Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Is there additional time?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me also check to see if Senator Bumpers is coming to the floor. Let me also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bumpers and Senator Dorgan as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just respond to some of the points my friend and colleague from Utah has made. He suggests that the amendment I am offering would make the balanced budget amendment internally contradictory, because of section 4, as I understand his argument. I do not see it that way, and let me explain my view of it. As I understand the procedure that the balanced budget amendment contemplates, there is a 7-year period during which we try to get to a balanced budget. Section 8 says, ``This article shall take effect beginning with fiscal year 2002 or with the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification, whichever is later.'' So there is a 7-year period from where we are to the balanced budget. Then the balanced budget amendment, including section 4, takes effect. He is correct, section 4 says, ``No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a rollcall vote.'' My amendment does not affect that. What my amendment says is during the first 7 years, during the time we are trying to get to the balanced budget, we should not have supermajority requirements. Once we have a balanced budget, section 4 says you have to have a majority of the whole number of each House to raise revenue, and I am not challenging that. My amendment does not challenge that. I do not know that it is great policy but my amendment does not challenge that. So I do not see anything inconsistent between my amendment, which deals with the first 7 years, from now until which deals with the time from the effective date of the balanced budget amendment, 7 years down the road, from then on in our Nation's history. So I do not see there is any inconsistency. If I am missing something in the argument I would be anxious to hear the response of the Senator from Utah on that. But I do not believe I am missing anything. I believe my amendment would improve the balanced budget amendment as it now stands before the Senate and would not build in any internal contradiction into it. The second point he makes is that if we were to invalidate the House rule, we would in fact be allowing as few as 26 Senators--we could be putting in the Constitution a provision which says that as few as 26 Senators can raise taxes. I would just point out that is what the Constitution provides. That is what the Constitution has provided for 206 years, that as few as 26, a majority of a quorum, is all that is required by both Houses to either raise taxes or cut spending. That is not changed. I do not see anything terrible about us putting a sentence in saying that is what the Constitution provides because that is what the Constitution provides. That is what it has always provided. This is not just a casual result. There was a great debate at the time the Constitution was being written about whether a supermajority should be required. In fact, one of the most famous of the Federalist Papers, No. 58, written by James Madison, dealt with this specific subject. I understand the Speaker of the House of Representatives has assigned this as one of the books he is requiring all House Members to read. So I am sure they are all familiar with this, but maybe some of my colleagues here in the Senate are not. Let me just read a short passage from the Federalist No. 58. This is James Madison writing. He wrote: It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty, impartial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale. In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: The power would be transferred to the minority. That is James Madison's explanation for why the drafters of the Constitution did not put in there a requirement for a supermajority. They did not permit rules to exist such as the rule in the House. And we need to clarify that rules such as the rule in the House would not be permitted during this 7-year period while we get to a balanced budget. So I think it is clear that the argument for maintaining the right of the majority to rule is a strong argument. It is not a new argument in our democratic system. It is a strong argument we should stick with. The Senator from Utah made one final point. He said if my amendment were adopted we could delay the time that we are required to have a balanced budget by 2 years, or whatever period until the House decided to change its rule. I would point out the House could meet this afternoon and change its rule. There is nothing in my amendment which in any way prevents the House from changing its rule or any court--and we do have a court case pending on this--from determining that that rule is unconstitutional and invalid. As soon as that happens the 7 years begins to run. So if the concern is we cannot get the 7 years running fast enough, I would say there is a ready remedy for that, once my amendment is adopted, and that is a repeal of the rule. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the balanced budget amendment contemplates a 7-year period during which we would go from where we now are--that is, about a $200 billion annual deficit--to a zero deficit. This chart makes the point very obviously that, from 1996 to the year 2002, we need to make substantial progress in getting from where we are to that zero deficit. My amendment tries to assure that during those 7 years--not after the 7 years--but during those 7 years we can actually reach this goal of a balanced budget. My amendment says that during those 7 years you cannot have a requirement for a supermajority either to cut spending or to raise taxes in either House of the Congress. Mr. President, I voted for the balanced budget amendment before, and I can honestly say that the intent of the amendment's proponents in those previous debates here on the Senate floor seems to me different from what is their apparent intent this time. In the previous Congresses the amendment was offered as a mechanism to help achieve responsible fiscal policy. It was to be a prod to keep us focused on deficit reduction; an assist to us in pursuing sound fiscal policy. Since I agreed that more discipline was needed, I was willing to support the amendment. This time the amendment comes to us in a different context, supported by some different arguments. Now, the proponents do not just want deficit reduction and sound fiscal policy. They also want that deficit reduction achieved in their preferred way and in a way which most heavily benefits those they desire to benefit. That is a new and a disturbing aspect of this year's debate, Mr. President. This year, the amendment comes from the House of Representatives after the House has already amended its own rules to require a three- fifths supermajority for any increase in income tax rates. Other taxes can still be raised with a simple majority. Of course, spending cuts can still be accomplished with a simple majority, but vote, according to the House rule. Some argue that this is just a House rule and that we in the Senate do not need to concern ourselves with it. But under the Constitution, all revenue measures must originate in the House, so if the House has a rule that biases deficit reduction against changes in the income tax, that restricts the options available to the entire Congress, not just the House. Mr. President, this change of rules undermines genuine efforts at deficit reduction, and it undermines our ability to achieve sound fiscal policy. The purpose of the House rule is to advance a conservative political agenda of less taxation for certain taxpayers without regard for and in spite of the consequences for the deficit. The purposes of the rule are to protect individuals and corporations in the upper tax brackets and to accomplish any increase in revenue by raising regressive taxes that affect middle-income individuals and families, taxes such as the gas tax, Social Security taxes, sales and excise taxes. Supermajority requirements like the House rule make deficit reduction over the next 7 years even more different than it already is. But more importantly, they drastically alter the fundamental fairness of the way we will allocate the pain of deficit reduction during those 7 years. The supermajority requirement shifts the burden away from wealthy individuals and corporations and onto the backs of low- and middle- income working families. For under the House rule, it is the working families of America, not the wealthy and the corporations, who will feel the spending cuts. It is those working families who will pay the gas taxes and the social insurance taxes and the excise taxes which must get us to a zero deficit. Never before have the proponents of this balanced budget amendment argued that it is right for middle-income families to pay to balance the budget but not right for the wealthy and the corporations to pay. So my amendment restores the fundamental fairness of previous balanced budget amendment discussions. It restores the ground rules to what they were during previous balanced budget amendment debates here on the floor by establishing this 7-year period in which to get to a zero deficit without unfair supermajority requirements in either House with regard either to particular spending cuts or particular tax increases. Now, looking at the second of these charts, it makes a very serious point which I am sure everyone knows here in the Senate and perhaps needs to be repeated. Deficit reduction is not rocket science. It is not difficult to know what to do. It is difficult to have the courage to do it. Deficit reduction can be accomplished in two ways. You can cut spending or you can increase revenue. Either one of those works. Both of them help get you to a zero deficit and a balanced budget. As the bottom part of the chart shows, my amendment merely says that during the 7 years leading up to 2002 we cannot have supermajority votes required either for spending cuts or for revenue increases. Our past experience and simple economic sense leads me to conclude that if we are going to seriously approach accomplishing a balanced budget, we will have to look at both spending cuts and revenue increases to get from here to where we need to go. If we look at history and look at what we have actually done in the last 15 years by way of deficit reduction, we can see the point I am trying to make. There have been five serious efforts at deficit reduction during the 1980's and the first half of the 1990's--under Republican Presidents and under Democratic Presidents I point out. In 1982, there was a significant deficit reduction effort. The total deficit reduction there was $116 billion. That was, of course, under President Reagan. He signed that bill and approved it. Most of the deficit reduction there was accomplished by revenue increases--not by spending cuts. People need to recognize that in each of the five cases here we have had both revenue increases and spending cuts. The second serious reduction was when President Reagan was in the White House in 1987, and again we had substantial revenue increases: $75 billion in revenue increases and $118 billion in spending cuts. So there was clearly a combination of the two in that case. In 1989, under President Bush, we had a deficit reduction effort which was about equally balanced between revenue increases and spending cuts. In 1990, we had a very major deficit reduction package when President Bush was in the White House. There was more in spending cuts, nearly twice as much in spending cuts or a little over