[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         FEDERAL MANDATE ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM ACT OF 1994

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to join the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Cities, the National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and countless 
State and local governments in support of S. 993, the Community 
Regulatory Relief Act of 1993.
  During my years in the U.S. Senate, I have seen the burden of 
unfunded Federal mandates grow dramatically and have fought to return 
fiscal priority-setting and decision-making to the levels of government 
closest to the people. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Intergovernmental Relations, I raised the consciousness of members to 
the growing threat of Federal mandates--a term which had only become a 
part of the intergovernmental lexicon a few years earlier. I sponsored 
and promoted legislation which addressed unfunded mandates in spite of 
opposition from those who refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the 
issue.
  Beginning in the 98th Congress with my sponsorship of the 
Intergovernmental Regulatory Relief Act, I sought to not only determine 
the costs to State and local governments of complying with Federal 
regulations, but I demanded that the Federal Government assume the 
costs of new regulations and create a 10-year schedule for reducing the 
costs of compliance with existing regulations as well. Again, in the 
100th and 101st Congress, I introduced regulatory relief bills which 
addressed what was finally becoming a concern to members outside the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. This year, in addition to my 
cosponsorship of the bill currently before us, I cosponsored a similar 
bill by Senator Coverdell and sponsored the Preemption Clarification 
and Information Act of 1993 with Senator Levin.
  As a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 
Relations, I maintained my strong opposition to unfunded mandates and 
argued that this issue is not about political turf protection--rather, 
it is about accountability. One level of government should not decide 
what is in the public interest, while another level is required to fund 
it.
  There was a time when Federal mandates were imposed on State and 
local governments and funding was provided through block grants and 
revenue sharing programs. Funding for these programs ended in the 
1980's even as Federal aid to State and local governments sharply 
declined. Adding insult to injury, 100 new mandates were forced on 
States during the same decade. Although Federal aid to State and local 
governments has increased in the last several years, in real terms, it 
is still significantly below its earlier levels.
  Mr. President, if the past is prologue, unfunded mandates will pose 
an even greater threat in the decades ahead. While we are unable to 
undo the damage which has already been done, we can--today--protect the 
fiscal viability and autonomy of State and local governments in the 
future. The Community Regulatory Relief Act accomplishes this and more.
  First, this legislation requires Federal agencies to include cost-
benefit estimates in proposed or final regulations that impose costs of 
$100 million per year or more on State, local, or tribal governments. 
Not only does this ensure that estimates of immediate and future 
compliance costs are included with a regulation, but it tells people 
what economic benefit the government thinks they'll be getting for 
their money--not simply an altruistic or ambiguous benefit.
  Second, CBO would be directed to prepare estimates of the cost of 
Federal mandates not only on State, local, and tribal governments, but 
on the private sector as well. Federal mandates are more than a threat 
to the budgets of governing bodies--the repercussions of even a small 
mandate are felt throughout the economy. A recent study found that the 
costs of Federal regulations to our economy exceed $500 billion per 
year, or $5,000 per household. Clearly, no study of mandates is 
complete without a measure of its impact on the private sector.
  Finally, and most significantly, S. 993 provides a majority point of 
order to lie against any bill which fails to include funding proposals 
to cover State, local, and tribal governments' costs. My mail is 
replete with pleas from State and local officials in Minnesota whose 
budgets stand at the brink of bankruptcy. New Federal mandates threaten 
to break their budgets or force them to slash vital funding for locally 
recognized needs. Needs that we in Washington, with out bloated budget 
deficits and burgeoning public debt, conveniently ignore or downplay.
  Mr. President, I do not question the intentions of those who 
introduce legislation to promote public health and safety, protect the 
environment, ensure fair labor practices, or prohibit discrimination--I 
myself have sponsored or voted in favor of numerous measures which I 
felt improved the quality of life for not only my constituents in 
Minnesota, but for all citizens. I only ask that we in Congress do that 
which is responsible and fund those objectives that we deem worthy of 
mandating.
  ``National Unfunded Mandates Week'' is this coming October 24 to 30. 
This year, let's not have this week serve only as a reminder of the 
burden the Federal Government has placed on State and local 
governments. Let's make this a turning point by showing our commitment 
to relieving this burden by passing the Federal Mandate Accountability 
and Reform Act of 1994.
  State and local governments are not asking for a handout--they are 
simply asking that the Federal Government return to them their ability 
to address the unique concerns of their respective regions. I do not 
believe this is asking too much.

                          ____________________