U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–556 PDF 2017

UNFUNDED MANDATES: EXAMINING FEDERALLY 

IMPOSED BURDENS ON STATE AND LOCAL 

GOVERNMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Serial No. 115–24 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Jason Chaffetz, Utah, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

Val Butler Demings, Florida 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matthew Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

John Sarbanes, Maryland 

JONATHAN SKLADANY, Staff Director 

REBECCA EDGAR, Deputy Staff Director 

KATY ROTHER, Senior Counsel 

WILLIAM MCKENNA General Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Gary Palmer, Alabama Chairman 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Val Butler Demings, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

(Vacancy) 

(Vacancy) 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 26, 2017 .............................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Wayne Niederhauser, President, Utah State Senate 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

The Hon. Jim Davis, Senator, North Carolina State Senate 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

The Hon. Gary Moore, Judge/Executive, Boone County, Kentucky 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Full Statement of the Hon. Gary Moore can be found at: http:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO04/20170426/105942/hhrg-115-GO04- 

Wstate-MooreG-20170426.pdf 

The Hon. Jermaine Reed, Councilman, City of Kansas City, Missouri 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 21 

The Hon. Jeff McKay, Supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Alexandria, Virginia 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

APPENDIX 

Opening Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer ............................ 52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

UNFUNDED MANDATES: EXAMINING FEDERALLY IMPOSED BURDENS ON STATE AND 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Wednesday, April 26, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary J. Palmer [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Palmer, Grothman, Foxx, Walker, 

Demings, and DeSaulnier. 

Also Present: Representatives Meadows, Comer, and Connolly. 

Mr. PALMER. The Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs of 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will come to 

order. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

Today, we are examining Federal unfunded mandates and their 

impact on State and local governments. The issue of unfunded 

mandates is central to this subcommittee, which is charged with 

oversight of the relationship between the Federal Government and 

State and local government partners. In December, the chairman 

sent a letter to Governors, State legislators, and county and local 

government officials soliciting feedback on the most burdensome or 

impactful Federal unfunded mandates. Respondents cited over 645 

individual Federal laws and regulations that have taken away the 

ability of local governments to decide how best to serve their constituencies. Almost a quarter of those laws represented Federal environmental requirements. 

Governor Eddie Calvo of Guam reported that the compliance 

costs for the EPA’s enforcement of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water 

Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act alone equates to almost $10,000 

per man, woman, and child, and makes the basic cost of utilities 

for the median household unsustainable. 

Unfunded mandates reported to the committee covered a variety 

of topics, from labor to housing to transportation to prison administration. This issue does not discriminate. Of the most cited laws, 

Medicaid was routinely reported to be one of the most burdensome, 

imposing billions of dollars on communities annually for care that 

is often not reimbursed. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

Higher education institutions in the State of Virginia report 

spending millions annually on compliance with Federal education 

laws. The University of Virginia, for example, spends an estimated 

$20 million a year just to comply with unfunded mandates. 

Respondents cited mandates imposing significant administrative 

costs with no identifiable benefits, mandates requiring standards 

inconsistent with the needs of the State, and mandates that are 

simply impossible to achieve. In certain cases, such as implementation of the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards, unfunded 

mandates reportedly resulted in direct loss of jobs. The corresponding costs of these mandates are directly borne by the taxpayer. 

Merely looking at cost, however, is not sufficient. The time and 

resources that States and local governments take to comply with 

these mandates demonstrate that current law does not adequately 

capture the extent of the burden of unfunded mandates. As an example, Speaker Mac McCutcheon from my home State of Alabama 

shared an unworkable Department of Transportation mandate that 

requires the State to outline a financial plan for certain projects for 

up to 30 years without knowing the source of funding that far into 

the future, making the annual exercise just that, an exercise. What 

we heard from nearly all the respondents is that the attempt to 

provide a one-size-fits-all solution effectively strips officials of the 

flexibility necessary to govern at the State and local level. 

Every dollar a State or local government uses to comply with 

Federal law is a dollar they can’t direct to specific needs at their 

own levels of government. The committee learned that a Federal 

Aviation Administration policy change resulted in the use of State 

and local infrastructure funds to pay for flight inspections in Oklahoma. A small rural county in Nevada had to consider closing its 

sole library, which was its residents’ key source of internet access, 

after the Department of Labor implemented its overtime rule. 

These tradeoffs are made every day by State and local officials. 

I would like to thank each of the witnesses today for taking valuable time out of their schedules to appear here today to testify. You 

are uniquely situated to provide insight into this issue and where 

we should go from here. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Virginia, Congresswoman 

Virginia Foxx, for the remainder of my time. 

Ms. FOXX. I thank the chairman for yielding. 

Like some of you, I served as an elected official in State and local 

government, and can testify to the difficulty of balancing a State 

budget when there are dozens of complicated unfunded Federal 

mandates that must be taken into account. In 1995, in a model of 

bipartisanship, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, or UMRA. UMRA was designed 

to force the Federal Government to estimate and report how much 

its mandates would cost local and State governments, which was 

previously not the case. UMRA was not intended to prevent the 

government from regulating or legislating, but, rather, to ensure 

that decisionmakers have the best information possible when 

crafting new policies. 

I have always admired the purpose and spirit of UMRA, but 

weaknesses in the law have been exploited in the intervening decVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:08 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26556.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

ades, and they need to be addressed. For instance, most independent agencies, like the FCC and the SEC, are not subject to 

UMRA’s requirements for their proposed regulations. Costly 

changes in conditions of grant aid don’t fall within the definition 

of a mandate, and agencies can skip UMRA cost analyses if they 

begin rulemaking with a mechanism other than a formal notice of 

proposed rulemaking. Finally, UMRA measures only direct costs of 

compliance with mandates, and the law contains no enforcement or 

accountability mechanisms which allow State and local governments recourse if the process is not followed. It is my hope that 

this hearing will be a first step toward an improved and more 

transparent regulatory process that eases the burdens passed onto 

State and local governments. To that end, since 2007, I have 

worked on a bill known as the Unfunded Mandates Information 

and Transparency Act, or UMITA, which seeks to address some of 

UMRA’s shortcomings and will help the law meet its unfulfilled potential. UMITA will ensure public and bureaucratic awareness 

about the cost that Federal regulations impose on the economy and 

local governments. It will also make our regulatory apparatus more 

efficient, effective, and transparent. UMITA has bipartisan DNA, 

and its purpose is purely about good government, that of openness 

and honesty about the cost of regulations. 

These principles do not belong to either party. That is why my 

Democratic colleague Henry Cuellar joined me in introducing the 

bill, and it is why it has passed the House in previous Congresses 

with overwhelming support from both parties. Republicans and 

Democrats can agree that every unfunded mandate the Federal 

Government imposes should be both deliberative and economically 

defensible. 

Thank you for your time, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

yielding. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair notes the presence of our colleagues Congressman Meadows of North Carolina, Congressman Connolly of 

Virginia, and Congressman Comer of Kentucky. We appreciate 

your interest in this topic and welcome your participation today. 

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank my colleague Ms. Foxx for her leadership on this 

particular issue, for your leadership in bringing forward this hearing. 

But I am here today to thank the fine senator from North Carolina, Senator Jim Davis, who is probably the best qualified person 

to speak on this topic, because when I didn’t know what unfunded 

mandates were, Senator, you as a county commissioner were telling 

me what it was. You knew all too well those Federal mandates that 

came down, and we required you to have to pay for it at the county 

level. You have been an advocate on this, not only as a county commissioner, but now as my State senator and someone I enjoy calling my friend. Thank you for making the special effort. Thank you 

for your expert testimony. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida, the 

ranking member, Mrs. Demings. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, everyone. 

Let me start by saying I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to join 

you as ranking member of this subcommittee. We have had one 

joint subcommittee hearing, but this is our first hearing of just the 

Intergovernmental Subcommittee. I look forward to working with 

you in a bipartisan manner to conduct rigorous, yet effective, oversight. 

I am glad we are having this hearing to examine the impact of 

unfunded mandates on State and local governments by the Federal 

Government. As a former chief of police for the city of Orlando, 

Florida, I am keenly aware of the challenges State and local governments face in managing their local budget and implementing 

Federal mandates. Right now, I believe the single biggest threat to 

State and local funding is President Trump’s proposed budget. It 

slashes hundreds of billions of dollars from programs that American families rely on. And if these Draconian cuts go through, the 

burden will fall on cities, counties, and States. 

Here is a brief list of the programs set for elimination. The administration’s budget would eliminate funding for the Community 

Development Block Grant. It would eliminate funding for the 

HOME Investments Partnership Program. It would eliminate Community Services Block Grants. And it would even eliminate the 

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The president of 

the National League of Cities said President Trump’s proposed 

budget, and I quote, ‘‘threatens the safety and prosperity of cities 

around the country.’’ I could not agree more. 

What does it all mean? Well, it means low-income American families may go without heat in the winter and air conditioning in the 

summer. It means that the elderly, children, and people with disabilities will not receive funding that is critical to these vulnerable 

populations. It means funding for afterschool programs will disappear. And it means that counties and cities will have to divert 

funds as they are forced to do more with less. It will negatively impact public health and safety across the country, and it will negatively impact budgets nationwide. Regardless of whether you live 

in rural areas or urban cities, you will be hurt by this budget. 

When these cuts to vital programs are proposed, they are packaged as cost-saving efforts. This isn’t true. This is cost shifting to 

someone else, and the, quote, ‘‘someone else’’ is the most vulnerable 

families in our communities and States and local governments. I 

look forward to hearing about unfunded mandates facing local governments, but as part of this conversation, we must reject the 

President’s massive budget cuts and the burden they impose on 

local and State governments. 

I understand as well as anyone how Federal mandates can pass 

costs down to State and local governments that impact the outlook 

for their budgets. We must distinguish between mandates that assure basic rights and protections and mandates that impose burdens. For example, there are mandates that ensure clean water. All 

we have to do is look at the crisis in Flint, Michigan, to understand 

what would happen if these protections were eliminated. As this 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

committee found, the problem in Flint was not Federal overreach. 

It was that the Federal Government did not step in sooner to protect the citizens of Flint. And now an entire generation of children 

will be paying the price as they deal with the consequences of lead 

poisoning. The solution there is not just to eliminate the mandate; 

it’s to provide adequate funding to comply with it. 

Then there are examples of mandates that burden State governments. It’s no secret President Trump wants local governments to 

help with immigration enforcement. At the same time, however, his 

proposed budget looks to eliminate the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which provides reimbursements to State and local 

governments for incarcerating undocumented immigrants. This is a 

prime example of States being asked to do the Federal Government’s job at their own expense. We cannot lose sight of why we 

are concerned about the burdens of State and local governments in 

the first place. It’s about doing what is best for Americans everywhere. The funds at this level and the services provided are crucial 

to Americans across this country. We cannot tolerate irresponsible 

cuts to these needed programs. 

Again, thank you so much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentlewoman. 

And I also look forward to working with you. And I think we 

have a lot of opportunities, a lot of good work to do on this committee. 

The committee will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for 

any members who would like to submit a written statement. 

We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. First of all, the 

Honorable Wayne Niederhauser, president of the Utah State Senate, who represents the ninth State senate district in the great 

State of Utah. The Honorable Gary Moore, judge and executive of 

Boone County, Kentucky. Mr. Moore chairs the National Association of Counties’ Committee on Environment, Energy & Land Use, 

and is the former chairman of the Opioid Epidemic Task Force. 

I got out of order, Mr. Davis. I would also like to recognize Senator Jim Davis of North Carolina’s 50th district. 

Welcome today. 

The Honorable Jermaine Reed, councilman of the city of Kansas 

City, Missouri. 

And I am now pleased to recognize Congressman Connolly from 

the great State of Virginia to recognize our last witness. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend, and I thank the chair and the 

ranking member for holding this very important hearing. 

In fact, when I was chairman of Fairfax County, from which Mr. 

McKay comes, I actually testified before this committee, when Tom 

Davis was chairman and Henry Waxman was ranking member, on 

unfunded mandates. 

Unfunded mandates particularly affect local government. In fact, 

local governments are on the receiving end not only from the Federal Government but from State governments. I notice we have two 

State senators, one of whom at least was in local government. But 

it is all too often the practice at the State level to, frankly, slough 

off burdens onto localities. I know that goes on in my home State 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

of Virginia, and I know Mr. McKay is on the receiving end of that 

as a supervisor from Lee district in Fairfax County. 

Mr. McKay is a long-time friend of mine for over two decades. 

We worked together in a myriad of enterprises in transportation, 

in human services, on the Legislative Affairs Committee, which he 

now chairs, which I also used to chair. And I know he understands 

intimately the impact on the budget because he now chairs the 

Budget Committee for the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, a 

county bigger than eight States. So, you know, he is dealing with 

really large issues, and it’s a full enterprise government. So it’s everything from human services to a bus fleet. And they know the 

impact of unfunded mandates, Mr. Chairman. 

And I have always said, as a local government official and now 

up here, if Congress thinks an idea is really worth doing, we should 

pay for it. It should never be a burden put on somebody else. No 

Child Left Behind is a great example. You know, maybe good intentions, but it was an unfunded mandate. And that was always my 

problem. 

So I welcome Mr. McKay being here representing a wonderful 

place, Fairfax County, and I thank him for being willing to spend 

his time and bring his expertise to this committee. 

Mr. PALMER. Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth so help you God? Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony 

to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will be made part of 

the record. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. Niederhauser for his testimony. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE NIEDERHAUSER 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking 

Member Demings, and committee members for this opportunity to 

speak to you today. I am Wayne Niederhauser, senate president of 

Utah. I represent Sandy, Utah, gateway to Snowbird and Alta ski 

resorts. It was snowing when I left home yesterday morning. I also 

have the privilege of working closely with the Council of State Governments, CSG, and I am here in that capacity today. 

On behalf of CSG and our leaders throughout the country, I want 

to thank you for convening this important hearing and for your 

leadership in exploring ways to improve relationships between the 

States and the Federal Government. Founded in 1993—1933, excuse me, the Council of State Governments is the Nation’s only organization serving all three branches of government. CSG is a region-based, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that fosters an exchange of ideas that helps States shape public policy. Our new administration, the Vice President and President, have both voiced 

their strong support for strengthening relationships with State and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 

local governments. The administration has issued several executive 

actions. While these executive orders are important steps towards 

keeping faith with the established principles of federalism, CSG believes Congress should follow suit and consider legislative action to 

codify processes that ensure adequate State input. 

We applaud Congresswoman Virginia Foxx for introducing H.R. 

50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act, 

which addresses UMRA’s narrow coverage, exemptions, and loopholes. The committee understands the constitutional and 

foundational role the States play in our Federal system as outlined 

in the 10th Amendment, which laid the foundation for States to develop innovative ideas and policies to fulfill their roles as laboratories of democracy. 

The Utah legislature in this last session passed a resolution outlining several dozen areas of State responsibility that have been assumed by the Federal Government. That resolution will be attached to my testimony. State-based innovation is being stifled by 

a growing web of Federal policies and regulations, which come in 

the form of unfunded mandates. Unfunded mandates limit State 

and local flexibility to address more pressing local problems like 

crime and education. States are often forced to find money to pay 

these bills. In addition, these mandates may come in a one-size-fitsall box that can shut down innovative efforts to address problems 

that involve unique local considerations. Among the most costly 

mandates are those involved in environmental compliance. The 

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ infamous rule to establish 

an expansive definition of the Waters of the United States is a 

prime example of which this committee is well aware. A smaller example is the groundwater rule that requires us to manage a new 

violation, including site inspections, which forces us to hire new 

employees that cost us $240,000 a year. 

The Perkins Program from the Department of Education is my final illustration. Utah receives a grant of approximately $12 million to support State and administrative costs, professional development. In return for this $12 million, we are locked into a maintenance of effort agreement that now costs the State $241 million. It 

is not a complete loss of money. Some of those things we would 

have done regardless. But the lack of flexibility comes at a cost. I 

am attaching a summary of our Perkins analysis. Goals behind 

Federal mandates are often admirable, but local governments have 

admirable goals also, more important to citizens, more likely to be 

effective, and less expensive. Along with the cost of financing these 

new mandates, the majority of Federal regulations have been enacted with limited or no input or consultation from local governments. This is what led CSG to start a multiyear initiative focused 

on improving the role of States in the Federal system. I have included the full list of principles in my testimony. 

One size does not fit all. Local governments should be encouraged to provide unique local solutions. Stronger coordination and 

communication will help reduce conflicts, which far too often end 

up in court and come with enormous economic and opportunity 

costs. Cooperative federalism requires the Federal Government to 

work in good faith with the States as equal partners. The broken 

system demands Congress to implement changes to the process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
8 

Navigating this relationship between the Federal Government 

and the States and local government—I believe, with your leadership—will improve. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today and look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Niederhauser follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 26556.001

()' U! 

"~·\ wHEE cotn.n.m.r oFE SwAwE G(JNLERNMENTS 

,,~;~~l;0 \; 

Committee on 

United States House of Representatives 

Burdens on State and Local 

April26, 2!l17 

Chairman Palmer, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to 

My name is Wayne Niederhauser; I am the Senate President of the of Utah. l 

have the honor citizens of the 9th district of Utah 

includes Alta, Draper, 

I also have the The Council of State Governments also 

On behalf of CSG and our state leaders throughout the country, I want to thank you for 

important hearing and leadership in exploring ways to improve the 

rcl.atirmshin between our states and the government. 

Founded in 1933, The Council of State Governments the nation's only organization 

serving all three branches of state CSG is a reg;iorr-b:ased, 

partisan organization that fosters 

public policy. CSG has also been a leader in 

system and working to identify solutions to 

relationship with state and local governments. 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 26556.002

In fulfillment of their regulatory reform agenda, the administration has issued several 

executive actions with implications for state and local governments. These actions, which 

highlight the importance of federalism and thorough cost-benefit analyses, open the door 

for reforms beneficial to states in the federal rulemaking process. 

While these executive orders are important steps toward keeping faith with the established 

principles of federalism, CSG believes Congress should follow suit and consider legislative 

action to codify processes that ensure adequate state input. In fultlllment of that objective, 

CSG has placed a specific emphasis on urging Congress to update the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act, or UMRA, of 1995 to ensure state views are taken into account in the 

development of proposed regulations and legislation. 

We applaud Congresswoman Virginia Foxx for reintroducing H.R. 50, the Unfunded 

Mandates Information and Transparency Act, which addresses the UMRA's narrow 

coverage, exemptions and loopholes, and will ultimately make it a more effective 

instrument to reduce unfunded legislative and regulatory mandates. 

This Committee understands the constitutional and foundational role that states play in our 

federal system, as outlined in the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment states, "the 

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 

states, are reserved to the state respectively, or to the people." This laid the foundation for 

states to develop innovative ideas and policies, and fulfill their role as "laboratories of 

democracy." 

My feeling is that the federal government has largely ignored a workable balance of 

responsibility in favor of a system that is more expensive and less efficient. The Utah 

legislature passed a resolution outllning several dozen areas of state responsibility that 

have been assumed by the federal government- that resolution will be attached with my 

written testimony. 

State-based innovation is being stifled by a growing web of federal policies and regulations, 

which come in the form of unfunded mandates. Mandates themselves are likely an injury of 

constitutional authority; the fact that they are so often unfunded adds the insult. 

In 2015, only 114laws were enacted by Congress, compared to 3,140 rules that were 

issued by federal agencies. State leaders are challenged to balance budgets, and these 

difficulties arc compounded by unanticipated economic costs associated with unfunded 

mandates resulting from federal regulations without adequate state input. 

Unfunded mandates limit state and local flexibility to address more pressing local problems 

like crime and education. States are often forced to retroactively find the money to pay the 

bills and compensate by foregoing discretionary actions that may be vitally important to 

citizens locally. In addition, these mandates may come in a "one size fits all" box that can 

shut down innovative efforts to address problems that involve unique local considerations. 

2 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 26556.003

rule. 

of Engineers 

United States" 

my final illustration. Utah 

million dollars to support state administrative costs, 

local education expenses. 

In return for this $12 million, we are locked into a Maintenance of Effort agreement that 

now costs the state over 241 million dollars per year. The money isn't a complete loss -we 

would have funded many of these not in the same way. The 

lack of flexibiHty comes at a cost and America's laboratories of 

democracy. 

I've attached a summary of the Perkins situation, from the Utah State Board of Education, 

for your review. 

Goals behind federal mandates are often admirable, but we have our own local goals which 

are just as admirable, more important to local citizens, more likely to be effective and less 

expensive. 

2000 through 2015, 

for 50 of those rules. It is hard to 

trigger the UMRA's analytical 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 26556.004

This is what led CSG to role of states 

in our federal system. CSG, 

Association of Counties, Conference of Western Attorney Generals, and the Pacific 

Northwest Economic Region, have adopted a set of federalism principles and 

recommendations. 

importance of: 

flexibility, and 

One size does not fit all. Local governments should be encouraged to provide unique local 

solutions. 

Stronger coordination and communication will help redt1ce conflicts, which far too often 

end up in the courts which comes with enormous economic and opportunity costs. 

Cooperative federalism requires the federal government to work in good faith with the 

states as equal partners. 

Navigating the relationship between state and federal governments is no easy task, but I 

believe, with your leadership, we can take steps to outreach and consultation, 

and division of responsibilities between our states federal government 

Again, thank you and the Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today, and l 

look forward to your questions. 

4 
13 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

The chair recognizes Senator Davis from North Carolina. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM DAVIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Palmer and 

Ranking Member Demings and members of the subcommittee. I am 

delighted to be here today. And I appreciate the opportunity to 

share the impact of unfunded mandates, or what I call federally 

imposed burdens, on North Carolina’s State and local governments. 

I am here to provide examples of compliance challenges and their 

associated costs from such mandates. 

I serve North Carolina’s district 50, which covers the seven westernmost counties in the State. Collectively, these counties contain 

almost 900,000 acres of Federal land, large tracts removed from development opportunities and the property tax base. As a result, 

these counties face significant challenges in their ability to provide 

critical services to their citizens. The added costs of compliance 

with unfunded mandates exponentially stress these already struggling local governments. On the opposite side of my State, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers dredges Federal channels and disposes of 

dredged materials in Federal waters offshore. Coastal counties 

seeking resources to renourish beaches and to repair from coastal 

storms often have need of dredged sand. But before any restoration 

can begin, managers of renourishment and repair projects must 

navigate the federally imposed bureaucracies of two separate agencies. First, they must secure Federal lease from the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management. Then they must work through the National Environmental Protection Act sediment sampling process for 

approval to extract sand from Federal waters and place it back on 

the beach. Delays in these processes are the norm and force local 

governments to create funding by increasing sales and property 

taxes on our citizens. 

Our North Carolina workforce, and in particular our citizens 

with disabilities, along with our North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and its contracted providers, are being directly and deleteriously impacted by numerous Federal unfunded 

mandates associated with rules and regulations promulgated in 

section 4 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. These 

mandates include extension of service obligations. DVR programs 

are now responsible for services to youth with the most significant 

disabilities starting at age 14 for up to 4 years, with no additional 

funding and no previous responsibility. Funding must come from 

either North Carolina taxpayers or reduction or elimination of services for other citizens. 

New mandated allocation of States’ DVR Federal grant. Fifteen 

percent of the total DVR Federal grant money is now mandated for 

a new responsibility to provide preemployment transitional services 

to youth starting at age 14. The 15-percent requirement was not 

graduated for infrastructure ramp up, causing States to forfeit Federal funds. With forfeiture of funds, no additional funding, and no 

previous responsibility, the money must come from North Carolina 

taxpayers or a reduction or elimination of services. 

While the legislative intent of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act was intended to benefit our workforce and citizens 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
14 

with disabilities, it was in effect a regulatory overreach, an attempt 

to legislate through rulemaking, which resulted in noble intentions 

becoming unfunded mandates, ungrounded in reality. The North 

Carolina Department of Transportation is rife with examples of the 

burdens of unfunded Federal mandates. NCDOT is responsible for 

all modes of transportation in my State. The NCDOT also oversees 

and helps expand economic opportunities through the North Carolina ports and North Carolina Global TransPark. Federal unfunded 

mandates impact States that support passenger train services delivered by providers other than Amtrak. There is no Federal funding to support the additional costs associated with this designation. 

