[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 17 (Friday, January 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1640-S1685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we will continue now the debate on 
Senate bill 1, our efforts to curb the unfunded Federal mandates.
  Last night we were able to come to an agreement so that we can 
anticipate which amendments we will be debating today. We do not 
anticipate that there will be any votes prior to 11:30 this morning at 
which time we anticipate that there will be more than one vote so that 
we will be voting en bloc.
  Mr. President, at this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 175

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, amendment 175 I believe is now before the 
Senate, which is the provision that would provide that there be a 
sunset of this bill on December 31, 2002.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Michigan is recognized to offer his amendment No. 175.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  This amendment would provide a sunset of the language which we will 
be adopting in S. 1 six years after the effective date of S. 1.
  That is a pretty long sunset provision. We had a shorter sunset 
provision in S. 993 last year. And the shorter sunset provision was 
adopted unanimously by the Governmental Affairs Committee last year.
  There was a discussion in the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
year relative to S. 993 as to whether or not a 3-, 4-, or a 5-year 
sunset was the appropriate length of time, and we finally agreed on 
1998, which I believe was a 4-year sunset at that time.
  S. 1 has no sunset provision. It should. We are skating out on a new 
pond, and I think probably every Member of this body wants to do a lot 
more to force us to consider the impact of what we do on State and 
local and tribal governments. My hunch is that everybody in this body 
agrees that we should give greater consideration to what the impact is 
of our actions on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars at a State and 
local level. I have felt that for a long time. One of the reasons I 
came to this body is because I felt that the Federal Government, the 
Congress, did not give adequate consideration to the impact of their 
actions on local government, in which I was an elected representative. 
I was president of a local city council in my hometown of Detroit and 
took great umbrage at what the Federal Government was doing to our 
budget as well as what its programs were doing to our neighborhood. I 
came here with that instinct and it has grown.
  The question is, How do we do it? How far do we go? To what extent do 
we use our internal procedures to force consideration of these impacts? 
Do we go beyond forcing consideration of the estimates to make sure we 
have the estimates of the impacts? Do we create points of order 
affecting points of order down the road? That is one of the key 
differences between S. 1 and S. 993.
  I think all of us feel that we should and must do better and that we 
have had too great an impact on local and State government. But there 
are procedures in these bills which are complicated, particularly, may 
I say, in S. 1. S. 1 goes significantly beyond S. 993, which had the 
support, by the way--S. 993 had the massive support of Governors and 
local officials last year. S. 1 goes beyond that and, of course, also 
has the support of State and local officials.
  But the new mechanisms that we have in S. 1 are complicated 
mechanisms. We added a new mechanism yesterday in order to avoid a 
problem. We added a new mechanism in the Byrd amendment. And it was a 
good amendment because it got Congress back doing the legislating 
instead of the agencies down the road. But in order to do that, we 
created another process force, so we have a number of additional 
complicated processes in S. 1 now as amended. And we should make sure 
that we can function OK with them. It is just, to me, sort of the right 
thing to do, that when you start out on a new road, you make sure that 
you have a checkpoint along the way. We sunset legislation around here 
that has been in place a long time to make sure the programs work. As a 
matter of fact, one of the first votes that I cast to break a tie in 
the Governmental Affairs Committee was to force the sunset of 
legislation. It was kind of a controversial vote. I got a whole lot of 
my supporters mad at me. It was one of the first votes I cast, a few 
months after I came here. I cast a tie-breaking vote which would have 
required us to sunset all these authorization bills on programs. The 
people who supported all those programs were very unhappy because I had 
a lot of support from them in my first election. They thought I would 
be jeopardizing programs by sunsetting. I said we ought to review 
programs every once in a while. It is a pretty good idea. We ought to 
make sure programs are working. We ought to have action-forcing 
mechanisms to make sure this Congress, every once in a while, goes back 
and looks at how a program is operating, to make sure it is not 
wasteful, to make sure it is carrying out its purpose. I have been a 
supporter of sunset since the day I came here. I think most of us have 
talked about sunsetting laws.
  It can be argued that this is a process, this is not a program. But 
we sunsetted some processes around here and when you have a new 
process, such as this in S. 1, this is very different from that point 
of order under the Budget Act which looks at what the Federal 
Government is going to spend and makes an estimate. This is an effort 
to get an estimate on how much tens of thousands of local governments 
will need to spend and puts great weight on that estimate, gives it a 
great effect down the road. Even with the Byrd amendment, it still has 
a massive impact down the road.
  I do not know why, if last year by unanimous vote the Governmental 
Affairs Committee put a 4-year sunset on S. 993, which was far less 
complicated than S. 1, we should not put a 6-year sunset on S. 1. We 
should have some sunset provision. Now, I offered the sunset amendment, 
which was a lot shorter, in committee this year. It was a 3- or 4-year 
sunset. It was tabled, regrettably on a party-line vote.
  I think part of the reason we have taken so much time on this floor, 
by the way, is because in committee we had a bill of this magnitude 
which was introduced on a Wednesday night a few weeks back, went to a 
hearing the next morning, was supposed to go to a markup the next 
morning, and we delayed that for a day, then was supposed to come to 
the floor a day later without a committee report. That kind of 
discipline which makes it difficult to legislate was enforced in a 
number of cases on a party-line vote, which is too bad because this was 
a bipartisan bill, with the then ranking member of the committee, the 
principal cosponsor, and Senator Glenn, the principal sponsor of S. 993 
last year. Nonetheless, that is what happened in committee.
  I believe it is reasonable that we have a sunset, just the way most 
of us, I believe, feel we should do an awful lot more in the area of 
forcing us to consider the impacts of what we do on State and local 
governments, since they are the folks who raise the taxes. We should be 
much more aware of the impact of what we do on their budgets. I think 
most of us also support sunset. Most of the time we support sunset and 
talk about it.
  Why 2002? Well, two reasons. First of all, the sunset that was tried 
in committee which was tabled was too short. There was an argument 
raised that that could somehow or other affect the time that a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget would take effect. While 
I was not sure I followed the argument, nonetheless, there was an 
argument made. I have to believe, knowing this person who made that 
argument, that there was a connection that was perceived. That is not 
the intent of a sunset. This is not to be connected with any effective 
date in the event we adopt a constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget. One is that I want to disconnect the date from that issue and 
make sure there is no 
[[Page S1641]] perception that there is some relationship between a 
sunset provision here and effective date on a balanced budget.
 So we need a longer sunset to take away that perception.

  Second, we need a longer sunset than the one offered in committee, 
because 2002, which is the date that we would sunset this bill in this 
amendment, 2002 is the time when the money runs out for the CBO to do 
these analyses. We have to reauthorize dollars in 2002 to the CBO and 
that is a logical time to review this process.
  So there is a reason to do both the process review as well as to see 
how much money it takes to keep the process going at the same time. And 
those are the reasons we have chosen the date 2002 for this sunset 
provision.
  It may be argued that nothing prevents us from reviewing these 
processes like we can review any program at any time. ``We do not have 
to wait until 2002,'' it will be argued. ``You do not need a sunset to 
review a program.'' And that is always true; that is an argument 
against sunset generically.
  But nothing is much more difficult around here than to take away 
something that already exists. Unless it runs out on its own and you 
have to review it, it is difficult to take it away, to change it. We 
may not want to take it away. We may not want to change it. This thing 
may work just absolutely beautifully.
  My fear is that S. 1 goes too far and we are going to find ourselves 
tied up too often in either knots or in avoidance, and that we are 
going to concoct all kinds of boilerplate to evade something if it is 
too tight. If the shoes are going to fit too tightly, we are just going 
to find a new pair of shoes to get around it. And, believe me, there 
are ways to get around S. 1.
  But we should not be pushed to evade. That should not be the purpose 
or the effect of what we are doing. The effect of what we are doing is 
for us to consider the impacts of what we do on State and local 
government, not to force us to find a way to evade that obligation and 
responsibility because we have created a process which does not work 
well. That is not what any of us I hope want to do around here.
  But it is difficult to change. One way to make it easier, a little 
easier, is to sunset something. And, given a 6-year period that is in 
this sunset provision, different from the one I offered in committee 
and longer than the one that was in S. 993, I think it is a reasonable 
approach to give us not only the opportunity but to make sure that we 
look at this process and to make it a little easier for us to change it 
one way or another. We may want to tighten it further. But if you bring 
it to an end and make yourself look at it, you can modify it a lot more 
easily.
  So, for all those reasons, Mr. President, and my colleagues, I 
believe we should adopt the sunset provision. The 2002 date is longer 
than the one that was in S. 993. It will permit us to do some review a 
lot more easily than we otherwise can, and will force us to do that 
review, as well. We should make sure that we have not put into place 
something which is either not working because it is being evaded or 
something which is too tight and can be adjusted or something which 
maybe should be tightened up in some regard because it has been too 
easily evaded.
  I do hope we can adopt the sunset provision because, again, of all of 
the uncertainties that exist in this bill, we should really want to 
review at an earlier time. Let us make it easier on ourselves to do 
that review by having this reasonable sunset.
  Mr. President, I was sorry that I did not yield myself time, because 
we are under a time agreement. I am wondering how much time I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes and 50 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho has 15 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend and I thank the Chair.
  My friend from Michigan makes a very persuasive argument on why we 
need the sunset.
  If there has been one thing that has changed the landscape of this 
body and the other body over the last year, it has been the added 
ingredient of more men and women being elected to this Congress who 
have freshly been serving in local government. I think that is why you 
see quite a lot of interest in this piece of legislation, and why the 
leader chose this bill to be S. 1.
  I submit to my friend from Michigan that we have laws now that have 
created a lot of problems and still have sunsets, but yet the law and 
the programs created under the law still continue.
  A case in point is we have not reauthorized the Endangered Species 
Act, yet it has been funded and it comes on today. Many of those kinds 
of rules and regulations that we are going to have to deal with that 
really have an impact on communities--wetlands, endangered species, 
clean water, all of these acts--are now being funded and are in place, 
but have not been reauthorized by this Congress.
  I suggest, if we have created a problem through this piece of 
legislation, we can fix it or unfix it here. But when we rely on a 
sunset to fix the problem, it does not get fixed. In fact, it rolls on 
and it is a lot easier to say, ``Well, we will not reauthorize that 
this year. We will continue it and we will continue to fund it.''
  If there is one thing that really has the American people mad or made 
them mad last November, it is this kind of a situation. So the sunset 
law really does not have much effect. But if there is no sunset law, it 
forces us to either fix or unfix the problem.
  We have bills being funded now that should be brought up for 
reauthorization and debated on this floor of the Senate and in the 
House of Representatives.
  So if we are trying to get away from this Federal Government, this 
Washington city, imposing unfunded mandates on local governments, then 
there should be something that forces us to either fix or unfix a 
problem created by this legislation.
  I am not saying that there will not be some problems created by this 
legislation, because I have never seen a perfect piece of legislation 
come through this body or ever signed by the President. So let us make 
ourselves either fix it or unfix it as time goes on.
  I come out of county government. I want to congratulate my friend 
from Idaho, who has been recognized here for his leadership not only on 
this piece of legislation, but I think we ought to recognize him for 
his stamina. He says it has been very good for his diet that he went 
off of over the holidays; it has been good for him and now he is 
getting back in shape.
  Nonetheless, let Senators not take this piece of legislation and make 
it a meaningless piece of legislation because the Senator from Ohio 
said, ``This is a landmark piece of legislation.'' This is a new 
direction. This makes the Senate take a look at what we do and the 
impact it has on our State, county, and city governments. I appreciate 
that.
  I would submit that the sunset makes no difference at all. In fact, 
it alleviates us from taking the responsibility from what we really do 
in this body. I would not support my friend from Michigan although he 
makes an argument that is very persuasive.
  I would not support this amendment. I yield the floor. I thank my 
friend from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I just wish to thank the Senator from 
Montana. I know of his experience as a local official in Montana, as a 
county commissioner, and I appreciate the support in not wanting to see 
a sunset take place in this legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to the 
Senator.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think this legislation may fall in the 
category where we put a lot of things that we considered on 
Governmental Affairs Committee to be some of the grunt work of 
Government. It is not the spectacular consideration of B-2 and M1-A1 
tanks and things like that that are easy to visualize mentally and get 
a handle on.
  I think the choice of the word ``sunset'' may be a very poor choice 
of words. The word might more properly be ``spotlight'' or 
``searchlight,'' that 
[[Page S1642]] we will reexamine this thing under a microscope to see 
whether it is working or not working. It is not automatically 
terminated. Sunsetting, you are saying you are using that as a forcing 
device to say what we really will look at this thing and take a good 
look at it and see what is working and what is not working.
  The Senator from Michigan very wisely, I think, tailored this to fit 
exactly the money flow that is already programmed for CBO. That runs 
out to 2002. So, in effect, before we reauthorize the money for CBO, we 
will have to take a look at it. This means that we really have to put 
the thing under a spotlight, a microscope, and really consider what is 
going on.
  We know around here unless we are forced to do something like that we 
only rarely will go back and relook at a program and reanalyze it and 
make sure it is working right. I would say the reason I think this is 
so important that we do this is that this is historic legislation. It 
may be some of the grunt work of Government. It may be some of those 
mundane operations of Government that do not get that much public 
attention except a few editorials and the local officials who see this 
as being vitally important, as well as the State officials for the 
unfunded mandates that have been sent down to them over the years that 
are now just crushing them in, and crushing them in an economic vise 
from which they have no alternative but to do what they have been 
doing, scream to the Federal Government for relief.
  This is historic. I believe that this piece of legislation is truly 
the first piece of legislation that is going to start redefining the 
Federal, State, and local relationships, the first such redefinition I 
think since clear back in the New Deal days of Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt. Prior to Roosevelt, people took care of people. Communities 
took care of their own people. Neighbors took care of neighbors then. 
We were not a mobile, flowing society with people and families moving 
all over the country. In those days, most of the people lived in the 
same community they grew up in and people took care of their own, and 
families took care of families, and so on. Then in the days of the 
Great Depression this country really lost control. The American 
experience was in danger of going down the tubes. We had whole sections 
of the country moving out, the Okie going to California, people no 
longer capable of families taking care of families and communities 
taking care of themselves. The New Deal came in with all of its 
proposals that assumed many of those responsibilities that the local 
communities had had before.
  That resulted over the last 60 years in a mass of programs, some went 
too far, some were absolutely vital to the survival, to the social 
network and fabric of this country. So most of them were good. Some of 
them went too far. Now, some of the Federal mandates have so hit the 
States and local communities that they can no longer survive under this 
kind of an economic impact without saying the Federal Government has to 
fund those responsibilities being given to us, or we just can not do it 
anymore.
  So this is truly landmark legislation. We have come to a point where 
we are redefining this Federal, State, and local relationship. Now, I 
give that little bit of background to say that is why I think what the 
Senator from Michigan has done is so important. Because I think to say 
that if at the end of 6 years when the money runs out for this and we 
are getting ready to reauthorize the money for CBO to carry out their 
particularly important responsibilities under this act, at that point, 
we really will see how this relationship is working. That is all he is 
saying.
  ``Let's force ourself to look at it, something we never probably will 
do unless we are forced to do it by some amendment like this,'' and say 
that at that time period it will sunset, we will reauthorize and look 
at it. Nobody is proposing it will just go out of existence at that 
time. What he is saying, it will sunset and we will have to reauthorize 
and make sure it is fine-tuned and doing the job it is supposed to do.
  I see this only as common sense. That is the reason why I am so glad 
to cosponsor the amendment and speak in support of it. I think this 
truly is landmark legislation, and I think it is only common sense that 
we require ourselves to reexamine this new Federal-State relationship 
at the end of this first 6-year period. It will probably take a good 
part of that period, the first 3 or 4 years, to really get this system 
working well.
  We have forced upon ourselves the discipline here saying that we will 
no longer just pass things without taking into consideration in advance 
the economic impact on the States and local communities. We are saying 
we are forcing ourselves to do that, have to make these estimates and 
we have to have a vote that is required. It is not funded or not 
authorized for funding. Then we say a point of order will lie against 
it and we have to have a specific vote to go beyond that point and even 
consider that legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield one minute additional.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we are saying we force ourselves to do 
that. This is very complicated, what we have gotten into with the 
proposed amendments here on the floor. It is very, very complex, very, 
very, intricate.
  Dr. Weiss, our staff director on Governmental Affairs, drew up 
overnight a flowchart which I wish we had a print of it but I know this 
proposal will not be visible on TV, but it shows the intricate pattern 
of what can happen to an amendment once it is submitted, and it either 
goes through a ``yes'' track or a ``no'' track. This is a very 
complicated piece of legislation. I know flowcharts like this always 
look more complicated than maybe are real and practical in every day 
life, but this is not a simple bill. It redefines the whole Federal, 
State, and local relationship.
  I think Senator Levin is quite right in saying we should force 
ourselves, put in law that we know at the end of this period we will 
truly have to reconsider this thing. That is exactly what we will do. 
At that time we will fine-tune it and see where we will go from there. 
This is redefining the whole Federal-State relationship. It is landmark 
legislation. The least we can do is look at it at the end of this 
funding period and make absolutely concern it is working. If not, we 
will correct it then. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes now to my friend 
from Maine, who like me is also a former mayor.
  Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment. I do so with some hesitation since I have very high regard 
for the former chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, now 
ranking member, and my good friend from Michigan, Senator Levin.
  I must say that when the Senator from Ohio talked about this being 
grunt work on the Governmental Affairs Committee, coming from him I 
think that is a bit of an overstatement. A former marine-aviator-
astronaut, we like to joke from time to time, saying what on Earth was 
he doing, and the fact is he has done a lot. He has done a lot and he 
continues to do a lot on the Governmental Affairs Committee, but the 
notion that somehow the Governmental Affairs Committee would not be 
reviewing and overseeing this particular piece of legislation, I think, 
is not entirely accurate.
  I have worked with Senator Levin since I have been in the Senate. If 
there is one thing we do, it is conduct oversight. Week after week 
after week we conduct oversight on virtually every facet of our 
Government. I must say that they are correct, this is landmark 
legislation. This is a new concept that we are undertaking. A new 
relationship that we are trying to establish with the States and local 
communities.
  But the notion that somehow, because we passed landmark legislation, 
that it is cast in concrete, I think, is simply inaccurate. It is 
subject to change each and every year. We can anticipate that there 
will be complications developed in the implementation of this act. It 
will be subject to the law of unintended consequences. We will see 
permutations and changes and complaints at certain points in terms of 
how it is going to ultimately function. But that is what our 
responsibility is on the Governmental Affairs Committee, to oversee 
exactly how a law is working and is being carried out through 
regulation and through its implementation.
   [[Page S1643]] So the notion that we are passing this law and it 
will never be subject to change is simply not a reflection of what goes 
on in virtually every other statutory provision, and certainly not with 
something as controversial as this.
  I am not fond of recalling our experience with the special prosecutor 
law. Senator Levin and I have worked on that for many years now, since 
1978, where it has come up for reauthorization every 5 years, and we 
had a sunset provision. We have discussed on several occasions making 
that law permanent because we felt we had a vital interest in seeing to 
it that we had a provision on the books that remained there and did not 
have to go through that period of time where we were under the gun, the 
guillotine coming down to chop off that bill.
  We knew it was subject to political pressures and, in fact, it 
happened. At the very end of the Bush administration, because of the 
opposition that developed for political reasons--mostly on this side 
but not all--we lost that bill. Nearly half a year or more went by 
before we could bring it back up because of the political complications 
that developed with this administration.
  So I would like to see the special prosecutor law made permanent and 
not be subject to sunset because of exactly the kind of pressures that 
were generated against that legislation.
  Mr. President, we can repeal this law if we find that it is not 
working, if we find that it is contrary to the best interests of our 
country. If it is not really establishing a proper balance between the 
Federal and State relationship, we can repeal it at any time. We can 
change it, we can alter it, we can reshape it. We can do anything we 
want provided we exercise proper oversight. That is the function of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the function of the oversight 
committee that I now chair, with Senator Levin as the ranking member.
  So the notion that somehow we need to have a cutoff period with the 
guillotine coming down unless we take action to reauthorize it, I 
think, is a mistake. I am sure there will be opportunities for us to 
reshape and modify the law to make it consistent with our articulated 
goals.
  So for those reasons, I urge that we reject the amendment, or, if a 
motion is going to be made to table, I urge my colleagues to, once 
again, support the motion to table.
  I want to reiterate my compliments to the Senator from Michigan for 
offering an amendment that relates to the bill, that is germane and 
relevant and important.
  My compliments also to the Senator from Ohio for his steadfast 
performance on the Governmental Affairs Committee, doing the grunt work 
as well as the astronautic work he does and the more exotic items we 
share in the Armed Services Committee and even the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Of course, I will conclude by commending my colleague who is managing 
this bill. He has been on the floor, I think, at least a week and a 
half. It seems like 3 weeks. I commend him for his endurance and his 
steadfastness in purpose in passing this legislation. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I just want to thank the Senator from 
Maine. Throughout the course of this debate, which has gone on for many 
days, he has often been a strong voice on this legislation, S. 1, to 
help us curb these unfunded Federal mandates and to deal with mandates 
across the board. I thank him.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, let me thank my good friend from 
Maine for his usual courtesies. We disagree on this one. We actually 
agreed on this last year when the Governmental Affairs Committee 
unanimously put a sunset provision in S. 993. Senator Roth at that 
time, who was the ranking member, said--now this relates to S. 993, a 
less complicated bill than S. 1 --Senator Roth said before we had that 
unanimous vote that:

       It does strike me that a 5-year period is a pretty 
     reasonable time to test these proposals.

  I am not suggesting Senator Roth supports the sunset in this bill, by 
the way. I am simply saying that last year on a less complicated bill, 
with an even shorter sunset, we had a unanimous vote on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. And then Senator Roth last year said:

       It is not that extended, and most sunset provisions that I 
     have been acquainted with have been on a 5-year basis.

  Then we took a unanimous vote. In fact, I believe that the Senator 
from Idaho last year, who is the prime sponsor of the bill, original 
sponsor of the bill, brought a bill to the floor, and supported a bill 
that had a sunset provision, a shorter sunset provision and a less 
complicated bill.
  As a matter of fact, last year we received letters from all the 
mayors and all the Governors and everybody else saying, ``S. 993 is 
just terrific, don't amend it, don't amend S. 993,'' we were told. 
Well, S. 993, as it came to the floor, had a sunset provision in it 
last year.
  I am not a former mayor. I am only a former city council president, 
but I have great respect for local officials, as a former local 
official, and even if I was not, I would have tremendous respect for 
local officials. I know what they go through. I know firsthand from 8 
years on that firing line. I have been through this grind. So I respect 
what we are trying to do, what the Senator from Idaho is trying to do 
and what the Senator from Ohio is trying to do.
  I happen to think S. 1 goes too far in terms of a point of order that 
is going to tie up this place. In terms of its general purpose, I 
happen to agree. But we have a national purpose to serve as well. We 
should force ourselves to consider the impact of these bills on local 
and State governments. We have not done it sufficiently. We should 
force ourselves to do it, to get these estimates.
  But we should also realize that with a new mechanism--a new 
mechanism--this complicated that it makes sense to have a sunset 
provision, for all the reasons that sunset provisions are put in laws.
  I was intrigued when the Senator from Montana said, ``Well, we don't 
have sunset provisions in all these other laws,'' like a bunch of 
environmental laws that he mentioned. I think we ought to. I would have 
cast votes for sunset provisions in those kind of laws.
  As I said before my friend from Maine came to the floor, I cast a 
tie-breaking vote my first few months in office which got everybody 
back home who supported me mad at me because I wanted to put sunset 
provisions in authorization bills to force us to take a look every once 
in a while and make it a little easier for us to cut back on some of 
those authorizations.
  No one has had more experience with the independent counsel law than 
the Senator from Maine. My experience with him has only been for two 
reauthorizations, and he was on it right at the beginning. He was there 
at the birth. In fact, I think he was the midwife--I do not know if 
that is the correct gender--but he helped bring it into existence.
  On the first reauthorization of the independent counsel law--and we 
set a time limit on it--we made some changes which were important. I 
think the history of the independent counsel law shows the value, 
actually, of setting a time limit. We have made some changes in that 
law. There was a gap which created a problem, and the Senator correctly 
points that out, but we have also made some changes to make that a 
little more accountable. We had an independent counsel that frequently 
has been subject to criticism, and I think legitimate criticism, for 
going too far, for spending money which he was not accountable for, for 
using personnel, for using offices, for travel.
 And so we have reined in that independent counsel. At least we tried 
to in some ways. And the reason we did it is we were forced to do it. 
We had a 5-year limit. Without that 5-year limit, would we have done 
it? Maybe. I hope so. My 
[[Page S1644]] friend from Maine is an optimist and an idealist in many 
ways, too, and I think his hope and belief is we would have done it. He 
may be right, but it would have been a lot harder if it had not run out 
and we were not forced to do it.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 1 minute and 20 
seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will simply close by saying that we had a bill last year 
which had a sunset, which was unanimously adopted by Governmental 
Affairs. It was a less complicated bill. It was a shorter sunset. I 
think good government tells us now have a sunset so that after 6 years 
we can take a look and either tighten it or loosen it.
  By the way, some people assume that we would loosen it after 6 years. 
Not necessarily. There may be so many loopholes in this law we may want 
to tighten it after 6 years. And an action-forcing mechanism is a good 
thing when you have something this complicated. We ought to at least 
sunset it once--once--to make sure we are forced to come back to it and 
can more easily change it. It is tough to change things around here, 
but if they run out it is a lot easier to change things around here. 
When they expire, you have to do something. Then change becomes a 
little more easy.
  I yield the floor, and if I have any time remaining, I reserve it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, with regard to the comment that the 
Senator from Ohio made, which I think sets the stage for the historic 
nature of this legislation, that is, that this is the first legislation 
since the New Deal in which we are redefining this partnership between 
the Federal Government, between the national, State, and local 
components of that--when you put it in that context, it is even harder 
for me to think that in 6 years we are going to wipe it off the books.
  The Senator from Michigan has said that we ought to review programs 
every once in awhile. Boy, I agree totally. S. 1 may need 
modifications, but I would not be content, nor do I think would the 
Senator from Michigan nor do I think would the Senator from Ohio, or 
any Senator, to wait for 6 years until the point of sunset before we 
would make those modifications if there was something that truly needed 
to be changed. We would not wait. I would not wait.
  When you talk about what S. 1 provides, S. 1 is about 
accountability--accountability--so that we will know the cost and the 
impact of these mandates before we enact them, so that we will know 
what funds need to be provided to the State and local governments.
  So with this being based on accountability, why would you sunset 
accountability? I do not think that it follows. In our partnership that 
we are forging in this new relationship with the Governors and mayors, 
I will tell you that I can stand here and quite enthusiastically affirm 
that the mayors, the Governors, the county commissioners, the school 
board administrators, do not want to see a sunset provision in S. 1.
  If there is a problem, correct the problem. If there is a problem, 
correct the problem. But do not wipe the entire legislation off the 
books.
  How long have we been working to deal with these unfunded Federal 
mandates? I remember at the joint hearing we had, my friend from 
Michigan, who was the president of the city council in Detroit, saying 
one of the reasons he came to the Senate was to deal with these types 
of issues, these mandates. I know that my friend from New Hampshire, 
the Presiding Officer of the Senate, has talked about this many times. 
We all want to do something about unfunded Federal mandates. So why is 
it, now that we are finally going to do something about it, we want to 
say in 6 years we will take this effort off the books?
  What sort of a signal does that send to our State and local partners; 
what sort of signal does that send to the business leaders of this 
country that try to base their decisions on some predictability, to say 
that, well, we will do that but only for 6 years, and then we will see 
what happens, because at that point who knows what happens.
  Mr. President, the sunset is not the solution. The solution is to 
review, make modifications when necessary, but not to wipe this off the 
books.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Idaho has 
expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time do I have remaining? How many seconds do I 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 14 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will simply say that last year we were 
told any amendment to last year's bill would be viewed as a bill 
killer. That is what we were told by the National Governors 
Association, the legislatures, and counties. Last year's bill had a 
sunset in it. They opposed knocking out the sunset last year because 
they opposed any amendment and sunset was in the bill.
  What has changed since last year? The Senator from Idaho supported 
sunset last year. What has changed since last year? You do not have to 
wait until 6 years comes to change the bill. There is no implication in 
a sunset amendment that you have to wait. You can change it tomorrow. 
It just makes sure we can change things more easily if we decide to do 
so.
  My time is up.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
yielded 1 minute, 30 seconds for me, 30 seconds for the Senator from 
Ohio, so we can just conclude this comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Clarification. The State and local partners last year 
on S. 993 did not want weakening amendments. Also, last year in the 
draft on S. 993, I never included a sunset. I did not support a sunset. 
I did not vote for a sunset last year. But I understand the process. 
There were some things in S. 993 I may not have agreed to, sunset being 
one of them, but S. 993 in its form was fine.
  I will now yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, last year in support of the Senator from 
Michigan, we had a letter from the National Governors Association, the 
National Conference of State Lesislatures, the National Association of 
Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors.
  In their letter to all Senators, they said:

       Not only will we oppose any amendments not supported by the 
     bill managers, Senators Glenn, William Roth, and Dirk 
     Kempthorne, but we view all amendments as an attempt to 
     defeat our legislation. We urge the defeat of all partisan 
     and extraneous amendments.

  The reason I support Senator Levin is not to say we are going to put 
this out there and sunset it and there will not be any unfunded 
mandates in legislation. My view is that we put it out there as a 
forcing mechanism to make sure that we have to consider fine-tuning. We 
know around here we have lethargy, we have inertia; we never get around 
to some of these things unless we put a forcing mechanism on ourselves. 
So that is the reason I support this. It is not going to sunset it and 
do away with unfunded mandates. We force ourselves to do it. We are 
forced to take a look at it.
  I yield my time, if I have any remaining.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Michigan which would establish a 
sunset date for the unfunded mandates bill.
  Mr. President, this is a fair and reasonable amendment. Quite 
frankly, I was surprised that a sunset provision was not included in 
the legislation before us today. I remind my colleagues that last 
session's version of the unfunded mandates bill, S. 993, contained a 
sunset date.
  It was my understanding, and also that of many of the negotiators who 
hammered out this bipartisan compromise, that we would have a sunset 
date. It is unclear why it fell off the radar screen.
  Mr. President, I believe a sunset provision is crucial to the success 
of this bill. A sunset provision will help--not 
[[Page S1645]] hurt--this important piece of legislation. Let me spell 
out a few of the reasons why.
  First, sunset provisions are a common sight on the legislative 
landscape. For example, the revenues used to fund the Superfund Program 
sunset this year. We have had sunset provisions in everything from the 
crime bill to school-to-work to the 1990 farm bill. This is not an 
alien provision.
  Second, we are dealing with brand, spanking new legislation. It is 
untried and untested. Like a product coming off the assembly line for 
the first time, this bill needs a trial period so that any problems and 
bugs can be worked out.
  The Congressional Budget Office has expressed concern over the 
analyses that are required by the bill. In testimony last year before 
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Director Reischauer gave 
a candid assessment of the difficulty in completing these analyses on a 
timely basis, not to mention, culling reliable information for them.
  Now, a sunset provision in 1998 would allow Congress to pause and 
examine the job that CBO has performed to date. We could then fine 
tune, and if necessary, retool that process to make this bill even more 
effective.
  Third, a sunset provision is not going to kill the Unfunded Mandates 
Program. This bill's time has come and I see nothing on the horizon to 
lead me to believe that it would be scrapped 4 years hence.
  I would also point out that we have 57 cosponsors to date. If the 
legislation lives up to expectations, we should have no problem 
marshaling the same support we have today. if not, then Congress can 
begin the process anew.
  Fourth, Mr. President, the unfunded mandates bill does not operate in 
a vacuum. We have to look at the unfunded mandates bill in the context 
of the Budget Act.
  The caps and other major provisions of the act--including the 
supermajority points of order--expire in 1998.
  Since we will have to revisit the entire Budget Act in 1998, it makes 
sense to be consistent and provide for a 1998 sunset provision in this 
piece of legislation as well.
  Mr. President, this is a reasonable, well-thought-out amendment. I 
believe most of our colleagues can support it. In no manner does the 
sunset provision diminish the effect of the legislation. It merely 
demonstrates our commitment to quality legislation that meets not only 
today's needs, but tomorrow's as well.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment, which 
would sunset the reforms of this legislation in the year 2002. There 
may be changes we might want to make to the statute, after it has been 
in effect a few years. But requiring that it is be sunsetted is another 
matter entirely.
  This is not a Government program, whose value might become obsolete 
in the future. What we are talking about here mainly is establishing a 
process for congressional consideration of certain types of 
legislation. I greatly doubt that the premises underlying this bill 
will become irrelevant in the foreseeable future. We should always be 
cognizant of the potential harm of unfunded mandates, not just for a 
few years.
  What makes this amendment additionally objectionable is what it does 
to the chances of ratifying a balanced budget constitutional amendment. 
It greatly hinders that likelihood. The Governors and State legislators 
have spoken loud and clear on this issue. They have said that without 
protection against unfunded Federal mandates, they have little 
incentive to ratify such an amendment.
  They fear, perhaps not unreasonably, that we might balance our budget 
on their backs--by shifting our costs to them through unfunded 
mandates. They would prefer that the protection against this be a part 
of the balanced budget amendment itself. They would certainly, at a 
minimum, want the statutory protections of this bill in place--and for 
a period longer than a few years.
  Every statute is of course repealable. But this one, especially, 
ought not have that fact built into it. To do so would undercut the 
very purpose of this legislation--to assure State, local, and tribal 
governments that they have gained respect at the Federal level.
  Therefore, I strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as a strong proponent of sunset 
legislation, it is with some irony that I stand today in opposition to 
this amendment. But there is a clear distinction between sunset 
amendments that promote fiscal responsibility and those that promote 
political gamesmanship. And I submit that this amendment is the latter.
  Because I believe firmly that Congress must act as gatekeeper when it 
comes to spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, I authored the 
Budget Accountability Act as a Member of the House of Representatives. 
This is sunset legislation that helps ensure greater accountability of 
Federal programs and Federal tax collections.
  For far too long, Congress has conveniently opted out of its 
oversight responsibilities. Without sunset legislation, Congress allows 
programs to live on in perpetuity, unchecked, often far beyond any 
intended usefulness. And without better oversight of our revenue code, 
we end up with excessive layering of taxes.
  Under sunset legislation, revenue, and spending bills are reined in, 
no longer automatically renewed without regard to their viability or 
impact on the deficit.
  I successfully attached sunset amendments to nearly two dozen bills 
during my 2 years in the House. But I cannot support my colleague's 
sunset amendment today. Mr. President, sunsetting the Unfunded Mandate 
Relief Act has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. I fact, this 
amendment runs counter to the principles of fiscal responsibility.
  S. 1 is about relief--relief from Government waste, relief from an 
overreaching Federal Government that can't seem to get its hands out of 
our pockets. Sunsetting a bill which finally provides this desperately 
needed relief doesn't make any sense, and distorts the original intent 
of sunset provisions.
  Instead of sunsetting good legislation like the Unfunded Mandate 
Relief Act, we should be sunsetting the burdensome and inflexible 
mandates from which S. 1 is designed to protect us.
  Mr. President, as everyone in my home State of Minnesota knows, you 
won't stop a dog from barking by cutting off its tail. If we truly are 
serious about eliminating wasteful spending and providing tax relief, 
then I invite the gentleman from Michigan to join me in introducing 
real sunset legislation. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to 
reject an amendment which is strong on politics, weak on policy, and 
runs counterproductive to the very agenda the American people sent us 
here to carry out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I now move to table the 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.


