John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. No, it would not be. What my proposed amendment I put in earlier today would say is that we would have a point of order lie at the end of all consideration of the bill before a final vote. If there is a cumulative effect of exceeding the $50 million, then that would be voted on as a point of order at the end of the process.

Mr. GLENN. I said a moment ago it raised questions about its inflation impact. That is provided for in this legislation. The $50 million goes up with a correction for inflation each year.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, contrary to S. 993, I think this piece of legislation on which we had a debate last year--and I recall the Senator from Michigan was going to have a debate that dealt with some of this, this legislation--I believe what we provide here is that CBO will make an estimate. If they cannot make an estimate, they say they cannot make an estimate and that is it. And we do not provide for a range here, specifically. I think that is the way it should be. If the range is of such order that CBO cannot estimate whether it is going to be above $50 million or not, then tell us that and that is part of the information we need, that it is that uncertain. So I think to try to force them into making an estimate of ranges, I would not favor that. I think it would be better this way, in this bill, where we provide for an estimate. If they cannot make an estimate that they say is within some range of being probable, then they tell us that and say they cannot make an estimate and that is part of our fact pattern here on the floor.

Mr. GLENN. I say to my friend from Michigan, I do not have any answer to it right now. I think what you are bringing up is a very good point. Let us say, for instance, that we are not going to repeal the Clean Air Act, we are not going to say it only applies for a certain length of time and then take it off. As the States get into implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or whatever, their costs may be completely different from what was originally estimated. If so, they come back to us again and the appropriate committee should be cognizant of that and take action to make sure that is corrected so the States are not unfairly dealt with. I tend to think that in most cases, on most legislation we would deal with, a 5-year estimate would be OK. You can bring up something else, though. What if we got into a situation like we were in about a decade ago--a little over a decade ago, about 15 years ago--where we had an inflation rate that ran 17 percent for a while? What if we got into a situation like that and the value of $50 million changes? We might have to come back with additional legislation to change that. Right now, you are talking about, looking at your 10-year chart on the mercury problem and taking it over a 10-year period, as that $50 million threshold now becomes in actual current dollars worth $25 million, or something like that. I do not believe that has been addressed here either. I do not want to argue against our own bill. There are problems like that, too, we do need to address in committee or either make corrections in this legislation that is on the floor or provide something that takes care of those variables for the future also.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I know the distinguished majority leader wants the floor shortly. But let me comment briefly here. I think Senator Levin has brought up a number of very good points. They are excellent points and things we should have worked out before we go ahead with this landmark legislation. It is landmark legislation. We are reversing a trend here of some 60 years, and we better do it right and make sure it is going to work. When we talk about this on the floor--and I will not go through all of the arguments at this hour of the evening, but I doubt very much if we are going to be able to answer all of the very good questions with amendments by 3 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I do not see how that is possible. We may want to think about this overnight and perhaps address this tomorrow. I am not saying this is an effort to delay this. These have been honest-to-goodness questions on how this would operate. There have been 5 or 6 points made to things we do not have the answers to, and we should try to get answers for as many things as possible. I do not think we can take every possible ``what if'' and make sure everything is covered perfectly, because this bill was designed to be a general guidance-type bill. On the other hand, where specifics are brought up that indicate there would be a problem, I think it is incumbent upon us to address these things when we can. I am not proposing that we extend the time tomorrow for proposals that would deal with what the Senator from Michigan has brought up this evening. But I wanted to raise this as a possibility, because I do not think we are going to be able to put this all together by 3 o'clock tomorrow morning. Maybe the staffs can get together and we can talk about this tomorrow and see how we can work it out. I do not know whether the majority leader has been listening in his office or working on other things. I think he would