Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife be granted permission to meet Tuesday, March 7, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a legislative hearing on S. 191 and other pending proposals to institute a moratorium on certain activities under authority of the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs would like to request unanimous consent to hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive the legislative presentation of The Veterans of Foreign Wars. The hearing will be held on March 7, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on health professions consolidation and reauthorization, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 7, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday March 7, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing on the jury and the search for truth.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President: I introduce legislation that begins to undo the damage caused by the passage of Goals 2000: Educate America Act during the last Congress. My legislation will not only eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council but will also repeal opportunity to learn standards. Both of these, created under Goals 2000, specifically shift a significant amount of the control of curriculum and management of elementary and secondary schools from local communities and States to the Federal Government. By repealing these two pieces of Goals 2000, we rid States and localities of the most offensive provisions of this legislation and move to restore local control of education. The first step is eliminating the National Education Standard and Improvement Council [NESIC], also referred to as the National School Board. This body is charged with certifying national content and performance standards and opportunity to learn standards. These standards basically address all areas affecting the way elementary and secondary schools are operated. We have already seen the failure of national standards with the creation of U.S. history standards. Let's stop this disaster before it goes any further. The second step in the process of restoring local control is to eliminate opportunity to learn standards. Basically, these standards are a Federal methodology of how people teach, what they are taught and the atmosphere in which they are taught. Opportunity to learn standards deal with input; they address curriculum, instructional materials, teacher capabilities, and school facilities. Since when is the Federal Government involved in deciding how many pencils each classroom should have? Proponents of opportunity to learn standards insist that the implementation of these standards is voluntary. However, if a State wants their fair share of the available funds, they must develop these standards, even if they have no intention of using them; this does not appear to be voluntary to me. We must make it clear that energizing local communities, the parents, the teachers, the principals, and the school boards is the key to improving education. My legislation does just that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of future generations. Our national deficit for fiscal year 1994 stood at $203 billion. Gross interest on the national debt is now the second largest expenditure in the entire budget--higher than Defense spending. The Federal Government, this year alone, will spend an estimated $295 billion in interest on the national debt, which is a 400-percent increase since 1980 and an amount equal to 57 percent of all personal income taxes collected. Our total accumulated Federal debt stands at $4.65 trillion--$18,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Like every family and business in America, when the Government borrows money it must pay interest on its debts. Given these grim statistics, I believe that we in Congress must amend the Constitution of the United States and pass the balanced budget amendment. Dr. Robert Reischauer, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in his cost estimate to the Committee on the Judiciary stated: Over the entire 1996-2002 period, the savings in CBO's illustrative path that result directly from policy changes would total more than $1 trillion--in relation to a baseline that includes an inflation adjustment for discretionary spending after 1998. Amending the Constitution, which represents the very core of American life, a governing principle born of a revolutionary war, withstanding a civil war, two world wars, the war for equality throughout the Nation and endless conflicts, both social and global, is not something to be taken lightly. That said--I believe our current conflict to conquer and eliminate our public debt--a war that we fight against ourselves here in Congress--calls for drastic measures, a call to arms, which the budget amendment answers. The amendment, House Joint Resolution 1, will set forth in the Nation's governing document the basic principle that the Federal Government must not spend beyond its means. As Thomas Jefferson said: We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. These words ring clear today. The American taxpayer will no longer, nor should they, allow us in Washington to continually spend their money with little or no accountability. We in Congress must put political expediency aside--reduce the defict--remembering that we are to serve the American taxpayer and not vice versa. Our Founding Fathers knew of the danger of leveraging current political aspiration on the backs of future generations. Congress remains incapable of looking toward the future--we are an entity embedded in the present, unable to look beyond the next election cycle. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No 51: Government is the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern man, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Well Mr. President, here in Washington there are few, if any, angels cohabiting among us. Accordingly, we do require a control mechanism to reduce our current fiscal dilemma--a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This amendment will help restore two important elements left unaddressed by the Constitution: limited government and an accountable deliberative legislative body, both of which are vital to a free America. All too often this legislative body has used the power of the purse for political expediency rather than what is in the best interest of the American people. Reducing spending in order to balance the Federal budget is something that will require tough decisions, the kind of decisions we in Washington rarely have the courage to own up to and all too often pass on to future generations. My record with regard to reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government by eliminating excessive spending is clear. I have been cited by numerous grassroots groups like the Concord Coalition, the National Taxpayer's Union, as both a taxpayers' friend and as one of Congress' most frugal Members. I believe the only way to eliminate our Federal deficit is to deal with runaway spending, much like families in New Hampshire deal with life's everyday expenses. If a family is unable to pay for a certain expense, the prudent thing to do would be to do without; not here in Washington where no one and nothing goes without, whether it is funding for Medicare, or to conduct another study to eliminate the screw worm. The American people are well versed in the way Washington operates-- they are not dumb. These past November elections made a strong statement about change; a statement heard loud and clear throughout the hallowed Halls of Congress; one that demands we revert from our past, outdated social policies that govern the Nation and jeopardize the very being of the next generation. The people are screaming, ``we have heard enough from you in Washington, now it's your turn to hear from us.'' Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming for his excellent statement on the issue of a balanced budget amendment. It is one which I hope Senators will listen to closely. The Senator has I think outlined some critical issues that this Senator is discussing as we move down the road to determine whether or not we are going to pass this critical piece of legislation. I want to rise on an ancillary issue dealing with the balanced budget amendment, dealing more importantly with the budget which we are going to have to pass this year as the Senate and as a Congress. Today, the President laid before the American people his budget proposal, and, to say the least, it was not a document that would excite a whole lot of interest or enthusiasm from a variety of different quarters, including many within his own party it appears. It is difficult to presume that here in the late 20th century a President of the United States could be deemed irrelevant, and certainly some of the pundits in the national media, however, have reflected on that question. I do not believe that can occur to a Presidency in the late 20th century; become irrelevant. Yet, when you read this budget proposal that the President has put forward, you have to say that he has left the field of play on what is probably the most important issue which we have to face as a nation and as a people; that is, how we manage our fiscal house, and what we do for our children relative to managing our fiscal house, or, more appropriately, what we do to our children in managing our fiscal house. As we all know, because this debate on the balanced budget has been going on for a considerable amount of time, and regrettably will probably go on for an additional period of time--a couple of weeks--the debt of this Nation has exploded. And it is a debt which is going to be borne by the next generation. As we allow it to expand further and further by each year running a Federal deficit, we put a greater burden on the next generation. scholars who are leaders in this country are concluding that as we move into the period 2010 to 2020 this Nation will face financial bankruptcy. Our children, instead of being raised in a country which is the force, the economic engine of the world, will find themselves in their earning years in a nation which is scrambling to keep up, a nation which is feeding itself from hand-to-mouth potentially. Potentially we could end up like Mexico is today, as a nation whose debts have skyrocketed so quickly that it is no longer able to service even an interest on its debts. It is a fact that, if we continue to drive the debt, the present deficit which we have in the budget as proposed by the President is exactly what will occur: That some time around the year 2020 we simply will not be able to finance the Government of the United States because so much of the funds of the Government of the United States and revenues will be absorbed by interest costs on the Federal debt. Around the year 2015 or 2017 the revenues of the Federal Government will only be enough to cover four items in the Federal budget: Social Security, pension benefits, health care, and interest on the national debt. And all other functions within the Federal Government will not be paid for--national defense, education, caring for the sick, the elderly, caring for the less fortunate. All of those items will be beyond our means to pay for. We will as a nation be bankrupt. If you are going to address that issue in the outyears, you have to address it beginning today. Yet, this President has consciously decided to put forward a document which makes absolutely no substantive attempt to address the deficit which we are confronting as a nation. Not only does it not attempt to address it and to reduce it, it actually accepts as a fait accompli that we will have deficits for as far as the eye can see of a dramatic nature. The number that they use is $200 billion a year for 5 years every year; $200 billion a year. Even I, in my elementary level of mathematics, recognize that is $1 trillion of new debt that this President has decided is acceptable to pass on to our children. That is a huge cost and a huge burden to put on them. But worse than that, no attempt is made in the budget proposal of the President to address the underlying structural causes which are driving that debt. No attempt is made to address those elements of the Federal budget which are causing us to run the $200-plus billion deficits. As a result, when you get past that 5-year window that is the timeframe that budgeteers use around here, that $200 billion debt starts to geometrically progress, and we find that we have a deficit in terms of $300, $400 billion, potentially even $500 billion, as we move into the next decade because nothing is being done to slow that growth in the budget proposed by the President. It was a conscious decision. That is I think what bothers me the most. It was a conscious decision made by the leader of this Nation to walk away from seriously addressing how we deal with this, the most critical issue that we as a nation have relative to passing on our concerns and well-being to the next generation. It was a conscious decision. The President has decided--and I find this ironic because he has decided to do this in the context of raising the visibility of the baseball strike while he moves onto the back burner his budget plan. The President has decided to walk away from the budget process, the issue of addressing the deficit, and, as his smokescreen so that hopefully the public will not notice this most egregious act of malfeasance he has raised the visibility of his participation in the baseball strike. Well, that is very nice. We all want to see baseball played again in the United States. I am sure we will, and we will probably see it sooner rather than later. But I have to say that for the children of this country who enjoy baseball, much more important to their future is their capacity to have a job, to raise a family, and to live in a prosperous nation when they reach adulthood. And by walking away from the field of addressing the budget deficit, the President has gone well down the road toward undermining the future of those children. Baseball terms do come to mind when you think of what is happening here, when you think of what this administration is doing on the issue of debt, terms like ``walk,'' ``strikeout,'' ``whipped,'' ``misplay,'' ``wrong field.'' I think the one that probably most aptly describes it, however, is ``another down the first baseline.'' That is what this budget is, another down the first baseline--$200 billion of deficit being accepted as a fait accompli for the next 5 years, $1 trillion in new debt added to the Nation's already staggering debt for our children to pay. That certainly is not even a single. It is not even a double play. It is another down the first baseline of the budget. Worse than that, they could not even come to $200 billion without using gimmicks. They claim $100 billion of spending cuts in this budget, with great fanfare. I heard the Director of the Office of Management and Budget today saying we have saved $100 billion in this budget, and we are going to take $63 billion, and we are going to give it to a tax deduction. Well, $100 billion is not saved in this budget. It is an accounting adjustment, a game of numbers shift. They take the caps off, then they put the caps on. These are technical terms, but basically what it is, is a shell game of maneuvering numbers around, which produces $90 billion in savings--allegedly.They are not real savings. They are savings we are going to incur anyway. We have already taken credit for them, and as a practical matter we would take credit for them. The fact that they are scoring them is a reflection of their insincerity in the entire process, which I guess is driven by a desire of this administration for reelection, exceeding its desire to address the issues it was elected to address. That is unfortunate. Irrelevant? No, but clearly not participating in its opportunities to lead, would be a way to define this administration's proposal on the budget. So what do we do? Well, we have a Republican Congress now and, obviously, the pollsters for the President have said to the President, let us just leave it to them, let them do it. Then we will play off the things we like and the things we dislike, we will attack and set up a political confrontation and, as a result, we will gain many points from the American people because we will be on the offensive against the Republicans, who are attempting to address the deficit responsibly. I suppose our response in the Senate or in the House could be, well, we can play that game, too. We can put forth budgets which are structured on poll numbers versus being structured on the need for the future of our country and our children. But I hope we will not. I hope that, as a party, we will come forward with an aggressive budget and I expect we will because we have the type of leadership it takes to do that, leaders in the House and in the Senate. Senator Domenici and certainly the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, I do not think, are going to opt to bunt, hit a number, to balk, or leave the field. I expect we will come forward with a very aggressive proposal to try to address the deficit. It will be one which has to address, if it is going to be successful, the core issues of what is driving spending in the country today, as far as Federal accounts are concerned. Fifty-five percent of the Federal Government today is represented by entitlements. Entitlements are programs where you have a right as a citizen to receive a payment under that program