                           amendment no. 197

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the regular order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote on the motion to table the Levin 
amendment will be held at 11:30. Under the previous order, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 197, offered by the Senator from Ohio. 
There will be a period of 45 minutes for debate prior to a motion to 
table, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Glenn, and 15 minutes 
under the control of Senator Kempthorne.
  Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 197 at the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 197 is the pending question.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment to ensure 
the point of order requirements in S. 1 lie in only two places. One of 
those would be just prior to final passage, before we are getting ready 
to vote on the bill, for its consideration once it has been through the 
whole process. The other point where a point of order would lie would 
be when the bill comes back from a conference where it might have been 
changed somewhat, and so a point of order could lie at that point also.
  I think we need to think about the purpose of this legislation. The 
purpose is to know what the total impact of a 
[[Page S1646]] bill is going to be on State and local governments. They 
are not really interested, as we go along, in each little piece of 
legislative maneuvering that we do here in the Senate Chamber. What 
they want to know when a bill is passed is does it hit them with a $1 
billion bill, no bill, or does it hit them with a new responsibility 
they did not have before? States and local governments want to know 
what does this legislation do to them? That is what this unfunded 
mandates bill was all about.
  This bill was not supposed to be designed to create a legislative 
quagmire, some great swamp of procedural difficulties, that would make 
it so difficult to get things passed that even the finest of 
legislation would have trouble getting through.
  A moment ago, I held up a flow chart that my staff director put 
together overnight that shows some of the procedures under this bill. I 
wish we had time to get this thing lined up in a better order on a 
chart so people could really see all the intricate maneuvers that go on 
here with the introduction of a bill. Basically, each amendment under 
the bill as it is now--this would be each amendment:
  Step 1, the Parliamentarian would have a ruling on whether a mandate 
exists.
  No. 2, there can be an appeal of that ruling.
  No. 3 would be a vote on that appeal.
  The fourth step an amendment would have to go through is the 
Parliamentarian would make a ruling on whether the cost exceeds the $50 
million threshold--determining once again if a mandate exists.
  No. 5 would be an appeal of that ruling.
  And No. 6 six would be a vote on the appeal of that ruling.
  No. 7, the Parliamentarian would rule on whether requirements for 
funding have been met.
  No. 8 would be appeal of that ruling.
  And No. 9 would be a vote on the appeal.
  That is what is in the bill now, and I do not quarrel with that as a 
procedure except to say what we are trying to do on each piece of 
legislation is to find out what the total overall impact on the States 
and local governments will be. That is what they are interested in as a 
bottom line. That is the purpose of this legislation.
  My concern in applying the point of order requirements for CBO cost 
estimates for State and local funding to floor amendments, as S. 1 
currently does, is that the procedure has the serious potential of just 
unnecessarily bogging down the whole legislative process. Why, when the 
final total, the final checkout counter total is what we are really 
interested in, do we want to go through all this self-flagellation of 
putting ourselves through a tortuous process where an amendment could 
have a point of order against it when it is proposed and then, if it is 
still approved, that will have an impact on it being included at as 
part of the bill because it has been approved. So then another point of 
order could lie back against the bill itself. We have had appeals from 
those rulings of the Chair.
  At each point, then, as I see it, you have a possibility--if someone 
is interested in setting up another means of filibuster, this would be 
an excellent means of doing it. All you have to do is put in a whole 
bunch of amendments that exceed the $50 million threshold and exceed 
the point of order and you have bogged this Chamber down for days and 
days on end. I guarantee it. I do not think there are many Members of 
this Chamber who would vote to put in a new filibuster process, yet 
that is basically what we are talking about doing.
  We talk about the election last year. Everybody putting something 
down hangs it on the election of last year, November 8, as to: We want 
a leaner, better working Government. We want to cut out all the 
complexities of Government. We want to make Government flow. We want to 
make Government efficient.
  If I ever saw anything that is going to make Government inefficient 
here in the Senate Chamber, it is a process such as we have before us 
now that basically sets up a brandnew filibuster process. I know my 
colleagues on the other side of this issue will say we have to have 
accountability. The accountability that I think we need to provide in 
this bill is the final checkout counter accountability of saying we 
have made our very best effort to assess the costs of legislation. We 
have considered the costs on the Senate floor. Here is the relationship 
with the States. And here is the final checkout counter tab, after all 
the amendments have been considered.
  I know they will say at each one of these points, if someone is 
thinking about putting in a $50 million addition to something or $75 
million addition, the accountability requirements of having a point of 
order lie at that time will mean they will think twice before they put 
that in.
  I do not think that applies in this case. Because at each point where 
someone thinks about putting in an amendment like that, they are also 
going to have to consider that total at the time of reckoning at the 
end of consideration of all the amendments. We still will have a point 
of order lying against this whole process. In fact, in the amendment 
process someone may say, we think your $75 million back there was too 
much so we modify it to another amount by this amendment.
  Why should we have gone through a point of order and all the other 
unnecessary legislative procedures along the way, when what we really 
want is the final checkout tab? So the accountability requirement here, 
of making people think twice, I think, is just as strong under this as 
it would be if we kept this point of order lying at every point along 
the way, which just sets up another potential filibuster procedure.
  I want to pass an unfunded Federal mandate reform bill. I have been 
wed to this idea with both S. 993 last year and S. 1 this year. We have 
been on the floor now for 2 weeks with this legislation and much of it 
has been misinterpreted. Some of this legislation has been 
misinterpreted back home by some of our papers. I have been castigated 
as though I was delaying this, which I am not. I have fought and fought 
to get going on this legislation and get it through. But I want to do 
it right. I want to do it properly. However, I want it to be very clear 
I want to pass an unfunded Federal mandate reform bill.
  I do not want, at the same time, to tie this legislative process in 
such a Gordian knot that it will delay good legislation unnecessarily, 
and I think that is the important point.
  Applying points of order to floor amendments will just add 
bureaucratic overlay nonsense and accomplish very little in this whole 
process. I believe that kind of nonsensical bureaucratic overlay is not 
in the interests of the Senate nor is it in the interests of the State 
and local governments with whom we are trying to deal with in this 
legislation. To set up new, unnecessary procedures that can be misused 
by someone who, even with very good legislation, might want to set up a 
filibuster procedure by putting in new points of order and so on, just 
does not make any sense to me.
  I understand points of order can currently be raised under the Budget 
Act on amendments that affect direct Federal spending but have not been 
scored by CBO. However, we are not talking about direct spending here; 
we are talking about estimates.
  CBO has already told us that estimates in some of these areas will be 
fuzzy estimates at best. But we are still required to consider the best 
estimates we can get up front in this legislation. That is the purpose 
of this whole legislation. Fuzzy estimates for mandates, which are a 
different animal entirely, involve cost estimates for 87,000 different 
State and local jurisdictions.
  Therefore, we should not overload the Senate with these new 
procedural requirements that are just not necessary on floor 
amendments. Nor should we at the same time overload CBO. CBO told my 
staff there is no way they could score all amendments containing 
possible intergovernmental mandates under the short timeframe that 
might be required on the floor. They might be able to provide a rough 
estimate, but it would require them a little longer timeframe to get a 
better estimate for us that could not be done in the time that 
legislation completes its consideration here on the floor.
 I think leaving each amendment subject to a point of order is just a 
prescription 
[[Page S1647]] for additional slowing down of the legislative process 
for possible real mischief if somebody's objective is to stop a good 
piece of legislation by overloading it with amendments that would 
exceed the $50 million threshold limitation.
  My amendment would see that the points of order lie in two places. I 
think this is a very logical. First would be after we know the cost of 
the bill. We will know the cost of all of the amendments, will have 
totaled them up and be able to say here is the cost, here is the impact 
on State and local governments, and now we have to decide. Is that too 
much? At that point, prior to final passage, the point of order would 
lie. Then the legislation, if approved, goes to a conference with the 
House of Representatives and we come back out of that conference. 
Sometimes the House has different money amounts involved, different 
requirements.
  The conference report, as it comes back after having been negotiated 
with the House in conference, is sometimes different. At that point, it 
may have changed dramatically. So we need a second point of order that 
will lie at that point. That was the second point of order. The main 
one, of course, was just for the legislation. We have completed it, and 
ran through it. We have a point of order apply when we know what the 
total tab is. That is where the main point of order will lie. If it 
goes to conference, comes back with no change or tiny changes, then the 
point of order would probably not be required against it again. But if 
there are big changes that come back out of conference, then a point of 
order would lie at that point also.
  The amounts themselves that have been offered under my bill would not 
be subject to individual points of order, as is the case in S. 1 where 
this whole procedure can get so bogged down. My amendment would reduce 
the potential burden on CBO. It gives them a little more time to refine 
their estimates as we are considering bills on the floor, and get them 
to us. This means we will probably have more accurate information. Most 
importantly, it will prevent us from having the potential of playing a 
100-person game of negotiating a complex legislative labyrinth of some 
kind anytime we consider legislation with intergovernmental 
ramifications.
  Further, my amendment would ensure the conference reports would still 
be scored, as is the case under S. 1. I have also indicated my 
willingness to modify the amendment to have the point of order lie 
against only the mandates at the third reading rather than against the 
whole bill. The bill would come out--a point of order could possibly 
lie against it at that point before you even get into amendments--then 
take all of the amendments in toto and have a vote on the impact of all 
amendments as a separate point of order.
  So I would be willing to do that, if someone thought that was more 
satisfactory. But there has been no agreement at this time by the other 
side. I repeat that I think what the States and local governments are 
interested in is not our legislative quagmire here in the Senate and 
how we may be able to use something like this as another way of 
filibustering. What they want to know is--when the final deliberations 
have been made--what is the total impact on the States and local 
governments? That is what they want, and that is what should be 
concentrated on.
  I do not agree that this is some great force mechanism of 
accountability on each person who will somehow hesitate to offer an 
amendment for fear that they are going to be the ones that put us over 
the limit of $50 million. I just do not think many people are going to 
be persuaded that is a big consideration for them, and, in addition, 
the points of order will be taken up later. A point of order will lay 
against the accumulation of all of these amendments anyway.
  So they are under that same kind of accountability restraint whether 
the point of order would lie on their individual amendment or the 
cumulative effect of all of the amendments considered for a point of 
order at the end of the amending process.
  If we allow points of order to lie on each floor amendment as it 
comes up, it seems to me we are sort of going down the road that will 
lead to a legislative traffic jam of grand proportions. Amendments will 
bottleneck legislation like cars on the beltway at rush hour here in 
Washington.
  In trying to fix the problem with unfunded mandates, let us not go 
down that road. Let us not create legislative gridlock. I believe that 
my amendment makes sense. I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield now to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee such time as he would need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I thank the 
Senator from Idaho for yielding time.
  How much time does Senator Glenn have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 15 minutes and 11 
seconds, and the Senator from Idaho has 14 minutes and 35 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, let me say to Senator Glenn that 
clearly I am not one--and I want to set the record straight from our 
side--accusing Senator John Glenn of delaying, as an instrumentality 
here; that he has been on the floor trying not to have this happen. 
Quite to the contrary. I am reminded, one of the Republican Senators 
said yesterday, I believe at lunch, ``What are we in for this year when 
it takes almost 3 weeks on a measure that the Democrats are for?'' That 
is sort of befuddling. This is going to pass very heavily I believe. We 
have been here an awful long time. This is an important bill. I want to 
address it.
  First of all, there should be no doubt, Mr. President, that this 
unfunded mandate legislation and its enforcement are intended to change 
the culture of the United States Congress when it comes to voting out 
of committee and on the floor unfunded mandates as defined in this 
bill. This cannot be approached cavalierly, and there will be a very 
big burden on committees that have jurisdiction over bills that come to 
the floor that mandate costs on local government that we do not pay 
for. Let me describe why I think what the bill does is precisely right 
and why what Senator Glenn offers is not what we ought to do because of 
the basic philosophy of what we are trying to accomplish.
  First, there should be no misunderstanding. Points of order are not 
self-executed. They are not self-executed. Somebody has to raise a 
point of order; point No. 1. A manager of a bill has to be very, very 
careful that the bill that is brought to the floor is not subject to a 
point of order, or clearly that manager and that committee understands 
that it is subject to a point of order, and could fail. That means 
there will be a lot of care and a lot of political analysis before you 
bring the bill to the floor. That is number one.
  No. 2, we used to say one of the great qualities of the Senate is 
that if you think of an amendment here on the floor and you are smart 
enough, you just write it out; send it up there. There is no doubt 
about that. That is one of the fantastic qualities. And the person I 
remember so vividly over the years that did that the best was Senator 
Jacob Javits of New York. He did not need a staff. He would just write 
one up.
  What we are saying now is you can do that. You can dream up an 
amendment while the bill is working its way through here. But we are 
changing things a little bit as to one kind of legislation, legislation 
and amendments that mandate local governments to do things and we do 
not want to pay for them. In that regard, we say you had better be 
prepared. You had better be prepared and get the estimated costs. And, 
if you do not have them or if they exceed the threshold, you had better 
be prepared to defend on the basis that if someone raises that point of 
order the Senate of the United States would want to say on that 
amendment, look, we want to waive it. We think it is so important and 
we do not think we can quite work out how we pay for it and the like, 
we think it is so important, we are going to waive it.
  Frankly, I think it is important that we understand that the United 
States Senate understands that after the adoption of this legislation, 
if the Glenn amendment fails--and I hope it is tabled--when you get 
ready to offer amendments that affect mandates that are unfunded, you 
had better be prepared to defend them against the costs 
[[Page S1648]] you are sending down. Having said that, if a bill comes 
to the floor and it exceeds the threshold, it is subject to a point of 
order. Frankly, then a point of order could be made, it would fail, 
fall, or it would not. But now we have another tree coming along, and 
people want to offer an amendment.
  If an amendment was subject to a point of order and the Senate, in 
its wisdom, waives it, then that amount of mandate is waived and there 
cannot be a point of order against the bill because that was added and 
increased the threshold. We make the decision, and if we want to waive 
it, we waive it. If we waive it, then my understanding of what we have 
done is you cannot then raise the point of order against the bill 
because the waived mandate makes the bill subject to the threshold 
dimensions.
  On the other hand, it is true that if we do nothing and let the 
amendment go through--and that is the prerogative of the Senate--then 
at some point in time, if it made the bill subject to a point of order, 
you can still raise it at a later time, because that has never been 
waived.
  Frankly, I believe the Senator from Ohio is overly concerned about 
how this is going to be used. I believe the way it is really going to 
be used is that people are going to want to get their amendments 
passed, and they are going to do everything they can to make it right 
by the Senate and to make it right by this law, and if it is a 
political issue instead of a dollar issue, they are going to win it. 
That will be a vote around here. Do you indeed want to do it, even 
though it breaks the threshold?
  I am very proud that we made that simple. There is only a simple 
majority there, not a supermajority to do that waiving. I think that 
means that since we do not know the details of the future, we cannot 
guess everything in the future. We are giving Americans insurance that 
it can be voted in, if it is very important to America, even if it 
violates the threshold requirement.
  The whole theme of this bill is a process for accountability. 
Heretofore, at best, we did not know what we were doing in terms of the 
mandate costs. At worst, we knew it and we were cavalier about it. So 
what, change this Clean Air Act and if it costs the States $650 million 
over the next 3 years, so what. Anybody that likes that approach should 
not like this bill. But we are not going to be doing that anymore.
  So when you have a serious amendment and you bring it here to the 
floor, it is at risk, I say to fellow Senators, if in fact it costs out 
such that it makes the bill subject to a point of order. And you have 
to work that. You cannot just come down here and say it is such a neat 
thing, I dreamt it up; I am running for office and I would like to get 
it down here. It is going to be put right up front, to the best of our 
ability, to analyze and if some Senator is careful, he is going to 
stand up and say I raise a point of order. Again, this is not self-
executing. The Senate can clearly, implicitly or explicitly, decide 
that it does not want to do anything about the fact that we break the 
threshold and order some mandates that are unfunded.
  So in summary, I think we will too narrowly change the culture, 
change it into a narrow way, and if we let in all the amendments and at 
the end of it all, we address them. I think the culture has to be 
changed such that amendments are subjected to the highest scrutiny in 
terms of the mandate. Essentially, that is the difference between the 
two. Yes, there is a little more difficulty and it could be a little 
more cumbersome. But do we really want to make amendments heavily 
scrutinized and subject to a point of order then and there, or do we 
want to do less and let them get through because under this amendment 
there would be no point of order?
  You could have a report saying it is a $300 billion mandate on an 
amendment, and under this you wait until the end when everything is 
there and then take it up. I think it ought to be done in a very 
powerful, direct attack on the kind of willy-nilly way that we have 
assigned these mandates to our cities, States and counties.
  Therefore, I hope the Senate will leave the bill intact. I commend my 
friend from Ohio for his thoughtfulness on this bill. I just believe 
that we have a basic disagreement. The Senator from New Mexico has a 
basic disagreement on this. I hope the Senate agrees with the Senator 
from New Mexico.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 15 minutes 11 
seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we disagree, obviously, on this particular 
amendment. I want to respond first to the comment of my distinguished 
friend from New Mexico--and he is distinguished and he is head of the 
Budget Committee. He is very learned in that area and I appreciate 
that. He commented in the Republican caucus yesterday that one of their 
persons said, ``If it takes this long for the Democrats to get 
something through that they want, what does that spell out for the rest 
of the year,'' or words to that effect.
  I want to set the record straight on that, because I think there has 
been a great deal of gobbledygook about, and misrepresentation of, the 
Democrats on this side with regard to what we have done on legislation 
this year--deliberate misrepresentation, as the Congressional Record 
will show. Last year, we passed S. 993. I was part of that, along with 
Senator Kempthorne. The mayors and Governors said: Do not amend it, do 
not do anything, put it through. Senator Levin brought that up a little 
while ago. I read that into the Record. It was looked upon as very good 
legislation. Why did we not get it through last fall? We had it out of 
committee in August, and the Republicans that now accuse us of all 
kinds of delay had a 3-month scorched-earth, do-not-let-anything-
through policy that prevented consideration of unfunded mandates or the 
Congressional Coverage Act last year.
  We finally got down to trying to get a unanimous consent requirement 
to let those two bills get through last year and could not do it. That 
is the reason we did not have unfunded mandates and congressional 
coverage passed last fall, because there was a policy on the Republican 
side, apparently, to not let anything get through. One day, after one 
of the votes on an amendment, I followed one of the more vocal members 
of the Republican Party and happened to walk out by the elevators, and 
he was saying, ``We beat another one.'' The press people out there 
said, ``What was it?'' He said, ``Who cares, we beat it.'' That was the 
general attitude last fall that prevented unfunded mandates, which I 
was all for. I worked with Senator Kempthorne, who took the lead in 
this area, and we had that legislation ready and could not get it 
through. That was the policy last fall. That is the reason we did not 
get it through. Some of the press look at it this year as just tit-for-
tat. The shoe is on the other foot, so we are doing the same thing back 
to them. That is not true.
  When we came in this year, S. 1--which is the successor to S. 993--
had been made a priority and was given the prime designation of S. 1. 
It was designated as the prime bill that we are going to put through 
this year. I favored that. That designation is great, as far as I am 
concerned, because I am for unfunded mandates legislation. But the way 
they wanted to put it through was to ramrod it through with absolutely 
no changes, to show we are in some sort of legislative drag race with 
the House, apparently, and that we can beat them. So what was the 
procedure that was set up? It was set up this way: We will introduce 
the bill one day, have a hearing the next day, a markup the third day, 
and include on that third day sending it back to the Senate. That meant 
when we got to committee, there was not time to do anything on it.
  I go to markup usually considering, OK, let us deliberately look at 
this and make sure we are doing the right job with this piece of 
legislation. Yet, when we came to markup, they had the hearing the 
second day, went to markup the third day. We came over with some 
perfecting amendments. They were not delaying amendments. They were to 
take care of some of the real problems with this bill. There were some 
things that had been omitted. Color and race had been left out of the 
discrimination clauses--substantive matters that had to be taken care 
of. 
[[Page S1649]] We were told there would be no amendments. We tried to 
put amendments in. They were voted down on a party-line basis, straight 
across the board. We were informed that there would no amendments 
approved that day, and we are going to vote this thing back to the 
floor. They told us that on the floor you can put in all the amendments 
you want-- we will consider all these things on the floor. That is what 
we were told over and over again. OK. We could not do anything about 
that. It was also stated we are not going to have a committee report.
  Normally around here, for those that are not as familiar with Senate 
procedure as others may be, a committee report is a very important 
document. These bills that are put in are in legalese, they refer to 
different parts of the code, and you have to really decode them to know 
what you are doing. And so the committee report is what most people 
rely on to look through and see the provisions that are put in layman's 
language so you can understand it.
  They would not even put a committee report in. They said we are going 
to bypass that. The minority asked, ``How are you going to take care of 
explaining this to people?'' They responded, ``Put something in the 
Congressional Record?'' ``How about minority views that are normally 
considered important?'' ``If you want to put minority views in, you 
should put them in the Congressional Record.''
  I have never seen such cavalier treatment of the minority since I 
have been in the Senate, and that has been over 20 years now.
  We object. We had a rollcall vote on the committee report and the 
minority lost. So it was voted out and brought back here to the Senate.
  To show my commitment to unfunded mandates, I voted even then to send 
it out of committee and back to the floor. I voted with the Republicans 
to get it out of committee and back to the floor, even though I 
objected strenuously to the whole procedure at that time.
  Now, what happened when S. 1 came to the floor? This is where they 
say we have been on the floor now 2 weeks with this thing. Actually, 
what happened is Senator Byrd took up the issue of the absence of a 
report and objected to it, and for the first 2 to 2\1/2\ days, we had a 
debate on the committee report.
  The majority finally agreed that they would do a committee report. 
``We will have it for you by tomorrow evening.'' Tomorrow evening came 
and went and there was no report, so we had to wait another day to get 
the committee report.
  Then it turned out that the Budget Committee had not submitted its 
report, and there was another day's wait.
  So all these things on procedure could have been taken care of had we 
been able to consider this legislation in committee, as we should have 
been able to do. This representation that we have somehow delayed this 
legislation is beginning to wear a little thin with me. That is how we 
lost the first week.
  Then they wanted us to consider immediately taking up the bill 
because the report was filed. Well, people had not even had a chance to 
see what was in the report. So it was finally agreed to put it off over 
the weekend.
  So the first whole week of consideration, all last week, was because 
of the way we were cavalierly treated in committee and because Senator 
Byrd insisted on those reports being available so all Members would 
have a chance to know what was in this landmark, historic legislation. 
And I view this bill as being that kind of legislation.
  Now, once we got into the bill on the Senate floor and got past the 
committee report problem, then what happened? Then the majority said, 
``Let's limit amendments.'' Limit amendments.
  We had been told repeatedly in committee that we would be able, on 
the Senate floor, to go through the regular amending process. What 
happened? Now they want us not to put in amendments. Now they want to 
move the bill real quick, in a drag race with the House. And we 
objected to that.
  In spite of being told that we would be able to bring up anything we 
wanted on the floor, cloture was filed when we tried to bring things 
up.
  Well, cloture then flushes out amendments all over the place. Because 
if cloture is invoked, you cannot put amendments in after that. So 
everybody had a pet amendment. And in the Senate, not having 
germaneness rules, you can put in anything you want. We wound up with 
117 amendments, which was unnecessary. We could have taken care of the 
important ones in committee had we been permitted to do that, instead 
of having this legislative process where we were rolled on the minority 
side.
  Then, meanwhile, negotiations were on as to what amendments were 
really important. And so we finally wound up with the list being culled 
down earlier this week, and the ones that are important, we will 
consider those.
  That is an abridgement of how we got to where we are right now.
  So I tell you, I am wearing very thin on this thing. I have been 
accused back home by one of our major Ohio papers of being one who 
favored this legislation last year but, for political reasons, opposes 
it this year. That just is flat not true. It just shows that they were 
not paying attention to what was going on up here on the Hill during 
the committee process, what we tried to do, my commitment to this 
legislation, and working it out.
  Finally, this week, we were able to work it out. Last night, working 
until after midnight, we finally got a time agreement on the final 
amendments that are important. These are substantive amendments.
  The Senator from Michigan, who has brought these issues up, is a pit 
bull on this. He goes into these discussions in committee on how the 
wording is going to affect the council back in Detroit, where he used 
to be on the council, and the States, Michigan and every other State 
across this country.
  These are substantive matters that are being proposed here. These are 
not delay tactics.
  If there were any delay tactics, it was because we were trying to get 
a committee report out that could explain this legislation to every 
Senator, including the 11 new Senators on the Republican side that have 
not been familiar with this process at all. There was objection during 
that first week and that is how we lost the whole first week.
  And so, when these little barbs keep flying across the aisle about 
how we are delaying things, I will tell you, we are not being anti 
anything. I will tell you what the Democrats are being on this bill. We 
are being constructive, trying to put legislation through that has the 
fine points worked out in it so it is operable, so we can make these 
estimates, so we can make sure that States and local governments are 
taken care of properly. That is the purpose of this legislation.
  The delay that we have had for the first week was all because of the 
procedures that were used in trying to ram this thing through. We were 
responding by saying, ``OK, we want to have the normal procedures here 
so that every Senator will be informed.''
  That is sort of how we got to where we are now.
  To say that somehow the Democrats are at fault on this is incorrect. 
I will tell you what the Democrats are doing. They are trying to 
protect Senate procedure that protects Republicans as well as 
Democrats.
  I am just as committed to getting this unfunded mandate legislation 
through as I was last year. I think we worked it out. The amendment 
that Senator Byrd proposed took care of a lot of the problems, and I 
think makes this legislation a better bill.
  Was that substantive? Are we delaying because of the Byrd amendment 
that was put through yesterday? No, that was excellent legislating of a 
very important nature on a bill that is landmark legislation. The 
majority said it was a delay mechanism when we changed the process of 
how things operate when bills go over to an agency, and what they can 
do, we would have given up our legislative authority to those agencies. 
It was agreed on the other side that this was something that we should 
correct, and we corrected it. Was that substantive? You bet it was 
substantive; very important for this legislation.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator has 3 minutes and 17 
seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
   [[Page S1650]] Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we have had these discussions from 
time to time as to what side of the aisle brought up objections, what 
side of the aisle delayed progress, and what have you.
  I refuse to engage in that, Mr. President, because we have in S. 1 an 
effort to stop unfunded Federal mandates. And, on behalf of the mayors, 
Governors, county commissioners, school board administrators, and 
business men and women of the country, I am not going to engage in what 
has happened in the past on the fingerpointing.
  It is time for us to use that finger and to draw a line in the sand 
and say, ``From this time forward, let us look to the future in what we 
can do together.''
  This is a bipartisan bill. The prime partner on this bill that I have 
had has been the Senator from Ohio. I am a Republican; he is a 
Democrat. This is a bipartisan bill.
  It is about time that we quit just saying ``bipartisan'' if we do not 
mean it, but instead demonstrate to the American people that we can 
work together, because that is what they told us they wanted us to do 
on November 8: Stop the fingerpointing at one another and start looking 
to the future on behalf of the American public that sent us here to do 
a job for them, instead of being on each other.
  I could bring up that last year, when we tried to get S. 993 through, 
it was the Republicans that cleared the deck. They agreed, even though 
I had some that wanted desperately to offer amendments, they would 
withhold all amendments. But we could not clear the deck on the 
Democratic side, but it does not matter now.
 That is past. Maybe in different social settings we could go over 
those war stories. I do not think the public wants the war stories 
right now. They want the Senate to enact this legislation.

  So, Mr. President, with regard to the specifics of the amendment 
before the Senate, I have to defer to what the chairman of the Budget 
Committee stated. He has pointed out why he feels this is an objection. 
I know the Senator from Ohio is sincere in thinking that this may pose 
another filibuster tool. But in the 2 years I have been here, if there 
is one thing I have learned, it is that there are ample tools for 
filibuster, if that is what a Senator wants to do. I do not think this 
will be used as a new ploy in order to enact a filibuster because there 
are a variety of other opportunities to do that.
  Mr. President, again, I would ask everyone, just as Senate bill 1 is 
prospective and not retroactive, let the Senate continue, in the 
debate, to be prospective and not retroactive and show the American 
people that we can take something that is bipartisan. Let Members pass 
it in this body today, send it to the House of Representatives, get 
bipartisan support there, send it to the President, and have him enact 
this. Then the mayors and Governors and the American taxpayers will 
say, ``Thank you, folks, you did what we asked you to do, and now why 
not do it again on something else.''
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  I could not agree more with the distinguished Senator from Idaho. He 
has been an absolute delight to work with all through the last 2 years 
on this legislation. We were very cooperative. We have not tried to 
backstab each other. We have been upfront on every place we have had 
differences. In some areas we do have differences.
  We have a little difference of opinion on this particular item. My 
proposal, I think, would improve the legislation. The other side does 
not think that is quite the case, so we have a little difference of 
opinion. But the basic bill itself will go through.
  All through the first part of this debate, through the first week of 
this debate on the Senate floor, I outlined the procedure that was used 
to get this legislation through committee, which we objected to. But 
all through that first week on the Senate floor, I refrained from 
getting into some of these partisan barbs back and forth and so did the 
Senator from Idaho. He did not take part in those remarks. All the 
things that were coming up about the political nature of what the 
Democrats are trying to do, as though this is a political hotfoot we 
are using to reply to last year's scorch policy of 3 months in the 
fall, I stayed out of that. There were many of those remarks back and 
forth.
  I finally got involved with it because I thought it was so unfair. Lo 
and behold all that drumbeat, drumbeat, drumbeat of how bad the 
Democrats were and how we were trying to stall this thing, drumbeat, 
drumbeat, over and over, apparently had some effect, as one of our 
major papers back in Ohio made scathing remarks about me, sort of 
implying that I have sold out. The paper implied that the only reason I 
am participating in the debate in this manner is because of some kind 
of party retaliation. That is not like me. Well, I would say to the 
papers, in reference to the little special they had on their editorial 
page, no, it is not like me, and that has not been me. If they had been 
paying attention to what was going on here, they would know that is not 
what was going on.
  So when I hear my friend from New Mexico get up this morning and once 
again make a crack about the Democrats being at fault, and will this be 
the pattern all through the legislative session, that someone remarked 
to him about yesterday, obviously my skin is beginning to get a little 
thin on some of these things--blaming this particular delay just on the 
Democrats, when I enunciated a little while ago the processes that were 
used in committee--high handed, cavalier. I cannot put any other words 
to it than that. I have never seen any minority treated like that in my 
20-some plus years here in the Senate.
  So that is the reason that I wanted to use some of my time on this 
amendment. My remarks did not apply directly to this amendment.
  Let me say to my friend from Idaho, I think his remarks are exactly 
on, and I hope he takes the opportunities in the conference to get some 
of the other people to stop making these zingers across the aisle that 
are so unwarranted because we know what happened in committee and we 
know what happened last year.
  He and I worked together to try to get this together. He said we 
could not get it through on the Democratic side, we finally were 
delayed, could not get it through the floor for regular debate as would 
normally be the case. We were only able to get it on a unanimous 
consent. And one Senator objected to unanimous consent at that time and 
that prevented us from getting it through last year without amendments.
  Mr. President, if this bill is enacted as currently written, with 
points of order applied to amendments, it will be almost impossible to 
escape a point of order on an amendment whose cost estimate--assuming 
you can get it--exceeds the threshold.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record what every amendment 
will have to contain, according to section c(1)B of the bill, if it 
contains a mandate of at least $50 million.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       ``(B) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would increase the direct costs of 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes 
     the thresholds specified in subsection (b)(1)(A) to be 
     exceeded, unless--
       ``(i) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides direct spending authority for each 
     fiscal year for the Federal intergovernmental mandates 
     included in the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report in an amount that is equal to the direct 
     costs of such mandate;
       ``(ii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides an increase in receipts and an 
     increase in direct spending authority for each fiscal year 
     for the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report in an amount equal to the direct costs of such 
     mandate; or
       ``(iii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report includes an authorization for 
     appropriations in an amount equal to the direct costs of such 
     mandate, and--
       ``(I) identifies a specific dollar amount of the direct 
     costs of the mandate for each year or other period during 
     which the mandate shall be in effect under the bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion or conference report, and such 
     estimate is consistent with 
     [[Page S1651]] the estimate determined under paragraph (5) 
     for each fiscal year;
       ``(II) identifies any appropriation bill that is expected 
     to provide for Federal funding of the direct cost referred to 
     under subclause (III);
       ``(III)(aa) provides that if for any fiscal year the 
     responsible Federal agency determines that there are 
     insufficient appropriations to provide for the estimated 
     direct costs of the mandate, the Federal agency shall (not 
     later than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year) 
     notify the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress of 
     the determination and submit either--
       ``(1) a statement that the agency has determined, based on 
     a re-estimate of the direct costs of a mandate, after 
     consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, that 
     the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct 
     costs of the mandate; or
       ``(2) legislative recommendations for either implementing a 
     less costly mandate or making the mandate ineffective for the 
     fiscal year;
       ``(bb) provides expedited procedures for the consideration 
     of the statement or legislative recommendations referred to 
     in item (aa) by Congress not later than 30 days after the 
     statement or recommendations are submitted to Congress; and
       ``(cc) provides that the mandate shall--
       ``(1) in the case of a statement referred to in item 
     (aa)(1), cease to be effective 60 days after the statement is 
     submitted unless Congress has approved the agency's 
     determination by joint resolution during the 60 day period;
       ``(2) cease to be effective 60 days after the date the 
     legislative recommendations of the responsible Federal agency 
     are submitted to Congress under item (aa)(2) unless Congress 
     provides otherwise by law; or
       ``(3) in the case of a mandate that has not yet taken 
     effect, continue not to be effective unless Congress provides 
     otherwise by law.

