[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 8 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S919-S920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is my pleasure, as I rise this morning, 
to join my colleagues in support of S. 1, the unfunded mandates bill 
that Senator Kempthorne and many others have done such great work on. 
In the recent election, of course, this country and the voters of this 
country voted for change, a change in the way that Washington operates, 
a change in the way that the Government operates. This bill provides us 
with one of the first opportunities to deliver that change.
  It seems to me that, although we will take up a great many specific 
issues throughout this session of Congress, and we should, that 
probably most important are some of the structural changes that we are 
talking about--this being included as one of them. Some of the changes 
in procedure will result in the individual issues being changed and 
being about the change that voters asked for.
  Sometimes, I suppose, people at home get a little impatient with the 
idea that we work for procedural changes. But let me suggest that in 
order to bring about continuing change, fundamental change, these 
procedural changes are the most important thing that we can do--
procedural changes like the balanced-budget amendment, which will 
change our outlook on fiscal responsibility; changes like unfunded 
mandates, which will change the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States; changes like accountability, which we passed 
yesterday, of course, which properly makes the Congress live under 
[[Page S920]] the same rules that it applies to everyone else. Term 
limits, I believe, are also a procedural change that needs to take 
place.
  Unfunded mandates affect State and local communities. They are hidden 
taxes that local communities, businesses, and citizens have to pay. 
These mandates force the States and localities to increase their taxes 
or shift their priorities of spending and shift their services in order 
to make those ends meet. National programs should not be financed by 
local property taxes, but that is exactly what happens when the 
Congress passes an unfunded mandate. Unfunded mandates infringe upon 
States' rights. Federal mandates take away State and local community 
opportunities to set their own priorities and make it difficult for 
State and local governments to plan for the future.
  I served in the Wyoming Legislature, and a good deal of our budget 
was committed, before we ever arrived in Cheyenne, to unfunded 
mandates.
  This bill will help restore States' rights and the Founding Fathers' 
concept of federalism and the relationship that should exist between 
the Federal Government and the States. We will give some recognition to 
the 10th amendment, that those things that are not expressly given to 
the Federal Government should rest with the people and with the States 
and communities. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``Were we directed 
by Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for 
bread.''
  A simple rule should apply to Congress: If legislation is good enough 
to pass, it ought to be good enough to pay for. The cost of unfunded 
Federal mandates is well documented. Over the past two decades the 
Federal Government has enacted over 200 new laws containing thousands 
of regulations and assigned the costs to State and local government. 
For example, unfunded mandates eat up about 12 percent of locally 
raised revenue and will cost localities about $54 billion over the next 
5 years.
  Unfunded mandates, of course, exist everywhere. There are examples in 
Wyoming. Wyoming's towns are generally small towns. Greybull, WY, for 
example, was mandated $1.3 million by EPA for a water treatment plant. 
That is nearly $3,000 per resident who lives there.
  Pinedale, WY, draws their water from the cleanest source anyone can 
imagine and the test results of that water are perfectly acceptable in 
quality. Nevertheless, they had to build a water treatment plant, not 
for the results but because of the unfunded mandates.
  The city of Cheyenne, $3 million in the last year alone, in the last 
fiscal year.
  I guess the thing I remember the most was going to the community 
college in Torrington, WY, where they had made arrangements to make 
their auditorium accessible to disabled people under the Americans With 
Disabilities Act--as they should. However, they had a way to make it 
accessible at very much less cost than what they finally had to do 
because of the regulations that were imposed under the mandate. To 
achieve the same goal they had to pay a great deal more.
  The Clinton administration has a poor record on unfunded mandates. 
President Clinton's health proposal, the Brady law, and last year's 
crime bill are just some examples of this administration's unfunded 
mandate agenda. We need this bill enacted quickly to put the brakes on 
that regulatory machine.
  The balanced-budget amendment, of course, will be before us soon. I 
support the balanced-budget amendment. I think it is morally and 
fiscally right to not be able to spend more than we take in. That 
should apply to the Federal Government as well. Local officials, of 
course, are concerned about a balanced-budget amendment unless they 
have the protection against unfunded mandates so that the result of a 
balanced-budget amendment will not simply be the shifting of costs to 
local governments.
  By requiring activities without paying for them, official Washington 
can go on a spending spree on somebody else's credit card. It is easy 
and dishonest, but it is a way around the Federal deficit.
 Congress takes the credit for legislation but sidesteps the costs. The 
combination of these two proposals, unfunded mandates and a balanced 
budget amendment, will be the answer.

  We need to pass unfunded mandates legislation before we tackle the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Last year, unfunded 
mandates legislation made it out of committee both in the House and in 
the Senate. I was a member of the Governmental Operations Committee in 
the House, and in the last days of the session we passed it. 
Unfortunately, it did not receive consideration on the floor.
  In this new Congress, we have a tremendous opportunity to change the 
way government operates. While this bill is not as strong as some would 
like it, it is a solid first step in restoring some accountability in 
Washington.
  The bottom line is that Washington must stop passing the buck and 
start taking the responsibility for the legislation it passes. It is 
vital that we take advantage of this opportunity to change the way 
Government functions.
  Mr. President, thank you for the time. I yield the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  

                          ____________________