where you 
move forward in the process, you try to make it work better, far more 
efficiently, far more effectively. But when you turn to certain 
constituencies, as we have done in this bill--we have said on the basis 
of race, gender, or national origin, you are different; we are not 
going to apply the process to you because we honestly believe we should 
not be turning the clock back in certain of these areas.
  What the Senator from California is saying, when it comes to the 
frail elderly and children under 5, and pregnant women, that we ought 
to, as well, say ``Look, this is not a matter, folks, that we can argue 
about how much we want to do,'' and so forth, but in these areas, it 
would be a major setback to become so distracted, so embracing of the 
process, that we are willing to walk away from constituencies in these 
particular cases.
  I would certainly not stand up here and support constituency group 
after constituency group after constituency group that seek to avoid 
the process. This has been carefully crafted by the Senator from 
California--carefully crafted. She talks about a series of 
constituencies and circumstances in which some of those vulnerable 
citizens in our society could be affected.
  Protecting children from pornography, that is a very important issue. 
This body has debated and discussed this issue over the years, and we 
have taken strong positions on the issue. I do not know of anyone here 
who wants to be on the side of coming out and saying, ``I'm sorry, but 
the process of unfunded mandates is more important than what happens to 
a child through the use of pornography through the mails and 
computers.''
  We have to make a choice here: Is the process more important than the 
issue? I suspect if the American public had an opportunity to vote on 
that issue, they would say, ``Do not make the mistake of becoming so 
wedded to your process around here that you have neglected or failed to 
deal properly and forcefully with the issue of child pornography.''
  The same could be said with sexual assault and exploitative labor 
practices included in this piece of legislation. Children under 5, 
pregnant women, frail elderly--those are the constituents. If we cannot 
find a way to have an intelligent bill on unfunded mandates--and I am 
confident we will--as well as intelligently carving out certain areas 
of constituencies that need our national protection, then I think we 
have lost sight of what our role is here to be a body that does try to 
be far more efficient and effective, make Government smaller, make it 
work 
[[Page S1510]] better. All of us, I think, are wedded and determined to 
do that and also, as I said a moment ago, to maintain that sense of 
equilibrium, which is critically important, in my view.
  Mr. President, I will just mention here, because someone may say, 
``How bad is this problem in certain areas,'' let me just point out--I 
know the Presiding Officer knows these numbers, as the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Children and Families, on which I have the pleasure of 
serving with him--but reports of child abuse and neglect have risen 40 
percent between 1985 and 1991. Too many cases of child neglect and 
abuse are reported annually now. One in three victims of physical abuse 
is a baby less than 1 year of age, and almost 90 percent of the 
children who died of abuse and neglect in 1990 were under the age of 5.
  Unfortunately, these numbers seem to be getting worse. I do not know 
if anybody has simple answers to it, but I think as we try to deal with 
these questions, we ought to try to get to the heart of it as quickly 
as we can and not set up, as I say, an arbitrary set of hurdles here in 
our desire to intelligently do something about a process that needs 
reforming.
  So, again, I emphasize, Mr. President, the fact that we have already 
carved out constituencies because we feel and have felt that they were 
important and essential and should not be subject to the whim of a 
simple majority here, a 51-49 vote that could roll back our support in 
these areas.
  I suggest in the areas the Senator from California has outlined, we 
should do likewise. This will not do great violence to the underlying 
bill on unfunded mandates. Quite the contrary. I think it says that 
this is a body that has dealt with an issue that needed dealing with 
and dealt with it effectively, and had a sense of balance and 
equilibrium about the constituencies out there that deserve to be 
singled out because of their vulnerabilities. I think we ought to be 
able to do both.
  If we do, I think we strengthen the legislation and build a stronger 
base of support, because we have shown a heightened degree of 
sensitivity about these people, these children, particularly, because 
most of the categories we are talking about are the youngest children, 
the ones who have little or no protection at all but look to us and 
look to others to make sure that at least there are laws on the books 
which allow those who are responsible for enforcing them to have some 
tools in their hands and not watch some endless debate down here that 
gets caught up in filibusters as to whether or not we are willing to 
come up with the money in these areas and watch the issue die.
  I urge the adoption of these amendments. I hope we will get away from 
this notion that any suggestion--any suggestion--to try to improve this 
bill is rejected because of some drag-race mentality. We are not 
involved in the business of a goldfish-swallowing contest around here, 
to see how many we can put down our throats in what period of time. 
This is the Senate of the United States in the business of trying to 
legislate. I think these are good ideas.
  Under normal circumstances, were we not sitting around here trying to 
meet some date that has been set out in front of us, I think these 
amendments would be debated, modified a bit, and I think they would be 
accepted. In the normal course of amending a bill, these amendments 
would be accepted.
  But because there might be a conference with the House working out 
some of the differences, it might delay the calendar on adopting this 
legislation, no one can support it on the other side. I think that is a 
huge mistake. I do not think we are being well served by that 
mentality.
  As I say, this is not a drag race to see who can beat the clock. We 
are dealing with a very important bill, a good bill--I will say, a good 
bill, a good bill--that will change the process in this country and 
provide assistance to States and localities. It is a good bill. I think 
it can be made a better bill, and that is our business through the 
amendment process.
  Let us get rid of this calendar/clock idea. Let us get our business 
done quickly, but let us also engage in the kind of discourse that the 
Senate requires when good ideas are raised; Members can support or 
object. But to go through a process, no matter how good your idea is, 
no matter how many people may agree with you, we say, ``Sorry, we 
cannot accept it because, you see, it is far more important we have a 
clean bill without a conference to get it done than it is what we write 
and what we ask the American people to support.''
  So, again, I commend the Senator from California. These are good 
amendments. I think I can predict what is going to happen. They are 
going to be defeated mindlessly because it does not fit the drag race 
to get the bill done.
  My view and hope would be that some might begin to at least say look, 
I think these are pretty good ideas. I think the House might accept 
them.
  Let us not get bogged down in rejecting every idea that comes along 
here merely because it is going to upset the 100-day calendar, whatever 
else it is we are dealing with.
  That is not what the American people are interested in. They could 
care less about the politics of what kind of timeframe you are going to 
build on. They want us to do a good job here--not a fast job, a slow 
job but a good job. I think we have a wonderful opportunity to do a 
good job. It can be a better job with the adoption of these amendments.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut yields back his 
remaining time.
  The Chair advises the Senator from California the time under her 
control is 53 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Is there a desire on the other side to take some time?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I inquire of the time remaining on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Mississippi 
there are 17 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LOTT. Since there are 50 minutes on the other side and only 17 on 
this side, I will reserve the remainder of our time at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves 
the floor, I want to thank him for taking time to speak. It is very 
difficult for Senators to come and talk on another Senator's amendment. 
That is why I am so pleased I have a number who will be doing that.
  I could not be more pleased than to have the Senator who has really 
stood for protecting the children of this country to be here on these 
amendments. I think it is clear that he has been the leader in this 
regard. I think he makes the points very clearly. We are setting up 
hurdles in this bill, many more hurdles than in last year's bill. Some 
of us may still decide it is a bill worth voting for, but we do have a 
chance to make it easier.
  I say to my friend, under last year's bill, the hurdles stopped about 
at this point, because at that time we just said CBO had to let us know 
how much our amendments or bills would cost State and local 
governments. And then we would make intelligent decisions because 
hopefully we have the ability to do that.
  What has happened in this year's bill, S. 1, which some say goes too 
far, is that we added all this part here which deals with giving power 
to the Parliamentarian to decide whether or not the amendment or bill 
as it comes to us is fully funded, and there are points of order and 
all kinds of confusion.
  I might say to my friend, after we even get a bill down here to the 
floor, every amendment has to start all over again with this procedure. 
That is why the exceptions clause is so critical to us. It is not as 
important as it was under last year's bill, but because of these 
hurdles, we have to be careful that we do not tie our hands behind our 
back, blindfold ourselves, and put earplugs in so we can really do 
nothing.
  I am very fearful, if we do not get these amendments through, then 
the children of our country, who do not put on pinstriped suits or come 
up here and treat Senators to dinners and breakfasts, will not be 
heard.
   [[Page S1511]] So I thank the Senator for adding his important voice 
to this amendment. I repeat that Carol Browner of the EPA supports us 
on this, of which I am very, very proud.
  At this time, I would like to yield 7 minutes to my colleague from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from 
California. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. President, to me, the operative language in the amendment says 
that any bill which ``provides for protection of the health of children 
under 5, pregnant women, or frail elderly would not be subject to S. 
1's point of order and other requirements.''
  I had a meeting back in Minnesota before the beginning of this 
session. It was really a very powerful meeting. It was with a large 
number of people from the disabilities community in Minnesota--Justin 
Dark came out--and people were really both terrified and I think 
indignant about what this unfunded mandates bill would mean to them.
  I think it was very, very important it be made clear that there would 
be an exemption as it applied to the Americans With Disabilities Act.
  I really view this amendment in the same framework, and I would say 
to my colleague from California and the Senator from Washington, with 
whom I have worked closely as well, that actually, as I have had 
discussions with people in my office about this piece of legislation, 
some have been surprised at really what is, by and large, with my 
strong support, the premise of this bill, but my view is that we should 
be accountable.
  I think that when we vote legislation and we are requiring State or 
local governments to follow through and implement certain policy and 
there is an expense, and we might decide that we cover the expense or 
we might decide that it is appropriate for State or county or city 
government to also be providing some of the funding, we should go on 
record.
  In many ways, that is what we do now. Someone can challenge a 
particular through an amendment and call for 51 votes right now. I like 
the idea of our being accountable, and in that sense I think the 
premise of this piece of legislation is extremely important. I have 
said that to Senator Kempthorne. But I also worry about what Senator 
Boxer has so ably pointed out on the chart.
  What I worry about is that we get into a kind of morass where there 
is the complexity and the multiple veto points which end up leading to 
a process where we literally cannot move forward with important 
legislation where there are needs that cry out to us. I would say that 
those needs cry out from children and from frail elderly and from women 
expecting children.
  I know one of the most poignant gatherings I have been involved with 
here in Washington was when a group of citizens, to make a connection 
to the environment, came from around the country. They were mainly poor 
and they came to talk about environmental justice. Their point was that 
all too often the environmental degradation has a disparate impact on 
their communities. And they are right.
  So when it comes to situations where women really cannot eat fish out 
of lakes or rivers close to where they live, nor can their small 
children, or when you go into a classroom--this happened to me in 
Minneapolis--and meet with students--I think there is no alternative to 
meeting with elementary school kids; it is wonderful how eager they 
are. It is sort of like the world all of a sudden of magic is before 
you. But to leave this meeting and then have a teacher say to you 
afterwards: You know, Senator, these kids are wonderful, but I really 
worry about the lead they have in their bloodstream--environmental 
degradation, whether it be in the paint or whether it be in the soil--
there are needs that cry out in this country.
  I cannot think of an amendment that does more to really strengthen 
this piece of legislation because by passing this amendment I think 
what we say in one stroke of public policy is we are committed to being 
accountable; we are committed to making sure that we do not impose 
legislation on State and local governments without making an effort to 
either provide the funding or be clear that they should provide the 
funding, but we go on record, we are explicit about what we do, but at 
the same time in the framework of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 
we understand that there are some compelling needs in this country, 
there are important populations that, unfortunately, are not so 
important here, not as important as they should be, that really do need 
support and protection.
  We do not want to see some legislative process we have designed that 
has become so convoluted, so complex, so full of opportunities for 
people to block to prevent us from moving forward where we really need 
to take action.
  I think that is what this amendment does. I think it strengthens the 
bill, and I am very pleased to support it.
  I yield the remainder of my time. I thank the Senator from California 
for her leadership.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator for coming over 
and joining in this debate. Again, it is an honor for me to have so 
many of my colleagues make the time. He has consistently worked since 
this bill began to try to strengthen the ability of this Senate to 
respond to the needs of populations that simply cannot get on a plane, 
come over here, take us to dinner, and plead their case eloquently.
 And many times these populations are in fact little kids, pregnant 
women, and the frail elderly.