  Mr. GLENN. Could we have unanimous consent to have Senator Lieberman 
have 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, and my colleagues, I just want to add a 
word to say, as this debate has gone on, the Senator from Ohio, as is 
not just his habit but is at the very core of his nature, has conducted 
himself in a most thoughtful and serious way. In the 6 years I have 
been privileged to be a Member of the U.S. Senate, I do not think I 
have known a less partisan Member than John Glenn of Ohio.
  This complicated bill, with ramifications on just about every section 
of the United States Code annotated, I think we made a better bill as 
this process has gone on. A good part of the responsibility for making 
it better goes to the former chairman of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, and now the ranking 
Democrat, the Senator from Ohio. Whatever is being said in Ohio by any 
newspaper, I do not know, but if they are critical of Senator Glenn in 
his conduct on this bill, in my respectful opinion, they are wrong.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time. I 
move to table the amendment and 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.


                           Amendment No. 174

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question recurs 
on amendment No. 174, offered by the Senator from Michigan. Debate will 
be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Senator 
from Idaho and the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, acknowledging that we have a 
unanimous-consent agreement, I believe that votes would begin to occur 
at 11:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, could I make an inquiry on that. Do I 
understand that the vote on the first amendment whose debate has been 
completed pursuant to the unanimous-consent would begin at 11:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have two votes beginning at 11:30.
  Mr. LEVIN. But if debate is not completed with the time allotted by 
the unanimous consent, the vote would occur on that amendment at a 
later point, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, the Senator is 
correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, what I am suggesting is to offer 
another unanimous-consent agreement that we would move the votes that 
have been ordered, so that they would not occur at 11:30, but they 
would move to a time after we have completed the debate on this next 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previous vote time, which was to occur at 11:30, be moved so that the 
first vote will occur after all time has been consumed in debate on the 
remaining two amendments.
  Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, is 
there any idea of how much that would move the vote forward?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be approximately 30 minutes before the 
next vote.
  Mr. GLENN. I will not object.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. It is my understanding it will be no later than 12 
o'clock noon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask a few questions of the 
manager relative to the way in which amendments would be dealt with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises Senators time has been 
deducted equally. There was not the suggestion of the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. How many minutes do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, two questions I would like to ask my friend 
from Idaho about how the amendment process would work. It really goes 
back to the Glenn amendment. First, the bill says that the requirement 
that there be an estimate apply to bills and resolutions. Is it the 
intent of the manager, the sponsor, that amendments offered on the 
floor are not subject to a point of order because they fail, when they 
are offered, to have a cost estimate?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is correct then that they would not be subject to a 
point of order?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, not based strictly because they do not 
have a cost estimate.
  Mr. LEVIN. No, but a point of order would not lie for the failure of 
an amendment, as it is offered, to have a cost estimate in it, is that 
correct?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. However, a point of order might lie if an argument is made 
that that amendment exceeds the threshold of $50 million, is that 
correct?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. And if the Budget Committee is unable to make that 
determination and so informs the Chair, would a point of order lie? As 
a general matter, would it lie?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, again, in looking to the Budget Act 
and what may be some precedent that we could point to, if in fact CBO 
were to determine and so state that regardless of how much time they 
had they simply could not come up with an estimate, the 
Parliamentarian, as I understand it, may use that as a basis to 
recommend that no point of order would lie because there would not be 
basis.
  However, it is not to suggest that that would exclude other elements 
that the Parliamentarian might consider in still coming to the 
conclusion that a point of order could still lie.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it fair to say that it is the understanding of the 
manager that generally, if there is no basis upon which to rule that 
the threshold is exceeded, if there is no basis to rule, that generally 
a point of order would not lie? However, it is not your intention to 
preclude the Chair from ruling that a point of order would lie if the 
Chair has information from other sources 
[[Page S1652]] than the Congressional Budget Office and the CBO that 
the threshold is exceeded?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will restate my question.
  I understood the Senator from Idaho to say that the Chair would not 
be precluded basically from upholding a point of order, or ruling that 
the threshold has been exceeded even if there is a statement from the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Budget Committee that it is unable 
to state that the threshold is exceeded. The Chair would not be 
precluded, from what the Senator said.
  However, my question is, is it his intention that it would generally 
be the case that if the Chair has no basis to rule that a point of 
order would lie for the threshold being exceeded, that it would 
therefore not rule that a point of order lies?
  It is my intent to ask the chairman of the Budget Committee, by the 
way, these questions as well when he is able to return to the floor. 
But I think it is important we get the intent of the manager on this 
question. It is a very important question as to whether this process 
can function.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response, it is our intention that 
it would be the prerogative of the Parliamentarian to make that 
determination. We would not then establish here the parameters by which 
the Parliamentarian would make his recommendation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator has 5 additional minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am wondering if I could ask the Senator from Idaho on 
his time since----
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I will yield 2 minutes, depending upon 
the questions, to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Idaho.
  Now, this is the situation I wish to give to the Senator. CBO and the 
Budget Committee say there is no basis that they have to make an 
estimate that the threshold is exceeded. They have no basis, and they 
so inform the Chair. This is relative to an amendment.
  If there is a statement from the CBO and the Budget Committee that 
there is no basis for them to state that the threshold is exceeded, 
then what other sources would the Chair go to to have a basis to uphold 
the point of order?
  I ask this because the bill itself states on page 25, line 20, that 
``for purposes of this subsection, the levels of Federal mandates for a 
fiscal year shall be determined based on the estimates made by the 
Committee on the Budget.'' That is what it says in the bill.
  Now, if there is some other basis besides the Budget Committee or the 
CBO upon which a Chair could rule that a threshold is exceeded, I think 
then we ought to have it in the bill. Does the Chair read newspapers or 
does the Chair--what are the other sources that the Chair would rule on 
if the Budget Committee and the CBO has told the Chair that there is no 
basis upon which it can say that the threshold is exceeded?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, we have been instructed by the 
Parliamentarian that two other elements that could be considered will 
be the actual legislation from the committee itself, and it could be 
precedent that has been established.
  Mr. LEVIN. But the legislation would be available to the CBO and to 
the Budget Committee, would it not? And precedent would be available to 
the CBO and the Budget Committee, would it not?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I am sure that it would. I do not know it necessarily 
then would be the only tool that CBO and the Budget Committee would use 
in determining the estimate, but again I would not preclude the 
Parliamentarian from examining the legislation or precedents in their 
purview as to whether or not the point of order will lie.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, as I understand it we have 2 minutes 
remaining on the amendment that is pending before us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask my friend from the State of Michigan if he 
would like to use additional time remaining?
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
use 3 minutes from my next amendment so I do not take up additional 
time of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no further request for time, the Senator intends to use 
it now, 3 minutes to be extracted from then?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
  I thank my friend for his offer, but I do not want to delay the 
Senate so I have pulled forward 3 minutes from my next amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, just a parliamentary inquiry, it will 
be my intention to move to table the amendment. But would I do that 
following the expiration of the Senator's 3 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator may proceed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am just going to use a couple of minutes 
because I want my friend from Connecticut to at least have a minute. We 
can pull forward more time from my next amendment. This amendment is 
intended to address the situation where there is a significant negative 
competitive impact on the private sector when you have a situation 
where there is competition, be it with a hospital, be it with a waste 
disposal, be it with an incinerator--whatever it is.
  The amendment I have offered says if the committee certifies that 
there is a significant negative competitive impact on the private 
sector that then this special point of order would not lie. They would 
have to make that certification that there is added protection in that 
point of order, which takes us a step beyond last year's bill.
  Where the committee itself certifies that there be a significant 
competitive disadvantage to the private sector if the public sector 
were paid to do it, or if the mandate were waived as to the public 
sector, then this additional step should not be taken.
  I have sought to modify my amendment to make it a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution. I have not been allowed to modify it. That is the rules of 
the game. So we will be voting on my original amendment.
  If I have run out of time--I ask the Chair if I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has about a minute and 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield that time to my friend from Connecticut, and if 
the Senator from Connecticut needs additional time I then ask unanimous 
consent to pull forward some additional time from my next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Michigan. I am glad to rise in support of the amendment that is 
currently being discussed, offered by the Senator from Michigan.
  Last week I discussed at some length concerns that I have about the 
competitive disadvantage that will result to the private sector from 
this legislation. In particular, I discussed my concerns with the 
provision that creates a presumption that the Federal Government will 
pay 100 percent of the costs of the mandates, even where those mandates 
apply in the same manner to 
[[Page S1653]] the public and private sector. Even the opponents of the 
amendment I introduced last week, which was defeated, acknowledge that 
there were in fact many areas covered by the provisions of this bill, 
S. 1, where the public and private sectors do compete.
  The sponsors of the legislation have stated in response to inquiries 
from colleagues they have sought to address that concern about the 
disadvantage to the private sector by requiring that the authorizing 
committee state in its report the degree to which Federal payment of 
public sector costs or the termination of the mandate would affect the 
competitive balance between State or local governments and the private 
sector, and any steps that the committee has taken.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to 
complete my statement pursuant to the generous offer of the Senator 
from Michigan, that coming from the time which he has been allocated on 
the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as I set forth during the discussion of 
my amendment last Thursday, I do not believe it is appropriate to 
create a presumption of 100-percent Federal payment in any case where a 
law applies in the same manner to both the public and private sector. 
But certainly where we have a committee finding that such a 
disadvantage to the private sector will be created, the presumption of 
100-percent funding is totally inappropriate. Otherwise, what is the 
point of the committee stating whether or not there will be a 
competitive disadvantage created? The Levin amendment would make 
certain that the presumption does not apply in those circumstances.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the Levin amendment, but I want to 
emphasize that it does not go far enough. As Senator Roth indicated in 
the debate relating to my amendment: we know right now that the public 
and private sector compete in many areas covered by S.1.
  Let me take a few minutes to read from two letters I received on 
these issues after the debate on my amendment concluded. The first 
letter is from the International Association of Environmental Testing 
Laboratories dated Jan. 19, 1995, in support of the amendment I offered 
last Thursday. It states:

       S. 1 as currently written threatens public health and the 
     environment and disadvantages commercial environmental 
     testing laboratories that provide the same services as 
     government laboratories. * * * (B)y exempting government 
     laboratories from costs associated with important quality 
     standards compliance, this legislation disadvantages 
     commercial testing laboratories that provide the same 
     services as government laboratories. Such a double standard 
     not only hurts private sector laboratories, it also reduces 
     tax revenues resulting from commercial laboratory operations:
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be included 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The second letter is from the American Legislative 
Exchange Council to Speaker Gingrich dated Jan. 12, 1995. This group 
describes itself in the first paragraph of the letter as the ``nation's 
largest bipartisan individual membership organization of state 
legislators dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and 
individual liberty''. The letter states:

       We are concerned that efforts underway to address mandates 
     on state and local governments will unfairly impede the 
     balance of competition, regulating private industry to meet 
     standards not required by the public sector. Everyday private 
     industry competes against the public sector to provide 
     Americans with goods and services in areas such as 
     transportation, the environment and many others. One example 
     of this is waste water treatment facilities. Under the 
     current mandate reform scenario, regulations on state and 
     local governments would be lifted on many services. 
     Unfortunately, private industry would not be exempted from 
     these same regulations. Instead, they would continue to be 
     forced to pass the costs of these regulations on to the 
     consumer. This problem would obviously create an unfair 
     advantage in favor of publicly operated services.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be included 
in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2).
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Levin amendment would take an 
important step forward in eliminating unfair advantages to the private 
sector that may result from this legislation. I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
                               Exhibit 1

                                      International Association of


                           Environmental Testing Laboratories,

                                  Alexandia, VA, January 19, 1995.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: The International Association of 
     Environmental Testing Laboratories (IAETL) is writing to 
     support the Kerry, Levin, Lieberman proposed amendment to 
     Senate Hill No. 1 concerning unfunded mandates. As a trade 
     association representing two-thirds of the environmental 
     testing industry, IAETL supports your proposed amendment 
     concerning the even-handed application of environmental laws 
     to apply to both the public and private sectors. S. 1 as 
     currently written threatens public health and the environment 
     and disadvantages commercial environmental testing 
     laboratories that provides the same services as government 
     laboratories.
       Environmental laboratories provide critical analysis of 
     soil, air, and water for toxic contaminants. Such analysis is 
     the basis for important public health and environmental 
     decisions. IAETL believes that public health and the 
     environment are threatened by exempting government 
     laboratories from standards designed to ensure the quality 
     and reliability of laboratory data.
       In addition, by exempting government laboratories from 
     costs associated with important quality standards compliance, 
     this legislation disadvantages commercial testing 
     laboratories that provide the same services as government 
     laboratories. Such a double standard not only hurts private 
     sector laboratories, it also reduces tax revenues resulting 
     from commercial laboratory operations.
       Accordingly, IAETL supports your proposed amendment to S. 1 
     and suggests that you add the following bullet to your ``Dear 
     Colleague'' letter concerning this issue:
       Public laboratories, which provide analysis of soil, air, 
     and water to protect public health and the environment from 
     toxic contaminants, would be exempt from quality standards 
     that apply to commercial laboratories performing the same 
     critical services.
       IAETL looks forward to working with you on the issue of 
     unfair competition between the public and private sector. 
     Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions 
     concerning this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                             Linda E. Christenson,
     Executive Director and General Counsel.
                                                                    ____

                               Exhibit 2

                                              American Legislative


                                              Exchange Council

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Gingrich: The American Legislative Exchange 
     Council (ALEC), the nation's largest bipartisan individual 
     membership organization of state legislators dedicated to the 
     principles of free enterprise and individual liberty, wishes 
     to express concern with the issue of federal mandates as it 
     relates to services provided by both the public and the 
     private sectors.
       We are concerned that efforts underway to address mandates 
     on state and local governments will unfairly impede the 
     balance of competition, regulating private industry to meet 
     standards not required by the public sector. Everyday private 
     industry competes against the public sector to provide 
     Americans with goods and services in areas such as 
     transportation, the environment and many others. One example 
     of this is waste water treatment facilities.
       Under the current mandate reform scenario, regulations on 
     state and local government would be lifted on many services. 
     Unfortunately, private industry would not be exempted from 
     these same regulations. Instead, they would continue to be 
     forced to pass the cost of these regulations on to the 
     consumer. This problem would obviously create an unfair 
     advantage in favor of publicly operated services.
       As we have see in the early days of the 104th Congress, 
     just as laws are applicable to its citizens, they should also 
     apply to Members of Congress. The same premise holds true in 
     this case. Private industry should not be made to comply with 
     regulations that exempt public sector providers. The rules 
     must be consistent.
       Thank you for your time. We appreciate your attention in 
     this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Senator Ray Powers (CO),
                                                National Chairman.
     Samuel A. Brunelli,
                                               Executive Director.
                           Amendment No. 174

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 174.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield back my time and move to 
table.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
   [[Page S1654]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This vote will occur after the previous two 
already ordered.


                           Amendment No. 219

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 219 offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. 
Debate on the amendment is limited to 10 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator from Michigan has already utilized his time and so the 
remaining time is under the control of the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent it be charged to my time.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan so that he can explain his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I have expressed the concern that there is 
a feature in this bill that would require estimates for the life of a 
mandate which could go 20, 30, 40 years. It could be unlimited, and 
that becomes an impossible task. We are kidding ourselves if we think 
we can get anything reasonable beyond the first 5 years, frankly, or 10 
years, surely.
  So this amendment puts a cap on the estimate requirement and says 
that in no event shall the estimate have to be for any year beyond 10 
years. We have already acknowledged that the CBO has the right to tell 
us that they cannot estimate these costs, and that holds through for 
any number of years. The CBO usually estimates direct costs for 5 
years, and that is it.
  So this says for a maximum of 10 years, and, if the CBO can only do 
5, obviously it will do 5. But this finally will set a cap on what 
otherwise would be an impossible task.
  I understand that the managers of the bill will accept this 
amendment. I will be happy to have a voice vote on it. I do not need a 
rollcall if they accept the amendment.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the efforts of the 
Senator from Michigan. I am prepared to accept this amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I accept it on our side, also.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Michigan.
  The amendment (No. 219) was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 175

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to lay on the table amendment numbered 175 
offered by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. On this question, the 
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gramm
     Inouye
     McCain
  So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion 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. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
remaining stacked rollcall votes be reduced to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 197

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question recurs 
on the motion to table amendment No. 197, offered by the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Glenn]. 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 Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] and 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gramm
     Inouye
     Johnston
     McCain
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 197) 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. 174

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question recurs 
on the motion to table amendment 
[[Page S1655]] numbered 174, offered by the Senator from Michigan, 
Senator Levin.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. 
This will be a 10-minute vote.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], and the Senator from Louisiana 
[Mr. Johnston] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

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

                                NAYS--43

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

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Breaux
     Gramm
     Inouye
     Johnston
     McCain
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 174) 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.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be withdrawn from consideration of the bill: 
Graham, No. 189; Levin, No. 176; Glenn, No. 195; Byrd, No. 200; 
Wellstone, No. 205; Grassley, No. 208; Kempthorne, No. 211; Glenn, No. 
212; Byrd, No. 217; Brown, No. 220; Graham, No. 216; Brown, No. 221.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  So the amendments (Nos. 176, 189, 195, 200, 205, 208, 211, 212, 216, 
217, 220, and 221) were withdrawn.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, under the unanimous-consent agreement that 
was entered into last night, the order provided that after 
consideration of the next amendment, which involves S. 993, the bill of 
last year, which Senator Levin will present, 45 minutes for Senator 
Levin's use, 15 minutes for Senator Kempthorne's use, Senator Byrd was 
to be recognized for 20 minutes prior to the vote on S. 993.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd's 20 minutes be moved to 
the time period following third reading of the bill before the final 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 218

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of amendment No. 218 offered by the Senator from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin]. There will now be 1 hour for debate, controlled 
as follows: 45 minutes under the control of Senator Levin, and 15 
minutes under the control of Senator Kempthorne.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, last year we had a bill which came out of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, S. 993. It was a good bill, a bill 
that I believe had something like 60 cosponsors or more, 67 cosponsors, 
including the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Idaho, and many 
others. It was a bipartisan bill with strong bipartisan support.
  The bill not only had the support of about two-thirds of the Senate 
as cosponsors, but S. 993, which came out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee last year, had the strong support of the Governors, the 
mayors, local elected officials, the State legislators, the counties, 
the cities.
  We got letters about S. 993 last year, strongly urging the support of 
S. 993, going so far as to say that the Governors and the State 
legislators and the counties and the cities' mayors would oppose any 
amendments to S. 993. That is this document, October 6:

       The nation's State and local elected officials strongly 
     urge the U.S. Senate to pass the state-local mandate relief 
     bill, S. 993, before adjournment.

  Later on in the letter:

       We view all amendments as an attempt to defeat our 
     legislation.

  The Conference of Mayors, in a letter to Senator Kempthorne last year 
said:

       On behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors, I am 
     writing to express my strong support for the Kempthorne-Glenn 
     bill, S. 993, and to urge immediate passage of the 
     legislation by the U.S. Senate.

  They concluded by saying:

       It is our belief that the bipartisan consensus we have 
     built on this critical legislation will carry S. 993 to 
     enactment and we pledge to oppose any and all amendments 
     which would weaken the consensus bill.

  They say, ``any and all amendments.''
  Then the President of the Conference of Mayors said:

       I would also like to echo a statement that you [addressed 
     to Senator Kempthorne] often make when talking about unfunded 
     Federal mandates. The enactment of the Kempthorne-Glenn bill 
     will not be the end in our mutual battle against unfunded 
     Federal mandates, but the true beginning. S. 993 will provide 
     us with a powerful weapon against new individual mandates 
     bills, but it will remain our responsibility to carry on the 
     battle with all the strength we can muster.

  If not a consensus, we had a near consensus of local officials for S. 
993.
  S. 993 achieved a major goal. When you read the purposes of the bill 
in front of us, S. 1, S. 993 had the same purposes. If not verbatim it 
is pretty close to precisely the same purposes. Now I am reading from 
S. 1, but stating that S. 993 had the same purposes as S. 1, same 
stated purposes as S. 1:

       To end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration 
     by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal 
     governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner 
     that may displace other essential [State, local and tribal] 
     governmental priorities.

  That was also a purpose of S. 993; to assure full consideration by 
Congress of Federal mandates.
  Next:

       To assist Congress in its consideration of proposed 
     legislation, establish and revise Federal programs containing 
     Federal mandates affecting States, local governments, tribal 
     governments and the private sector, by providing for 
     development of information, establishing a mechanism to bring 
     such information to the attention of the Senate and the 
     House, to promote, inform and deliberate decisions on the 
     appropriateness of Federal mandates in any particular 
     instance.

  These are important purposes. They are also the purposes of S. 993. 
S. 993 accomplishes what S. 1 does in all but a few ways. And it is 
those few ways I will get to in a moment.
  S. 993 requires a CBO estimate for both the private and the sector 
public costs. S. 993 contains a point of order if there is no cost 
estimate when a bill comes from a committee to the floor. S. 993 
contains a point of order if the committee fails to authorize 
appropriations to the level of the cost estimate. But that is where S. 
993 stops. It does not go further and create this Rube Goldberg 
mechanism which is in S. 1, which has become more and more complicated 
in some ways on the floor, and, happily, improved in some ways on the 
floor.
  But the mechanism, that Rube Goldberg mechanism that S. 1 has for 
that additional point of order, remains and will bedevil this body to 
the benefit of nobody, including local officials. Because the more we 
try to tie ourselves up in a knot to protect the substantive 
[[Page S1656]] issue, the greater is the instinct to circumvent it with 
boilerplate, with loopholes, and there are many.
  So if we do not come up with a mechanism which is workable, if we 
really think we are going to create here, by a mechanism which is going 
to so tie this place up that we are going to reduce mandates purely 
from the weight of the process, what we are underestimating is the 
capability of Members of Congress to write boilerplate into 
authorization bills which avoids the cumbersome mechanism. So we are 
not doing the State and local officials any good by adding this new 
point of order with its cumbersome mechanisms.
  I believe the Senator from California wanted me to yield at this 
time, as she has done some wonderful work on a chart which actually 
fits in perfectly at this time. Ordinarily I would ask unanimous 
consent I be allowed to yield to another Senator without it showing as 
an interruption in the Record, but in this case I think, with the chart 
behind her, it is going to fit in very nicely with where I am in my 
remarks.
  So I yield to the Senator from California 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Michigan, I 
thank him on behalf of many Senators for the role he has played in this 
debate. Along with both managers, I think he has brought these issues 
to the fore, and he has been persistent. Some of them have not been 
glamorous, but he has tried to protect the rights of Senators to offer 
amendments, he has tried to make everyone understand what this 
legislation really does.
  For many days I have had this chart on the floor. I am not much of a 
chart person, but I guess I am turning into one because I think a 
picture is worth many words and we have had many words to describe this 
bill.
  S. 993, which Senator Levin has offered to us as a substitute bill, 
is, in my view, a far superior bill to the bill that is before us, S. 
1. It is intelligent. It reaches to the problem.
  I come from local government, as does the Senator from Michigan. I 
did not like the unreasonable mandates when they came, but I want to 
make sure this U.S. Senate can respond to the people, to the children, 
to the elderly, to our families, to our people if in fact we need to 
move swiftly. And look what has happened with S. 993.
  It started off as a very good concept and a very good bill. If you 
look here at the chart, I say to my friend, S. 993 stopped the process 
right here. All this green did not apply. We had the committee report a 
bill out and get an estimate from the CBO. That estimate of costs came 
here to the Senate floor, and if it was not done there would be a point 
of order and that was it. We would have to know, if we were doing 
something, what it costs. That is smart. That is right. And we would 
have to take action. Then we got to S. 1, and all this green was added. 
Let me explain to the people what this means.
  Everything in the green here deals with parliamentary procedure. 
Everything in the green here, and that is half the procedure. So half 
of S. 1 deals with unelected people making decisions for this Senate. 
People in the CBO are unelected. They may be wonderful, but they are 
unelected. People in the Parliamentarian's office may be great, 
brilliant--but they are not elected. They will be making life or death 
decisions for the American people. Because if they come up with a 
number that is over $50 million, we can get caught in a debate over a 
point of order.
  I say to my friend, one of the comanagers of the bill, Senator 
Glenn--he tried to improve this bill. He wanted to make sure when a 
Senator had an amendment it did not have to go through this process all 
over again. But the Glenn amendment was defeated. Amendments that would 
have streamlined this bureaucratic nightmare were systematically 
defeated by the other side.
  My own amendments were defeated. Although we did very well, we could 
not get 51 votes to protect the children.
  There is an ``exceptions'' section in this bill, S. 1. We wanted to 
say that any bill that would protect against child pornography, child 
sexual abuse, child labor law violation, or any bill that would protect 
the health of the frail elderly, pregnant women, or young children 
should also be added to the list of exceptions.
  But our Republican colleagues said ``No way.''
  Why? It is my view that the ultimate goal of this bill is in fact to 
tie our hands, to make it much more difficult for us to act. That is 
not why I came here. That is not why the people of my State sent me 
here. They want me to act if we find out new information about what 
lead in the water does to children and pregnant women. They want me to 
act to help protect them.
 This bill will make it very difficult to do so.

