"Unfunded Mandates" reforms threaten basic health and safety laws; state and local governments exempted from laws applying to industry.

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 27, 1994--Legislation to relieve state and local governments from "unfunded mandates" would at present also exempt them from the same health, safety and environmental standards that apply to private industry and citizens, said the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

Congressional leaders seek to pass "unfunded mandates" legislation in early or middle January.

"We're in favor of a fairer partnership between Washington and state and local governments when they carry out federal government programs," said EDF senior attorney Tim Searchinger. "We're not in favor of handing state and local governments an exemption from the rules that apply to private industry and private citizens."

"When government operates a garbage incinerator, it should meet the same pollution standards as a private factory," said Searchinger. "A government hospital should not be entitled to dump medical waste in the ocean, when a private hospital cannot."

EDF today recommended that any "unfunded mandates" reforms should not apply to federal rules that impose the same standards on states and localities as they do on private industry and citizens.

"Ironically, present versions of `unfunded mandates' legislation could lead to bigger government," said EDF senior attorney David Roe. "Because exemptions from federal standards could give government services a competitive advantage over private industry."

"Making Congress subject to the same laws as everyone else is a central principle of proponents of `unfunded mandates' reform," said Roe. "Just as Congress is finally imposing responsibility on itself, why would it want to create irresponsibility for its state and local partners. That would be one step forward and fifty steps back."

"We are confident that when Congress understands the scope of the exemption in present versions of `unfunded mandates', it will insist on changes. A general health and safety standard that applies to everyone is simply not an `unfunded mandate'," said Searchinger.

The Environmental Defense Fund, a leading, national, NY-based nonprofit organization, represents 250,000 members. EDF links science, economics, and law to create innovative, economically viable solutions to today's environmental problems.

Governments Could Avoid Standards That Private Citizens Must Obey Under Imminent "Unfunded Mandates" Legislation

Leaders in the new Congress have announced that they plan to pass legislation by the end of January that would relieve states and localities from "unfunded mandates". In protesting "unfunded mandates", state and local officials complain about efforts by Congress to use them as arms of the federal bureaucracy to provide governmental services Congress is unwilling to fund. They cite as examples the rising cost of state contributions to Medicaid, or the cost of enforcing new federal regulations that states help administer. These are responsibilities that are exclusively governmental and that do not apply to private industry or citizens. State and local officials are seeking new bills to assure a "fairer" partnership between them and the federal government in carrying out government programs.

The leading bills circulating in Washington, however--including the Contract for America--would do much more than establish a fairer partnership in how federal, state and local governments administer governmental programs. These bills would actually exempt state and local governments from complying with the same health, safety and environmental standards that apply to private industry and citizens.

Proposed legislation defines an "unfunded mandate" as any health, safety or environmental standard for which the federal government does not pay the full costs of compliance. For example, if a city garbage incinerator needed a piece of equipment to meet a federal air pollution standard, that standard would impose an "unfunded mandate" unless federal taxpayers paid for the pollution equipment. In effect, these bills would discriminate against citizens who must continue to comply with health and safety standards when they conduct certain activities even without federal aid.

Below is a list of examples of basic federal standards from which city and state government would be exempt under "unfunded mandates" legislation in its present form:

Hospitals: Unlike private hospitals, city and state hospitals would be exempt from requirements to accept emergency patients in imminent threat of death.

Garbage Disposal: Unlike private facilities, city-run garbage dumps would be exempt from requirements to use liners as necessary to limit water contamination, and unlike private garbage incinerators, city garbage incinerators would be exempt from requirements to install equipment to limit toxic air pollution.

Universities: Unlike private universities, researchers at public universities would be exempt from requirements to carefully manage and dispose of radioactive waste.

Public Buildings: When workers remove lead or asbestos from government buildings, unlike private buildings, they would be exempt from rules that they must follow careful procedures to limit toxic dust.

Water Utilities: Unlike private water companies, city and county water utilities would be exempt from rules to disinfect their water.

Under present versions of "unfunded mandates" legislation, city and state governments would be exempt from basic rules even if they were engaged in such familiar private functions as operating liquor stores or electric utilities. They would be exempt from standards as basic as minimum wage and child labor laws, and laws that prevent dumping medical waste in the ocean. Present versions of "unfunded mandates" laws would therefore not only threaten human health and safety, but they would also provide local governments with a competitive advantage over private industry. These bills could therefore result in more government, not less.

Some bills, such as the Kempthorne/Glenn bill of last Congress, would not ban all existing "unfunded mandates" but would simply restrict them. But these bills would also define "unfunded mandates" in the same broad way. Therefore, they contain the same basic flaw. Even by only restricting how health and safety standards apply to state and local agencies, these bills would result in exemptions for state and local governments from general standards that apply to private citizens.

Recommendation: EDF recommends that any "unfunded mandates" legislation should not apply to federal rules that only impose the same standards on state and local governments as they do on private industry.

CONTACT: Environmental Defense Fund

             Tim Searchinger, 202/387-3500
             David Roe, 510/658-8008
             Lisa Swan, 202/387-3500