On the recordJanuary 23, 1995
I want to first reaffirm my support for the objectives to S. 1 and look forward to voting for it on final passage. Many of my colleagues have discussed at length the financial impact that mandates have on their individual States or localities. I would add that mandates tie the hands of or effectively displace the priorities of political leaders in State and local government. As Office of Management and Budget Director Alice Rivlin wrote in her book entitled "Reviving the American Dream," The Federal Government's own weakness has not made it any less eager to tell States and localities what to do. Indeed, when its ability to make grants declined, the Federal Government turned increasingly to mandates as a way of controlling state and local activity without having to pay the bill. Furthermore, unfunded mandates create a situation whereby voters cannot accurately ascertain where responsibility lies for certain Government actions. As Rivlin adds, Mandates add to citizen confusion about who is in charge. When the Federal Government makes rules for State and local officials to carry out, whether or not they have the resources to do so, it is not clear to voters who should be blamed, either when the regulations are laxly enforced or when the cost of compliance is high.
Source
govinfo.gov




