2 U.S. Code § 1513 - Impact on local governments

(a) Findings
The Senate finds that—
(1) the Congress should be concerned about shifting costs from Federal to State and local authorities and should be equally concerned about the growing tendency of States to shift costs to local governments;
(2) cost shifting from States to local governments has, in many instances, forced local governments to raise property taxes or curtail sometimes essential services; and
(3) increases in local property taxes and cuts in essential services threaten the ability of many citizens to attain and maintain the American dream of owning a home in a safe, secure community.
(b) Sense of Senate
It is the sense of the Senate that—
(1) the Federal Government should not shift certain costs to the State, and States should end the practice of shifting costs to local governments, which forces many local governments to increase property taxes;
(2) States should end the imposition, in the absence of full consideration by their legislatures, of State issued mandates on local governments without adequate State funding, in a manner that may displace other essential government priorities; and
(3) one primary objective of this chapter and other efforts to change the relationship among Federal, State, and local governments should be to reduce taxes and spending at all levels and to end the practice of shifting costs from one level of government to another with little or no benefit to taxpayers.


(Pub. L. 104–4, title I, § 106,Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 63.)
References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 104–4, Mar. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48, known as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1501 of this title and Tables.

The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.

The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013

An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

2 USCDescription of ChangeSession YearPublic LawStatutes at Large


LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.