John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Let us follow this through. I think it is a good example. With the Federal mandate saying you will do it, Albuquerque then probably had less police out on the streets, they were not able to put in the new sewer. They had to make choices because we put a mandate on them. If we, in our wisdom, say this is important enough for air safety, it is important they do it, period, regardless of any money, all you have to do is have a point of order that would lie against the bill if it is over the $50 million threshold, which it would be in this case--many times $50 million for the whole country--and we would say that is important enough that you just are going to have to pick that up running your airport, pick it up in an airport tax or however you do it locally; it is up to you people to do it in the State and local governments. If we say, ``No, well, wait a minute, this is going to be expensive and it is going to hit and it means Albuquerque has to take some police off the streets''--and if you have patrol cars, you are going to have a lot of problems--then maybe by the fact that we are forced to consider it up front and not ignore it, as we probably did in that case, if we are forced to take this up, it means that we have to consciously consider this when we are considering putting it in. We may want to see, in our wisdom, that it is fair we take half the expense. We can moderate it like that. I am sure the distinguished Senator from New Mexico would agree that too often in ``States, do it; that's that, take care of that, go ahead and do it.'' It has gotten to be such a burden on the States and local communities, they no longer can just absorb what we throw at them. All this says is we can still throw it at them, we still can say you have a requirement, you have to meet it, it is Federal law and do it. But we have to do it after knowing the costs and having voted affirmatively to force them to do that, and we have to go on record saying that is what you have to do.

Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GLENN. That was fine up until about 1930 and the great crash and the Great Depression. What happened then? It got beyond the ability of communities to do for themselves and to take care of all of their own people. I can remember those days. I am old enough to remember those days. I was about a 10- or 12-year-old kid at that time with a paper route, all the other things that went with earning your own money then in those days of the Great Depression. My dad had a little plumbing and heating shop. There was no business in that. We were hard pressed. I remember one of the most disturbing conversations I ever heard in my life, my father and mother sitting quietly talking at the dinner table after dinner--I was in another room--about whether we are going to lose our home, and whether the mortgage was going to be foreclosed. They were very concerned. That struck terror in my heart. I did not know what was going to happen, where we were going to go, and what we were going to do. Along with a lot of other programs that were put in at the time, the mortgage was not foreclosed. But those were days when unemployment for 4 years was over 20 percent. In 1 year, 1933, it was 24.9, with almost 25 percent of the United States unemployed. There was no money. The whole American dream was collapsing very, very rapidly. We need to remember that as to why this whole thing started, and what happened in the little community of New Concord, OH. People planted big gardens. My dad rented an extra 2 acres. We planted it. My mother canned, as they called it back then. Sometimes you talk to people now and they do not even know what this means when you say you canned food. There were glass bottles of course. Later when my mother and dad both passed away we were cleaning out some of the basement back home a few years ago. Here were hundreds of the old Mason ball jars that we used to use to can things out of this garden. My dad used to give to the neighbors what we did not need, and to the people that needed the help in the community. I am not bragging about my dad or what we did. That was the norm in those days. But we went 4 years with unemployment above 20 percent; 1 year with it up to 25 percent almost, in 1933, and it got beyond the ability of communities to take care of themselves. The Okies were heading for California. We see movies with the mattress on top of the car and the other things. And that was for real. Some of us here we can remember those days, and it is not ancient history. It is something that happened in our own lifetime in this country. Well, the country was literally destitute at that time with what happened. Franklin Roosevelt was elected, and we had the New Deal. It was controversial. I can guarantee you. I can remember some of the arguments about that even though I was a kid at the time--the National Recovery Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the WPA, FHA that saved our home mortgage and we were able to refinance the home. So we did not loose the home back in those days. We could go on with all the details of what happened back in those days. But these programs came in, and even though they were extremely controversial back in those days, they helped out. They became in many respects a replacement for the social services that had been provided by communities and church and family relationships on that kind of a basis. And the State and the Federal Government had not been involved in these things before. There was a lot of debate about this at the time, and a lot of argument. I remember even in the churches hearing sermons against the NRA and what was called the New Deal, and they held up the little spread eagle symbol of the New Deal back at that time as a symbol of the anti-Christ, and all the dire portent of that was brought out. But it was determined by the will of the people of this country that we went ahead and backed the programs of the New Deal. And they in fact became sort of the change in the delivery of social services for the United States. That has been the norm then as we have become even a more complex country, a more mobile, flowing population all through these years. Have many of these social programs and the training programs and so on gone too far in that 60-year period? Of course. Certainly nobody in this Chamber I think would disagree with that. When we have some 128 I think it is different job training programs, many overlapping each other, have we gone too far in providing some of these services that used to be in the communities? Yes. I bring this up for their reason. As we now move to turn more of these things back to the State and local level, granted things have changed in this country over 60 years. But will they pick up these responsibilities being sent back for all the programs that we are talking about? Will they address matters that were not addressed back there 60 years ago? Maybe it is not right to compare the same situation with 60 years ago. But I think it is right to ask that question. I think as we start this process through this landmark legislation that it is right to consider that. Some of this reversal, some of this new federalism as it was called back in the Reagan years, or called by some the ``Reagan Revolution'', it went to a certain extent in starting the reversal of some of these programs but in some respects added to the problem because the funding did not go along with the reversal. So we see what the current situation is. Let me quote briefly out of last year's Governmental Affairs Committee report on the mandate reform bill. We voted this out last year. What is on the floor right now is not something brand new just ginned up since the November 8 election. We have been working on this for almost 2 years now in the Governmental Affairs Committee. We voted it out last year and had it out in the middle of the year ready for consideration here on the floor. Then because of the filibusters and the delays and delays that occurred it came down to about whether we could get it through by unanimous consent. We could not do that in the waning days. So it was not adequately considered, not considered for a Senate vote last year. But out of the report that came out with that bill last year, the committee report, let me quote to show what has happened over the past decade or so where this whole problem has increased tremendously. In that report the Congressional Budget Office indicated that there were 89 bills between 1983 and 1989, 89 bills that cost over $200 million each. I think as the arithmetic comes out that is somewhere around $17 billion that we loaded onto the States with those $200 million each, some of them more than $200 million. But even at the bear minimum it comes out to a $17 billion load you put on the States or local communities. There were 382 bills reported out with new costs to them and not all of those became law. But that would have added to that total also. Even quite apart from that, the Environmental Protection Agency estimate is that environmental mandates to State and local governments rose from $22 billion in 1987 alone and will rise if not changed to $37 billion by the year 2000; $37 billion. The Vice President has headed up this National Performance Review, of course, since the new