  What we are saying in this amendment is very clear. This bill has 
turned into somewhat of a bureaucratic nightmare. Maybe it is worth it 
all, to make the Governors happy. But we better stand up and look out 
for regular people. Is that not why we are here?
  At this time I am going to yield to the Senator from Washington who I 
think, more than anyone in this place, stands up in the most direct way 
to protect those people, average Americans. I yield 7 minutes to my 
friend from Washington, Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, 
Senator Boxer, for bringing this very important piece of legislation, 
this amendment, in front of us today, because I think it points out who 
some of the critical citizens we are representing in this debate are 
and what attention we need to bring to them. Certainly I, like all of 
my colleagues, have received letters from mayors and city councilmen 
and women who are saying you have to pass this unfunded mandates bill.
  As a former State Senator I certainly was the recipient of mandates 
from the Federal Government, and I said, ``Who are they to pass this 
along to me?'' However, I think in the process we have forgotten the 
people whom we are here to represent. My constituents in the State of 
Washington sent me back here to represent their interests at the 
Federal level. Certainly some of the most important people I represent 
are the people who are spoken to in this amendment: Children, pregnant 
women, and the elderly. I look at this bill very critically. How will 
that affect those, the most frail in our society, people who do not 
have much of a voice here in the U.S. Senate?
  There certainly are no children here, no pregnant women, and very few 
elderly. I think it is important we speak out for them and I thank the 
Senator from California for bringing this to our attention.
  As we look at this bill in front of us, I look at the charts of the 
Senator from California that say what we will have to go through in 
order to pass a bill or amendment in the future, once the unfunded 
mandates bill comes before us. I have to say, as a mother I have a 
great concern about what this may do in case of a national crisis in 
the future. I want to point out an example of an issue I think might be 
severely impacted by this legislation as it is now in front of us 
without Senator Boxer's amendment.
  Last year in my State there was an outbreak of E. coli. E. coli is a 
bacteria that is in meat, and if the meat is not cooked properly it can 
cause severe illness and in some cases death. In my State of 
Washington, some children had hamburgers from a restaurant where the 
meat was not cooked sufficiently. Several children died, many were ill, 
several of them still ill, and 
[[Page S1512]] the outbreak of that has very much affected me as a 
mother thinking about buying meat and purchasing things.
  We responded very quickly, putting out new regulations about how long 
meat should be cooked. Certainly public awareness has become greater on 
the issue. But I say to all my colleagues, and to people listening, 
that E. coli is an emerging bacteria. It was not here several decades 
ago. It is now something we are seeing more and more of, and there may 
be a time in this country where it is not just isolated to my region. 
Where we see more of it, we will need to respond quickly and directly 
with national legislation to ensure that we deal with this crisis.
  I look back at the charts of my colleague from California that show 
us the legislative process we have to go through and I ask what would 
happen if we had to bring an amendment forward to deal with an issue 
like E. coli. What strikes me very much is it will no longer be our 
decision about whether or not this is a critical issue to the country 
and one we will be able to fight for. It will end up at CBO, and CBO 
will decide whether or not, if they have the manpower or the womanpower 
to decide how much this is going to cost, how long it will take them to 
put together the impacts, if they can, of the passage of the 
legislation. We will have some nonelected bureaucrat sitting in a back 
room, looking at a stack of paper on his or her desk deciding whether 
or not they have the time to decide the impacts of my E. coli amendment 
that is before the U.S. Senate.
  I have a serious concern with that. I was elected by the people in my 
State to come back here and to bring to the attention of this 
Government important issues that we have to address. To know that I 
would be stymied by somebody who is not elected, who is a CBO 
bureaucrat in the maze of the Senator from California back there--that 
I could not react quickly really concerns me. It especially concerns me 
when the issue affects children or pregnant women or the elderly.
  I think the amendment of the Senator from California is very 
important for several reasons. It points out very specifically how this 
can have a dramatic impact on some of our populations, some of our 
amendments--the process. Kids are small. Their tolerance level is very 
low. They cannot take a lot. We cannot wait for a bureaucrat to decide 
whether or not this is an important issue. Maybe they are not a mom and 
they do not have the kind of feeling I have about it. We need to be 
able, as elected officials--the people we have--to be able to move 
legislation quickly.
  I commend again the Senator from California for bringing this very 
important amendment before us that will simply say when the issue 
affects children, pregnant women and elderly, that we can move it 
through this body quickly and effectively. I believe, as the Senator 
from Connecticut said, this strengthens the bill. This touches the 
concern I have, and says we can act as who we were elected be, to be 
legislators, to make legislation. We can do it responsibly. And it is 
an important amendment for this body to consider and to move forward.
  I again thank my colleague, the Senator from California, for bringing 
this amendment before us and I yield back my time.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. We do not have much time remaining on our side but I will 
just try to give a little balance to the debate. I would like to take 4 
minutes of our time to make a couple points.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized for 
4 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after the last three statements we have 
heard I want to emphasize this point. This bill hurts no one. This is a 
positive bill. The results of this bill will be to help people, all 
people, including--and I believe especially--the elderly who now have 
to bear the burden of so many of the Federal regulations through 
additional taxes and in many cases property taxes. This is a way to 
begin to help the American people by getting the onerous mandates of 
the Federal Government and all the problems it creates and all the 
taxes off the backs of people.
  We should not be trying to anticipate, in this legislation, S. 1, any 
and all of the types of circumstances that would justify a waiver in 
future legislation. This legislation fully anticipates that such 
circumstances will exist, probably, and allows the full Senate to judge 
those cases on a case-by-case basis.
  Several amendments have been offered. I guess others will be offered 
that would remove additional categories from coverage by the bill. I 
have a lot of questions about this.
  How do you define frail elderly as distinguished from sick elderly or 
just elderly? My mother, heaven help her, is 82 years old. She has a 
bum knee. She does not get around too well. The bill already has an 
exemption for age. Would that not take care of this problem?
  There is this other little exemption in the bill that I read earlier. 
If there is a real problem the President of the United States can 
designate this is an emergency and can take care of the problem also.
  There is no end to the list of groups or categories of individuals or 
circumstances we might conjure up that might come forward. The bill 
will take care of that. There are at least three problems with adding 
all these exemptions.
  First, it is a slippery slope and there is no limit to the interests 
that arguably ought to be protected through an exclusion.
  Second, creating entire categories of blanket exclusions invites real 
problems of interpretation. Would a mandate that deals with infants and 
pregnant women, but also includes many nonexcluded circumstances or 
categories, be exempt from the requirements of S. 1? That is a question 
we really would have to think about.
  Third, the more categories that are excluded, the more loopholes in 
the bill that will invite creative construction of mandates, in order 
to avoid the intent of the law.
  The real answer to these pleas for additional exclusions lies in the 
waiver provision. Remember, S. 1 does not decide which mandates will be 
funded by the Federal Government and which ones not. Instead it 
establishes a process. Is it a magical process? Are we wedded to that? 
Can we make changes? Yes, we can. But this is not a mandate. This is a 
process by which we can virtually look at all Federal mandates. They 
will be judged on their individual merits as to whether or not the 
Federal Government ought to fund them or not.
  S. 1 fully anticipates the concerns of Senators like the 
distinguished Senator from California, Senator Boxer, by allowing the 
Senate to make a case-by-case judgment on which mandates are so 
compelling that they ought to be imposed even without Federal funding.
  A big advantage of such case-by-case determinations is that it allows 
Congress to prevent creative uses of exemptions from turning into 
unintended loopholes. It also allows us to still require that the cost 
of a mandate be scored by CBO, under the provisions of S. 1, while then 
having the option of waiving the requirement that the Federal 
Government fully fund it. Remember, exclusions from this act are exempt 
from both requirements.
 That is the way they should be considered.

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). All time which has been yielded 
has expired.
  The Chair reminds the Senator from Mississippi that he has 13 minutes 
43 seconds left under his time, and the Senator from California has 38 
minutes 2 seconds.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I want to 
respond to some of his points.
  The Senator says, ``What do you mean by frail elderly? It is 
confusing to me.'' Let me tell you why we decided to go with frail 
elderly. We wanted to make this a narrow exception. We did not want to 
make this an exception that will hurt this bill. We said children under 
5, because those are the ages recognized by the World Health 
Organization as the years when children are particularly vulnerable to 
environmental pollution. We did not want to say ``elderly.'' That would 
mean everyone over 65 or 62 or 70, because I 
[[Page S1513]] have many friends of that age group who are in better 
shape than some of us who are younger. We are trying to make an 
exception for the most vulnerable in our society.
  It is really extraordinary to me that my good colleague would send 
out one of the members of the leadership to fight this amendment. I am 
very flattered that the majority whip himself is here with all of his 
experience in debate. But I think it speaks to the fact that this is an 
important amendment.
  I hope that my Republican friends will not march lockstep to some 
100-day plan to pass a contract and say we have to vote against every 
amendment because if this bill is different than the House bill we will 
have to go to conference, and, God forbid, it will slow it down and 
take time.
  I hope the American people are listening to this debate. I hope they 
get involved in it because we are going to vote on this issue pretty 
soon. I think anyone who has followed this debate, who has seen how 
bureaucratic this law is, will well understand why we need to exempt 
some of our priorities from the maze it creates. If children are not 
our priority, where are we as a nation? Every Senator from every party, 
Republican, Democrat, independent, I do not know of one who has not 
made a great speech and gotten great applause for our wanting to 
protect our children or our future. Well, let us show that we mean what 
we say.
  We are setting up a new procedure that is very confusing. I daresay I 
listened to this debate. The two managers could not agree on some of 
the provisions. There is no explanation of one of the key points in the 
bill, the term ``direct savings.'' There is no definition. The Senator 
from Mississippi says, well, the Senator from California does not 
define what frail elderly means. In this bill there is no definition of 
direct savings. If we pass an environmental law and kids do not get 
poisoned from lead and they can concentrate in school and they can get 
into high school and college and earn a living, was it worth it that we 
said to the States get the lead out of the water? You bet.
  I ask you, my friends, my Republican friends who voted in lockstep 
against every one of these amendments, to ask the people in Milwaukee 
if they would have wished we would have acted to take the 
cryptosporidium out of the water, or my friend from Washington, my good 
friend, who said she had to deal with the effects of E. coli in the 
meat supply.
  This bill sets up a bureaucracy. Make no mistake about it, it is 
here. No one disputes it because this is it. This picture, I say to my 
friends, does not even show the whole nightmare that it is because this 
is just what the Senate does to get the bill. Every amendment goes 
right around and through all of these steps again at every single 
conference report that may come to us. It goes right through it again. 
You can hear the arguments on this amendment. They have accused us of 
slowing things up. I have news for them. They are on a 100-day course. 
My people did not send me here to march in tune to a contract that some 
politician wrote. They sent me here to fight for the people of 
California, to stand up for what I believe in, and especially for those 
without a voice because kids do not come here in pin-striped suits and 
treat us to dinner. They expect, and they should expect, of their 
elders that we will look out for them.
  I have made this amendment very narrow. I have made this amendment so 
narrow that the exception is the frail elderly, children under 5, and 
pregnant women, because I do not believe it is right, I do not believe 
the American people want us to tie that kind of legislation into knots 
and later on be offering an amendment that says if it is a law that 
deals with child pornography, child sexual abuse, child labor law 
infraction, that we do not subject those kinds of laws to this 
bureaucratic nightmare.
  If that is what this contract is all about, fine. I have to say that 
my friend from Mississippi, and he is my friend, says this bill hurts 
no one, that this helps all people. Let me tell you something. I will 
be unequivocal about this. I used to be in local government. I did not 
like it when the Reagan administration told me what to do, and they did 
it time after time. So I want to support a bill that takes the mandates 
off our backs. I supported the original bill. This one goes too far. It 
sets up a maze. I am here to tell you. What good is it for the people 
of California to send me here and I cannot even offer an amendment to 
save the children--to save the children from chemicals that go into the 
water, from bacteria that goes into the food, from dirty air?
  Do you know that the children in Los Angeles today have a 15 percent 
lower lung capacity than children born in clean air areas? The San 
Francisco Chronicle, which in the past has supported many Republicans, 
says as follows about this bill:
  Clearly none of the major environmental protections passed over the 
past 25 years could have withstood this bill.
  So let us be careful. Let us vote for the Boxer amendment, supported 
by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and in a new poll 
the vast majority of people believe we should have an Environmental 
Protection Agency. And Carol Browner has sent to every Senator a letter 
today saying vote for this amendment. This is smart. She says:

       Your amendment, Senator Boxer, will ensure that Congress is 
     free to act to protect the health of our children, pregnant 
     women, and the elderly, and it has my full support.

  This bill sets up a process. This is not about helping anybody. It is 
about a process. It is not about helping anybody. I hope that we will 
add an exception. That is an exception for the frail elderly, the 
children, and the pregnant women.
 I ask my friend from New Jersey if he is prepared at this time to make 
a few remarks on this amendment, or would he rather the Senator from 
Texas take her time now? I have the right to the floor, and I am glad 
to yield if he wishes.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California. I hope the 
Senator from Texas will excuse my taking advantage of the time offered 
now. I will not be long.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator like 10 minutes?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. That would be the most that I would need.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to make sure that as we pursue 
the objective of S. 1, one that I think almost all share here, which is 
to get rid of assigning States tasks that cost them lots of money 
without having a good and sufficient reason, that we take important 
national matters into consideration. One issue that I have mentioned in 
previous statements is interstate pollution. I am concerned about my 
ability to persuade the citizens of New York to take on an extra tax so 
that beaches in my State could remain free of pollution. Yet that is 
exactly what may happen, because under S. 1, States would not have to 
comply with Federal mandates unless we pay them to--or unless I am able 
to persuade a majority of my colleagues to help my State.
  As I examined this bill, I came to the conclusion that, while in 
concept and principle it is an excellent idea, there are certain 
national interests that are so important that they ought not to be 
subject to the S. 1 point of order. I commend the Senator from 
California, whose always thoughtful review of legislation enables her 
to have a certain uniqueness about finding that one spot or a place in 
a bill that really calls out for unique or special attention.
  In this case she is absolutely right. These exemptions, such as the 
one that is being proposed by the Senator from California, include 
Federal mandates relating to national security, discrimination, and 
international agreements.
  So today, I am trying to help secure support for the amendment of the 
Senator from California, to add the protections of children, pregnant 
women, and the frail elderly to the list of vital national interests.
  Mr. President, I cannot believe that any of my colleagues would act 
in a way to endanger the welfare of already vulnerable Americans. Yet, 
this bill, as it now stands, would do just that.
  Mr. President, if we leave Federal environmental laws to the States, 
we risk a situation where some States will enact much stricter 
legislation than others and in that situation, by way of example, our 
Nation's children could be placed at terrible risk. Scientific studies 
have shown that children, pregnant 
[[Page S1514]] women, and the elderly are all particularly vulnerable 
to environmental threats. The overall incidence of childhood cancer, 
which induced, frankly, the review of the Superfund statutes that are 
on our books, has increased 10.8 percent over the last decade. Noting 
that, the incidence of childhood cancer has increased 10.8 percent over 
the last decade. Cancer now is the No. 1 disease killer of children 
from late infancy through early adulthood.
  Unlike legislators and regulators, the disease of cancer does not 
know State lines. If just one State were to loosen its environmental 
laws, the fallout could lead to even higher rates of childhood cancer, 
both in that State and throughout the region.
  In his State of the Union Address, the President cautioned that we 
must maintain our sense of responsibility and compassion as we move to 
trim the Federal Government.
  As it now stands, S. 1 would allow States to decide whether or not, 
on their own, to protect citizens from serious environmental threats. I 
am concerned that passing this bill in its current form might be 
neither compassionate nor responsible.
  The Federal Government has a moral responsibility to protect American 
citizens--especially our most sensitive populations--from grave dangers 
to their health and well-being. We have a moral responsibility to 
tackle national problems with national solutions. And we have a moral 
responsibility to make sure that our national environment is habitable 
and safe.
  Later this afternoon, I plan to offer another amendment that 
addresses concerns not dissimilar to those raised by the Senator from 
California. My amendment would exempt from the requirements of this 
bill, legislation seeking to limit exposure to group A carcinogens. In 
other words, very simply, if a mandate was issued that one State had to 
rid itself of the emission of carcinogens to protect another State's 
interest as well as its own, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask 
that polluting State to pay for it, particularly if the effects, like 
the wind blowing or currents flowing, would be in another State.
  Mr. President, I am particularly sensitized now to the well-being of 
children, as I expect a phone call any minute from my youngest 
daughter, who is ready to deliver my second grandchild. It is an 
exciting time, as all know. Also, it is a daunting one. I want to make 
sure that my children and your grandchildren, Mr. President--you are 
young and do not have them yet, but you will get them, God willing--and 
all the children in this land grow up in a safe healthy environment.
  I want to make sure that they can breathe in the air without also 
breathing in toxins of death, that they can drink the water without 
imbibing lead, and that they can grow up as healthy, productive adults, 
free from scars of serious birth defects and childhood diseases. That 
is why I am here and joining the Senator from California to support 
this amendment.
  It is thoughtful, purposeful, and it belongs in this piece of 
legislation as an exemption. Otherwise, Mr. President, we are going to 
be putting the children of America and the elderly at dangerous risk. 
There is nothing more beautiful, in my mind, than my pregnant daughter. 
We ought to be concerned about pregnant daughters across the face of 
this Nation. We all instinctively want to protect and admire that cycle 
of life.
  So, Mr. President, I hope this is an amendment that is going to carry 
by weight of its value and by the persuasive presentation from the 
Senator from California.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Texas 
is prepared. I will only take 1 minute of my time. How much time do I 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes 33 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take, at maximum, 2 minutes to say to my friend 
how much I appreciate his coming over here. He has been a stalwart in 
terms of protecting the environment of the State of New Jersey and the 
health and safety of all Americans. He just faced the voters in a very 
tough race, where he stood on that record of environmental strength. 
And I think the fact that he is out here today supporting this very 
important amendment--which, I tell my friend from New Jersey, Carol 
Browner, the head of EPA, supports and has sent us a letter which is on 
everyone's desk--and the fact that he took the time out of his busy 
schedule says to me he meant what he said to the people of New Jersey 
and he is very magnanimous to the Senator from California for helping 
her.
  I want to share a personal note with my friend. I, too, have a 
daughter who is going to give me, if all goes well, my first grandchild 
in June. And it is quite an experience to those people who have not had 
it yet. Your feelings for life and children and future come right to 
the forefront. What we do here now is going to affect those 
grandchildren of yours and mine, because if we set up such hurdles that 
makes it impossible for the Senator from New Jersey to fulfill the 
pledge he made to his people in his election and impossible for the 
people to look to me and say, ``Please, Barbara, you said you want to 
act to help the young people and elderly in our environment.'' Children 
who live in Los Angeles have on average 15 percent lower lung capacity 
than children living in clean air areas. That is wrong.
  This bill is a good idea that may well go too far. We are trying to 
fix this and make it better. I am stunned at my colleagues, that they 
did not say to me, this is reasonable, let us work it out, let us 
change two or three words, and let us make your idea part of this bill.
  No. No. I have never seen anything like it; vote after vote along 
partisan lines against amendments that are going to make this bill 
better. The majority leader said, ``They like this bill. Why are they 
offering these amendments?''
  Because we want to make it better. We did not come here to roll over 
and play dead because there was an election and somebody has a 100-day 
contract. You know, my contract with my people goes far past 100 days. 
It goes to the next generation.
  I really believe that the Senator from New Jersey spoke eloquently to 
that point. I am so proud to have his support, and also have the 
support of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senators from 
Washington and Minnesota. I thank them all.
  I retain the remainder of my time to close debate at a later point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate the concern of 
the Senator from California about pregnant women and children and the 
elderly, and the Senator from New Jersey talking about carcinogens.
  A vote today against this amendment or against the Senator from New 
Jersey's amendment does not mean that we are for carcinogens in the 
water. It does not mean that we do not want to take care of the young 
children and the elderly. We all want to make sure that our young 
children and our elderly people who need help have it.
  In fact, that is the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is 
to bring the issue down not to whether we take care of people or not 
but how do we take care of them? What is the best way to make sure that 
our children have a future, that our elderly are able to be taken care 
of, that we do not have carcinogens in the water?
  The question is who makes the decision and who pays for it?
  What we are saying today is that the Government that is closest to 
the people should be making those decisions and they should pay for it 
after they make the decisions.
  The whole concept of our Government is that we do not have taxation 
without representation; that if we are going to have a program whoever 
decides that we are going to have that program should pay for it. That 
is the issue today. It is not whether or not we are going to take care 
of the people in this country who need help.
  I am a former State treasurer. I have been a State officeholder. My 
colleague from Idaho has been the mayor of his city in Idaho, Boise. So 
I think we have to look at the issue of who can best do this job.
   [[Page S1515]] We know the impact of these mandates. We know the 
tough choices unfunded mandates force States and cities and counties to 
make. And the issue is, are they going to raise taxes or are they going 
to cut services, services to the elderly and children? That is the 
question.
  Passage of this bill sends a clear message to our State and local 
government leaders that have cried to us time after time after time. We 
want to work with them to reduce the pressures on the taxpayers of 
America. It will also send a message to them that we intend to return 
to the proper role of Federal Government.
  In my own State, almost one-third of the increase in the State budget 
over the last 3 years has been the result of unfunded Federal 
mandates--one-third. It is a stealth tax. The taxpayers of Texas and 
California and Ohio and Idaho are paying taxes but we do not get the 
blame for those taxes because it is a stealth tax. It comes from 
unfunded Federal mandates through the States and local governments. We 
just cannot afford it anymore. The taxpayers of this country cannot 
afford it anymore.
  Yesterday, I spoke about an amendment and I said these unfunded 
mandates mean that we may have to increase and have increased the light 
bill or the water bill or the sewer bill for the very elderly people 
that the Senator is trying to protect. I think you have to look at the 
overall picture to determine what the effects are going to be on the 
people that we are going to try to protect.
  Gov. George Bush of Texas, who just got sworn in last week, in his 
inaugural address said, ``Texans can govern Texas. Thank you very much, 
Federal Government. We can do it ourselves.''
  Well, I am sure Tennesseans can govern Tennessee. I am sure 
Californians can govern California. They are quite competent to do it. 
In fact, they are better able to make the decisions, because they would 
not put a mandate on the local governments to test the water supply for 
proposed carcinogens that that water supply has never had and will 
never have because they know what the potential carcinogens are in 
Boise, ID, or Amarillo, TX, or Memphis, TN. They know better than the 
Federal Government and they do not need to send their money to 
Washington to have them launder it through their bureaucracy and send 
80 cents on the dollar back. They have figured that out.
  So the issue is not are we going to protect the elderly and the 
children and the working people and the jobs in this country. The issue 
is how is the best way to do it. And the best way to do it is to pass 
this bill without amendments that are going to gut it as this amendment 
will, pass this bill to say to the State and local governments: We are 
not going to tell you what is best for your locality because we know 
you can make that decision. We know that you are the best source to 
determine what the quality of air is and what the priority programs to 
clean up the air is for your area. And it is different in Los Angeles 
than it is in El Paso. It is different in Houston than it is in 
Memphis.
  That is why we want to pass this bill, so that the local governments 
can more efficiently protect the people that we are here to protect, 
because they can do it best at the government level that is closest to 
the people and they can determine what the priorities are and they will 
do it in a much better way than the Federal Government, the bureaucrats 
that may or may not have ever visited Los Angeles or Memphis. They can 
do it better.
  So that is why I am supporting this bill. And that is why I am very 
concerned about an amendment that would essentially start to take out 
segments of the potential mandates because when you do that you are 
saying, ``We will be able to continue telling you how you will do your 
business, State government and local governments.''
  And I think the people of America understand that. And I think they 
understand that this is a bill that will fulfill a commitment that we 
have made to downsize the Federal Government, to go back to our roots, 
which is State and local governments have all of the responsibilities 
in the Constitution except those specifically reserved to the Federal 
Government.
 Not the opposite. It is not the Federal Government saying we are going 
to do everything and we will let the States and local governments do a 
few things that we decide they might be competent to do. The Federal 
Government did not create the States in this country. The States 
created the Federal Government. That is the way our Founding Fathers 
decided to do it because they knew, they knew, that States and local 
governments were best able to deal with our problems. They knew that we 
should have a very limited Federal Government. That is what we are 
trying to return to with this bill.