because you meet certain qualifications under the law. Discretionary spending represents a significantly smaller percentage of the Federal budget. You cannot balance this budget, or even make a significant downpayment on the need to balance the budget, or at least bring down the deficit, unless you are willing to address entitlement spending-- something which the President has absolutely refused to recognize or acknowledge or do in his own budget, and which reflects the cynical, really, approach that his budget takes toward addressing the financial concerns of this country. How do you address entitlements? Well, we have, for a variety of reasons, taken Social Security off of the table--probably the real reason is because every time it is put on the table, one side or the other demagogs the issue so fight over how you address Social Security. As a practical matter, Social Security is not driving the deficit, so there is no huge momentum to take it up. It is not like in 1983 when the Social Security trust fund was about to go bankrupt and we were able to put together a bipartisan effort under the leadership of President Reagan and Congressman Pepper and came forward with the Pepper Commission, which made the fund not only solvent but put it into a position of surplus, as it is today. Today because the fund is actually putting in more money than it is taking out, there is no immediate need to address Social Security. And we will not, for political reasons and because of that substantive reason, other than, I hope, we will look at the payroll tax, because we are generating these huge revenue surpluses and there is no reason to be subjecting people to what is one of the most regressive taxes we have in this country at its present level, when it is generating surplus. We should be considering reducing the payroll tax, at least for low- and moderate-income individuals. But there are other entitlement accounts which have to be addressed. Look at them. Independent of Social Security, 55 percent of those accounts are health care accounts, 20 percent are pension accounts, about 20 percent are welfare accounts, and about 10 percent are the rest, including agriculture. There are significant things that can be done in all of those areas, which would dramatically reduce--especially in the outyears--the rate of growth of the cost of those programs and in many instances would also significantly improve the quality of those programs and the beneficiaries' lifestyle under those programs. Take, for example, the issue of welfare. The Governors have come to us and said, essentially--this is a capsulization--all right, if you will give us control over the welfare programs, which have been an abject failure--has anything been more of a failure in the liberal welfare state than welfare itself? I am not aware of anything else, if it has. After 40 years of the most expansive Federal control over welfare, we have seen a society where we have more poor, more illegitimate births, more women living in poverty, where we have more bureaucracy, and where we have more disillusionment and lack of hope amongst those on welfare than we started out with 40 years ago. That has been a function of the liberal welfare state applying its largess and compassion to a system in a manner which has failed miserably. So the Governors came to us and said: Give us these programs and allow us to manage them, give us flexibility, and we will take less dollars. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me. What we have now is not working and is costing a lot more. So let us take the Governors up on their offer. Did the President do that in his budget proposal? No. Even the President, who is a former Governor and who made welfare one of his primary concerns, did not have the fortitude to take that step. Why? Because his pollsters probably told him: You are going to upset one of constituency groups, so let us stay away from that and let the Republican Congress handle that and make the tough decisions. If they come up with a program that works, we will put our imprimatur on it and get credit for it. If not, we will use it in the next campaign. That is not what you call leadership, to say the least. As a practical matter, we, as Republicans, can take the Governors up on their offer. We can save considerable money, and I will guarantee you that a welfare program--at least in my State, administered by my State--free of Federal oversight, Federal regulation, bureaucracy and the incredible costs and inefficiency. The Federal Government will be able to deliver more dollars to the welfare recipient in a more efficient and better way than we do today. Welfare recipients will benefit dramatically from that system. We can take the issues of what we do in the future as part of the entitlement question. Prospectively, programs can be changed around here to make them more cost-efficient. In the area of new hires coming into the Government, new hires coming into the military, we can change the retirement system to make it more reasonable and more in line with what the private sector has and save considerable money in the outyears. In the area of health care, there is a great deal that can be done. I know we are going to have a lot of discussion about this. There is a great deal that can be done that will positively impact-- especially the senior citizens who take part in the Medicare Program today--and still save money. Well, of course, everyone from the liberal camp says that cannot be; you cannot save money and positively impact somebody. Yes, you can. You can create incentives in the marketplace, which give senior citizens better health care, more comprehensive health care than they are getting today, which saves money for the senior citizen and for the Federal Government. There will be proposals along that line. One that I happen to like is one where I have coined a phrase called ``choice care,'' where we actually give seniors significant choices. We do not take away any choices they presently have; we give them more choices. When they make choices that are cost beneficial to us and them, we do not allow them to lose their present health care plans. We add to them with this choice care. When they make those choices, we see savings, they see savings and better care, and we get some controls over the cost of the entitlements. Well, how can that be? Because there are senior citizens who come from a culture of fee-for-service that is the most significant and expensive form of health care. To the extent we can change that culture and encourage our seniors, through incentive systems of better care and lower costs which they benefit from, to move into other forms of delivery than fee-for-service, we save money and we reduce the cost of entitlements. And in the area of Medicaid, which goes to people who are essentially on welfare, as health care coverage, again we can join with the States as partners and Governors and come forward with a proposal and save a dramatic amount of money. Again, the President has ignored all these fields of opportunity for the sake of putting forward a political budget. In the area of farm price control supports, we can also do a significant amount, although this is not a large part of the budget. In the area of pensions, we can do a significant amount, and we will. That is our purpose. We have an obligation to do this. If we do not do it, it will be our children who will pay the price and it will be a price which will be unconscionable, unthinkable to have passed on to them. So we must do it. You know, over the last month, I have listened, from the other side of the aisle, to a number of presentations made very well and very eloquently, I think, especially from the Senator from North Dakota, who has come down here a couple of times with a number of charts and made extraordinarily strong presentations on the size and the projection of the Federal deficit. And it is staggering. I say to those Senators, they must be embarrassed by this presentation by the President. Those folks who are trying to conscientiously raise the issue of how bad the deficit is and how something must be done about it must be embarrassed that the President of the United States would present a budget which essentially accepts $1 trillion of new debt over the next 5 years as an acceptable event passed on to our children. The President of the United States would walk off the playing field of responsible activity in the area of trying to manage this deficit and, as the Wall Street Journal said, punt the ball. It is not really a punt. It is a punting punt. It does not even qualify as a punt; more like a missed kick. But it is inappropriate, whatever it is, because if this Nation is not going to be able to survive as a prosperous and decent place in which to raise and have a family, it is not going to be able to fulfill the American dream or even hold out the American dream to its people unless we address this deficit. Regrettably, this President has decided that he, as the leader of this country, has no obligation to lead in this area. And that is a mistake Mr. President, I yield back my time. Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio for having brought us to the completion of this rather lengthy process of passing the unfunded mandates bill. They have done an extraordinary job of managing this bill. They are in what has been a long and fairly tedious few weeks here of extraneous issues to the underlying question, which is passage of the unfunded mandates law. When I first was elected to this body 2 years ago, I made one of my job priorities passage of this piece of legislation. I was happy to work with the Senator from Idaho to bring it to this point. And I congratulate him for all of his efforts in truly driving this process. Effective unfunded mandates language is absolutely critical to the States, to the cities, and to the county governments of this country. If we are going to have government which is responsive, we have to have a Federal Government which, when it passes a law, does not end up taking all of the glory and none of the hard decisions, but rather takes the glory and also takes on the hard decisions. That means that this bill will put us all on notice that when an unfunded mandate comes to the floor of the House or the Senate and there is a vote on that unfunded mandate, people be held accountable as to whether or not they are supporting passing of laws on to the States and on to the cities. It is very appropriate that this bill should be one of the first major pieces of legislation passed by this Congress because it represents a new approach to the way we govern this country. It represents an approach which recognizes federalism should exist. In real terms, federalism means that when the Federal Government takes actions, it creates costs for the local community and it also pays the costs that it incurs and puts on those local communities. So I strongly support this piece of legislation. I congratulate the managers of the bill for bringing it to this point. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator. Congratulations to the Managers of the Bill

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho controls 20 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize one of my constituents, Mrs. Dorothy A. Hardy, for her many contributions to the town of Pelham, NH over the past 25 years. Mrs. Hardy's distinguished services to the town of Pelham have included: dispatcher for the Pelham New Hampshire Police Department since 1970; active organizer with the Pelham Good Neighbor Committee; supervisor of the checklist chairman for over 25 years; long-time Republican Party activist, including 1980, 1988, and 1992 town chairman for President George Bush; member of the Pelham American Legion Post 100 Auxiliary, and Pelham newspaper correspondent for the Lowell Sun. I would like to take this opportunity to highly commend Mrs. Hardy for her dedication, commitment, and numerous contributions to the town of Pelham and its citizens. Mrs. Hardy has always been a source of great pride to her family, friends, and coworkers and will be sorely missed as she begins her retirement. I would like to extend a special thanks for her outstanding services and wish her all the best for a healthy and prosperous retirement.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Auto Inspection Reform [AIR] Act of 1995. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison, Lott, Gramm, Nickles, and Warner have joined as cosponsors. This legislation will postpone the implementation of the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs under the Clean Air Act until March 1, 1996. The bill requires EPA to reissue the regulations relating to these programs, and to reassess its initial position that effectively mandated centralized tests. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, Congress imposed enhanced auto emission inspection and maintenance requirements on States in nonattainment areas and on States in the statutory-mandated Northeast ozone transport region. Under the act, Congress provided a clear option to centralized systems for States that proved that decentralized testing could be as effective. Despite the clear statutory language that indicates Congress wanted decentralized testing to be a viable option, EPA has acted to fundamentally undermine this congressional intent. Through two decisions, EPA has effectively forced States to adopt centralized systems. First, EPA determined that an extremely high cost test known as the IM-240 was mandated under the act. Second, EPA determined that the pollution reduction that States say can be achieved by a decentralized system must be discounted by roughly 50 percent. As a result, States have either yielded to EPA's mandate, or are trying to get EPA to change its views. States that chose the first course are facing a citizen rebellion and States choosing the second are facing a brick wall. If a State does not meet the enhanced emissions testing requirements to EPA's satisfaction, the Agency can have the State's Federal highway funding cut off. EPA has just recently indicated a willingness to reconsider and negotiate increased flexibility with some of the affected States' Governors and not implement fines for States moving forward in ``good faith.'' This is a good first step. However, it has only been implemented on a State-by-State basis and EPA has yet to issue any codified guidance to define this apparent change in policy. States remain at the mercy of EPA's discretion. I believe that any new policy should be formalized to provide States certainty and predictability. This bill will help ensure that the Clean Air Act will be complied with by giving States the necessary flexibility to implement the most suitable inspection program for their States. I urge my colleagues to give this bill careful consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last year, I introduced the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act, a bill that will end the terror that unfortunately runs rampant throughout many housing projects specifically designated for elderly and disabled residents. I reintroduce this important legislation. In my home State of New Hampshire, most people are still afforded the luxury of not having to lock their front door before turning in for the evening. However, many elderly residents of public housing facilities in my State and across America have been forced to not only lock their front doors, but are literally being held prisoner in their own homes. I believe this is outrageous. I have received numerous complaints from residents of elderly housing facilities throughout New Hampshire who are worried about their personal safety in housing specifically reserved for them. Under current housing laws nonelderly persons considered disabled, because of past drug and alcohol abuse problems, are eligible to live in section 8 housing designated for the elderly. This mixing of populations may have filled up the housing projects across the country, but it has opened a Pandora's box of trouble. Simply put, young, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are not compatible with elderly persons. Many of these young people hold all-night, loud parties, shake down many of the elderly residents for money, sell drugs within the housing facility, and generally disturb the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This problem has occurred because the definition of handicapped under the Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988 to include recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Under the mixed population rules of 1992, Congress determined that the elderly and disabled should be housed together. Historically, disabled individuals have lived in complexes for the elderly because the apartments there--one-bedroom units equipped with such features as hand rails--best fit their needs. However, drug addicts and alcoholics who are considered disabled do not have the same needs. Many elderly persons hope to retire in a community surrounded by persons their own age, elderly people who choose to live a peaceful existence in the company of their peers. I want to restore that hope and this legislation will attack this problem with a two-tier approach. First, my legislation will institute a front-end screening process. This will prevent nonelderly individuals, classified as disabled because they are recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction, from becoming eligible for housing that is designated for the elderly. It simply says they cannot live in housing designated for the elderly additionally, it will prevent the further mixing of two groups that are obviously incompatible. This will not, however, exclude these nonelderly, disabled individuals from the housing I believe they need and deserve. Second, my legislation will force local public housing agencies to evict nonelderly individuals occupying the facility who engage on three separate documented occasions in activities that threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants and involves the use of drugs or alcohol. This process, by no means, circumvents the current housing eviction procedure. Under current law the public housing agency could evict these persons after one infraction if deemed necessary. It simply mandates that these nonelderly individuals be evicted after three incidents which threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This is a simple bill that prevents the mixing of two populations who have proved incompatible. This bill will restore order in housing projects designated for elderly and disabled tenants by screening out nonelderly alcoholics and drug addicts, as well as evicting those nonelderly persons who continuously raise havoc within the housing project. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, last year, I introduced the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act, a bill that will end the terror that unfortunately runs rampant throughout many housing projects specifically designated for elderly and disabled residents. I reintroduce this important legislation. In my home State of New Hampshire, most people are still afforded the luxury of not having to lock their front door before turning in for the evening. However, many elderly residents of public housing facilities in my State and across America have been forced to not only lock their front doors, but are literally being held prisoner in their own homes. I believe this is outrageous. I have received numerous complaints from residents of elderly housing facilities throughout New Hampshire who are worried about their personal safety in housing specifically reserved for them. Under current housing laws nonelderly persons considered disabled, because of past drug and alcohol abuse problems, are eligible to live in section 8 housing designated for the elderly. This mixing of populations may have filled up the housing projects across the country, but it has opened a Pandora's box of trouble. Simply put, young, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts are not compatible with elderly persons. Many of these young people hold all-night, loud parties, shake down many of the elderly residents for money, sell drugs within the housing facility, and generally disturb the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This problem has occurred because the definition of handicapped under the Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988 to include recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Under the mixed population rules of 1992, Congress determined that the elderly and disabled should be housed together. Historically, disabled individuals have lived in complexes for the elderly because the apartments there--one-bedroom units equipped with such features as hand rails--best fit their needs. However, drug addicts and alcoholics who are considered disabled do not have the same needs. Many elderly persons hope to retire in a community surrounded by persons their own age, elderly people who choose to live a peaceful existence in the company of their peers. I want to restore that hope and this legislation will attack this problem with a two-tier approach. First, my legislation will institute a front-end screening process. This will prevent nonelderly individuals, classified as disabled because they are recovering from alcoholism and drug addiction, from becoming eligible for housing that is designated for the elderly. It simply says they cannot live in housing designated for the elderly additionally, it will prevent the further mixing of two groups that are obviously incompatible. This will not, however, exclude these nonelderly, disabled individuals from the housing I believe they need and deserve. Second, my legislation will force local public housing agencies to evict nonelderly individuals occupying the facility who engage on three separate documented occasions in activities that threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants and involves the use of drugs or alcohol. This process, by no means, circumvents the current housing eviction procedure. Under current law the public housing agency could evict these persons after one infraction if deemed necessary. It simply mandates that these nonelderly individuals be evicted after three incidents which threaten the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants. This is a simple bill that prevents the mixing of two populations who have proved incompatible. This bill will restore order in housing projects designated for elderly and disabled tenants by screening out nonelderly alcoholics and drug addicts, as well as evicting those nonelderly persons who continuously raise havoc within the housing project. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I introduce the Auto Inspection Reform [AIR] Act of 1995. I am pleased that Senators Hutchison, Lott, Gramm, Nickles, and Warner have joined as cosponsors. This legislation will postpone the implementation of the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs under the Clean Air Act until March 1, 1996. The bill requires EPA to reissue the regulations relating to these programs, and to reassess its initial position that effectively mandated centralized tests. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, Congress imposed enhanced auto emission inspection and maintenance requirements on States in nonattainment areas and on States in the statutory-mandated Northeast ozone transport region. Under the act, Congress provided a clear option to centralized systems for States that proved that decentralized testing could be as effective. Despite the clear statutory language that indicates Congress wanted decentralized testing to be a viable option, EPA has acted to fundamentally undermine this congressional intent. Through two decisions, EPA has effectively forced States to adopt centralized systems. First, EPA determined that an extremely high cost test known as the IM-240 was mandated under the act. Second, EPA determined that the pollution reduction that States say can be achieved by a decentralized system must be discounted by roughly 50 percent. As a result, States have either yielded to EPA's mandate, or are trying to get EPA to change its views. States that chose the first course are facing a citizen rebellion and States choosing the second are facing a brick wall. If a State does not meet the enhanced emissions testing requirements to EPA's satisfaction, the Agency can have the State's Federal highway funding cut off. EPA has just recently indicated a willingness to reconsider and negotiate increased flexibility with some of the affected States' Governors and not implement fines for States moving forward in ``good faith.'' This is a good first step. However, it has only been implemented on a State-by-State basis and EPA has yet to issue any codified guidance to define this apparent change in policy. States remain at the mercy of EPA's discretion. I believe that any new policy should be formalized to provide States certainty and predictability. This bill will help ensure that the Clean Air Act will be complied with by giving States the necessary flexibility to implement the most suitable inspection program for their States. I urge my colleagues to give this bill careful consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, which addresses the issue of national standards in the area of U.S. history and world history. This amendment is very appropriate in light of the discussions which have recently occurred and the presentation which has been made now by this national standards proposal. The question which is before us really is: Is it appropriate for the Federal Government to be in the business of setting national standards which, although voluntary in name, in actual fact may end up being standards that will be used throughout the country and will inevitably be enforced upon many school districts in this country? Once you have a group which has been funded by the Federal Government to the tune of $2 million, producing a set of national standards in any curriculum activity, it is inevitable that those standards will be used by local groups within activist educational communities to try to force that curriculum on local school boards and local school districts. In fact, I think it is logical to presume that once a national standard has been set and defined by some group which has received the imprimatur of the Federal Government, you will see that that standard is aggressively used as a club to force local curriculums to comply with that national standard. This is something that concerned me greatly when we took up the issue of Goals 2000, and I argued aggressively at that time that it was a mistake to set up this national school board called NESIC. By setting up that national school board you were essentially creating a situation where the term ``voluntary'' was actually illusory. You would end up where the Federal Government would start defining what would be in the curriculum of the local school districts, and they would have to comply with that not only because local educational activists would start litigating for compliance and claiming that local school districts which were not in compliance were therefore not teaching properly, but also because of the fact that funding from the Federal level will inevitably, at some point, be tied into whether or not local school districts are complying with these national standards. In fact, when we took up the elementary and secondary school bill, that was the exact attempt that was made. It was fought off here in the Senate by those of us who were members of the conference committee, and it did not end up being the final law. But it was an aggressive attempt made to apply to local school districts national standards in the area of opportunity to learn, and those national standards were going to be enforced on the local school districts by using the funding mechanisms of the Federal Government as a club to require compliance. And so now we have a curriculum exercise coming again from the national level which will inevitably, in my opinion, lead to a top-down directive as to how a curriculum should be structured in this country. There are a lot of problems with that, but there are especially a lot of problems with that when the curriculum which is designed, and which is being put forward by the national organizations, is so biased and so editorial in comment. This is a curriculum which spends very little time addressing the substance of history and the facts of history and spends a great deal of time presenting the editorial comment on history and a revisionist view of history. As has been mentioned before, within these standards, eight times we see the American Federation of Labor mentioned. We see Senator McCarthy mentioned 19 times. Ku Klux Klan is mentioned 17 times. Granted, the American Federation of Labor did have a major impact on American history, and Joseph McCarthy had an impact--passing at best--on American history. The Ku Klux Klan was a representative of a reprehensible period in our history. But if you are going to put that much time into those types of activities, why and how could you possibly ignore the mention, as has been pointed out here, of the undertakings of people like the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein? It does not really get into the issue of who the combatants were in World War I, or the factual events that created the War of 1812, and what the battle of New Orleans was all about, for example. If you want to take a historical event that ought to at least be pointed out in our history books, that allowed for the opening up of the entire West. It would not have occurred without it. That list goes on and on. Then in the area of discussing how we as a culture came together, the fact that we are a Western-based culture appears to be something that this historical standard which is being promoted here tries to ignore, possibly even reject, and certainly undermines, as it spends an incalculable amount of time pressing the logic that should be taught as being the logic of Muslim scholars and scholars who really have very little relevance to what is the core culture of the American society, which is Western, whether you like it or not; that is what we come from. You cannot really understand America's heritage unless you understand our Western culture. You also cannot understand our Government, or the way we function, unless you at least have passing knowledge with people like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and even historical figures like Paul Revere, and the people who fought for the Sons of Liberty in Boston. Yet, these individuals who played a fairly significant role in defining our course in history as a Nation are virtually ignored. History is about individuals, whether you like that or not. History is about individuals. Individuals have a major impact on the course of our lives. The study of major individuals within history is necessary if you are going to understand the course of history. You cannot possibly understand 20th century world history unless you understand Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Lenin. You cannot understand American history unless you look at people like Daniel Webster and what he did, or Thomas Edison and what he did, or Albert Einstein and what he represented, or the Wright Brothers and what they represented. Yet, this new curriculum would essentially ignore the concept that individuals matter and would base its thought process on a revisionist view of what history is and how individuals impacted it. The proposal, as it comes forward, for all intents and purposes, ignores the cold war as a confrontation of ideology. The Soviet system, which was an outgrowth of Marxism, does not even discuss the concept, for all intents and purposes, that it was the United States culture of freedom, of individuality, of individual rights going up against a culture of totalitarianism, of collectivism, and of the usurpation of the individual and the replacement of individual rights with the right of the State. That confrontation, over which this country spent billions of dollars and lost many, many American lives is, for all intents and purposes, passed over as a casual event, an event that is not of enough significance to spend a great deal of time on or an event which is caricatured through the representations of somebody like Joseph McCarthy. The rewriting of history, I believe, we found throughout various cultures is extremely risky. A culture that lies to itself about what its history was, tries to undertake revisionist history and teaches its children revisionist history, is a culture that is going out on thin ice. This was seen in most recent examples in this century in the Soviet history system or in the Chinese history system as it presently exists today or, of course, in the German history system of the 1930's and early 1940's where, essentially, people who have a political philosophy--totally repugnant, of course, in our terms, but it was a political philosophy--defined history in terms of their political philosophy. One cannot look at this book which has been proposed on American history and not conclude that what we have here is a group of folks who wanted to define American history in the terms of their political philosophy. They have, it appears, only a passing interest in factual history; virtually no interest, actually, in factual history; and a deep interest in cultural history, but it is a cultural history which they are procedure. OK, if they want to view history that way, that is their decision. If that is the way these folks who have decided to rewrite American history wish to view our times and the times of our ancestors, that is their decision. But the problem here is that they are taking that view of the world and they are putting it upon educational systems throughout this country by having it nationalized and having it receive the imprint of appropriateness, the seal of correctness, through Federal financing and what will probably be Federal activity through the national school board, NESIC. And that is what is wrong with it. It is not only incorrect history, in my humble opinion--and I guess people can disagree with that--and very much revisionist history and politicized history and editorialized history, but it is also an attempt to take that editorial viewpoint and subject school districts throughout this country to it by designating it as the correct history. Well, I do not believe that the Federal Government should be in the business of defining the correct history. And I certainly do not feel it should define the correct history for the State of New Hampshire or for the school systems within my State. And I especially do not appreciate it when that correct history is so grotesquely biased in its presentation. There was some discussion earlier by a Senator as to the effect of the drafting of this even if it is not endorsed by NESIC. I think we need to look at that, because this is the first exercise of this nature that has come forward. I am extremely concerned that, because of the nature of the community of historians who dominate the intellectual process of defining our history in this country, we are going to find that this correct history will become the standard of the new textbooks. Anybody who has had the experience of dealing with American history textbooks knows that they go in sort of fads. They go through periods of one textbook being in and the next textbook being appropriate. And because textbooks are so expensive for school systems and so expensive to produce, they tend to be single entities that become very big best sellers and dominate the curriculum within the school systems. My concern is that what we have created here is the ability of an insidious monster. I guess all monsters are insidious, but this one is especially so because, as a practical matter, what we have created here is the core of what I suspect textbooks are going to look to. Because if you are a textbook creator and a writer or publisher, you are going to say you want to pick the course of least resistance and the easiest approach. You are going to say, ``Well, here is the Federal Government that spent $2 million to produce this cultural treatise. Why should I go out and reinvent the wheel? I am just going to take over what has been done by the Federal Government. After all, it has been done by the Federal Government, so who could ever argue with me,'' I, the publisher, ``if I undertake the republication of this document basically in the form it was produced?'' And so we have created a situation where, I suspect, inevitably the core elements of this cultural document will end up being part of the text in a textbook initiative which will be promoted across the country, and it will have been done at taxpayers expense and at our history's cost. And that will be unfortunate. I hope that the publishers of this country who produce our textbooks will take note of the debate on this floor and sense the significant concern that is being expressed here about the quality of the workmanship of this product, because it is not good quality and it does undermine the teaching of history in this Nation, in my opinion. So I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Washington. I also wish to associate myself with the Senator from Kansas when she came to the floor earlier and stated that she intended to offer an amendment to repeal NESIC and end this national school board experiment. It should never have been proposed in the first place. It was a mistake and we should terminate it right now. The Federal Government does not have a role in this area, and it certainly should not be putting taxpayers' dollars at risk in this area. I yield back my time. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will note that at 9:30, after morning business, which the Chair has just noted, we will resume consideration of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill. Also, I note that the Senate will recess from the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., in order for the weekly party luncheons to occur. For the information of all Senators, the majority leader has indicated that rollcall votes may occur prior to the 12:30 p.m. recess today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. roll.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. For a question, or a response.

Mr. GREGG. I believe there are a number of independent agencies not covered by this bill and, therefore, to current of the present status of the bill, but as it left the Budget Committee, as I recall, the Federal Reserve was not included as a covered agency under this bill, and, therefore, Federal issues of raising the interest rate, as I understood, would not be subject to this bill on the face of the bill itself; is that incorrect?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield for a question as a result of that question just asked?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would try also to support this legislation. I wish to congratulate the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Ohio in moving this bill forward in such a prompt and expeditious manner. I also wish to congratulate the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from New Mexico who chaired the committees which have jurisdiction for their willingness to move this bill in an expeditious manner. I especially, as I mentioned, wish to applaud the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Kempthorne], who has made this a cause of inordinate proportions in his daily activities here since being elected 2 years ago by his friends and neighbors from Idaho. They have been extraordinarily well served by his efforts. This is S. 1. It is the No. 1 piece of legislation which this Congress is going to take up, that the Senate will take up in this year. The reason it is S. 1 is because of the significance of the legislation. But the reason that it is here is because of the dogged and unwavering commitment of Senator Kempthorne to making sure that we pay attention to this critical issue. I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Kempthorne on this matter over the last 2 years. We both happened to come to the Senate at the same time, and both making this a high priority. I admire his efforts and congratulate him for them. On my own part, I strongly endorse the nature of this bill. First, because it addresses the issue; and second, because it has such strong bipartisan support. Especially the support of the Senator from Ohio has been critical in that area. During the last 2 years we have raised this issue on a number of occasions on this floor and talked about the issue of unfunded mandates in considerable depth. During the taking up of the bill Goals 2000, and during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, we were able to put into both of those pieces of legislation very aggressive unfunded mandates language. For the first time in the history of this body we actually had language which specifically banned unfunded mandates in legislation that was passed by both Houses and signed by the President in those two pieces of legislation. In addition, we have debated this issue on a number of amendments that have been brought forward over the last 2 years. I recall one amendment I offered, called No Funds/No Fine, dealing with the issue of unfunded mandates. The matter has come to our attention on a number of occasions, and on each occasion the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Idaho have aggressively committed themselves to trying to look at the problem in an overall way and develop a procedure where we could address unfunded mandates in a more systematic way rather than in a haphazard way, and by developing this bill they accomplish that. The passage of this bill will put the brakes on what has been a rather insidious process of legislating over the last 15 to 20 years by the Federal Government. It has been talked about at length here but it is worth mentioning again. What unfunded mandates are is, essentially, a decision by one legislative body to take the credit for passing a law and to get the political goodwill for passing legislation that sounds good and accomplishes worthwhile goals. But that same legislative body does not have the courage to step forward and pay for them and make the difficult decisions of raising the revenues to undertake the costs that are incurred by generating that legislative directive. Rather, they pass that cost down on to a lower level of government and thus skew the capacity of that lower level of government to manage its own business of administering the issues to come before it. I have had a bit of a personal experience in this because prior to serving here in the Senate I did have the great honor of serving as Governor of my State. Certainly, the problems which we confronted of unfunded mandates were staggering, not only staggering at the State level but staggering at the communities' level. In innumerable instances at the State level and at the communities' level, there would be occasions when dollars which we felt should be intended in one way would have to be allocated in another way as a result of a Federal mandate. And, thus, we were unable to manage effectively the dollars which we were raising under our category of responsibility, whether it was at a State level or at a community level. In the past, the Congress has passed approximately 20 laws which have fallen into this category and which have contained unfunded mandates, and it is not a practice which has abated all that much over the years. In fact, just in the last session of Congress, unfortunately, we passed the motor voter bill, which is a significant unfunded mandate and a tremendous burden to many of