administration came in, the Clinton administration. And the estimates that the Vice President and the NPR group have made figures that the environmental concerns will be consuming $44 billion. We will have loaded the States and local communities with $44 billion by the year 2000. That is an enormous load. What happened? Did we send money along to do that, to help take care of that, or help mitigate this so the to do this but we just cannot do it? Do we help them out on this? No. Let me tell you what happened. Aid to State and local governments fell 28 percent in real terms during the decade of the 1980's. In other words, while we had that new Federalism going on that was supposed to be very good, it really impacted State and local governments tremendously. The aid to State and local governments fell 28 percent in real terms during the decade of the 1980's, at the very time when we were loading them up with all these other things I just mentioned that made it more costly for them to do business. To add insult to injury, in 1986, even general revenue sharing was terminated. That provided $4.5 billion a year of flexible funds. Since 1972, up to the time of its termination, that provided $83 billion in general revenue out there for States and local communities to use for helping take care of some of these costs. What did this do? Do we have any specific examples? Let me read some portions of things that have come from the city where I live. I live in Grandview, OH, which is part of greater Columbus. The Mayor in Columbus is Greg Lishutka. He did an article in the Wall Street Journal a short time ago, and I think it is worthy of reading some of this into the Record just to show the impact on a major American city. I think Columbus is the 16th largest city in the country. So the impact on Columbus of these mandates is representative of what happened over the rest of the country. I will read parts of this: Opposition to ``unfunded mandates'' has become the latest populist cause against an overreaching Federal Government. Oddly enough, this revolt has been led not by ordinary citizens, but by mayors, county commissioners and governors, on behalf of the taxpayers. When Republican and Democratic State and local officials unite on a issue, even Members of Congress take notice. While Federal mandates aren't direct taxation, they have pretty much the same effect. It's like having your Uncle Sam take you to lunch, order your food, and then hand you the check. Consider these examples from Columbus. He gives examples of what happened in the city of Columbus. After old paint solvents were found in a gravel lot that our city wanted to pave, the EPA's initial demand was that we ship tons of soil to a Texas incinerator at a cost of $2 million. A subsequent health-risk assessment led to a simpler cleanup for just $50,000. Implementation of the new Transportation Employees Act to randomly test city truck drivers for alcohol and drug use will cost between $50,000 and $100,000 annually. The Underground Storage Tank Act requires us to move all city fuel tanks above ground. The cost to our fire department and fire division is $950,000--equal to three or four new fire trucks. The Federal Register estimated that obtaining a stormwater discharge permit under the Clean Water Act would cost $76,681. Our actual cost was $1.5 million. When home samples of lead in tap water peaked slightly over the Federal maximum, we were forced to mail a notice to all our customers within 60 days, even though the event was short-lived and an insignificant health risk. Since Columbus does its water bills on a 90-day cycle, we had to spend $42,000 for an extra mailing. Faced with continual surprises of this nature, Columbus did a first-of-its-kind study in 1991 to determine how much mandates were affecting us. From 1970 to 1985, 20 toxic- management mandates had been imposed on local government. Since then, more than 75 have been added. Columbus estimated its total spending on 14 major environmental mandates would be $1.6 billion from 1991 to the year 2000; each Columbus family's share, reflected primarily in water and sewer bills, would be $850 a year. This amounts to a massively regressive hidden tax that hits families and retired people especially hard. And the regulations just keep on coming. I thought this was impressive. Every 6 months, the Federal Register prints an index of every new and proposed rule that might affect local governments. As an experiment, we in Columbus decided to request copies of the 524 rules listed in the April index. We received 207, just 39 percent of those requested. The pile of paper was 5 feet tall--7,067 pages of rules, along with 9,490 pages of supporting documents. The average rule was 34 pages long. Every city, village, and hamlet is supposed to read them and figure out how to apply them. Columbus is America's 16th largest city, and even we don't have the staff to handle them. How are smaller cities supposed to cope? More frightening still, how can business owners understand and pay for the even greater number of employee mandates? I will not read the next couple of paragraphs. They deal with the trade-offs America has to make. A mayor is elected to decide these things on behalf of his or her community. A couple of paragraphs are there on that. He starts again: We must do much more. Senator Dirk Kempthorne, Republican, of Idaho, former Mayor of Boise, and Representive Gary Condit of California led the bipartisan charge this year to ban the enactment of unfunded mandates, only to be thwarted by most of the Democratic leadership. As much as I admire Mayor Lishutka of Columbus, I have to respectfully disagree with him on that particular issue here. I think he got a bit too partisan in that spot, because it was Democratic leadership last year that wanted to get this through and who asked me to try and get it out of committee, along with the pleadings of Senator Kempthorne directly. We had it ready for the floor by late summer. It was on the list of things to be considered. It was because of the filibuster, the scorched earth policy, on the Republican side last year--since he laid this at the Democratic doorstep, I have to pass it back--it was those delays last year that prevented the Senate from getting through several bills, including the bill we passed last night and this bill. Senator Mitchell, at the last minute, tried to get it through on a unanimous-consent request, and that was blocked. We had blocks on both sides and were unable to clear the last one on our side. This is not fair to say the Democratic leadership, of which I was one, on this issue last year did not try to get this through. We did everything we possibly could to get it through. If there was a reason it did not get through, it was because of the filibusters on the other side and delay tactics. I am not throwing this back at Republican leadership. I know Senator Dole, the new majority leader, did not exactly have 100 percent control of all of his Members last fall. There were certain Members who were taking great pride in just blocking things. After one of the votes where we tried to get something through, I happened to walk out in the Hall toward the elevators out here and there were a dozen or so press there. One of the persons leading the fight on the other side said, ``Well, we beat them on another one.'' They said, ``What was it on.'' He said, ``Who cares, we beat them.'' I deplore that kind of attitude. I will not go into that, except to say that with all due respect to Mayor Lishutka, the reason this unfunded mandates did not get to the floor last year I do not think can be laid at Democratic leadership's feet. We were trying. Other than that, this is an excellent article. He goes on to point out that we are going to get this through, and he wants to see rules and regulations based on cost benefit analysis, actual health-risk assessments. He wants the Federal, State and local governments to be full partners in working these things out. I agree with him 100 percent on that. What does this legislation do, Mr. President? It is not at all that complicated, although the effects are very far-reaching. It says basically that on every bill reported out to the floor, there has to be an estimate from the CBO of the costs that would apply to State and local governments where those would be beyond $50 million. We would further have to include an authorization for the money or propose taxes to cover this. And if we did not do that, then and only then, if that is all complied with in the legislation, then there would be no problem. If we do not comply with that when it is reported to the floor, then a point of order would lie against that bill that would prevent it from being considered here on the floor, and if we wanted to consider that legislation, which we could, that is fine, we can still consider the legislation, but it would require a majority waiver of that point of order. It seems to me that is fair enough. We are saying for the first time up front, we have to consider these things before the Senate works its will on whatever it wants to do. And even in that case, we are saying that the Senate can vote on a straight majority vote--majority rules-- to say we think this is so important for the country that even though we have not provided this estimate or cannot provide this estimate