legislation that would ensure the equal treatment for all Americans under our Constitution. The problem, however, is not with our dual form of

government as it was established by the Framers of the Constitution. Our concern is focussed on the frequency of federal preemption of state and local laws. Moreover, there seems to be a lack of sensitivity on the part of the federal government with regard to local government and the preemptive impact of federal legislation and regulations on local government. It is the National League of Cities' highest priority to put a meaningful check on this preemption of state and local authority. Allow me to cite a few of the invasive actions the federal government has taken in the just last few months.

First and foremost, legislation signed into law last October impedes states' and local governments' ability to tax sales and services over the Internet in the same manner as all other sales and services are taxed

despite the fact that no such limitations would apply to the federal government. There has also been a bill moving quickly through the House of Representatives called the "Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999," which is a massive preemption of state and local zoning and land use laws. This bill, if enacted into law, would chill a city's ability to apply neutral zoning laws that are applied uniformly to all other land uses in an entire

community from being applied to religious based land uses like churches, synagogues and mosques. Local zoning and land use laws also face severe preemption in the area of takings law, with the re-introduction of takings legislation in the Senate which would allow developers to pursue takings claims in federal court without first exhausting state judicial procedures. Current law preempts municipal authority over the siting of group homes, and preempts a municipality from applying zoning, environmental, health, and safety statutes to railroads. There is no question that the most significant impacts of these preemptions will be felt at home in our nation's cities and towns through the erosion of local tax bases and through the inability to enforce local ordinances enacted for the benefit of all who live in a

community.

The amount of federal preemptions is increasing yearly. It is important to note that all of this legislation was either developed or enacted with minimal to no consideration of the consequences to state and local governments. The voices of state and local governments were not heard, or worse yet, were ignored. It is for this reason that my colleagues and I are here this morning - to ensure that state and local governments are not left holding the bag as a result of uninformed federal action. But the news is not

federal preemption may be changing. First, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three recent decisions that affirm states' rights and curb the power of Congress to enforce certain federal laws. The Court recognized that our Constitutional framers envisioned freedom being enhanced by the creation of two governments - federal and state. As Justice Kennedy so eloquently stated in the recent decision in Alden v. Maine, "Congress has vast power but not all power. When Congress legislates in matters affecting the States, it may not treat these sovereign entities as mere prefectures or corporations. Congress must accord States the esteem due to them as joint participants in a federal system, one beginning with the premise of sovereignty in both the central Government and the separate States. In choosing to ordain and establish the Constitution, the people insisted upon a federal structure for the very purpose of rejecting the idea that the will of the people in all instances is expressed by the central power, the one most remote from their control.” This statement is at the core of federalism and embodies the true federal state-local relationship that is at the heart of our system of government.

In this ruling, the Supreme Court recognized that preserving the power of self-governance by states and localities is as important to the wellbeing of our nation as a whole, as is our federal government. The Court

further recognized that sometimes a more regional or local approach to

governing is needed, and that the needs of the people are sometimes better

met at the local level through the enactment, application and preservation of local laws. The Federalism Accountability Act would help to restore some balance between federal, state and local governance.

Second, NLC and the other members of the "Big 7" state and local government groups have been negotiating with the Administration on a new Executive Order on Federalism. We hope this new Executive Order will serve to enhance the legislation you are considering this afternoon and promote our common goal to work together as partners. NLC, however, believes that legislation is still needed regardless of the existence of an executive order, to ensure that our unique form of federalism becomes revitalized. The reason both a strong Executive Order on federalism and this legislation are needed is because an Executive Order by itself is of limited scope. An Executive order is not law. It does not apply to the independent agencies and there is no provision for judicial accountability. In sum, from a public policy perspective, an Executive Order supporting federalism is helpful in providing guidance on the issue, but it simply does not carry the same weight as legislation. NLC appreciates the intent behind the

Administration's efforts and recognizes that the goals of this Executive

achieving a federal-state-local partnership than by addressing the issue of

federalism on all fronts of national government? Through the Supreme

Court's reaffirmation of federalism in Alden v. Maine, through the

Administration's Executive Order, and now by this Congress through the passage of S. 1214.

Another reason why this legislation is needed is because despite the overall success of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), there are loopholes that have led to weak enforcement. While well intentioned and certainly a positive step toward achieving greater federal accountability, UMRA "has had little effect on agency rulemaking,"

according to a recent General Accounting Office report. Congress now has an important opportunity to ensure that the federal government acts responsibly toward its State and local partners, in accord with the principles of federalism established by America's Founders.

Let me now turn to S. 1214. This bill provides cities nationwide with a viable means for alleviating many of the problems associated with federal preemption of local laws.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we at the local level want to help create a more dynamic federalism. We believe mutual

accountability between and among the various levels of government is

59-454 99-12