  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remaining time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I inquire as to what the timeframe is 
on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 17 minutes and 10 seconds, and 5 minutes 
and 13 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would be glad to ask the manager if he wishes to retain 
his time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, to the Senator from California, I 
believe I will use the remaining 5 minutes to make closing comments.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Chair, it is my plan to close the debate 
since it is my amendment, so at this time I would like to take 10 
minutes of time. I would like the President to inform me when I have 
reached that 10-minute timeframe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am really glad that the Senator from 
Texas came over here to talk about her philosophy of government 
because, really, it goes to my amendment in many ways.
  The Senator comes over here and talks about her philosophy of 
government. I am talking about people, people who are going to be 
impacted by a bill that is based on an excellent idea. The Senator from 
Texas talked about how she was in State government. I was in local 
government. I come out of the grassroots. In my first campaign, I 
knocked on every door in my county. I lost that one. But I won the 
second one, 4 years later. And I have won every one since.
  The reason I think I won these elections, sometimes unexpectedly, is 
because I said to the people of my State, ``I will go and fight for 
you. I will walk hand in hand with the Republicans when I agree with 
them, but when they go too far, I will fight for you.'' So the Senator 
from Texas talks about her philosophy of government. I want to talk 
about the people. I like the idea of looking at costs when we write 
laws.
  I loved S. 993, which the Senator from Idaho wrote in the last 
Congress. It had very strong bipartisan support. It forces Members to 
look at the costs. On this chart, it ended over here. It was very 
doable and workable. And now it has been changed. We have hurdles set 
up, not only for the bills but for every single amendment. Maybe there 
are some here who think that everything we do here is bad. I do not 
think that everything we do here is bad. Some of the things maybe, but 
there is a lot we do that is good.
  I found it interesting that the Senator from Texas says, ``Texans can 
take care of Texas.'' That was not the case when they had a flood, as I 
remember it. And I was happy to help her constituents. I say to my 
colleagues, be careful in your rhetoric. There may be times when you 
will have floods in the Midwest, tornadoes, storms. There was a 
horrible one in Tennessee, I remember, after my friend who is in the 
chair was elected. It was a terrible problem.
  I believe that all levels of government should work together. We are 
not enemies of each other; we are not enemies of each other. We are all 
in it for the same purpose. Sometimes, it will make sense for the local 
government to be in complete control of everything that goes on. 
Sometimes it should be a partnership.
  My friend from Texas talked about the founders. If the founders took 
a look at these charts, they would roll over in their graves. They were 
very clear thinkers; they were very clear thinkers. Why we want to set 
up these hurdles on every single U.S. Senator is something I find hard 
to understand.
  That is why I am offering my amendments. I would not have offered the 
amendments to the former bill because 
[[Page S1516]] that bill made sense. This bill goes too far. If there 
is an outbreak of E-coli in the meat supply, as Senator Murray said, 
she wants to act. If there is cryptosporidium in the water supply, it 
kills people. Who does it kill? The frail elderly, the children, and it 
harms the pregnant women and the children they are carrying. All we are 
saying is: Make another exception. You have made other exceptions in 
this bill. If we mean that our children are important, make an 
exception for those children.
  Let me read for my friends here from a very important paper, ``Health 
Effects of Ambient Air Pollution.'' As I understand it, my friend from 
Texas has a bill that would postpone implementation of the Clean Air 
Act. What does that mean to one part of my State? It would, in fact, 
reverse the progress we are making and we would see a continuation of 
the costs of dirty air approach $9 billion, just in Los Angeles. If we 
clean up the air, we will save $9 billion. Does that go into this 
formula? No, it does not. We do not believe that savings is in this.
  I also have to say to my friend, she says Texans can govern Texas and 
Californians can govern California. Of course, we can. There is a role 
for State government, and there is a role for local government and a 
role for Federal Government. But I have news for her. We had a Civil 
War. We decided we were one Nation under God. We are not enemies of one 
another. I love to work with Governors and State-elected officials and 
local officials, of which I was one. We are not enemies.
  The American people, in a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal, a 
couple of days old, said it is up to this Government to act to protect 
the health of the people, the environment; only 9 percent of the people 
think there is no use for the Environmental Protection Agency. Let me 
repeat that: Only 9 percent of the people think there is no use for the 
EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Environmental 
Protection Agency supports my amendment. It is unusual for them to send 
a letter. They sent it on this amendment, because Carol Browner, who 
comes from the State of Florida, who understands the role of State 
government, who supports deregulating, says this is an important 
amendment.
  Listen to what the American Lung Association says:

       The young, the old and the chronically ill are usually 
     assumed to be at high risk for many forms of air pollution. 
     Much experience leads us to expect that immature, growing 
     bodies will be highly vulnerable to all sorts of 
     environmental stresses in comparison to healthy adult bodies. 
     A more specific concern is that children breathe more air for 
     a given volume of lung tissue than do adults; likewise, much 
     experience leads us to expect that bodies debilitated by 
     disease (that is the frail elderly) or by the inevitable loss 
     of function with advanced age will be highly vulnerable.

  My friend from Mississippi says, ``What do you mean by the frail 
elderly?'' I tell you, read the American Lung Association. ``* * * 
bodies debilitated by disease or by the inevitable loss of function 
with advanced age will be highly vulnerable.''
  They cannot put on a pinstriped suit and come in here and take me to 
lunch and tell me why it is so important to protect them. They just 
want to be grandmas and grandpas and great grandmas and great grandpas, 
and live in peace and drink the water, breathe the air, and kiss their 
great grandchildren, and pass on the family values that are so 
important to everyone in this Senate. I have yet to hear a Member who 
did not talk about family values. We better value the family of 
humanity here in America because if we cannot act with speed, 
deliberate speed, when there is an outbreak of some poison in the 
water, some chemical in the water, we are putting those people at risk.
  Maybe you will change your mind if it happens to be your mother or 
your father or your pregnant daughter. I hope we are never in that 
situation where I have Members coming to the U.S. Senate floor saying: 
Senator Boxer, you were right; we should have done this. We cannot act. 
We are tied up in knots. I cannot even offer an amendment.
  Why are we here? We are not here to please Governors. We are not here 
to just deal with the process.
  That is why I like last year's bill. It was sensible, it was sound. 
It treated us like grownups. Let us get a cost estimate. If we do not 
have it, there is a point of order against the bill and we have to 
stand up and be counted if we, in fact, pass a law that costs some 
money.
  By the way, I am very willing to put the money behind anything I 
believe in. I think that is the right way to be. I think we should move 
in that direction, but to tie us up in knots?
  By the way, I also have to make a point here. In the committee, I say 
to my friends, I offered a sunset amendment. I said, ``Look, this may 
be a great bill, but let's analyze it in a few years.'' They said, 
``Oh, no, no, no, we do not want to do that.''
  I said, ``OK, I'll offer an amendment for 3 years,'' and then I 
sunsetted it at 5 years, then I sunsetted it out in 2002. No, 
Republican party-line straight vote, no sunset.
  So when I hear my friend say, ``If this doesn't work, we'll change 
it,'' I think it is a little disingenuous because we offered a sunset 
provision out as far as 7 years and could not get a Republican vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, will you please notify me when I have 
spoken for 4 minutes?
  I just came from a press conference. That is why I had to leave for a 
few minutes. At that press conference, we had mayors from around the 
country. We had Victor Ashe, from Knoxville, TN. We had Greg Lashutka, 
who is Senator Glenn's mayor, from Columbus, OH; Rich Daley, the mayor 
of Chicago--all of them in strong support.
  The press conference was to announce strong support for S. 1 and the 
fact they appreciated S. 1 has as its core S. 993. But that we have 
taken a good step forward. That is what S. 1 is.
  At any point during this process, if you truly have an emergency 
situation, you can seek a waiver. These points of order are not self-
executing either, Mr. President. Someone will have to raise that point 
of order, and if you truly have some true national emergency, I really 
do not perceive someone is going to try to stop the process of dealing 
with it.
  I do not want the Senator to feel that those who may oppose the 
language of her amendment are against in any way the elderly and 
children. I appreciate the sensitivity by which she has addressed the 
issue of the elderly and the children.
  I have said many times that S. 1 is a carefully balanced bill. It is 
a bill that has bipartisan support because we have addressed these 
issues. A number of Senators have expressed concern that exemptions 
need to be added to the limited few that are in S. 1. But I do not 
share that view and for a number of reasons.
  First, remember this is a bill that is prospective in nature. It only 
applies to new mandates contained in legislation considered in Congress 
after next year. So it is impossible that this bill would harm the 
current environment, public health, and safety.
  S. 1 is a process bill. It reforms the process by which Congress 
considers legislation imposing mandates. It is a process bill for 
making better decisions in the future about issues that affect State 
and local governments and the private sector. So nothing in this bill 
affects in any way the current health, job safety, or the environment 
of any citizen.
  Let me emphasize a provision in this bill that directs committees to 
report on the costs and benefits on health and safety and protection of 
the natural environment. We will have more information to make better 
decisions. S. 1 is not a ban on mandates. As the sponsor of this bill, 
I may well vote to waive this point of order sometime in the future.
  With respect to the issue of the elderly and children, let me mention 
what I think is quite straightforward. State and local officials, more 
than Congress, work on these issues hands on. These are the real world 
day-to-day facts of life that State and local officials care about. 
They want clean water, clean 
[[Page S1517]] air, safe working conditions just as we do. They want to 
care for their neighbors, their elderly and those who need help.
  Unfunded mandates, unfortunately, keep State and local officials from 
taking meaningful action to improve public health and safety. Examples 
of that are boundless and have often been cited on the Senate floor.
  The reason why unfunded mandates are counterproductive is simple: 
States and cities have to use discretionary dollars that would have 
been spent on other programs to pay for mandates. States and cities 
have fixed costs that they must pay. They have to pay for sewers and 
roads and police and fire.
  I noted with keen interest the comments made by the other 
distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, when we began 
debate on this bill. And she said, and I quote:

       Let us take Los Angeles County. To meet Federal mandates 
     and still balance its budget, the County of Los Angeles has 
     to curtail significantly other programs. For example, this 
     year--

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you, Mr. President.