the small communities in my State. It is not fair, it is not right, it is not appropriate if one group of legislators passes a law and does not have the courage to pay for the expenditures which that law generates. In a small community which has as its basic form of revenue generation the real estate tax, there is a tremendous demand for the allocation of those dollars among the school systems, among the fire prevention departments, among the police and public safety departments. And yet in many, many instances, that local tax dollar, the real estate tax dollar, has to be spent first on a project which has been defined not by the local town council or select persons or city government, but by us here in Washington. And that is not right. We have huge revenue sources at the Federal level. We have the capacity to level a national income tax, which we do with, unfortunately, excessive aggressiveness. We have innumerable other revenue sources at the Federal level. Certainly, it is not right for us to invade the revenue sources of our communities and invade the revenue sources of our States to pay for the programs which we deem appropriate at the Federal level. Those programs should be paid for with revenues from the Federal level through our own decision on what is right and what is not right in our own setting of priorities. We estimated, when I was Governor, that it cost us approximately $150 million a year to pay for unfunded mandates in our State at the State level. But in the communities, that is where it really impacted, in the small communities--for example, Groton, NH, population 318. In Groton, a Federal mandate became simply too expensive to meet. The town now pays to truck their trash over 50 miles away. They must also install groundwater monitoring wells for annual testing. Over the next 30 years, and with no factories or stores in this town, all the cost of that Federal mandate has to be borne by 318 citizens. They did not ask for that cost and, to be quite honest with you, I think the people of Groton are probably responsible enough so they could have accomplished the goals of that piece of legislation without having to have borne that cost. The city of Nashua, the second largest city in the State of New Hampshire, has 80,000 people in it. Nashua's estimates are that mandates cost them literally millions of dollars. Their combined sewer overflow charge is somewhere between $40 and $100 million. The Solid Waste Disposal Act mandates cost them $1 million. The Wetlands Act mandated costs of approximately $65,000. The Americans With Disabilities Act mandated costs of approximately $80,000. The Underground Storage Tank Act generated costs of $36,000. The Clean Air Act responsibilities generated costs of approximately $35,000. And by 1997, the solid waste disposal mandates will cost the city of Nashua approximately $6 million. There are literally millions and millions of dollars going out of the local real estate tax base to pursue activities which, I am sure, the city of Nashua intends to pursue but which it would rather be able to do without a Federal mandate telling it how and where to spend the money. Another example is a moderate-sized town in New Hampshire, Meredith, NH. In Meredith, the town will have to spend millions of dollars to install catch basins in the road. The town will landfill, which it was forced in close in 1987. The town, on top of that, has to pay an additional $150,000 to take away its waste. The list goes on and on. In the town of Lancaster, for example, the town manager relates that the town of Lancaster raises approximately $1.4 million in revenues each year. Complying with the safe drinking water requirements alone will cost it $2 million more than it raises in revenues each year, reflecting the desperate situation that many of these towns are confronting. She writes: There is no way the town can keep up with that sort of cost. So this bill comes to us as an effort by Senator Kempthorne and the many folks who have been joining him in this undertaking to make the Congress act responsibly in this area. It should be pointed out that this does not ban unfunded mandates. It simply requires, if there is going to be an unfunded mandate, that the U.S. Congress must step forward and say that that is what it is doing and Members of the Congress must put themselves on record that that is what is going to happen. That is important, because I know when I am in New Hampshire, I hear the concerns about this issue all the time. No matter where I go or what group I am meeting with, inevitably the issue of unfunded mandates comes up. Now there will be accountability, full disclosure: Who in this body is voting for unfunded mandates, who is not voting for unfunded mandates. And the people have the opportunity at the ballot box to express their views as to those Members of the Senate who make decisions to continue to promote the unfunded mandate approach to Government and to setting requirements on local communities. That disclosure, I think, will have a significant impact on the process. I believe that it will cause us to look very hard as a body before we make the decision to go forward with any additional unfunded mandates. It is also a significant piece of legislation because it represents a fundamental shift in philosophy of this Government. There has been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks and months as to what the historic significance is of the fact for the first time in 40 years, the other body has changed control. This bill reflects what that historic significance is. This bill points out that the American people have asked us to act responsibly and that we are going to try to comply with that. It is a bill which inherently, in its function, works to lessen the size of the Federal Government, control its rate of growth, and put brakes on the manner in which we expand our Federal role in oversight in the areas that have traditionally been reserved to States and local communities. That is a fundamental shift. For 40 years, and especially over the last 20 years, this Government has expanded radically. It has viewed with almost indifference the concept of separation of power, the concept of States rights, the fact that communities have an inherent right to govern themselves over certain aspects of their daily management of affairs, that States have an inherent right to govern themselves over certain aspects of managing their local affairs, and that the Federal Government has a role which is separate from and different from the responsibilities of States and of communities. For the last 40 years, we have seen the Federal Government step with impunity into the role of the States and into the role of the communities; and not only step into that role, but in stepping into that role, doing it in a manner where it did not even have the self- respect or self-consideration to be willing to pay for the costs which we were putting on the States and on the towns. With this bill, that philosophy of Government is called to account. We are saying, if that is going to occur, there must be disclosure. If this Congress is going to step forward and try to take over the authority which has traditionally been vested in a State or a community, and not pay for the cost of taking over that authority, if this Congress is going to step forward and try to demand action on the part of a private sector and not pay for the costs of that action, then there will have to at least be a vote which will show who believes that is the right way to go and who does not believe that is the right way to go. I am very strongly supportive of this bill. It is an excellent piece of legislation. And again I wish to congratulate the managers of this legislation for having brought it forward at this time. I do hope the delays we are seeing right now in the process of moving the bill into the amendment process can be overcome because this is too critical a piece of legislation to be tied up in that sort of parliamentary and procedural minutia. This piece of legislation has been awaited for too long by the Governors, by the mayors, by the State legislators, by county officials, and by citizens who pay the real estate taxes throughout our country and the local taxes throughout our country to be tied up in what amounts to a debate over procedural minutia within the terms of the way the Senate manages itself. So I would hope those who are concerned about the issue of how the reports were filed and when the reports were filed and what reports were filed and what reports were not filed would be willing to allow this amending process to go forward so that we could begin the process of relieving the very serious problem of unfunded mandates. I yield back my time. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?