essential to the vitality of our federalist form of government and is in

harmony with the vision our forefathers had for this country. We want to be your partners in making this vision a reality. We support and want your support for S. 1214.

S. 1214 represents one of the most important efforts to fundamentally rethink the nature and relationship of our federal system and to expand the partnership of elected governmental officials. S. 1214 contains several good tools for creating this new idea of federalism which are beneficial to cities. Section 4 of the bill defines a public official as including the representative organizations of state and local elected officials, those being

the national associations of the "Big 7" state and local government organizations. This inclusion is vital to providing cohesiveness to the consultation provision of the bill. It will make it easier to get state and local input from these national associations who can best represent the views of a cross section of their respective memberships. It also alleviates the burden on the agencies for locating all public officials from jurisdictions that would be preempted by a proposed regulation. It streamlines and simplifies the consultation process for all involved.

Section 5 of the bill requires Senate and House committees, including

conference report on a bill or joint resolution that details the preemptive impact of the legislation, gives the reasons for this preemption, and explains how State or local authority will be maintained following the passage of the legislation. Where there is no Committee or Conference report, there must

be a written statement by the Committee or Conference that details the level of preemption.

This section is critical to local governments. So often it is the case that a bill is passed that has severe consequences on our nation's cities because it preempts state and local law. Once such example is the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. Without a committee or conference report or statement to explain the preemption and the reasons behind it, it is

impossible for local governments to know whether such impacts were even considered by the Congress. Under this section of the Act, local government is assured of such deliberation.

The above provisions taken together provide for a greater

accountability of our federal government. They provide the opportunity for increased input from those most directly affected by a rule or statute, and they provide opportunity for a more meaningful and balanced federalism. Another very positive and important aspect of this bill is contained in

Section 6, "Rules of Construction." This section will provide much-needed

guidance at the federal level with respect to the age-old question of "does this federal statute or rule preempt my city's ordinance?" It clarifies instances of federal preemption by requiring that the intent to preempt be expressly stated in the statute or rule, or there is a direct conflict between the federal statute and state or local law. This section should not be interpreted as a prohibition of preemption. To the contrary, this bill recognizes that at times, preemption is appropriate. What this section attempts to do, however, is minimize instances where the intent to preempt is not clear - thus avoiding expensive and adversarial litigation by limiting a court's ability to find that an implied preemption exists. It again makes the federal

government accountable for what it does.

This section also creates a presumption against preemption of State and local law and permits cities to govern by requiring that any ambiguity in the Act be construed toward preserving State and local authority. These rules of construction therefore are of vital importance to cities.

Section 7 of the bill spells out several important requirements to

ensure that state and local public officials participate in the federal agencies' rulemaking process in an early and meaningful way.

This section directs the heads of federal agencies, who are responsible

for implementing this act, to appoint a "federalism officer" within each

agency. The officer would execute the provisions of this Act and serve as a liaison to State and local officials and their representatives; thereby

providing cities with an identifiable person who is a point of contact in the rulemaking process. Section 7 additionally requires that agency heads give notice to and consult with state and local elected officials and their

representative national organizations early in the rulemaking process, and prior to the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking, when that rule might interfere with, or intrude upon, the historic and traditional rights and responsibilities of State and local governments.

This provision of the bill requires federal agencies to stop, look, listen and think before they leap into the arena of preemption. It further provides cities with a much-needed voice in the rulemaking process, especially when those rules would have a direct and potentially debilitating impact on our nation's cities. Most importantly, it is an opportunity for local elected officials to work more closely with federal agencies, earlier in the

rulemaking process. This will maximize the chance to provide meaningful input and an invaluable exchange of ideas and perspectives. This

requirement therefore is mutually beneficial to all levels of government and

serves to reinforce the concept of partnership.

This section of the bill furthermore calls for a "federalism assessment"

to accompany each proposed, interim final, and final rule in the Federal

Register and each rule review submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, when those rules could affect State and local authority. The federalism assessment would detail, analyze, and attempt to justify the extent of the preemption of State or local authority. The assessment would describe the extent to which State or local authority would be preserved after the rule's enactment. It would additionally communicate the agency's efforts to minimize the impact on State and local governments and to consult with public officials, including the concerns of those officials and the extent to which those concerns have been satisfied. Agency heads would have to consider these assessments when promulgating, implementing, and interpreting the relevant rules.

NLC does recognize that S. 1214 as drafted applies to all federal rules and regulations. In order to ease routine rulemaking, as in the case of a city petitioning a federal agency for a 2 hour local bridge closure, we would be willing to work with the committee to establish a threshold for de minimus exemptions from the federalism assessment.

In the opinion of local elected officials, the aforementioned provisions would make the federal agencies really think about what they are doing