and we cannot tell where the money is coming from, even then we say we will have a majority vote that says we proceed to this because it is But we have to do it with the knowledge up front of what the budget impact is going to be, and what the impact on State and local governments is going to be. It is so commonsense we should be doing this all the time anyway. We do have a requirement, with all due respect, that anything that is estimated to cost over $200 million coming out of the Budget Committee, we have to note here on the floor. So we do have that. But this goes far beyond that. So the Senate retains control of the situation in being able to say something is so important that it goes in no matter what, but when legislation comes out, it has to have the estimate of what the mandate, if it is a mandate, will cost. We also say that there has to be an appropriation for this, then we will stipulate that the mandate expires if not funded or if there is a reduced appropriation. If the Appropriations Committee says: Look, we have so many requests, we have so many problems these days, and we would like to fund this thing but it is going to cost X--whatever it is--and we can only supply half of X this year in the way of dollars. Then we would say OK; if you can scale back and do part of whatever the mandate is, then we will try to work that out. And that is fine. I think that is very, very fair. The CBO further must consult with State and local officials to get their view of what the costs are. And the rulemaking agencies over in the executive branch must also consult with State and local officials to make their estimates of what the rulemaking impact will be on the cost to State and local governments. That is not insignificant. Those of us who have been around here for awhile know all the time we pass legislation here, we send it over to the executive branch, and sometimes I think the people over there, we may have a few people in some of the agencies that should have almost the term ``zealot'' applied to them, because they are not going to see that. They are going to see the rules and regulations go out, and they are not going to get caught short on their watch. And they are going to take the legislative history up here and they are going to interpret it in a way that really backs up the legislation up here more than ever was intended on Capitol Hill to begin with. We have all seen examples or heard examples of the legislative and rulemaking procedures over there that resulted in such horrendous actions of things that never were intended here, particularly with regard to the environment, clean air, clean water, and so on. So the rulemaking agencies must also consult with the State and local governments. The private sector also is covered here. Where there would be a cost of over $200 million, we must have CBO cost estimates there also, or a point of order could lie against pieces of legislation, too. Certain things obviously should be exempt from this process. Civil and constitutional rights. Should civil and constitutional rights be out from under this? I think they should. Those apply to every single man, woman, and child in this country and there should not be any question about that. National security matters are out from under this; treaty obligations; bona fide emergencies such as natural disasters, and so on, are out from under this. Also out from under this is when the States voluntarily say yes, we think it is a good idea to put this program in and we think it should go through, and we will voluntarily say we will assume this. I do not know whether that would occur in many cases or not, but that provision is in there. Now, there are some concerns that we have which were expressed in the Governmental Affairs Committee the other day that are very real concerns. I certainly agree with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who, on the floor a moment ago, was calling for no steamrolling on this legislation, no rush for this legislation, without due consideration of all aspects of it. We expressed some of our concerns in the Governmental Affairs Committee in our vote the other day. I had one that I think is necessary on this and I gave an example of it a little earlier this morning. In other words, a point of order could lie against the bill. Let us say we grant the waiver, so we are going to take this bill up, whatever it is. We grant that waiver. Then amendments start coming in. Any amendment that would provide over $50 million of costs could have a point of order lie against that. Or the accumulation, an aggregate of the costs to State and local governments of a series of amendments, could go over the threshold. Right now, a point of order could lie against each one of those amendments. I see a hazard there in that it might make a method for people who wanted to filibuster a bill. You just put in a whole bunch of amendments. There is nothing in the Senate rules that says amendments have to be germane, so we could have an issue being brought up--it might be a farm issue--and we wind up with aid to children, foreign aid, all sorts of things that would be very, very expensive put on because of our lack of a germaneness rule here. So I can see the danger there that there might be a possibility that people could use that and that point of order applied to it as a means of filibustering. And I do not want to see that. I read into the Record earlier this morning the section of a letter we just received from Bob Reischauer, who is the head of the Congressional Budget Office, complaining about this also or pointing out that this needed to be corrected before we enact this particular bill. So that is one. I know that Senator Levin, who is here on the floor, has several amendments that he brought up the other day in committee, too, and I am sure at the appropriate time he will want to address those. But all we are asking is that we be given ample time for this and that this steamroller that we had going or attempted to have going on the congressional coverage bill, that we not try that on this one because this bill is very far reaching. I do think it is landmark legislation. I hope that we will have adequate time for anyone on both sides of the aisle to really try to make changes in this so that it is workable, good legislation, not something we have to get through in haste and then correct later on. Another thing I will point out is this bill is not retroactive. It does not go back and address all previous programs. Where previous programs come up for a reauthorization, a point of order would not lie unless, once again, the $50 million threshold is reached. If there is an increase for costs to State and local governments of more than $50 million in the reauthorization process of some previously ongoing program, then the point of order would lie if there was that kind of increase in cost, but only then. This would apply also to some of our entitlement programs. There are nine entitlement programs that cost the Federal Government $500 million a year or more annually. And these are included. But if the entitlement is changed by the Federal Government so that the cost to State and local governments once again is more than a $50 million change, only then would a point of order lie. So entitlement programs that go on and are not up for a periodic reauthorization would be included only if the costs to the State and local governments were increased by more than $50 million. Only then would the point of order apply. Those particular entitlement programs where we spend $500 million a year or more are: Medicaid, food stamps, AFDC, child nutrition, social services block grants, vocational rehabilitation State grants, foster care, adoption assistance and independent living, family support, welfare services, and child support enforcement. Now, Mr. President, there has been some confusion, as was addressed here on the floor earlier today, concerning the filing of the report. I do not know whether that will still be an issue with certain Members or not. I would hope that we could get on with consideration of this and work out our problems on that. I think this bill is very, very important. concerns about employment laws, concerns about what happens when the CBO cannot make an estimate, and concern about sunset. Now, the bill is not airtight. Its implications, however, are very complex. They are very, very far reaching. What it basically does, I repeat again, it requires an upfront dollar estimate with a forcing mechanism to make sure that that is considered in the consideration of any legislation here on the floor; that is, the dollar impact on State and local governments. This is a forcing mechanism to make sure that that is considered. Now, say that it comes out and the Senate Members feel strongly that regardless of the dollar impact, it still should go on. That is provided for. That is what the waiver vote would be. So the Senate does not lose its right to say, ``Here is what is best for all the citizens of the United States of America.'' We do not pull that back. All this bill does, basically, is provide a mechanism, an enforcement mechanism, to say we no longer can slide something through in the middle of the night without a cost estimate and find out later that it costs the States and local governments a bundle out there in their