  So I say to my friend from Michigan, thank you for offering us this 
amendment. I tried to make sure that the issue of illegal immigration 
would be acted on. That is one of the biggest unfunded mandates for 
California. All we have in this bill--God bless Senator Graham for 
getting it through--is an amendment preserving the status quo so that 
we will not cut the Border Patrol. We have to increase the Border 
Patrol. The Graham amendment does not help us one bit in terms of 
adding more Border Patrol agents. It does protect us from cuts, but 
nothing in this bill will begin payments to my State of California for 
educating, incarcerating, or providing medical services to illegal 
immigrants.
  So this bill, S. 1, is a giant disappointment. It sets up a 
bureaucratic nightmare that no local government could really support if 
they saw what it did. S. 993 is the unfunded mandates bill that I am 
very proud to support. It would take this chart, take all of this off, 
and make it reasonable.
  I am very proud to support my friend, Senator Levin, who is a great 
leader on this whole issue.
  I yield my time to the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California.
  One of the problems with S. 1 is that this new point of order that 
was created originally delegated significant authority to the agency. 
That language was corrected by the Byrd amendment yesterday. But the 
Byrd amendment created in the process another complication, another 
wrinkle; worth doing in order to avoid the delegation for the agencies, 
but nonetheless, it created another hoop, another hurdle, for this 
legislation and for any appropriations bill.
  The Byrd amendment said that we are not going to delegate the cuts to 
the agencies if the appropriation down the road does not equal the 
amount of the estimate. Instead, we will have the agency make a 
recommendation back to the Appropriations Committee which can then go 
back to Congress which can then adopt it or not adopt it. It is another 
step after the appropriations process is completed. Another step was 
added--as far as I am concerned, worthwhile doing again, in order to 
avoid the delegation, but it is another complication.
  There are great and grave uncertainties in this process that we have 
created in S. 1. It is really processing wild. You have to leap this 
hurdle, you have to evade this trap, you have to swim this moat, you 
have to jump this hoop. It goes too far in this additional point of 
order that it adds which was not present last year. It puts tremendous 
new emphasis on an estimate, emphasis which is excessive. We want the 
estimate. We should insist on the estimate of costs. We should allow a 
point of order if there is no estimate when a bill comes to the floor. 
But S. 1 goes beyond that and requires certain additional language be 
added which would require the reduction of the mandate in outyears if 
in fact appropriation levels do not reach the estimate, which could be 
as much as 10 years earlier, unless the Congress adopts a resolution 
saying to the contrary.
  The thing sounds simple to say the CBO or the Budget Committee will 
estimate. When is the mandate first effective? I gave an example the 
other day on the floor to show just how uncertain that issue is. I used 
the example of a hypothetical Senate bill which says the reduction in 
dangerous levels of mercury from incinerator emissions will be required 
after October 1, 2005, and that the EPA is designated to determine what 
constitutes a mercury level dangerous to human health. It is 
[[Page S1657]] a simple process; it sounds simple. It is stated simply. 
But it is not.
  The question was asked: ``Well, when is that mandate effective? What 
is the first fiscal year that it is effective?'' Of course, when you 
read the bill, it sounds as if that would be October 1, 2005; that this 
hypothetical bill mandates reductions of these levels of mercury from 
incinerator emissions after October 1, 2005. So the commonsense answer 
is that is the fiscal year which the committee says it is first 
effective. The trouble with that is, if it is first effective in 2005, 
then it is useless because all the costs are going to be expended 
before 2005 in order that the incinerator complied by the October 1 
deadline of 2005.
  Then the statement is made: ``Well, let us take a look at that CBO 
estimate.'' So I came up with the CBO direct cost estimate for 87,000 
jurisdictions. Mind you, every amendment and bill is going to have to 
be estimated for 87,000 jurisdictions. But this is what the estimate 
comes back as. This is in this hypothetical. They say in the year 1, $6 
million; year 2, $8 million; year 3, $10 million; year 4, $15 million, 
year 6, $20 million; year 7, $30 million; year 8, $50 million; year 9, 
$100 million; year 10, the last year before they must be in compliance, 
it comes out at $200 million.
  What is the first year of the direct costs that are levied or 
required by local governments? If we read the answers to the questions 
which I submitted to Senator Kempthorne, it comes out one of two ways. 
It seems to me it is either the first year that the committee says is 
the effective date--it sounded like 2006, the way I read it--or the 
first year that the Budget Committee determines that local governments 
are going to be spending money as a direct result of the mandate. Well, 
the first year they do that is 1996 under this hypothetical estimate.
  If you go 5 years from 1996, under the rule of this new process, if 
any of those first 5 years after the mandate is effective, it goes over 
$50 million. If in any of the 5 years you go over the $50 million, then 
you cross the threshold, and certain very significant things happen if 
you cross the threshold.
  The trouble with that is you do not cross the threshold under this 
hypothetical if none of those first 5 years is above $50 million. But 
then what year do you start? Based on what? The Parliamentarian, the 
Chair, the CBO, or the Budget Committee just picking a year out of the 
air? They now have a CBO estimate. Those are the numbers. They have 
looked. They have consulted with local officials. They have done all 
the consultations which they should with local officials to estimate 
what those 87,000 jurisdictions are going to do with this incinerator 
to comply. That is what they come up with.
  What it results in is, if you follow the language of the bill or if 
you ignore the language of the bill, then you are in violation of what 
period of time in the bill seems to be required.
  So a critical issue, when is the first fiscal year when there is 
direct cost, is left vague. I have read the answers of my good friend 
Senator Kempthorne to my questions, and it is still vague. The truth of 
the matter is we do not know. If the bill is going to determine the 
fiscal year, then it would seem to me it is going to be 2006. And at 
that point the purpose of the statute, which is to help local 
governments and to help us understand impacts, would be thwarted. If it 
is the first year where there are direct expenses, on the other hand, 
then it seems that the purpose of the bill might also be thwarted.
  By the way, I just mentioned the fact that local governments are 
supposed to be consulted, assuming you can get a cross-section of local 
governments, or figure out how you would do this in this kind of case. 
You have an incentive here which is perverse. The higher the local 
governments say their costs are going to be, the more likely it is they 
are going to be off the hook or have the mandate paid for by the 
Federal Government.
  The CBO is going to be required to consult with local government, and 
if it is in the interest of local governments to have a high estimate 
instead of a low estimate because it means the funds from the Federal 
Government will be greater rather than less, or it means that there 
will be something triggered which will let them off the hook altogether 
from the mandate, we have a perverse incentive.
  These are estimates, I emphasize that there is no science to try to 
figure out how many new incinerators and in what period of time they 
are going to have to be put in place by some of the 87,000 
jurisdictions. We know it is not an exact science; it is a wild guess. 
Even if any guesstimate can be made, it is still going to be a wild 
one, in many cases. We had a chart from CBO going through previous 
instances where they have made estimates of impacts on State and local 
governments, and they tell us that in many cases they cannot do it. We 
have taken care of that, to an extent, with an earlier amendment which 
says at least if the CBO cannot make an estimate, they are allowed to 
do so in the intergovernmental mandate, the way the bill originally 
allowed them to be honest relative to a private concern.
  We should be aware of the fact that the incentive being created by 
this process will be for local governments not to be giving us their 
lowest estimates but their highest estimates. The more it is inflated, 
or the higher it is, if they come in at the top of the range instead of 
the bottom of the range, the more likely it is that they are going to 
get funding from the Federal Government, or that a point of order will 
lie which will force us to waive a mandate. I do not think it makes 
great sense to put so much reliance on an estimate which contains one 
of these kinds of a perverse incentive.
  Mr. President, I wonder how much time I have left under the time I 
have yielded myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 20 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Utah still has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier today, I asked the Senator from 
Idaho some questions about how this whole process would work on an 
amendment. He gave me the best answers he could, which were that, well, 
if the CBO was unable to make an estimate and if the Budget Committee 
was unable to make an estimate as to the cost to local and State 
governments of an amendment, that, first of all, a point of order would 
not lie for the failure to make an estimate. That estimate requirement 
does not apply to amendments. But what does apply to amendments is the 
threshold, the cost.
  So if an amendment is offered and a point of order is raised that the 
cost of that to State and local governments is above $50 million in any 
of the 5 fiscal years after it is effective, somehow or other the Chair 
is going to have to make a ruling. How does the Chair make a ruling? 
Talk about uncertainties. It is going to ask the Budget Committee. The 
Budget Committee is going to ask the CBO. My question to the Senator 
from Idaho was, ``What happens if the CBO and Budget Committee cannot 
take an estimate? They say there is no way we can make an estimate on 
this amendment. What happens? Does the point of order lie if there is 
no way to make an estimate?'' The answer was, ``Maybe yes, maybe no. We 
cannot tell.''
  I gather from the answer that most of the time the Chair would rule, 
in the absence of any information from the Budget Committee or from the 
CBO, that a threshold has been crossed, and that the Chair would rule 
that a point of order does not lie. At least that would seem to be the 
case some or most of the time. But the Senator from Idaho said, ``We 
cannot say how often that would be true,'' basically. I do not want to 
put words in his mouth, but I think the summary that I could best 
describe is that we are not precluding the Chair from ruling that a 
threshold has been crossed, even though it has no basis for making that 
ruling from the Congressional Budget Office or from the Budget 
Committee; that the Chair could turn to other resources, perhaps.
  What are those other resources if it is not the CBO or Budget 
Committee? Is it newspapers? Is it the last Senator the Chair has 
talked to? The bill tells us that these estimates are going to be based 
on the CBO and on the Budget Committee. That is what the bill tells us. 
When it comes down to the critical issue, the absolutely critical issue 
as to whether a point of order lies because a threshold has been 
crossed on an 
[[Page S1658]] amendment, we are left with the uncertainty and 
ambiguity doubled. We always have an uncertainty and ambiguity when CBO 
and Budget Committee make estimates. But now we have added the Chair 
and the Parliamentarian to this process. It is no longer, as the bill 
suggests, that we are going to be able to rely on the Budget Committee 
and the CBO. We are now told, no, even if they cannot give the Chair 
information upon which to rule on whether or not a threshold has been 
crossed, nonetheless the Chair still is not precluded from ruling that 
that threshold is crossed because the Chair could use other sources. A 
couple were mentioned by the Senator from Idaho. One was the bill 
itself and, of course, that was available to the CBO and Budget 
Committee. And another source that the Chair might look at, we were 
told, was precedent which, of course, is also available to the CBO and 
the Budget Committee.
  So we have introduced another uncertainty, a great uncertainty, in 
this process. Were there uncertainties in S. 993? Of course, 
there were. S. 993, last year's bill on mandates, which I am offering 
as a substitute to S. 1, was not free of ambiguities, but there was not 
so much hinging on an ambiguity. It did not have this final point of 
order which got into the appropriations process down the road. That is 
what is new about S. 1.
  Let us put ourselves into a real world situation. Let us say that my 
hypothetical bill has been offered, which would mandate reductions of 
dangerous levels of mercury in incinerator emissions after October 1, 
2005. The EPA is designated to determine what constitutes a level of 
mercury that is dangerous to human health. Well, when is the EPA going 
to determine that? The first fiscal year in which the mandate is 
effective could, to a significant extent, be dependent on when is the 
EPA going to issue its ruling, how long it will take, and at what level 
will it be? What is the level? Someone has to make that estimate as to 
when that is. But that is complicated enough. An amendment comes along 
that says, no new incinerator can be built within 300 yards of a school 
or hospital after October 1, 2005. That is an amendment offered on the 
floor. No new incinerator after 2005.
  Someone has to, presumably, figure out, ``Well, how many new 
incinerators might be built within 300 yards of a school and during 
what time period in 87,000 jurisdictions?'' Someone has to make that 
estimate.
  Let us assume the offeror of the amendment has submitted the 
amendment to the CBO and to the Budget Committee prior to offering his 
amendment. Now we have a second-degree amendment that is offered on the 
floor that says, ``No, we are going to reduce that to 100 yards of the 
incinerator instead of 300 yards from the incinerator.'' A second-
degree amendment, with no possibility of an estimate, is now offered on 
the floor and the maker of the amendment, of course, the second-degree 
amendment, did not know that the first amendment was going to be 
forthcoming. He did not have an opportunity to get his estimated. He 
suddenly is confronted with that first-degree amendment and he is 
trying to get a second-degree amendment in place. And now he is going 
to wildly scramble around to try to get an estimate from the CBO or the 
Budget Committee as to how much that second-degree amendment is going 
to cost.
  And on this process, we are placing all of this weight. What is going 
to happen?
  When we plunge ourselves into a procedural morass in order to prevent 
ourselves from being able to act, if we want to, in an easier, 
reasonable way, we are likely to force ourselves into evasion, into 
boilerplate, and we are tempted to use this for other purposes.
  Yesterday, we had an amendment which was adopted, the Graham 
amendment, where a point of order now lies if you try to reduce Federal 
spending on immigration. Now a new process is being applied to a 
spending cut; the argument being that, if that cut were made, that 
would lead to more local spending. Well, the same thing can be true for 
dozens of amendments. We can start putting points of order on the 
reduction of spending by the Federal Government for all kinds of 
reasons where their may be a resulting increase in local spending.
  My cities have to spend an awful lot more trying to fight the drug 
war if we do not stop drugs at their source. This is what we did 
yesterday, basically. Now we are going to use points of order to say 
any reduction in the level of expenditures to fight drugs at their 
source, which is the responsibility of the Federal Government, surely 
not the State or local governments. Drugs in Colombia, when the fields 
are being burned, are not the responsibility of my home State or my 
home city. The Federal Government does that. And to the extent it does 
not do that, we have more expenses for drug enforcement in my State. 
Now we will use the same process.
  This is the temptation when you start using this kind of a process to 
achieve a substantive result to the degree that we have. This is all a 
matter of degree. It is all a matter of whether or not S. 1 goes too 
far and, in doing so, is going to create evasion and create the 
temptation to use the same kind of a process for other kinds of related 
purposes. The evasion of S. 1 is not difficult to conceive and it will 
do nobody any good if it is evaded. The evasion of S. 1 can simply be 
in the authorization bill, that ``Nothing in this bill is permitted to 
cost local and State governments more than $49 million in any fiscal 
year, and here are the criteria upon which that can be achieved.''
  So we will start using boilerplates. And then we will start using 
language in appropriations: ``Notwithstanding any prior law, we are 
going to appropriate to this level,'' a level, let us say, that is less 
than the estimate that was made 10 years before or 5 years before. So 
we end up with notwithstanding language in appropriations bills in 
order to get around this. If we go too far now, if we put too much 
weight on this kind of a process now, we are inviting people to evade 
them later.
  If we do this right, if we have the right balance now, if we do what 
we did last year in S. 993, which is to require the estimate and, yes, 
we could even require the authorization, too--which it did last year--
but stop short of this new point of order relative to the 
appropriations process, we will be striking a balance where we will be 
forcing ourselves in a reasonable way to consider these costs, a way 
which was so reasonable that last year all of the local organizations, 
mayors, States, and legislators supported our effort. But we will be 
avoiding the excess process, the Rube Goldberg mechanisms which are 
going to create such difficulty for us in the implementation.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 7 minutes 
remaining, the Senator from Utah still has 15 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 3 weeks of debate on this bill seems now 
to be coming to an end and the vote in favor of a restriction on 
unfunded mandates imposed on State and local governments almost 
certainly will be overwhelming.
  During the course of this 3 weeks, however, we have been faced with 
votes on literally dozens of amendments. Those amendments have covered 
two fundamentally different sets of subject matter. The first set, the 
normal politics, a set of amendments that had nothing to do with 
unfunded mandates but cover much of what the agenda of this Senate is 
likely to be during the course of the next 6 months with regard to 
votes that will be overwhelmed by votes on the merits of those issues 
when they are brought up in due course. So that, in most respects, that 
debate has been irrelevant to the agenda of the Senate and of the 
Congress of the United States.
  But dozens of other amendments, I think, including this last one 
which is about to be voted on, do relate to unfunded mandates 
themselves and almost without exception they have attempted to restrict 
the ambit, the scope of this unfunded mandates bill.
  Now the bill itself, it seems to me, is already relatively modest. It 
does not ban unfunded mandates as most States 
[[Page S1659]] and local governments would have us do. It simply states 
that, if an unfunded mandate crosses modest threshold, it must 
consciously be weighed if a point of order is raised against it. 
Unfunded mandates will still be possible on the part of the Congress of 
the United States, as long as the Congress has voted on and is 
conscious of the fact that it is creating such mandates.
  Even so, or perhaps particularly because this is the case, because it 
is not an absolute ban, what these amendments evidence, it seems to me, 
is a tremendous lack of trust in those who are elected in our States 
and in our local governments.
  It appears to me that there is a high degree, literally, of 
legislative arrogance involved in the proposition that somehow or 
another only we know what is best for people in local communities; that 
only here in Washington, DC, in this body and in the House of 
Representatives, is lodged a degree of wisdom and responsibility 
necessary to see to it that there is proper protection for individuals 
in our society; that somehow or another without unfunded mandates our 
States and local governments will ignore the young and their schools, 
will ignore working people, will ignore the elderly, will ignore the 
very quality of the environment in which these locally elected 
officials themselves live.
  I wonder how it is that responsible elected officials are only found 
here in Washington, DC, and not in our communities. I submit, of 
course, that that is not the case. The reason for this bill, the reason 
for an even stronger bill, would be that the responsibility for the 
lives and careers of people, in most cases, is best conducted by 
governments which are closest to them. That has been the genius of the 
American experiment. That is the direction in which many other free 
countries are moving and the direction in which we should move.
  We need more personal humility. We need more belief that people 
elected in the States, in our counties, and our cities and towns, not 
only have the best interest of their constituents in mind but are able 
and willing to act on those best interests.
  This bill is a modest start to return to a system of federalism which 
has made this country great. I, for one, am delighted that the great 
bulk of these amendments have been rejected and that we will pass a 
bill which will have at least some effect in restoring authority to the 
units of government which can best use it and which were conceived by 
our Constitution as the units which should exercise those powers.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are nearing the time when we are going 
to have a final vote on this very important piece of legislation. There 
has been extensive debate, numerous amendments, attempts to specify, 
clarify, declassify, and I think bring more complication into this 
issue than need be.
  The voters on November 8 said they wanted some very significant, 
major change in the way that Washington does its business, in the way 
it relates to the citizens which we were sent here to serve. There are 
some basic fundamental underlying principles that we pledged to the 
people in the fall of 1994 and which they endorsed on November 8: Live 
by the laws that you ask us to live by. Get your fiscal house in order. 
Do what we have to do. Do not spend more money than you take in.
  Fundamental to and a big part of that mandate was the request from 
Governors and mayors and local units of government to ``quit sending us 
mandates to comply with certain laws that you think are best for our 
communities, that you think are best for our people, and, by the way, 
that you think we ought to pay for.''
  I have here a chart of the State of Indiana with just nine cities 
highlighted, with the amounts that these cities have to spend on 
mandates sent by this body, on priorities that they do not feel are the 
top priorities in their communities. They are diverting money from 
police on the streets. They are diverting money from essential services 
that our local communities have determined are most important for the 
citizens that they represent. Yet those are shoved down the list, down 
the priority list, because the Federal mandate comes with a stamp that 
says, ``Now, we have ordered it. You do it now. You figure out a way to 
pay for it.''
  Their Hobson's choice is either to raise taxes on citizens that do 
not want taxes raised for the mandates that are coming down, or to cut 
essential services. Given the tax climate that exists, the deficit 
climate that exists in our country today, what happens is that 
essential services are cut.
  I have listed here city after city in Indiana, including Fort Wayne, 
IN, that has had to cut essential services that are necessary to the 
functioning of that community and reach the real needs of the people.
  We have a very basic choice here. We can follow the mandate of the 
fall, the mandate of the people, and return authority back to the units 
of government that are closest to the people and back to the people; or 
we can continue to take the attitude that Washington knows best, that 
we can decide here what is best for every community in Indiana. It may 
be what is best for a particular community somewhere in our Nation. But 
one size does not fit all. One community's needs are not every other 
community's needs.
  So we have a very basic decision to make. That decision is: Do we 
want to return authority and power to those units of government that 
are much closer to the people and give them the flexibility of 
providing the priorities; or, if we are going to mandate something that 
we believe is so important that ought to be mandated on a national 
basis, are we going to provide the funds necessary to so that they can 
accomplish that mandate without subordinating other top, important 
priorities that affect that particular local community? I think it is 
that basic.
  Some would say that oversimplifies it; you do not understand how it 
works. We have seen charts on how complicated this procedure is. There 
is a basic, fundamental question on which we will vote in just a couple 
of hours. That fundamental question is: Are we going to continue to 
dictate out of Washington decisions that our local citizens must live 
by, or are we beginning to turn that back to the people?
  The very first act of the new Congress was to pass a bill which 
ensures that Congress will live under the same laws it imposes on the 
rest of America. It was an important first step in fundamentally 
altering the culture of Congress. We will pass better laws if we must 
live by them; if they cannot be complied with, they will not pass.
  The bill before us today is equally important, because it ends 
business as usual. For too long, Congress has legislated with impunity. 
Not only has Congress exempted itself from provisions of the law; often 
we have indemnified ourselves from the costs. It has passed laws 
imposing burdens on States, communities, and businesses with little 
regard for the cost, and no accountability to the taxpayer. The $4.7 
trillion in accumulated debt only begins to tell the story of a 
Congress addicted to deficits; when we have lacked the resources we 
have simply passed on the costs.
  Under current practice, Congress does not have to consider the cost 
of the mandates it imposes on State and local government and the 
private sector. This is an irresponsible way to legislate.
  The bill we are considering will ensure that we know the cost of 
Federal mandates on localities before a bill passes, and it will 
require that we provide a funding mechanism to pay for them.
  Under S. 1, mandates with costs to State and local government of more 
than $50 million must have a CBO cost estimate. Congress must then 
include the funds by finding an offset or by raising revenues.
  Legislation which imposes financial burdens of more than $200 million 
on the private sector must also have a CBO estimate or be ruled out of 
order.
  The cost of mandates to communities is significant, perhaps a 
sampling of communities around my State will shed some light on why 
this legislation is so important.

City:                                      Total cost, fiscal year 1993
  Anderson...................................................$6,831,940
  Columbus....................................................1,382,719
  Elkhart.....................................................2,162,928
  Fort Wayne..................................................5,837,492
  Hammond.....................................................1,051,701
  Lafayette.....................................................132,000
  Mishawaka.....................................................162,447
  South Bend..................................................2,751,150
  [[Page S1660]] Terre Haute....................................151,585

  These are big numbers for Indiana communities, yet they just begin to 
tell the story. When we require State and local government to respond 
to Washington's priorities--priorities Washington did not see fit to 
pay for--we preempt the spending priorities of local communities, 
regardless of their urgency. When a Federal mandate comes down, it 
moves to the top of the list.
  This means that State and local leaders are forced to deal first, not 
with local concerns, but with Washington's agenda. One Indiana mayor 
characterized this as the my-way, but-you-pay approach to Federal 
policy.
  As a result, our States and localities are faced with a Hobbsien 
choice--raise taxes, or forgo dealing with the real problems of the 
community.
  Let me cite an example. There is no area of public concern more 
profound than crime. Yet many cities divert funds away from local law 
enforcement to pay for Federal mandates.
  In a survey of 146 cities, conducted by the National Conference of 
Mayors and Price Waterhouse, it was estimated that over $800 million 
annually--an average of $5.5 million per city--would be available in 
1995 if Federal mandates were funded.
  Many of those cities said they would spend the freed moneys on crime 
prevention. Most of it, 62 percent, would be spent putting new police 
officers on the street. The rest would be spent upgrading patrol cars, 
modernizing equipment, and providing overtime pay for officers.
  Bloomington, IN, estimates it would spend an additional $90,000 on 
law enforcement. South Bend would spend over $1\1/2\ million on new 
police protection for its citizens.
  Federal mandates are hampering the ability of our cities to provide 
for the basic safety and security of their citizens.
  Unfunded mandates also dramatically increase the cost of doing 
business. Complying with Federal regulations, as well as the liability 
exposure that results from Federal mandates and regulations, adds 
billions of dollars every year to basic business costs.
  These burdens thwart growth and job creation. They increase costs for 
consumers. And they discourage people from going into business.
  It is critical that Congress pass this legislation. We must return 
power and resources to States and communities so that they can deal 
effectively and creatively with the unique problems and priorities they 
face. We must relieve the burdens we have placed on the businesses of 
this country, and allow them to unleash their creative power to build a 
strong and growing economy.
  The mayor of my home town, Fort Wayne, IN, expressed the sentiments 
of many when he said:

       We need to change this irresponsible habit. If the same 
     people who wrote the laws and drafted the regulations had to 
     raise the funds to pay for them, they would be much more 
     careful about the costs.

  In passing this legislation we take an important second step toward 
significant congressional reform and greater accountability to the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will necessarily make this quick. I am 
fascinated by these arguments, particularly the last two arguments I 
have heard.
  The fundamental question here is: Do we want to, in fact, deal with 
Federal mandates which should be local decisions or paid for by the 
Federal Government, or do we want to set in motion more gridlock? If we 
want to do the former and not the latter, we should vote for this 
amendment, No. 1.
  No. 2, my friend from Washington is engaging in what I think is part 
of the litany that we have been hearing. Why do we in Washington think 
we know so much, and why, in fact, do we not have more personal 
humility?
  If he means it, why are there exceptions in it? Why are there any 
exceptions? If he means what he says, why is there an exception here 
for civil rights? I will tell you why. We got in the business of being 
involved federally because States acted irresponsibly on occasion.
  So if my friend from Wyoming has such humility, let him come and 
offer an amendment to strike out all the exceptions. Why are we keeping 
in here ``constitutional rights of individuals''? They are not 
mandates. ``Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, 
national origin, handicap or disability status.'' Why is that not a 
mandate? It costs the States money to do those things. Why is that not 
a mandate?
  So this unusual argument about whether or not we have humility or do 
not have humility, or Washington knows all or does not know all, that 
is a nice campaign rhetoric. What it is about is, why do we not stop 
telling the States to do things which are not essential unless we pay 
for them? Why do we not
 do it in a simplistic, straightforward way that does not allow a 
minority to tie up this body in gridlock for greater political purposes 
having nothing to do with looking out for the interest of the States? 
If we want to do that, we have a bill that was introduced last year 
that the manager of this bill was a cosponsor of last year, that does 
not create that complex chart that allows any one or two or several 
U.S. Senator or Parliamentarians to get involved in gumming up the 
works and creating gridlock.

  Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I was a local official 
before coming to the Senate. I know what it means to have to comply 
with legal duties imposed from a higher government. As a former county 
council member, I understand, and am sympathetic to, many of the 
complaints and concerns we have heard from State and local officials 
who must respond to Federal mandates.
  The bill before us today, S. 1, is not the legislation that we worked 
on so long and hard last year to address the issue of Federal mandates. 
That bill, S. 993, is being offered now as an amendment by Senator 
Levin; it will focus the Senate's attention on the costs involved in 
setting new requirements to be met by States and local governments. It 
will raise our awareness of the financial price that must be paid to 
meet our goals, and permits us to determine how that price will be 
paid.
  Senator Levin's amendment changes the way we handle mandate 
legislation in this body, but it makes those changes subject to a 
sunset, in 1998, when the new process would end unless we choose to 
extent it. It will be an experiment--I believe a worthy experiment--to 
be sure that our attention is directed to all the consequences of new 
legislation.
  Last year S. 993 had the enthusiastic support of a broad bipartisan 
coalition. Senator Kempthorne, the acknowledged leader on this issue, 
was the original author of that proposal.
  But I am afraid, Mr. President, that S. 1 could prove to be a recipe 
for confusion, frustration, and more political gridlock in the 
legislative process. It was rushed through committee, with no debate 
and no amendments. Indeed, it came from committee without a report 
explaining how it would work.
  This should not be how we legislate.
  The public debate about unfunded mandates over the past few years has 
been a healthy one, and has succeeded in bringing to the forefront the 
continual need to examine the costs associated with Federal 
requirements and, indeed, the appropriate role of the Federal 
Government. There are limits to what the Federal Government should do 
and should require.
  We need to approach our many real public policy problems with common 
sense, to give greater flexibility to those who implement our laws, to 
be more goal-oriented and less process-oriented, and to reign in 
bureaucrats that get carried away with their charge.
  As one example, I spent quite a bit of time last year, along with the 
Governor of Delaware, trying to demonstrate to the EPA that our State 
could meet new clean air standards without making all our citizens run 
their cars through an expensive treadmill test that yielded little 
pollution reduction. EPA got the message; the treadmill test is out.
  We will pass an unfunded mandates bill this afternoon. If I had my 
first choice, it would be the substitute before us now. It had the full 
support of State and local government leaders last year, and is free of 
the hastily drafted, last-minute additions of this year's version.
  [[Page S1661]] But whichever version we vote for here today, we will 
assure that decisions that materially affect State and local 
governments are made from now on with a clearer view of their costs as 
well as their benefits.
  Mr. President, if I have any time left--I may not--if I have any time 
left, let me say that this is about making local decisions that deserve 
to be local decisions at a local level. And if we impose more on local 
organizations, then what they have a right to ask for we should pay 
for.
  But let me close by saying, I live in a city, in a State that has the 
highest cancer rate in the Nation. We, coincidentally, are on the 
border of southeastern Pennsylvania which has more oil refineries per 
square inch than any place in the Nation, including Houston, TX, and 
the prevailing winds are south.
  If we did not have the Federal Government setting out a Clean Air 
Act, the idea that the people of Pennsylvania would vote to expend the 
money to clean up the air, the ambient air quality in Marcus Hook, PA, 
to save the lives in Delaware is zero. That is why we have national 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BENNETT. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. President, I have enjoyed this debate. I have enjoyed many of the 
things I have heard. The Senator from Michigan told us that S. 993 had 
near consensus from mayors, Governors, et cetera, and spoke very 
proudly of it. I was an original cosponsor of S. 993, and I was proud 
of it. I will point out to the Senator from Michigan, and everyone 
else, that S. 1 continues to enjoy exactly the same consensus, indeed, 
if anything, the consensus is stronger from the same people.
  I will quote a letter addressed to the original cosponsors of S. 1, 
the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, telling us:

       Thank you for your leadership in listening to and acting on 
     the nationwide call of State and local governments to pass S. 
     1.

  I will not read the entire letter. I ask unanimous consent that it, 
and other letters in support of S. 1, be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will quote this relating to S. 1. They 
say:

       The bill is reasonable, workable and long overdue. It has 
     our unanimous bipartisan support, without weakening 
     amendments.

  Signed by Howard Dean, Governor of Vermont, chairman of the National 
Governor's Association; George Voinovich, Governor of Ohio; and 
Benjamin Nelson, Governor of Nebraska. They are the co-lead Governors.
  Carolyn Long Banks, the president of the National League of Cities; 
Randall Franke, commissioner of Marion County, OR, the president of the 
National Association of Counties; Jane Campbell of the Ohio House of 
Representatives, president of the National Conference of State 
Legislatures; and Victor Ashe, mayor of Knoxville, president of the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  They are not talking about S. 993. They are talking about S. 1, which 
they want passed without weakening amendments.
  I am relatively new to this body. I find it fascinating to go through 
the learning experience that comes to a freshman Senator. I was here on 
the floor for my first 2 years, and I learned about the filibuster. 
Indeed, I participated in the filibuster. I participated in and 
supported the filibuster that killed the President's stimulus package, 
and I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do and also a 
majority of the American people agreed.
  It was, frankly, good politics. It helped us win the election because 
we stood against something that the majority of the American people 
were against. I participated in a filibuster on land use issues 
relating to the ownership of land in my State. Once again, I believed 
in it, we won it, and most of the people in my State and the Western 
States agreed. It redounded to our political benefit to participate in 
that filibuster.
  I participated in a filibuster on campaign reform because I thought 
the bill, as written, supported one party to the detriment of the 
other. I believed in it. I understood that. The thing I have not 
understood about this debate, and I hope when it is over someone will 
explain to me, is why the minority party has chosen to mount the same 
kind of filibuster that we mounted on the minority 2 years ago against 
a bill that is supported by all of the Governors, all of the mayors, 
the President of the United States and a large number of the Members of 
their party.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 4 minutes have expired.
  Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair and reserve the 1 minute.
                               Exhibit 1

                                                 January 10, 1995.
     To The Original Co-Sponsors of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate 
         Reform Act of 1995:
       Thank you!
       Thank you for your leadership in listening to and acting on 
     the nationwide call of state and local governments to pass S. 
     1.
       As the elected leaders of all state and local governments, 
     we appreciate your support for this critical legislation. We 
     unanimously and strongly support S. 1 without weakening 
     amendments. We are urging every Member of the 104th Congress 
     to join you in support of S. 1 and the future savings it will 
     bring to every taxpayer we serve.
       S. 1 will bring an open, accountable, and informed decision 
     making process to future federal proposals and regulations 
     that impact state and local governments. S. 1 applies the 
     same pay-as-you-go rules that Congress now requires for the 
     federal budget to any mandates it would impose on state and 
     local governments. The bill is reasonable, workable, and long 
     overdue. It has our unanimous bipartisan support, without 
     weakening amendments.
       Thank you again for your support.
           Sincerely,
     Howard Dean,
         M.D., Governor of Vermont, Chairman, National Governors' 
                                                      Association.
     George V. Voinovich,
       Governor of Ohio, Co-Lead Governor on Federalism, National 
                                           Governors' Association.
     E. Benjamin Nelson,
       Governor of Nebraska, Immediate Past President, Council of 
      State Governments, Co-Lead Governor on Federalism, National 
                                           Governors' Association.
     Carolyn Long Banks,
     Councilwoman-at-Large, Atlanta, Georgia, President, National 
                                                Leagues of Cities.
     Randall Franke,
       Commissioner of Marion County, Oregon, President, National 
                                          Association of Counties.
     Jane Campbell,
        Assistant Minority Leader, Ohio House of Representatives, 
             President, National Conference of State Legislatures.
     Victor Ashe,
     Mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, President, U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors.
                                                                    ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Home Builders,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the 180,000 members 
     of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I would 
     like to urge your strong support for S. 1, the Unfunded 
     Mandate Reform Act of 1995, scheduled for committee mark-up 
     on Monday, January 9 and floor consideration on Wednesday, 
     January 11. It is essential that we try to control the 
     ``unfunded mandates'' crisis facing America today.
       What is known as ``unfunded mandates'' to Washington 
     insiders is really a cruel hidden tax on the housing 
     consumer. It is time to stop these unfunded mandates. It is 
     time to address the housing affordability crisis in this 
     country. Supporting S. 1 is an important first step. Without 
     this bill, unfunded mandates will continue to be passed on to 
     the housing consumer.
       The problems created by unfunded mandates are not limited 
     to state and local government budget concerns, but affect all 
     Americans and uniquely affects the housing consumer and 
     homebuilding industry. Unfunded mandates often result in 
     ``impact fees'' on new housing and housing subdivisions. 
     These impact fees come in various forms such as sewer and 
     water hookups fees, fees for new streets and infrastructure, 
     fees for fire and police protection, assessments for schools, 
     libraries, museums, parks and solid waste facilities. In 
     addition, taxes are often levied or increased in the form of 
     bedroom taxes, contribution-in-aid of construction (CIAC) 
     taxes on utilities, increased property taxes, increased sales 
     taxes, real estate transfer taxes, gasoline taxes.
       These impact fees and special assessments add substantially 
     to the cost of housing and represent one of the most dramatic 
     price increases to the housing consumer. In California, for 
     example, impact fees often exceed $20,000 per new house. More 
     common examples of impact fees include $5,000 assessments per 
     house in Florida and $3,000 per house assessments in 
     Maryland. The impact can really be seen when one considers 
     that 20,000 housing consumers are driven out of the housing 
     market for every $1,000 increase in the price of a house.
       [[Page S1662]] Of equal concern is that the community as a 
     whole suffers from such actions. Unfunded mandates reduce the 
     ability of local governments to prioritize their own needs. 
     In a time when everyone is working on limited budgets, 
     compliance with federal mandates often requires funds to be 
     diverted from other areas of state/local budgets such as 
     education, emergency services or capital improvements.
       S. 1 is a critical step in addressing this crisis by 
     requiring that any bill to be considered by Congress be 
     accompanied by a cost analysis as to the bill's potential 
     effect on state and local governments and the private sector. 
     Congress should be aware of the potential impact its laws 
     will have on local governments and the private sector before 
     they are voted on. Likewise, the American people should to be 
     informed of the impact of the laws being considered by 
     Congress.
       Again, I would like to strongly urge your support for S. 1 
     and opposition to any weakening amendments. We need to 
     address this crisis and alleviate the imposition of unfunded 
     federal mandates.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas N. Thompson,
     NAHB President.
                                                                    ____

                                                 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 bill 
     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 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 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 any way 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, Ore.,
     NACo President.
                                                                    ____



                                    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.
                                                                    ____

                           National School Boards Association,

                                Alexandria, VA, December 30, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 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 for 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 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 co-sponsor this bill and approve this 
     legislation in Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The 
     National Conference of State Legislatures commends 
     [[Page S1663]] 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. Campell,
     President, NCSL.
                                                                    ____

                                         City of San Clemente,

                                San Clemente, CA, January 6, 1995.
     Re: Support of House and Senate legislation on unfunded 
         federal mandates.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     Senate Dirksen Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the City Council of 
     the City of San Clemente, California, I am urging your 
     support and early passage of the proposed House and Senate 
     Legislation on unfunded Federal mandates.
       Implementation of current unfunded Federal mandates have 
     significantly increased local government costs, and are 
     severely hampering our ability to fund and provide highly 
     critical basic services, such as public safety, to our 
     citizens. Proper compliance with current Federal mandates has 
     forced closer scrutiny over environmental issues, imposed 
     additional reporting requirements and forced cities to absorb 
     higher employee costs.
       The City of San Clemente strongly urges your SUPPORT and 
     early passage of the proposed House and Senate legislation on 
     unfunded Federal Mandates, and further requests that you 
     oppose any weakening amendments. Local government revenue has 
     been steadily decreasing for many years. We cannot afford the 
     additional funding and staffing required to comply with 
     Federal mandates, unless the legislation includes funding for 
     such mandates.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Candace Haggard,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                  Washington, DC, January 3, 1994.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Dirk: On behalf of the over 600,000 members of the 
     National Federation of Independent Business, I urge you to 
     vote in favor of S. 1, the unfunded mandates legislation, 
     when it is considered by the Senate in January.
       Unfunded federal mandates on the states and local 
     governments end up requiring these entities to raise taxes, 
     establish user fees, or cut back services to balance their 
     budgets. Small business owners are affected by all of these 
     actions.
       Between 1981 and 1990, Congress enacted 27 major statutes 
     that imposed new regulations on states and localities or 
     significantly expanded existing programs. This compares to 22 
     such statutes enacted in the 1970s, 12 in the 1960s, 0 in the 
     1950s and 1940s, and only two in the 1930s. The Congressional 
     Budget Office estimates that the cumulative cost of new 
     regulations imposed on state and local governments between 
     1983 and 1990 was between $8.9 billion and $12.7 billion. 
     These include environmental requirements, voters registration 
     requirements, Medicaid, and others.
       It was not the states and cities who paid roughly $10 
     billion in unfunded mandates during the 1980s; it was 
     taxpayers--small business owners as well as everyone else. In 
     June 1994, a poll of all NFIB members resulted in a 
     resounding 90% vote against unfunded mandates.
       I urge you to strongly support S. 1.
           Sincerely,

                                           John J. Motley III,

                                                   Vice President,
     Federal Governmental Relations.
                                                                    ____


                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                  Washington, DC, January 3, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Dirk: On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
     Federation of 215,000 businesses, 3,000 state and local 
     chambers of commerce, and 1,200 trade and professional 
     associations, I sincerely commend your hard work and tenacity 
     on the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,'' S. 1. The 
     Chamber membership identified unfunded mandates on the 
     private sector and state and local governments as their top 
     priority for the 104th Congress. Accordingly, the Chamber 
     supports this legislation and will commit all necessary time 
     and resources to ensuring its passage early in this session.
       I particularly want to thank you for responding to our 
     concerns about the role of the private sector in this debate 
     and the potential impact it could have had on the business 
     community, especially small businesses. Your willingness to 
     include the private sector in Title II of S. 1, ``Regulatory 
     Accountability and Reform,'' and your recognition of the 
     potential unfair competition issue between business and state 
     and local government, make this a much stronger bill that can 
     have a significant impact on the current regulatory burden.
       Again, Dirk, we appreciate your commitment to this issue. I 
     look forward to working with you to secure passage of S. 1 as 
     well as other issues that we can join forces on for the 104th 
     Congress.
           Sincerely,
     Richard L. Lesher.
                                                                    ____

                                   National Retail Federation,

                                                  January 4, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the nation's retail 
     community and its 20 million employees--1 in 5 U.S. workers--
     we are writing to commend you for your sponsorship of S. 1, 
     The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. This legislation is 
     the most effective way to confront the problem of unfunded 
     federal mandates while simultaneously resuscitating the 
     concept of federalism and giving the states back control of 
     their budget obligations.
       The problem is well documented and the solution is clear--
     unfunded federal mandates must end. Over the past decade, an 
     unprecedented increase in unfunded federal mandates in 
     environment, labor and education, to name just a few, has 
     forced state and local governments to undertake actions that 
     drain their resources and are often in conflict with the best 
     interests of their citizens as well as our industry.
       As representatives of the retail industry in each of the 
     fifty state capitals, we have experienced firsthand the 
     profound adverse impact of unfunded federal mandates on our 
     industry and our state's economic well-being.
       Unfunded federal mandates are simply another Washington 
     practice of circumventing a fundamental responsibility in 
     governing, the obligation to bring desires into line with 
     revenues. Such mandates are Washington's way to dictate to 
     the states, even though it has exhausted its resources. S. 1, 
     which would restore accountability and responsibility at the 
     federal level, is the strongest legislative initiative in 
     which to counter this growing problem.
       Again, we sincerely appreciate your leadership on this 
     important matter.
           Sincerely,
         Tracy Mullin, President, National Retail Federation; 
           George Allen, Executive Vice President, Arizona 
           Retailers Association; Lynn Birleffi, Executive 
           Director, Wyoming Retail Merchants Association; J. Tim 
           Brennan, President, Idaho Retailers Association; John 
           Burris, President, Delaware Retail Council; Bill 
           Coiner, President, Virginia Retail Merchants 
           Association; Bill Dombrowski, President, California 
           Retailers Association; Spence Dye, President, Retail 
           Association of Mississippi; Janice Gee, Executive 
           Director, Washington Retail Association; Bud Grant, 
           Executive Director, Kansas Retail Council; Brad 
           Griffin, Executive Vice President, Montana Retail 
           Association; Jo Ann Groff, President, Colorado Retail 
           Council; Jim Henter, President, Association of Iowa 
           Merchants; John Hinkle, President, Kentucky Retail 
           Federation; Bill Kundrat, President, Florida Retail 
           Federation; John Mahaney, President, Ohio Council of 
           Retail Merchants; William McBrayer, President, Georgia 
           Retail Association; Charles McDonald, Executive 
           Director, Alabama Retail Association; Larry Meyer, Vice 
           Chairman & CEO, Michigan Retailers Association; Grant 
           Monahan, President, Indiana Retail Council; Mickey 
           Moore, President, Texas Retailers Association; Sam 
           Overfelt, President, Missouri Retailers Association; 
           Nick Perez, President, Louisiana Retailers Association; 
           Ken Quirion, Executive Director, Maine Merchants 
           Association; Dwayne Richard, President, Nebraska Retail 
           Federation; Bill Sakelarios, Executive 
         [[Page S1664]]   Vice President, Retail Merchants 
           Association of N.H.; Mary Santina, Executive Director, 
           Retail Association of Nevada; Paul Smith, Executive 
           Director, Vermont Retail Association; Chris Tackett, 
           President, Wisconsin Merchants Federation; David Vite, 
           President, Illinois Retail Merchants Association; Jerry 
           Wheeler, Executive Director, South Dakota Retailers 
           Association; Melanie Willoughby, President, New Jersey 
           Retail Merchants Association.
                                                                    ____