have to agree that there are real questions that should be worked out before we lock this up for final passage. I open that up as a possibility for tomorrow that we want to consider some time tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will be very brief because I do not have a ready answer, as the Senator knows from our previous conversations on this. I think the things he brings up here as to the implementation of this bill are very, very good. And I do not want to rub salt into old wounds. We have talked about it enough. These are the kind of things that normally we should have worked out in committee. That is where it is normally worked out. I do not have a ready answer for this. Ordinarily if we are lumping a program or putting some program on to Federal, State, or local governments, we would look at what the total impact of this would be. Now, that is one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is 10 years out, nobody can make an estimate that far out. There may be some new technical development that enables us to take away mercury in a new way that is cheaper; or an intractable problem that winds up more expensive. A nuclear cleanup at the 17 different major sites all around the country in 11 different States in our nuclear weapons complex, the original estimate of cleanup as I recall in committee, we would take care of the whole thing for $8 to $12 billion. That was in 1985, I believe. Here we are in 1995 and 10 years later it has gone up to $300 billion and it may go higher than that. That is how indefinite some of these estimates are. So, while I would like to say that a CBO estimate of costs, whatever the total cost of the project is, that would trigger the point of order. Then we come up with the uncertainty of 10 years and we may be knocking a lot of things out that should be considered. So, here we are on the floor working out things like this and trying to make acceptable language where we should have been able to do this in committee. I will not belabor that because we have already talked about it some today. I think we should take whatever time is necessary on the floor to work these things out because they are very, very real. Now, on the other hand, too, let me make another caveat. That is this: This bill was never intended, nor was S. 993, the predecessor, intended to take care of absolutely every possible permutation, every possible what if that we could dream up. They were meant to, in most legislation where there were estimates and we knew what the estimates were within some factor of confidence, that in those which are probably 90 percent of the bills that go through here, we would have a process set up for CBO estimates and points of order to lie. The distinguished Senator from Michigan who has gone into this legislation in, really, a lot more detail, I think, than almost any other Senator, I think is to be commended for bringing this up. And where possible we should work things like this out. I would come back to the original intent of unfunded mandates legislation, and that was to get our best estimates and if there were problems like this we bring them to the floor. If a point of order lay because the total cost to this was $200 million and we had to have a point of order, fine, we would do that and get on with the Senate as to what should happen. I do not know that we will be able to answer every what-if type problem on this. Certainly not now. And I only say one more time I wish we had more time to work this out in committee. That is where details like this are normally worked out rather than here on the floor taking up the time of the Senate.

Mr. GLENN. State your question again, please.

Mr. GLENN. I agree with that statement. I think that is correct.

Mr. GLENN. Obviously, the answer is that nobody, not the Congressional Budget Office or anyone else, can go to infinity on their estimates. Normally around here, we do it for 5 years, and we rely on those estimates. Under the Budget Act, you have a number of points of order lie there. The 5-year estimates are what would normally be made here or whatever the mandate was, the length of time. As far as how much it is going to cost out in the indefinite future, there is no way the Budget Office or anyone else can estimate that because of inflation, changes in technology, and a whole host of things.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it would be my opinion that once you exceed that threshold, that is a cost to the State that exceeds our Federal mandate for the threshold that is set and the point of order should apply, would be my opinion. I have not gone back to the fine print. But that would be what I think would be right because it would finally be going over the threshold of the State. That is what was set as our limit. One other comment on the Senator's hypothetical. I would think the health emergency that he mentions here, bona fide emergencies, are exempted from consideration of a point of order under this. If this was let us say a Presidentially-declared emergency, that we have learned something new about mercury and whatever, and the distance from a school or whatever, if it was a Presidentially-declared kind of an emergency, then I think it would all be exempted from any requirements.

Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, I think he is correct. I think the way it would work is in the committee, when you are considering the bill, the Budget Committee would not be involved at that point. You would have a CBO estimate. There would be a range on that, and I would say the figure would apply. It is when you come to the floor. Then the Budget Committee is required to put their judgment, their imprimatur, their approval on what the CBO has given to the Budget Committee.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will look at this later today, and we will listen attentively as others speak on this subject pro and con, but let me give you my impression of the metric bill that was passed some years ago. I supported it then, for a very good reason; I thought and still think that we have to become more metric literate in this country and more competitive in this particular area in our worldwide commerce. So it takes on a new relevance to me when we are moving with GATT and all the increased international trade that expands every year that we have more of our businesses, particularly small business, for example, that become metric literate so they can compete in the international marketplace. My distinguished colleague mentions some of the manufacturing that goes on. I think where you have the big and others, they already have moved into metric because it is required in the international marketplace, and to do business, they have to have metric. So they have moved in that area. One reason I supported this legislation earlier--and, in fact, was interested enough in it I made a nomination to the metric board--one of our newspaper editors in Ohio, Paul Block out of Toledo, the Toledo Blade, was very interested in this metric conversion. He was a scientist in his own right, a chemist, and was concerned that we be competitive in the international marketplace and that we move to metric as most of the rest of the world has; that we are not completely alone in our adherence to the old English measuring system, and so on. We are certainly in the minority of the major manufacturing areas of the world in not basing our manufacturing on a metric system. We have seen our major industries convert, but I have been encouraged that we seek more metric literacy so that our students and our people growing up understand it better and understand how a kilogram relates to a pound and all the other measures and the number of screw threads per inch or per centimeter that is important in manufacturing. So I have supported this. I would be interested if there are any figures, or if other speakers today on this particular amendment can provide any figures as to cost estimates of how much costs have been increased to the States by this particular piece of legislation. It was my impression, and I would have to go back and check the law on this, that the road signs that were referred to by my colleague were only required to have metric on them if replaced. It was not a requirement that the States take down every road sign and go out and have metric on every single road sign. I thought that it was as those road signs had to be replaced, which was over a period of time, that then metric had to be included on them. I may be wrong on that. We have to go back and check the requirements on it. I would be particularly interested in any cost estimates as to how much this has cost the States to comply with this mandate. Let me say something else. I visit schools in Ohio on a reasonably regular basis. I have been encouraged to go into some of these classrooms and find out now for the first time they are requiring students to get into the metric system and really understand it, not just as some passing thing where you can look up in a book how to convert, but actually use it and understand it. That bodes very well for the future because as these students come out and move into business themselves, they are far more literate in this area and much more able to conduct business in the area of international commerce than they otherwise would be. So I would be interested in any estimates of costs that have been incurred or estimates thereof that we could use in this debate today. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, is there any estimate as to how much costs have been sent to the States to comply with the metric law as passed and as now being administered?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this takes care of what I think is a difficulty in the bill. It would correct what I think is something we probably should have dealt with earlier on. That is this: The bill deals with points of order and when they will lie against legislation coming to the floor, to have the overall expense or the cost to the States and local communities considered in advance of considering the legislation and whether Congress will fund those costs. As now crafted, as now structured, the bill would permit a point of order when the bill with Federal intergovernmental mandates first comes to the floor. Then there would be no more points of order that would lie against the bill but there could be points of an intergovernmental mandate. If we think about how a bill normally works its way through the Senate, a number of amendments can be brought up here on the Senate floor. They may well change completely the nature of the bill by the amendments and the cost of amendments that are incurred during the amending process here on the floor. Now, I think it would be more appropriate the bill be subject to a point of order after we know what all the amending process has done to it. To have the point of order apply to possibly every amendment all the way through creates a situation that could be used if a Senator really wanted to filibuster something. He or she could put in a dozen different amendments containing Federal intergovernmental mandates, each maybe over $50 million, that might not even apply and might not be germane or relevant to the bill being considered and would then go through all the process of point of order on everything that was brought up in each of the amendments. I could see this as a possibility of a means of really creating a lot of delay. What we are really interested in, it seems to me, is the final bill