costs of doing business and mandate it from the Federal level. It says we have to consider that up front, and it is a forcing mechanism to do it with this point of order. But the Senate still--I repeat, the Senate still--could say we think it is that important that regardless of the cost on this--say, the cost is estimated to be $70 million instead of the threshold $50 million--and we say it is important enough that although that is a million and whatever it figures out, a million-plus, for each State, it is important enough for the people of this country that that legislation should go in, and we pass it. This bill would not prevent the Senate from taking that action at all. Now, I would say to the people in the press that may or may not be covering this, I hope that can be spelled out because there has been a lot of misinformation about how we will stop things in their tracks, we will wreck the normal procedures of government, we will wind up doing all sorts of serious damage. All this thing does, it says we, for the first time, require that there has to be upfront consideration of the best estimate of the cost before we vote on this, and a point of order would lie if that is not carried out. But, even then, there can be a waiver of the point of order, and go ahead if we think it is that important for the future of this country. So, while I think that on the face of it it is rather innocuous, just the very fact that we, for the first time, are going to require that to be considered before we take legislation up is an enormous step forward and very, very important. That is the reason I think this is landmark. It puts the Senate, puts the country, puts the House of Representatives on notice that this relationship between the Federal, State, and local governments can no longer be one where we pass things here and say, ``Well, States, OK, you carry it out. We know it will be expensive, but you carry it out. We know you can take care of it.'' That worked for the better part of 200 years in this country. But it no longer will work because what we have done is passed so many bills, as I enumerated before, we have overloaded the circuits and given the States and local communities too big a load from Federal mandates for them to be able to carry out without our help. So it means we must be very careful in what we consider in the future as legislation and its impact on State and local communities, and that we have a forcing mechanism to force that kind of consideration before things are voted out. That is what this does. So I am proud to work with Senator Kempthorne. I think he was off the floor when I made some comments about him earlier. They were not all bad. He has been a real leader in this. He has stayed on it and traveled all over this country, as I said, and he has met with all the Big Seven groups, as they are called, and talked to them, got their counsel, advice, and been a real champion of this. I am proud to be associated with him on this. I hope we can just get this legislation through. I think it is needed. One note of caution: Let Members not rush this thing to the point we do not have time to amend it with things that need amending. I add this: The Senate does not have germaneness rules. We know that, and we suffer from that from time to time, as we did on the congressional coverage bill yesterday. People are free to bring up whatever they want. On this bill, that could well happen on the floor when we open it up for amendments. Whether that does or not, there are certain amendments, as the one that I mentioned just a moment ago and the one that Senator Levin has concern about that we brought up in committee that are germane, they do apply, and I hope there is not such a push to get this thing through that we do not have adequate time to have those amendments that are valid, germane, and that will improve this. They will improve this bill and make it workable. They will not hurt. Mr. President, I rise to announce my support for S. 1--the Kempthorne-Glenn bill on Federal mandate reform and relief. This is legislation that had strong bipartisan and administration support last year, in fact we had 67 cosponsors, and my hope is that we will be able to pass the bill through the House and Senate and get it to the President. I would note that I do have concerns with some of the provisions of S. 1 and I will be offering some amendments later to try to correct some problems with the bill. I will discuss those amendments in more detail at the appropriate time. But before I go into a description of the bill, I'd like to provide some background to the whole unfunded Federal mandates debate. On October 27, 1993, State and local elected officials from all over the Nation came to Washington and declared that day, National Unfunded Mandates Day. These officials conveyed a powerful message to Congress and the Clinton administration on the need for Federal mandate reform and relief. They raised four major objections to unfunded Federal mandates. First, unfunded Federal mandates impose unreasonable fiscal burdens on their budgets; Second, they limit State and local government flexibility to address more pressing local problems like crime and education; Third, Federal mandates too often come in a one-size-fits-all box that stifles the development of more innovative local efforts, efforts that ultimately may be more effective in solving the problem the Federal mandate is meant to address; and Fourth, they allow Congress to get credit for passing some worthy mandate or program, while leaving State and local governments with the difficult tasks of cutting services or raising taxes in order to pay for it. In hearings held by the Committee on Governmental Affairs in both this and the last Congress, we heard testimony from elected State and local officials from both parties, representing all sizes of government. It was clear from the testimony that unfunded mandates hit small counties and townships as hard as they do big cities and larger States. I think it's worth stepping back and taking a look at the evolution of the Federal-State-local relationship over the last decade and a half so we can put this debate into some historical context. I believe the seeds from which sprang the mandate reform movement can be traced back to the so-called policy of new federalism, a policy which resulted in a gradual but steady shift in governing responsibilities from the Federal Government to State and local governments over the last 10 to 15 years. During that time period, Federal aid to State and local governments was severely cut, or even eliminated, in a number of key domestic program areas. At the same time, enactment and subsequent implementation of various Federal statutes passed on new costs to State and local governments. In simple terms, State and local governments ended up receiving less of the Federal carrot and more of the Federal stick. a. the cost of federal mandates Let's examine the cost issue first. While there has been substantial debate on the actual costs of Federal mandates, suffice it to say that almost all participants in the debate agree Federal mandates to State and local governments. In fact, one of the major objectives of S. 1 is to develop better information and data on the cost of mandates. Likewise, there is even less information available on estimates of what potential benefits might be derived from select Federal mandates, a point made by representatives from the disability, environmental, and labor community in the committee's second hearing in the last Congress. Nonetheless, there have been efforts made in the past to measure the cost impacts of Federal mandates on State and local governments. And those efforts do show that costs appear to be rising. Since 1981, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has been preparing cost estimates on major legislation reported by committee with an expected annual cost to State and local governments in excess of $200 million. According to CBO, 89 bills with an estimated annual cost in excess of $200 million each were reported out of committee between 1983 and 1988. I would point out one major caveat with CBO's analysis; it does not indicate whether these bills funded the costs or not, nor how many of the bills were eventually enacted. Still, even with a rough calculation, CBO's analysis shows that committees reported out bills with an average estimated new cost of at least $17.8 billion per year to State and local governments. In total, 382 bills were reported from committees over the 6-year period with some new costs to State and local governments. So if anything, the $17.8 billion figure is a conservative estimate for reported bills. Federal environmental mandates head the list of areas that State and local officials claim to be the most burdensome. A closer look at two of the studies done on the cost to State and local governments of compliance with environmental statutes does indicate that these costs appear to be rising. A 1990 EPA study, ``Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment,'' estimates that total annual costs of environmental mandates, from all levels of government, to State and local governments will rise from $22.2 billion in 1987 to $37.1 billion by the year 2000, an increase in real terms of 67 percent. EPA estimates that the cost of environmental