THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

Introduction

Unfunded mandates are responsibilities one level of government places on another level without paying the full cost of carrying out such responsibilities or duties.

During its 1995 Regular Session, the Legislature passed the Federal Unfunded Mandates Act (MISS. CODE ANN. Section 5-3-79), which requires the PEER Committee to "complete an assessment of the implementation and cost of current federal mandates" by December 1, 1996. It further requires PEER to:

• consider the relationship between the requirements and implementation of the federal mandates and state policy; and,
• identify federal mandates that are "encroaching on the state's authority under the Tenth Amendment."

Overview

State agencies, universities, and community colleges estimated the total FY 1996 cost of implementing eighteen federal acts or regulations to be $92,033,243. Of this amount, an estimated $27,809,452 (30 percent) was state-funded, $42,194,827 (46 percent) was federally funded, and $22,028,963 (24 percent) was from special funds not provided by the federal government.

Agency representatives commenting on problems in implementing federal mandates most frequently mentioned cost as their primary concern. They reported that these costs occur as a result of direct program requirements, as well as through less direct mandate-related effects, such as excessive paperwork, delays in construction, and loss of revenue by state and local governments. Agencies most frequently mentioned cost as a problem in implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In addition to cost, agencies mentioned other problems, such as federal guidelines that were difficult to understand or unnecessarily detailed, excessive administrative record-keeping burdens, and insufficient state discretion in achieving national goals. Agencies also reported that federal goals and objectives related to some mandates were vague or confusing. Although 75 percent of agencies' comments on implementation described specific problems in complying with a mandate, the remaining 25 percent of agency responses stated that the agency had experienced no major problems in implementing the mandate.

Many agency representatives participating in PEER's focus group and in the survey said they had no objection to the national goals the mandates were designed to achieve. Approximately three-fourths of the responses to PEER's survey indicated that the mandates affecting the agency were consistent with state policy. More than half reported that agency officials would have initiated the administrative procedure or sought funding for the mandated program if it had not been required by Congress.

In reviewing Tenth Amendment issues related to federal mandates, PEER found that few current federal mandates are likely to be overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court has found only certain classifications of congressional legislation unconstitutional, the political arena, not the courts, may serve as the preferred venue for those seeking additional mandate reform. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act passed by Congress in 1995 establishes self-imposed limits on congressional authority to initiate mandates costing state and local governments more than $50 million. Another solution that could be realized through the political process would be to require compliance with worthwhile national goals while allowing state and local governments to administer programs as they see fit. This and other political solutions would incorporate congressional dialogue with state and local governments as an essential component of the process of federal policy development.

Recommendations

1. The Mississippi Legislature should memorialize Congress to reconsider the effect on individual states of each burdensome mandate discussed in this report. Among the options available to Congress for decreasing the burden of mandates on the states are:

• provide additional funding to state and local governments;
• modify the federal statute to permit state regulatory flexibility; and
• abandon or relax requirements for states which have not proven to advance federal policy goals.

2. In its message to Congress, the Legislature should recommend that Congress increase its communications with state leaders during its deliberations on federal laws which affect state and local governments.

3. The Legislature should request that Congress enact federal laws with a goal of uniformity of result at the state level in mind (e.g., particular emission levels for environmental mandates), while leaving states free to achieve those outcomes by whatever method they deem most appropriate and reasonable. In setting performance standards, Congress should be encouraged to make these standards reasonable and reachable.

The Legislature should request that Congress take federal, state, and local costs of policy implementation into consideration before enacting a law containing a federal mandate on state and local governments and assume some share of mandate costs as an incentive to avoid overly burdensome mandates and to aid in seeking the least costly alternatives. (See Appendix G, page 63, for proposed legislation memorializing Congress concerning federal mandates.)

Download Full Text Report in Acrobat Format - (221,472 bytes)

PEER Home Page.

E-Mail