On the recordJanuary 23, 1995
Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is inappropriate to discuss these issues and discuss them right now. What has been inappropriate, in my estimation, is the way this bill has been steamrolled through this Congress without even hearings in committee. We pass legislation with all sorts of consequences; a lot of them are unintended consequences and the best way to avoid negative, unintended consequences is to know what we are doing to the best extent possible. It is ironic that the legislation, which claims to give the Congress more tools through all the analysis of what may be an unfunded mandate to what extent it will put a burden on the taxpayers of local and state governments; information that would be useful is being pushed through so that we will not have the full information available to us in understanding what this legislation would in fact do. Now the best--one of the best examples of what are clearly unintended consequences is to look at the environmental area. The legislation before us would say that, if there is a mandate on local governments, it has to be paid for by the Federal Government. But there are environmental laws that apply across the board, whether the polluter is a government owned polluter or a privately owned polluter. first of all, people's lungs do not know the difference, if it is a toxic pollutant coming from a municipal owned incinerator or a privately owned incinerator.
Source
govinfo.gov




