John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I agree to a time limit but I want to make a couple of phone calls first before I agree to a specific time limit. I think the Senator from Michigan had a couple of comments to make and I will make the phone calls while he is doing that.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Budget Committee's amendment. Mr. President, I was elected to the Senate the same year that the Governmental Affairs Committee, then called Government Operations, enacted the Budget Act and the Budget Committee. The Senate rules provide that changes to the Budget Act are the joint responsibility of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Budget Committee. We gave the Budget Committee the responsibility to provide estimates on direct spending and created the Congressional Budget Office to help determine the costs of legislation to the Federal Government, and we now require that committee reports contain CBO estimates of such costs. We have seen for many years that there have been some controversy that has resulted over different opinions as the costs of a particular bill, joint resolution, or regulation. We went through months of stormy debate last year over the costs of health care legislation, as my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, mentioned earlier on the floor today. Why did we do that? Because cost estimates in most cases are highly sensitive to underlying assumptions as to how a piece of legislation or regulation will be implemented and enforced. A so-called expert in making cost estimates who uses an underlying assumption that is wrong or highly speculative will provide a cost estimate that is no better than a wild guess by an amateur. Nonetheless, for the purpose of having an orderly budget process, we have agreed to use CBO figures and in their absence, Budget Committee estimates in dealing with Budget Act estimation requirements. So we created the Budget Committee, gave them the jurisdiction and responsibility to oversee and provide technical cost estimates. And made that their experience enables them to do estimation of the costs of Federal mandates on some 87,000 States, localities, tribal governments, as well as the private sector. We in the minority of the Governmental Affairs Committee did not challenge the decision made without our input to have last year's unfunded mandates' bill rewritten as an amendment to the Budget Act. It was not written as an amendment to the Budget Act last year. Last year the Budget Committee did not seek or claim any jurisdiction over S. 993, a bill that in substance forms the basis for S. 1. I repeat, we did not object when that was proposed that it be rewritten as an amendment to the Budget Act. Despite this decision, our staff worked with the staffs of Senator Kempthorne and the Budget Committee to produce another bill that we could support. When the minority staff on our committee were confronted with the fait accompli that the bill was now to be an amendment to the Budget Act and the demand that last year's bill had to be strengthened to make it more difficult to avoid a point of order on a bill, the minority staff worked with their Democratic and Republican colleagues on both the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees to try to produce a bipartisan result that we could all support. In that spirit, the Governmental Affairs Committee produced a bill that recognized the varied interests of those supporting the principle that we should legislate unfunded mandates only with full realization of the burdens being imposed by such mandates. As we worked through the bill it became clear that the procedures in the bill had the potential for providing significant delays that could be exploited for purposes not of clarifying the effects of legislation, but for purposes of, in effect not lobbying but filibustering for purposes of perhaps stopping the legislation. Accordingly, we in Governmental Affairs felt wherever possible, the bill's procedures should be very clearly spelled out along with who has responsibility for what. We recognize that making estimates of the cost of mandates is complicated and has the built-in conflict of interest produced by dependence on the States and local governments for most of the cost data. Because of the profound changes in the Senate procedures that the bill would allow in the case of legislation containing mandates, there is a quite legitimate question as to whether the Budget Committee alone, since budget process jurisdiction is shared with the Governmental Affairs Committee, should determine if a threshold has been breached by an amendment of a bill. Nonetheless, since someone should be responsible for cost data and for overseeing the CBO State and local cost estimating process we agreed in S. 1 to give the Budget Committee explicit responsibility for this, which in my view I think they should have but they do not uniquely have, under the Budget Act. This responsibility is actually shared with the Governmental Affairs Committee. We felt we had an agreement with Senator Roth and myself, the chair and ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senators Domenici and Exon, chair and ranking member on the Budget Committee, on language in S. 1 that details the responsibilities of each committee in overseeing implementation of S. 1. All four of us cosponsor the bill. Then, the Budget Committee took this explicit language out of the bill and I thought broke the agreement that we had. They thereby created a situation in which the chair, advised by the Parliamentarian, would be the entity that would determine whether the cost of a mandate exceeds the threshold. In other words, is it a Federal mandate or not? Now, I have no doubt that the Parliamentarian would probably tend to look to the Budget Committee for guidance on this despite the fact that it is the Budget Committee's experience estimating the cost of Federal intergovernmental mandates is not significantly different than that of the Governmental Affairs Committee which under rule XXVI has had the jurisdiction over intergovernmental relations and federalism for many years going beyond the length of time we have had a Budget Committee in existence. In other words, our committee on Governmental Affairs has the mandate as part of our mandate, written into law and rules of the Senate here, that we deal with intergovernmental matters--Federal, State, and local matters--and that is written into our reason for being. Should we depend on the uncertainty of the Parliamentairan's approach and our belief as to how he might act based on precedence dealing with things other than the cost of the mandates? I believe the Parliamentarian should be given explicit instructions in the bill to look to a specific committee for guidance on estimates. Since they want to do it, I support the Budget Committee having the responsibility to do the estimates. That is why both committees explicitly agreed to write that responsibility into the bill, not only for the Senate Budget Committee but also for the House Budget Committee in the case of legislation containing Federal mandates that come before the House. Now, unfortunately, what has happened in this legislation is the Senate Budget Committee has taken out the reference we put in giving them and the House Budget Committee the responsibility for doing estimates but then in a later section they put language back there giving the House Budget Committee explicit responsibility to do the estimates, suggesting that the Budget Act does not need something in it clarifying committee responsibilities in this area. That raises the question of why the House Budget Committee is treated differently than the Senate Budget Committee in this Senate amendment. I do not believe they should be treated differently. But, frankly, the question before us is not only who should do the estimates that we may agree on, but who determines whether a bill contains a mandate. This is not a trivial matter, and the Governmental Affairs Committee worked hard, in cooperation with Senator Kempthorne and State and local government organizations, to produce a definition that we think makes sense. The Governmental Affairs Committee has been in existence since 1920 and, under rule XXVI, has jurisdiction over intergovernmental relations. It has worked on this legislation for the better part of a year and is in the best position to make judgments about whether a bill contains a Federal intergovernmental mandate, meeting the definition in S. 1. So in S. 1, we gave Governmental Affairs the explicit responsibility to make this determination for the Senate, and we gave our counterpart committee in the House, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the same authority with respect to House bills. The Senate Budget Committee, in marking up S. 1, now has removed the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee from determining for the Senate whether a mandate exists but has not removed the authority of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight from the bill. The result is that the House will have a process whereby the determination of whether a mandate exists will be made by a House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. But in the Senate, the Parliamentarian, backed up by the entire body, will have to make the decision every time a challenge arises. How will the Parliamentarian rule and to whom should he turn for consultation before making his ruling? There is no precedent, and there is no process. I think it is illogical and I think it is inefficient. I think it will result in further procedural delays in passing legislation through the Senate and more misunderstanding about what this process is that we are putting into place. If the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight is considered the appropriate body to make a final determination for the House on whether a mandate exists in a bill, it makes sense for the Senate to turn to its sister committee, the Governmental Affairs Committee, for that purpose. That is a responsibility, I would add, that we are given under the rules of the Senate as to what that committee is responsible for. issue, although jurisdiction has been injected into the issue by rewriting last year's bill as an amendment to the Budget Act which, in my view, was unnecessary. The issue here is what is logical and what is efficient. Many people have concerns that the procedures of this bill may be used to delay or kill legislation opposed on ideological grounds. I have those concerns myself, even though I am a supporter of the thrust of S. 1. Accordingly, I believe it is a disservice to good process to eliminate from this bill the specific responsibility of a Senate committee, the Senate committee assigned to intergovernmental relations, to make determinations of applicability of this legislation and turn that responsibility over to the Parliamentarian with no guidance and no precedent. So, Mr. President, I urge the defeat of the Budget Committee amendment. What this boils down to is, is the Senate assignment of responsibilities to the Governmental Affairs Committee, in this regard, one that the Senate wishes to carry out, or do we permit, because the bill was written as a change to the Budget Act, is it now to go to the Parliamentarian, which I think is unjustified? So I urge the defeat of the Budget Committee amendment for those reasons, as well as the fact that we are treating the House and the Senate differently. The responsibilities do lie over in the House, split between the Budget Committee and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee over there, as it should be here. I think to make the processes conform and to prevent any further misunderstanding about this bill, I urge defeat of the Budget Committee amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, 5 minutes; 3 minutes?