And the total financial impact to North Carolina is over a million 

and a half dollars per year. Due to a change in the Federal definition of ‘‘passenger ferry,’’ base appropriations for North Carolina’s 

ferry system went from 22 million in 2007 to over 31 million in 

2008. 

And I could list many other Federal mandates that caused our 

State to either increase taxes or reduce services. But I would like 

to conclude my testimony with this compelling example from a 

business owner in my district. His experience is at best a sobering 

commentary on compliance challenges and associated costs from 

unfunded Federal mandates. He was told by a compliance officer 

charged with enforcing EPA guidelines that his boiler system was 

compliant with current emissions of arsenic; however, he would be 

required to reduce the emissions from 12 parts per million to 4 

parts per million. After spending over $200,000 on consultants, 

lawyers, and other experts, this business owner learned two things. 

One, the technology didn’t exist to reduce it to 4, and secondly, arsenic occurs naturally in our air at 12 parts per million. Rather 

than invest $200,000 on needed equipment, employee raises, or 

profit, the business owner spent his money on efforts to comply 

with the impossible. Where I come from, $200,000 is real money. 

I commend my testimony to you and welcome your questions. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 26556.005

STATEMENT OF NORTH CAROLI~A SENATOR JIM DAVIS BEFORE THE HOUSE 

OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORl\f COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

APRIL 26,2017 

Good morning, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to share impacts of unfunded mandates--

federally imposed burdens-- on North Carolina's state and local governments. I am here to 

provide examples of compliance challenges and their associated costs from such mandates. 

I serve North Carolina's Senate District 50 which covers the seven western-most counties in my 

state. Collectively, these counties contain almost 900,000 acres of federal land large tracts 

removed from development opportunities and the property tax base. As a result, these counties 

face significant challenges in their ability to provide critical services to our citizens. The added 

costs of compliance with unfunded federal mandates exponentially stress these already 

struggling local governments. 

On the opposite side of my state, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges federal channels 

and disposes of dredged materials in federal waters offshore. Coastal counties seeking resources 

to re-nourish beaches and repair from coastal storms often have need of dredged sand. But 

before any restoration can begin, managers of re-nourishmcnt and repair projects must navigate 

the federally imposed bureaucracies of two separate agencies. First, they must secure a federal 

lease from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Then they must work through the National 

Environmental Protection Act's sediment sampling process for approval to extract sand from 

federal waters and place it back on the beach. Delays in these processes are the norm, and force 

local governments to create funding by increasing sales and property taxes on our citizens. 

Our North Carolina workforce, and in particular our citizens with disabilities, along with our NC 

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and its contracted providers, are being directly and 

deleteriously impacted by numerous unfunded mandates associated with rules and regulations 

promulgated in Section IV of the Workforce Innovations and Opportunity Act (WIOA). These 

mandates include: 

• Extension of service obligations: DVR programs are now responsible for services to 

youth with the most significant disabilities starting at age 14 for up to 4 years; with no 

additional funding and no previous responsibility, funding must come from either NC 

taxpayers or reduction or elimination of services for other citizens. 

• New mandated allocation of states DVR Federal grant: 15% of total DVR federal grant 

money is now mandated for a new responsibility to provide pre-employment transitional 

services to youth starting at age 14. The 15% requirement was not graduated for 

infrastructure ramp up, causing states to forfeit federal funds; with forfeiture of funds, no 

additional funding and no previous responsibility, the money must come from either NC 

taxpayers or reduction or elimination of services for other citizens. 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 26556.006

• New career counseling mandate: DVR is now obligated by WIOA to provide career 

counseling and guidance, along with information and referral services to 4,200 

individuals who receive special minimum wage or commensurate wage per section 14c of 

the Department of Labor's FLSA. With no additional funding and no previous 

responsibility, funding must come from either NC taxpayers or reduction or elimination 

of services for other citizens. 

• New DVR service expectation and expansions: DVR Supported Employment services are 

expanded 33% from 18 to 24 months and include a new expectation to provide career 

advancement services; with no additional funding and no previous responsibility, funding 

must come from either NC taxpayers or reduction or elimination of services for other 

citizens. 

• Reduction in resources for personnel training: While persom1el training requirements 

continue, those resources previously provided no longer exist under WIOA; this mandate 

continues after being unfunded. 

While the legislative intent of the Workforce Innovations and Opportunity Act was intended to 

benefit our workforce and citizens with disabilities, it was in effect a regulatory overreach -an 

attempt to legislate through rule-making-- which resulted in noble intentions becoming 

unfunded mandates ungrounded in reality. 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is rife with examples of the burdens 

of unfunded federal mandates. NCDOT is responsible for all modes of transportation in my 

state highways, rail, aviation, ferries, public transit, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation 

as well as the state's Division of Motor Vehicles, Turnpike Authority, and the Governor's 

Highway Safety Program. The NCDOT also oversees and helps expand economic opportunities 

through the NC State Ports and NC Global TransPark. 

Federal unfunded mandates impact states that support passenger train services delivered by 

providers other than Amtrak. There is no federal funding to support the additional costs 

associated with this designation. The total financial impact to NCDOT is $I ,650,000. 

Federal unfunded mandates impacting public transportation include the migration to a more 

difficult-to-manage grants making system. Staff and technology required to oversee 

performance targets cost $5,000,000, $2,000,000 of which is recurring. New reporting 

requirements and shifting definitions require $500,000 in recurring expenses. Several actions 

taken by The Safety Management System(SMS) resulted in a recutTing $3,200,000- $8,000,000, 

the amount depending entirely on how far SMS carries its "Agency Plan". 

Due to a change in the federal definition of"passenger ferry", base appropriations for NC's 

ferry system went from $22,264,811 in 2007 to $31,313,921 in 2008. In addition, Homeland 

Security mandates resulted in requiring 24 security positions with an impact of$! ,095,607. 

A federal mandate requires vessels over 400 gross tons to develop a plan for treatment of oil 

spills in US waters. NC has 15 vessels that meet this requirement that includes annual drills and 
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 26556.007

training from a third party contractor. All of this is redundant to the requirements already 

mandated by North Carolina's environmental protection and spill response plans. The estimated 

cost to the department is S I 0, 000 each year. 

Counties are the first responders providing health and human services to the public and, in 

particular, our nation's vulnerable populations- children, elderly and the chronically ill. Many of 

these services are mandated by federal law. The populations these programs help serve do not 

diminish with reductions in, or elimination of, federal assistance, and thus an unfunded mandate 

is created when counties arc forced to make up the difference. 

While immigration is a federal responsibility, counties are directly affected by immigration. 

Federal mandates require counties to provide emergency health, free elementary and secondary 

education, and public safety to everyone regardless of immigration status. The annual fiscal 

burden on North Carolina taxpayers from illegal immigration is more than Sl billion. 

NC counties own water quality systems and other infrastructure like roadside ditches, stormwater 

systems, green infrastructure and drinking water facilities. These should be excluded from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) new 

"Waters of the U.S." (WOTUS) definition under the Clean Water Act. If left in place as is, this 

rule will substantially increase the cost of permitting and cause significant harm to farmers, 

businesses and landowners. 

This legislative session, in response to longstanding complaints from North Carolina education 

systems, a bill was introduced to study the financial costs to the State and local school 

administrative units of compliance with federal mandates related to the receipt of federal 

education funding. SB 78 requires the Department of Public Instruction to stndy, report, and 

provide any supporting data to the Fiscal Research Division and the Program Evaluation 

Division (PED) to the General Assembly on the cost of compliance with federal education 

funding mandates to local school administrative units. 

I conclude with this compelling example from a business owner in my district. His experience is 

at best a sobering commentary on compliance challenges and associated costs from unfunded 

federal mandates. He was told by a compliance officer charged with enforcing EPA guidelines 

that his boiler system was compliant with current emissions of arsenic. However, he would be 

required to reduce the emissions from 12 parts per million to 4 parts per million. After spending 

over $200,000 on consultants, lawyers, and other experts, this business owner leamed two things. 

One, the technology did not exist to reduce arsenic emissions to 4 parts per million. And two, 

arsenic occurs naturally in the westcm North Carolina air at 12 parts per million. Rather than 

invest $200,000 on needed equipment, employee raises, or profit, the business owner spent his 

money on efforts to comply with the impossible. Where I come from $200,000 is real money. 

I commend my testimony to you and welcome your questions. 
18 

Mr. PALMER. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, 

Mr. Moore, for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GARY MOORE 

Judge MOORE. Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings, 

and distinguished members of the committee and subcommittee, 

thank you for holding today’s hearings on unfunded mandates. 

I would also like to say hello to Kentucky Representative Comer 

and, if he is able to join us later, my Congressman Massie, Thomas 

Massie. 

My name is Gary Moore, and I am the elected county judge executive in Boone County, Kentucky, and I am honored to provide testimony today on behalf of the National Association of Counties to 

share how we can strengthen the intergovernmental consultation 

process. This issue is so important to counties nationwide as we 

work to balance our budgets and provide critical services to our 

constituents, including public safety, health services, fire and rescue, infrastructure development, and much more. 

As this committee examines the impacts of unfunded mandates, 

I would briefly like to share a few points for your consideration. 

First, the regulatory consultation process between Federal agencies 

and State and local governments needs to be strengthened. In 

1995, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, UMRA, was instrumental 

in reducing unfunded mandates in Federal legislation for State and 

local governments. In fact, CBO periodically and proactively brings 

together NACo and other State and local organizations to discuss 

proposed legislation that could result in unfunded mandates. However, the framework it established for the regulatory consultation 

process has been less effective. It tasked each agency with developing their own internal process, which we found to be inconsistent 

across and within agencies. We often find that the agencies just 

want to check a box instead of having meaningful discussion with 

us as intergovernmental partners before and throughout the rulemaking cycle. 

We are encouraged that Congress has been working on legislation to strengthen this process and hopefully curb the number of 

unfunded mandates. For example, H.R. 50, UMITA, would increase 

transparency about the cost of unfunded Federal mandates to State 

and local governments. Similarly, H.R. 1009, the OIRA Insight, Reform, and Accountability Act, would increase levels of consultation 

and collaboration between agencies and State and local governments. 

Time and time again, we see major Federal regulations like Waters of the U.S., the ozone rule, and the Department of Labor’s 

overtime rule finalized with little or no consultation with State and 

local governments, even though these regulations have major practical and financial implications for counties. 

Second, counties face mounting fiscal stress from unfunded mandates. Counties must operate balanced budgets. We often do not 

have the flexibility in our budgets to pay for new Federal requirements. In fact, 45 States already impose limitation on counties’ 

ability to raise additional revenue. In my home State of Kentucky, 

the burden of an ever-growing list of Federal and State mandates 

has resulted in reduced funding for county jails, inmate health 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 

care, infrastructure maintenance, while other funding limitations 

are affecting our county-run 911 system. Federal policies and programs developed with only the impact on the Federal Treasury in 

mind put the ability of local governments to fulfill our responsibilities at risk. 

Finally, our system of federalism requires a strong Federal, 

State, and local partnership to achieve our shared goals. Unfortunately, our intergovernmental partnership is often out of balance 

as Federal agencies impose one-size-fits-all approaches, taking 

away local decisionmaking. When the Federal agencies do engage 

in meaningful consultation, they are better able to develop practical rules that accomplish our shared goals. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to discuss 

these issues and the major impact of federally imposed burdens on 

State and local governments. In short, we hope Congress will implement a consultation process across the Federal Government that 

includes working with State and local partners early and often. I 

am happy to answer your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Reed for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JERMAINE REED 

Mr. REED. Thank you. And good morning to you, Mr. Chairman, 

and the ranking members and the members of this committee. 

I am Jermaine Reed, a member of the city council from Kansas 

City, Missouri. And it’s an honor to be able to join you on behalf 

of National League of Cities, the oldest and largest organization 

representing American cities and towns. City leaders, as you have 

indicated, are on the front lines of almost every issue. From education, health care, environment, cities and towns are making 

major strides in these areas because we are in the business of finding solutions to the challenges that face our communities. 

But one of the biggest barriers to our progress is the burden of 

unfunded mandates. All city leaders face tough budget choices in 

what services we are able to provide, but often the added burden 

of unfunded mandates is the last straw for straining local budgets. 