as amended on the floor before we vote on it. And at that point, we either say yes, we go ahead with these unfunded mandates because it is important for everybody in the whole country for whatever reason and therefore we waive the point of order. Or we say no, all these total of amendments here plus what the cost of the original bill should be subject to the points of order requiring cost estimates and funding. It seems to me that is a more appropriate way to go than having the point of order lie on all amendments. Mr. President, my amendment would apply the points of order in two places, not at the start of consideration on the floor as S. 1 requires, but it would apply at the end of consideration of legislation on the floor--just prior to third reading--and, at a second point, when it comes back from conference, because when it comes back from conference, sometimes it might be a completely changed bill from what went to conference with the approval of the Senate. So my amendment would apply points of order at those two places. As I said, my concern in applying the point of order requirements for CBO cost estimates and State and local funding of floor amendments, as S. 1 currently does, is that it may unnecessarily bog down the legislative process, particularly for the first year or two when this act goes into effect. It is possible someone might raise points of order, as I said, on almost every amendment that is offered to any one bill. I understand points of order can currently be raised under the Budget Act on amendments that affect Federal direct spending but have not been scored by CBO. However, the Budget Act scoring process has been in place for some time and the procedures in S. 1, on the other hand, are brand new. So we should not overload the Senate with these new procedural requirements on floor amendments, as I see it. As I said, the amendment would see that the points of order lie in two places: First, just prior to final passage and then on the conference report. That way, only amendments that have been adopted would have to be scored by CBO, rather than having them score all amendments prior to their being offered, as would have to be done under S. 1. So the burden on CBO might be reduced. Only amendments adopted would be required to be scored, not amendments offered. Of course, Members bringing an amendment to the floor may wish to have a CBO cost estimate in order to know precisely what the effect of the amendment will be. My amendment will ensure conference reports will also still be scored, as is the case under S. 1. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, this amendment--and I do not want to scare anybody who may be watching and listening to this and I will give my reasons for submitting this amendment--this amendment is the old S. 993 that we brought out last year. I wanted reach a point where that might be necessary. But I hasten to add immediately that, at least the way we are going right now, I do not think that will be necessary. The situation we had gotten into here on the floor last week was such--and I will not go through all of what led up to it, but it was at a point where the majority leader filed cloture and did not have the votes to invoke cloture. There were some 117 amendments that had been put in from both sides of the aisle--mainly, about two to one, from the Democratic side, but from both sides of the aisle--and we found ourselves in a situation where it looked as though there might not be any move out of that parliamentary situation that we were in. What would we do in that situation? What had happened was that S. 993 that came out last year with approval by the big seven, and we were happy to get it to the floor, but the situation that developed was we could not get it through last year. Over the holidays, with the changed political climate, it was determined that what the House was liable to do and the movement that we would have to make toward what the House might do to enable a Senate bill to have a chance at passage meant that S. 993 should be amended or changed and somewhat toughened up. Now that was done with S. 1, using S. 993 as the basic structure from which to start. The situation we found ourselves in, though, last week, the parliamentary situation, was that I could see the possibility that maybe nothing was going to move. S. 1 had generated some opposition for various reasons. Cloture, which was filed, could not be invoked. We had the vote on that. And there we sat in basically a stalemate. I am committed to getting through unfunded mandate legislation. I do not want anyone to think that I am not. But I would rather, if we got ourselves into another quagmire like that, I just want S. 993 refiled as a potential amendment--and I say potential; I am not planning to bring it up--but I want it filed so that if we reach another situation like that--and I hope we do not-- that we would have that as a fallback position which would be better than getting nothing through; certainly much better, because we all viewed S. 993 last year as being fine legislation. I understand where the Governors and the County Commissioners, mayors, and so on are coming from now in support of S. 1. It is tougher from their standpoint. But it also has some opposition. Now, what would I foresee as a situation that might develop where we might want to drop back? Obviously, there are a number of different things that could happen on that. If we wound up with a filibuster on S. 1, which I do not anticipate we will, but if there were some provisions voted in here on the Senate floor that may be unpalatable, then we might have something like that required. The amendment that I am putting in or will put in today and another one after this one and probably a couple more tomorrow morning address very substantive changes in the bill, procedures in the bill that I think should be corrected. They were things we were not able to bring up in the committee because of the rush to get it to the floor, which was another situation we talked about earlier today for a little while. But you have several other concerns that do address specifically how this bill would operate, and I think those are important things to be considered. Those are not show stoppers, as I see it. Failure to put those things