[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                           UNFUNDED MANDATES

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I campaigned for the Senate, I heard 
numerous complaints from local and State officials throughout Utah 
about the draining effects of Federal mandates on State and local 
budgets. Dixie Thompson, county commissioner in Emery County, UT, was 
one of those officials who spoke to me about the inequity of cumbersome 
unfunded Federal mandates and I share her sentiment. She outlines these 
views with great conviction in an op-ed piece in this morning's 
Washington Times which I would like to submit for the Record, and 
encourage all my colleagues to read.
  Mandates imposed by the Federal Government are virtually breaking the 
backs of local and State governments. In Utah, official told me that if 
the Federal Government continues to encumber State and local government 
with burdensome mandates and send them the bill, the costs could crush 
the State budget in as little as 5 years.
  I have joined in the introduction of several pieces of legislation to 
put an end to this abusive pattern. These bills, sponsored by Senators 
Kempthorne, Gregg, and others, would excuse State and local governments 
from complying with any Federal mandates unless they receive Federal 
compensation for the cost of compliance. Ultimately, this makes good 
sense. Let us listen to the wisdom of a Utah woman who lives on the 
firing line, at the county level, and endorse this policy: ``If 
Washington wants it, Washington pays for it. If Washington doesn't pay 
for it, we don't have to do it.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 8, 1994]

        Who's Really Behind Those Unfunded Mandates, Mr. Moran?

                         (By Dixie K. Thompson)

       Jim Moran's Op-ed condemnation of ``unfunded mandates'' 
     last week is welcome, if a bit late. It is also, I suspect, 
     hypocritical.
       Mr. Moran correctly identifies the devastating impact of 
     what I call ``silent taxes'' on state and local governments 
     and on private companies and individuals. Unfunded mandates 
     are imposed by the federal government on others without the 
     honesty of raising the taxes to pay for them.
       My county, Emery County, Utah, operates a safe landfill at 
     a cost to the taxpayers of $100,000 per year. Burdensome and 
     needless requirements imposed under the Resource Conservation 
     and Recovery Act will push our costs to $500,000 per year. 
     That is a crushing burden to a county with only 10,000 
     people. And it does not include the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration requirement that we more than double 
     our workforce at the landfill.
       Estimates are that while Safe Drinking Water Act 
     requirements can be imposed on urban areas at a cost of $12 
     per tap, in our county, with its low and diffuse population, 
     the costs will be as much as $86 per tap. And not a drop of 
     fiscal relief from Washington.
       Mr. Moran himself mentions the Clean Water Act, the Safe 
     Drinking Water act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
     but there are literally hundreds more. They range from 
     requirements for bilingual education in the schools to the 
     Brady Bill, with its requirements that local police and 
     sheriffs perform background checks on gun purchasers. State 
     lawsuits against the federal government over requirements 
     that the states provide welfare benefits to illegal aliens 
     are now a major growth industry.
       What Mr. Moran does not tell us is that he voted for each 
     and every one of these mandates, imposing a crushing burden 
     of silent taxes on his constituents and on the rest of 
     America.
       When he was elected mayor of New York, Ed Koch publicly 
     apologized for his actions as congressman: ``I had no idea'' 
     he said in effect, ``of the costs of what we were doing in 
     Washington,'' George McGovern, after a stint as hotel owner, 
     made the same admission.
       But Jim Moran has no excuse. He has been a mayor. He knows, 
     at first hand, the impacts of silent taxes. Piously, he tells 
     us that he has learned his lesson, and that he has co-
     sponsored the Fiscal Accountability and Intergovernmental 
     Reform Act, which will require the Congressional Budget 
     Office to ``analyze the economic impact, the cost of new laws 
     and regulations before they are adopted.''
       Well, with all due respect, that is about what I would 
     expect out of Washington. Having already broken both arms and 
     one leg of local government, Washington is now going to 
     decide how much of a burden the other leg can stand without 
     breaking. Only in Washington would passing something called 
     the Fiscal Accountability and Intergovernmental Reform (FAIR) 
     Act be considered progress!
       Will the FAIR Act stop silent taxes? Not a bit of it. Will 
     it discourage Mr. Moran in his efforts to load ever more 
     burdens onto the backs of taxpayers, openly or covertly? Not 
     judging from his record.
       Now as it happens, there is a true fiscal responsibility 
     bill before the Congress. Introduced by Rep. Gary Condit of 
     California, this legislation would simply make all silent 
     taxes heard. Under this legislation, Congress would have to 
     provide the funds to carry out its pet projects, instead of 
     loading them onto others. There is in Mr. Condit's bill no 
     nonsense about ``policy makers at all levels'' balancing 
     ``finite resources.'' That is doublespeak. There is no way 
     Congress, no matter how much information it gets from the 
     Congressional Budget Office, can know the impact of silent 
     taxes on local government. Mr. Condit's bill is 
     straightforward: If Washington wants it, Washington pays for 
     it. If Washington doesn't pay for it, we don't have to do it.
       It's a revolutionary idea, and it just might catch on. But 
     my guess is that it will have to do without Mr. Jim Moran's 
     support. Giving up that much power is not in his game plan.

                          ____________________