mandates to State governments will rise from $3 billion in 1987 to $4.5 billion by 2000, a 48-percent increase. Over the same timeframe, the annual costs of environmental mandates to local governments is estimated to increase from $19.2 to $32.6 billion, a 70-percent gain. According to the Vice President's National Performance Review, the total annual cost of environmental mandates to State and local governments, when adjusted for inflation, will reach close to $44 billion by the end of this century. The city of Columbus in my home State of Ohio also noted a trend in rising costs for city compliance with Federal environmental mandates. In its study, the city concluded that its cost of compliance environmental statutes would rise from $62.1 million in 1991 to $107.4 million in 1995--in 1991 constant dollars--a 73-percent increase. The city estimates that its share of the total city budget going to pay for these mandates will increase from 10.6 to 18.3 percent over that timeframe. In addition to environmental requirements, State and local officials in our committee hearing cited other Federal requirements as burdensome and costly. They highlighted compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Motor-Voter Registration Act; complying with the administrative requirements that go with implementing many Federal programs, and meeting Federal criminal justice and educational program requirements. Now I would note that while each of these individual programs or requirements clearly carry with them costs to State and local governments, costs which we have too often ignored in the past, I believe that on a case-by-case basis each of these mandates has substantial benefits to our society and our Nation as a whole, otherwise I, along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, wouldn't have voted to enact them. State and local officials readily concede that individual mandates on a case-by-case basis may indeed be worthy. However, when you look at all mandates spanning across the entire gamut of Federal laws and regulation, you begin to understand that it is the aggregate impact of all Federal mandates that has spurred the calls for mandate reform and relief. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations testified in our April hearing that the number of major Federal statutes with explicit mandates on State and local governments went from zero during the period of 1941 to 1964, to 9 during the rest of the 1960's, to 25 in the 1970's, and 27 in the 1980's. However, to truly reach a better understanding of the Federal mandates debate, we must also look at the Federal funding picture vis a vis State and local governments. b. federal aid to state and local governments The record shows that Federal discretionary aid to State and local governments to both implement Federal policies and directives as well as comply with them saw a sharp drop in the 1980's. An examination of Census Bureau data on sources of State and local government revenue shows a decreasing Federal role in the funding of State and local governments. In 1979, the Federal Government's contribution to State and local government revenues reached 18.6 percent. By 1989, the Federal contribution of the State and local revenue pie had steadily shrunk to 13.2 percent before edging up to 14.3 percent in 1991, the latest year that data is available. What contributed to the declining trend in the Federal financing of State and local governments? A closer look at patterns in Federal discretionary aid programs to State and local governments during the 1980's provides the answer. According to the Federal Funds Information Service, between 1981 and 1990 Federal discretionary program funding to State and local governments rose slightly from $47.5 billion to $51.6 billion. However, this figure when adjusted for inflation tells a much different story; Federal aid dropped 28 percent in real terms over the decade. A number of vital Federal aid programs to State and local governments experienced sharp cuts and, in some cases, outright elimination during the decade. In 1986, the administration and Congress agreed to terminate the general revenue sharing program, a program that provided approximately $4.5 billion annually to local governments and allowed them broad discretion on how to spend the funds. Since its inception in 1972, general revenue sharing had provided approximately $83 billion to State and local governments. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration succeeded in terminating the program and the Congress followed its lead. There were other important Federal-State-local programs that were substantially cut back between 1981 and 1990. They include: economic development assistance, community development block grants, mass transit, refugee assistance, and low-income home energy assistance. Luckily, under both the Bush and Clinton administration, we've managed to restore some needed funding to many of these programs. Still, in real dollars, funds for discretionary aid programs to State and local governments remain 18 percent below their 1981 levels. the committee's legislative efforts In the last Congress, eight bills were referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee that touched on at least some aspect of the unfunded Federal mandates problem. After two hearings, we marked up a compromise bill that borrowed the best of the various provisions and requirements from the different bills. We worked closely in a deliberative, bipartisan fashion with the de facto leader on this issue, Senator Kempthorne, along with other Members and with the administration. The Kempthorne-Glenn compromise had the endorsement and strong support of the 7 groups representing State and local governments: the National Governors Association; the National Conference of State Legislators; the Council on State Governments; the National League of Cities; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties, and the International City Management Association. It had the backing of the Clinton administration and was endorsed by the editorial boards of the New York Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and other newspapers across the country, both large and small. The bill we are debating S. 993. Let me explain what the Kempthorne-Glenn bill does: it requires the Congressional Budget Office to conduct State, local, and tribal cost estimates on legislation that imposes new Federal mandates in excess of $50 million annually onto the budgets of State, local, and tribal governments. The current law requires these estimates at a $200 million threshold. I believe that that high a figure allows a lot of Federal mandates to slip through without being scored. $200 million spread across equally among all States may not be much, but if it falls particularly hard on any one region--which does happen with legislation around here--it is substantial. Let me make clear, however, that what CBO will score here are new Federal mandates, not what State, local, and tribal governments are spending to comply with existing mandates, nor what they are spending to comply with their own laws and mandates. Second, and I think most importantly, is that the bill holds Congress accountable for imposing additional unfunded Federal mandates. We do this by requiring a majority point of order vote on any legislation that imposes new unfunded Federal mandates in excess of $50 million annual cost to State, local, or tribal governments. To avoid the point of order, the sponsor of the bill would have to authorize funding to cover the cost to State and local governments of the Federal mandate, or otherwise find ways to pay for the mandate. This could come from the expansion of an existing grant or subsidized loan program, or the creation of a new one, or perhaps the raising of new revenues or user fees. The authorizing committee must also build into the legislation contingency provisions to go into effect if funds for the mandate are not appropriated. The committee would have to put provisions into the bill that would direct and set criteria for the responsible Federal agency to either declare the mandate to be ineffective, or direct and set criteria for the agency to scale back the mandate, to the extent that funds have not been appropriated. S. 1 also includes provisions for the analysis of legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector. CBO would have to complete a private sector cost estimate on bills reported by committee with a $200 million or more annual cost threshold. Agencies would also need to consider the private sector impacts of their regulations. We do exempt certain Federal laws from this bill. Civil rights and constitutional rights are excluded. National security, emergency legislation, and ratification of international treaties are also exempt. I want to also point out that the bill does not prohibit Congress from passing unfunded Federal mandates. There may be times when it is appropriate to ask State and local governments to pick up the tab for Federal mandates. But let that debate take place on the Senate floor and let the majority work its will on the specific mandate in the legislation. The Kempthorne-Glenn compromise also addresses regulatory mandates. We all know how the Federal bureaucracy can impose burdensome and inflexible regulations on State and