in are not basically things that would require us to go back to S. 993. But let me just bring up some of the amendments that have been put in or proposed, some from the other side, as a matter of fact, some Republican-proposed amendments, such as judicial review. Now, I think if judicial review was lodged against this where anyone who felt that the estimate on a particular proposal was not adequate and they would have the right in that case to file a case in Federal court and in effect stop legislation in its tracks, if judicial review was put in and passed, to me would be a way of stopping almost all legislation or a very high percentage of legislation that comes before the Senate. So I think if judicial review came in, was voted in here, this would result in such concern that I think--I am the last one that is going to threaten a filibuster--but I think that would cause a great, great deal of concern. Now, another one that is coming up that would be very controversial, and I understand is going to be called up, were amendments that were proposed dealing with motor-voter, as it is called. There is a lot of passion involved with motor-voter, as we know from the very extended debate that took place on the Senate floor when motor-voter was put in last year. That would draw serious opposition. Another one, a supermajority point of order requiring a 60-vote point of order. In other words, 60 votes would be required to grant a waiver to proceed with a bill. Now that sounds great, because it says, well, you are getting a supermajority of the Senate. But it does something else. It puts a great deal of power in the minority if you can garner 41 votes. I do not want to see us get into a situation where we would have, in effect, a tyranny of the minority. We had another one that would be a very, very important amendment, if brought up and if possibly passed, one that we would have to really take very, very seriously, and that is an amendment that I understand may be proposed which would extend the application of the act to past mandates as well as current mandates. If we did that, I do not know whether we would be getting into trillion dollar estimates and funding requirements if we passed that with no sorts of other restrictions on it than those I am aware of at this time. That is another one that would be a real threat to passage of this bill. Now, I am not saying any one of these by itself would be a complete show stopper and block to passage of the bill. The reason I put S. 993 back in is to cover a combination of possibilities. Say that some of the corrections we wanted to put in committee are voted down here, and say that some of these amendments that I understand are going to be put in--I do not believe they have been put in yet--amendments on the Republican side that deal with the things that I just mentioned such as 60-vote point of order and the motor-voter and judicial review and the retroactivity. Say that several of these things passed. I think in that situation the view of S. 1 would change rather dramatically, and I might add, probably on the Republican side as well as on the Democratic side. I wanted to point out the possibilities just to point out the reason why I am putting S. 993 back in, as a possible substitute amendment. It would be a fallback in case we have some of the dire things I have talked about happen, and got into a situation here we could not get out of, which we thought we were in last week when I mentioned the possibility of this. I am putting it back in, but do not plan to bring it up at this time. I think we are in a whole different situation than we were in last week because last week we were faced with a situation where cloture could not be invoked. The votes were not there. There were great concerns about S. 1. There were some 117 amendments that were filed in advance of the cloture vote, because if cloture would happen to be invoked then amendments cannot be put in. Cloture was defeated. The number of provisions we debated last week have been stripped back. We have now under the new agreement, some 60 slots, I believe, 58 or 60 slots, available for amendments that have to be filed by Tuesday afternoon at 3:00. Votes, then, will start not later than 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. This is much more manageable now. People have been coming to the floor and offering their amendments. We will have votes on them. We are in a whole different situation. I am not putting S. 993 back in as any scare tactic but there are possibilities that loom out here that this would be a last-gasp stopgap measure we could put in if really necessary. I want to stress that. I know there was a considerable amount of discontent in some quarters last week when I even brought this up. I wanted to make sure it was not misunderstood now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GLENN. In the remainder of the legislation, outside the part that was stricken, I do not see any specific reference to costs. It said it will consider requirements for a metric system of measurement to be Federal mandates. I would like the legislative history to show that would include in this study that will come back to us an estimate, if at all possible, of the costs to the Federal, State, local, and tribal governments.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Let me address another concern I have here and that is this: This bill is designed to deal with Federal mandates imposed on other entities--State and local, whatever--to take care of those costs up front or say why we are not going to, and require the States or local communities to address what ever it is the proposal is we are making. It would seem to me that what you are addressing is something else. Where an Indian tribe on a reservation is initiating a plan on their own, that does not really have anything to do with what we are imposing from the Federal level, is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I respond to my friend that in a situation like that, where it obtains strictly to an Indian tribe that is trying to have some of this activity on their reservation, that should be brought up just like everything else, and the Senate, in considering that then would waive that requirement if it was appropriate in that case.

Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield. I am not sure I understand yet what he is proposing, or if that is his interpretation, because the point of order is supposed to make certain that the Federal Government shares in the mandate they are sending to the State. If we do away with that point of order, and as your amendment says, ``notwithstanding any other provision,'' paragraph 1(b), ``it shall always be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report, if it relates to the requirement for the treatment or disposal of,'' and it goes into radioactive waste and so on. That means a point of order would not lie dealing with nuclear waste or disposal. That means the States would have to pick up the bill. That is what we are trying to prevent, as there was too much in the past with clean air, clean water, and all the requirements we have put on the States without providing any Federal funding, if I understand this correctly.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think I understand what the Senator from New Mexico is trying to do, but I am not sure I understand exactly how this would work. I would like to clarify. Let me make a statement. Then I would ask the Senator from New Mexico to respond. If what the unfunded mandates bill is trying to do, of course, is to say where we are putting a mandate on a State, we will consider the costs up front, we will deal with those costs and either provide for it by passing those costs and saying, States you have to do it, or we would provide the money. That is the purpose of this, so we will not build up these huge bills and put all of these costs on the States occasioned by what we do here with legislation involving the States. It would appear to me that if we exempt the nuclear industry from this process, you would set up the possibility that, if the proposal, whatever it is, is exempted from the point of order, that you might find the Federal Government is just going back and saying, States do it, with no money or no consideration of money required up front or anything else. I cannot believe that is what the Senator from New Mexico would intend. Maybe I am wrong. But this would mean someplace like Hanford that has all the problems out there at Hanford in Washington, with all the problems of the so-called semiexplosive silos out there that we have been concerned about for a couple of decades now, and all the other problems from that area as well as some 17 major nuclear sites in the nuclear weapons complex in 11 different States, that we can in effect mandate on you. You take care of it out there. Whether it is Hanford, or in my home State of Ohio, or wherever, we would just say, States, take care of it. I do not believe that the Senator from New Mexico intends that be the situation. But I would submit, if I understand the amendment correctly, that would be a possibility under this. It would seem to me that the States are better protected by saying we stay under this point of order, if it lies, and then say we have considered the cost up front and here is how we will take care of those costs and help the States comply with Federal law, which is what we do with other environmental concerns, not just nuclear, clean air, clean water, and everything that we provide mandates for around here. All these environmental mandates so far are the biggest thing under the unfunded mandates. What we set up is a point of order with regard to those where we either work out an arrangement where we share in the costs that we are imposing to accomplish that good end, or we say we are not going to do that up front. But we have to consider the costs up front on what our responsibilities are. It would seem to me that in the nuclear industry in particular, and particularly the nuclear weapons program, that we are still trying to recover from all those secrecies that went into effect during the cold war that let us build up huge stocks of material that now need to be taken out and disposed of someplace. I would not think that we would want to have that out from under the Government saving in the cost of doing that. Yet, if I read the amendment correctly, that is exactly what it is. Am I wrong in my understanding?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I, too, would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia. It is hard to believe that Rose Kennedy in her 104 years comes close to encompassing almost half the time period that this country has been in existence--a little short of that, but not very much. It has been my pleasure to know her from some years ago. I have not see her in recent years, but we were visitors with the Kennedy family on a number of occasions years ago when she was there. We got to know her as a very gracious lady. I think Senator Byrd has very properly given the accolades that he has, that she has so well deserved. And I associate myself with his remarks at this time.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. That is satisfactory. Amendment No. 179 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding calculation of the Consumer Price Index)