Table Of Content

S. Hrg. 103-405 FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Y 4. G 74/9: S. HRG. 103-405 Federal Mandates on State and Local... tiHiARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON I GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs K» ?aN :' APR 1 9 1994 ^SSSSSSSSStSSSSSm U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-338cc WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-043594-3 \\V S. Hrg. 103-4 FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 4. G 74/?: S. HRG. 103-405 deral Mandates on State and Local... nUiARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs IPa?INTawi«»lOFO0CM|U|RBh ncortormov APR 1 9 J994 •nS^sa^sasau U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-338cc WASHINGTON : 1994 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-043594-3 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOHN GLENN, Ohio, Chairman SAM NUNN, Georgia WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware CARL LEVIN, Michigan TED STEVENS, Alaska JIM SASSER, Tennessee WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi JDOANSIEEPLHKI. LAIKEABKEAR,MAHaNw,aiCionnecticut JROOBHENRMTcCF.AIBNE,NANrEiTzTon,aUtah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota Leonard Weiss, StaffDirector Sebastian O'Kelly, StaffAssistant Franklin G. Polk, Minority StaffDirector and ChiefCounsel Michal Sue Prosser, ChiefClerk (II) CONTENTS Openingstatements: Pas? SenatorGlenn * SenatorDorgan «> SenatorCochran 4 SSeennaattoorrRLoitehberman |° SenatorBennett ' WITNESSES Wednesday, November 3, 1993 Hon. Judd Gregg, U.S. Senatorfromthe State ofNewHampshire 8 Hon. DirkKempthorne, U.S. Senatorfromthe State ofIdaho 12 Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun, U.S. Senatorfromthe State ofIllinois 15 Hon. Paul Coverdell, U.S. Senatorfrom the State ofGeorgia 17 Hon. Gregory S. Lashutka, Mayor, Columbus, OH 25 Hon. Edward G. Rendell, Mayor, Philadelphia, PA Hon. Susan Ritter, Auditor, Renville County, ND 39 S. David Worhatch, Township Trustee, Hudson Township, Summit County, OH, on behalfofthe NationalAssociation ofTowns and Townships 43 Hon. David Ennis, Representative, Delaware House of Representatives, on behalfoftheNational Conference ofState Legislatures 47 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Coverdell, Hon. Paul: Testimony 17 Prepared statement 85 Ennis, Hon. David: Testimony 47 Prepared statement 181 Gregg, Hon. Judd: Testimony ° Prepared statementwith attachments 61 Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk: Testimony 12 Prepared statement 73 Lashutka, Hon. GregoryS.: Testimony 25 Prepared statement 88 Moseley-Braun, Hon. Carol: Testimony 15 Prepared statement °0 Rendell, Hon. Edward G.: Testimony 29 Prepared statementwith attachments 91 Ritter, Hon. Susan: Testimony 39 Prepared statement 162 Worhatch, S. David: Testimony 43 Prepared statement 170 (III) IV Page APPENDIX Prepared statements ofwitnesses inorderofappearance 61 WTImhhpeaatcBtPurroidfceeUnnCflouefnadnUeundpf?uFnNeddeeewrdaYlMoaMrnakdnaTditameteses—sAonSUu.rSv.eCyitoifest—heAI3m14p-aCcittyofSuUrnvfeuynded 111204 Mandates onAmerica'sCounties 140 Statementwith attachmentsbySenatorGlennfortheRecord 188 Letter with attachment dated Nov. 4, 1993 to Chairman Glenn from Senator Hutchison 208 StatementofSenatorDomenici, withattachment 212 StatementofSenatorNickles 216 GAOfactsheetdatedMay 22, 1991 — 219 Unfunded Federal Mandates: The Cost for States National Governors Asso- ciationBackgrounder 223 NaturalResources DefenseCouncilNewsRelease datedOct. 26, 1993 241 The Need for a New Federalism: Federal Mandates and Their Impact on the State ofOhio 246 FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1993 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Glenn, Chair- man ofthe Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Glenn, Levin, Sasser, Lieberman, Dorgan, Roth, Cohen, Cochran, and Bennett. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAHiMAN GLENN Chairman Glenn. The hearing will be in order. Good morning. Today, the Governmental Affairs Committee meets to discuss the costs and burdens that unfunded Federal mandates often place on State and local governments. As many of my colleagues are aware, last week State and local officials from all over the U.S. gathered here in Washington to send a message to the Federal Government, and the message was very simple: stop burdening us with your responsibilities, your paperwork, your regulations, unless you give us the help to go with it. In layman's terms, I guess they came to Washington and said stop passing the buck without the bucks, and they make a very good case. Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office show that the cost to State and local governments of Federal legislative and regulatory mandates rose from $225 million in 1986 to $2.8 billion in 1991, and they tell us that is a very, very conservative estimate. While the CBO data is limited in scope, it clearly shows that the cost of Federal mandates has been increasing at the same time that Federal aid to comply with those mandates has been declining. One area that is particularly burdensome on small governments is compliance with Federal environmental mandates. A study by the city of Columbus, Ohio, showed that compliance costs of Fed- eral environmental laws, just environmental laws and regulations, in nine Ohio metropolitan areas would rise from $183 million in 1992 to $301 million by 1996, just in a 4-year period. This trans- lates into an indirect tax of $225 per household, up from $137 in 1992. Clearly, Federal regulatory and legislative burdens are increasing at a time when State and local resources are tight. No one needs reminding of the budget problems faced by our State and local governments. To help soften the blows of Federal regulation (1) on small government budgets, I, along with Senators Levin, Pryor, Lieberman and Akaka, introduced Senate bill 1604, the Small Gov- ernments Regulatory Improvement and Innovation Act. It is a bill designed to lessen the burdens and costs of Federal regulatory mandates. In fact, there are a number ofbills on this topic before the Com- mittee. Several Senators have introduced legislation on this sub- ject, including Senators Kempthorne, Moseley-Braun, Hatch, Coverdell, Gregg, Dorgan and Sasser. All the bills have merit and I commend my colleagues for their commitment to resolving this very important issue. Sometimes, because ofState and local inaction, it is in the public interest for the Federal Government to impose mandates on smaller governments. I am not saying that all mandates are wrong, but clearly the time has past when Washington can simply pass the buck without the bucks. The public call today for improved services and accountability from all levels of government challenges us to rethink the Federal relationship with States and localities and their ability to provide critical services. We just simply must do a better job of meeting our obligations to help smaller governments implement the mandates that we pass on, no matter how well-in- tentioned they may be. I want to also point out that regulatory mandates are not just burdening State and local governments, but businesses as well. I ran for reelection last year and nothing got more attention at al- most every stop than businessmen coming up complaining bitterly about the costs of Federal paperwork and Federal regulations and how they are hurting small businesses and adding to their costs of doing business. The Committee will be examining this issue in further hearings in the coming months. So I look forward to the discussion today and to exploring how we can create better partner- ships between all levels ofgovernment. Before we get to our witnesses, we will see if we have any other statements. Senator Cohen, I believe, was here first. Senator Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me welcome our colleague, Senator Judd Gregg, formerly Governor of New Hampshire, who has, I am sure, some very first-hand, working knowledge about this issue. I might say that I have had my own experience at the local level dealing with Federal mandates. I used to be the mayor ofthe third largest city in Maine, which sounds impressive initially until you realize that there are about 38,000 people in Bangor, Maine. Ban- gor is a very small city and yet we were faced with enormous costs ofcomplying with laws that were dictated or mandated at the Fed- eral level. Just to give you an example of the enormity ofthe problem that small towns, much smaller than Bangor, Maine, are confronted with, f—or the Safe Drinking Water Act in the smal—l town ofWilton, Maine 3,500 population, about 900 water users the compliance cost for the Safe Drinking Water Act was $2.7 million. It worked out to roughly $3,000 per user. For another small town, Andover, Maine, with 135 water users—the cost was $880,000, which worked out to roughly $6,500 per user to comply with the Act. Whon you impose those kinds of mandates upon local communities, you make it virtually impossible for them to comply or to really prioritize. One ofour colleagues, Senator Jim Jeffords, introduced a measure a year or so ago that I and others were original cosponsors of called the STEP Act, the Small Town Environmental Planning Act. We incorporated some provisions ofthat act into legislation that was passed by the Congress last session. It would allow communities under 5,000 population to prioritize among all ofthe Federal mandates that we hand down. I recall reading at one time a rather blunt assessment by, I think it was the mayor of Lewiston, when he said we are going to have the cleanest water in the country and the dumbest kids. What he was saying is that we can't handle it all; you are forcing us to build all of these environmental cleansing processes to clean up the water, but we don't have enough money to educate our kids any- more; you are putting us in an impossible situation. So I think it is important that we start addressing this, and I must say that we talk a great game. I recall many years ago one official said watch what we do and not what we say, and some in- terpreted that as perhaps a statement about actions speaking loud- er than