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. The hour of 12:30 having arrived, are we in recess now then, or does the Chair propose to put us in recess? Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, under the previous order, I believe it was agreed that we would go out for our recess for the respective party conferences at 12:30. The hour of 12:30 having arrived, is it the Chair's opinion we should recess? Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague and I thank the Chair. I just wanted to comment briefly on his comments on the balanced budget amendment before he moves on to his comments on the consideration of S. 1. I share his concerns in this area about whatever we do with regard to voting on the balanced budget amendment when this comes before us here in the Senate. We have to know what we are voting on and what we are doing, or the forcing action that we are taking and the impact that it is going to have on many, many programs that I think people have not yet really come to grips with. We talk about this Contract With America as though it is something sacrosanct here. I think each one us here--I have a contract with the people of Ohio and I, in turn, as a U.S. Senator, have a contract with the people of this country myself, a contract with the people of the United States I take very, very seriously. And I think that we have to know what impact that is going to have on the people out there in our respective States and across the country. We do not know that now. To just vote, as my distinguished colleague said, on a pig in a poke here without knowing what is going to happen--I would say, as far as the Contract With America, we have been down that track of voting on something without knowing what was going to happen before, and we are $3 trillion additional in debt now to prove that it did not work before. And if we did not know how to make it work before, how are we going to make it work again? We trusted the Reagan administration. Many of us here voted for that, voted for the tax decrease of 25 percent over a 3-year period, with the idea that if it did not work, if all the new, higher level of economic activity did not occur as was predicted at that time, then we would be able to come back to the Senate floor and we would be able to address that and say, ``OK, so it didn't work the way it was advertised. We are going to correct it.'' The problem is, we have never been able to get the votes to correct it. So here we are some additional $3 trillion in debt right now, not knowing which way to turn. Let me say this on a little bigger worldwide scale. Prime Minister Thatcher had the same problem. She wanted to reduce the size of their Government at the same time President Reagan wanted to reduce the size here. What happened is, she went about reducing the programs first and then said we will have the tax reduction. It is just the opposite here. The proposal of President Reagan was, we will reduce the taxes and that will force us into other action which never occurred. So now we are being asked once again to take this on faith and we will be able to work this thing out. I would say to my constituents in Ohio and indeed all across the country, I think we do have to have the definition of this, as my distinguished colleague from West Virginia says. Can anybody say that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, those big items in the budget--that takes up over half of the Federal budget right there. Then when you add the interest on the national debt and defense, we are up to almost two-thirds or 60 percent. So where are the cuts going to occur? If we say those things that everybody is concerned about across the country are off limits, then where do the limits apply? What do we take in to consideration then? Well, is it educational funds to the States? Is it higher education funds that we administer mainly out of the Federal Government but through the States? Are we going to cut the FAA, their consideration of flying safety in this country? Are we going to consider highways for cuts? That is 90 percent of percent match. Do the people of this country want us to cut health funds for the Centers for Disease Control that is working so hard to try to get a solution to the AIDS problem? Are we going to cut the Food and Drug Administration that is looking at things that might create another thalidomide crisis in this country? All of these things are going to have to be cut if we pass a balanced budget amendment. I have not positively said that I am going to vote against it here. I am still considering that. So I would say we are just buying a pig in a poke when Social Security is off base, when Medicaid is off base, when Medicare is off base, and when interest on the national debt is off base. So it just does not work. I would say to the people in Ohio in particular that are on Social Security: Watch out. I think they are going to have to get into that, if we vote a balanced budget amendment, on Medicare. They are going to have to get into limiting Medicare in one way or another, and Medicaid. We cannot say do not pay the interest on the national debt. And I would say the reason this ties into our debate here on the floor today on