Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote no on this bill. Let me just say as background, before I came to Congress I spent 18 years in the State legislature, 8 years heavily involved with putting State budgets together, with that primary responsibility in dealing with the relationship of the State to local units of government throughout our State. So I fully understand the impact; maybe not fully, I understand partially, because I do not know if any of us understand fully the impact of the relationship between one unit of government to another, and I understand there is a problem of mandates. But what I fear is happening here is total overreaching. I find unbelievable that we could start as a basic premise of law, as a Federal Congress, to say to someone like me from Minnesota, at the top of the Mississippi, that if you want to dump your sewage into the Mississippi at the Iowa-Wisconsin border, it is of no relevance to the Federal Government unless the Federal Government pays the full bill. That is the concept of this legislation.
Martin Sabo: “Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote no on this bill. Let me just say as background, before I came to Congress I spent 18…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing a bill related to federal mandates and state government relationships.
Share
More from Martin Sabo
let me just simply thank the chairman for his support of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). The amendment was agreed to.
I make a point of order. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
I know they are not hidden, but somebody has to find out. I have no idea how many endless grants they are making. The departments make an endless number of grants, and some of them flow to the State which then flow to local governments. In…
My question was not about local government. It was about whether DHS would be doing something under his amendment that they are not doing today.





