[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator
Simpson from Wyoming for his amendment in the current debate. I am a
cosponsor of it. I have not spoken on it directly this morning because
last evening there was unanimous consent on my amendment that dealt
with a sense of the Senate to call on the U.S. Postal Service to cease
and desist from its audits and intimidating procedures they have used
on private businesses with regard to the use of private carriers.
But this morning, I want to visit something we hear more and more
about in this Capital City and that is unfunded mandates.
I voted against the proposal last year under the title of motor
voter, and I warned at the time that it was an unfunded mandate and it
was going to cause consternation in many of our States.
Our general assembly in Georgia has just concluded its session and,
indeed, as was predicted, they have been confronted with a Federal
order, edict, mandate which has caused them to spend millions of
dollars to solve a nonexistent problem.
I read from the Atlanta Journal Constitution an editorial. It says:
The so-called ``motor voter'' bill in the Georgia House is
in many ways a sparkling example of the sort of junk laws
that afflict society today. Its fundamental assumptions are
flat wrong, it won't do anybody any good, and because it was
forced on the State by Congress without any funding, it will
cost the State's taxpayers several million dollars.
But it has to be passed because not to do so puts a bludgeon in the
hands of the Federal Government. This is a classic example of the
activity that should come to a stop in this Nation's Capital.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print this editorial in the
Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Feb. 14, 1994]
Motor Voter Is Bad, But Pass It
Most of the time, if there are lots of things wrong with a
piece of legislation and only one thing in its favor, the
natural conclusion is that it ought to be defeated. There
are, however, rare exceptions.
The so-called ``motor voter'' bill in the Georgia House is
in many ways a sparkling example of the sort of junk laws
that afflict society today. Its fundamental assumptions are
flat wrong, it won't do anybody any good, and because it was
forced on the state by Congress without any funding, it will
cost the state's taxpayers several million dollars. But it
will have to be passed.
Why? Because the congressional action makes it essentially
a done deal. If Georgia doesn't go along with the charade,
then voter registration procedures for federal and state
elections would be different, and the legality of some
elections could be challenged. Meanwhile the state would have
to shell out more money to fight lawsuits than it would cost
to implement the new system--and almost certainly lose in the
end anyway.
We resent all these sorts of ``unfunded mandates'' Congress
keeps pushing on the states and their taxpayers. We resent
them even more when they are no more than posturing for
political constituencies, showboating measures that
accomplish nothing. No one seriously thinks that voter
participation will be meaningfully increased by allowing
registration when a citizen gets a driver's license; in most
states where that has been implemented, turnout for elections
has actually gone down.
But, despite all the arguments against the bill, it's
futile to fight it now. The best thing states can do is pass
it, then hope whatever new voters are registered around the
country will elect smarter people to Congress.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on January 21 of this year, I received
a letter from the speaker of the house, signed by the majority leader,
the chairman of the ways and means committee, the chairman of the rules
committee, and the chairman of the human relations and aging committee,
the chairman of the university system, the chairman of appropriations,
the chairman of state institutions and property, chairman of
governmental affairs, speaker pro tempore.
I will not share the entire letter, but I will ask that it be printed
in the Record.
On the first page, the speaker of the house, the longest standing
speaker in the United States, says:
In sum, Georgia will attempt to comply with the National
Voter Registration Act, but we are not happy with unfunded
Federal mandates in this or any other area. If the Congress
wants programs to be implemented, then Congress should fund
such programs accordingly.
I could not agree more with these distinguished gentlemen. It is
wrong for one government to impose an edict and instruct another
government to fund its priorities, and the Congress is not accountable
for what has to be done because of a law passed; someone else is. Any
time we have a situation where one body can pass laws and order another
to be accountable for them, we are developing a major problem and a
constitutional crisis.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the letter from the
speaker of the House of Representatives of Georgia in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
House of Representatives,
Atlanta, GA, January 21, 1994.
Hon. Paul Coverdell,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Coverdell: The Georgia General Assembly is now
confronted with the need to fund and implement the provisions
of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). Due to
the fact that Georgia presently has none of the forms of
registration required by the NVRA, this Act imposes a
significant burden on the state, both as a practical matter
and as a financial matter.
We must be in compliance with the NVRA by January 1, 1995.
This leaves only the remaining months of this year to fund
and develop a system to meet the mandate of the NVRA.
Consequently, the cost of implementing the NVRA is high since
all of our efforts must be focused into a short period of
time. We anticipate that compliance may cost well over $8
million at a time when our state treasuries are not stocked
with funds for current obligations, much less new programs.