We at the National League of Cities are opposed to unfunded mandates. As has been indicated, with the release of the President’s 

budget proposal, the concerns on whether the Federal Government 

can reduce or can be eliminated without shifting the costs to local 

governments has never been greater: the across-the-board proposed 

cuts to critical funding for programs and services in cities, the new 

unfunded mandates it would create. And we urge Congress to reject these cuts. Our constituents depend on the success of our Federal-local partnership to ensure that government services are affordable, reliable, and also high quality. To achieve that, I urge the 

committee to work to eliminate unfunded mandates and other regulatory burdens, support local flexibility and control to avoid taking 

a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. The partnership between 

local, State, and Federal Government works best when our unique 

powers and responsibilities are clearly defined and respected. Local 

governments’ biggest duty is to provide services, solve day-to-day 

problems, and respond directly to the needs of our citizens. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
20 

As our research at the National League of Cities shows, city 

budgets are still recovering from the Great Recession. The country’s municipal workforce is still at 58,000 jobs below the peak in 

the mid-2000s, and we are still meeting the needs of our citizens, 

but there certainly is a very little to—margin of error. In my hometown of Kansas City, we treat every budget approval process as an 

opportunity to reexamine with our constituents what their needs 

are to provide. When we are faced with unfunded mandates, my 

colleagues and I are forced to disregard the will of our voters and 

divert local tax dollars to meet the standards imposed by Congress. 

As explained in my written testimony, the unfunded mandates 

that we are facing include regulations from the Clean Water Act, 

the Clean Air Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. And 

right now, I would like to focus on the Clean Water Act and what 

it takes for cities our size to comply with unfunded mandates it’s 

proposed. In 2009, in order to meet the requirements under the 

Clean Water Act, Kansas City developed a 25-year plan called the 

Smart Sewers Program. The program includes 101 separate 

projects and comes at a cost of nearly $5 billion, financed entirely 

by wastewater fees. In order to fund these improvements, the city 

was forced to impose double-digit increases on our residents each 

year for the past 7 years. The average monthly bill has more than 

doubled, from $48 in 2009 to nearly $101 today, with major burdens on our elderly and low-income citizens. In addition to the 

Smart Sewers Program, the city has been mandated to invest in 

over $800 million in wastewater systems upgrades to meet the population discharge and regulation by the year of 2035. 

Now let me be clear that these programs are important and include many benefits to our community. But without the adequate 

funding and no input from local elected officials, they leave our city 

helpless to meet the Federal needs and to balance our local budgets. Cities need to have a seat at the table during the rulemaking 

process to ensure that local consideration and consequences are 

taken into account. 

As I stated in my written testimony, I would like to commend 

EPA for the significant improved consultation process with State 

and local governments. And I urge all Federal agencies to learn 

from their progress. More importantly, on behalf of the National 

League of Cities, I urge this committee to improve the Federal-local 

consultation process in a way that local government input and consideration in rulemaking is made. This can be achieved through the 

consistent consultation guidelines across Federal agencies and the 

low consultation thresholds, as the EPA example has shown. With 

more opportunities for local officials to participate in the rulemaking process, we can eliminate unfunded mandates at an early 

stage and give local governments the flexibility to balance their 

budget, provide high-quality services, and respond to our constituents’ needs. 

On behalf of the National League of Cities and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

testimony on this critical issue, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 26556.008

NLC NATIONAL 

LEAGUE 

OF CITIES 

Statement of 

The Honorable Jermaine Reed 

Councilmember, City of Kansas City, Missouri 

On behalf of the National League of Cities 

Before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform 

Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

"Unfunded Mandates: Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State and 

Local Governments" 

April 26, 2017 

Good morning, Mr. Chainnan and Members of the Committee. I am Jermaine Reed, 

Councilmcmber from the City of Kansas City, Missouri. It is my pleasure to be with you today 

on behalf of the National League of Cities, the oldest and largest organization representing local 

elected officials in America's cities and towns. NLC represents 19,000 cities and towns of all 

sizes across the country. I appreciate the opportunity to share the perspective and 

recommendations of local elected officials on how the federal government can reduce unfunded 

mandates and unnecessary regulatory burdens on local governments. We believe that by 

improving the Federalism consultation process and the way local government input is considered 

this can be achieved. 

As cities across America are at the front lines implementing and leading on programs from 

education to healthcare and the environment, we look to our partners in Washington to offer 

support for coordinated and substantive results. As you will hear from me today, cities have 

come a long way in tackling issues around clean water, clean air and accessibility, to name a few, 

but we have also been burdened by unfunded mandates associated with these actions. As city 

budgets struggle to recover from the Great Recession, many of us are making touch choices 

about the services and maintenance that we can afford and in some instances taking actions to 

borrow and finance funds to addresses critical needs. Moreover, proposed federal budget cuts to 

critical programs would further reduce our ability to meet the everyday needs of our community, 

as well as add to the burden that unfunded mandates have on our city. This is not a sustainable 

situation and we urge Congress to reject the proposed cuts put forth by the Tmmp 

Administration. Additionally, with more opportunities for cities and local elected officials to be a 

part of the federal policy and rulemaking process, we hope that unfunded mandates and other 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 26556.009

regulatory burdens can be identified and eliminated at an early stage. We look forward to an 

intergovernmental partnership that supports local flexibility and authority, provides the necessary 

resources, and avoids a "one-size-fits-all" approach. 

Federalism Principles and the Intergovernmental Partnership 

The intergovernmental partnership, through federalism, involves a cooperative partnership 

among local, state and federal governments, and must be strengthened through all levels of 

government. The principles of federalism require acknowledgement of the respective roles, 

duties, and responsibilities for each level of government. Federalism is promoted when 

boundaries of authority and responsibility arc identified, delineated, and respected by all the 

partners of government. 

Within the intergovernmental partnership, local governments are principally responsible for 

providing services, solving day-to-day public problems, and responding directly to the needs of 

citizens. Unfunded mandates impose additional disproportionate responsibilities on local 

governments, and increased uncertainty and financial liability, without regard to the fiscal impact 

of those policies. As such, their impact on the division of power within the intergovernmental 

partnership ultimately moves us further from our foundational principles of federalism. 

Federalism, ultimately, is the constitutional relationship between state governments and the 

federal government. Cities are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and, instead, derive their 

powers from their respective state governments. For much of the early portion of American 

history, federal policy did not interfere with local government. Only since the 1930s has there 

been an active and direct federal-city relationship. This relationship has been largely defined by 

the power of the purse, meaning the federal government has used funding to induce cooperation 

from local governments. Unfunded mandates, however, distort this quid pro quo relationship by 

removing the federal government's end of the bargain. 

Furthermore, it is important to note that the capacity of city government to respond to federal 

demands is limited. While Kansas City has access to earnings, sales, and property taxes, most 

cities have access to only one or two streams of revenue. Additionally, states or voters in many 

areas have imposed caps on the revenues cities are able to raise, often by limiting increases in the 

property tax. NLC's annual City Fiscal Conditions1 survey research shows that city government 

revenues have not fully recovered from the Great Recession. The recovery of city finances has 

been protracted-! 0 years out, general fund revenues are still below pre-Recession levels. Cities 

have responded by making tough decisions to reduce services and lay off employees. As of this 

month, local government payrolls are still 58,600 jobs below their pre-Recession high. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Cities saw a major victory on the unfunded mandates front in 1995 through a renewed focus on 

federalism. At the time, cities were seeing a rise in regulatory or "coercive federalism" through 

regulations, mandates and preemptions and a decline in fiscal federalism. In the half-century 

between 1945 and 1995, the number of federal mandates on state and local governments 

1 National League of Cities, "City Fiscal Conditions 2016." October 16,2016. Available at 

http:/iwww .nlc.orgiresource/citv-fiscal-conditions-20 16 

2 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 26556.010

increased from less than I 0 to more than 100. Since the late 1970s, the federal government's 

share of local government general revenue has declined from about 15 percent to 4 pcrcent2 

Today, as was true in 1995, fundamental questions about the roles and responsibilities of 

government are at the forefront of policy discussions-how to streamline the government, 

balance the federal budget, and shift policy responsibilities to states and local governments, and 

the private sector. Today, as was true in 1995, cities arc concerned about whether federal 

programs can be reduced or eliminated without shifting the costs to local governments in the 

form of unfunded mandates. With the release of the President Trump's 2018 budget proposal, 

this question becomes a clear reality. With across-the-board proposed cuts to critical funding for 

cities through programs such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants and 21st Century Community 

Learning Center grants for afterschool programs, just to name a few, the elimination of federal 

funding support and the resulting transfer of full responsibility for continuation of these 

programs to states and local governments would create new unfunded mandates. 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) aimed to address this burden by 

requiring federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of a final rule that may result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million or more. 

Under UMRA, this threshold amount also triggers the required intergovernmental consultation 

process between regulatory agencies and elected officials. 

In 1999, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13132: Federalism (Executive Order) to 

"further the policies of the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act" and to "insure that the principles of 

federalism established by the Framers guide the executive departments and agencies in the 

formulation and implementation of policies." In addition to enumerating the basic principles of 

federalism, the Executive Order directed federal agencies to set up a consultation process "to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism implications." 

Since 1997, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has assessed whether legislation considered 

by Congress contains unfunded mandates and whether any unfunded mandate costs exceeds the 

UMRA threshold. According to CBO, in the 19 years since UMRA became effective, there have 

been 13 laws with intergovernmental mandates that had costs estimated to exceed the statutory 

threshold, the last of which was enacted in 2010.3 Examples include increases in the minimum 

wage; minimum standards for issuing drivers licenses, identification cards and vital statistics 

documents; and requirements on rail and transit owners and operators 4 

While this process is working in some agencies and for some programs, it remains clear at the 

local level that there is still a long way to go to ensure that input by local officials is a 

meaningful part of the regulatory process, and not merely a check of the box. 

2 U.S. Census, State and Local Government Finances 2014 data, December 9, 2016. Available at 

https:/lwww.census.gov/govs/local/ 

3 Congressional Budget Office, ''A Review ofCBO's Activities in 2014 Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act," March 3 I, 2015. Available at www.cbo.gov/publication/5005 I. 4 Ibid. 

3 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 26556.011

The Kansas City Experience 

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Kansas City is the 37'h most populous city in 

the United States with over 460,000 residents. However, Kansas City is part of a bi-state 

metropolitan area of 2.1 million people that includes 172 cities and 15 counties. The city, with 

319 square miles, has the 11th largest land area in the country among cities not consolidated with 

counties. Kansas City has been recognized nationally not only as a wonderful place for barbcque, 

but also as a place for small business and startup incubation and for having one of America's 

best downtowns. We are proud of our city, its residents and its programs. 

Last month, my colleagues and I in the Kansas City Council approved a $1.59 billion 2017-2018 

budget, which takes effect on May 1 and has a strong focus on public safety and city services. 

While the budget increases services in some departments, we are very conscious of the 

uncertainty of federal funding support for cities in the coming years. In partnership with Mayor 

Sly James, we are thinking long and hard about how to build efficiencies while simultaneously 

maintaining our infrastructure and supporting our residents. To help us meet our maintenance 

needs, the city put forward an $800 million General Obligation bond to the voters on April 4 to 

support critical deferred infrastructure maintenance, including sidewalk repairs, flood control 

improvements and building renovations and upgrades to satisfy ADA requirements. This 

package was approved by voters and we are hopeful that this will help us in addressing several 

billion dollars' worth of maintenance backlog that the city has been unable to address up to this 

point. 

As with many cities, budgets arc carefully considered to reflect the priorities and needs of our 

residents. This year's budget is no different and reflects the changing needs and demands of our 

growing city. That process, however, is upended each time we face an unfunded mandate. As 

these federal mandates arise, we arc forced to choose between raising taxes, cutting services or 

delaying needed infrastructure projects. Is it right to choose between these mandates and fixing a 

necessary sewer line or cutting services to critical city programs? Each time we get an unfunded 

mandate, it requires locally-elected officials to disregard the will of our voters to meet the 

standards imposed by Congress or the Administration. The federal govemment must not initiate 

laws, rules and regulations, or take other actions and activities that will mandate action on the 

part oflocal govemments. But, if they do, reimbursement funds must be provided to compensate 

local govemments for such mandates. 

The following are examples of unfunded mandates that Kansas City is facing in the areas of 

clean water, clean air and accessibility. As I mentioned earlier, we are not a small city, so we 

have the benefit of financial resources that smaller cities and towns are not atiorded when faced 

with these same challenges. However, even with the benefit of size, Kansas City struggles at 

times to adapt to the changing regulations and laws that come without resources. 