                             National Association of Realtors,

                                  Washington, DC, January 9, 1995.
       Dear Senator: The Senate will soon consider S. 1, the 
     ``Federal Mandate Accountability and Reform Act of 1995.'' On 
     behalf of the over 750,000 members of the NATIONAL 
     ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, I would like to urge your 
     support for S. 1 when it comes before the Senate.
       Perhaps no other industry in America is more directly 
     affected by the passing along of federal mandates to states, 
     localities and the private sector than real estate. When the 
     federal government imposes environmental, educational and 
     other requirements, state and local governments have 
     basically two options. They can either eliminate or reduce 
     vital government services, such as police, fire, education, 
     or raise fees and taxes to pay for them. When the compliance 
     costs are passed along to the taxpayers in the form of 
     increased property taxes, real estate transfer fees and 
     impact fees this directly affects the affordability of 
     housing and the marketability of the affected communities. 
     And, most importantly, middle class, first-time home buyers 
     are often forced out of the market.
       S. 1 will insure that these ``hidden'' federal taxes are 
     not imposed by requiring that proposed legislation include 
     the funding for the federal mandates. If funding is not 
     provided, then a point of order can be raised removing the 
     bill from further consideration by the Senate. The bill also 
     insures that any proposed regulations that impact the private 
     sector by more than $200 million include an analysis of the 
     effect it will have on the nation's economy and productivity.
       We support S. 1 and we urge you to oppose any floor 
     amendments that would weaken its impact. There should be no 
     carve-outs for broad categories, such as labor or 
     environmental laws and regulations. Thank you for your 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                              Stephen D. Driesler,
                                Vice President and Chief Lobbyist.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan and 
congratulate him on offering this amendment which is, in essence, S. 
993, which was reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
year, an extremely balanced approach to the very real and justifiable 
concerns of State and local governments that we, in Washington, are 
passing measures which force them to spend money, but we do not give 
them money to pay those costs.
  This measure had the widespread support of Governors and mayors. It 
forced Congress to confront the fiscal impact of our actions.
  Unfortunately, S. 1, which is before us now, simply goes too far. It 
creates an unintended, but I am convinced, very real and inequitable 
burden on private sector entities, businesses that are affected by 
these mandates but will not have the extra protection of a second point 
of order in this measure.
  I am concerned also that S. 1 will put at risk a whole array of 
Federal laws protecting the environment, people's health, people's 
safety, people's rights that the public simply does not want us to 
endanger and, in that sense, the consequences of this bill are not only 
unintended, they are undesired.
  Mr. President, this has not been a filibuster. This has been a 
reasonable, thoughtful discussion of a measure which, frankly, most 
people on the Democratic side of the Senate want to support but feel, 
in its current form as S. 1 simply goes too far and loses the balance, 
the critical balance that was so much a part of S. 993.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment by my 
colleague, Senator Levin.
  The amendment that he offers includes the text of the bipartisan 
legislation, S. 993, reported last year by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee on which I am privileged to serve, which I thought adopted a 
balanced approach to addressing the justifiable concerns of State and 
local governments about unfunded mandates. It had the widespread 
support of Governors and mayors. This amendment establishes the 
principle that Congress must be forced to confront the costs that may 
be incurred by the State and local governments when we pass 
legislation. Through the point of order provision, it provides an 
opportunity for the fullest discussion if there is not a CBO cost 
estimate and if there are not funds authorized in the legislation we 
adopt to cover the costs on State and local governments. I was 
cosponsor of S. 993 and I am pleased to support this amendment now.
  Last week in connection with the debate on an amendment I offered 
along with Senators Kerry, Levin, Bumpers, Dorgan, Glenn, and others, I 
set forth in detail my concerns about the changes made in S. 993 as 
part of S. 1. In particular, S. 1 creates a new and, I think, 
threatening presumption.
  Under S. 1, if the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
conference report increases the Federal intergovernmental mandate by 
more than $50 million in a given year, a point of order will lie unless 
there is a funding mechanism provided. S. 1 as originally introduced 
also provides that if the funding mechanism is an authorization for the 
full amount of the mandate, then the bill must designate a responsible 
Federal agency, and establish procedures for that agency to direct that 
the mandate will become ineffective or reduced in scope if the full 
amount of the appropriations is not provided in any fiscal year.
  In short, the presumption in S. 1 is that the Federal Government will 
pay 100 percent of the cost of obligations imposed by the Federal 
Government on States and localities.
  So S. 1 is a much more extensive reach than that adopted in this 
amendment. It takes a problem and in its response reaches too far; and 
in doing so creates an unintended, and I am convinced, very real and 
inequitable burden on private-sector entities, businesses that are 
affected by these mandates. And I have been concerned that it also puts 
at risk a whole array of Federal law protecting the environment, 
people's health, people's safety, people's rights that the public 
simply does not want to endanger, that the public wants us to continue 
to protect.
  Mr. President, let me now say that I believe the discussions of the 
last several weeks have made numerous very important improvements in 
the bill. I cannot overstate the outstanding work of Senators Levin and 
Byrd who spent numerous hours working carefully through every provision 
of the bill and demonstrating persuasively to the sponsors that many of 
the provisions were not well thought out and made little sense. They 
convinced the sponsors to agree to important amendments that make S. 1 
a far better bill. In particular, I am pleased about: First, Senator 
Byrd's amendment which will ensure that Congress has an important role 
in the final decision on whether and how mandates will fail or become 
reduced in scope; second, Senator Levin's amendment providing that if 
CBO cannot do a cost estimate on public sector mandates, the second 
point of order will not lie.
  Let me say there that S. 1 could have been improved at an earlier 
stage. S. 1 is extremely important piece of legislation. Its provisions 
potentially affect virtually all of our laws. Yet it was rushed through 
the Governmental Affairs Committee without any opportunity for careful 
consideration. The markup took place one full working day after the 
hearing on the bill. The Republicans opposed consideration of all 
amendments and voted on a party-line basis to report the bill to the 
floor without a report. I associate myself fully with the remarks of 
Senator Glenn earlier this morning. This is not how the Governmental 
Affairs Committee usually operates and I hope we'll be returning to our 
usual careful approach to considering legislation.
  I know, however, that even with the amendments, the basic presumption 
in S. 1 that I am concerned about remains: That the Federal Government 
will pay 100 percent of the cost of obligations imposed by the Federal 
Government on States and localities still exists. I will not go into 
all my concerns with this presumption. As I have previously stated, I 
believe that this presumption is inappropriate where laws apply in the 
same manner to 
[[Page S1665]] State, local or tribal governments and the private 
sector.
  The presumption is inappropriate because it creates an unintended, 
but I am convinced very real and inequitable burden on private sector 
entities, businesses that are also affected by these mandates. Second, 
I am concerned that the process will create an unintended hurdle that 
may well impede the protection of people's health, safety, and 
employee's rights. Third, I am concerned that we may create 
differential standards for protection of our citizens. When we pass a 
law, we have determined that the national interest requires that the 
law achieve a goal, that there is a problem out there that requires a 
national solution to protect public health or the environment. We are 
adopting legislation establishing a value, a goal, to protect people. A 
family where the grandparents are suffering from emphysema do not care 
if the incinerator that is belching dirty air is publicly or privately 
owned. They believe the Government has an obligation to ensure that 
they get clean air regardless of who is providing that air. Fourth, I 
am concerned about the extra burden on businesses, particularly small 
businesses, if publicly owned facilities do not do their share of 
cleaning up the air or our estuaries. Fifth, those of us who represent 
States which are victims of pollution from upwind are particularly 
vulnerable under this proposal. If municipal sewage plants in New York 
are exempt from future requirements, Connecticut industries will bear 
an even greater burden in cleaning up Long Island Sound. I think the 
Levin and Byrd amendments make some inroads into limiting the impact of 
this presumption. But I remain convinced that the presumption itself is 
inappropriate and that this amendment, embodying last year's bipartisan 
bill endorsed by Governors and mayors is the right approach. I urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the Senator from Ohio 30 seconds.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I would like to make some short remarks. I 
just am beginning to resent the implication that I am filibustering 
something that I am a cosponsor of, as we keep hearing that from the 
other side of the aisle.
  I addressed this at some length this morning for about 15 or 20 
minutes on what happened in committee. We got railroaded in committee 
and could not bring up amendments. We wanted to bring them up there and 
could not. We came to the floor with a guarantee that we would be able 
to bring up anything we wanted to bring up, and then cloture is filed 
against us here.
  It has been one series of disasters after another in which the 
minority rights were trampled--no report from the committee, nothing at 
all. And yet I am a cosponsor of this legislation. The idea that we are 
somehow filibustering on this side is just not borne out by the facts, 
and I think the Record shows that.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe I have 1 minute left. I yield 
myself that minute.
  First of all, let me say, Senator Glenn was the chief sponsor of last 
year's bill. He is the cosponsor of this year's bill. He is not 
filibustering, nor am I, nor anyone else who offered amendments to 
improve this bill.
  The committee process was significantly bypassed. S. 1 was introduced 
on a Wednesday night, the hearing was on a Thursday, and they wanted to 
go to markup on a Friday. The lesson to be learned here is it is useful 
to have a committee consider a bill. A lot of the amendments adopted 
here should have been offered and adopted in committee if we had the 
time.
  There is no filibuster going on. It seems to me to suggest that 
people who cosponsor this bill, S. 1, such as Senator Glenn, are 
filibustering their own bill makes no sense at all.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter 
relative to S. 993 signed by the same people who now support S. 1--
which they do--but last October saying they strongly support S. 993 and 
would oppose any amendments to S. 993, the same president of the 
National League of Cities, the same Governor of Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
         NATIONAL GOVERNORS' ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF 
           STATE LEGISLATURES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, 
           NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,
                                                  October 6, 1994.
       To All Senators: The nation's state and local elected 
     officials strongly urge the U.S. Senate to pass the state-
     local mandate relief bill, S. 993, before adjournment. 
     Passage of this bill is our top legislative priority.
       Not only will we oppose any amendments not supported by the 
     bill managers, Senators John Glenn, William Roth, and Dirk 
     Kempthorne, but we view all amendments as an attempt to 
     defeat our legislation. We urge the defeat of all partisan 
     and extraneous amendments.
       Please stand with your state and local officials in support 
     of this crucial legislation.
           Sincerely,
     George V. Voinovich,
       Governor of Ohio, Co-Lead Governor on Federalism, National 
     Governor's Association.
     Randall Franke,
       Commissioner of Marion County, Oregon, President, National 
     Association of Counties.
     Victor Ashe,
       Mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, President, U.S. Conference 
     of Mayors.
     Karen McCarthy,
       Missouri House of Representatives, President, National 
     Conference of State Legislatures.
     Sharpe James,
       Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, President, National League of 
     Cities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 1 minute.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I wish to quickly acknowledge, I mean no 
implication of dishonor among the Senators who have been working hard. 
I still see some indication that some Members of their party have done 
some things that look and talk and walk to this Senator a bit like a 
filibuster.
  I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, S. 993 is the core, it is the base of S. 1. I am proud 
of what we developed in S. 993 last session. But it was last session. 
It is the building block upon which we then went forward and continued 
to develop S. 1.
  For those Members who are thinking that they can vote for S. 993, 
last session's bill, and not vote for S. 1 and think that they can then 
say to their mayors and to their Governors, their county commissioners, 
their teachers, ``Oh, yes, I voted to stop unfunded Federal mandates, I 
voted for S. 993,'' in today's environment, the fact that we have now 
moved forward with S. 1, I am afraid you will not get the sort of 
reception that they may have anticipated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas. [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:
               [[Page S1666]] [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

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

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Gramm
     Inouye
     McCain
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 218) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho controls 20 minutes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.


              Congratulations to the Managers of the Bill

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from 
Idaho and the Senator from Ohio for having brought us to the completion 
of this rather lengthy process of passing the unfunded mandates bill.
  They have done an extraordinary job of managing this bill. They are 
in what has been a long and fairly tedious few weeks here of extraneous 
issues to the underlying question, which is passage of the unfunded 
mandates law.
  When I first was elected to this body 2 years ago, I made one of my 
job priorities passage of this piece of legislation. I was happy to 
work with the Senator from Idaho to bring it to this point. And I 
congratulate him for all of his efforts in truly driving this process.
  Effective unfunded mandates language is absolutely critical to the 
States, to the cities, and to the county governments of this country. 
If we are going to have government which is responsive, we have to have 
a Federal Government which, when it passes a law, does not end up 
taking all of the glory and none of the hard decisions, but rather 
takes the glory and also takes on the hard decisions. That means that 
this bill will put us all on notice that when an unfunded mandate comes 
to the floor of the House or the Senate and there is a vote on that 
unfunded mandate, people be held accountable as to whether or not they 
are supporting passing of laws on to the States and on to the cities.
  It is very appropriate that this bill should be one of the first 
major pieces of legislation passed by this Congress because it 
represents a new approach to the way we govern this country. It 
represents an approach which recognizes federalism should exist. In 
real terms, federalism means that when the Federal Government takes 
actions, it creates costs for the local community and it also pays the 
costs that it incurs and puts on those local communities.
  So I strongly support this piece of legislation. I congratulate the 
managers of the bill for bringing it to this point.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
set aside for different Senators to make their comments occur after 
final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 222 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 222) was withdrawn.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GLENN. In setting aside time for comments until after the final 
vote, I also ask unanimous consent that the time reserved for Senator 
Byrd be included in that time transferred until after the final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 228 to Amendment No. 210

       (Purpose: To make technical corrections, and for other 
     purposes.)

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President I send to the desk the managers' 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 228 to amendment No. 210.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (The text of amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the agreement, the amendment is agreed 
to.
  So the amendment (No. 228) to amendment No. 210 was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support S. 1, the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act of 1995.
  This bill will strengthen the partnership between the Federal and 
State government. That, in turn, will help us all do a better job 
protecting public safety and public health.


                               Background

  When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia, federalism 
was not an abstract theory. It was a practical necessity.
  During the period of the Articles of Confederation, the Framers had 
experienced, first hand, the chaos that occurs when there is no strong 
Federal Government to bind people together and address matters of 
fundamental national interest.
  At the same time, the Framers understood that, in most cases, State 
government, close to the people, governs best.
  So the Framers enhanced the Federal Government's authority in certain 
areas. But, in the 10th amendment, they provided that ``the powers not 
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people.''
  This system established a partnership.
  However, over the last few decades, the partnership has been 
weakened.
  To begin with, Congress enacted a wide range of laws designed to 
address important national problems. Laws to protect civil rights. To 
promote social welfare. To improve public health. To fight crime. To 
protect the environment. And to accomplish other important goals.
  In many cases, the Federal Government required States to take 
stronger action, or provided powerful incentives for them to do so.
  As a result, our Nation made great progress.
  But the cumulative cost of all of these laws began to mount. At the 
[[Page S1667]] same time, Federal funding did not rise. Instead, if 
fell.
  Meanwhile, many State governments became more sophisticated. They 
wanted to address complex problems themselves, without instructions 
from Uncle Sam.
  As a result of all this, State and local governments began to 
criticize what they called unfunded mandates. Today, the criticism has 
swelled into a virtual rebellion.
  Now, let's step back for a moment. As with most issues, the unfunded 
mandates debate has had its share of hyperbole. In some cases, the 
estimates of unfunded mandates have been wildly exaggerated. And 
various special interests have used the term ``unfunded mandates'' 
loosely, to attack any Federal law they don't like.
  But, at the core of this debate, there is a real problem. Take the 
case of Butte, MT. Because of various environmental laws, Butte is 
required to upgrade the drinking water system, at a cost of $20 
million; construct a new sludge treatment system, at a cost of $7 
million; and upgrade the landfill, at a cost of $5 million.
  Independently, each of these requirements makes sense. But their 
cumulative impact can be devastating, especially for a small city like 
Butte struggling to diversify its economy.
  To address situations like this the Environment and Public Works 
Committee has been focusing on the impact that our environmental laws 
have on State and local governments.
  During the last Congress, the committee reported a Safe Drinking 
Water Act and a Clean Water Act that each reduced burdens on local 
governments. And the committee considered a Superfund bill and an 
Endangered Species Act bill that would have given States more control 
over those programs.
  In each case, we gave careful attention to the impact that our 
legislation would have on State and local governments. In fact, that 
was one of our primary concerns.


                          Support for the Bill

  The bill we are considering today will take another important step in 
the right direction.
  The key provision of the bill is pretty straightforward. It requires 
that, when a bill comes to the floor of the Senate or House, Congress 
must consider whether the bill imposes a large new mandate on State or 
local governments. If so, the bill creates a procedural point of order 
against the bill, which can only be waived by a majority vote.
  In other words, before imposing a new mandate on State or local 
governments, Congress must stop and think. We must consider the impact 
of the mandate, consider the alternatives, and make an affirmative 
decision that the mandate is appropriate.
  By doing so, the bill reinforces the approach that the Environment 
and Public Works Committee has been taking over the last several years.
  At the same time, the bill does not create any artificial barriers 
that would prevent Congress from enacting needed legislation.
  This is an important point. In some cases, a provision that 
technically is an unfunded mandate may be the best solution to a 
problem.
  Take the case of a pollution problem that has interstate effects. In 
other words, the pollution crosses State lines. One State may already 
have taken steps to address the pollution problem. But that State may 
be located downwind or downstream from another State that hasn't done a 
darn thing. The bad actor is pouring pollution into its neighboring 
State.
  In a case like that, we may need a minimum Federal standard. And we 
may decide that it would be unfair to require the States that already 
have addressed the problem, and paid for it themselves, to subsidize a 
handful of bad actors who have lagged behind.
  In other cases, a minimum Federal standard may be necessary to 
prevent the unfortunate race to the bottom that can occur if States 
weaken their environmental laws as a way of attracting jobs away from 
other States.
  One State lowers its environmental standards. In response, other 
States are forced to lower their standards.
  The result is an overall decline in environmental protection. 
Everybody is worse off.
  In a State like Montana, which has progressive environmental laws, we 
don't want to be forced to lower our environmental standards in order 
to create new jobs, or to keep the ones we have.
  So, Mr. President, there may be cases in which it is entirely 
appropriate to enact a provision that is, technically, an unfunded 
mandate. But, under the bill we are considering today, Congress can 
only do so if we have carefully considered the impact of the mandate, 
considered the alternatives, and affirmatively decided that it's the 
best solution to the problem.


                                concerns

  Of course, no legislation is perfect. During our consideration of 
this bill, I believe that there have been some significant 
improvements. And I want to thank the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Byrd], the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and others for their 
diligent work.
  However, I remain concerned over whether the Congressional Budget 
Office will be able to carry out its new responsibilities. To date, no 
one has been able to make reliable estimates of the cost of unfunded 
mandates. Furthermore, the Director of CBO has testified that his 
office will be hard-pressed to make the necessary assessments.
  That should be a warning flag. We need to be realistic about how well 
this bill can be implemented. And we should be ready to fix any 
problems that arise in the future.
  Another concern is whether we may be creating an uneven playing field 
that may favor the public sector over private industry. I hope that 
will not be the result. But if it is, we may need to revisit that issue 
at a later date.


                               conclusion

  In any event, Mr. President, this is not the end of the unfunded 
mandates debate. It's really the beginning.
  In the upcoming months, we will have the opportunity to reform the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and other environmental 
laws. In each case, we will have the opportunity to give States more 
flexibility and reduce unfunded mandates, while maintaining protection 
of public health.
  If we do so, we will build on the progress we are making in this 
unfunded mandates bill, and do even more to strengthen the partnership 
between the Federal and State governments.
  Finally, Mr. President, I wish to compliment the leadership of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senators Roth and Glenn, for their work 
on this bill.
  Senators Roth and Glenn have stood on this floor for 2 weeks. Their 
thoughtfulness, candor, and fairness are noted and appreciated.
  Senator Levin is also to be strongly commended for his insightful and 
determined efforts to improve this bill.
  I also wish to compliment the majority manager and prime sponsor of 
the bill, Senator Kempthorne.
  For the past 2 years, Senator Kempthorne and I have worked together 
as members of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We've dealt 
with some thorny issues. Sometimes we've disagreed. But Senator 
Kempthorne has always been thoughtful, diligent, and willing to 
consider other points of view in order to make progress.
  He's taken the same approach here, and the result is a solid bill 
that will improve our consideration of environmental and other laws.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I support this bill. I believe that we 
should consider the effects of legislation we consider in this body on 
States and localities. I have some serious reservations, however, about 
the sweep, and the director of this debate.


                            the federal role

  When the Articles of Confederation were conceived more than two 
centuries ago, the States were to be sovereign and independent. Seven 
years later, the Constitution was ratified as an antidote to the 
decentralized and weak National Government established by the articles. 
The Constitution strengthened the responsibility and authority of the 
National Government, and recognized the Federal Government's unique 
role in defining and protecting the basic rights and interests of 
citizens in all States.
  Over 200 years, the expansion of commerce, the advent of wars, the 
growth of a sense of national character, and 
[[Page S1668]] the surge of information and technology have 
considerably altered the responsibilities of government at each level. 
We have grown and proposed as a Nation because our Constitution created 
a Government capable of withstanding such dramatic developments and 
changes.


                       legitimate state concerns

  I believe that a discussion of federalism is long overdue, but I am 
concerned with the direction of our current debate. I understand well 
the concerns of my State and local colleagues who are outraged over the 
proliferation of Federal mandates and regulations. And I understand 
well their frustration over the Federal Government's shifting of a 
substantial share of the cost of providing basic services to more local 
units of government.


                         shared responsibility

  I am concerned, however, that we are moving further away from the 
notion of partnership and shared responsibility in this debate.
  When the city of Houston seeks funding for a new sewer system, or the 
city of Detroit seeks money for improvements to its transit system, who 
do they come to for help? They come to us.
  They come to the Federal Government because they believe that there 
is a national role in assisting them to serve their citizens. And they 
come to us because they believe that we have deep--though shrinking--
pockets.
  And, while we sometimes ask them to pay some of the costs, we do our 
best to help. We, too, recognize that there is a national interest in 
providing these services. We are willing to share some of the financial 
burden.


                           the s. 1 approach

  Now we come to our present debate. The underlying message of this 
bill is that the Federal Government should only ask something of our 
State and local counterparts if it is willing to pay 100 percent of the 
costs. A point of order can be waived, but it can be raised on almost 
any bill with intergovernmental costs. The message is the National 
Government should not ask or expect States and localities to share a 
portion of these costs.
  This is not an approach recommending shared responsibility, it is an 
approach that could cripple interdependence. The National, State, and 
local governments are not independent entities with their own unique 
set of constituents. They are interdependent units of government 
attempting to address similar problems with overlapping constituencies: 
the American people. We must not lose sight of this fact.


                    the importance of some mandates

  Nor should we lose sight of the importance of some of the mandates we 
are discussing today. Let's put this in some perspective.
  According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, here's a 
sampling of legislation it considers mandates: The Civil Rights Act, 
Clean Air, Clean Water, and Safe Drinking Water, the Drug-Free Schools 
and Community Act, college work study, student loan reform, child 
support enforcement, and child nutrition legislation.
  Surely we can all agree that the goals of these acts are important 
and national in scope. We can also agree that they have an important 
intergovernmental impact and benefit.
  The National Conference of State Legislature's definition of a 
mandate is broader than this bill's. But I am concerned that they and 
others will seek to expand the definition of an unfunded mandate to 
include every important social, environmental, and labor law that is 
not fully funded by the Federal Government. This would grossly 
undermine the importance of these programs, and jeopardize the 
protections afford to all Americans.
  And it would disable our intergovernmental partnership.


                 Cost Shifting--the shell and pea game

  Clearly there are genuine issues of concern in the debate over 
Federal mandates. If pressed to its logical extremes, an inordinate 
number of mandates could severely limit the States' flexibility in 
responding to unique regional needs, and abolish the number of fresh 
and innovative ideas that originate from local experimentation.
  Paying for future programs is not, however, the only issue of concern 
to States and localities. Of equal concern is the financing of vital 
services.
  I believe that this bill fails to adequately address the issue of 
Federal cost shifting--one of the most damaging forms of 
intergovernmental abuse. The bill does not prevent the Federal 
Government from engaging in a shell and pea game with taxpayer 
dollars--shifting the Federal share of financing vital services to 
States and localities.
  S.1 does not consider a substantial cut in entitlement programs to be 
a mandate as long as these cuts are accompanied by a corresponding 
decrease in State and local governments' obligation to comply with the 
programs provisions.
  So, if the Congress chooses to slash funding for a major entitlement 
program--let's take Medicaid for example--it can do so--as long as it 
tells the States they no longer have to comply fully.
  But, what is the practical effect on State and local governments of 
slashing Federal funding for Medicaid? The costs of providing virtual 
health care services to the poor will not have been reduced--but the 
Federal contribution to addressing that need will now have diminished.
  Who's going to fill the financial void? Some nonprofits, public 
hospitals, and private charities may pitch in. But, inevitably State 
and local governments are going to have to pick up much of the 
additional financial burden--whether or not they are required to by the 
letter of the law.
  States and localities fear a balanced budget amendment so greatly for 
this very reason. They are all too familiar with this game. They 
understand--and their recent experience has taught--that substantial 
reductions in Federal funding for vital services force more local units 
of governments to pick up much of the tab.
  Cutting Federal funding for vital services is effectively an 
intergovernmental mandate.
  It's a mandate on States and localities. And frankly, it's a mandate 
on the middle-class.
  All too frequency, it's middle-class Americans who end up bearing a 
disproportionate share of the increased costs of providing important 
services.
  Nothing in this bill precludes the Congress from shifting the burden 
of financing entitlement programs to the States.
  Mr. President, if we are really serious about addressing the problem 
of intergovernmental mandates, we should take steps to assure that the 
Congress does not shift the obligation of balancing the budget to the 
States by asking them to control the costs of entitlements--something 
we have been woefully unable to do.


                           striking a balance

  It is clear that the Federal Government should not and cannot impose 
costly new requirements on States and localities without considering 
how they will pay for those costs. It is also clear that we must 
develop a better balance between competing Federal responsibilities, 
and carefully review our budget priorities.
  But in the long run, the solution to the unfunded mandates problem 
depends on better communication between all levels of government. We 
need to work together to set priorities and make sure that taxpayer 
dollars are being used efficiently.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, I commend the managers of this bill for their hard 
work and genuine desire to assist our States and localities. This bill 
is a reflection of their commitment and a positive step forward.
  Soon, my colleagues and I will have another opportunity to test our 
resolve toward improving intergovernmental relations as we debate a 
balanced budget amendment and make the tough budgetary decisions that 
follow.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen 
cooperation and partnership between all levels of government.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate 2 years 
ago, I was very surprised to discover that in Washington there was 
almost no discussion of an issue of great concern to State and local 
officials. That issue was the impact of mandates imposed by the Federal 
Government on State and local governments.
  I asked several Federal agencies for information regarding the cost 
of mandates on State and local governments, and I found, quite simply, 
that no one 
[[Page S1669]] I could find in the entire Federal establishment knew 
their impact. That was one of the reasons my very first bill filed in 
the 103d Congress was legislation to require disclosure with regard to 
unfunded Federal mandates. That is why S. 1 has such bipartisan 
support, and why I am a strong supporter of S. 1--because it promises 
to curb the practice of imposing Federal mandates on State and local 
governments without advance, complete disclosure of the impact of those 
mandates.
  S. 1 will greatly change the relationship between the Federal 
Government and State and local governments. And that is a good thing. 
Creating a mechanism that will help ensure that the voice of State and 
local governments is heard in Washington before legislation is enacted 
is both sound policy, and something that has long been needed.
  S. 1 will also make Federal officials more accountable--and that, 
too, is a good thing. Asking the Federal Government to make its 
decisions with good information--with the best information we can get 
on the State and local governments that will have to live by those 
decisions--should not be controversial. Rather, it is the way decisions 
should always have been made, and the way decisions should always be 
made in the future.
  S. 1 requires the congressional committees to report on the costs and 
benefits anticipated from any Federal mandates contained in the bills 
they report to the Senate for action, including the effects of the 
mandate on health and safety, and the protection of the environment. 
The report will also include information as to whether any mandates in 
the reported bill are to be partly or entirely offset.
  The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] would be required to estimate 
the cost impact of the mandate on State and local governments, if it is 
likely to exceed $50 million, before the legislation could be brought 
up on the Senate floor. CBO would also be required to estimate the cost 
impact of a proposed Federal mandate on the private sector if it 
exceeds $200 million.
  A point of order could be raised if the legislation would increase 
the cost of the mandate on State and local governments by $50 million, 
unless spending to cover the increase is also authorized. Under the 
terms of S. 1, most mandates would only be effective during a fiscal 
year if Congress appropriated the funds to meet the costs of those 
mandates. If appropriations were cut, then the mandates would also be 
reduced.
  S. 1, however, does not put Congress in a straitjacket. It does not 
prevent a congressional majority from enacting unfunded mandates. The 
points of order established by the bill can be waived by majority vote. 
What S. 1 really requires, therefore, is, as I have already said, for 
Congress to make its decisions with the information on the mandates in 
front of it, and, if Congress decides not to provide funding to offset 
the costs of a particular mandate, to make that decision clear and 
explicit.
  This legislation also ensures that the cost of mandates imposed 
during the regulatory process would be evaluated. Federal agencies 
would be required to estimate the anticipated costs to State and local 
governments of the rules they write to implement Federal legislation. 
Federal agencies will have to consult with elected representatives of 
State and local governments so that their concerns and suggestions are 
taken into account in the writing of rules.
  The case for the changes made in S. 1 is compelling. The issue of 
mandates is the No. 1 issue for Governors, for mayors, and for other 
local elected officials across this country. Over and over, State and 
local
 officials from around this Nation, including my own State of Illinois, 
have told me and every member of Congress that unfunded mandates are 
taking over their budgets, and undermining their ability to manage 
their own local problems.