       For example, this year, Los Angeles County employees would 
     have to forgo cost-of-living and other wage adjustments, and 
     aid to indigents will be substantially reduced. Several 
     libraries are being closed * *  *. Recipients of welfare and 
     public health services will face longer waits due to minimal 
     county staff.

  Let me read a quote from the National School Board Association, 
President Boyd Boehlge:

       The very children Congress is trying to protect are the 
     ones who are hurt most often by proliferation of unfunded 
     mandates.

  To accept further some unfunded mandates to the process or exemptions 
in S. 1 seems it could lead to the imposition of more unfunded mandates 
in the future. It is a process so that we can have these discussions. 
This is where those discussions should take place, recognizing that we 
do have State and local officials who realize their responsibility and 
are looking for a partnership instead of just dictates from their 
Federal Government.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five seconds. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time do I have to close?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 6 minutes 14 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to close debate at 
this point. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
who participated in this debate. I think this was a very important 
debate, and I think the vote is very important as well.
  I want to say to my friend from Idaho that, again, he talks about how 
the mayors want this. My mayors like the impact of this as well, but 
when I met with them and I explained the amendment that I had offered, 
they did not object to what I am trying to do. They understand that we 
have to be reasonable people.
  My friend says, ``Oh, its real easy, you come to the floor and you 
just get everything waived and everything works fine.'' I say to my 
friend from Idaho, the author of this bill, that if it is so easy, why 
does he have any exemptions whatsoever? I think it is a very important 
point that he address in his own mind. If this is such a 
straightforward bill, if any Senator can get on this floor and say, 
``Look, this is so important, I want a waiver,'' why does he have any 
exemptions in this bill? And he does have exemptions in this bill. It 
currently shields constitutional rights, discrimination, national 
security, and implementation of international agreements such as NAFTA.
  Now let me say something. It shields international agreements, such 
as NAFTA.
  What about children? Are our American children as important as an 
international agreement such as NAFTA? Are our pregnant women as 
important as an international agreement such as NAFTA? I think so. If 
there were no exemptions in this bill, I think that the manager of the 
bill would be intellectually correct when he says it is easy; any 
Senator can get a waiver. Then why did he put exceptions in the bill? 
And why does he oppose our adding a very narrow group of people who 
cannot come here and lobby, of people who do not have a powerful voice 
but are the most vulnerable of populations?
  Now, I read to you before that the lung association feels very 
strongly that children are very vulnerable to chemicals, to pesticides, 
and to other things in the environment that harm them more than they 
harm adults.
  Right now, when our agencies set limits on chemicals and pesticides, 
they use a healthy 170-pound man as their model. But now we know that 
children are more vulnerable than a 170-pound man, that the frail 
elderly are more vulnerable than a 170-pound man, and certainly a child 
who is 5 years old or less is vulnerable and they are getting cancers 
in greater numbers. And we are setting up hurdles here that my friend 
from Idaho says is just a process. It is just a process.
  Well, we know what process means around here. We had enough 
filibusters from the other side last year. We know what happens to 
bills when there is a process. The bills die. So therefore when we have 
a process bill that sets up all this bureaucracy, we have to say to 
ourselves, well, wait a minute, there are some people in our society 
that really should not be impacted by this process, by endless 
chitchat, by unelected officials in the CBO and the parliamentarians.
  I say to them, I think you are great, but the people of California 
did not elect you to decide whether my amendment would get to the floor 
without a point of order. They want me to be able to offer my 
amendment. If I can persuade the people here, fine. If I lose the 
fight, at least I waged it. They do not want me stopped by process. If 
I am stopped by substance, that is fine. That is why we want to add to 
the exceptions this very narrow group.
  Now, listen to what is stated in this book. I told you before, I lost 
one of my constituents to cancer, a little girl, Colette Chuda, and her 
parents are working very hard so that other little babies, our 
children, our grandchildren, do not have the same fate, and they funded 
an environmental study. I wish to quote from it in part.

       An estimated 8,000 children under the age of 15 are 
     diagnosed with cancer in the United States each year. Brain 
     cancer and leukemia are the most common childhood cancers.

  My friends, I want to tell you right now as we speak I have two 
friends in the House of Representatives, one who has a little tiny baby 
with brain cancer and the other who has a youngster about 19, or in his 
20's, with leukemia; perfectly beautiful children.

        Incidence rates have increased for the majority of these 
     malignancies with the greatest reported increases occurring 
     for acute lymphatic leukemia and brain cancer.

  These are the biggest increases. You can talk about mayors; you can 
talk about Governors; you can talk about a contract. I admire you. I am 
talking about kids. I do not want to get them caught up in this maze. 
You did not have it last year, but you have it this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I hope you will join with me and vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate the arguments made by the Senator from 
California.
  I move to table her amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
when the Senate turns to amendment No. 187, it be considered and 
debated along with No. 188; that there be 30 minutes total equally 
divided in the usual form for debate on both amendments; that no 
amendments be in order to either amendment; and that following the 
conclusion or yielding back of time the majority manager or his 
designee be recognized to move to table amendment No. 187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
   [[Page S1518]] Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that following the disposition of amendment No. 188, the Senate 
resume consideration of the Graham amendment No. 183; that there be 10 
minutes for debate to be equally divided in the usual form, and that no 
second degree amendments be in order to amendment No. 183, and that 
following the conclusion or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to 
vote on the Graham amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GLENN. No objection.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not, I just wanted to clarify, there will be agreed-upon substitute 
language offered for No. 183, and I wanted to clarify that the managers 
understand that and that will not be inconsistent with the prohibition 
on second-degree amendments.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Florida, I 
am not sure I have seen the modified language.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I think the Senator's staff has seen the modification.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. All right. Mr. President, then I would vitiate my 
unanimous-consent request with regard to the Graham amendment until I 
am sure I have seen the language.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
               vote on motion to table amendment no. 202

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Wyoming [Mr. Simpson] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Simpson
       
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 202) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 173

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we 
vitiate the yeas and nays on the next Levin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object. I just want to be certain about this. I do support 
vitiating the yeas and nays and then we would proceed to the 
consideration of the amendment, is the Senator correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order.
  Without objection, the yeas and nays are vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 173) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                     Amendment No. 183, as modified

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk on my 
amendment No. 183.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 183), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 16, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       ``(iii) if funded in whole or in part, a statement of 
     whether and how the committee has created a mechanism to 
     allocate the funding in a manner that is reasonably 
     consistent with the expected direct costs among and between 
     the respective levels of state, local, and tribal government.

