Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

deregulation, and information technology. We believe it critical for the economy destiny of America to enter that era with a dynamic federalism that makes us partners, makes us mutually accountable to each other, and ensures synergy, rather than competition between our levels of government. We believe the bills you have authored or supported in this committee—almost all with a determined effort to work with us and develop in a bipartisan effort—are critical to

success.

For that reason, this morning we join the nation's governors and leaders of other national organizations representing state and local elected leaders in making clear our commitment for creating a more enduring governmental partnership. We urge this action to provide adequate time for meaningful consultations with our levels of government with regard to proposed changes to ensure they are made with prior consultation, notice, and warning. We believe such changes and the manner in which they are made are critical with regard to the Administration's and Congress' perceptions of the balances of power between the three levels of government.

We support the Mandate Information Act, the Federal Financial Assistance Improvement Act, the Regulatory Improvement Act, and the Regulatory Right to Know Act. These are crucial steps in this new information age to making better information available to decision-makers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These might seem like small steps, but they are all critical.

We hold as our highest priority, not only in our association, but amongst our Big 7 organizations, a broader effort to redefine our intergovernmental partnership. For that reason, we are most pleased about your leadership on the Government Partnership Act of 1999. This bill marks, we believe, one of the most important efforts to fundamentally rethink the nature and relationship of our federal system.

Congress does have the authority to recommend and pass laws that have the effect of preempting historic and traditional rights and authority of the nation's state and local governments. Therefore, we would hope that today could be the start of a genuine commitment to mutual respect between our three levels of government.

Our members have overwhelmingly adopted halting the new trend of major federal preemption of historic and traditional state and local roles and responsibilities as our highest priority. We have witnessed a renewed effort in some parts of the Administration and in the Congress to emphasize the preeminence of the federal government with a focus on mandating uniformity. This effort proposes to reverse more than two decades of federal policy and deference to state and local authority. This morning ought to be a good opportunity to begin-all of us-to commence a serious effort to restoring authority to the levels of government closest to the people.

It has become increasingly clear that despite White House and Congressional claims of an intent to turn back greater power and authority to the level of government closest to the people, those words bear less and less relationship to actions. The preemption or taking away of historic and

essential authority of local governments over activities such as franchising, zoning, taxing, and regulating-fundamental responsibilities of state and local governments for the protection of public health, safety and property is less important to larger corporate and federal interests than uniformity and the elimination of state and local rules, laws, fees, and taxes.

Pending proposed federal preemptions, if adopted as a regulation or enacted as a new federal law, will have far-reaching consequences and impose greater liabilities on cities and towns. They would curtail the rights of citizens in cities and towns to make the key decisions about the future of their own communities.

No issue in 1999 is likely to more affect the bottom line for local budgets and services, and for the rights of citizens in cities and towns across the nation than federal efforts to preempt historic and traditional municipal authority. This is an issue city leaders will confront in the federal courts, the Congress, the Administration, and at independent federal regulatory agencies. Preemption of local authority is not just a measure that Congress and the Administration seem interested in pursuing. Federal agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), are also, at the request of industry, proposing rules--often under intense pressure from Congress and industry-which seek to limit local authority over franchise authority, land use and zoning, and the siting of cellular and broadcast towers.

The key aspects of the current status of federalism are:

· the trends away from federal grants to local governments and shifting to direct payments to individuals - either through entitlement benefits or tax expenditures. The federal government is making the decisions about what is in the best interest of the citizens of a community.

· there is an ongoing significant decline in federal capital investment at the local level. The disinvestment as a percent of the federal budget is aggravated by Congressional legislative threats to the ability of states and local governments to finance public capital investment through tax-exempt municipal bonds.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

the portion of the federal budget going to entitlement spending is consuming ever greater proportions, leaving less and less of the budget to invest in the nation's future. As the U.S. competes in the fields of technology and information in the global economy, disinvestment in the next generation will be reflected in local economies.

the proportion of the federal budget going towards the elderly is leaving less and less to invest in the next generation. With juvenile crime in cities at high levels, and the nation's local economies facing major demographic shifts, disinvestment in kids could have severe consequences for the nation's cities' economies.

while local governments have traditionally been responsible for bricks and mortar, as well as

public safety; federal actions to reduce federal responsibility and liability for welfare recipients, immigrants, and public housing tenants leave an ever-increasing liability on local governments. Increasingly, the burden transfer will aggravate disparities between local governments.

while the trend in imposing direct federal, unfunded mandates is clearly on the decline, there has been an unprecedented increase in federal efforts to preempt state and local tax and revenue authority, threatening to undercut state and local revenue systems as we know them. Last year's and pending action by the Congress on preempting state and local authority to levy or collect existing taxes and revenues on goods and services provided over the Internet, preempting local authority with regard to the sighting of group homes, and proposals on telecommunications, federal tax reform, railroad safety, and electric utility deregulation all would have harsh consequences on municipal authority and revenues.