unfunded mandates is I think the estimate is we put out about $230 billion per year to the States for various programs. I believe the figure is that about $70 billion of that is in discretionary funding, the remainder in entitlements, mainly in the Medicaid Program. Now, it seems to me, if we pass a balanced budget amendment without knowing in advance what the plans are for where the cuts are going do come from with this unfunded mandates legislation, of which I am a cosponsor, coauthor of here, I do not see how we avoid getting into those payments to the States right now if we vote ourselves a guillotine balanced budget amendment. And that is that. Then we will have to look to cutting down these entitlements and the $230 billion per year that goes to the States right now. Can we afford to continue that kind of funding if we have a balanced budget amendment and cannot cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the national debt and defense? I would submit that it will be very, very difficult to do that. So I think in fairness, to make sure that some of the other programs are not cut, I think we have to look at the balanced budget amendment very, very carefully. I think people will start asking their own questions, once they look at these things, as to how it will affect them. If we are going to have to balance the Federal budget at least in part by cutting out what we send to the States right now, then it undercuts what we are trying to do with this unfunded mandates bill. I do not want to do that. I am trying to treat the States fairly, as is my distinguished colleague from Idaho, who pushed this bill for the last couple of years, brought it out of committee last fall, and could not get it through on the floor. I am a supporter, absolutely and unequivocally, of the unfunded mandates bill. I know there are some questions. We have some amendments to correct some of those. Senator Levin wants to address this sometime today. And there are others concerned. The Senator from Nebraska has some concerns. I see him here. I have some concerns. I have a couple of amendments that I think will take out some of the doubts about how this would be administered. I am very concerned, along with my colleague from West Virginia, about the balanced budget amendment. I think it does tie over into unfunded mandates, because I think once we enact a balanced budget amendment, the States will have to look very carefully at what goes to the States right now. They are being too hard pressed now. I think there is a tie in that direction. I wanted to make those comments, and I appreciate the Senator from West Virginia yielding to me for that purpose, to raise some of the same questions he has raised. I hope we can get on with S. 1 sometime this afternoon or sometime today so we can deal with the number of amendments we have. I hope we can get done with it this week. That means we will have to move expeditiously or we will not be able to bring up all the amendments this week. Some of the amendments that are proposed are real busters, I guess I would call them. Some of them are not germane, necessarily, to this bill and deal with other matters that are of very major import. Some on the other side of the aisle and some on our side of the aisle will require considerable debate. Some over there, for instance, go back and say that we have to take up all past mandates, not make it prospective but go back. That would cost trillions of dollars. I do not know whether these amendments are talking amendments, talk a little bit and are not serious, but when you have things like that, it will require some time on this bill. It all comes back, though, to whether we are dealing fairly with the States. I think this bill, even in its present form without amending, goes a long, long way toward addressing some of the sins of the Federal Government, if we want to put it that way, of the past 50 or 60 years. There were good reasons why a lot of these provisions or a lot of the social services--a lot of reasons why some of those things moved to the Federal levels. Because the States back in those days, back in the days of the Great Depression, either could not or would not move to address some of the concerns when many of our people were bordering on starvation. Roosevelt came in with a package, the New Deal, that moved a lot of these responsibilities out of the community and away from the States, because communities and localities and States were not able to address those programs at that time. So these things moved to the Federal level. Well, have some of them grown too far? I am the first to say they certainly have. Are the States now willing to pick up all these responsibilities that 50 or 60 years ago they were not able or could not pick up? We have to be careful with that and monitor what is going on to make certain that, as we move this unfunded mandates legislation through, we do not see a lot of people fall in the cracks, that we are depending on the Federal programs, excessive though they may have been. We just want to make sure that we monitor this very, very carefully. I am all for the unfunded mandates bill. I hope we can work out all these details that people have concerns about. Tying that back to the balanced budget amendment, once again, if we pass the balanced budget, it seems to me, there will be big pressure on the Federal Government to reduce what we send to the States now, which is about $230 billion a year. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague yielding for those remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. It would seem to be going the route my colleague from Idaho wants to go on this, where you cannot say there is no cost, which seems to me preeminently sensible that you are going away from the $50 million threshold, because on every single thing that comes before the Senate, the $50 million threshold would mean nothing. It means there is some expense, even if it is on a postage stamp. If they say they cannot estimate this, but you are going to bring it to the floor on a point of order, the $50 million threshold means nothing. We are now saying, in effect, that on every single bill, every single thing that comes before the Senate, even though we cannot make an estimate on it, that it is going to have a point of order and it is going to have the same treatment as everything else, and the $50 million threshold, it seems to me, just went down the drain. I do not see what is wrong with doing exactly, by amendment, what the Senator from Michigan is doing. All he is saying is that where the authority is charged with making these estimates, they can say they cannot make it. And we have a letter here from them that says on occasion it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make that kind of a judgment. If it is impossible, who are we to say you have to do it anyway? ``You do what you say you don't have the staff, don't have the people, don't have the estimates to do on some of these 87,000 communities around the country.'' Why would we tell them to do something that they say they cannot do, or the Budget Committee itself say, ``Well, if CBO cannot do it, we will,'' just to get a figure out there, when it would be an absolutely fictitious, false figure on which nobody could base any vote on the floor. It seems to me the way to go, which I thought you were about to agree to a moment ago, is with language that would say if the CBO cannot make an estimate, then they just say that. They say we cannot make an estimate and the bill would come to the floor and everybody would know that they cannot make an estimate. They would make their own judgment on the bills, just as we do now when they come to the floor without an estimate. But the point is, probably 95 or 98 percent of the bills that would come before us would in fact have an estimate hooked up with them, and we would have taken much better cognizance of the cost in advance, which is the purpose of this bill. I think we are all bogged down here on sort of a technicality. The purpose of this bill was really to say, we are going to force the Senate, where possible--and I underline that; where possible--to take account up front of what the cost of the bills are going to be and what the Federal mandates to the States are going to be, which we have never done before. And that will cover probably 95 or 98 percent of the bills that come before us. It would seem to me just sensible that when the Budget Committee says it cannot make an estimate, with the people and the expertise and experience they have had for the last 20 years, and they say, ``We can't do that,'' and we are, in effect, telling them, ``You have to do it; we are forcing you to do it, even though you cannot do it,'' what are they going to do? Well, they come up with some fictitious figure just to comply with what we have told them to do, and that figure will not mean anything because it will not be based on their best judgment. It will be based on what they somehow had to do when they told us they could not. I think it would be common sense to me to do exactly what the Senator from Michigan is saying: Permit them in law--no fudging around; no alternate message here or no unclear message to them--to say that if you cannot make a judgment, you cannot make a judgment. You tell us that, and then the Senate proceeds to work its will, as we do now when we have bills where we do not have an estimate. So it seems to me very fair to do that. I do not yet see the logic, with all due respect, of saying we are going to force them to say something that they tell us they cannot say. It just does not make any sense to me.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order, while we are waiting for the Senator to come to the floor to express his views on this, that I be given permission to speak with regard to the bill until he arrives on the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. 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.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. We did, and called it for a vote, and lost.

Mr. GLENN. I would support that on this side with the exception that he mentioned, the two changes on page 25, line 11 through 25 at the end. We want to have a debate about that later on, the applicability of those items stricken by the Budget Committee. We will have a debate on that a little bit later when we can deal with it.

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. I assume, the hour of 2 p.m. having arrived, the bill is not only open for discussion but for amendments now?

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, just so everyone will know where our status is right here, I will give a recount right now. The committee amendments were submitted and there was objection to agreeing to those. Other amendments are not in order until that is disposed of, as I understand it, unless they would apply directly to that particular amendment itself.

Mr. GLENN. So our previous order that amendments could be addressed here on the floor after 2 o'clock is sort of held up; is held up because of objection to--that committee amendment not being accepted. This would mean that anyone who did not get to give an opening statement, who wished to make comments, could be free to come to the floor now. But other amendments would not be addressed at this time. I think that is correct and I ask the Chair if I stated it correctly?