Clean Water 

Our nation's aging water infrastructure is an issue of national concem. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that each year more than 850 billion gallons of combined 

sewer overflow is discharged into local streams and rivers5 To address this public health 

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Report to Congress: Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs," August 

2004. Available at https:/iwww.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-1 O/documcnts/csossortc2004 full.pdf 

4 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 26556.012

concern, EPA estimates a total investment of $57 billion dollars (2004 dollars) is needed to 

reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) across 772 communities. For the communities 

impacted by these CSOs, the burden of this and other unfunded mandates established under the 

Clean Water Act is great. 

To meet our requirement under the Clean Water Act, in 2009, Kansas City developed a 25-year 

plan, the Smart Sewer Program, to reduce our combined sewer overflow volume from 6.4 billion 

gallons annually to 1.4 billion gallons annually. The program represents Kansas City's largest 

existing infrastructure investment and the first federal consent decree to incorporate green 

infrastructure solutions to improve water quality. 

Our Smart Sewer Program includes 101 separate projects and will cost the city between $4.5 and 

$5 billion. The program is funded solely through wastewater revenues. As a result, we are 

significantly raising our wastewater rates and Kansas City customers are facing significantly 

higher bills. Residents in Kansas City have already faced seven years of double-digit rate 

increases, which have more than doubled the average monthly bill for consumers from $48 in 

2009 to $102 per month today. The city must continue to raise rates annually to meet the 

requirements of our consent decree. 

In addition to the requirements of Kansas City's consent decree, the city must also meet other 

unfunded mandates set forth under the Clean Water Act, including obligatory investments as part 

of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Municipal Separate Storm 

Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements. Kansas City must invest another $800 million in 

wastewater system upgrades to meet future NPDES regulations by the year 2035. 

An area of concern that would threaten the effectiveness of an already modest revenue stream 

and frustrate the flexibility intended for MS4 systems is the Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) program. To be clear, the TMDL program is an important part of the Clean Water Act, 

especially when the TMDLs are developed in accordance with sound science and are 

implemented in a manner reflective of real world conditions. However, Congress, EPA and the 

states must take care to ensure that TMDLs do not erode the practicality of the MS4legal 

standard, impose strict numeric effluent limits or mandate expensive infrastructure retrofits in 

order to achieve compliance. 

Aside from the absence of revenue to meet unfunded mandates, we must consider a fundamental 

measure of appropriateness in asking one generation of taxpayers to remedy the infrastructure 

issues created by multiple generations. This is especially critical for communities like Kansas 

City where citizens are already dealing with atTordability concerns connected with funding Clean 

Water Act programs and aging infrastructure. 

Clean Air 

When the Clean Air Act passed in 1963, it's safe to say that cities across America needed federal 

support to control air pollution on a national level and in our communities. Since that time, 

federal and state standards and programs have helped the Kansas City region significantly reduce 

our emissions and improve our air quality. Programs such as Congestion Mitigation Air Quality 

5 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 26556.013

(CMAQ) funding, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, and air quality planning, multipurpose, 

and research grants for air, climate and energy are instrumental to improving air quality in the 

Kansas City region. Without these programs, we jeopardize the progress made in both 

environmental quality and public health over the last fifty years. 

Through early replacement or retrofitting of school buses, rail engines and other heavy-duty 

diesel vehicles, our air quality has improved around our schools and in our neighborhoods, 

protecting the health of those most vulnerable to adverse impacts of pollution. Additionally, bistate coordination of air quality planning efforts has resulted in one of the nation's most robust 

air quality public education programs, as well as the EPA Clean Air Excellence Award for our 

Clean Air Action Plan, a voluntary plan to reduce emissions and improve public health adopted 

and endorsed by public and private partners in the Kansas City region. 

Ozone levels in Kansas City are dependent upon local emissions, ozone concentrations in air 

masses moving into our area, and local weather conditions. Since the early 2000s, monitoring of 

compliance for regulations was taken over the State of Missouri and the Mid-America Regional 

Council. The regional planning agency for Greater Kansas City continues to assess the region's 

compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and implement the region's Clean 

Air Action Plan. 

Looking forward, our city and region are planning for the possibility of a non-attainment 

designation when the national ground-level ozone 70 parts-per-billion standard goes into effect. 

If Kansas City falls out of attainment for air quality standards, it could be costly to implement 

changes to our Clean Air Action Plan and could discourage companies from locating or building 

in Kanas City because of the more stringent regulations. 

Accessibility 

When the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 and the first ADA 

Standards for new construction and renovations to existing buildings were implemented in 1991, 

most facilities were not ADA compliant. In Kansas City, many structures were never renovated 

to ADA compliance and, unfortunately, some renovations and some new construction was 

completed that was also not ADA compliant. As a result, the city found itself in the position of 

having to correct more than two decades of ADA violations with no set budget for the 

corrections and improvements. 

The City of Kansas City entered into a Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) in July 2012, under Project Civic Access (PACX), becoming the 200'h city to enter 

in to such an agreement. The agreement called for many things, but the primary objective was to 

make the city ADA compliant within a six-year time frame. This includes all policies, buildings 

and programs, websites, curb ramps, etc. Complying with this vital civil rights legislation is of 

critical importance to our city and a large effort is underway to meet our Settlement Agreement 

and our obligations under the ADA. 

Now nearly five years into the Settlement Agreement, we will be negotiating more time to 

complete the necessary upgrades as both the timeline for completion and its cost have become a 

burden. During the assessment of city assets, approximately 40,000 ADA violations were 

6 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 26556.014

discovered throughout all our facilities. This number includes each violation individually, such 

as every door pre~ssure reading, each door knob, etc. Every violation was documented with 

photography and recorded. The assessments and recording of the violations alone took months. 

The city has remedied thousands of violations to date, but is currently completing its transition 

plan and will be requesting several additional years to bring our remaining facilities into full 

ADA compliance. 

The cost of this work is estimated to be over$ 100 million. To date, approximately $25 million 

has been spent. The city's latest bond package, which was approved by voters on April 4, will 

provide an additional $24 million for ADA improvements, but that is only a portion of our ADA 

obligations. There is still much to do and the funding has yet to be identified for these expenses. 

There is no easy solution and there is no single-size solution. 

Cities and the Federal Government Should be Partners in the Rulemaking Process 

While 20 I 0 was the last time CBO identified a law as creating an unfunded mandate on local 

governments, many other unfunded mandates stem from the rulcmaking process. As partners in 

the intergovernmental process and often serving as co-regulators, cities should be at the table 

when rules arc being crafted to provide an important perspective on ensuring that rules are 

effective, implementablc, offer local flexibility, avoid a "one-size-fits-all" approach, and avoid 

an unfunded mandate. The feedback and input that local elected officials provide during the 

federalism consultation process should be considered in such a manner that it can truly help 

shape and inform the rulemaking so that issues as I just detailed in Kansas City do not continue 

to be created. 

Example: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Under UMRA and the Executive Order, each federal agency adopted guidance for consulting 

with state and local governments on federal regulatory actions, but the consultation processes 

differ by agency, and as a result the Executive Order is applied inconsistently across the federal 

government. While many unfunded mandates stem from the EPA, the Agency should be 

commended for improving the consultation process with state and local govemments. 

In 2008, EPA undertook a review of its Federalism guidance and, with NLC's urging, lowered 

the intergovemmental consultation threshold to $25 million in the "spirit" of federalism to 

improve the way the Agency defines, conducts and makes regulatory decisions. Since this time, 

NLC and the other state and local government groups have been consulted with on over 20 

different rulemaking procedures. By comparison, since the Executive Order was issued in 1999 

through 2008, only two EPA regulations were found to have aggregate costs to state and local 

govemments above the $100 million threshold tor triggering the intergovcmmental consultation 

process. While EPA has one of the most robust state and local government consultation 

processes, rulemakings arc often done in silos, but there is a cumulative effect of each of the 

Agency's individual rulemakings at the local level where elected officials have to look 

holistically and make tough decisions about where to invest their limited financial resources. 

Moreover, there are times when we believe the Agency falls short in the consultation process, as 

well as in conducting the fiscal analysis that accompanies rulcmakings. Over the past several 

years, NLC has identified several rulemakings where we believe EPA has not engaged in a 

7 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 26556.015

"meaningful and timely" consultation process or where the Agency has underestimated or not 

fu!ly considered the actual cost to local governments. 

Recommendation: Improve the Federalism consultation process and the way local government 

input is considered. 

The federalism consultation process could be improved through consistent guidance across 

federal agencies that requires early analysis and consultation with state and local leaders during 

the rulemaking process, as well as a lower consultation threshold, as implemented by EPA for 

example. With more opportunities for cities and local elected officials to be a part of the 

rulemaking process, potential unfunded mandates and other regulatory burdens could be 

identified and eliminated at an early stage. 

For this process to be successful, the federal government must fully evaluate and consider the 

full range of impacts of regulations on local governments, including a complete cost-benefit and 

risk assessment of proposed rules early in the regulatory process, and use the feedback and input 

from local governments in a way that can inforn1 that work. Federal policies and rules must 

provide states and local governments with sufficient time for implementation and maximum 

flexibility in the administration and maintenance of federal programs. As we've seen in Kansas 

City, it isn't a "one-size-fits-all" at the local level, and by involving leaders from cities in the 

process together we can avoid unnecessary budgetary burdens and unfunded mandates while 

simultaneously achieving strong outcomes. 

While the federalism consultation process can be improved, it is an essential component of the 

intergovernmental process, and local elected officials value the opportunity to provide direct 

input into the mlemaking process before rules are even drafted. This early feedback and input 

helps the federal government develop rules that arc effective, reasonable, and implementable at 

the local level. We continue to urge the federal government to listen to and consider the 

perspective oflocal governments early and often during the rulemaking process. 

In conclusion, working together, cities and the federal government can craft laws, policies and 

rules that meet our mutual goals of protecting the health, safety and welfare of our citizens, while 

reliving the pressure of unfunded mandates on local governments. 

On behalf of the National League of Cities and the City of Kansas City, I thank you for the 

opportunity to submit this testimony on this critical issue. I look forward to your questions. 

8 
29 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you for your testimony. 

The chair now recognizes Mr. McKay for his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFF MCKAY 

Mr. MCKAY. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings, Representative Connolly, members of this 

subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Jeff McKay, and I serve as chairman of both the 

Budget and Legislative Committees on the Fairfax County Board 

of Supervisors. I also serve on the Board of Directors of the Virginia Association of Counties. Many of you are probably familiar 

with Fairfax County, from Tysons Corner mall to the Springfield 

Town Center to Wolf Trap to Mount Vernon, we have transformed 

from a rural farming community into the largest jurisdiction in the 

Washington, D.C., area and the largest jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia with a highly diverse population of over 1.1 

million people. We hold a coveted AAA bond rating and among the 

most highly educated populations in the Nation. 

We have a strong partnership with the Federal Government, 

with 54.7 billion in total defense spending in fiscal year 2014. 

Nearly 30,000 defense personnel are located in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to many other Federal employees. We value the 

close relationship we have with the Federal Government and are 

even seeking to expand it with the potential relocation of the FBI 

headquarters in Springfield, Virginia. We very much are your partners, and we are proud of that relationship. 

Though Fairfax is often described as a wealthy community, we 

have many individuals and families who are struggling, including 

approximately 70,000 people living in poverty. Nearly 51,000 students in our public school system qualify for free and reduced-price 

lunch. Only five school divisions in Virginia have more total students than we have on just free and reduced-price lunch in Fairfax 

County. 

As has often been said, local government is the level of government that is closest to the people. We are where the rubber hits 

the road. Unfortunately, we are also the level of government with 

the fewest revenue options, making it even more difficult to address an increasing list of Federal and State mandates. In Fairfax 

County, we estimate the county spent approximately $1.4 billion on 

Federal and State mandates in fiscal year 2016, with a net fiscal 

impact of $834 million. 

Of course, we often support the policy goals the mandates seek 

to achieve, but mandates often prescribe not only we must do, but 

how we must do it, though they rarely include sufficient funding 

to carry out those requirements. In Virginia, localities are even 

more limited than in many other States, as Virginia has a strict 

adherence to something called Dillon rule, a doctrine of limited authority for local governments. As a result, we have very limited 

revenue authority, leading to an overreliance on property taxes. 