While the goals of the NVRA may be laudable, it appears to
us that the failure of the Congress to fund this legislation
is inexcusable. If Congress feels that the NVRA is a good
idea, then it is worth funding. The NVRA came to us with no
funding whatsoever.
We continue to receive complaints at the state level from
our counties and cities about the evils of unfunded mandates
and we are attempting to respond to those concerns. Congress
would do well to rein in further unfunded mandates to the
states. In fact, it is not too late for Congress to
appropriate funds to cover the costs of implementing this Act
or to relieve some of the costs of the Act. We ask that you
consider such action as soon as possible.
In sum, Georgia will attempt to comply with the NVRA, but
we are not happy with unfunded federal mandates in this or
any other area. If the Congress wants programs to be
implemented, then Congress should fund such programs
accordingly.
Sincerely,
House Budget Sub-Committee Members:
Thomas B. Murphy, Speaker; Larry Walker, Majority Leader;
Thomas B. Buck, Chairman, Ways & Means; William J.
(Bill) Lee, Chairman, Rules; David Lucas, Chairman,
Human Relations & Aging; Calvin Smyre, Chairman,
University System; Terry Coleman, Chairman,
Appropriations; Carlton Colwell, Chairman, State
Institutions & Property; Bob Homes, Chairman,
Governmental Affairs; Jack Connell, Speaker Pro Tem.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, on February 24, I received a letter
from the distinguished secretary of state of the State of Georgia. He
says:
As the State of Georgia undertakes the necessary steps to
implement the National Voter Registration Act, we are more
and more concerned about the cost of this federally imposed
mandate.
At one time in the discussions of motor voter, to assuage the States,
we said they would have lower-cost mail, third-class costs but that it
would be treated as first-class mail. Now the Postal Department, which
I talked about a little earlier, has told the States, ``No, that is not
so.'' So they cannot use the lower-class mail because voter information
would not be delivered on time. It could be 3 weeks or longer.
So we have welshed, once again, on the burdens that are incumbent
upon us to deal with these costs we have imposed on someone else.
In this particular case, just this function of the motor voter bill
will cost a quarter of a million dollars to the State of Georgia
virtually every year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the
letter from the secretary of state for the State of Georgia.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of State,
Elections Division,
Atlanta, GA, February 24, 1994.
Hon. Paul Coverdell,
U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Coverdell: As the State of Georgia undertakes
the necessary steps to implement the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), we are more and more
concerned about the cost of this federally-imposed mandate.
One section of the NVRA is especially troubling. In Section
8(h), the Congress amended Chapter 36 of Title 39 of the
United States Code to provide for reduced postal rates for
mailings under the NVRA. These reduced postal rates were
supposedly to be made available from the post office by
utilizing the nonprofit organization rate. The United States
Postal Service has taken the position that this section
provides that the states can utilize the nonprofit
organization rate and level of service, which is third-class
mail. Under the provisions of the NVRA, there are no mailings
which are contemplated to be handled under third-class mail.
All of the mailings under the NVRA must be handled by first-
class mail. In addition, the Postal Service is phasing out
the nonprofit organization rate. This has therefore made
these supposedly reduced rates for mailings under the NVRA
illusory and of no use whatsoever.
I request that you take whatever steps are necessary to
assist the states in funding the provisions of the NVRA by
making the reduced postal rates a reality. This could be done
very easily by requiring the Postal Service to develop a
reduced rate for first-class mail for all mailings which are
certified by the appropriate election official to be required
under the NVRA. This would permit substantial savings to the
states. If the rate were one-half of the current first-class
mail rate, the savings to the State of Georgia would be
projected at $250,000,000.00 each year. Please consider
taking the initiative to give us the assistance needed in
implementing this mandate.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
H. Jeff Lanier,
Director, State Elections Division.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we have had county commissioners in
this State, we have had mayors visit our capital, school boards. They
are all saying the same thing: ``You have to stop imposing mandates on
local government for which you do not pay.''
Currently, almost any local jurisdiction is spending about one-third
of its property tax base trying to answer current mandates.
We all talk about how onerous they are. But we keep passing them and
they keep having an effect, as motor-voter did in the State of Georgia,
costing the State millions of dollars.
What is truly sad is that nothing of significant value is achieved. I
have argued that if we are going to pass a Federal mandate, then there
should be a compelling need for it. I would hope that some of the
various provisions introduced in the Senate or the House will be
implemented in the near term to slow this train down and stop this
egregious behavior, this imposition of one branch of government on the
other. As I saw these letters from leaders of my State, it infuriated
me once again as to the unfair nature of what we continue to do in the
Nation's Capitol.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
____________________