twice as much in spending cuts as there were in revenue increases. But still there was a combination of the two. Then 2 years ago, in 1993, of course, we had President Clinton's deficit reduction package which involved both spending cuts and revenue increases, totaling, according to the CBO, $433 billion as originally proposed. I think the estimates are that that has increased since. I think it is interesting to note when we look at this history of how we have actually tried to accomplish deficit reduction, in four of the five deficit reduction efforts that were made in the 1980's and so far in the 1990's we did not have the three-fifths vote necessary in the House which would be required by this House rule. So these packages, four of the five, could not have passed under the House rule as it now stands. Not only does history indicate that serious deficit reduction will require both spending cuts and tax increases, but common sense indicates that it will as well. Now, looking at the next chart, that chart shows the Federal budget and shows what is available when we start to cut spending. Many previous speakers in the last couple of weeks have pointed to this chart or similar versions of this chart to make the very obvious point that the majority of the Federal budget is so-called mandatory spending, spending not readily available for cuts. Clearly we can change the eligibility requirements for Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and get savings, but this is mandatory in the sense that it will take a change in the substantive law that we have had on the books for some time in order to bring that about. Interest accounts for about 15 percent of the debt. There is no way to dodge that. We have to pay that each year. We cannot make up spending cuts there. Medicare and Medicaid is about 17 percent, and as far as I know somebody is talking about cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. All they are talking about is whether we will restrain the rate of increase in those areas. Social Security, we have had votes in the last 2 or 3 days where everybody has gone on record, both Democrat and Republican, as not wanting to see Social Security counted as part of the way we get to deficit reduction to get to a balanced budget. And other mandatory spending, other entitlement programs, makes up about 10 percent. The areas that are discretionary are defense, which is about 18 percent of the Federal budget. The proposal I have heard around the Capitol in recent months is not to cut defense. It is added to what the President himself has proposed as increases in defense during the next 5 years. Of course, some people think we can balance the budget by cutting out international foreign aid. That is 1.4 percent of the Federal budget. I suggest that if we eliminate it entirely, we still would have a long way to go to get to a balanced budget. Domestic discretionary, 16.5 percent. That is where the cuts will come. I think everybody knows that when we get around to cutting spending, the cuts are going to come in domestic discretionary spending. That is law enforcement funding, that is education funding, that is public health funding, that is funding of a whole variety of things which generally keep the Government running. While virtually all experts agree that to get to a balanced budget, we will have to both cut spending and raise revenue, the House of Representatives by rule has made it very difficult for us to raise that additional revenue, at least to raise that additional revenue from the income tax. We are spending a great deal of time in the Congress this year, Mr. President, talking about the Contract With America. I read that contract, and part to raise taxes. The contract does not just contain a promise not to raise taxes, it has a promise to require a supermajority to raise taxes. The contract, in fact, proposed to include that supermajority requirement for tax increases in the balanced budget amendment itself. When the Speaker and the majority in the House finally started looking at their votes, they decided they did not have the votes to pass the balanced budget amendment in that form, but that they did have the votes to put in place a rule which would have the same effect; that is, a rule which would say that you have to have not a majority but you have to have three-fifths of the House voting for any kind of change in income tax rates in order to increase those rates. Not only has the Republican leadership in the House made good on their promise to require a supermajority to raise taxes and to put it in the rules, they have also committed to a major tax cut this year. We had quite a debate yesterday about whether or not it was wise to proceed with a tax cut. I believe myself that the 1981 tax cut was not responsible in light of the Federal deficit we faced then. It seems equally clear to me that this proposed tax cut, which is called for in the Contract With America, is also not responsible. Mr. President, I regret that President Clinton has chosen to advocate tax cuts at this particular time, although his proposal is much more reasonable in size and it is targeted toward families attempting to improve their own education or their children's education. This is the context in which we are considering a commitment to reach a balanced budget amendment in the next 7 years. The results, in my view, are two: First, the chances are overwhelming that if we keep this supermajority requirement in the House rules, we will not reach the goals set out in the amendment of a balanced budget by the year 2002. And second, that if we keep this supermajority requirement in the House rules, whatever steps we take to reach the goal are going to fall hardest on working families. My amendment tries to ensure a good faith effort by all to reach the goal of a balanced budget. It eliminates