Virginia also provides less funding to localities than many States, 

ranking 38th nationally in State per-pupil funding for K-through12 education. 

The challenges we face would be exacerbated if the recent budget 

proposal by the Trump administration were enacted. Dramatic reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:08 Aug 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\26556.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
30 

ductions in Federal operations could lead to dramatic consequences 

for us. A recent study by George Mason University illustrates 

them. A decrease of 20,000 to 24,600 Federal jobs in the D.C. region, removing 2.3 billion to 2.7 billion in Federal salaries from our 

economy. A decrease in 800 million to 1.2 billion in Federal procurement spending in our region. 

The Trump budget proposal also raises concerns about critical 

programs and services we provide with Federal funding, eliminating the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program, funding restoration for the Chesapeake Bay, and funding for 

Impact Aid in our schools, which partially offsets the costs of federally connected children in our school system. That program is already significantly underfunded in Virginia. Consideration of such 

massive cuts is alarming. As we point to many successes where 

Federal contributions were integral, our transportation proposed to 

be reduced by 13 percent, some excellent projects that have happened in Fairfax County could not happen under this budget proposal. 

As I mentioned earlier, most mandates come with insufficient 

funding, but they are also overly prescriptive. If such mandates 

were eliminated, we in Fairfax County might address the same 

issues but in a totally, completely different way. We would still 

need appropriate contributions from our Federal and State partners. We also need to be empowered with the tools to diversify our 

revenues and strike the appropriate balance for our communities. 

Conversely, some requirements must be maintained, and it is 

correctly the Federal Government’s role to set priorities for overarching issues of national importance. Localities are struggling to 

meet increasing needs with decreasing revenues. In Fairfax County, we continue to try to find creative solutions to problems, to leverage the funds that we have, but demands are beginning to outstrip our means. We already do more than is required in areas the 

State does not provide essential funding and services. We cannot 

also step into the Federal Government’s shoes and backfill the substantial loss of Federal funds. Keep in mind that, unlike the Federal Government, we are required by Virginia law to annually balance our budget, a task made more difficult by Federal underfunding and unfunded mandates from both the State and Federal 

level. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Fairfax County, Virginia, today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. McKay follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 26556.016

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

COUNTY OF FAIRFAX 

Telephone {703) 971-6262 

Fax (703) 971-3032 

E-mail: leedist@fairfaxcounty.gov 

Web site: www.fairfaxcounty.gov/lee 

6121 Franconia Road 

Alexandria, VA 22310 

JEFFREY C. MCKAY 

LEE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR 

Testimony of Supervisor Jeffrey C. McKay 

Fairfax County Board of Supervisors 

Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's 

Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs 

"Unfunded Mandates: Examining Federally Imposed Burdens on State 

and Local Governments" 

Wednesday, April26, 2017 

Good morning, Chairman Palmer, Ranking Member Demings and Members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank yon for the opportunity to testify today to discuss the 

challenges facing local governments as a result of unfunded mandates. 

My name is Jeff McKay, and I serve as both the Budget Committee Chairman and 

the Legislative Committee Chairman on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. I 

would like to begin by telling you about Fairfax County. Many of you are probably 

familiar with us because of the time you spend in the National Capital Region, and some 

of you may even live in Fairfax County. You may shop at Tyson's Corner Mall or 

Springfield Town Center, attend concerts at Wolf Trap, dine at Reston Town Center, visit 

historical sites like Mount Vernon or sec the Space Shuttle Discovery at the 

Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center. Though we were 

once a farming community, today Fairfax County is the largest jurisdiction in the 

Washington, D.C. area and in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with a highly diverse 

population of 1.1 million. Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) is consistently rated 

among the best sehool systems in the nation, and we arc home to several Fortune 500 

companies, as well as businesses of all sizes. 

We also have a strong partnership with the federal government in a recent U.S. 

Department of Defense (DOD) report, the Commonwealth of Virginia ranked first in 

defense spending, with a total of$54.7 billion in FY 2014 (including $38 billion in 

contract spending and $16.6 billion in defense payrolls). Within the Commonwealth, 

Fairfax County is the top defense spending location, with $19.1 billion in defense 

expenditures. Nearly 30,000 defense personnel are located in Fairfax County, in addition 

to many other federal employees. We value the close relationship we have with the 

federal government, and are even seeking to expand it with the potential relocation of the 

FBI Headquarters to Springfield a top priority for me personally, as that site is located 

in the Lee District which I represent. We are very much your partners, and we are 

exceedingly proud of that relationship. 
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 26556.017

However, our needs are great as well. Fairfax County is often described as a 

wealthy community, and it is true that we are very fortunate. But we also have many 

individuals and families who are struggling. We have approximately 70,000 people 

living in poverty, and our average monthly caseload for Food Stamps is over 24,000 (a 

109 percent increase since FY 2008). This school year, nearly 51,000 students in our 

public schools qualify for free and reduced lunch, and we have 45 schools where 50 

percent or more ofthe student body qualifies for free and reduced lunch. Only five 

school divisions in Virginia have more total students than our free and reduced lunch 

population. These are truly sobering numbers, and ones we grapple with as we try to 

meet the funding needs of our community. 

As has often been said, local government is the level of government that is closest 

to the people. We directly impact the daily lives of our residents. They share their 

thoughts with us in the grocery store, at neighborhood parks or libraries, when we are 

taking our children to school, and increasingly, through social media. We address issues 

big and small - from funding our public schools and keeping our communities safe and 

healthy to ensuring that streetlights are operating properly or that residents have the 

appropriate permit for the deck they are building in the backyard because even the 

seemingly small issues are important. A lack of functioning streetlights can be dangerous 

for drivers and pedestrians and can make a neighborhood look unkempt, driving down 

property values and increasing crime, and that deck could be built incorrectly, potentially 

causing severe injuries in the case of a collapse. The decisions we make and the services 

we provide are critically important to our residents. 

Unfortunately, we are often also the level of government with the fewest revenue 

options, making it even more difficult to address an increasing list of federal and state 

mandates. In Fairfax County, we estimate that the County's total expenditures on federal 

and state mandates were approximately $1.4 billion in FY 2016, with a net fiscal impact 

to the County of $834 million (reflecting the portion of the mandates unfunded by the 

federal and state governments). Of course, we often support the policy goals the 

mandates seek to achieve, from limitations on class sizes to following clean air standards 

and providing services to the most vulnerable residents in our communities. But 

mandates often prescribe not only what we must do but also how we must do it, though 

they rarely include sufficient funding to carry out those requirements. 

In Virginia, localities are even more limited than in many other states, as Virginia 

is a strict adherent to something called the Dillon Rule, a doctrine of limited authority for 

local governments and derived from the writings of John Forrest Dillon (a 19th century 

judge and lawyer). As a result, Fairfax County (and all other Virginia local governments) 

only has those powers granted expressly by the General Assembly, which includes very 

limited revenue authority and leads to an over-reliance on property taxes to fund 

goverrm1ent services. This creates substantial difficulties, as our housing market has not 

fully recovered from the national recession that has been slow to recede. Virginia also 

provides much less funding to localities than many other states, ranking 38th nationally in 

state per pupil ftmding for K-12, relying on localities to fill the gaps- in Fairfax County 

the state provides only 23 percent of the funding for our public school system, while we 
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 26556.018

contribute approximately 72 percent through local dollars. Virginia also ranks near the 

bottom of states in funding for the social safety net, particularly in the area of Medicaid 

eligibility and services offered, and addressing those deficits further strains our local 

revenues. Local governments in Northern Virginia also contribute heavily to the 

Washington Metrorail system while we strongly support efforts to improve safety and 

reliability at Metro, we simply do not have the resources at the local level to dramatically 

increase our investments while also maintaining the level of financial support Metro 

needs to strengthen and restore its overall system. 

The challenges we face as a result of unfunded mandates would be exacerbated if 

the recent budget proposal put forth by the Trump Administration were enacted, further 

limiting our ability to meet the needs of our residents. To begin with, as I mentioned, 

Fairfax County is strongly connected to the federal govemment what affects you 

ultimately affects us. Dramatic reductions in federal operations could lead to dramatic 

consequences. A recent study by the Stephen S. Fuller Institute at George Mason 

University has projected a decrease of 20,000 to 24,600 federal jobs in the Washington 

region, removing between $2.3 billion and $2.7 billion in federal salaries from the 

economy. The study also projects a decrease of $800 million to $1.2 billion in federal 

procurement spending, resulting in a loss of up to 12,000 private sector contracting jobs. 

Our local economy, which has been so slow to recover, could not absorb such losses and 

the effects would likely be catastrophic. 

The Trump budget proposal also raises serious concerns about the critical 

programs and services we provide with essential federal funding. For example, the 

proposed elimination of both the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the 

Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs would cost Fairfax County 

approximately $6.4 million per year. That funding supports vital community services and 

rental subsidy programs that allow low-income and moderate-income individuals to live 

in Northern Virginia, where the cost of living is very high. Such cuts could also reduce 

the amount of affordable housing available for people striving to escape homelcssnessin Fairfax County we believe that permanent housing, combined with supportive services, 

is the first step in helping people achieve self-sufficiency more quickly, and affordable 

housing is an intrinsic part of that strategy. The President has also proposed eliminating 

funding for restoration of the Chesapeake Bay the largest estuary in the United States 

and the third largest in the world- jeopardizing the on-going efforts and investments 

made by all levels of government to clean up the Bay. This national treasure is home to 

3,600 species of plants and animals, as well as 18 million people who live in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, and the Bay and its tidal tributaries have more miles of 

shoreline than the entire U.S. west coast (11,684miles). Also eliminated would be 

funding for the Impact Aid program, which seeks to offset the costs to communities for 

federally connected children in our public school system- such an action is particularly 

upsetting as that program is already significantly underfunded and certainly does not 

adequately provide for the more than 18,000 federally connected children we serve in 

Fairfax County Public Schools. To illustrate the problem, in FY 2017 Fairfax County 

Public Schools expects to receive approximately $3.2 million in Impact Aid, which 
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 26556.019

covers only 11 percent of the costs of educating such children (if this program were fully 

funded, we would receive an additional $21.9 million in FY 2017). 

Consideration of such massive cuts is alarming, as we can point to so many 

successes where federal contributions were integral. For example, in the area of 

transportation, which is proposed to be reduced by 13 percent, some excellent projects 

would not have been possible without our federal partners. One of the largest transit 

projects in the nation, construction of the 23-mile Metrorail Silver Line, will connect 

Dulles Airport to the regional Metro system. Phase 1 opened nearly three years ago and 

runs through Tysons into Reston, and Phase 2 is tentatively scheduled to open in 2020, 

which will complete the project by connecting Dulles Airport and Loudoun County to the 

system. This $6 billion project received $975 million in federal funds, including $900 

million in New Starts for Phase I - funding which may no longer exist under the Trump 

budget proposal- and a $1.9 billion Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation 

Act (TIFIA) loan for Phase 2. Federal funding also played a key role in funding 

improvements for the Fairfax County Parkway- a major County roadway that directly 

serves Fort Belvoir. This important road improvement project, undertaken in part to 

prepare for the transfer of 13,000 Department of Defense (DOD) employees to Fort 

Belvoir as part of 2005 recommendations by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Commission (BRA C), received substantial federal funding for two phases, which were 

completed with $60 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA). Another critical partnership project that is currently underway is the widening 

of U.S. Route 1, which is literally the gateway to Fort Belvoir, an installation twice the 

size of the Pentagon. These improvements are necessary to improve traffic flow and 

access to a new Army Hospital located on the base; $180 million for this project was 

appropriated under the Defense Access Roads program administered by the DOD Office 

of Economic Assistance (OEA). Finally, the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of2008 (PRIIA) authorized federal support of$1.5 billion for Metro 

over ten years to address the system's urgent capital and safety needs, with an equal share 

provided by the region - continuation of that federal funding is critical to improving 

Metro, which is such a vital mode of transportation for many federal employees. I hope 

we can all agree that now is not the time to pull back on our funding commitment to 

Metro, but rather it is time to develop a serious plan, which must include adequate 

funding, to restore a transit system that is fundamentally important to this region. 