Mr. GLENN. So the floor would be open for any statements or opening statements that anyone else wishes to make, I guess with unanimous consent, on that or any other subject at the moment. But right now, we will not be able to do it unless they are addressing that committee amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for a further comment? And that is this: I hope there is not a feeling of voting down all amendments on this because there are really some very substantive matters that need to be corrected in this bill if we are going to make good, workable legislation. We were not able to get any of those considered the other day in committee, and the idea then was that we would consider those on the floor. That was so stated. If we can do that, that is fine. That will improve this legislation. So I hope this opposition to amendments on the Republican side does not include anything that really is substantive and germane to this, because I think it important we get some of those things considered.

Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I certainly support what the Senator is talking about here. I thought for a long time we should have some sort of germaneness legislation worked out here. They have germaneness rules in the House, and I think we should do something. I do not try to talk down to personal interests of people who have a particular interest, whether social matters, economic or whatever it is, and they will avail themselves of the opportunities to trot that out as their interests. They have committed to the people back home that they will do that. And they will bring that up unless we have germaneness rules that apply. I hope, also, that we can keep the debate on this and keep the amendments submitted to those that are germane. However, we have not all been around here for a while as the Senator from Maine has, along with me. It is futile to think that will occur. We saw the congressional coverage bill draw an awful lot of things, as far as amendments go, that were not germane. So we consider them, and we have to take them up. I certainly support some effort to get germaneness to apply in the Senate sometime in the near future, hopefully, in this Senate.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, it is a good example because it is a very complex one. It gets into a lot of ramifications of tribal law, our overriding Indian affairs legislation, and so on. So it is a very good example. But in that case, if the cost to the tribal areas was estimated to be more than $50 million, then a point of order could be brought and all the point of order would say is it is more than $50 million so we should consider this legislation here in the Chamber. It will not be eliminated from consideration. And then the Senate would work its will and the Senate would either decide it is good for Indian lands or it is not. This legislation, once you reach that point, would not have anything to do with it. It would be strictly on the merits of Indian gaming and what you want to do in other areas. While I have the floor, too, another thing I wanted to make absolutely sure, the Senator from New Mexico referred several times to the point of order. I almost got the impression that he thought the point of order, anything over a $50 million cost to State and local governments would automatically have a point of order regardless of whether somebody brought it up or not. Some Senator would have to come to the floor and bring up and invoke that point of order and then it would require then a waiver vote. And if any Senator, I would say to my friend, thinks it is that important that he wants to challenge this, then we better take it up. We would be doing it with the best estimates that we possibly can have. It is a forcing mechanism to force the Senate to consider the costs up front, which we have not done before, and make a forcing mechanism to do that, still with a protection, as a way of saying, yes, this bill comes on the floor with a majority vote no matter what the cost so we can consider it. Mr. President, I will not belabor the issue. I do appreciate the answers to the question. I guess my concern, very simply, is that it is more than an enforcement mechanism. It puts into statute a presumption that any proposed law that comes to the Senate floor that requires a State or a locality or an Indian tribal government to incur some cost-- that any of those bills are out of order, that they are in some way wrong, and that that presumption has to be overcome in order for us to proceed to consider the bill. I do not know that all those bills are inappropriate. I do not think the taxpayers, if we get around to passing legislation governing gaming on Indian land--I do not think it is necessarily appropriate that the taxpayers fund 100 percent of the costs of ensuring that gaming is done appropriately. It is possible that the Indian tribal government should pick up some portion of that cost. So I do not know that the idea of passing a bill that says it is out of order to consider any legislation that the Federal Government does not pay 100 percent of is necessarily the right way to go. I think we will have a chance to explore this more this afternoon and this evening and tomorrow. Maybe next week. But I did want to at least make that point. I have some other questions on other parts of the bill which I will be glad to raise later. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. That is correct, up to a point, unless we authorize--this applies to authorizing legislation only now. If the appropriators then come along and say, ``Well, we have a lot of other considerations. We had to up the Army, Navy, Marine Corps''--whatever--``we can't afford this, we can do half of this,'' we try to work that out with the States. In the authorizing legislation, you will have to provide for the Federal mandate or a point of order would lie. Then the waiver vote would determine whether, in spite of that, if you are not providing the money for it and you want to take it up anyway, then you have that option and the Senate does not lose its ability to do that.