  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as modified, the amendment has been 
reviewed by both managers, and I believe it will be accepted. I will 
not ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment, I believe, closes the loop to the 
extent possible on an issue within this bill. A fundamental purpose of 
this bill is to identify mandates which the Federal Government might, 
at a future date, be proposing to impose upon States, local 
governments, or tribal governments, and then as the preferred option, 
to have the Federal Government pay the cost of those mandates.
  This amendment goes to the issue of how that appropriation to fund 
the mandate will then be allocated back to the States, local 
governments, or tribal governments, which had created the need for that 
funding in the first instance because they were the object of the 
mandate. There are at least two issues which I believe this amendment 
will deal with. One is the issue of where the mandate is imposed on a 
particular level of government. For instance, a mandate is imposed on 
school districts because of requirements made to them that relate to 
the educational or noneducational activities that are conducted by 
schools. If school districts are the level of government upon which the 
mandate falls, then school districts should be the level of government 
that receives the funds which we appropriate for the purpose of 
alleviating the financial impact on that unit of government of the 
mandate which we have imposed. A commonsense approach.
  Second is the distribution among units of government. We know that 
from time to time we will impose mandates that are not uniform across 
the country. They may be mandates that relate, peculiarly, for 
instance, to border States that have immigration problems, northern 
States that have heating problems, States that have specialized 
geological problems, such as those that would relate to earthquakes. 
There should be a connection between the distribution of funds and 
where the mandate falls.
  So this amendment states that if a mandate is funded in whole or in 
part, then the committee which has the responsibility for that 
particular legislation will contain in its final report a statement of 
whether the committee chose to allocate the money in a relationship to 
where the need was. They might indicate that they did not do so because 
of a deficiency of data upon which to make that judgment, or because 
they felt that the Congressional Budget Office's assessment of the 
locus of the need was irrational and, therefore, for good and 
sufficient reasons, adopted a different approach. Or should they have 
adopted the approach which the Congressional Budget Office utilized, 
how the committee has created a mechanism to allocate the funding in a 
[[Page S1519]] manner which is reasonably consistent with the expected 
direct cost among and between the respective levels of State, local, 
and tribal government.
  So, in summary, Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
link the mandate and the cost of that mandate to the method by which 
Federal funds will be allocated. I fear that if we do not have that 
linkage, we are going to end up with a school district--to use my first 
analogy--which had a mandate that costs that school district a million 
dollars, but because funds were not distributed in a manner consistent 
with how the need was assessed, they might only receive a fraction of 
that million dollars. So while we can say we funded the mandate on a 
global basis, as it relates to that school district, they are still 
carrying a heavy burden of an unfunded mandate.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Florida for 
his comments and for his diligence in working through the amendment 
which he has offered. I think his experience both as a former Governor 
and as a Senator has been very helpful in getting to this point.
  On behalf of our side, I certainly will accept this amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I, too, want to accept on behalf of our 
side this amendment. I think the Senator from Florida has made a very 
good point here. He is fleshing out some of the things that needed to 
be spelled out better in this language. I compliment him on that. One 
of the things we want to make certain is that this is a workable 
document when it passes. He is addressing that problem. So we are happy 
to accept this on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 183), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original 
cosponsor of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. As a long-
time supporter and cosponsor of related legislation in the previous 
session of Congress, I welcome the leadership of the majority leader, 
Senator Dole, and the bill's very able manager, Senator Kempthorne, for 
bringing S. 1 before the Senate so expeditiously.
  In addition to unduly burdening our local governments, Congress, in 
its Big Brother role, often ignores States' rights in determining what 
is best for the States. It also demands that the States figure out how 
to pay for those unwanted mandates.
  In the last Congress, officials in my own State of Virginia made a 
clear case concerning the enormous burden of unfunded mandates. 
Virginia's finance committee staff conducted a review on Federal 
mandates and the burdens they exact. I would like to share some of 
those findings with my colleagues today.
  While Federal mandates are in general the result of well-intentioned 
congressional action, State governments are all too often left holding 
the bag. Virginia views the pervasive Federal influence on its budget 
as a two-edged sword: Federal restrictions on the use of funds 
hamstring the Commonwealth's ability to determine spending priorities 
or respond to changing economic conditions.
  In the Commonwealth of Virginia, at least 20 percent of the State 
budget is either driven, defined, or constrained by Federal laws, 
regulations, or Federal agency decisions. And, bear in mind, this is a 
conservative estimate--it does not take into account the impact of laws 
for which no systematic survey has been done.
  Let's take a look at the ways in which the Federal Government impacts 
the Commonwealth of Virginia's ability to set budget priorities.
  Recently, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality estimated 
that it will cost local governments at least $1.8 billion over the next 
20 years to build the waste management facilities that comply with 
Federal requirements. In addition to solid waste, the department has 
estimated that local governments will need at least $4.2 billion over 
the same period to construct new facilities or upgrade existing ones to 
satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act. And that's not the end 
of the crunch. The Safe Drinking Water Act will cost localities some $2 
billion by the year 2000. Together, those mandates will demand 
approximately $700 million per year from local governments.
  In Virginia, the greater Lynchburg area has a population of 165,000. 
Studies conducted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
indicated that the combined sewer overflow requirements of the Clean 
Water Act for this area will cost an estimated $200 million. The city 
of Richmond is similarly impacted.
  According to a recent survey conducted by the Virginia Municipal 
League of Cities, the city of Danville, population 55,000, will be 
required to spend an estimated $1,058,000 to comply with the Safe 
Drinking Water Act for fiscal year 1995. Included in that estimate are 
monitoring costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs 
for surface water treatment, lead and copper regulation, the total 
coliform rule, the fluoride rule, and standards under the national 
primary drinking water regulations.
  ISTEA, section 1038 imposes a mandate to use waste tires--crumb 
rubber--in hot mix asphalt [HMA] and it will require Virginia to use 
approximately 4 million pounds of crumb rubber in 1997 and beyond. The 
average cost of hot mix asphalt in Virginia is about $27 per ton; the 
mandate to use crumb rubber will elevate the cost to approximately $55 
per ton. And, while the requirement will use only 4 percent of the 
waste tires generated in Virginia, it will impose an annual cost of $6 
million.
  In addition to must do, no Federal funds, the infamous unfunded 
mandates, there are may do, must match and may do, must maintain 
programs, including education and health-related programs such 
vocational training, substance abuse and mental health block grants. 
These problems are largely voluntary, but Virginia participates 
wherever it can.
  Finally we have may do, no match, which are largely grants--but 
Federal funds used for these programs may not supplant general funds 
provided for similar purposes.
  And it is important to note that, unlike the Federal Government, 
Virginia has no choice but to balance its budget. Congressional good 
will and benevolence often translates into unexpected and unfunded 
burdens.
  Two areas in which Virginia is constantly challenged are education 
and health care.
  The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, passed in 1974 to 
mainstream special education students in public schools, was a vastly 
ambitious undertaking. Congress committed itself to providing 40 
percent of total program cost. In reality, during fiscal year 1993, the 
Federal Government provided less than 8 percent of the funding 
necessary to fully meet the mandate.
  The jointly funded Medicaid Program presents a particular dilemma for 
my State. Because of the relative affluence of Virginia, the 
Commonwealth must provide 50 percent of program costs. But Congress 
determines minimum eligibility standards for Medicaid recipients, as 
well as the level of required service. While certainly well 
intentioned, congressional expansion of Medicaid is projected to cost 
Virginia more than $300 million over the next 2 years alone.
  Virginia must also foot 50 percent of the bill for Aid to Families 
with Dependent Children [AFDC], and State costs should be close to $115 
million per year over the 1994-96 biennium.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government continually uses its own fiscal 
problems to impose additional mandates on the States. There seem to be 
few, if any, incentives for Congress to halt the trend: mandates are 
almost magical, allowing Congress to fund costly programs without 
raising taxes or cutting other services.
  Federal mandates continue to proliferate. In the 102d Congress, 15 
bills were passed with mandates; the 103d had over 100 bills which 
include such edicts.
  Several new mandates loom. For example, the Motor-Voter Act, which is 
expected to cost over $100 million in the next 5 years nationwide. I 
opposed 
[[Page S1520]] the National Registration Act of 1993 and have 
cosponsored S. 91, to delay its implementation and put the brakes on a 
project for which there is no money in the pot.
  Recognizing the unbearable burdens imposed by unfunded mandates is 
not enough. We must take steps to require the Federal Government to 
either shoulder its share of the burden or relieve the States from 
theirs. The measure before us seeks to accomplish this by requiring 
either full funding for costly new mandates or scaling them down 
commensurate with the level of available resources.
  This is reasonable, rational policy which will not only be welcomed 
by the State and local governments--it will also provide Congress with 
a better, more structured framework in which to design new laws.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to give S. 1 the broadest 
possible support and move the bill towards final passage.
                      amendments nos. 187 and 188

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed en 
bloc to amendments numbered 187 and 188.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes 
     amendments en bloc numbered 187 and 188.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendments are printed in the Record of January 24, 
1995, under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss 
amendments I have filed on S. 1. I came to the floor last week to raise 
questions about the possible unintended consequences of this bill. I am 
not certain all my concerns have been addressed, so I want to talk 
about them a little more today.
  My first amendment proposes that nuclear waste cleanup by the 
Department of Energy be exempted from S. 1. I filed this amendment 
because I am very concerned about the implications of this bill for 
cleanup of former weapons facilities that now pose environmental 
cleanup challenges.
  Mr. President, Hanford Nuclear Reservation is in my State. It has 
nine shut-down reactors on the Columbia River. It has four processing 
plants. It has 177 nuclear waste tanks, 45 of which may be leaking. It 
has numerous waste dumps scattered around the facility. Of all our 
pollution problems, nuclear weapons plants like Hanford pose the 
greatest dangers to the environment. They have the greatest potential 
threats to human health and safety.
  Mr. President, we won the cold war at this site. Now the bill is due; 
cleaning up Hanford is serious business. For the community; for the 
region; and for the country.
  As many of our colleagues know, there is a process underway at 
Hanford--and many other DOE facilities--that governs the cleanup 
schedule. In Washington State, that process is embodied in the tri-
party agreement between DOE, the State, and EPA. As a coordinating 
tool, this agreement works pretty well. It ensures everyone has a seat 
at the table. It sets cleanup goals. It emphasizes economic transition 
for the community. It gives people in my State access to DOE 
decisionmakers.
  In reality, there are no unfunded mandates at Hanford. It is safe to 
say my State issues--and enforces--the largest hazardous waste permit 
in the world using voluntary authority under RCRA. For these 
activities, the State levies a tax on low-level waste producers. For 
its responsibilities under the Superfund law, Washington receives 
direct funding from DOE.
  But these laws--RCRA, CERCLA, Federal Facilities Compliance Act, and 
others--do contain some mandates. And
 some day, Congress must act to reauthorize them. What happens if we 
reauthorize RCRA? If S. 1 is enacted, even the most modest changes in 
current law could unravel the triparty agreement. As I understand it, 
this would be possible because the occupant of the chair--or some 
bureaucrat at CBO--would have the power to:

  Bring Senate action to a halt over a point of order; and
  Force all kinds of studies and delay that would only confuse the 
cleanup situation.
  What would happen if CBO intervention stalled consideration of the 
reauthorization, and the law lapsed? Would the Hanford permit expire, 
and the cleanup stall?
  The people of Washington State do not want some unelected CBO 
bureaucrat arbitrarily deciding the pace of Hanford cleanup in the 
context of a budget point-of-order on the Senate floor.
  My amendment is simple. It exempts nuclear waste cleanup from the 
procedures in S. 1, from points-of-order, from CBO review, and from any 
procedural wrangling that might jeopardize the orderly process of 
cleanup--for any reason. When we act to reauthorize RCRA, I want to be 
able to tell people in Washington State that we will have a law on the 
books to support cleanup. When we push through a reconciliation, or an 
appropriations bill, I want my constituents to know their interests 
will not fall victim to vagaries in new Senate debating procedures.
  I offered this amendment for one simple reason: Some things are too 
important to subject to a new set of debating rules that we do not know 
will function as ordered. The bill acknowledges this in section 4, 
where it excludes a series of critically important areas of Federal 
law. It exempts civil rights and nondiscrimination laws. It exempts 
national security. It exempts emergency relief. These things are 
critical to the national well-being, and therefore kept out of S. 1.
  Why not add to this list our most serious environmental challenges? 
It would seem to me a sensible precaution.
  Mr. President, yesterday, the Senator from New Mexico [Senator 
Bingaman] offered an amendment very similar to mine. I want to thank 
him and commend him for bringing this very important issue to our 
colleagues' attention. He knows a tremendous amount about these issues.
  Unfortunately, the Senate defeated his amendment, in spite of the 
very strong arguments he made. It is clear, therefore, my amendment 
will probably meet a similar fate.
  I was disappointed to see the result of last night's vote on Senator 
Bingaman's amendment. He was raising very real questions about 
important, sensitive, high-risk areas of Federal law. Both his 
amendment and mine point out the potential uncertainties in imposing an 
arbitrary new set of debating rules on the U.S. Senate.
  At the very least, I am hoping the managers of this bill can provide 
some clarification of their intentions vis-a-vis defense waste cleanup. 
I will pose these questions, and then yield the floor in hopes of 
getting some answers that will allay the concerns of people in my 
State.
  First, do the managers intend that S. 1 have any adverse effects on 
DOE waste cleanup efforts, and the ability of affected States and 
communities to participate therein?
  Second, do the managers contemplate that S. 1 will lead to the 
change, repeal, or substantive alteration of any current law that 
enables DOE cleanup to move forward?
  Finally, do the managers believe that consideration of current or 
prospective mandates pending on the Senate floor should delay 
consideration provisions in the same bills affecting DOE waste cleanup 
programs?
  I assume no such onerous consequences are intended by the managers. 
But I do not see it written anywhere, and I would like to have verbal 
clarification of those issues.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by saying the basic idea of S. 1 is 
good: That the Federal Government ought to help make Federal laws 
easier and less costly to implement. I support this basic idea, and I 
want to work with the managers to pass a good bill. But, like so many 
other broad-brush solutions we are hearing about these days, it is not 
as simple as it sounds. I look forward to hearing the answer to those 
questions and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will not speak for the managers in 
response to the questions the Senator asks, but 
[[Page S1521]] I might ask her to clarify a little further for me why 
anything has to be exempted here. We have an agreement, is that not 
right, that exists now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think the manager yielded me time. I apologize.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe the Senator could explain to me, if you have an 
agreement out there now, how do you see this bill affecting that 
agreement? There is nothing in this bill that says this bill calls the 
agreement to be vitiated, canceled, or changed.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator for his question. My question to the 
managers on this bill is if they see anything in this bill that would 
cause consideration for us and we do have to reauthorize RCRA, CERCLA, 
other bills coming up in the future, if at that time a bill has both 
mandates in it and non-mandates in it and the mandates cause the bill 
to be stalled in any way because we are waiting for something back from 
CBO, how will this affect cleanup efforts such as exist in my State and 
others?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, they exist in my State also at a different level.
  But I would just say to the managers of the bill and in particular 
the manager on our side of the bill, but I have spoken with Senator 
Glenn also, it seems to me we cannot say that any agreement predicated 
upon the laws of RCRA or any other environmental laws, that if those 
are changed in the future, we will hold anything exempt from it.
 That is future activities, to future agreements and understandings, 
but if RCRA is deemed to need reauthorization, we surely could not 
predict for the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, the State of 
New Mexico, many States that have DOD and DOE cleanup based on 
standards, we cannot say it will not have any effect on those. That is 
my position.