local governments as well as on others who end up trapped in the bureaucracy's regulatory net. In the committee's November hearing, we heard testimony from Susan Ritter, county auditor for Renville County, ND. Ms. Ritter noted that the town of Sherwood, in her State, with a population of 286, will have to spend $2,000--one half of its annual budget--on testing its water supply in order to comply with EPA regulations. Clearly, there is no way that the town is going to be able to meet this requirement. So, consistent the President's Executive orders, we have required that Federal agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses on major regulations that impact State, local, and tribal governments. Further, agencies must develop a timely and effective means of allowing State and local input into the regulatory process. Given that State and local governments are responsible for implementing many of our Federal laws, it is not only fair that they be considered partners in the Federal regulatory process, but it is also good public policy as well. The bill also requires Federal agencies to make a special effort in performing outreach to the smallest governments. Then maybe we'll be able to minimize the occurrence of situations like the one that took place in the town of Sherwood. closing remarks In closing, I'd like to put this issue into some larger perspective. As we all know, the Federal, State, and local relationship is complicated. It is a blurry line between where one level of government's responsibility ends and another's begins. All three levels of government need to work together in a constructive fashion to provide the best possible delivery of services to the American people in the most cost-effective fashion. After all, as Federal, State, and local officials, we all serve the same constituents. Further, we serve the American people at a time when their confidence in all three levels of government is probably at an all-time low. There are numerous explanations for this lack of confidence in government and I won't go into them here. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review attributes ``an increasingly hidebound and paralyzed intergovernmental process'' as at least part of the reason for why many Americans feel that government is wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective. We need to restore balance to the intergovernmental partnership as well as strengthen it so that government at all levels can operate in a more cost-effective manner. Both the administration and a number of my colleagues have made proposals to shift a number of Federal programs and responsibilities to State and local governments. Clearly, as this mandates debate has shown us, we ought to at least experiment to see if State and local governments can carry out some these programs in a more effective fashion than we have been doing at a Federal level. I know from my years as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee that Americans do want more efficient and less costly government and maybe one way to help accomplish that objective is to grant more flexibility to State and local governments and let them run some of these programs. However, I think we should proceed with some degree of caution. Growing up in the Depression, I learned that State and local governments don't have the wherewithal and resources to meet all human needs. That's why President Roosevelt came through with the New Deal. So there has been and will continue to be, the need for Federal involvement and decisionmaking in many domestic policy areas. But that shouldn't preclude us from maybe loosening the reins on State and local governments in some areas, or even dropping them entirely. But we should be careful, and look at it on a case-by-case basis. I believe that the Kempthorne-Glenn bill would help to restore that partnership and bring needed perspective to future Federal decisionmaking. I am glad that it will be the first bill introduced in the Senate and look forward to working toward its very early passage. I want to give special thanks to my colleague from Idaho for his role in developing this legislation. He has been very diligent and, as a former mayor, very passionate about this issue. But he has also been willing to engage in the give and take that goes on in developing legislation where there are a lot of pressures from all sides to go one way or the other. This has truly been a bipartisan effort and he deserves special credit for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, when we got started off this morning, Senator Kempthorne made his opening remarks and we got off on some other matters here, and I did not finish my opening remarks. And I want to do that. I do not want anyone to get the impression that because we have been questioning some of the means by which this was brought to the floor, and how we are going to consider amendments and so on, that I have in any way weakened my support for this bill. This is the Kempthorne-Glenn bill. My name is on it. I am proud of this. I think it is something we should have done a long time ago. The discussion this morning indicates we think it can be made better, more workable. That is what we are about. I have been proud to work with Senator Kempthorne on this. No one has devoted himself or herself more assiduously and continuously to this than he has over almost 2 years. He has worked on this very, very hard and kept at it. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee last year--I said this publicly before--anytime I went a week without getting a call from him as to when we are going to have our hearing and when we are going to get this thing out, when we are going to get it scheduled, it was an unusual week, if that happened. I have been with him on this. So we worked very hard on this and worked together. He has worked on it, and has just done yeoman's duty on this. He has traveled all over the country, meeting with what is called the Big Seven, the groups of State, local, and municipal employees, and so on. I do not know how many speeches he has given. He sought their advice, their counsel on this, all over the country, and has traveled for the last year and a half in that regard. He deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the devotion to this that he has shown. I think this is landmark legislation. We have a lot of bills go through here. I think we have some 9,000 to 12,000 bills, resolutions, amendments, and so on, that get submitted every year. So we sometimes think we can just pass things through and let us give them the fast treatment here and get them on through and out of the Senate and get onto something else. But occasionally something comes along that I think deserves to be looked at very, very carefully before we enact it, and this is one of those bills that I do not want to see rushed through. I know all the push right now for getting things through and showing action on the Senate side, and so on. But I think we want to do this very carefully. The reason I say this is landmark is this changes the direction, it changes the considerations that have to be given to matters that come before us that affect the Federal, State, and local relationship. That makes it an extremely important piece of legislation. It is the first time that has been done. I submit this redefinition of the Federal, State, and local relationship deserves some attention on how we got to this state. What happened in the United States of America that led us into this sort of a quagmire of relationships here that we, just for the first time now, are beginning to try to change? In some respects, I think we could go back 60 years on this, to where more Federal programs became necessary. What was the genesis of that, back in those days of 60 years ago? We can say before the 1930's, communities basically took responsibility for social matters and social services and the morals and mores and the ethics of the local community. Families grew up pretty much in the local area and stayed in the local area, by and large. They did not have the same mobility we have today, where the last figure I heard was 20 percent of our people moved to a different domicile each year and 16 percent of our people move across State lines. I would have to double-check that figure to make sure it is accurate, but that is what I recall. In other words, back in those days, there was much more stability of community and church and family relationships, where communities took care of their own. And I can attest to that. I grew up in a small town in Ohio, where that was the norm when I was growing up. In New Concord, if a family had a problem where something was wrong, other people pitched in, the church pitched in, their neighbors service at its finest. It is too bad that we have gotten away from that in this country because of the complexities of our modern day life, but it is a fact of life that we have. Back in those days, the community helped and the worst that could happen, maybe, was that there was a county home for somebody to go to. And it rarely got beyond that. Taking care of one social service, if it was a school that served the whole State as far as training for the blind but that is about as far as it got outside the local community or the county consideration. (Mr. SHELBY assumed the chair.)

Mr. GLENN. Eight to six, with Dorgan missing.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, addressing this matter of the amendments, which I would like to address, we just got a letter from Bob Reischauer, head of the Congressional Budget Office, and he addresses this. I think it is important to read this, because it shows how this could work in practice here on the floor. In a paragraph here ``estimating state and local costs for floor amendments,'' which he addresses, it says: The second question deals with CBO's role in determining whether a point of order lies against an amendment for breaching the $50 million threshold for intergovernmental mandates. S. 1 would require CBO to prepare estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates for reported bills but not for amendments, motions, or convention reports. H.R. 5, the corresponding House bill, instructs CBO to provide such estimates for conference reports to the greatest extent practicable. The point of order, however, would apply to all stages of the legislative process. How, then, would the Chair determine how to rule on a point of order made against an amendment, motion, or conference report? If, as in the version of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Budget Committee is charged with determining whether the threshold is exceeded, would it have available a CBO statement on which to base its determination? As we have indicated in previous letters to you and others, preparing reliable State and local cost estimates is a complex and time consuming process. In the case of some reported bills, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to determine, with any confidence, whether the likely cost is above or below the $50 million threshold. The problem becomes even greater with regard to amendments which are not routinely provided in advance to CBO and may not even be germane to the bill under consideration. Furthermore, the time available for analysis is likely to be quite short. We, therefore, expect that the process would be similar to that used for existing Budget Act points of order against floor amendments. In such cases, the Budget Committee staff consults informally with members of the CBO staff in order to make a judgment as to the budgetary impact of an amendment. Similar informal consultation would presumably be necessary with regard to amendments involving State and local mandates because CBO will not generally be preparing formal cost estimates for such amendments. In many cases, however, it will probably not be possible for CBO to make quick and precise judgments as to the impact of proposed amendments on States, localities, and Indian Committee, or the Senate as a whole, would have to exercise its best judgment. I repeat the last sentence: In such situations, the Budget Committee, or the Senate as a whole, would have to exercise its best judgment. So we come back to what I said earlier. The Senate retains final authority. We have not abridged that in any way. I think Bob Reischauer, as Director of the Congressional Budget Office, spells it out very well, what the problem is and how this could well be used to create a filibuster situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I reply to my distinguished colleague that we would still have to get the estimate of the cost on that particular thing. That might be a delay, whether to move to the point of order or not. Debate over that would be a delay. I could just see lots of mischief with the point of order lying against every amendment. I am probably going to propose later an amendment saying when a bill comes up that is obviously over $50 million, a point of order could lie at that point, save the Senate's time, and not go through the whole bill. Then we would not raise a point of order against each amendment, but it would be in order at the end of the amending process. We may have 20 amendments that have been put on a bill that then total $100 million or whatever. At that point, then, this additional cost should be subject to a point of order after consideration of amendments, and a point of order could be lodged, then, before the final vote on that, after all amendments have been taken into account. I think that is a fair way to do it. That is what I will propose a little bit later. I hope we have support for that so we do not set up another filibuster process.

Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we objected in the committee to this, as I told the Senator from West Virginia. The vote there was a party line vote of 8 to 6, Senator Dorgan being absent and not having left instructions on this particular matter. So we objected to it and had a vote on it and we lost on a strict party line vote. Let me just add that to the comments of my distinguished colleague from West Virginia that we normally require these. When I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the last 8 years, we, on a number of occasions, submitted legislation without report language, but always with the full consent of everybody on the committee. If there was objection to it, I did not submit it unless it had a report with it. In this case, we were overridden by the vote and so it was submitted. And it was suggested that publishing the information in the Congressional Record would be adequate. We said, ``Yes, but that does not include our minority views.'' And they said, well, publish your minority views in the Congressional Record, then, like they were doing. Well, I objected to that and called for a vote on it and we flat lost. So it was submitted. So that is how we got to where we are today. I do think, I agree with the statement of the Senator from West Virginia, it is very poor practice. It does not let Senators be fully informed. If this were some perfunctory little bill, just a little thing we were passing that did not make that much difference, it would be different. But, as I will say in my opening remarks on this bill in a few moments, I think this could well be titled landmark legislation. I will give a little history of this. How did we get to the status of having such a Federal encroachment on State and local governments? Well, this started for good reasons perhaps and maybe some of those reasons are now gone. But it started back about 60 years ago when this country had really lost its way, and I mean lost its way. We were in the throes of a great depression. We had 4 years where unemployment was over 20 percent. I looked it up last night. In 1933, 25 percent, one-fourth of the United States, was unemployed and gone was the ability of communities and local level people to take care of all their own problems. The Okies were heading for California with a mattress on top of the car and all the things we have seen in the movies and so on. So back in those days, the old idea of the Norman Rockwell ideal of America, where people took care of people and the community and the church would suffice for all of our social services, broke down. I mean it broke down. The Senator from West Virginia and I are not too far apart in age, but I remember those days, because I had a little paper route. I worked to get my spending money. We planted a big garden and things I will go into a little bit later. But then came in what was called the New Deal and it was widely criticized even then: Well, it is a big encroachment. But it took over from the failure of the community and local governments to be able to handle all the concerns and the needs of their own people and it put in national programs. In the intervening 60 years, some of the programs have gone too far, and when we have 125 different job training programs, we need to take a look at this. Yes, we do. This legislation, for the first time, says that we have to do this. We have to consider the costs up front. We can override them. It does not take the authority away from the Senator from West Virginia, me, or anyone else to override what is being proposed if it is important for the people of this country. This bill has been much maligned and misrepresented in that regard. All it says is we have to get the estimates. We have to consider these things up front. Then we can vote the will of the Senate. We say that mandate goes in, and I do not care if it costs $900 billion, it goes into effect and we will vote it and that is it, by majority vote. The Senate's rights in this regard are absolutely fully protected, or I would not have gone along with this to begin with or been a part of sponsoring this legislation. It says that, if we do not do these things, if we do not consider the costs up front, if we do not have an estimate, then a point of order would lie. We have to have that vote on a point of order. A point of order would lie against the bill, and we would have to give a waiver to consider. That is fair enough, I think. That does not take away any of the powers of the purse or powers of the Senate or anything else. I think as far as this being important legislation, I agree with that 100 percent. I think the idea that we should just somehow rush through this thing because it is nice to be on a fast track around here with the new management in the Congress, I would just think from the other side of the aisle they would want to look at this thing very carefully. It is one thing to go through congressional coverage and say, as we just voted out last night, we want to keep off all the nongermane amendments. I agree with that. My personal view is we should sometime get around to putting germaneness rules in the Senate. But we do not have any. People were quite justified in bringing up whatever they wanted to bring up, and we voted them up and down and finally wound up getting something through. This legislation is very, very important. I give an example where we do not want to be on such a fast track with this that we do not require good legislation. The way it is written now, a point of order could be called against any amendment, for instance. We might say, ``OK, we waive the point of open for amendments,'' and people start putting in amendments. You put in an amendment that has an impact of over $50 million, a point of order lies against the amendment. Anybody wanting to obstruct the activities of the Senate and stop legislation in its track, all they have to do is put in 8 or 10 amendments, whether serious or not, that have either a total aggregate of over $50 million or each one says $100 million or $150 million, whatever, and a point of order would lie against those and we would be weeks and months getting through that kind of legislation. So what we are setting up here, if we do not correct that little loophole, which I will propose to do later, we would be setting up a situation where a whole new filibuster procedure by amendment could stop any legislation right in its tracks because we do not have germaneness rules. We could put in something for social services in a completely different field than the legislation being proposed. As long as it had that excess cost, it would be subject to a point of order. We could stop anything dead in its track around here; another means of filibuster by just a different process. I think there are some things like that that I would hope that our majority leader would agree should be corrected and we not try to freeze out amendments on this, because there are some that are very legitimate and they are germane. They will make it better legislation.