  Governor Edgar of Illinois wrote me supporting S. 1, stating that 
unfunded mandates have consumed an increasing share of State and local 
budgets, and that they impose severe limitations on what can be 
achieved with Illinois resources. I have heard from numerous county 
boards in Illinois on this issue. Winnebago County sent me a resolution 
that was adopted by the county board on September 30, 1993, opposing 
State and Federal unfunded mandates. The mayor of Chicago sent me a 
copy of a report that was prepared called ``Putting Federalism To Work 
For America,'' from November 1992, that analyzes the impact of Federal 
mandates on Chicago. I want to discuss a few concrete examples from 
that report.
  In order to comply with carbon monoxide standards, the city of 
Chicago, recognizing that traffic jams contribute greatly to these 
emissions, established a plan to increase the efficiency of the traffic 
flow in the city. This involved designating some streets as one-way, 
posting no-parking zones, and enforcing these zones by towing. Even 
though the city achieved compliance with the carbon monoxide standards, 
as proven repeatedly by heavy monitoring by Federal employees, the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency demanded documentation that every car 
parked in a tow zone was actually towed.
  The city had taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the 
carbon monoxide emissions standard more than 20 years ago, but in 1989 
the Federal Government was still questioning the number of tow trucks 
on the streets of Chicago. This occurred despite the fact that Federal 
monitoring of carbon monoxide emissions proved that Clean Air Act 
standards were consistently met. At the same time that Federal workers 
were monitoring towing in Chicago, the main threat to the Great Lakes 
was the disposition of airborne toxins from as far away as Mexico, a 
problem that should fall under the aegis of a Federal agency.
  The Calumet Skyway toll bridge provides another example of a high 
cost, unfunded mandate. The bridge must be painted regularly. The last 
time the bridge was painted in the late 1970's, the price tag was $10 
million. The current cost has escalated to $40 million. The $30 million 
addition is attributable to the Clean Air Act which requires that no 
sand blasting be used where lead-based paint is involved. The technique 
specified to strip the old paint cannot allow lead chips to enter the 
air. The paint removed must be cocooned and other safeguards applied, 
including disposal requirements. Public health specialists disagree on 
the level of risk that would be imposed by less severe safeguards. They 
do appear to agree that the primary risk is assumed by workers who 
could be protected at a dramatically lower cost. Similar problems have 
quadrupled the cost of repainting the Loop elevated train structure in 
downtown Chicago. The report asks whether that extra $30 million would 
have been better spent on crime control initiatives. And more 
importantly, it asks which level of government is in the best position 
to decide.
  Mayor Daley has long been a leader in the effort to educate the 
Federal Government on the adverse impacts unfunded mandates have on his 
ability, and the ability of other mayors and local officials, to 
conduct the people's business and be accountable to the taxpayers. In a 
letter to me dated January 11, 1995, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago 
reiterated that unfunded Federal mandates cost the city of Chicago over 
$160 million in 1992, a figure that has only increased since then. His 
letter goes on to say that: ``Fundamentally, this issue is all about 
giving local governments the flexibility to make the best use of local 
and federal dollars.'' That is hardly revolutionary, but is critically 
important to every level of government.
  Mandates impact big cities and small communities very differently, 
yet rarely are regulations written to be sensitive to those 
differences. The problems faced by Chicago are different than those 
faced by small Illinois
 communities, and not all problems can be solved with the same 
solutions. We have passed a Federal mandate to require testing for lead 
in water. In 1976, the law was changed to prohibit lead-based soldering 
of water pipes. Before 1976, lead was used to solder pipes together. 
When inspectors recently performed the lead testing requirements, the 
community learned that there were no traces of lead in the municipal 
distribution facility. The lead was only found when tests were 
completed in private homes. The local government could not require 
private homeowners to change their water pipes. In fact, most experts 
agree that the real threat 
[[Page S1670]] to children from lead is from lead-based paint, and not 
water. But the city was required to spend thousands of dollars to test 
for lead in water. This was a tremendous expense to the local taxpayer, 
with very marginal benefits. And it makes it that much harder for that 
community to meet higher priority needs.
  Regulations often do not account for the very real regional 
differences in this country. For example, part of the Federal clean 
water reference standard is a clear flowing trout stream. Illinois has 
no trout streams--and no trout in any of its rivers. Illinois has thick 
topsoil, and the water is full of rich silt. It is that rich soil that 
makes Illinois part of this country's breadbasket. In Colorado, water 
runs down mountains, so the clear flowing trout stream standard may be 
appropriate. That standard just does not fit the reality in Illinois.
  These environmental regulations are important. They save lives. But 
we must develop regulations that are more sensitive to local variations 
and flexible enough to address the problems of communities of all 
sizes. I recognize that the Senate does not debate the implementing 
rules that are written after we pass laws. But these are very serious 
problems that go right to the heart of why citizens do not feel that 
the government is responding to their concerns.
  S. 1 is a statement that the Federal Government has heard what our 
State and local elected officials have been telling us, and that the 
Federal Government is prepared to change the way it has been doing 
business. It is a recognition of the fact that the Federal Government 
has a responsibility to State and local governments in the mandates 
area, and that the Federal Government is now prepared to meet that 
responsibility.
  While I strongly support S. 1, I also think it is important to keep 
in mind that an unfunded mandate is not per se a bad thing. Not every 
Federal mandate is bad; many have achieved a substantial amount of good 
for the American public. My support for S. 1, as it was reported by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, therefore, is not a repudiation of the 
whole idea of mandates. The mandates the Federal Government used to 
make real progress in civil rights and our treatment of the disabled, 
for example, were essential to our progress as a nation, and as a 
people. I applaud the fact that S. 1 recognizes how essential those 
mandates were and are, and that under the terms of the bill, future 
civil rights legislation which builds on this tradition will be exempt 
from S. 1.
  Federal action is sometimes necessary. There are mandates which 
improve the health and safety of all Americans. We have Federal 
mandates that prevent a factory from disposing hazardous waste in the 
regular sewer system. This protects the sewers from contamination, and 
avoids the burden that local communities would have to shoulder to 
clean up the problem. Mandates can help prevent environmental 
degradation at the front end, so that we do not have to pay for clean 
up, which is always more costly, after the damage has been done. 
Federal mandates have helped to ensure that the water is safe to drink 
all across this country, and that disabled children receive a proper 
public education.
  The reason we are here is not because mandates are wrong in 
principle. The real reason we are here is because of the budgetary 
shell game that was played in the 1980's. The 1980's were a time when 
many domestic programs were slashed, with mandates pushing the 
responsibilities onto hard-pressed State and local governments. I was 
in the Illinois House when President Reagan introduced the New 
Federalism. It was supposed to redefine the relationship among Federal, 
State and local governments. What it really did
 was to make large cuts in Federal taxes, and push off the 
responsibilities of providing necessary services to State and local 
governments--without sending the money. The net result of that exercise 
in fiscal subterfuge was an explosion of Federal debt from only about 
$1 trillion in 1980 to closing in on $5 trillion now.

  S. 1 is designed to ensure that the kind of budget fraud we saw in 
the 1980's won't be repeated in the 1990's, or in the next century. 
Addressing our budget problems requires tough decisions. In the 1980's, 
there was a real attempt by the President to avoid making those tough 
decisions, and to try to delude the American people into believing that 
we could solve our budget problems on the cheap, without affecting the 
lives of the great majority of Americans. There was an attempt to avoid 
providing any real leadership on our budget issues, and to avoid 
telling the truth about our budget problems to the American people. 
That was wrong then, it is wrong now, and we will be paying the price 
of those wrong decisions for decades to come. S. 1 cannot undo the 
mistakes made in the 1980's. What it can do, and what we must do, is 
ensure that we don't repeat those mistakes, and that is another reason 
enactment of S. 1 is so important.
  I believe that S. 1 will achieve a necessary balance. We need to 
balance the benefit of mandates with their costs. We need to balance 
the responsibilities of the Federal Government to ensure the safety of 
American citizens with the rights of State and local governments to 
prioritize their budgets.
  It is the responsibility of all levels of government--Federal, State, 
and local--to protect their citizens. Governors, mayors, and village 
presidents will feel the same pressure of public opinion to protect 
health and safety, as well as the environment, as we do at the Federal 
level. When this legislation becomes law, all levels of government will 
still have to bear the costs to insure the safety and well being of the 
American people. But we will stop the cost shifting from Federal to 
State and local governments that occurs because of a lack of 
information. Federal agencies will write better regulations with the 
benefit of counsel from State and local officials. And Senators will 
cast informed votes.
  We are all in this together, Mr. President. The Federal Government, 
State governments, and local governments, are all trying to meet their 
responsibilities to the American people. What S. 1 does is very 
simple--it ensures that the Federal Government does not attempt to meet 
its responsibilities with the tax dollars raised at the State and local 
levels. S. 1 prohibits budgetary shell games, and by doing so, will 
help end confrontation between the various levels of government, and 
promote cooperating instead. And that, based on my experience at all 
three levels of government, will not make it tougher for us to address 
the problems the American people elected all of us to solve, it will 
make it easier.
  I want to conclude by congratulating my colleague from Idaho, Senator 
Kempthorne, and my colleague from Ohio, Senator Glenn, for their 
leadership in crafting this legislation and bringing it to the floor so 
promptly in the new Congress. I share their view that this bill is 
carefully balanced, and that it won't take much to upset that careful 
balance that has so contributed to the broad, bipartisan support this 
bill enjoys.
  I strongly urge my colleagues, therefore, to support S. 1, and to 
enact the kind of bill that will preserve the strong, bipartisan 
coalition that has been the driving force behind the effort to address 
the mandates problem. That, I believe, is what the American people 
expect of us.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert the letters the 
Governor Edgar and Mayor Daley, the resolution from the Winnebago 
County Board, as well as an editorial from the Chicago Tribune in 
support of this legislation, into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                            State of Illinois,

                                Springfield, IL, January 10, 1995.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: I am writing to express my 
     sincere thanks to you for your support of S. 1, the 
     ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995.''
       Unfunded mandates have consumed an increasing share of 
     state and local budgets, and impose severe limitations on 
     what can be achieve with our existing resources. It is 
     essential that Congress act now to reduce the burden of such 
     mandates, particularly in the context of current initiatives 
     to reduce the federal budget. The National Governors' 
     Association and other groups representing state and local 
     officials have made passage of a mandate relief bill their 
     major legislative priority over the past several years.
       I am very pleased that you are an original cosponsor of the 
     mandate relief bill now under consideration. If I can be of 
     assistance 
     [[Page S1671]] to you as this important measure moves 
     forward, please let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jim Edgar,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____



                                              City of Chicago,

                                    Chicago, IL, January 11, 1995.
     Hon. Carol Mosely-Braun,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Braun: I am writing to urge your support for 
     the Mandate Relief legislation about to be debated on the 
     floor of the House and Senate. I am pleased that the new 
     Congress has acted so 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 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 
     vote in favor of HR5/S1.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard M. Daley,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

     Resolution of the County Board of the County of Winnebago, IL

       Whereas, in November 1992, the citizens of the State of 
     Illinois approved an advisory referendum question opposing 
     unfunded state mandates; and
       Whereas, units of local government can no longer afford to 
     implement state and federal mandates without adequate state 
     and federal funding mandates: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the County Board of Winnebago County to oppose 
     the enactment of all state and federal unfunded mandates.
       Be It Further Resolved by the County Board of Winnebago 
     County that Winnebago County encourages the passage of Senate 
     Bill 993 and House Resolution 140 to free local governments 
     from obligations to carry out future federal mandates unless 
     federal funds are provided.
       Be It Further Resolved that copies of the foregoing be sent 
     to the Senator Paul Simon, Senator Carol Moseley Braun, 
     Congressman Don Manzullo, Winnebago County Legislators, 
     County Board Chairman of DuPage, Kane, Cook, Lake, McHenry, 
     Will and St. Clair counties and the National Association of 
     Counties.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 12, 1995]

                       Unlocking the Mandate Trap
       Not content to spend the federal government a few trillion 
     dollars into debt, Congress over the years has had a passion 
     for spending the money of state and municipal governments as 
     well. It does this by requiring the local folks to pay for 
     many programs and policies created in Washington.
       These ``unfunded mandates'' have provoked a quiet 
     revolution in the past couple of years. About a dozen states, 
     including Illinois, have refused to comply with federal 
     ``motor-voter'' legislation, which requires them to expand 
     voter registration opportunities; California has sued to 
     block the federal government from enforcing it. Some state 
     leaders have threatened that, unless they get relief from 
     mandates, they will oppose a balanced-budget constitutional 
     amendment.
       Their anger is understandable. The federal government gets 
     to be the good guy, imposing popular measures such as the 
     Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The locals, in turn, 
     have to raise taxes to pay for enforcement and lose autonomy 
     in their spending decisions. The City of Chicago has 
     estimated that in one recent year it spent $70.8 million on 
     unfunded mandates, including $27 million in paperwork.
       The Senate Thursday begins debate on a bill that would 
     require Congress to pay for any new mandate that imposes more 
     than $50 million in costs on local governments. If Congress 
     fails to do so, the mandate could be blocked by any member on 
     a point of order.
       The bill provides quite a loophole: Congress could override 
     the point of order by a simple majority vote in each chamber. 
     It also includes exemptions for anti-discrimination statutes 
     and emergency assistance.
       The bill faces assaults from the Right and the Left. Some 
     Republicans want a wholesale ban, or at least a requirement 
     of a three-fifths vote to override the point of order. Some 
     Democrats want to exempt labor, public health and public 
     safety laws.
       The bill's impact will be limited. Requiring members to go 
     on record as supporting an unfunded mandate--in effect, 
     acknowledging they are passing on a tax hike to local 
     payers--is a worthwhile step. But it won't stop unfunded 
     mandates. Illinois lawmakers have often overridden their own 
     anti-mandates law, but rarely catch flak from voters.
       This tack, however, recognizes that there are times when it 
     is appropriate for the federal government to set national 
     policy and expect localities to pay the cost. When that 
     happens, it will at least be clearer to voters who is 
     responsible.
       The measure has the support of the National League of 
     Cities, the National Governors Association, and other 
     representatives of state and local governments. They see it 
     as a solid step toward easing their burden, and Congress 
     should see it that way, too.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 
1, the unfunded mandates bill. I am a cosponsor of S. 1 because, 
although I recognize that mandates can serve important purposes, it is 
time to ensure that we fully understand the consequences of unfunded 
mandates for States and localities.
  Unfunded Federal mandates have caused a tremendous impact in the 
communities of North Dakota. For example, Safe Drinking Water Act 
testing requirements cost some small North Dakota communities over $100 
per year per household. Water rates in Grand Forks, ND, increased by 
over 30 percent from 1990 to 1993. Water rates in Langdon, ND, doubled 
in 1994. While the goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act is desirable, I 
believe that the legislation has to be flexible and that the Federal 
Government must be responsible while enacting unfunded duties upon 
small communities.
  Mandates, including some unfunded mandates, have resulted in valuable 
and legitimate accomplishments. We benefit from a clean environment. We 
applaud school desegregation. We have made great progress toward 
addressing health and safety concerns. The Federal Government has also 
worked in partnership with local governments to achieve important 
objectives. As the Washington Post reported on January 22, 1995, the 
Federal Government will provide $230 billion in grants to State and 
local governments this year. This partnership has worked in the past 
and it is my hope that it will continue to work in the future.
  However, at times, this partnership has lost the notions of balance, 
common sense, and responsibility. As the Federal Government has tried 
to reduce spending and cut the deficit, responsibilities have been 
passed on to State and local governments, who are also struggling to 
operate their budgets in the black. For example, it is estimated that 
the Safe Drinking Water Act will cost North Dakota communities almost 
$50 million per year in construction costs alone. Where will this money 
come from? The Federal Government has not provided the answer--nor the 
funds.
  So, while we recognize that there are good mandates and difficult 
mandates, the question remains: Where do we find the balance? In short, 
how do we restore common sense to the Federal legislative process: 
First, we must recognize that there are no ``one size fits all'' 
solutions. The water policy or contaminant requirements that work for 
New York City, population 10 million, do not make sense for Hazelton, 
ND, population 240, or Underwood, ND, population 976.
  In this regard, I am pleased that S. 1 provides for the analysis of 
rural communities' special needs in 3 separate areas; the CBO 
Director's study of intergovernmental mandates; the CBO Director's 
study of private sector mandates; and an agency's
 analysis of a regulation. These provisions are found in section 103 
and section 202 of S. 1.

  Second, we must make sure that the Congress is making fully informed 
choices when it considers mandates. That is what S. 1 does; it adds an 
informative step in the consideration of legislation. This step simply 
provides that the Congress will know the financial impact of the 
legislation. The point of order mechanism in S. 1 will not prohibit the 
Federal Government from passing along a mandate, but it will ensure 
that Congress has an idea of what the legislation may cost State and 
local governments before the laws are passed. We will exercise our 
legislative duties with informed responsibility.
  While I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, I am also pleased 
that my colleagues are taking the time to offer amendments to ensure 
that it will 
[[Page S1672]] work in practice. S. 1 would affect every piece of 
legislation considered after January 1, 1996. We should therefore work 
together in a bipartisan fashion to assure that the new process works 
smoothly and has no unintended consequences. The new point of order 
process, as outlined in S. 1, should be open to suggestions for 
improvement. That is what the legislative process is all about.
  Partisan accusations that Democrats are stalling or obstructing 
passage of S. 1 are without merit. This important piece of legislation 
went through introduction, hearings, and markup in 4 legislative days, 
came to the floor without a report, and meaningful amendments are 
immediately faced with a motion to table. While we must be responsive 
to States and localities, we must remember that we represent 
individuals. We owe it to the people of this country to pass the best 
possible legislation, and, like it or not, quality takes careful 
deliberation. For example, a sunset provision should be considered not 
as an effort to weaken the bill; but rather as a responsibility to 
improve the bill as it proves necessary over time.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, this legislation represents a new sense 
of responsibility in Washington. November 8 was not about giving a 
mandate to partisan politics; rather it was the manifestation of a hope 
that the Federal Government will truly represent the people of the 
country, without regard to partisan politics as usual. Therefore, we 
must be responsible to other levels of government and work on 
maintaining a good working relationship among Federal, State, and local 
governments.
  As water rates doubled in some small rural communities, North Dakota 
local governments faced the new mandates and struggled to budget 
responsibility. S. 1 will ensure that we at the Federal level legislate 
which contains an unfunded mandate. I urge my colleagues to support S. 
1 and accept this responsibility.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for 2 long weeks, the Senate has been 
debating legislation to correct the problem of unfunded mandates--those 
costly Federal regulations handed down to the State and local levels, 
without the necessary dollars to carry them out.
  Because of these unfunded mandates, State and local governments are 
often forced to raise taxes, change their priorities, or even reduce 
services to comply with regulations that may or may not benefit their 
constituents. Taxpayers, as usual get stuck with the bill. And mayors 
and State officials who don't obey risk being sued by the Federal 
Government.
  In his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, President Clinton 
acknowledged this serious problem and called on Congress to legislate 
some relief. ``It's time for Congress to stop passing on to the States 
the cost of decisions we make here in Washington,'' he insisted.
  Under the legislation we're considering, Senators will be more 
informed as to the cost of these mandates. Under this legislation, we 
won't be so quick to pass one-size-fits-all mandates. We'll know the 
financial burden we're placing on the country, and our State, local, 
and tribal officials.
  This is a great start, and I applaud Mr. Kempthorne and Mr. Glenn for 
their leadership on this issue.
  But as of this morning, the debate over the Unfunded Mandates Relief 
Act of 1995 has droned on for weeks.
  Mr. President, what is the delay? President Clinton supports this 
bill. Nearly two-thirds of my colleagues in the Senate support this 
bill. The House passed its own version long ago. Our version will pass, 
too, and the vote won't even be close. So if there's little opposition 
to the bill and the principles behind it, what do I tell my 
constituents when they ask why we're not moving forward. * * * why 
we're not moving past unfunded mandates and on to the other crucial 
issues piling up ahead of us?
  Mr. President, how can I explain this delay to Mayor Don Chmiel of 
Chanhassen, MN, who tells me that his city desperately needs relief 
from costly stormwater mandates triggered last October?
  Mr. President, what excuse for the holdup can I give Mike Opat, a 
member of the board of commissioners in Hennepin County, MN? He tells 
me that if relief from unfunded mandates doesn't come soon, the most 
populated county in my State will not be able to provide needed 
services such as education, jails, health care, and social services for 
children and the elderly.
  Mr. President, what do I tell Jim Kordiak, a commissioner in my home 
county of Anoka? He wrote to tell me, quote:

       While each of us can think of hundreds of new programs that 
     we feel might be of benefit to the community, I believe it is 
     imperative that we restrain ourselves from the mandatory 
     implementation of such services and, instead, return as much 
     control as possible to local jurisdictions.

  Mayor Norm Coleman of St. Paul sent me 10 pages of notes on the 
mandates his city is compelled to carry out--so many mandates, in fact, 
that the city can't put a pricetag on the costs to its residents. How 
do I explain our delay to Mayor Coleman?
  Finally, Mr. President, what would you have me tell Martin Kirsch, 
the mayor of Richfield, MN, who wrote asking for my help in turning the 
unfunded mandates bill into reality?
  My colleagues and I are ready to do just that--we've pledged our 
unconditional support to this bill and the people back home who want 
desperately to see it passed. But we've been hogtied by the opposition 
of a few Senators who are doing everything in their power to delay the 
inevitable and keep this bill from a swift vote.
  The Washington Post says that some of my colleagues are manipulating 
the rules to slow this legislation down. But let me suggest, Mr. 
President, that the American people are being manipulated along with 
the rules. They sent us here to change Government. They sent us here to 
pass good legislation like the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act. And 
they'll be furious when they find out we've been passing little else 
but time.
  Senators do have the right to assert their positions on the floor. 
I'm not opposed to that. Having come from a body that restricted the 
rights of the minority and individual members for 40 years, I 
understand the need for free and open debate.
  What I oppose is the cynical attitude of those who would use the 
rules of the Senate to derail good bills.
  Congress is a great institution, but in the minds of the American 
people, it is growing smaller in stature and larger in contempt every 
day. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to correct this image 
and provide a Government of which every American can be proud.
  Mr. President, I'd like to be able to go back home to Minnesota this 
weekend and tell Don Chmiel, Mike Opat, Jim Kordiak, Norm Coleman, and 
Martin Kirsch that the Senate heard their pleas for relief and passed 
the unfunded mandates bill. Let's stop these needless delays. Let's 
work together. Let's put this debate behind us, and start moving 
forward.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate began debate on unfunded 
mandates with the premise that the Federal Government should not 
indiscriminately force State and local governments to implement Federal 
statutes.
  With this premise, S. 1 goes to the heart of the way Government works 
in the United States. It seeks to change the balance between the 
Federal and State governments. I happen to agree with the premise and 
welcome a discussion about the balance of Government.
  I agree that the distant reach of Federal Government should not tell 
States how to take care of the special needs of their communities. I 
have been working for months to get the Federal Government to condone a 
dairy compact that several New England States have chosen for 
themselves.
  I also agree that local problems are best solved by local solutions. 
Again in Vermont, we worked to find flexibility in Federal statutes to 
deal with a superfund site, inspection and maintenance standards for 
Clean Air Act provisions, and other Federal laws.
  I believe it is not fair for Congress to make the rules and force 
state legislatures to levy the taxes to pay for them.
  For these reasons, I supported the attempt to pass S. 993, the 
Community Regulatory Relief Act of 1994, by unanimous consent last 
October. I thought it was a fairly balanced bill that addressed these 
issues. S. 993 had a sunset provision and established a reasonable 
process for controlling unfunded mandates.
   [[Page S1673]] Unfortunately, in addressing these issues and others, 
S. 1 leaves out a sunset provision and exposes Vermont to a host of new 
problems. While the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act returns some control to 
the State of Vermont, it also forces Vermont to abdicate some control 
to politicians in distant states that Vermonters do not elect.
  It is difficult to speculate how this will affect prospective issues 
in the coming decades, but consider the implications if S. 1 had been 
law since the 1970s.
  Vermont is downwind of one of the most industrially developed regions 
in our country. As I mentioned, I recognize that the cities of Chicago, 
Detroit, and Cleveland or the States of Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio 
should have the discretion to address air pollution for their 
residents. I do not believe that the mayors and governors of these 
governments have the discretion to send unlimited air pollution to 
Vermont.
  If the elected officials of the Great Lake States had decided that 
controlling air pollution is not a priority, and the Clean Air Act had 
been scaled back or voided as it could be under S. 1, would that mean 
that Vermont is forced--automatically and without question--to bear the 
economic burdens of smog, acid rain and toxic pollutants?
  These are not insignificant economic burdens. Acid rain in the 
Northeast has forced States to airdrop lime in lakes to restore the pH 
level. Air pollution was the target of years of research to determine 
the effects of acid deposition on forest health. Airborne pollutants 
have been demonstrated to stunt fish growth and alter riparian 
ecosystems. Many of these are direct costs to agencies, and ultimately 
to taxpayers, in Vermont.
  Vermont would be hurt most by indirect costs. Without an enforceable 
Federal air pollution standard, would 8 million people still visit 
Vermont each year and contribute to our tourism economy? We cannot 
afford to subordinate our economic interests to the economic interests 
of another State.
  Without an enforceable Federal air pollution standard, would the 
forests that cover three-quarters of my State support a healthy, 
sustainable forest products industry? The New York Times reported this 
summer that air pollution had tripled forest mortality in the east.
  Would the sport fisheries draw anglers from the 70 million people who 
live within a day's drive of Vermont? Today, most of Vermont's fish can 
be eaten by humans without posing a health risk. Without a Federal 
mandate, we may not have this luxury.
  How would acid rain affect the crops of Vermont farmers? This is a 
question that scientists can offer only speculation.
  It seems to me that if there had been legislation prohibiting 
unfunded mandates when Congress addressed the Clean Air Act, Vermont 
would have had to assume responsibility for unfunded problems. It is a 
disturbing irony.
  Consider another example. Vermont shares more than 200 miles of Lake 
Champlain shoreline with the State of New York. I recognize that the 
Governor and State legislature should have the flexibility to decide 
sewage effluence guidelines for their towns and municipalities in the 
State of New York. But New York does not have the right to pollute 
Vermont and the lake that forms our common border.
  While I am concerned about Vermont, I should think other States would 
have concerns themselves. If Vermont filled in all the wetlands in the 
Connecticut River Basin, is Springfield, Hartford, and New Haven 
prepared to deal with floods? New York could pollute its backyard on 
Lake Champlain while Vermont pollutes its front yard in Long Island 
Sound--more than 70 percent of the fresh water in the sound comes from 
the Connecticut River. Does New Jersey worry about having New York's 
municipal hospital waste on their beaches? Do Chesapeake Bay States 
worry about how Pennsylvania affects their fisheries and recreation 
resource? Is anyone in Louisiana and Mississippi concerned about 
putting their States at the end of our Nation's potentially biggest 
sewer line? These two States could be affected by the whims of 20 
upstream States.
  We can let States choose their destiny only to the extent that it is 
their own. A State does not have the right to harm another State. To me 
this bill implies that States retain their right to pollute their 
neighbors.
  States also have to assume responsibility for their own action. If a 
State chooses not to abide by toxic waste disposal, I will have a hard 
time voting to spend millions for an EPA cleanup. If the State refuses 
to implement a certain standard of environmental health, I will have a 
hard time watching extra Medicaid and Medicare dollars go to an 
unhealthy population in some other State.
  I raise these few examples only to illustrate my point: This bill has 
implications that will hurt the State of Vermont, the people of 
Vermont, and businesses in Vermont. While I support the premise for 
this legislation, I do not support the proposed answer to the problem. 
A better bill exists that protects the rights of each of the 50 States.
  I want to vote for a bill that restores a balance to the Federal and 
State governments, but ultimately I need to protect Vermont's interests 
from the competing interests of other States. This allows one State to 
harm another State. I cannot support that kind of measure.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in the course of deliberations on this 
legislation which are now in their third week, some question has arisen 
regarding the application of title IV to the provisions of title I. As 
the chairman of the committee that reported S. 1, I wish to make clear 
to my colleagues how these two titles relate.
  Title IV deals with the subject of judicial review. Many have 
summarized its provisions simply as no judicial review. But I would 
like to draw attention to the exact language of the provisions, 
particularly to the reference in section 401 that does limit judicial 
review over certain issues arising under ``this Act.'' That reference 
to ``this Act'' means only ``this Act'' and not the subsequent 
legislation that may be processed under the procedures established in 
title I.
  Yesterday, we adopted the Byrd amendment to title I, which makes 
reference to mandates becoming ineffective in certain circumstances. 
Some may be concerned that because of title IV there will never be a 
final or objective adjudication of the question of whether a mandate is 
effective or not.
  That concern arises out of a misunderstanding of title I and title 
IV. Under title I we establish a process for Senate consideration of 
mandates legislation. So all that title I is is a process. Normally, 
Senate process does not give rise to judicial review. Title IV merely 
codifies that history in this context. It refers only to S. 1--``this 
Act''--and not to legislation that will be processed under the 
procedures in S. 1.
  Under S. 1, subsequent mandates legislation will provide for funding 
levels, how certain contingencies are to be addressed, which agency is 
designated as the responsible agency for determining whether funding of 
the direct costs of the mandate is adequate, and so on. Agency action 
under that subsequent legislation may be subject to judicial review 
since only S. 1 is, under title IV, not subject to judicial review. If 
an agency wrongly determines that a mandate is effective or 
ineffective, title IV of S. 1 does not preclude judicial review.
  I hope that this clarifies the application of title IV to this 
legislation and to subsequent mandates legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the issue of 
unfunded mandates, and S. 1. In doing so, I would like to briefly 
discuss the origins of this issue, how I believe this issue should be 
addressed, and how the bill before us addresses this issue.


                          origin of the issue

  I first started to hear about this issue shortly after I arrived in 
the Senate. Coincidentally, at about the same time the Reagan 
administration was engaged in promoting the New Federalism, which was 
intended to empower States and localities to assume more control of 
domestic issues. In reality, the effect of this move was, in too many 
cases, to simply shift the problems and responsibilities, without 
shifting resources that would have really allowed the States and 
localities to address the issues. This is illustrated by the fact that 
in 1980, total grants to State and local governments 
[[Page S1674]] from the Federal Government were $127.6 billion in 
constant 1987 dollars, and by 1990 the figure had dropped to $119.6 
billion, again in 1987 dollars. We ensured we would not be able to 
provide those resources with the changes in law recommended by the 
Reagan administration that led to 12 years of spiraling budget 
deficits. For over a decade, then, the Federal Government engaged in 
the practice of passing legislation, often in pursuit of worthy goals, 
that added to fiscal burden facing State, local and tribal governments.


                   how this issue should be addressed

  Clearly, States and localities have a legitimate concern about 
unfunded mandates. I have spoken to too many States and local officials 
to believe otherwise. In talking to these officials, I have come away 
with the feeling that these officials are often not opposed to the 
underlying aim of a Federal mandate, they are instead concerned about 
how they will pay for it, or comply with regulations to achieve the 
aim. For example, I have met very few officials who think that the 
disabled should not have access to public buildings and transportation. 
I have, however, met many who have said that given all the cutbacks 
they have faced over the last decade, they honestly wonder how they can 
comply with requirements to grant that access. I have also spoken to 
many officials opposed to overly complicated regulations implementing 
mandates. In short, they do not want us to stop addressing problems, 
they instead want us to approach problems with a full understanding of 
how our actions will affect other levels of government, and wherever 
possible, to provide a means to help pay for those effects. They also 
want us to cut the redtape that too often subsumes the actual issue we 
are trying to address.
  We should be aware of what we are asking of State and local 
governments. I am all for getting cost estimates of the effects of 
legislation on other levels of government. We should also actively 
solicit the participation of other levels of government in the 
development of legislation and regulations that may affect them. I 
firmly believe that we should take all steps possible to ensure that we 
meet our goals with a minimum of regulatory and bureaucratic redtape, 
especially at the State, tribal, and local levels. We should seek, 
wherever possible, to identify funding sources for new mandates. We 
must, however, also maintain the ability to confront pressing issues 
with national implications.


                     how s. 1 addresses this issue

  I believe that the bill before us does address some of the aspects of 
the problem of unfunded mandates correctly. It requires that we have 
information on the costs of unfunded mandates wherever possible on 
reported bills, for example. I am also encouraged by the provision 
establishing pilot programs to reduce the burden of mandates on smaller 
levels of government, and provisions to increase the participation of 
other levels of government in the development of policy that will 
affect them.
  I am concerned, however, that the provisions prohibiting the 
consideration of legislation without means of payment for mandates to 
State and local levels of government will have the effect of reducing 
our authority and ability to take action on issues of national public 
concern.


                               amendments

  For that reason, I offered two amendments that I thought would 
improve the bill with respect to this problem. One would have allowed a 
reporting committee to make a determination that the reported provision 
met a compelling national interest furthering the public health, 
safety, or welfare. In this case, while a report on costs would be 
prepared, lack of a funding mechanism would not have prevented the 
measure from being debated by the full Senate. I offered a similar 
amendment that would have required cost reports, but would have ensured 
that legislation relating to radioactive waste could also always be 
heard. Likewise, I supported similar amendments from my colleagues that 
sought to ensure that procedural hurdles would not prevent the Senate 
from fulfilling its responsibilities to meet pressing national needs.
  I offered a third amendment which sought to ensure that the Senate 
maintained its authority over independent regulatory agencies by 
stating that no funding point of order would work against a provision 
that could probably be considered as a rule by the agencies exempt from 
the regulatory title of S. 1.
  Unfortunately, my amendments, and many other amendments which would 
have improved this bill, were defeated in largely partisan votes. In 
reviewing these amendments, many of which would have
 corrected substantial procedural difficulties, such as the costing out 
of amendments offered on the floor, it has become apparent to me that 
some of my colleagues seem to be as interested in passing a potentially 
flawed measure quickly as they are in carefully drafting a proposal 
that will address the unfunded mandates issue in a way that best 
promotes the national welfare, and the welfare of the working people 
who ultimately are affected by the policies passed and implemented by 
all levels of government.