Federalism

We believe the recent trend of Supreme Court decisions, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and the Ed-Flex legislation demonstrate the possibilities of a more effective and efficient partnership. We note they are in profoundly a different direction that the Executive Order on Federalism, #13083, issued by President Clinton last year, or to the pending legislation in the Congress to preempt historic and traditional municipal authority. We note too that at a time when it has become more difficult for the Congress to act on environmental legislation, and issues themselves have become growingly complex; Congress unintentionally creates a greater role and authority for federal agencies to set and direct federal policy.

As we look forward to the issues that will shape the next election and the next millenium, we think, then, this is an important time to secure a system where we have greater reason to work together. Whether the issue is tax reform or electronic commerce or electric utility deregulation, any federal action can have enormous consequences for state and local governments, for our citizens and businesses, and for our taxpayers. The more those decisions are made without any clear assessment of their impact on our federal system, the more likely they are to do damage. Our federal, state, and local tax systems, for example, are so intertwined, that any of the pending major federal tax reform proposals would have harsh consequences for the roads, bridges, airports, and water and sewer lines that service every business and every home in America. Yet, until we enact the Government Partnership Act, there is no incentive to even consider a prior assessment, much less fairly analyze the consequences.

Part of the greatness of federalism has been the flexibility of our great system to allow any city, county, or state to develop new ideas and approaches to confront problems affecting Americans-the laboratory of democracy and the will of the people at each level of government in America. Through that model we have well served all our citizens. The tradition and spirit of federalism ought to-especially on this of all issues-lead us to work together to shape and

reshape the future of our country and our traditional relationships. We stand ready and look forward to an opportunity to do just that--together.

Earlier in this Administration, President Clinton's Executive Order called for more cost analysis and risk assessments for all government regulations, recognizing that federal actions can and do impose significant costs and liabilities on states and local governments. Those cost analyses and risk assessments remain to be fully implemented. But, in this age of information, they matter. Ensuring there is a mechanism to enforce the provision of this information is critical.

Now, we are engaged in attempting to negotiate a new Executive Order on Federalism. While an Executive Order is different than a federal law and carries no endorsement from the Congress, it provides direction from the President of the United States to all Cabinet agencies and departments. In this instance, once the new order were to go into effect, it would provide new guidelines for all federal officials to consider in determining when a rule, regulation, or law had "federalism implications." That is, the order would create direction for federal bureaucrats about how to address issues of municipal sovereignty, and when and under what circumstances it would be okay to preempt traditional municipal authority and responsibilities. It is about setting guidelines for when and how it is appropriate for the federal government to intrude upon or interfere with state or local authority.

We are pleased that the model set by this committee of: consultation first, joint efforts to achieve bipartisan consensus, and action which provides for pre-assessment, accountability, and enforceability.

Recommendations

We would hope that as an outcome of this set of hearings, the committee would consider the following recommendations:

• the adoption of legislation to require a fiscal impact analysis on all federal legislation and federal regulations, including regulations from independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Internal Revenue Service, on states and local governments.

[ocr errors]

the introduction of the Government Partnership Act of 1999, to act as a follow-up to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

• the issuance of a joint report on generation fiscal concerns and disparities and their implications for the federal system.

We are grateful for the opportunity to be here with you today to share our views that stem from discussions and commitments made more than 200 years ago in my city. Perhaps we ought to reconvene. We certainly believe a concerted, bipartisan effort is critical if we are to be credible in our efforts to make the government of the next century effective, efficient, and responsive to our joint constituents.

Thank you. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

State & Local Preemption

[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Would result in far greater federal court involvement in local land use disputes. Wo interfere with the resolution of essentially st and local issues within the state court syste Would encourage developers to bring suits federal court, rather than work out their disputes with local governments. Could create unlevel playing field for bank branches depending upon their state of chartering-rather than the state law where they are conducting business. Could create some competitive disadvantages for homebased state-chartered banks.

Would remove current legal rights to suitabl investment advice and right to recover damages for fraud from securities dealers.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »