Reduce Red Tape Via Regulatory and Mandate Relief

Reduce Red Tape Through Regulatory and Mandate Relief

Background

The number of new requirements imposed on state and local governments
have increased dramatically during the last decade. As of December 1992,
at least 172 separate pieces of federal legislation were in force that
imposed mandates on states and localities--many of which were partially
or wholly unfunded.[Endnote 1] Facing a growing burden of complying with
new unfunded requirements while experiencing severe budget constraints,
state and local governments are demanding relief.

There is no more constant complaint by states and localities about any
federal practice than the imposition of unfunded mandates on lower
levels of government. In Reviving the American Dream, Alice Rivlin notes
that: "The federal government's own fiscal 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."[Endnote 2] She goes on to say:
"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."[Endnote 3]

The ability of federal departments and agencies to grant regulatory and
mandate relief is more limited than many may appreciate. Authority to
waive programmatic regulations is currently limited to research and
demonstration projects under the auspices of the secretaries of Health
and Human Services and Agriculture (and is statutorily granted in the
Social Security and Food Stamps laws, respectively). While some latitude
exists for other agency and department heads to modify, extend, and
adjust executive regulations and compliance deadlines (e.g., in the
Environmental Protection Agency), the majority of the most onerous
federal mandates and regulations are statutorily imposed, affording
little room for negotiation or flexibility.

Need For Change

As in the case of categorical grant programs, while each individual
mandate and regulation may seem justified and reasonable, in combination
they impose burdens on states and localities that make it less likely,
rather than more likely, that overall federal goals can be met. The
cumulative impact may force states and localities to adopt
cost-ineffective strategies simply to achieve simultaneous compliance,
or forgo the ability to make real progress toward critical benchmarks
because they lack sufficient resources to simultaneously achieve all the
goals set by the statutorily or administratively required deadlines.

Cross References to Other NPR Accompanying Reports

Streamline Management Controls, SMC08: Expand the Use of Waivers to
Encourage Innovation.


Endnotes

1. "The Mandate Monitor," National Conference of State Legislatures,
December 1992.

2. Rivlin, Alice, Reviving the American Dream (Washington, D.C.: The
Brookings Institution, 1992), p. 107.

3. Ibid, p. 109.