                               conclusion

  In short, Mr. President, the bill before us in many ways sidesteps 
the issue of forcing Congress to act responsibly in balancing pressing 
national needs and costs to other governments. It does so by saying we 
shall, in too many cases, simply not consider pressing needs, unless we 
can pay the full costs incurred of all levels of government.
  Nevertheless, I feel compelled to support this legislation because, 
as flawed as it is, it does provide a means for the Senate to better 
consider the costs imposed on others in legislation, and a means to 
improve the process through which regulations are made. I know that 
ultimately, it is these issues with which the State, local, and tribal 
governments in New Mexico are concerned. On careful review, I believe 
that the need to address those issues outweighs my concerns about the 
procedural chaos created by this legislation. I also take some comfort 
in the knowledge that we can revisit the issue and amend the bill where 
it proves to be unworkable.
  I must say, however, that, when we are presented with a conference 
report on this legislation, I will also carefully review that report, 
and any and all changes made from the legislation we are passing today. 
If I determine that the conference report is even more flawed than the 
version passed today, I may vote against that conference report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, local elected officials in my home State 
of Washington have discussed the cost of Federal laws with me since I 
came to the U.S. Senate. I understand their concerns; I served in my 
State legislature, and know it can be costly to comply with some 
Federal laws.
  For that reason, I cast my vote for this legislation.
  But, Mr. President, as you and all our colleagues know, I have some 
serious concerns about this bill. I think, it some senses, it might go 
too far. Some Senators might wrongly assume that passage of this bill 
means that they have free rein to gut environmental and labor laws, or 
health and safety regulations. That is not what the people of my State 
want. They just want us to be honest in budgeting. They want us to 
consider the cost of regulations and mandates we consider. They want us 
to use common sense in legislating. That means clean water, safe 
streets and neighborhoods--the benefits of Federal mandates.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I will work within the new constraints of 
this legislation to ensure that America's environment, health, safety, 
and labor laws enjoy the highest standards in the world. The passage of 
this bill just makes me more determined than ever to fight for the 
well-being of future generations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on the second 
part of the so-called Contract With America, a bill to require Congress 
to consider the financial impact on States and localities of new 
Federal legislation.
  Let me be briefly clear: I believe that it is both necessary and 
appropriate for Congress to enact some type of unfunded mandates 
constraints. I have served in local government and I understand the 
problem.
  I supported last year's unfunded mandates bill, S. 993, as did almost 
every other Senator, all of the Nation's Governors, mayors, and other 
State 
[[Page S1675]] and local officials, as well as the President of the 
United States. That is why I voted for S. 993 today. That bill is a 
fine bill--a bill that would work.
  If the Senate had not been tangled up in partisan squabbling at the 
end of the 103d Congress, unfunded mandates restraints would have now 
been the law of the land. I deeply regret that S. 993 was not enacted. 
And today it was actually voted down.
  S. 1 has many problems which I and others have tried to resolve. This 
bill creates a potential for endless delay, gives enormous power to 
unelected bureaucrats, contains troubling ambiguities that will mar its 
implementation, and utterly fails to address the biggest unfunded 
mandate of them all, illegal immigration.
  But because I believe in the need to pass unfunded mandates 
constraints, I offered several amendments to S. 1 to make it a better 
bill.
  First, I offered an amendment to ensure that the procedures the bill 
contains would not impede the ability of Congress to respond to the 
health and safety needs of society's most vulnerable citizens--most 
particularly, our young children, our pregnant women, and our frail 
elderly. My amendment was defeated on an almost straight party line 
vote by 44-55.
  Second, I offered an amendment to exempt any legislation intended to 
prohibit, deter, study, or otherwise mitigate child pornography, child 
abuse, or child labor laws. The vote, again on an almost straight party 
line, was 46-53.
  If just a few more Republican Senators had supported these limited 
exceptions, I believe we would have had a bill that met the need to 
constrain unreasonable Federal mandates without endangering the health 
and safety of our Nation's youngest and oldest citizens.
  In addition, the Senate rejected my amendment to reimburse the states 
for the costs they incur because of illegal immigration. Thankfully, 
Senator Bob Graham's amendment to hold the line on existing programs to 
stop illegal immigration was approved. But frankly, we need to ensure 
that we'll do much more than just hold the line, and S. 1 fails to do 
one thing to ease this tremendous burden on my State.
  My State of California simply cannot continue to expend huge sums 
without getting reimbursed by the Federal Government, due to the 
Federal Government's failure to enforce the border. Ignoring 
reimbursement to the States is a major failure of S. 1.
  The problem of unfunded mandates is too serious to ignore. We should 
create a process to ensure that we take a careful look at the burdens 
we place on other levels of government and the private sector, and to 
make our decisionmaking more deliberate and accountable. S. 993 was 
that bill.
  But S. 1 invites failure. It creates a process that can be used to 
tie this Senate in knots, to block legislation needed to protect the 
health of our most vulnerable people, to undermine our ability to 
respond when our children are being abused and exploited. I cannot 
support such a bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, last year I cosponsored the 
Kempthorne-Glenn legislation, S. 993, to deal with the unfunded 
mandates problem. Today, I will vote against the pending legislation, 
S. 1, but I want to reiterate my support for the sensible, workable 
proposal offered by Senator Levin. Had it been adopted, the Levin 
substitute would have forced the Congress to review any imposition of 
new, unfunded costs on the States and localities, but would not have 
tied us up in a procedural nightmare when we needed to address 
important national interests.
  Last year's bill was built on a bipartisan consensus. It was rooted 
in the realization that the Federal Government had mistreated States in 
two fundamental ways. First, the Federal Government had, too causally 
and too often, imposed mandates without thorough consideration of the 
financial burdens State and local governments already face. And, 
second, the Federal Government had too frequently told the States what 
to do without giving them the resources and the flexibility to do it.
  No one denies that problems resulted. No one denies that solutions 
need to be found.
  But if I were to characterize last year's bill, I would say it was 
designed to sensitize us to the problem. To require us to think 
carefully and critically about what kind of burdens we were imposing 
before we imposed them. Under the terms of last year's bill, we would 
know how much of burden we were creating. We would have to acknowledge 
the magnitude of the burden before we passed legislation. We would no 
longer be able to hide behind ignorance. We would have to acknowledge 
the consequences of our decisions on our own States and our own 
constituents.
  If, on the other hand, I were to characterize this year's bill, I 
would say it was designed to paralyze us, to prevent us from requiring 
States to do anything unless we fully paid them to do it.
  That, I suspect, is not how the proponents of the legislation would 
characterize it. They would point out that the bill allows us to impose 
unfunded mandates if, by a majority vote, we choose to do so. But, Mr. 
President, I believe that even the proponents would agree that the bill 
enshrines the principle and the presumption that the Federal Government 
should not impose requirements on the States unless it pays them to 
carry out the mandate.
  I believe, Mr. President, that the legislative history of this bill 
demonstrates that point. Several amendments were offered to exempt some 
class or group of activities from the strictures of this legislation. 
Time after time those amendments were defeated. And the justification 
for that was, in essence, that we ought to protect the principle that 
there would be no unfunded mandates. While the Senate might, on a case-
by-case basis, waive that principle, the presumption is that it ought 
to be protected.
  Mr. President, on a philosophic level, I do not agree. And on a 
practical level, I do not believe the bill we are passing is workable. 
Let me explain.
  While I believe we need to be sensitive to the burdens the Federal 
Government imposes on States, I also believe the Federal Government 
can--and in some cases should--impose those burdens. The odds ought not 
be stacked against a Federal mandate by the legislative roadblocks 
contained in this bill.
  Philosophically, the Federal Government has a fundamental 
responsibility to set the tone and framework for our national life, to 
set minimum standards to protect the health and safety of our people, 
to protect our national security and welfare, and to deal with issues 
that are interstate in nature and can't be effectively tackled by the 
States.
  Periodically, as a people, we have sought to limit national power. 
Before the Civil War, John C. Calhoun advanced the notion of 
nullification, allowing States to ignore Federal laws they didn't agree 
with. And just a few decades ago, southerners called for increased 
States rights in the face of Federal civil rights legislation.
  We rejected those ideas because ours is a Federal system of 
government. And in that system, the Federal Government has certain 
obligations.
  When States suffer from a disaster, they turn to the Federal 
Government for help. When California was plagued by floods and 
earthquakes and fires, they turned to Washington to help them clean up. 
And when our shore was ravaged by nor'easters, New Jersey also sought 
similar assistance.
  But the Federal Government's role is not just limited to acts of God. 
We must also respond to acts of indifference.
  The Federal Government should act when local and State governments 
don't want to spend the money to prevent pollution or to immunize 
children. We should be there to stop gun-running across State lines or 
the spread of HIV-contaminated blood. We have a role in fighting the 
flood of illegal immigrants across our borders or the flow of people 
across State lines as a result of ``benefit shopping.''
  I am proud to say that New Jersey, my home State, is relatively 
affluent. It is also compassionate and progressive. We have some of the 
toughest environmental laws in the country. We care for our disabled. 
We have tough gun control laws and occupational safety regulations. But 
those strengths could disadvantage us if Federal standards are weakened 
or eliminated.
  Let's take a few examples.
  In the late 1980's, we had to close our beaches when raw sewage and 
medical 
[[Page S1676]] waste washed up on our shores. It cost us millions of 
dollars and was a major setback to our State's economy, image, and 
quality of life. But it was a problem we could not solve alone. The 
Federal Government had to step in and require New York to treat its 
wastes, to regulate disposal
 of medical wastes, and to cover its garbage barges. Mayor Koch still 
complains to me about this unfunded mandate. But that mandate helped us 
manage a crisis. And the standards imposed on New York were necessary.

  Federal standards do more than help us correct problems. They help 
prevent them. Let me give you an example: Many people in New Jersey say 
that biggest fear is gun violence. But without the Brady bill--an 
unfunded mandate that requires background checks by local police when 
purchasing a gun--we really could not stop the gun violence from coming 
into New Jersey. That happened right before the Brady bill went into 
effect, when a former New Jersey resident bought a gun in Arizona, 
bypassing a background check that would have been required in our 
State, and shot four people at close range, in cold blood, at a motel 
in Saddle Brook. We need the Brady bill.
  Our first try at a constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had 
to be scrapped after a few years because they put too much power in the 
States and they encouraged disunity and divisiveness.
  States, by their very nature, are insular. Their goal is to take care 
of their own. But we are one nation, and in the words of Alexander 
Hamilton, ``a nation without a national government is an awful 
spectacle.''
  We need to approach national problems with national solutions. We 
need to establish Federal policies to tackle issues with interstate 
effects. And we need to promote a national government motivated by a 
concern for decency, equity, and compassion.
  That is why the Federal Government has set standards to prevent 
States from cutting off food stamps to children or eliminating aid to 
legal immigrants. As a nation, we agree that we need to reform welfare; 
as a U.S. Senator, I am not prepared to allow States to abolish it.
  Philosophically, then, I am troubled by this bill.
  Practically, I am appalled by it.
  Despite significant improvements made in the mechanics of the bill by 
Senator Levin and others, it still presents us with a legislative maze.
  It imposes an unacceptable burden on the Congressional Budget Office, 
which is tasked with the responsibility of providing us with cost 
estimates on literally hundreds of bills and amendments--a task which, 
in some cases, will be impossible.
  It creates at least two points of order which can be raised against 
any bill or amendment and will, in some cases, prevent the Senate from 
dealing efficiently with what should be routine matters. Despite the 
fact that the American people have told us that they have had quite 
enough of delay and procedural ploys and gridlock, this bill will give 
any individual Senator an opportunity to impede progress on any 
legislation. The Senate will, I am convinced, rue the day that it 
created the procedure contained in this bill.
  Mr. President, I believe that the bipartisan work we did last year 
should have been ratified this year. Instead, blown by changing 
political winds, some Members decided we should go further than they 
had last year. The net result is a bill which superficially claims to 
be similar to last year's effort but is, in reality, a mandate for 
gridlock and an expression of unfounded fear of a federal system of 
government. It is also, unfortunately, a bill that I cannot support.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I believe that for too long we in this body 
have taken a paternalistic attitude toward our colleagues in State and 
local governments, by telling them that we know best how they ought to 
conduct their business. We have been too willing to require State and 
local governments to address a problem, without giving them the 
financial assistance necessary to carry out that mandate. We forget 
that, if we pass the buck to State and local governments to fix these 
problems, we should also be willing to pass the bucks to pay for it, or 
be explicit that we are not doing so.
  It is for that reason that I support this bill and intend to vote for 
final passage.
  I appreciate the frustration of State and local officials as they 
have watched Federal funding to counties decline dramatically in the 
last decade, just as they have experienced a sharp rise in the demands 
the Federal Government has placed on them to fund Federal regulations 
and programs.
  Let's face it, the Reagan-Bush policies which shifted more 
responsibility to State and local governments often did not include the 
necessary funds to pay for these programs. I have seen one estimate 
that funding to local governments under the Reagan administration 
declined by 50 percent. When you combine this shift with the erosion of 
the local tax revenue base caused by the recession of the early 1990's 
it is no surprise that State and local leaders are throwing up their 
hands in despair.
  However, having said that, I agree with many of the comments made by 
my colleagues in the past week and a half regarding the complex nature 
of this bill, and the potential unintended consequences that might 
arise under this legislation.
  That is why I offered an amendment, which was adopted, to ensure that 
we have not created a disincentive for States and local governments to 
take action. We must not stifle innovation at the State and local level 
by suggesting that those who wait for Congress to act will be rewarded 
with Federal funds. We
 must work to ensure that this legislation does not penalize those 
States and local governments that are working to solve their own 
problems. This legislation was not intended to create gridlock at the 
State and local level.

  That is also why I supported a sunset amendment. We will need to step 
back at some point down the road and determine if this process to make 
Congress explicit about the cost of mandates, and make us pay for them, 
has tied our own hands too much.
  Mandates are not necessarily a dirty word and we should all remember 
that there are some good things that are in all our interests. The 
exclusions in the bill reflect some of these priorities: The 
constitutional rights of individuals, laws and regulations that 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, 
national origin, or handicapped, or disability status, emergency 
assistance at the request of States and local governments, and 
legislation necessary for our national security. There are other 
priorities which I wish had been included in the exemptions in this 
bill, such as legislation relating to class A human carcinogens, 
legislation which would impact the well-being of pregnant women, young 
children and the frail elderly, and legislation relating to child 
pornography, child labor laws, and child abuse.
  Mr. President, I regret that these amendments were not adopted and 
that many other important clarifying amendments were tabled, often 
along party lines.
  I support this legislation because I believe we have an obligation to 
be explicit about the mandates we are passing along to our States and 
local governments. Whether we decide to pay, for the mandate or not, we 
should be honest about what these mandates will cost.
  Because, Mr. President, we all know who really pays in the end, and 
that's the taxpayer.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, we are about to finish work on S. 1, the 
unfunded mandates legislation. This has been a difficult process, and I 
regret to say that I cannot support the final product. In the final 
analysis, I feel it will create a real obstacle to the kind of laws 
that we need to protect my State and my constituents.
  Earier, I offered an amendment to the bill that highlights the way 
all governments--Federal, State, and local--often pass on the costs of 
supplying needed services and that we need to work together to reduce 
the total bill paid by the taxpayer. I was pleased that this amendment 
was adopted nearly unanimously.
  In a nutshell, my point was: What difference does it make to a 
taxpayer if we cut Federal taxes, or refuse to raise them to pay for 
needed programs, and the taxpayers' State taxes increase? What 
difference does it make to the taxpayer if State taxes decrease or stay 
the same, when local taxes or property taxes increase in lock step? to 
[[Page S1677]] get control of the problem, we have to work together.
  This bill's stated purpose is to slow a process that is becoming all 
too common. We face a deficit that we all decry. We are loath to raise 
taxes or truly cut spending. Yet, we all see in our States problems, 
issues that require a Federal response. The result is: We pass a law, 
and we pass on the bill.
  This cannot go on. It has to change. We have to take into account the 
full cost--along with the benefits--of the laws we propose. And the 
legislation before us attempts a response.
  On the other hand, I represent my State of New Jersey. We know too 
well why national programs are often needed. For years, another State 
dumped sewage off our shore that polluted our shoreline. Without a 
Federal law, and Federal water quality standards, how could we protect 
our own? Air currents likewise have no respect for State boundaries. 
We're downwind of too many States that, frankly, aren't very concerned 
about our problems with air quality and our status as the second worst 
region in the country. It doesn't surprise me that the Governor of Ohio 
is strongly against Federal air quality regulations. But we in New 
Jersey can not clean up for them, too. This legislation makes it far 
too easy to block the creation and implementation of Federal laws 
intended to protect a State like New Jersey.
  We need a better accounting of the costs that are sometimes too slyly 
passed along. We need to give the Governors and mayors more funding and 
more regulatory flexibility to reduce costs. But,
 we need national programs, from time to time, and we don't need new 
ways for naysaying legislators or bureaucrats to keep us from 
protecting our own.

  Mr. President, eliminating or minimizing unfunded mandates is a 
laudable goal. But it cannot provide a straitjacket for the Congress or 
be the excuse for legislators to stop needed laws for the protection of 
the public. This bill should drive a rational decision on public 
mandates. It does much more.
  Last Congress, the Senate Government Affairs Committee reported an 
unfunded mandates bill that almost all of us would have supported. It 
wasn't as aggressive a bill as some would argue for. But that bill did 
require authorizing committees to recognize and acknowledge explicitly 
the cost to State and local officials of regulatory mandates. It 
represented real progress, and was strongly endorsed by Governors and 
mayors around the country.
  The Senate, however, has now complicated the issue immensely. Two 
weeks ago, we began the consideration of legislation that was 
substantially altered from the bill reported last Congress. Hearings on 
the bill were simply perfunctory and many of my colleagues have come to 
the floor with basic questions of how this bill will work in the 
future.
  Let me illustrate some of my own concerns about this legislation by 
talking about a specific piece of legislation, not a hypothetical, that 
I've introduced. It's a bill that I'm very proud of, that has strong 
bipartisan support, and is even implicitly part of the Contract With 
America. The bill is, frankly, a collection of mandates on States. It 
is the Interstate Child Support Enforcement Act, which I introduced 
last Congress as S. 689 and will reintroduce this year.
  A single parent has lost her ability to support her children when an 
absent parent moves out of State to evade court-ordered child support. 
This bill would repair all the holes in the interstate system of child 
support, to make those absent parents take responsibility for their 
children. This is a new bill, and these are new mandates, so there is 
no question that this legislation would apply to it.
  Child support enforcement exemplifies a certain type of Federal 
mandate on States: The mandate that smooths and improves relationships 
among States, to make an effective Federal system possible.
  Some advocates for improving child support enforcement argue that 
States don't do a good enough job of collecting, because $6 billion or 
so of court-ordered child support goes uncollected. They advocate 
replacing the State-based system with a fully Federal system, a whole 
new bureaucracy.
  I would rather make the State-based system work. If States are 
required to give full faith and credit to child support orders from 
another State, if they are required to use comparable support order 
forms, if they are required to withhold lottery winnings, for example, 
from deadbeat parents no matter where the children live, then the 
State-based system can work efficiently and cheaply. The mandate to 
California improves the program in New Jersey, and vice versa. The only 
alternative to this kind of mandate, which will be undercut by passage 
of this bill, is a new Federal bureaucracy.
  I do not imagine that a new bureaucracy would ever be the option 
preferred by the manager of this bill.
  Second, my colleagues have raised questions about whether it is 
practical to ask the Congressional Budget Office to estimate costs to 
States and localities. In the case of child support enforcement, we 
have already asked CBO to estimate the costs to States, and they have 
worked hard at the project. They have surveyed States, asking what they 
are already doing and asking them to estimate the cost of the new tasks 
that the legislation would require. Not only do we not yet know the 
exact cost, but I doubt that we know for sure, after more than a year 
of research, whether the total cost of the mandates, offset by savings, 
would even exceed $50 million, and thus fall under the purview of this 
bill.
  CBO doesn't get these figures out of thin air, after all. We are 
unfortunately overly dependent on States' own estimates, sometimes 
their overestimates, of the costs, and we are also forced to depend on 
outside advocacy organizations or State bureaucrats, both of which may 
have their own ideas about policy. The point has been made several 
times: Let's not treat this CBO analysis with a reverence that even the 
CBO would have to admit is undeserved.
  Third, S.1 will track and complicate all legislation for years beyond 
when the authorizing committee acts. I'm sure many of the bill's 
supporters look at this as a positive feature of the bill. But I join 
the many Senators who have raised questions about the possibility of 
shifting legislative authority to regulators and bureaucrats, if 
authorized funding--needed to offset the mandate costs--is not fully 
forthcoming from the appropriators.
  The response to these concerns has generally followed one line. Under 
the terms of S.1, the authorizing committee will lay out ``procedures 
under which such agency shall implement less costly programmatic and 
financial responsibilities * * * to the extent the an Appropriation Act 
does not provide for the estimated direct costs of such mandate.'' In 
other words, we expect the authorizing committee to lay out which 
mandates become inoperative if the appropriators fail to provide 100 
percent of the amount.
  Mr. President, I'm sorry, but this just doesn't pass the straight 
face test. Do we really expect the authorizing committees to provide a 
complete or even partially complete roadmap to account for all of the 
infinite possibilities open to future appropriators? The appropriators 
might provide 10 percent of the money, then go to 30 percent, then back 
to 20 percent--do we really expect that guidance provided by the 
authorizing committee will answer the issues raised? If this bill 
wasn't so important, we'd be laughing about this provision and its 
ludicrous implications.
  If we take this idea seriously, every authorizing committee will have 
to come up with a complex decision tree for every law. If the 
appropriations are 30 percent, it would say, then implement regulation 
X, but only partially implement regulation Y. If appropriations are 40 
percent, enforce X and Y but not Z. If we cannot map this out, we're 
leaving it up to bureaucrats to decide which laws to enforce. And this 
is a simple case. One appropriation directly funds three mandates. What 
happens in a more complex case, such as a block grant that States can 
use as they choose to fund mandates or their own priorities?
  I hope my colleagues will consider the implications of this question 
before they begin their parallel drive to convert categorical Federal 
programs into block grants. Again, I will use child support as an 
example. Federal funds help States collect child support from the 
absent parents of children on 
[[Page S1678]] AFDC. For some activities, the Federal Government pays 
75 percent of the cost of the mandate; in other cases there is an 
enhanced match to provide an incentive by rewarding success. The 
formula is complex, but in no case does the Federal Government pay 100 
percent which is appropriate because it is the responsibility of the 
State to enforce child support and minimize welfare costs.
  I have seen reports that the latest Republican proposal on welfare 
reform will involve consolidating hundreds of individual programs into 
one, open-ended block grant. Presumably this would include the $2.2 
billion IV-D program for States to collect child support. What happens 
if that program is folded in with many other welfare programs into a 
block grant of $20 or $30 billion, with no more matching rate or 
incentive payments? States could spend all the money to collect child 
support, or none of it? Is the mandate now to be considered totally 
unfunded, since there is no money specifically directed to it? Or is it 
now fully funded, since States could pay for it by shifting welfare 
funds away from other needs?
  Mr. President, yesterday, we passed an amendment offered by Senator 
Byrd which tried to address these two issues by creating yet another 
legislative procedure. While I appreciate the intent of the amendment 
and endorse it, let no one think that this amendment solves these 
problems. Even if the authorizing committees act responsibly, even if 
the appropriators do everything they can, this new process still does 
not mitigate against real possibilities that have nightmarish 
implications.
  What if there is an across-the-board sequester of funding? Does every 
agency stop implementing regulations?
  The Byrd amendment was agreed to and improved the bill. But amendment 
after amendment was voted down, often on a party line. We tried to 
prevent regulations from targeting the private sector. This was 
rejected. We tried to prevent new roadblocks to legislation protecting 
children and the elderly. Rejected. We tried to make workable the point 
of order. Rejected.
  Mr. President, I say today that I would have supported a bill to 
protect the States and local governments against unfunded mandates. I 
would have supported the legislation from last Congress, which was 
loudly endorsed on a bipartisan basis and by all the State and local 
government groups. But I cannot endorse S.1.
  In the past, we have passed legislation to clean the air and water. 
We've passed legislation to protect the public health and safety. We've 
passed legislation to ensure the preservation of our oceans, our 
beaches, our public lands. We do not do this because we desire to pass 
costs on to the States. We do this because this is what the public 
demands.
  Certainly, we have to consider the costs to the States and local 
governments when we pass important legislation. This bill goes much 
farther. I believe that this bill will, if passed, be used to undercut 
fundamental laws that exist or will be created to improve our world and 
safeguard the public. I cannot support such a step.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, our Nation's Governors, mayors, and 
county executives have long sought relief from the imposition of 
unfunded mandates by the Federal Government. For to long, we have 
thought too little about the consequences of Federal decisions on the 
budgets of States, cities, counties, and towns. With the passage of 
S.1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, the Senate has undertaken an 
important and historic restructuring of the intergovernmental 
relationship between Washington and State and local governments.
  Much of the debate on this bill has been about achieving an 
appropriate balance between the need to reduce the fiscal burdens on 
State and local governments and concern over impairment of the ability 
of Congress to legislate in areas where Federal responsibility is 
clear. Several amendments were debated on the floor in an attempt to 
achieve this balance. Among the amendments which I supported, but which 
was defeated, was one which would have excluded from S.1's procedures 
mandates intended to apply equally to governmental entities and the 
private sector. Passage of this amendment would have expressly 
precluded situations from arising where either health and safety 
standards would apply differently to State and local governments than 
to the private sector, or where the private sector could have been 
placed at a competitive disadvantage. Although a separate amendment was 
approved requiring authorizing committees to include a description of 
any action taken by the committee to avoid any adverse impact on the 
competitive balance between the public and private sectors, this 
situation will nonetheless bear close watching.
  Despite the failure of this amendment and others I supported to be 
adopted, I have concluded that, on balance, S.1 is worthy of support. 
It recognizes--for the first time--that the Federal Government must 
consider the budgetary impact on States and localities of the laws we 
enact and the regulations we promulgate. This was an important 
acknowledgement and, I believe, a positive step.
  I commend the managers of this legislation, and look forward House 
passage ad swift approval by the President.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask that we now go to third reading 
of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] and the 
Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--10

     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Hollings
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Sarbanes

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Akaka
     Gramm
     Inouye
     McCain
  So the bill (S. 1), as amended, was passed, as follows:
                                  S. 1

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
     of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to strengthen the partnership between the Federal 
     Government and State, local, and tribal governments;
       (2) to end the imposition, in the absence of full 
     consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, 
     local, and tribal governments without adequate Federal 
     funding, in 
     [[Page S1679]] a manner that may displace other essential 
     State, local, and tribal governmental priorities;
       (3) to assist Congress in its consideration of proposed 
     legislation establishing or revising Federal programs 
     containing Federal mandates affecting State, local, and 
     tribal governments, and the private sector by--
       (A) providing for the development of information about the 
     nature and size of mandates in proposed legislation; and
       (B) establishing a mechanism to bring such information to 
     the attention of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     before the Senate and the House of Representatives vote on 
     proposed legislation;
       (4) to promote informed and deliberate decisions by 
     Congress on the appropriateness of Federal mandates in any 
     particular instance;
       (5) to require that Congress consider whether to provide 
     funding to assist State, local, and tribal governments in 
     complying with Federal mandates, to require analyses of the 
     impact of private sector mandates, and through the 
     dissemination of that information provide informed and 
     deliberate decisions by Congress and Federal agencies and 
     retain competitive balance between the public and private 
     sectors;
       (6) to establish a point-of-order vote on the consideration 
     in the Senate and House of Representatives of legislation 
     containing significant Federal mandates; and
       (7) to assist Federal agencies in their consideration of 
     proposed regulations affecting State, local, and tribal 
     governments, by--
       (A) requiring that Federal agencies develop a process to 
     enable the elected and other officials of State, local, and 
     tribal governments to provide input when Federal agencies are 
     developing regulations; and
       (B) requiring that Federal agencies prepare and consider 
     better estimates of the budgetary impact of regulations 
     containing Federal mandates upon State, local, and tribal 
     governments before adopting such regulations, and ensuring 
     that small governments are given special consideration in 
     that process.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the terms defined under section 408(h) of the 
     Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as 
     added by section 101 of this Act) shall have the meanings as 
     so defined; and
       (2) the term ``Director'' means the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
     SEC. 4. EXCLUSIONS.

       This Act shall not apply to any provision in a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report before 
     Congress and any provision in a proposed or final Federal 
     regulation that--
       (1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
       (2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that 
     prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
     religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability;
       (3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing 
     procedures with respect to grants or other money or property 
     provided by the United States Government;
       (4) 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;
       (5) is necessary for the national security or the 
     ratification or implementation of international treaty 
     obligations; or
       (6) the President designates as emergency legislation and 
     that the Congress so designates in statute.

     SEC. 5. AGENCY ASSISTANCE.

       Each agency shall provide to the Director such information 
     and assistance as the Director may reasonably request to 
     assist the Director in carrying out this Act.
             TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

     SEC. 101. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .

       (a) In General.--Title IV of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following new section:

     ``SEC. 408. LEGISLATIVE MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM .

       ``(a) Duties of Congressional Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--When a committee of authorization of the 
     Senate or the House of Representatives reports a bill or 
     joint resolution of public character that includes any 
     Federal mandate, the report of the committee accompanying the 
     bill or joint resolution shall contain the information 
     required by paragraphs (3) and (4).
       ``(2) Submission of bills to the director.--When a 
     committee of authorization of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives orders reported a bill or joint resolution of 
     a public character, the committee shall promptly provide the 
     bill or joint resolution to the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office and shall identify to the Director any Federal 
     mandates contained in the bill or resolution.
       ``(3) Reports on federal mandates.--Each report described 
     under paragraph (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) an identification and description of any Federal 
     mandates in the bill or joint resolution, including the 
     direct costs to State, local, and tribal governments, and to 
     the private sector, required to comply with the Federal 
     mandates;
       ``(B) a qualitative, and if practicable, a quantitative 
     assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal 
     mandates (including the effects on health and safety and the 
     protection of the natural environment); and
       ``(C) a statement of the degree to which a Federal mandate 
     affects both the public and private sectors and the extent to 
     which Federal payment of public sector costs or the 
     modification or termination of the Federal mandate as 
     provided under subsection (c)(1)(B) would affect the 
     competitive balance between State, local, or tribal 
     governments and privately owned businesses including a 
     description of the actions, if any, taken by the committee to 
     avoid any adverse impact on the private sector or the 
     competitive balance between the public sector and the private 
     sector.
       ``(4) Intergovernmental mandates.--If any of the Federal 
     mandates in the bill or joint resolution are Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates, the report required under 
     paragraph (1) shall also contain--
       ``(A)(i) a statement of the amount, if any, of increase or 
     decrease in authorization of appropriations under existing 
     Federal financial assistance programs, or of authorization of 
     appropriations for new Federal financial assistance, provided 
     by the bill or joint resolution and usable for activities of 
     State, local, or tribal governments subject to the Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates;
       ``(ii) a statement of whether the committee intends that 
     the Federal intergovernmental mandates be partly or entirely 
     unfunded, and if so, the reasons for that intention; and
       ``(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; 
     and
       ``(B) any existing sources of Federal assistance in 
     addition to those identified in subparagraph (A) that may 
     assist State, local, and tribal governments in meeting the 
     direct costs of the Federal intergovernmental mandates.
       ``(5) Preemption clarification and information.--When a 
     committee of authorization of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives reports a bill or joint resolution of public 
     character, the committee report accompanying the bill or 
     joint resolution shall contain, if relevant to the bill or 
     joint resolution, an explicit statement on the extent to 
     which the bill or joint resolution preempts any State, local, 
     or tribal law, and, if so, an explanation of the reasons for 
     such preemption.
       ``(6) Publication of statement from the director.--
       ``(A) Upon receiving a statement (including any 
     supplemental statement) from the Director under subsection 
     (b), a committee of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives shall publish the statement in the committee 
     report accompanying the bill or joint resolution to which the 
     statement relates if the statement is available at the time 
     the report is printed.
       ``(B) If the statement is not published in the report, or 
     if the bill or joint resolution to which the statement 
     relates is expected to be considered by the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives before the report is published, the 
     committee shall cause the statement, or a summary thereof, to 
     be published in the Congressional Record in advance of floor 
     consideration of the bill or joint resolution.
       ``(b) Duties of the Director; Statements on Bills and Joint 
     Resolutions Other Than Appropriations Bills and Joint 
     Resolutions.--
       ``(1) Federal intergovernmental mandates in reported bills 
     and resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee of authorization 
     of the Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare and submit 
     to the committee a statement as follows:
       ``(A) If the Director estimates that the direct cost of all 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution will equal or exceed $50,000,000 (adjusted 
     annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate in the bill or joint 
     resolution (or in any necessary implementing regulation) 
     would first be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years 
     following such fiscal year, the Director shall so state, 
     specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis of the 
     estimate.
       ``(B) The estimate required under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include estimates (and brief explanations of the basis of the 
     estimates) of--
       ``(i) the total amount of direct cost of complying with the 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution, but no more than 10 years beyond the effective 
     date of the mandate; and
       ``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of 
     appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance 
     programs, or of authorization of appropriations for new 
     Federal financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint 
     resolution and usable by State, local, or tribal governments 
     for activities subject to the Federal intergovernmental 
     mandates.
       ``(C) If the Director determines that it is not feasible to 
     make a reasonable estimate that would be required under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Director shall not make the 
     estimate, but shall report in the statement that the 
     reasonable estimate cannot be made 
     [[Page S1680]] and shall include the reasons for that 
     determination in the statement. If such determination is made 
     by the Director, a point of order shall lie only under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) and as if the requirement of subsection 
     (c)(1)(A) had not been met.
       ``(2) Federal private sector mandates in reported bills and 
     joint resolutions.--For each bill or joint resolution of a 
     public character reported by any committee of authorization 
     of the Senate or the House of Representatives, the Director 
     of the Congressional Budget Office shall prepare and submit 
     to the committee a statement as follows:
       ``(A) If the Director estimates that the direct cost of all 
     Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution will equal or exceed $200,000,000 (adjusted 
     annually for inflation) in the fiscal year in which any 
     Federal private sector mandate in the bill or joint 
     resolution (or in any necessary implementing regulation) 
     would first be effective or in any of the 4 fiscal years 
     following such fiscal year, the Director shall so state, 
     specify the estimate, and briefly explain the basis of the 
     estimate.
       ``(B) Estimates required under this paragraph shall include 
     estimates (and a brief explanation of the basis of the 
     estimates) of--
       ``(i) the total amount of direct costs of complying with 
     the Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution, but no more than 10 years beyond the effective 
     date of the mandate; and
       ``(ii) the amount, if any, of increase in authorization of 
     appropriations under existing Federal financial assistance 
     programs, or of authorization of appropriations for new 
     Federal financial assistance, provided by the bill or joint 
     resolution usable by the private sector for the activities 
     subject to the Federal private sector mandates.
       ``(C) If the Director determines that it is not feasible to 
     make a reasonable estimate that would be required under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Director shall not make the 
     estimate, but shall report in the statement that the 
     reasonable estimate cannot be made and shall include the 
     reasons for that determination in the statement.
       ``(3) Legislation falling below the direct costs 
     thresholds.--If the Director estimates that the direct costs 
     of a Federal mandate will not equal or exceed the thresholds 
     specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), the Director shall so 
     state and shall briefly explain the basis of the estimate.
       ``(4) Amended bills and joint resolutions; conference 
     reports.--If a bill or joint resolution is passed in an 
     amended form (including if passed by one House as an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute for the text of a 
     bill or joint resolution from the other House) or is reported 
     by a committee of conference in amended form, and the amended 
     form contains a Federal mandate not previously considered by 
     either House or which contains an increase in the direct cost 
     of a previously considered Federal mandate, then the 
     committee of conference shall ensure, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, that the Director shall prepare a statement as 
     provided in this paragraph or a supplemental statement for 
     the bill or joint resolution in that amended form.
       ``(c) Legislation Subject to Point of Order in the 
     Senate.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider--
       ``(A) any bill or joint resolution that is reported by a 
     committee unless the committee has published a statement of 
     the Director on the direct costs of Federal mandates in 
     accordance with subsection (a)(6) before such consideration; 
     and
       ``(B) any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would increase the direct costs of 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates by an amount that causes 
     the thresholds specified in subsection (b)(1)(A) to be 
     exceeded, unless--
       ``(i) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides direct spending authority for each 
     fiscal year for the Federal intergovernmental mandates 
     included in the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report in an amount that is equal to the direct 
     costs of such mandate;
       ``(ii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report provides an increase in receipts and an 
     increase in direct spending authority for each fiscal year 
     for the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference 
     report in an amount equal to the direct costs of such 
     mandate; or
       ``(iii) the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report includes an authorization for 
     appropriations in an amount equal to the direct costs of such 
     mandate, and--
       ``(I) identifies a specific dollar amount of the direct 
     costs of the mandate for each year or other period up to 10 
     years during which the mandate shall be in effect under the 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report, and such estimate is consistent with the estimate 
     determined under paragraph (5) for each fiscal year; and
       ``(II) identifies any appropriation bill that is expected 
     to provide for Federal funding of the direct cost referred to 
     under subclause (III);
       ``(III)(aa) provides that if for any fiscal year the 
     responsible Federal agency determines that there are 
     insufficient appropriations to provide for the estimated 
     direct costs of the mandate, the Federal agency shall (not 
     later than 30 days after the beginning of the fiscal year) 
     notify the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress of 
     the determination and submit either--