all the preconditions, it eliminates all the artificial barriers. No group, and certainly not the wealthy, could assume that it would be spared from sharing in the pain of deficit reduction. There would be no prohibition against cuts and particular types of spending; there would be no prohibition against increases and particular types of taxes. The House rules requiring three-fifths to change income tax rates would have to either be dropped or judged invalid by the Supreme Court. I point out to my colleagues that there is pending today in the court a suit brought by the League of Women Voters and 15 House Members challenging the constitutionality of the House rule. Mr. President, this is essentially a back-to-reality amendment. It is also a basic fairness amendment. I believe it is an important amendment dealing with this issue of a supermajority requirement, particularly as it has been manifested in this House rule. Let me look at one final chart to make that last point about the importance of the amendment. We have looked at where the spending occurs in Government. Let us look at where the revenue comes from to see what we are taking off the table by adopting that House rule. The income tax, of course, is our most progressive tax. Here you can see the individual taxes account for 43 percent of the revenue that the Government receives each year, and corporate taxes account for an additional 11 percent. So you add those two together and you have 54 percent of the revenue that comes to the Federal Government by way of taxes. We are saying if you want to change the amount of revenue you receive from those taxes, if you want to get anymore revenue from those taxes, you have to have three-fifths under the House rule. That is a major amount. That is a major source of revenue to be building a supermajority requirement around. When you look at where else can we raise revenue, if we are not able to get the three-fifths necessary there, as we have not been able to get the three-fifths necessary in four of the last five major deficit reduction efforts in the Congress, where else can you get those? Social Security taxes, 37 percent; 37 percent of the total revenue coming into the Federal Government comes from Social Security taxes. So you can raise Social Security taxes. Excise taxes, 4 percent, and other taxes, 5 percent. That is things like the gasoline tax and other matters. I point out that the Social Security tax, excise tax, and gasoline taxes are regressive. That means that they fall most heavily on low- and moderate-income individuals. The income tax is the progressive tax. It is the tax that has higher rates that you are required to pay as your income goes up. So when you say you will not change the income tax, you are clearly looking out for those people with the high incomes. When we say a supermajority is required to raise rates in that tax but not in others, we are protecting those who are relatively disadvantaged by the progressive rate structure of the income tax, and those are clearly the wealthy in our society. The people most affected by taxes, other than the income tax, are not protected. Those are the working families, poor families, the elderly. Those other taxes are still available as sources of income. The gasoline tax is there, available, excise taxes. Some of my colleagues have an interest in beer and wine and tobacco taxes and other excise taxes as well. The main other source of income for the Federal Government is the Social Security tax. That accounts for 37 percent of all the revenue we receive. In addition to these sources of revenue to get from here to a balanced budget, we also, of course, have areas of spending that can be targeted for reduction. And the area of spending which we all know is most likely to be cut is domestic discretionary spending. That category includes programs that primarily go to benefit the average working people in the country--education grants, loans, health care, health clinics in our rural areas, nutrition, school lunch programs, law enforcement, funds needed to make good on the promises that were in last year's crime bill. To summarize, Mr. President, this amendment that I am offering today lets us go into this 7-year period with ground rules that do not make it virtually impossible to get from here to a balanced budget. They also let us go into this 7-year period with ground rules that do not require most of the pain--that is, a disproportionate amount of the pain--of deficit reduction to be borne by working families. In my view, this is a good amendment. I urge all Senators who are seriously committed to deficit reduction and to fairness in the way that we achieve that deficit reduction to support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains for the proponents?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 248 for consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield an additional minute to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that will authorize a coordinated approach for restoration of the Rio Puerco Watershed, which at 7,000 square miles is the largest tributary to the Rio Grande in terms of area and sediment. The Rio Puerco was once known as New Mexico's breadbasket, with water supply and soil tilth to support that reputation. Over time, extensive ecological changes have occurred in the Rio Puerco Watershed, some of which have resulted in damage to the watershed that has seriously affected the economic and cultural well- being of its inhabitants. This has resulted in the loss of existing communities that were based on the land and were self-sustaining. Mr. President, a healthy and sustainable ecosystem is essential to the long-term economic and cultural viability of the region. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the Rio Puerco contributes only 6 percent of the total water but over 50 percent of the sediments which enter the Rio Grande. Accelerated, progressive soil erosion within the basin threatens not only the sustained productivity of the rangeland watershed, but also the middle Rio Grande aquatic system, irrigators dependent on those waters, and the economic foundation of the Mesilla Valley dependent on Elephant Butte Reservoir. A substantial proportion of the rural population is concerned about its ability to maintain a traditional lifestyle with an economy which is natural resource based and dependent upon the productivity of land with multiple ownership. The vast Rio Puerco drainage system is a mosaic of land ownership and agency management. No single agency has watershed-wide expertise and management responsibility. It is imperative that the numerous agencies and individuals with resource management responsibility--Indian pueblos, Federal and State agencies, and private citizens--work together to develop a plan for and implement an effective Rio Puerco Watershed management program. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to lead and coordinate a management program in the Rio Puerco Watershed with the advice and input of a Rio Puerco Management Committee composed of the various landowners, affected Indian pueblos, local, regional, State, and Federal governments, and other interested citizens. The committee will prepare a management plan to identify reasonable and appropriate goals and objectives for land owners and managers in the Rio Puerco Watershed; to describe potential alternative actions to meet the goals and objectives; to recommend voluntary implementation of appropriate best management practices on both public and private lands; to provide for cooperative development of management guidelines for maintaining and improving the ecological, cultural, and economic conditions on both public and private lands; and other activities that will promote cooperation and information sharing among those that own and manage land in the Rio Puerco Watershed. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this legislation. It is our hope that this legislation will advance the restoration of and maintenance of a healthy Rio Puerco Watershed that will serve New Mexico and its citizens in the future as well as it has served us in the past. We have a lot of work ahead of us. A clear path must be outlined and a base of authorization, from which this program can be funded, established. Most importantly, this legislation authorizes an approach that brings all of the stakeholders together. The Federal Government cannot, and should not, undertake this effort alone. The support and contributions of local citizens, tribes, governmental entities, and others is crucial. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks and this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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 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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit Senate Resolution 72 expressing the Senate's deepest sympathies to the people of Kobe and Osaka, Japan. Mr. President, by now we are all aware of the frightening devastation that was caused by the earthquake that struck Kobe and Osaka in the early morning of January 17, 1995. We have seen the terrible destruction of homes and businesses, we have heard the enormous numbers of dead and wounded and we have read the remarkable stories of courage and hope that have sprung daily from the rubble and ruins of Kobe and Osaka. Mr. President, the memories of the earthquake that struck California almost a year ago to the day of the Kobe and Osaka earthquake have not diminished in the short period of time that has elapsed. We remember all too well the feelings of disbelief and loss as we learned of the destruction that the California earthquake reeked on our own citizens. As it was a year ago, so it has been throughout the past week as we watched the events unfold in Kobe and Osaka. Mr. President, we do not need a disaster to remind us of our friendship and mutual commitment with the people of Japan; however, at a time of tragedy such as this, we do have an opportunity to again reaffirm that friendship and to say to the people of Japan that America does care. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join with me today in supporting Senate Resolution 72 and will join with all of America in expressing our deepest sympathies and pledging our support and friendship to the people of Japan.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, could I just respond to the concern that the Senator from Idaho has raised.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will reserve my discussion of this amendment until an appropriate time later in the debate, and I look forward to presenting it at that time. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement that we are operating under, I had reserved three amendments to be offered to this bill, and I now ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending business so that I can offer the third of those three amendments.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, just to make it clear, I am focused on the semantics and I think the Senator from Idaho is right. I am focused on line 16 and 17, page 21, where it says, ``It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider'' and then it goes on and says any bill or joint resolution, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That to me is not semantics. That is more than semantics to say ``it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider.'' I think the whole purpose of the Congress in our Federal system is to consider legislation of this type dealing with major national issues. Treating and storage of nuclear waste is just one of those. But I consider that to be an area of concern peculiarly in the purview of the National Government. So I do think I have a concern when we pass legislation, as we are getting ready to do here, as I understand it, that says, ``It shall not be in order for the Senate to consider'' various pieces of legislation. So there is a basic disagreement. I think it is more than semantics. I think it is the language of the statute. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to discuss it. I have another amendment. I know there is another Senator ready to offer an amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am beginning to doubt that I am going to persuade the sponsor of the bill of the merits of my amendment. But let me at least conclude by saying that again my amendment does not in any way take away the requirement that the information be obtained. It says the information must be obtained so that discussion can and should take place on the Senate floor. I just doubt the wisdom of us putting in a Federal statute that it is out of order for us to consider legislation dealing with the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste. It should not be out of order for us to consider that legislation. And a person who wants to consider legislation in that area should not have to come to the floor and overcome a procedural hurdle in order to have his proposed legislation considered on its merits. Mr. President, I yield the floor, or I am glad to respond if there is further discussion of the amendment. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Idaho this: One concern I have had here is under the language of the bill which he is proposing to the Senate, we exempt independent regulatory agencies from the purview of the bill. So we are saying that if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wishes to impose expensive, onerous requirements on a State, town or tribal government, to ensure safety in the handling of nuclear waste, that is fine. We have no objection. No point of order can be raised. And we are certainly not suggesting one in this bill. But Congress cannot do that. Congress cannot consider legislation to do that unless it is willing to waive a point of order. So we are essentially denying to the Congress the very powers that we are leaving in the independent regulatory agency at the Federal level. I have great difficulty understanding the logic of denying Congress the very authority which the Constitution gives it to this area and requiring somebody who comes to the Senate floor or some committee that reports legislation to the Senate floor requiring them to overcome a procedural hurdle before they can, in fact, have their proposed legislation considered on its merits. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. No. Mr. President, let me respond that under the act as it now stands, as I understand it, the act does not apply to independent regulatory agencies. They are exempted from the unfunded mandates act. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is such an independent regulatory agency and, therefore, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can impose obligations on a tribe, on a local government, on a State, by regulation, and the cost of that can exceed $50 million, or whatever figure it has to exceed. What we are doing, though, in the legislation as it now stands, is we are saying although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vested with authority to impose those kinds of obligations, we are denying ourselves that authority. We in the Congress are denying ourselves that authority, and that strikes me as totally illogical. It strikes me that if we are going to have that authority vested in the Federal Government, clearly Congress should retain its ability to deal with this in a responsible way.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me clarify that I think maybe the disagreement here is--I have an instinctive reaction against putting language in law that says a point of order can be raised against consideration of any bill which meets the following requirements. It seems to me that it should not be out of order to consider legislation in an important field such as the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste. That is what the Congress was constituted to do, to consider that kind of legislation. And here we are about to pass legislation, the unfunded mandates act, which says that it is out of order for us to consider it. It strikes me that, at least in this area, where clearly there is a Federal interest, clearly there is a history of responsible Federal action --maybe not as responsible as some would like, but at least the main action that has taken place here has clearly been Federal--I believe it is appropriate for us to say to do the reports, but if you are going to legislate in this area, go ahead and bring that legislation to the floor and let the Senate dispose of it, either pass it or defeat it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Let me try to respond using another example which I raised, I believe, a week ago to the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Idaho both. That is a circumstance we have in my home State, where you have an Indian tribe negotiating now with various utilities to put in a nuclear waste repository, a monitored retrievable storage site. Under the legislation as drafted and as presented here to the Senate, any effort by the Congress to impose requirements on an Indian tribe with regard to the running of a site, the way that a facility such as that would be conducted, if those requirements added up to more than $50 million, it would be out of order for us to consider the legislation unless we paid for it. In my view, it should not be out of order for us to consider that legislation. In my view, that is exactly the kind of legislation we ought to be considering.