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, that was not our agreement in the committee. We did not agree to have it made part of the Record. When it was proposed that it would suffice that just the views would be placed in the Congressional Record rather than filing a report, we objected to it and had a vote on it in the committee. We lost that vote. So the normal processes of the committee, the normal filing of the committee report was passed up. It was not agreed to by all of us on the committee. There was a considerable number of discussions held on the floor here and back and forth between the minority and majority leaders as to whether we had a right to demand that report prior to consideration of the bill or not. We finally, late yesterday, in order to get on with this--we are not trying to delay things, we are just trying to make a due process of the Senate and Senators' right to know what they are about to consider; that that be in order and not be bypassed. I will have some comments later about steamrollers here and things like that that Senator Byrd just addressed. But I think this is a very serious bill. I look at this as landmark legislation. We wanted to have all the advantages bypass and let the Congressional Record be a substitute for the committee report. But, as I understand now from staff, we will have the report by about 1 o'clock today. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. If I might respond to that.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia brings up a matter that has been a little vexing in the last couple days, in that we were promised a report several times and it did not come through at the appropriate time. As I understand it, it was finally filed last evening, but it is not printed yet. I think that is correct. I would ask for any comments from my distinguished colleague from Idaho, but that is what I have been told by staff. I am told by staff that a printed version may be here by 1 o'clock today--is that correct?--1 o'clock this afternoon. So perhaps that is the answer to the question of the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, last year, the President and the administration backed S. 993, which was the predecessor bill to S. 1 of this year. There were a few changes made this year as we moved to S. 1, and it became the prime bill this year. Senator Dole selected it as the No. 1 bill to be considered. There were just a few changes. I did not think they were major enough that the President would have any problem with still supporting this legislation. But I asked that they check on this with the administration and make certain that the President still supported this bill. The President does support this legislation, Mr. President. I am glad to announce that. In a letter dated yesterday, delivered to us this morning, a letter that he sent to both Senator Daschle and to Senator Dole, he states as follows: Dear Mr. Leader: As you know, this Administration supports legislation to address the burgeoning growth of federal unfunded mandates. I am pleased that tomorrow the Senate will begin consideration of S. 1, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. I believe it is critical for the Senate to act on this matter. Let us not miss this opportunity to work in bipartisan cooperation to strengthen our Federal, State and local partnerships. Sincerely, Bill. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record so that everyone will know that the administration does support this.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, do I understand we return now to regular legislative action?

Mr. GLENN. I listened very carefully to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, and I must respond although very briefly. I think to say that the people on the other side of the aisle are the ones that are trying to slow things down by putting in amendments rings a little hollow with me after what happened all--not 90-some days ago we were trying to get things through, including congressional coverage, including the S. 993, the predecessor of this bill, and it was being delayed 100 percent of the time on the other side of the aisle, until we did not have time left to get it done--the policy of delay for delay's sake. In fact, as I said earlier today, I followed one Member out who had been very vocal in opposition to a particular amendment from over here. And out in the hall with the press, he said, ``Well, we beat another one. We beat it down.'' They said, ``What was this one on?'' He said, ``Who cares, we beat them.'' I am sorry that was the attitude, but to think that--I just cannot let it go--that Democrats are the ones slowing it down, had it not been for the Republican filibuster on the other side, by amendment and by direct filibuster, and more clotures filed than any time in history in a comparable period of time, as then-Senate Majority Leader Mitchell pointed out repeatedly on the floor, we probably would have had both of these bills done and gone before this session of the Congress. So I know until the Senate gets its germaneness legislation some day, which I will certainly support, we are going to have delays. But to indicate that this is somehow a Democratic shortcoming over on this side, after what we were going through on the Senate floor just about 90 to 100 days ago, I cannot accept without objecting. So I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will reply briefly, but I was handed a few moments ago a list of possible amendments. They include amendments by people on both sides of the aisle, and that is fine. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, there are a couple here that are very, very major that have been put in from the Republican side. I am not here to debate all this. Both sides of the aisle have problems enough in keeping germaneness under control when we get to these things. Obviously, there was a scorched-Earth policy against anything we were trying to do last year. Last year, appropriations and authorizations bills were delayed, as well as other things. It was not all health care and things like that. That may have been part of it. I will note, S. 993 was voted out of committee last year on August 10, and George Mitchell, our majority leader, wanted to get it on the floor and he talked to me about scheduling it. It was because of the delays on other bills that we could not get it up. We tried to do it by unanimous consent in the last few days of the session, and that failed. At that time, there were objections on both sides of the aisle. We wound up with one objection on our side we could not work off. I do not think it does much good to do finger pointing. With the change of leadership, I certainly look forward to cooperating. I think the more we stay away from this finger pointing of the past and try to make certain we cooperate in things that are important for this country, like this bill, the better off we are. So I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I have no objection.

Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I just want to make certain what we are doing. One part of this we thought was important, on page 25, lines 11 through 25, deals with the jurisdiction of committees, that part that was stricken by the Budget Committee. And I want to make certain that that section I just referenced is not dealt with in the amendments the Senator is proposing.

Mr. GLENN. If I might ask a question on what we just struck with the tabling motion, I believe the distinguished Senator from Idaho said that we would put that back in the committee amendments that would be approved later. Since it has just been struck by, or will be tabled, will we need separate action to officially put that back in, or can we legally put that back in?

Mr. GLENN. I ask that he withhold that. What is it we are about to vote on?

Mr. GLENN. I may have given erroneous information. There were eight committee amendments, eight on the budget side, too. A total of 16 amendments now, I am told.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I know there are others waiting to take the floor. One point to make here is if the $50 million is adequately funded in the bill, then the point of order would not lie. If it was not funded in the bill, then the point of order would lie. But at that point, a waiver then could be voted by a majority vote, and then it is taken up and considered, whether or not the funding is there, on what is right or not right. Some of these issues that the Senator properly brings to our attention, like would minimum wage apply--things like that--those would be taken into account by the wisdom of the Senate at that point. So it is not that we say you absolutely have to do this, or you absolutely have to do that. There is always that provision for coming back, and the Senate would debate it, the Senate would express its will and the Senate would say minimum wage does apply or might not apply, or whatever the other problems were my distinguished colleague suggested. But you always have that come back for the Senate vote as to whether it will apply or not apply. So it is not an automatic thing that somebody gets knocked out and there is an arbitrary decision without the Senate being able to have full debate on the issue and decide how we should go.

Mr. GLENN. There would have to be official action to undo what we just did to permit us to put that back in the committee amendment; is that correct?

Mr. GLENN. Well, I am not sure I understand yet. We could put that back in. If we agree to it, we can put that in as part of the committee amendment, without any further action by the Senate, in light of what occurred on the tabling motion.

Mr. GLENN. We just tabled a provision that was in the bill when it came over here. We are proposing--or the floor manager on the other side is proposing that--and it is an important part we want to get back in the bill some way--he is proposing that this be part of the committee's amendments which was part of the original unanimous-consent request. Having just tabled this as an official action of the Senate, can we do that on our own and put it back in without official action of the Senate to permit us to do that--to approve putting that back in the committee amendment in toto with all of the others that are lined up in that? I think I stated that clearly.