       ``(1) a statement that the agency has determined, based on 
     a re-estimate of the direct costs of a mandate, after 
     consultation with State, local, and tribal governments, that 
     the amount appropriated is sufficient to pay for the direct 
     costs of the mandate; or
       ``(2) legislative recommendations for either implementing a 
     less costly mandate or making the mandate ineffective for the 
     fiscal year;

       ``(bb) provides expedited procedures for the consideration 
     of the statement or legislative recommendations referred to 
     in item (aa) by Congress not later than 30 days after the 
     statement or recommendations are submitted to Congress; and
       ``(cc) provides that the mandate shall--

       ``(1) in the case of a statement referred to in item 
     (aa)(1), cease to be effective 60 days after the statement is 
     submitted unless Congress has approved the agency's 
     determination by joint resolution during the 60-day period;
       ``(2) cease to be effective 60 days after the date the 
     legislative recommendations of the responsible Federal agency 
     are submitted to Congress under item (aa)(2) unless Congress 
     provides otherwise by law; or
       ``(3) in the case of a mandate that has not yet taken 
     effect, continue not to be effective unless Congress provides 
     otherwise by law.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--The provisions of paragraph 
     (1)(B)(III) shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise 
     restrict a State, local, or tribal government from 
     voluntarily electing to remain subject to the original 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate, complying with the 
     programmatic or financial responsibilities of the original 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate and providing the funding 
     necessary consistent with the costs of Federal agency 
     assistance, monitoring, and enforcement.
       ``(3) Committee on appropriations.--(A) Paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) shall not apply to any bill or resolution reported by 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives; but
       ``(ii) shall apply to--
       ``(I) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of 
     a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in any bill or 
     resolution reported by such Committee;
       ``(II) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of 
     a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in any 
     amendment offered to a bill or resolution reported by such 
     Committee;
       ``(III) any legislative provision increasing direct costs 
     of a Federal intergovernmental mandate in a conference report 
     accompanying a bill or resolution reported by such Committee; 
     and
       ``(IV) any legislative provision increasing direct costs of 
     a Federal intergovernmental mandate contained in any 
     amendments in disagreement between the two Houses to any bill 
     or resolution reported by such Committee.
       ``(B) Upon a point of order being made by any Senator 
     against any provision listed in subparagraph (A)(ii), and the 
     point of order being sustained by the Chair, such specific 
     provision shall be deemed stricken from the bill, resolution, 
     amendment, amendment in disagreement, or conference report 
     and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
       ``(4) Determinations of applicability to pending 
     legislation.--For purposes of this subsection, in the Senate, 
     the presiding officer of the Senate shall consult with the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable, 
     on questions concerning the applicability of this section to 
     a pending bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report.
       ``(5) Determinations of federal mandate levels.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, in the Senate, the levels of 
     Federal mandates for a fiscal year shall be determined based 
     on the estimates made by the Committee on the Budget.
       ``(d) Enforcement in the House of Representatives.--It 
     shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to 
     consider a rule or order that waives the application of 
     subsection (c) to a bill or joint resolution reported by a 
     committee of authorization.
       ``(e) Requests From Senators.--At the written request of a 
     Senator, the Director shall, to the extent practicable, 
     prepare an estimate of the direct costs of a Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate contained in a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or motion of such Senator.
       ``(f) Clarification of Application.--(1) This section 
     applies to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that reauthorizes appropriations, or that 
     amends existing authorizations of appropriations, to carry 
     out any statute, or that otherwise amends any statute, only 
     if enactment of the bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report--
       ``(A) would result in a net reduction in or elimination of 
     authorization of appropriations for Federal financial 
     assistance that would be provided to State, local, or tribal 
     governments for use for the purpose of complying with any 
     Federal intergovernmental mandate, or to the private sector 
     for use to comply with any Federal private sector mandate, 
     and would not eliminate or reduce duties established by the 
     Federal mandate by a corresponding amount; or
       ``(B) would result in a net increase in the aggregate 
     amount of direct costs of Federal 
     [[Page S1681]] intergovernmental mandates or Federal private 
     sector mandates otherwise than as described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(2)(A) For purposes of this section, the direct cost of 
     the Federal mandates in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report that reauthorizes 
     appropriations, or that amends existing authorizations of 
     appropriations, to carry out a statute, or that otherwise 
     amends any statute, means the net increase, resulting from 
     enactment of the bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 
     or conference report, in the amount described under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) over the amount described under 
     subparagraph (B)(ii).
       ``(B) The amounts referred to under subparagraph (A) are--
       ``(i) the aggregate amount of direct costs of Federal 
     mandates that would result under the statute if the bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report is 
     enacted; and
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of direct costs of Federal 
     mandates that would result under the statute if the bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     were not enacted.
       ``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, in the case of 
     legislation to extend authorization of appropriations, the 
     authorization level that would be provided by the extension 
     shall be compared to the auhorization level for the last year 
     in which authorization of appropriations is already provided.
       ``(g) Exclusions.--This section shall not apply to any 
     provision in a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report before Congress that--
       ``(1) enforces constitutional rights of individuals;
       ``(2) establishes or enforces any statutory rights that 
     prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
     religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability;
       ``(3) requires compliance with accounting and auditing 
     procedures with respect to grants or other money or property 
     provided by the United States Government;
       ``(4) 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;
       ``(5) is necessary for the national security or the 
     ratification or implementation of international treaty 
     obligations; or
       ``(6) the President designates as emergency legislation and 
     that the Congress so designates in statute.
       ``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) The term `Federal intergovernmental mandate' means--
       ``(A) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
     that--
       ``(i) would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, 
     or tribal governments, except--

       ``(I) a condition of Federal assistance; or
       ``(II) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program, except as provided in subparagraph (B)); or

       ``(ii) would reduce or eliminate the amount of 
     authorization of appropriations for--

       ``(I) Federal financial assistance that would be provided 
     to State, local, or tribal governments for the purpose of 
     complying with any such previously imposed duty unless such 
     duty is reduced or eliminated by a corresponding amount; or
       ``(II) the control of borders by the Federal Government; or 
     reimbursement to State, local, or tribal governments for the 
     net cost associated with illegal, deportable, and excludable 
     aliens, including court-mandated expenses related to 
     emergency health care, education or criminal justice; when 
     such a reduction or elimination would result in increased net 
     costs to State, local, or tribal governments in providing 
     education or emergency health care to, or incarceration of, 
     illegal aliens; except that this subclause shall not be in 
     effect with respect to a State, local, or tribal government, 
     to the extent that such government has not fully cooperated 
     in the efforts of the Federal Government to locate, 
     apprehend, and deport illegal aliens;

       ``(B) any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
     that relates to a then-existing Federal program under which 
     $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, 
     and tribal governments under entitlement authority, if the 
     provision--
       ``(i)(I) would increase the stringency of conditions of 
     assistance to State, local, or tribal governments under the 
     program; or
       ``(II) would place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the 
     Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding to 
     State, local, or tribal governments under the program; and
       ``(ii) the State, local, or tribal governments that 
     participate in the Federal program lack authority under that 
     program to amend their financial or programmatic 
     responsibilities to continue providing required services that 
     are affected by the legislation, statute, or regulation.
       ``(2) The term `Federal private sector mandate' means any 
     provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that--
       ``(A) would impose an enforceable duty upon the private 
     sector except--
       ``(i) a condition of Federal assistance; or
       ``(ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary 
     Federal program; or
       ``(B) would reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization 
     of appropriations for Federal financial assistance that will 
     be provided to the private sector for the purposes of 
     ensuring compliance with such duty.
       ``(3) The term `Federal mandate' means a Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector 
     mandate, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(4) The terms `Federal mandate direct costs' and `direct 
     costs'--
       ``(A)(i) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate, mean the aggregate estimated amounts that all State, 
     local, and tribal governments would be required to spend in 
     order to comply with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; 
     or
       ``(ii) in the case of a provision referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), mean the amount of Federal financial assistance 
     eliminated or reduced;
       ``(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate, mean 
     the aggregate estimated amounts that the private sector will 
     be required to spend in order to comply with the Federal 
     private sector mandate;
       ``(C) shall not include--
       ``(i) estimated amounts that the State, local, and tribal 
     governments (in the case of a Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate) or the private sector (in the case of a Federal 
     private sector mandate) would spend--

       ``(I) to comply with or carry out all applicable Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal laws and regulations in effect at 
     the time of the adoption of the Federal mandate for the same 
     activity as is affected by that Federal mandate; or
       ``(II) to comply with or carry out State, local, and tribal 
     governmental programs, or private-sector business or other 
     activities in effect at the time of the adoption of the 
     Federal mandate for the same activity as is affected by that 
     mandate; or

       ``(ii) expenditures to the extent that such expenditures 
     will be offset by any direct savings to the State, local, and 
     tribal governments, or by the private sector, as a result 
     of--

       ``(I) compliance with the Federal mandate; or
       ``(II) other changes in Federal law or regulation that are 
     enacted or adopted in the same bill or joint resolution or 
     proposed or final Federal regulation and that govern the same 
     activity as is affected by the Federal mandate; and

       ``(D) shall be determined on the assumption that State, 
     local, and tribal governments, and the private sector will 
     take all reasonable steps necessary to mitigate the costs 
     resulting from the Federal mandate, and will comply with 
     applicable standards of practice and conduct established by 
     recognized professional or trade associations. Reasonable 
     steps to mitigate the costs shall not include increases in 
     State, local, or tribal taxes or fees.
       ``(5) The term `amount', with respect to an authorization 
     of appropriations for Federal financial assistance, means the 
     amount of budget authority for any Federal grant assistance 
     program or any Federal program providing loan guarantees or 
     direct loans.
       ``(6) The term `private sector' means all persons or 
     entitles in the United States, including individuals, 
     partnerships, associations, corporations, and educational and 
     nonprofit institutions, but shall not include State, local, 
     or tribal governments.
       ``(7) The term `local government' has the same meaning as 
     in section 6501(6) of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(8) The term `tribal government' means any Indian tribe, 
     band, nation, or other organized group or community, 
     including any Alaska Native village or regional or village 
     corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688; 43 U.S.C. 
     1601 et seq.) which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their special status as Indians.
       ``(9) The term `small government' means any small 
     governmental jurisdictions defined in section 601(5) of title 
     5, United States Code, and any tribal government.
       ``(10) The term `State' has the same meaning as in section 
     6501(9) of title 31, United State Code.
       ``(11) The term `agency' has the meaning as defined in 
     section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code, but does not 
     include independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 
     section 3502(10) of title 44, United States Code, or the 
     Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Office of 
     Thrift Supervision.
       ``(12) The term `regulation' or `rule' has the meaning of 
     `rule' as defined in section 601(2) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       ``(13) The term `direct savings', when used with respect to 
     the result of compliance with the Federal mandate--
       ``(A) in the case of a Federal intergovernmental mandate, 
     means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to any 
     State, local, or tribal government as a result of compliance 
     with the Federal intergovernmental mandate; and
       ``(B) in the case of a Federal private sector mandate, 
     means the aggregate estimated reduction in costs to the 
     private sector as a result of compliance with the Federal 
     private sector mandate.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding after 
     the item relating to section 407 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Legislative mandate accountability and reform.''.
     SEC. 102. ASSISTANCE TO COMMITTEES AND STUDIES.

       The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
     1974 is amended--
       (1) in section 202--
     [[Page S1682]]   (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (ii) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) At the request of any committee of the Senate or the 
     House of Representatives, the Office shall, to the extent 
     practicable, consult with and assist such committee in 
     analyzing the budgetary or financial impact of any proposed 
     legislation that may have--
       ``(A) a significant budgetary impact on State, local, or 
     tribal governments; or
       ``(B) a significant financial impact on the private 
     sector.'';
       (B) by amending subsection (h) to read as follows:
       ``(h) Studies.--
       ``(1) Continuing studies.--The Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall conduct continuing studies 
     to enhance comparisons of budget outlays, credit authority, 
     and tax expenditures.
       ``(2) Federal mandate studies.--
       ``(A) At the request of any Chairman or ranking member of 
     the minority of a Committee of the Senate or the House of 
     Representatives, the Director shall, to the extent 
     practicable, conduct a study of a Federal mandate legislative 
     proposal.
       ``(B) In conducting a study on intergovernmental mandates 
     under subparagraph (A), the Director shall--
       ``(i) solicit and consider information or comments from 
     elected officials (including their designated 
     representatives) of State, local, or tribal governments as 
     may provide helpful information or comments;
       ``(ii) consider establishing advisory panels of elected 
     officials or their designated representatives, of State, 
     local, or tribal governments if the Director determines that 
     such advisory panels would be helpful in performing 
     responsibilities of the Director under this section; and
       ``(iii) if, and to the extent that the Director determines 
     that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible, include 
     estimates of--

       ``(I) the future direct cost of the Federal mandate to the 
     extent that such costs significantly differ from or extend 
     beyond the 5-year period after the mandate is first 
     effective; and
       ``(II) any disproportionate budgetary effects of Federal 
     mandates upon particular industries or sectors of the 
     economy, States, regions, and urban or rural or other types 
     of communities, as appropriate.

       ``(C) In conducting a study on private sector mandates 
     under subparagraph (A), the Director shall provide estimates, 
     if and to the extent that the Director determines that such 
     estimates are reasonably feasible, of--
       ``(i) future costs of Federal private sector mandates to 
     the extent that such mandates differ significantly from or 
     extend beyond the 5-year time period referred to in 
     subparagraph (B)(iii)(I);
       ``(ii) any disproportionate financial effects of Federal 
     private sector mandates and of any Federal financial 
     assistance in the bill or joint resolution upon any 
     particular industries or sectors of the economy, States, 
     regions, and urban or rural or other types of communities; 
     and
       ``(iii) the effect of Federal private sector mandates in 
     the bill or joint resolution on the national economy, 
     including the effect on productivity, economic growth, full 
     employment, creation of productive jobs, and international 
     competitiveness of United States goods and services.''; and
       (2) in section 301(d) by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new sentence: ``Any Committee of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate that anticipates that the 
     committee will consider any proposed legislation 
     establishing, amending, or reauthorizing any Federal program 
     likely to have a significant budgetary impact on any State, 
     local, or tribal government, or likely to have a significant 
     financial impact on the private sector, including any 
     legislative proposal submitted by the executive branch likely 
     to have such a budgetary or financial impact, shall include 
     its views and estimates on that proposal to the Committee on 
     the Budget of the applicable House.''.

     SEC. 103. COST OF REGULATIONS.

       (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that Federal agencies should review and evaluate planned 
     regulations to ensure that the cost estimates provided by the 
     Congressional Budget Office will be carefully considered as 
     regulations are promulgated.
       (b) Statement of Cost.--At the written request of any 
     Senator, the Director shall, to the extent practicable, 
     prepare--
       (1) an estimate of the costs of regulations implementing an 
     Act containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408 of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
     as added by section 101(a) of this Act; and
       (2) a comparison of the costs of such regulations with the 
     cost estimate provided for such Act by the Congressional 
     Budget Office.
       (c) Cooperation of Office of Management and Budget.--At the 
     request of the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     provide data and cost estimates for regulations implementing 
     an Act containing a Federal mandate covered by section 408 of 
     the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 
     as added by section 101(a) of this Act.

     SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Congressional Budget Office $4,500,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 to carry 
     out the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 105. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       The provisions of section 101 are enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House, 
     respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only 
     to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.
     SEC. 106. REPEAL OF CERTAIN ANALYSIS BY CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET 
                   OFFICE.

       Section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (2);
       (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively;
       (2) by striking ``(a)''; and
       (3) by striking subsections (b) and (c).

     SEC. 107. CONSIDERATION FOR FEDERAL FUNDING.

       Nothing in this Act shall preclude a State, local, or 
     tribal government that already complies with all or part of 
     the Federal intergovernmental mandates included in the bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     from consideration for Federal funding for the cost of the 
     mandate, including the costs the State, local, or tribal 
     government is currently paying and any additional costs 
     necessary to meet the mandate.

     SEC. 108. IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Congress should be concerned about shifting costs 
     from Federal to State and local authorities and should be 
     equally concerned about the growing tendency of States to 
     shift costs to local governments;
       (2) cost shifting from States to local governments has, in 
     many instances, forced local governments to raise property 
     taxes or curtail sometimes essential services; and
       (3) increases in local property taxes and cuts in essential 
     services threaten the ability of many citizens to attain and 
     maintain the American dream of owning a home in a safe, 
     secure community.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not shift certain costs 
     to the State, and States should end the practice of shifting 
     costs to local governments, which forces many local 
     governments to increase property taxes;
       (2) States should end the imposition, in the absence of 
     full consideration by their legislatures, of State issued 
     mandates on local governments without adequate State funding, 
     in a manner that may displace other essential government 
     priorities; and
       (3) one primary objective of this Act and other efforts to 
     change the relationship among Federal, State, and local 
     governments should be to reduce taxes and spending at all 
     levels and to end the practice of shifting costs from one 
     level of government to another with little or no benefit to 
     taxpayers.

     SEC. 109. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on January 1, 1996 or on the 
     date 90 days after appropriations are made available as 
     authorized under section 104, whichever is earlier and shall 
     apply to legislation considered on and after such date.
             TITLE II--REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM

     SEC. 201. REGULATORY PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--Each agency shall, to the extent permitted 
     in law--
       (1) assess the effects of Federal regulations on State, 
     local, and tribal governments (other than to the extent that 
     such regulations incorporate requirements specifically set 
     forth in legislation), and the private sector, including 
     specifically the availability of resources to carry out any 
     Federal intergovernmental mandates in those regulations; and
       (2) seek to minimize those burdens that uniquely or 
     significantly affect such governmental entities, consistent 
     with achieving statutory and regulatory objectives.
       (b) State, Local, and Tribal Government Input.--Each agency 
     shall, to the extent permitted in law, develop an effective 
     process to permit elected officials (or their designated 
     representatives) of State, local, and tribal governments to 
     provide meaningful and timely input in the development of 
     regulatory proposals containing significant Federal 
     intergovernmental mandates. Such a process shall be 
     consistent with all applicable laws.
       (c) Agency Plan.--
       (1) Effects on state, local, and tribal governments.--
     Before establishing any regulatory requirements that might 
     significantly or uniquely affect small governments, agencies 
     shall have developed a plan under which the agency shall--
       (A) provide notice of the contemplated requirements to 
     potentially affected small governments, if any;
     [[Page S1683]]   (B) enable officials of affected small 
     governments to provide input under subsection (b); and
       (C) inform, educate, and advise small governments on 
     compliance with the requirements.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to each agency to carry out the provisions 
     of this section, and for no other purpose, such sums as are 
     necessary.

     SEC. 202. STATEMENTS TO ACCOMPANY SIGNIFICANT REGULATORY 
                   ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Before promulgating any final rule that 
     includes any Federal intergovernmental mandate that may 
     result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal 
     governments, and the private sector, in the aggregate, of 
     $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation by the 
     Consumer Price Index) in any 1 year, and before promulgating 
     any general notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to 
     result in promulgation of any such rule, the agency shall 
     prepare a written statement containing--
       (1) estimates by the agency, including the underlying 
     analysis, of the anticipated costs to State, local, and 
     tribal governments and the private sector of complying with 
     the Federal intergovernmental mandate, and of the extent to 
     which such costs may be paid with funds provided by the 
     Federal Government or otherwise paid through Federal 
     financial assistance;
       (2) estimates by the agency, if and to the extent that the 
     agency determines that accurate estimates are reasonably 
     feasible, of--
       (A) the future costs of the Federal intergovernmental 
     mandate; and
       (B) any disproportionate budgetary effects of the Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate upon any particular regions of the 
     Nation or particular State, local, or tribal governments, 
     urban or rural or other types of communities;
       (3) a qualitative, and if possible, a quantitative 
     assessment of costs and benefits anticipated from the Federal 
     intergovernmental mandate (such as the enhancement of health 
     and safety and the protection of the natural environment);
       (4) the effect of the Federal private sector mandate on the 
     national economy, including the effect on productivity, 
     economic growth, full employment, creation of productive 
     jobs, and international competitiveness of United States 
     goods and services; and
       (5)(A) a description of the extent of the agency's prior 
     consultation with elected representatives (or their 
     designated representatives) of the affected State, local, and 
     tribal governments;
       (B) a summary of the comments and concerns that were 
     presented by State, local, or tribal governments either 
     orally or in writing to the agency;
       (C) a summary of the agency's evaluation of those comments 
     and concerns; and
       (D) the agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
     regulation containing the Federal intergovernmental mandates 
     (considering, among other things, the extent to which costs 
     may or may not be paid with funds provided by the Federal 
     Government).
       (b) Agency Statement; Private Sector Mandates.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an agency 
     statement prepared pursuant to subsection (a) shall also be 
     prepared for a Federal private sector mandate that may result 
     in the expenditure by State, local, tribal governments, or 
     the private sector, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more 
     (adjusted annually for inflation by the Consumer Price Index) 
     in any 1 year.
       (c) Promulgation.--In promulgating a general notice of 
     proposed rulemaking or a final rule for which a statement 
     under subsection (a) is required, the agency shall include in 
     the promulgation a summary of the information contained in 
     the statement.
       (d) Preparation in Conjunction With Other Statement.--Any 
     agency may prepare any statement required under subsection 
     (a) in conjunction with or as a part of any other statement 
     or analysis, provided that the statement or analysis 
     satisfies the provisions of subsection (a).

     SEC. 203. ASSISTANCE TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.

       The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (1) collect from agencies the statements prepared under 
     section 202; and
       (2) periodically forward copies of such statements to the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office on a reasonably 
     timely basis after promulgation of the general notice of 
     proposed rulemaking or of the final rule for which the 
     statement was prepared.

     SEC. 204. PILOT PROGRAM ON SMALL GOVERNMENT FLEXIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, in consultation with Federal agencies, shall 
     establish pilot programs in at least 2 agencies to test 
     innovative, and more flexible regulatory approaches that--
       (1) reduce reporting and compliance burdens on small 
     governments; and
       (2) meet overall statutory goals and objectives.
       (b) Program Focus.--The pilot programs shall focus on rules 
     in effect or proposed rules, or a combination thereof.

     SEC. 205. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect 60 days after the date of enactment.
             TITLE III--REVIEW OF UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES

     SEC. 301. BASELINE STUDY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations (hereafter in this title referred 
     to as the ``Advisory Commission''), in consultation with the 
     Director, shall begin a study to examine the measurement and 
     definition issues involved in calculating the total costs and 
     benefits to State, local, and tribal governments of 
     compliance with Federal law.
       (b) Considerations.--The study required by this section 
     shall consider--
       (1) the feasibility of measuring indirect costs and 
     benefits as well as direct costs and benefits of the Federal, 
     State, local, and tribal relationship; and
       (2) how to measure both the direct and indirect benefits of 
     Federal financial assistance and tax benefits to State, 
     local, and tribal governments.

     SEC. 302. REPORT ON UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES BY ADVISORY 
                   COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations shall in accordance with this 
     section--
       (1) investigate and review the role of unfunded Federal 
     mandates in intergovernmental relations and their impact on 
     State, local, tribal, and Federal government objectives and 
     responsibilities;
       (2) make recommendations to the President and the Congress 
     regarding--
       (A) allowing flexibility for State, local, and tribal 
     governments in complying with specific unfunded Federal 
     mandates for which terms of compliance are unnecessarily 
     rigid or complex;
       (B) reconciling any 2 or more unfunded Federal mandates 
     which impose contradictory or inconsistent requirements;
       (C) terminating unfunded Federal mandates which are 
     duplicative, obsolete, or lacking in practical utility;
       (D) suspending, on a temporary basis, unfunded Federal 
     mandates which are not vital to public health and safety and 
     which compound the fiscal difficulties of State, local, and 
     tribal governments, including recommendations for triggering 
     such suspension;
       (E) consolidating or simplifying unfunded Federal mandates, 
     or the planning or reporting requirements of such mandates, 
     in order to reduce duplication and facilitate compliance by 
     State, local, and tribal governments with those mandates; and
       (F) establishing common Federal definitions or standards to 
     be used by State, local, and tribal governments in complying 
     with unfunded Federal mandates that use different definitions 
     or standards for the same terms or principles; and
       (3) identify in each recommendation made under paragraph 
     (2), to the extent practicable, the specific unfunded Federal 
     mandates to which the recommendation applies.
       (b) Treatment of Requirements for Metric Systems of 
     Measurement.--
       (1) Treatment.--For purposes of subsection (a) (1) and (2), 
     the Commission shall consider requirements for metric systems 
     of measurement to be Federal mandates.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``requirements for metric systems of measurement'' means 
     requirements of the departments, agencies, and other entities 
     of the Federal Government that State, local, and tribal 
     governments utilize metric systems of measurement.
       (c) Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall establish criteria 
     for making recommendations under subsection (a).
       (2) Issuance of proposed criteria.--The Commission shall 
     issue proposed criteria under this subsection not later than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     thereafter provide a period of 30 days for submission by the 
     public of comments on the proposed criteria.
       (3) Final criteria.--Not later than 45 days after the date 
     of issuance of proposed criteria, the Commission shall--
       (A) consider comments on the proposed criteria received 
     under paragraph (2);
       (B) adopt and incorporate in final criteria any 
     recommendations submitted in those comments that the 
     Commission determines will aid the Commission in carrying out 
     its duties under this section; and
       (C) issue final criteria under this subsection.
       (d) Preliminary Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall--
       (A) prepare and publish a preliminary report on its 
     activities under this title, including preliminary 
     recommendations pursuant to subsection (a);
       (B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     availability of the preliminary report; and
       (C) provide copies of the preliminary report to the public 
     upon request.
       (2) Public hearings.--The Commission shall hold public 
     hearings on the preliminary recommendations contained in the 
     preliminary report of the Commission under this subsection.
       (e) Final Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date 
     of the publication of the preliminary report under subsection 
     (c), the Commission shall submit to the Congress, including 
     the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs 
     of the Senate, and to the 
     [[Page S1684]] President a final report on the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the Commission under this 
     section.

     SEC. 303. SPECIAL AUTHORITIES OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.

       (a) Experts and Consultants.--For purposes of carrying out 
     this title, the Advisory Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services of experts or consultants under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Detail of Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of 
     the Executive Director of the Advisory Commission, the head 
     of any Federal department or agency may detail, on a 
     reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that department 
     or agency to the Advisory Commission to assist it in carrying 
     out this title.
       (c) Contract Authority.--The Advisory Commission may, 
     subject to appropriations, contract with and compensate 
     government and private persons (including agencies) for 
     property and services used to carry out its duties under this 
     title.

     SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Advisory 
     Commission to carry out section 301 and section 302, 
     $1,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
                       TITLE IV--JUDICIAL REVIEW

     SEC. 401. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--Any statement or report prepared under 
     this Act, and any compliance or noncompliance with the 
     provisions of this Act, and any determination concerning the 
     applicability of the provisions of this Act shall not be 
     subject to judicial review.
       (b) Rule of Construction.--No provision of this Act or 
     amendment made by this Act shall be construed to create any 
     right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by 
     any person in any administrative or judicial action. No 
     ruling or determination made under the provisions of this Act 
     or amendments made by this Act shall be considered by any 
     court in determining the intent of Congress or for any other 
     purpose.

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I either misstated my vote or my vote was 
mismarked before on the Levin amendment No. 218. I was recorded as 
having voted ``no'' on that. I intended to vote ``aye.'' Since it does 
not change the vote, I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed to 
``aye'' on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first I want to commend the managers of this 
bill, particularly my colleague Senator Kempthorne. This is his third 
year, and I think he has done an outstanding job working with the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Glenn. He is someone who made 
this commitment and stuck with it.
  Just for historical purposes, we have been on this bill a long, long 
time. The vote was 86 to 10. I think we could have finished it probably 
a week ago. We had 44 rollcall votes taken, 8 were unanimous. Of those 
44 votes, 9 were taken on committee amendments that had been adopted 
unanimously in committee.
  We started on this bill on Thursday, January 12, at 10:35 a.m. We had 
10 full days debate on S. 1. We used about 58 hours 34 minutes: The 
Democrats, 36 hours 55 minutes; Republicans, 21 hours 39 minutes.
  There were 211 amendments submitted to the desk. Of those 211, 68 
were actually proposed--50 proposed by my Democratic friends, 18 
proposed by Republicans; 30 were agreed to; 20 were tabled; 16 were 
withdrawn; 2 second-degree amendments fell; 3 have yet to be disposed 
of.
  These are just sort of background facts on how long it has taken and 
how many amendments and how many hours.
  I assume the next bill may take as much time. I hope not. If this was 
a warmup, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
  I will also suggest that this is the first step in forging a new 
partnership. The 10th amendment to the United States Constitution 
reads:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  That is what this legislation is all about. The idea that power 
should be kept close to people, that is federalism. It is the idea on 
which our Nation was founded.
  But I think we have made it very clear that we, in effect, have 
dusted off the 10th amendment in this effort. It has been a very 
successful effort. I know that we came close last year but did not 
quite get it. We wanted to do it in, I think, the last 2 days of the 
session. Maybe we could have done it in 2 days then, but it took 10 
days now.
  The distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
Glenn, Chairman Roth, Chairman Domenici, and others, deserve immense 
credit for working together on a bipartisan basis with representatives 
from State, local, and tribal governments, Democrats, Republicans, and 
independents, private sector groups and key Members from the other 
body. In fact, a few moments ago, I saw the distinguished Governor of 
Ohio, Governor Voinovich, who has been one of the leaders in working 
with Governors, mayors, and everybody else across the country, calling 
Senators of both parties.
  On the other side, my particular thanks to Congressman Clinger and 
Congressman Portman, because they crafted the bill that is before us 
today. It seems to me that all this hard work is going to be a 
departure from business as usual and also, we are making a big, big 
step in the right direction.
              the first step in forging a new partnership

  The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

  Federalism. The idea that power should be kept close to the people. 
It's the idea on which our Nation was founded. But there are some in 
Washington--perhaps fewer this year than last--who believe neither our 
States nor our people can be trusted with power. Federalism has given 
way to paternalism--with disastrous results.
  In the 104th Congress, we plan to dust off the 10th amendment and 
restore it to its rightful place in the Constitution. Adoption of this 
legislation is the first step in that process, the first step in 
forging a new partnership between Congress and our partners at the 
State and local level. This partnership is bipartisan, as the vote 
demonstrated and as the support among officials at all levels of State 
and local government already demonstrates.


                     change from business-as-usual

  The distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
Glenn,
 Chairman Roth, Chairman Domenici, and others deserve immense credit 
for working together on a bipartisan basis with representatives from 
State, local, and tribal governments--Democrats, Republicans, and 
independents--private-sector groups and key Members in the other body--
particularly Congressmen Clinger and Portman--to craft the bill that is 
before us today. All that hard work has produced a bill that will lead 
to a dramatic departure from business-as-usual in Washington.

  Mr. President, for far too long, Congress has operated under the 
false assumption that legislation that did not affect the Federal 
budget had no cost. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  According to private estimates, in 1994, the private sector and State 
and local governments spent between $600 and $800 billion complying 
with Federal regulations. In last year's budget, President Clinton 
projected that in 1994 the Federal Government would collect a total of 
$549.9 billion from Federal income taxes on individuals.
  In other words, State and local governments, private businesses, and 
ultimately taxpayers and consumers paid more to comply with Federal 
regulations than the Federal Government
 collected from Federal income taxes on individuals.

  This bill will change the way we do business in Washington. It will 
lead to a more informed debate on the Senate floor, a debate that will 
require us to consider the potential cost of a new 
[[Page S1685]] mandate to State and local government and to the private 
sector, before the mandate is adopted.
  For far too long, Congress has given State and local governments new 
responsibilities without supplying the money needed to fulfill these 
new obligations. Those unfunded mandates have forced State and local 
officials to cut services or increase taxes in order to keep their 
budgets in balance.
  The costs are immense. California Governor, Pete Wilson, estimates 
that unfunded mandates cost his State $7.7 billion last year.


                        more informed decisions

  This new process is a reality check for advocates of new mandates. It 
forces those who want to expand the reach of the Federal Government to 
consider the potential cost of their actions to State and local 
governments and to the private sector--before they take action. It is a 
reality check for advocates of new mandates.
  Those who want to create new mandates or expand existing ones have a 
choice: Either get an
 estimate of the potential cost of a new mandate and pay the full cost 
of imposing that mandate on State and local governments up front or try 
to get a majority of the Senate to agree that the Federal Government 
should not finance the new mandate.

  This legislation is really about good government and accountability. 
Here's the bottom line: The potential costs of new legislation should 
be considered before the legislation is adopted.


                 who benefits most from mandate relief?

  There has been a lot of discussion about who this legislation helps. 
It certainly is a top priority for State and local government 
officials--Democrats and Republicans--who are sick and tired of dealing 
with a Congress that passes the buck. I have met personally with 
representatives from the so-called Big 7--Governors, mayors, State 
legislators, county officials, school boards, and so forth. They know 
that mandate relief will make it easier for State and local officials 
to balance their budgets each year.
  But, the real beneficiaries of this legislation are the people who 
ultimately pay all the bills for unfunded mandates: individual 
Americans.
  People--not government--pay all the taxes, both
   hidden and direct, generated by unfunded mandates. Federal mandates 
on businesses lead to higher prices for goods and services people on 
those businesses.

  When faced with an unfunded Federal mandate, State and local 
government officials make a choice--they cut services or raise taxes in 
order to comply with the new Federal requirements and balance their 
budgets.
  Stemming the flow of unfunded Federal mandates from Washington will 
help keep State and local taxes down and help prevent cuts in 
education, crimefighting and other State and local services.
  Mr. President, this is a good Government initiative that is long 
overdue. I am confident that it will be approved with broad bipartisan 
support. I hope that those in the other body will be able to act on 
this legislation without major changes and that we can get this 
important legislation to the President as quickly as possible.
  So I want to again congratulate my colleagues.

                          ____________________