words. But we have to watch what we do and not what we say. For example, we had a great deal of debate about something called the Motor Voter Act recently. I didn't detect any overwhelm- ing demand on the part of the American people that we had to have this particular legislation. In Maine, we have the equivalent ofMotor Voter; we have same-day registration. Yet, there was pres- sure built here at the Federal level to pass a Motor Voter Act, and when an amendment was offered to say why don't we pay for it, that was rejected. So we passed a Motor Voter bill and we sent the cost ofthat legislation on to the local communities. So while we tend to talk a great game, we are not willing to pay for it in most instances, and I hope that the kind ofinitiatives that Senators Kempthorne and Gregg and others have brought to our attention will build some momentum for causing Congress to pause, at least. I agree with the Chairman that sometimes it is important that we have to pass Federal legislation to deal with national problems, but the burden should be on us in every case to pay for it except in extraordinary circumstances. So I want to commend our two colleagues and others who have initiated this legislation, and look forward to their testimony. Chairman Glenn. Senator Dorgan? OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I am anxious to hear my colleagues and others on the witness list today. I introduced S. 1592 last week, with Senator Domenici, a bill on Federal mandates that is a companion bill to one that was introduced in the House ofRepresentatives earlier this year. I agree with the statement by the Chairman. There are times when Federal mandates have been perfectly appropriate and very much necessary. One can go back to laws like the Voting Rights Act and others that we mandated that I think one would hardly want to criticize because something needed to be done in this country and the Federal Government took the lead to do it. But that ought to be the exception on broad areas of policies and principle and not the rule. The rule these days is that in virtually every area we decide here is the way we want things to happen in this country, and all toe often impose mandates on others, notjust local governments, but businesses and others, without any thought, without any description, without any discussion really ofwhat costs or regulatory burdens are imposed on someone else. The remedy I propose, with Senator Domenici, is no better or worse perhaps than other remedies. We have got a number of people making significant proposals. Senator Kempthorne has been ac- tive in this all year. But I think it is timely and important that the Chairman and this Committee hold this hearing so that we begin moving down the road to responding to this issue. President Thomas Jefferson shortly before his death said that were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want for bread. Well, that may overstate it slightly, but the fact is he was suggesting that not all notions of what is good in this country can or should stem from Washington, D.C., and those ofus who not only serve in the Congressional branch but those who write the regulations and the rules, especially in the executive branch, tend not to think much of what impact will these have on the rest ofthe country. Our legislation, then, includes not only the requirement that all reported bills with over a $50 million impact be accompanied by de- tailed statements of what is this impact and on whom does it fall, but it is also true that this would be required ofrulemaking in the executive branch, which I think also imposes significant burdens. I will not proceed further and I thank you very much for holding these hearings. Let me say that a North Dakota witness who is the new chairperson of the North Dakota Association of Counties is with us and I am very anxious to have her testify as well. Chairman Glenn. Very good. Senator Cochran? OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COCHRAN Mr. Chairman, let me thank you on behalfofthose ofus who are interested in this issue for convening the hearing. We appreciate also having the attendance of colleagues who are leading the fight to try to make some changes in the Federal laws that will force the Government to take into account the economic consequences of its regulatory actions. I can remember as a new member of the other body, we passed legislation to require elementary and secondary schools to provide educational opportunities for all children, irrespective oftheir phys- ical or mental state or capacity, and directed them to do certain things in that area. I can recall the local school boards and local governments calling and writing and saying this is going to cost enormous sums of money; what is the matching requirement and what will be the Federal offsets financially to help us do this. The answer was there aren't any provided in this legislation. Many ofus tried to get the legislation amended to authorize Fed- eral funds to provide needed financial assistance to those especially poor school districts who were having a very hard time meeting