  I hope the managers would say we are not exempting anything yet under 
this agreement or this bill. I do not think we should exempt things we 
do not even understand. I leave that up to the managers. I would surely 
recommend we not accept the amendment, and if the Senator desires that 
we have a clear exception for her State, that she work with the 
managers in some other way, but not exempt entire situations such as 
this, that we do not understand. We do not know the consequences of 
changing RCRA on your State or any other State. I yield back the 
remaining time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I would like to respond to the questions that were 
posed. Do the managers intend that Senate bill 1 have adverse effects 
on DOE waste cleanup efforts and the ability of affected States to 
participate therein?
  No, I have no intention, whatever, that this would have any adverse 
affects on DOE waste cleanup.
  I say that, Mr. President, as a resolution of the State of Idaho, 
which also has significant DOE waste cleanup problems. So I would not 
be an advocate that in any way would adversely affect DOE getting on 
with the cleanup of Hanford, for example, or projects in the State of 
Idaho.
  The second question that was asked, do you contemplate that Senate 
bill 1 will lead to the change, repeal or substantial alteration of 
current law that enables DOE cleanup to move forward? No, Senate bill 1 
will not lead to that. Senate bill 1 is simply a process. It would be a 
different motivation. Senate bill 1 also is prospective so that those 
mandates that are on the books now, even under reauthorization, those 
that are currently on the books would not come under the process of 
Senate bill 1. Any changes to that, to those mandates, yes, they 
potentially would be subject to Senate bill 1 and then we would have to 
go through the process. But, no, S. 1 would not be the impetus to cause 
that to happen.
  On the third point, I am not sure that I understand it so I would be 
more than happy to have our respective staffs get together and discuss 
that. Again, I understand your concerns with the Hanford facility. I 
have concerns with similar situations in the State of Idaho.
  I yield to my colleague from Ohio 2 minutes.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would respond in much the same way. There 
was this in here, nothing in S. 1, that gives anyone any authority to 
go change any agreement that is in affect. It could not be interpreted 
that way to the best of my knowledge.
  In the amendment that was proposed by the Senator, the provisions of 
this act and the provisions made in this act shall not apply to any 
agreement between the Federal Government, State and local tribal for 
the environment restoration and waste management.
  Nothing in here could change, nothing does change, nor could it 
change any agreement that is in effect right now. I hope that takes 
care of concerns.
  The cleanup efforts which the Senator from Idaho mentioned just a 
moment ago, that it would not affect cleanup efforts, is a little bit 
different than the agreements that were specifically addressed. Cleanup 
efforts are something that are going on under those agreements, 
slightly different. But this would not change either the level of 
cleanup efforts that are provided for by other budgeting and other 
laws, nor would it change any agreements between the Federal 
Government, State, local, or tribal governments which the Senator is 
addressing.
  I want to compliment the Senator for looking at this. I know the 
problems in the State of Washington. Hanford is one of if not the very 
largest problem areas we have in the way of nuclear cleanup. I have 
been involved with that ever since 1985 when we started some of the 
studies at Fernald in Ohio, some of the difficulties in the nuclear 
weapons plants all over the country and wound up with some 17 different 
sites in 11 different States of which Hanford is one of the most 
important sites. It has more problems there for environmental 
restoration than almost any other site in the country. Many, many, 
billions of dollars.
  I would only add since the cleanup effort was mentioned here, when we 
first started this back in 1985 and had the first surveys run of all 
the 17 sites all over the country, it was indicated by the Department 
of Energy that they thought we could probably clean these up at an 
expenditure of $8 billion to $12 billion.
  Unfortunately, we have taken a new look at this whole thing. It has 
gone up and up and up, and the current estimate is right around $300 
billion over a 20- to 30-year period to do the cleanup that is 
necessary. And the major place that will need cleanup is in the State 
of Washington at Hanford. I compliment the Senator for looking out for 
this and would not want to do anything that would mean we would have 
lesser expenditures or anything in that legislation would change the 
agreements that are in existence now between the Federal Government, 
State, and local governments in that area.
  I think, that we have addressed in this colloquy the concerns that 
the Senator from Washington had. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for 
their responses to these questions and for their obvious concern for 
continuing cleanup at the Hanford site in my State. It is, indeed, a 
deep concern to the people of the State of Washington that we do this. 
We built this facility, used it for a national purpose, and we want to 
be assured that it is going to continue to be cleaned up and share your 
concerns about the costs. But we want to know that we are not going to 
be at some point unable to continue that cleanup. I appreciate your 
concerns.
  I understand the managers are willing to prepare a colloquy for the 
record to respond to my questions, to protect cleanup at Hanford. I 
will be prepared to withdraw this amendment after I speak to my other 
amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would yield myself 1 minute. In 
responding to my friend from Washington, not only are we neighboring 
States, but the concerns that the Senator just expressed, again, echo 
many of the concerns that we in Idaho have.
  I think on this nuclear issue in the future, nuclear waste, et 
cetera, there ought to be an opportunity for these Senators to begin to 
forge a partnership to deal with this issue. So I would 
[[Page S1522]] look forward to that opportunity because I think we 
understand one another.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho, and I 
look forward to working with the Senator on this very important issue.
  Mr. President, I will continue speaking to my second amendment, I 
want to be assured as we go through this debate that we will not be 
creating a big, new, powerful bureaucracy at the Congressional Budget 
Office. Mr. President, I believe that most of my concerns were 
addressed through the adoption of the Levin amendment and through the 
defeat of the committee amendment that would have severely curtailed 
the Budget Committee's role in this process.
  In order to make sure that all my concerns have been thoroughly 
understood, I do want to make a statement now about what those concerns 
are. Mr. President, I am troubled by the fact that S. 1 might give CBO 
tremendous new powers to dictate the Senate's legislative agenda. I 
have listened very carefully to the debate on this bill and I think it 
is fair to say that we all agree it is our responsibility, our 
responsibility as legislators, to act carefully as we set policy for 
the people we represent.
  I would like to support a bill on unfunded mandates that is 
reasonable and reflects common sense. Mr. President, before the 
adoption of the Levin amendment and several others, this bill went too 
far. The people of this country should understand exactly what this 
bill does. Everyone of us here in this Chamber, everyone of the people 
in the galleries, everyone watching us on C-Span, and everyone in this 
country has to realize that this bill will create a new bureaucracy at 
the Congressional Budget Office. It will have wide-ranging powers.
  The staff of that huge new bureaucracy will not be elected by anyone. 
They will not be accountable to the American taxpayers but they will 
have enormous power to control this legislative process. They can bring 
Senate debate to a halt on amendments or a bill or even dictate 
legislative schedule.
  This vast new power should give everyone of us pause. That is why I 
asked outgoing CBO Director Robert Reischauer about this this morning 
at the hearing in the Budget Committee. Dr. Reischauer is a fair man, a 
fine public servant. So I asked him how this bill will affect the 
operations of CBO. I asked him how the CBO would prioritize requests 
for cost estimates that will come from the Senate and from the other 
body. Dr. Reischauer responded that the Congressional Budget Office 
staff was working ``flat out''--those are his words, not mine--trying 
to fulfill their obligations to the Congress at this point.
  Dr. Reischauer said that the CBO would need more resources if we 
enact this bill. Then, Mr. President, I repeated my question about 
prioritizing requests. I asked the Director how he would decide which 
mandate to estimate first. His reply, frankly, troubled me. He said the 
CBO would rely on the guidance of the bipartisan leadership of the 
Congress to decide which one to do first. And then he added that the 
CBO has tried that approach with the health care debate last year, and 
it was a failure. That should concern every one of us in this country.
  Dr. Reischauer's response has raised even more questions in my mind, 
questions like: If I offer an amendment that does not have a CBO cost 
statement, what happens?
  If a point of order is raised against my amendment, is my 
understanding correct that the procedure is for the Parliamentarian 
immediately to seek the advice of the Budget Committee on the cost 
statement?
  Am I further correct that the Budget Committee will turn to CBO for 
its advice on the cost estimate?
  Of particular importance to me is what sort of timeframe is provided 
for these cost statements?
  Does the bill provide for any time limits on the Budget Committee and 
CBO's preparation of cost statements?
  If the bill does not impose any time limits on the Budget Committee 
and, more importantly, CBO, what does the manager envision as 
reasonable time limits for this work?
  How long does the manager envision the process taking?
  How long, for example, does the Budget Committee have to get a reply 
from CBO?
  How long does CBO have to reply?
  More importantly, what happens while the Budget Committee and CBO are 
trying to prepare a cost statement? Is my amendment laid aside? For how 
long? Does the Senate keep working on underlying bills? If so, for how 
long?
  Mr. President, I want to be able to assure my friends and neighbors 
that this bill will not take away their voice in setting priorities of 
the issues this body considers. They do not want unelected bureaucrats 
to determine which bills or which amendments will be brought up on this 
floor.
  For example, the people of my State may feel that education reform 
should be Congress' top priority. But if the CBO analysts over in the 
office do not work on that bill, if they do not score it, Congress 
cannot consider it. The people of my State or your State, Mr. 
President, might want Congress to consider safeguards for school buses 
so they know their kids are safe riding on those buses to school 
everyday. But the bureaucrats at CBO might say, ``Tough, I'm too busy; 
I don't want to score the bill for''--this Senator or that Senator. I 
have not gotten any guidance on that one.
  The people of my State want to know that no matter where they go in 
this country, they do not have to worry about E. coli, but the budget 
bureaucrats can say, ``Sorry, Senator Murray, we don't have time to 
score that amendment of yours which deals with a public health 
emergency.''
  I do believe we need reform. I believe Congress should be honest and 
up front with the American taxpayers about the cost of the laws it 
passes. But I do not believe that we should be creating new 
bureaucracies or putting American families in jeopardy.
  Mr. President, it is my hope that the Levin amendment will go far in 
addressing some of the concerns I have raised, but I also hope that we 
are all taking into account this new bureaucracy that will emerge as a 
result of this legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes remaining.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to some of the 
points raised by the Senator from Washington.
  In this bill, we provide for additional funds to the Congressional 
Budget Office, knowing that we are giving them more assignments in the 
future to carry out.
  Also, I will point out that the Commission that dealt with the 
staffing levels of the different committees that was headed by Senator 
Domenici and Senator Mack, at the very outset, we made sure that they 
knew there would be these new requirements on the Congressional Budget 
Office and, therefore, when they considered cuts across the board, that 
that is one area we had flagged for them.
  Also, in determining the amount of money that we included in this 
legislation, that was done through the Budget Committee in continual 
consultation with the Congressional Budget Office, so they provided us 
the funds. That dollar amount came from the Congressional Budget Office 
as to what they felt was necessary in order to accomplish the requests 
and the requirements that we would put on them.
  I appreciate the concern and the aspect about trying to bring about 
great efficiency for Congress, but I am afraid that the amendment 
offered may improve the efficiency, but it would make it much easier 
for Congress to go ahead and inadvertently impose mandates on States 
and cities.
  The amendment says that if cost estimates are not available within 1 
week for committee bills, the point of order does not lie against the 
bill. In other words, delay for whatever reason by CBO will moot the 
relief States and cities need from unfunded Federal mandates. If CBO 
needs time to do a good estimate, then there would be no estimate at 
all.
  I think in this case it is better to inconvenience Congress than to 
impose 
[[Page S1523]] mandates on States and cities that taxpayers must pay.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, because the 
chairman of the Budget Committee was here and was going to respond to 
some of the specifics that the Senator had. He is not here at the 
moment. So, again, we reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am wondering if the manager will yield 
for a question. I am afraid it will have to be on his time because I do 
not know if I can use the time of the Senator from Ohio, relative to 
this amendment. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it the intention, first of all, that the point of order 
apply to amendments that are on the floor that do not have the 
estimate?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I am sorry; will you repeat the question?
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it the intention that this bill's point of order apply 
to amendments that do not contain the estimates?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. With regard to mandates?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. And is it the intention then, for instance, if somebody 
offers an amendment and it has an estimate in it but nobody knew that 
amendment was going to be offered, and then somebody wants to come and 
offer a second-degree amendment and then asks the CBO to score that or 
estimate the second-degree amendment, is it the intention of the 
manager that the Congress, as he put it, be inconvenienced, hold up 
consideration of the bill until the estimate can be obtained from CBO? 
Is that the intention, that we hold up consideration of the bill until 
an estimate can be obtained from CBO?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to that, the burden of 
proof in this case would be upon the Senator raising the point of 
order. The originator of the amendment is not required to get the CBO 
estimate. I think that it would be good government for anyone bringing 
an amendment that potentially could exceed the $50 million threshold in 
the public sector and $200 million threshold in the private sector, 
again, through the budget process. I know that has been the normal 
practice.
  Mr. LEVIN. I say, if the Senator will yield, there has never been a 
point of order based on this kind of an estimate, costs on 87,000 
jurisdictions, local governments. There is nothing like this in 
existence. That is why I phrased my question the way I did.
  Somebody could offer a first-degree amendment and have an estimate 
because he or she knew they were going to offer a first-degree 
amendment, but nobody else in the body knew, and now with a first-
degree amendment with an estimate being offered, somebody may say, 
``Well, wait a minute; I want to offer a second-degree amendment, and I 
better go get an estimate or my second-degree amendment is out of 
order.''
  I am just wondering whether or not, if a point of order is raised 
with that second-degree amendment, is it the intention of the managers 
then that the body hold up consideration of that second-degree 
amendment until an estimate could be obtained from the CBO?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the Senator from Idaho has 
expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes 
so I can complete the thought.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. May I suggest we add 10 minutes for debate, 5 on each 
side, in order to clarify this question?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, what I would prefer--and first let me 
ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes so we can resolve this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. What I will suggest, because I would like to confer 
with the chairman of the Budget Committee, if the Senator will provide 
me those questions that she raised, I will be happy to then have a 
colloquy so we can go into those and deal with it.
  But what we are doing in S. 1 is not anything new from what we do 
with appropriations where, if you have a second-degree amendment, you 
have the Budget Committee staff that is here make a telephone call to 
try to get an estimate by phone from the Congressional Budget Office.
  So again the process itself is not new that we are suggesting.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no time to yield to myself and comment on that 
other than to simply say that this is a new estimate, the likes of 
which has not been made before, involving costs indefinitely into the 
future on 87,000 local governments. That is very different from any 
kind of a scoring that the Budget Office has done for a Federal 
expenditure up to now. I think my friend from Idaho would agree this is 
a different kind of estimate than has ever been done by the Budget 
Committee.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  I have very serious concerns because I heard my colleague from Idaho, 
the manager of the bill, say that CBO had, indeed, requested, I 
believe, $4.5 million additional to take care of this bill.
  It is my understanding--I see the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee is in the Chamber; perhaps he can respond--that the 
legislative branch is going to have to reduce its budget by $200 
million, and here we are telling everybody up front that we are going 
to ask for $4.5 million more for CBO just under a guess estimate of 
what this might have in the way of an impact on CBO, and I do think 
that is an important consideration we need to look at.
  I appreciate the Senator's response that you would go into a colloquy 
with me and answer some of the questions raised both by myself and 
Senator Levin. I had intended to withdraw this amendment, but I would 
like to instead ask the manager--I intend to withdraw my first 
amendment--if he would agree to let me lay aside this amendment until 
we have the responses for my questions.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I have no problem with that.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then to lay aside 
amendment No. 188 and unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 187) was withdrawn.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as we move forward on the mandates 
legislation, I would like to read a portion of a newspaper article that 
appeared in the Omaha World Herald on January 24. The headline reads: 
``States Fear Mandates, Expert Says; Balanced Budget Could Mean More,'' 
by David C. Beeder, of the Omaha World Herald Bureau in Washington, DC.
  The story reads:

