Nelson calls for end to unfunded mandates

I rise to discuss a serious problem with the way Washington has done business for years. The problem is its habit of passing unfunded federal mandates onto the states that throw state budgets into disarray.

Everyone in Congress has to decide how to best look out for their state. A little over a month ago, I decided to look out for all of their states, and mine, too. But the efforts I made to protect my state--and all other states--should not be the issue. The issue should be why wasn't everyone taking steps to protect their states?

And why weren't the critics reacting to the real issue, rather than coining names to describe this effort to protect state budgets from the effects of another unfunded federal mandate?

The reason is that all along they've wanted to derail health reform. Misrepresenting this issue would help that goal.

So, it was too easy, too convenient to come up with a catchy name and to impugn motives. It was too easy, too convenient to ignore the problem facing Nebraska and every other state...another mandate without money.

Unfunded federal mandates aren't just bad for Nebraska. They're bad for all states, from sea to shining sea. They are a fiscal injustice that I've fought for two decades, during my tenure as a senator and through two terms as governor. They are a burden on the states that I'll keep fighting to eliminate as long as they continue.

Unfunded federal mandates are really pretty simple but they appear in many unexpected and unwanted ways. They are orders that arrive from Washington on state capitol doorsteps with too little or no money to carry them out. Unfunded federal mandates force states all across our country into no-win choices-- cut spending on state priorities OR raise revenue with tax hikes.

They are a fiscal injustice states have no option to avoid. Unfunded federal mandates are both bad federal policy and bad fiscal policy.

As a U.S. senator I've said that I will put Nebraska first, Nebraska always, but not Nebraska only. That remains the case with questions about how the Senate health care bill dealt with an underfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid.

First, my goal has always been to draw attention to--and fix with one approach or another--any unfunded federal mandate that would be passed onto every state through the Senate's health care bill.

The bill sought to expand Medicaid to provide health insurance to millions of Americans who do not have it today.

The federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost for the first three years, through 2016. 2017 and thereafter, states would have to pick up a portion of the cost. In other words, they'd pay for a new unfunded federal mandate.

I sought an opt in or out for all states to ease the federal unfunded mandate. Because there was no Congressional Budget Office analysis available for that approach, a provision was placed into the bill for Nebraska. It's not something I sought. It is something I accepted to launch the larger battle against the unfunded mandate affecting all states.

I've taken criticism over this issue. If I've received it because I drew attention to unfunded federal mandates, fine. But the larger question is: How do we in Congress eliminate the practice of passing these mandates onto the states?

Rather than criticize me, others should join me in fighting the war to stop all of these burdens on the states. It's an effort I'd welcome the governors to join, too.

The Nebraska provision was a victory in the battle against unfunded mandates necessary to win the war. What otherwise had gone completely unaddressed is now part of the debate--not only in the nation's capital, but in state capitols across America.

We only have to look back a few years to see what trouble unfunded mandates cause for states. When Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act, it was hailed as a landmark that would improve education nationwide.

It established new standards to measure educational achievement in our schools, and required states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades. States had to make sure that happened for their schools that received federal aid. But the law provided far too little money to meet its requirements.

This was a fact acknowledged by its chief sponsor, the late Senator Kennedy. He said: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."

Was that ever a true statement!

States have paid and paid, and are still paying for that whopper of an unfunded mandate.

In fact, No Child Left Behind--which I opposed--has cost my state of Nebraska at least $382.7 million. Nationwide, it cost all of the states a total of $70.9 billion dollars, from 2002 through 2008, according to U.S. Department of Education data. Those costs have just kept piling up since. And that's not right.

I fought another unfunded federal mandate in the 2003 major tax cut bill. At the time, cutting federal taxes also would have forced cuts in state taxes. That, in turn, would have blown holes in state budgets.

I teamed up on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia to help the states. We won a provision that provided $20 billion in federal funding to the states to make up for the lost money they needed to pay their Medicaid costs.

Today, we are again hearing from financially strapped states across the country asking for additional federal money to pay for other previous unfunded Medicaid mandates. I don't blame them for asking.

The government tells them they have to pay a share of certain social services and medical expenses. And in tough economic times like these, they just don't have the money.

Unfortunately, neither does Washington.

Then, while states are currently seeking aid from Congress, we're busy creating this new unfunded mandate set to hit states beginning in 2017. When would that one be addressed? 2018? 2019? Sometime later?

Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!

I've been asking, "Why not now, in this health reform legislation?"

Just last week we learned how big this unfunded mandate would be. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that covering the Medicaid expansion costs for all states would cost the federal government $35 billion.

That means, Congress was about to pass a $35 billion unfunded federal mandate onto the states--until I got wind of it. Let me say that again, Congress was about to send a $35 billion bill to the states, until I blew the whistle.

We need to stop this madness of passing these fiscal time bombs onto the states. I would hope my colleagues on a bipartisan and bicameral basis would work with me to make sure Congress stops passing unfunded mandates of any kind onto states. And that the governors will join in also. They certainly don't like Washington telling them how to spend state money.

Now, I would hope people would put aside the spin, the partisan talking points and misrepresentation they've heard on this issue. I hope people would stop citing the inaccurate interpretation of it as an excuse to avoid working for health reform that provides coverage to millions of Americans who today don't have insurance and lower costs to all other Americans who pay ever rising costs for health care.

And I hope we can stop the practice of Washington burdening the states with unfunded federal mandates, which are truly bad for every single state, not just mine, but all states from sea to shining sea.

Mister President, I yield the floor.