Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
JUNE 30, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
895 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES P. MORAN
BEFORE THE HOUSE
GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE
SUBJECT - ON THE FEDERALISM ACT OF 1999
BODY:
Good morning and thank you. I am pleased
to join my colleagues David, Rob Portman, Karen McCarthy, Tom Davis, Gary
Condit, and Michael Castle in cosponsoring the Federalism Act of 1999.
I
truly believe that serving in state or local government is one of the best
opportunities to serve the public and should almost be a prerequisite for
serving in Congress or the federal executive branch. I think this place might be
far more productive and its legislation more balanced and pragmatic if everyone
here had first hand experience in local government. Everyone here should have
the experience of resolving a few volatile issues and at the same time struggle
to keep the streets clean and the schools open. The experience might make us
more accepting of different priorities and more respectful of different
perspectives. It might also give us a better appreciation for the innovation and
flexibility with which state and local governments seek out and respond to
pressing public needs and concerns. Unfortunately, it is this innovation and
creativity at the state and local level that are being stifled by actions of the
federal government. With every new federal law or regulation, we pay a price by
foreclosing or displacing local and state ability to address the same concern.
These federal initiatives are often so pervasive that they "occupy the field."
The courts have consistently held that the federal presence is so great that
state regulation in the same field is banned Tougher state regulations or even
regulations that merely complement the new federal initiative can be ruled null
and void.
You may never be able to quantify the price of federal preemption,
but let me provide an example of what may have been sacrificed in the process.
When Congress amended the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to
exempt employer-provided health care plans from state
regulation, it did so for the sake of economic efficiency. A large, multi-state
firm like IBM or GM that self-insures, for example, should not have to comply
with fifty different state laws on health care. I would tend to
agree.
But, given the stalemate we have reached here in Washington on
health care reform and the fact that more than 16 percent of
our population still lacks basic health care, I welcome some
state or local efforts to expand coverage to the under- and
uninsured. Unfortunately, state and local options to expand
coverage are extremely limited because too great a share of their population is
exempt from state regulation.
It's not just health care.
Since the early 1980s we have seen only incremental progress in such fields as
consumer protection and the environment. Yet, state and local efforts to deal
effectively in these fields is often hampered by federal law and regulations.
How many mayors would love to see their industrial brown fields revitalized, but
must await congressional action that never seems to come.
One of the great
features of our federal system of government has been the opportunity for
innovation and experimentation at the state and local level. A new approach or
policy is adopted and tested in one county or state. If it succeeds, others try
it. If it fails, it is easily abandoned. My colleagues, how easy is it for the
federal government to test a new policy or abandon a failed one?
The
Federalism Act we introduced last week seeks to protect and enhance our federal
system of government. It is the logical and necessary extension of the Unfunded
Mandate Reform Act that Congress passed in 1995. Like the Unfunded Mandate
Reform Act, the Federalism Act sets forth a process and a discipline that is
intended to make federal decision makers more sensitive to state and local
concerns and prerogatives. In some ways it is analogous to the National
Environmental Policy Act requiring an impact assessment before federal action
can occur. It does not bar federal action but helps identify the potential
impact of federal action on state and local governments and hopefully identify
ways to mitigate against any federal action's more harmful impacts. I will be
the first to admit that much of the legislation Congress considers includes some
type of federal preemption. I support strong national standards for clean air
and water, fair labor standards and public health. Others in
Congress may seek to federalize our criminal justice system. We may disagree on
the appropriateness of the federal intervention, but few would dispute that
Congress has a legitimate right to pursue these initiatives under the Supremacy
Clause.
I do not suggest we return to the days of the Articles of
Confederation or endorse State Rights' advocates for a limited federal
government. What I do suggest is that we establish a procedure to ensure that
Congress is both well-informed and accountable for major actions that preempt
state and local governments. We also need to set forth a process that provides
the courts with greater clarity on congressional intent when legal disputes
arise between federal and state law.I know this legislation is not perfect. I
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation
defines the scope of judicial review and limits the potential for nuisance
lawsuits as well as safeguards the right of Congress to respond promptly to
important national initiatives.
Thank you.
END
LOAD-DATE: July 2, 1999 