As I prepared my testimony for today's hearing, I thought a great deal about the 

concept of unfunded mandates. As I mentioned earlier, many of the mandates we 

struggle with come with insufficient funding to carry them out, but they are also often 

overly prescriptive in terms of what we are required to do to satisfy them. If such 

mandates were eliminated there may be many similar concepts that we in Fairfax County 

would choose to continue to pursue as the right thing to do, because providing our 

children with a high quality education, protecting our environment, keeping our 

community safe and providing essential services to our most vulnerable residents are all 

high priorities for us. However, the way in which we would carry out those activities 

might be completely different, and that could vary from community to community- my 

suburban, densely populated locality may find solutions that are different than those that 
35 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 26556.020

would work in a more rural, less populated area, which is as it should be. But solutions 

without funding are destined to fail, and it is essential that we receive appropriate 

contributions from our federal and state funding partners, while also being empowered 

with the tools we need to diversify our revenues and strike the appropriate balance for our 

communities. Conversely, some requirements must be maintained it is correctly the 

federal govemment's role to set priorities for overarching issues of national importance. 

The decision to protect and preserve our environment and conserve our natural resources, 

for instance, should not be optional, because success cannot be achieved if we do not 

each do our part. Such priorities require all of us to work together to create a better 

legacy for generations to come. The playing field should be level and fair, but it should 

also be collaborative and should allow for local innovation and creativity. 

A 2016 report by the National Association of Counties (NACo) encapsulates the 

challenges faced by local governments throughout the nation, stating: "In some cases, 

the state seemingly demands the impossible: fulfillment of the mandates while 

prohibiting counties from even developing revenue streams to pay for these mandates on 

their own. Adding further complexity to these pressures are the oft-incongruent demands 

of the electorate; the clamor for more expansive services occurs simultaneously with an 

insistence for a lightened tax burden." These are the trials I confront everyday as I try to 

serve my community, and your willingness to examine these issues and help us find 

solutions is much appreciated. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify here today. 
36 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Senator Niederhauser, I think it has been consistent in what we 

have heard is the lack of coordination between the Federal Government and State and local government in regard to these unfunded 

mandates. What kind of assurances do the States and local governments need that the Federal Government will seriously consider 

their input? 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. I think that improving the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would be a great place to—I think that’s one area 

that could be worked on. The idea that there is noncompliance with 

that in the administration I think is a problem. Reaching out to organizations like the Council of State Governments, National Council of State Legislatures. There’s other organizations like ALEC. 

These are all legislative organizations that will give some really 

good input and State view on issues. 

And then I think that there ought to be a question asked before 

you go down the road on any mandate whether that is something 

the Federal Government ought to be addressing or the State Government. Let me just give you an example. It was probably about 

2008–2009; I was chair of the Health System Reform Task Force 

in Utah. And we were going down the path of health reform. We 

were one of the first States to create an exchange. Utah, a red 

State, we created an exchange, a health exchange. We were already 

on this path, and then we felt like we were preempted by the ACA, 

the Affordable Care Act. And then we were playing defensive, trying to figure out what that meant for us. And so I think there 

ought to be that question asked before you even begin the discussion of some laws and especially regulations, because I think what 

happens is these—the regulators kind of lose—take laws beyond 

what they were ever intended to address. And Congress, I believe, 

needs to be more involved in making those decisions rather than 

an administration so that we have some more consistency and we 

have the voice of the people involved. 

Mr. PALMER. I want to come back to that. But just, in general— 

and each one of you can answer yes or no, or you can elaborate a 

little bit if you would like—but based on your experiences, do you 

believe the unfunded mandate regulatory act’s requirement for consultation between State and local governments is effective in its 

current form? I think you have already answered that, that it 

needs to be reformed. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. I agree that it does need to be reformed. But I think 

a lot of it has to do with the cost associated with it and rather than 

the product. I think it is very important that, when we look at 

these mandates from the Federal Government, that we are looking 

for a goal, and we are not just concentrating on how much it costs 

us to get this goal. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Moore? 

Judge MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that UMRA has worked 

well on the legislative side. Where it has not worked well is on the 

regulatory side. We, as local and State officials, elected officials, if 

we are involved in the process on the regulatory side, we can improve the process. We can often I believe avoid some of the pitfalls 

we see with some of the bureaucracy that we see from the Federal 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Government. So I would suggest that the successes from the legislative side be more strictly applied to the regulatory side. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I echo the comments of my fellow witnesses. You know, we are asking that, if you have a seat at the 

table in the beginning, then it will really help eliminate some of 

the costs that we are finding with our citizens, who are bearing the 

burden of a lot of the mandates that we have to pay. 

As I indicated in my testimony, you know, from 2009 and the 

water bills that continue to be increased, you know, if there was 

a way that we could actually figure out ways to pay for these items 

before we actually have to increase the budget, it would help eliminate a lot of the burden that many of our citizens are experiencing. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. McKay? 

Mr. MCKAY. Thank you. I associate myself with the comments of 

Mr. Moore as well. I think local government’s seat at the table is 

critical. We are closest to the people. And in terms of interaction 

with the Feds and State, you know, it’s very easy for the States to 

take Federal unfunded mandates and just push them right down 

to the county level. And so that’s certainly the process that takes 

place in Virginia. And, you know, there doesn’t seem to be the consultation at all with local governments in terms of what impact 

that has; just a simple legislative act by the States to push down 

to the lowest level. 

Mr. PALMER. There is something that is consistent in all of your 

testimony and I think evident in your answers to that question. 

That is, is that the process would work much better if we left the 

implementation of the regulations in the hands of State and local 

government, even to the degree of perhaps sending the funding 

down with the regulations. For instance, the EPA mandates. They 

are writing the regulations, but they’re—I think in Mr. 

Niederhauser’s testimony—I think it was your testimony. You said 

96.5 percent of the environmental regulations are implemented or 

administrated at the State level. So it seems to me it would make 

more sense not only to have this collaborative process where they 

are getting input from you, but if you are going to do—if the mandates, the regulations need to be implemented, that they allow you 

the flexibility to implement them. Does that make more sense to 

you? 

Nodding is appropriate, but for the record, that indicates an affirmative to the question. 

I want to come back to some of this and some other areas as 

well. But at this point, the chair recognizes the ranking member 

from Florida, Mrs. Demings, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, to our witnesses, thank you so much for being with 

us today as we discuss this very important topic. 

Mr. McKay, Fairfax County, like many other counties across the 

country, relies on Federal funding for its residents. In your testimony, you did express concern, though, about President Trump’s 

budget. How would his proposed cuts impact Fairfax County? If 

you could just elaborate a little more on how you would be directly 

impacted. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. MCKAY. Sure. I appreciate the question. First, there’s impacts to actual programs that I mentioned in my testimony, significant impacts. As I mentioned, there are 70,000 people in Fairfax 

County living in poverty. So obviously reductions in the HOME Investment Partnerships, CDBG funding are significant. In terms of 

our school budget, the reductions in Impact Aid, which is already 

grossly underperforming what is actually needed to educate our 

students in Virginia, would be a huge hit for us. And funding for 

the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is in jeopardy. 

I think, though, fundamental to your question, what concerns us 

the most is what’s happening with our Federal workforce. So there 

are a lot of Federal programs that would affect Fairfax if they are 

not funded, but as I mentioned, we are home to a significant Federal employee population. And some of the things that are happening under the Trump administration with regard to Federal employee freezes and things of that nature have a significant economic effect on the residents of Fairfax County, Virginia. So we are 

one of the jurisdictions that has to watch this from multiple levels, 

not just the cuts to programmatic things and things that our residents rely on, but also cuts to, you know, the Federal workforce 

and the economic impacts of those. 

We also are very concerned about some of the impacts to transportation. We are sitting here in the Nation’s Capital, many of your 

staffs rely on Metro to get to and from work. And without Federal 

support of Metro, we remain very concerned about the funding 

that’s going to be necessary to sustain the Metro system. So we’re 

watching this from many different angles, not just programmatic, 

but also in terms of the impact to the finances of the very people 

that live in our county. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. If the budget cuts did move forward, how do you 

believe State and local governments would be able to make up the 

difference? 

Mr. MCKAY. I don’t believe that we could, to tell you the truth. 

We in Fairfax long have a history, unfortunately, of having to 

make up where the State and Federal Governments do not adequately fund programs. But we cannot sustain that. As I mentioned 

in my testimony, we do not have the revenue sources at the county 

level to be able to expand. We are left with property taxes, which 

is a very regressive tax on people in a very high-income but highcost-of-living area. And so I don’t believe that we can sustain the 

type of Federal cuts that are in this budget, and I don’t think that 

local governments will be able to make that amount up. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. Judge Moore, your organization, the 

National Association of Counties, supports the Low Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program. Is that correct? 

Judge MOORE. The association, I believe, does, yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. President Trump’s proposed budget calls for the 

elimination of that program. Is that correct? 

Judge MOORE. I am not familiar with that component. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So you believe the association does, but you do 

not have any direct knowledge that the association that you are a 

part of supports that program? 

Judge MOORE. The association supports the program. I am not 

familiar with the budget cut. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. 

Judge MOORE. What I am here to talk about really is the unfunded mandate process. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. What I am here to talk about, since we are talking about unfunded mandates, are the proposed cuts by the Trump 

administration also is taking money away from local and State and 

county governments. Are you familiar with the Low Income Home 

Energy Assistance Program? 

Judge MOORE. I am. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Okay. So let’s say that that program was eliminated. Your association, I believe you said your particular county 

has seen tremendous growth. Is that correct? Tripled over the last 

30 years. How do you feel a cut to that program will directly impact members that you represent as a part of the association? 

Judge MOORE. If I answered this as my county and the people 

that I am elected to represent, I believe that, in that particular 

case, we would be called upon as local government to either find 

a way to fund the program or the program would go away. 

What we do object to is a mandate that says we have to continue 

the program without funding. 

Ms. DEMINGS. What would be some alternatives for you to find 

a way to fund that particular program? 

Judge MOORE. As my colleagues have testified today, local governments are very limited in how we can raise revenue. So it would 

be very difficult. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you. 

I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to recognize Judge Moore. It is good to see you here, 

Judge. He represents and has been the leader in Boone County for 

a long time. And there are 120 counties in Kentucky, and Boone 

County consistently is one of the fastest growing counties in the 

State. And you have done a great job there overseeing tremendous 

growth. And Boone County, as I have said many times, is a real 

economic development success story in Kentucky. 

Judge Moore, you discussed in your testimony the importance of 

early consultation with local governments in the Federal rulemaking process and note that in fact the EPA outright refused to 

consult counties prior to the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule’s 

publication despite repeated requests to do so. My first question, 

did the EPA and Army Corps provide a reason as to why they did 

not consult with counties on this rule? 

Judge MOORE. No, they did not give us any reasons. 

Mr. COMER. Would this rule have imposed a significant cost on 

counties and local stakeholders? 

Judge MOORE. Absolutely. Probably the best example of that is 

that we also are under a consent decree, as some others have testified, with combined sewer overflows, sanitary sewer overflows. And 

we are continuing to raise our sanitary sewer and storm water fees 

substantially to be able to meet those requirements. We are nearing the affordability threshold of the amount of increase that we 

can put upon our ratepayers. So, if we were at the table consulting 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

with the Corps and with Federal agencies during this process, we 

would have some potential solutions on how to deal with that in 

a more efficient way. 

Mr. COMER. Good. You mentioned the new administration has 

started a State and local consultation process on this rule. Have 

you been able to provide feedback to the EPA and Corps through 

this process? 

Judge MOORE. I did meet with our State secretary of the environment and energy cabinet who has a regular dialogue with the Federal agencies. And we have talked about some potential solutions. 

One example would be that we have a payment-in-lieu program 

when we are developing new property if we impact a wetland or 

a stream. Those funds are not used efficiently. And environmentalists as well as others would agree that there is a better use for 

those funds to use those to help eliminate combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows rather than the projects that 

are being done now. We are hopeful that our State secretary of environment, working with the Federal agencies, will be able to help 

us in that situation. 

Mr. COMER. All right. Have the agencies indicated what they intend do with the feedback that they are supposed to be getting? 

Judge MOORE. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. COMER. All right. Next question, Judge Moore, you also 

shared that the Department of Labor did not adequately consult 

with State and local governments to assess the impact of its recent 

overtime rule. Did the agency provide any justification for its failure to cooperatively consult with counties on this rulemaking? 

