[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 67 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3345-H3346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  STATES NEED TO REGAIN THEIR AUTONOMY

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the 
time of the gentleman from Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Utah 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a joy to be able to join 
you here on the floor tonight and hear the report from the gentleman 
from Georgia, which clearly illustrates that we have done much good in 
recent days here in this Congress, and to outline what we will be doing 
that is very positive in the coming weeks when we return.
  I also wish to be able to at this time piggyback on the comments of 
my good friend from New Jersey, who is talking about some of the issues 
we have and the overall approach to funding that we have here in 
Congress.
  I would like, if I could, to focus my comments on a few things that 
we have in relationship between States and the Federal Government with 
money.
  A former majority leader of this House once said that if you want to 
get out of the trap, sometimes you have to let go of the cheese. Well, 
in the relationship we have between Federal and State governments, 
sometimes we have to let go of the cheese and emphasize what I think 
the gentleman from New Jersey was saying, the Tenth Amendment.
  In the 1860s, flush with money from heavy protectionist tariffs, the 
United States for the first time passed the Morrill Act which, was a 
significant grant of federal money to a State for a specific purpose, 
in that case Land Grant Colleges, which have done a great job, I have 
one in my State, my kids went to it, it is great.
  But a century later, in the 1960s, that changed somewhat, as the 
Federal Government started dangling money out and States, cash starved, 
accepted that money. What happened, like any good addict, once the 
States were hooked on the money, they could not let go. And the Federal 
Government, as any good supplier, as soon as they were hooked, started 
changing the rules of the game with mandates, with strings, with 
attachments to those programs.
  I don't find anyone even wrong or evil in this process. The Federal 
Government has all sorts of people coming to us with problems they want 
help on, and we as a people simply want to help.
  The States, I spent 16 years in the legislature of a State, are 
trying to build services without extended costs to the States, and that 
federal match hanging out there is extremely tempting.
  But what we find eventually down the line is the Federal Government 
has

[[Page H3346]]

a budget we would like to control in some way, and the States are 
hooked on the money we keep giving to them, with the fear if they lose 
the money, they will also lose control of the programs, which they 
don't have right now in the first place.
  David Walker wrote a book called The Rebirth of Federalism, and in it 
he said from the period of 1964 to 1980 there was something that he 
called creeping conditionalism that came into this country. As he 
wrote, ``There was a perennial Congressional tendency to impose strings 
and the more recent habit of adding regulations and mandates. The 
tendency even among block grants was and is to acquire conditions.'' We 
can see that in some of the programs like Safe Streets, CETA and CDBG.
  In addition to that, there is a cost that is developed by the States 
for this Federal programming help. For example, in his book he also 
talks about the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1986, which now 
impose estimated costs of $2 billion to $3 billion annually on public 
water systems. That is money that must be raised by local taxpayers to 
pay for mandates and requirements of the Federal Government on this 
program, that was originally supposed to be a sharing concept.
  The Education For the Handicapped Act, passed in 1968, now averages 
$500 million annually of additional costs to State and local 
government. It has been estimated, he said, from 1983 to 1990, 
additional mandates that the Federal Government imposed upon State and 
local governments, somewhere between $8 and $13 billion in additional 
costs. Which simply means, as the old adage says, the only thing that 
is worse than an unfunded mandate is actually a funded mandate.
  Now, is there blame to go around? Yes, on both our sides. Blame on 
the Federal Government because we become too involved in too many 
projects in a kind-hearted effort to try and help people. There is also 
blame for the State governments, who take this too much, become too 
entrapped and need these programs and these funds to continue on. And 
though both of us are unhappy with the situation, we keep lumbering on 
with the same concept and the same program. Both of us, the Federal and 
State governments, find ourselves in a trap, and both of us, if we are 
going to improve, have got to some day realize we have to let go of the 
cheese.

                          ____________________