Mr. President I also rise in support of the amendment. As I think has already been articulated, the small businesses, and the private sector more generally, of this country are heavily inundated with burdens imposed by government and direct kinds of taxes and costs. They are actually, I think, burdened by regulations that impose mandates on them. So I believe the amendment is well in order and should be supported. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1, which, of course, addresses the problem of unfunded Federal mandates. S. 1 would significantly limit the Federal Government's ability to require State or local governments to undertake affirmative activities or comply with Federal standards unless the Federal Government was also prepared to reimburse the costs of such activities or compliance. As with direct Federal expenditures, the financial burdens of such mandates fall squarely upon the middle-class taxpayer. I strongly commend Senator Kempthorne for continuing leadership on this issue and for his sponsorship of S. 1. Perhaps nothing better reflects contemporary trends in government than the enormous growth in the level of unfunded Federal mandates over the past two decades.
On the recordJanuary 19, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Supporting S. 1, which addresses unfunded Federal mandates affecting state and local governments.
Share
More from Ralph Lee Abraham
Jan 9, 2017
The best way forward for the United States to maintain its leadership position in space exploration utilization is to support our Nation's work and investment in rocket propulsion.
Apr 4, 2017
as important as all those are, I think we are all smart enough to understand that that makes no difference if we don't have a country and national security.
Apr 25, 2017
Again, it all comes down to accountability. And when you have a budget, Mr. Halvorsen, of $37 billion or whatever and you can't write a check for something that you see, it is just idiotcracy at its finest.