       States will not support a constitutional amendment to 
     balance the Federal budget unless it includes a guarantee 
     they won't have to assume more Federal programs, a former 
     assistant attorney general said on Monday.

  Charles Cooper, who practices consitutional law in Washington, said: 
``The States are already groaning under the cost of implementing 
Federal policies.''
  It goes on to say:

       Cooper, who served in the Justice Department during the 
     Reagan administration, said he supports a balanced budget 
     amendment.

  I ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. 
President, the full article be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would simply point out that I am not sure 
that the States, the Governors or, for that matter, maybe some of the 
people 
[[Page S1524]] in the United States recognize and realize the difficult 
financial circumstances that the Federal Government--that they are a 
part of--is in.
  I am an original cosponsor and am strongly for passing the mandates 
bill. I have been one of the floor leaders on this piece of 
legislation. I predict that we will pass this legislation. I will 
protect the rights of those who wish to offer amendments. I think they 
have that right under the rules of the Senate, and I will do everything 
I can to protect that.
  But I would simply say, on a very important bill like this, every 
Senator, regardless of which side of the aisle, should have the right 
to get up and offer amendments as they see fit. Then the body as a 
whole has to vote as to whether or not that is a good concept.
  The mandates bill is going to be followed, I suspect, in reasonably 
short order by some kind of a discussion on the balanced budget 
amendment. And they are somewhat tied in. While the States are now 
moaning and groaning--and I think justifiably so--with regard to so-
called unfunded mandates, unfunded mandates, unfortunately, have taken 
on a very big life of their own.
  The facts of the matter are that many of the States of the Union, 
including my State of Nebraska, get more money back from the Federal 
Government than the State of Nebraska pays in. The last figures I saw 
are that Nebraska gets back about $1.17 for every $1 that Nebraska 
citizens pay into the Federal Government in the form of Federal taxes.
  Now, one could argue, and probably justifiably so, that the total 
amount of taxes could be reduced if the Federal Government would go 
back and reduce some of their spending. And I would agree with that. 
That is what we are about with the constitutional amendment to balance 
the budget, when and if that becomes a part of our Constitution.
  I simply am rising, Mr. President, to send a signal very loud and 
very clear that this is not a one-way street. If we are going to exempt 
the States and hold them harmless, if we are going to start down the 
list and begin to exempt a whole lot of other people, then it will make 
it totally ``Mission Impossible'' to ever balance the Federal budget, 
let alone by the year 2002.
  Everyone should recognize and realize that, when we get spelled out 
in considerable detail a 7-year budget plan that I think can and should 
be developed by the Budget Committee and presented to the Senate floor, 
it will be very evident there is going to be a lot of pain and 
suffering, a lot of disappointments. And I would simply say that, by 
and large, I am not interested in starting down this road of exempting 
this and exempting that, because I think this is going to be a painful 
enough process.
  Therefore, I salute those who are bringing up questions about the 
mandates. Those of us who have long supported a constitutional 
amendment on the Federal budget recognize and realize that there are 
two legitimate points of view. There are those who strongly oppose the 
mandate legislation and there will be even more that will strongly 
oppose the follow-on piece of legislation known as the constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget.
  I think those who do not agree with this Senator perform a very 
worthwhile service, because, as is usual with most discussion and most 
propositions, there are two sides. All is not white and all is not 
black or vice versa.
  With that, Mr. President, I just want to say that there are some 
people, including Mr. Cooper who I have quoted from this story, who 
simply do not understand the situation. And when he says he is for a 
balanced budget amendment so long as the States are protected, then 
that is a caveat that I think we cannot accept.
  I still am a strong supporter of the bill before us, but I am pleased 
to see there are some who do not agree with this piece of legislation 
and have pointed out some shortcomings with this legislation. They are 
providing a great public service. I suspect that there have been few, 
if any, bills that we have ever passed in the U.S. Senate, regardless 
of how well-sounding they are, that are perfect legislation. The 
mandate legislation is not perfect legislation. It will not cure all of 
our ills.
  When and if we pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
by the year 2002, and if that is ratified by 75 percent of the States, 
that is not going to cure all of our problems. The devil is definitely 
going to be in the details when we get down to such matters as a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
                            [Exhibit No. 1]

              [From the Omaha World Herald, Jan. 24, 1995]

                   States Fear Mandates, Expert Says

                          (By David C. Beeder)

       Washington.--States will not support a constitutional 
     amendment to balance the federal budget unless it includes a 
     guarantee they won't have to assume more federal programs, a 
     former assistant attorney general said Monday.
       ``The states are already groaning under the costs of 
     implementing federal polices,'' said Charles Cooper, who 
     practices constitutional law in Washington.
       Cooper, testifying before the Joint Economic Committee, 
     said approval by three-fourths of the states will require a 
     constitutional guarantee against giving state and local 
     governments programs without the money of pay for them.
       He said passing a law barring unfunded mandates would be 
     inadequate protection for the states.
       ``The requirements of a balanced budget amendment would 
     increase exponentially the incentives for shifting federal 
     financial burdens to the states,'' Cooper said.
       Cooper, who served in the Justice Department during the 
     Reagan administration, said he supports a balanced budget 
     amendment.
       Cooper's testimony was followed by a warning from Assistant 
     Attorney General Walter Dellinger, who said a constitutional 
     amendment to balance the budget could not be forced.
       ``It would be wonderful if we could simply declare by 
     constitutional amendment that from this day forward the air 
     would be clean, the streets would be free of drugs and the 
     budget forever in balance,'' Dellinger said.
       ``In the absence of enforcement mechanisms such as 
     presidential impoundment of funds or judicial involvement in 
     the budgeting process, a balanced budget amendment is 
     unlikely to bring about a balanced budget,'' Dellinger said.
       Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla, said Dellinger's arguments were 
     not ``of such magnitude that we should not move forward'' 
     with an amendment that would require a balanced budget by 
     2002 and a three-fifths vote to increase taxes.
       Mack said he would recommend enforcement of the balanced 
     budget amendment by a spending-reduction commission 
     resembling a presidential commission that decided on military 
     base closing two years ago.
       If Congress did not balance the federal budget by 2002, as 
     required by the amendment, the commission would recommend 
     spending reductions to meet the requirement. Congress would 
     accept or reject the recommendations without debate, Mack 
     said.

  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
for up to 5 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________