Judge MOORE. No, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. COMER. Do you believe it’s a good use of your time as an official of local government to have to make repeated requests for 

meaningful consultation every time the Federal Government decides to act? 

Judge MOORE. I have a lot of other things I would prefer to do. 

And it would be refreshing to see elected officials involved in that 

process rather than non-elected. 

Mr. COMER. Right. Well, hopefully, help is on the way. I believe 

this new administration has a more commonsense approach to 

doing business, and hopefully, we can address the unfunded mandate issue that you are always faced with and the Federal Government. And I know that there are a lot of issues that each of you 

that testified have, and hopefully, we can work together to try to 

bring some relief for the great jobs you are doing in each of your 

States. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair, and I thank your courtesy. 

Just for another point of view, I don’t know that, at least where 

I come from, we think help is on the way coming from this new administration. Maybe that’s a welcome message in Kentucky. It’s not 

a welcome message in Virginia. Because we are looking at the 

Trump budget, as Mrs. Demings pointed out, and it looks to me 

like it is a road map for a whole bunch of additional unfunded 

mandates. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

So, for example, Mr. McKay, if we completely defund the Chesapeake Bay Commission, do the requirements to clean up the bay 

go away? 

Mr. MCKAY. They do not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And isn’t it true that already the overwhelming 

financial burden on the cleanup is on the local and State governments? 

Mr. MCKAY. It is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So the little piece the Feds provide financially is 

that commission. So, if it goes away, we lose that guidance; we lose 

that assistance. But the burden remains on all of the States in the 

Chesapeake Bay estuary. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCKAY. Absolutely correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That’s a pretty expensive mandate to try to clean 

up the Chesapeake Bay. And, of course, we face the same thing on 

the Great Lakes and Puget Sound. Their respective commissions 

are also zeroed out in this budget—that apparently is—help is on 

the way. I don’t know what help that would be in that regard. 

But CDBG, Community Development Block Grants, to local governments. Mr. Reed, are they helpful at all, CDBG? 

Mr. REED. They are extremely helpful. And I will tell you that 

a number of our community organizations depend on them. If you 

are thinking about Meals on Wheels or you are thinking about senior citizen homes or what have you, they are dependent on CDBG. 

And we have seen significant decreases in CDBG in the past several years. And it is one of those Federal funds that many of those 

organizations who continue to come to us every year as we are 

looking for appropriations for that, asking for more, and they are 

doing more with less. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, again, you have got both State and Federal 

mandates in terms of the provision of mental health, disabilities, 

senior citizen needs and the like. They don’t go away—— 

Mr. REED. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. —even if the Federal funding does. Is that correct? 

Mr. REED. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. McKay, I noticed Kentucky, of course, did expand Medicaid pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. Virginia did 

not. And so we have got sort of a healthcare mandate offering funding, but the State chose not to accept the funding. So it is in some 

ways the State of Virginia choosing politically to undertake an unfunded mandate, isn’t it? 

Mr. MCKAY. That is correct. And Fairfax County has strongly 

supported the expansion of Medicaid for the very fundamental financial reasons that you mentioned. It would be a significant influx 

of funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia to provide health care 

for people who need it but also to relieve the burdens that local 

governments face to provide some of that same health care without 

any reimbursement today. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Transportation. So the Federal Government, as 

you pointed out, has a big stake in the future of Metro since a third 

of the Federal workforce uses Metro to get to work every day. And 

I guess 40 percent of the total ridership every day is Federal employees. And if Metro shuts down, so does the Federal Government. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

There are four members to the compact, three of which provide operating subsidies. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCKAY. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So the fourth one, who is that that does not provide any operating subsidies? 

Mr. MCKAY. The Federal Government. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And does the Federal Government nonetheless 

provide oversight and mandates to Metro in terms of how it operates, safety, things like that? 

Mr. MCKAY. They do all of the above. And they even have seats 

on the Metro Board of Directors. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, in fact, recently, this administration, helpon-the-way administration, actually withheld Department of Transportation funding for lots of other unrelated transit projects 

throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia because of an unrelated 

issue having to do with Metro and the oversight, safety oversight 

trilateral commission. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCKAY. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That’s interesting. So, at the end of the day—one 

final thing, a lot of us talk loosely up here about State and local 

like they are the same. And, of course, we know they are quite different. And a lot of us talk loosely, especially those of us who have 

no experience in local government, about ‘‘let’s just block-grant everything, send it to the State, and their tender mercies will see to 

it that localities do well.’’ What’s the problem with that thinking 

from your perspective vis—vis Richmond? 

Mr. MCKAY. There are significant problems with that, some of 

which I mentioned in my testimony. As the Dillon rule states, the 

hands of the counties are tied in terms of how they can generate 

revenue to pay for some of these things. Richmond has a very different political philosophy than Northern Virginia in terms of our 

Federal partners and how these programs trickle down at the local 

level. Richmond is very good at just transferring the authority and 

the requirement to do certain things to local governments but not 

sending the funding attached to it. 

More importantly, these things are very prescriptive. And so, in 

many cases, they are laudable goals; there are things we would certainly do at the county level, and we would do them a whole different way than the prescriptive way. The way we are told how to 

do these things is particularly concerning. But our relationship 

with the State in Virginia is unique. As a Dillon rule State, our 

hands are tied in terms of raising additional revenue. And the 

State politically and philosophically disagrees with us in many 

cases. And the one you gave with Medicaid expansion is probably 

the most egregious one. We are losing, as a county, millions of dollars in Federal support because of the State’s inability to support 

the expansion of Medicaid. So they essentially have our counties in 

financial shackles. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentleman. It’s interesting the direction 

that the hearing has gone. We’ve gone into federalism. We’ve gone 

into the budget, and now we’ve gotten into State constitutions and 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

home rule and the Dillon rule. So certainly an interesting conversation. 

The chairman will now recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

We anticipate a big infusion in infrastructure later this year, and 

I assume a lot of that will be sent to the States and local units of 

government. It’s been my experience that frequently highways or 

other infrastructure projects become much more expensive once 

Federal money is involved. I’m not going to ask you to deal with 

Davis-Bacon, because we’ve all heard about Davis-Bacon. But could 

any of you comment on perhaps anecdotal evidence or other examples in which you feel you’ve had to spend more for roads or other 

projects once Federal money is involved? 

Judge MOORE. Mr. Vice Chair, I could address a portion of that. 

In Kentucky, recently, prevailing wage was repealed. I know that 

the Federal level did not—has not—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Just don’t deal with Davis-Bacon. 

Judge MOORE. Okay. I won’t deal with that. 

Where we could see improvement is in the NEPA process. Time 

is money. And in a growing community like ours, getting a project 

to completion is very important. We have to wait, usually, a season 

in the fall for the leaves to leave the trees so that we can do an 

assessment for the Indiana bat, for instance. That delays us a full 

season in many cases. 

I do believe there are items within the NEPA process where, if 

local governments were involved with the regulatory process, as 

we’re speaking today, through UMRA and other acts, it would improve the process. It could bring projects to completion sooner and 

less costly. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Any of the others. 

Do you have a comment on that, Mr. Reed? 

Mr. REED. Thank you. I will mention, as I indicated in my written testimony to the committee, is that, recently, in Kansas City, 

Missouri, we had an $800 million general obligation bond, which 

we put forward to our voters, that would deal with three items: one 

would be transportation; two being flood control; and three being 

the ADA and also public facilities. 

The reason why we had that is because of the very question that 

you were asking in terms of how can we backfill many of the items 

that we have to get done. And so we asked our voters to be able 

to help us with that to help fill those backfills that we have. 

And it was passed overwhelmingly. But I can tell you it’s something that will be a real burden to our citizens over a period of 20 

years as we have it. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Thank you. 

Another question I have for you—and I don’t need to call this a 

mandate, but I can think of examples in Wisconsin where maintenance of effort resulted in people doing things they wouldn’t do at 

all otherwise or were stuck—I’ll let you go with that, though. Any 

of the four of you have any comments on maintenance of effort in 

which you maybe feel you are forced to do things you wouldn’t do 

otherwise or think is outright a complete waste of money? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. I mentioned the Perkins Program, the Perkins grant with education. And I think that’s a perfect example: 

$12 million mandating $241 million of State funding. While we 

would do some of that already, the flexibility and efficiencies of 

crafting those things on our own—we’re there on the ground. We’re 

where the rubber meets the road, maybe not quite as much as the 

local governments. But I know that we can get the outcomes, because I think that’s what we’re missing here, is focusing on what 

the outcomes are. And let’s not have regulation that’s making us 

do something that is not getting the outcomes. I can—we have a 

list of those things—and focus on clean air, clean water, getting our 

children educated. But we waste and we burn money with regulation that really doesn’t have an impact on the bottom line. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I think of TANF funds. For both of the guys on 

the State level, do you ever feel that you’re getting money that you 

don’t need? 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Yes. We have unspent TANF money in 

Utah. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. So you’re in a position—maybe you can 

give us an example—in which you maybe have to make up something to do just to sop up the Federal money. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. I think that that happens. No question. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Can you give an example of what you do in Utah 

when you have a bunch of money sitting around that you really 

don’t want to use, but the Federal Government says you got to use 

it. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. I think that’s obvious. You start to create 

programs and spend it where it’s really not necessary. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I don’t want to embarrass any programs, but do 

you find the same thing in North Carolina, Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir, we do. And I’m—this session, I’m the new 

chair of Transportation Policy and Appropriations. And I’ve—2 

weeks ago, I spent my spring vacation visiting the Outer Banks 

and looking at the issues that they have to deal with out there. 

And I haven’t seen any money in transportation that we couldn’t 

use yet, but I sure have seen a lot of unfunded mandates. And particularly what we’re working with is environmental assessments 

when we have a transportation project to deal with these environmental regulations that delay the completion of these projects and 

add exponentially to the cost. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Can I just still get one comment from Mr. 

Niederhauser? I would like if you could get something together because we have an Appropriations Committee that I hope I can 

trust—but we don’t know yet—who might be under the impression 

we have to keep TANF at the current level. If you could give us 

something in writing that we could forward to these guys so they 

can realize—I know Wisconsin also does things that we—just 

throwing away money because we have a maintenance of effort on 

this stuff. But thank you. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Thank you. 

Mr. PALMER. I thank the gentlemen. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. Demings, for additional questions. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Councilman Reed, the administration’s proposed budget would 

cut 482 million from the EPA’s categorical grant programs that aid 

State and local governments in protecting human health and the 

environment. Your testimony indicates that cutting categorical 

grant programs that serve State and local governments is a step 

in the wrong direction. Is that correct? And why do you feel that 

way? 

Mr. REED. Well, we feel it’s a cut—as I believe I even mentioned 

earlier—is that these would be, unfortunately, ways that we would 

have to try to figure out, where do we get funding from? And so 

we feel that it would be a step in the wrong direction. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. According to the National League of Cities, another quote is, ‘‘Measures requiring cities to use local law enforcement resources to enforce Federal immigration laws are unfunded 

mandates that impose additional disproportionate responsibilities 

on local law enforcement, increase financial liability on local governments, and ultimately move us further from our fundamental 

principles of federalism,’’ which Mr. Niederhauser spoke so eloquently about in his opening statement. 

Mr. McKay, do you share the concerns of the National League of 

Cities that measures requiring local law enforcement to enforce 

Federal immigration laws are unfunded mandates? 

Mr. MCKAY. I do. I think they’re the mother of all unfunded 

mandates. Not only would they cost us money, but they would permanently damage the relationship that law enforcement in Fairfax 

County has with our community and further endanger our citizens. 

Bottom line is our police prevent crime and solve crimes. And without a robust conversation with a community that feels comfortable 

talking to law enforcement, we think it would have a significant 

impact on our ability to solve crimes, protect victims, and seek 

proper prosecution. 

We do cooperate with ICE when we have an opportunity to. But 

asking local governments to take on a massive Federal responsibility, such as immigration enforcement, we think is damaging not 

only as a mandate but also damaging to the fabric of our community. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. At the same time, the administration’s budget 

proposal cuts the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, a grant 

program to reimburse States and local governments for incarcerating undocumented immigrants, which would appear that counties 

would then—or local governments would then incur millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses each year in housing undocumented 

individuals that violate State and local laws. 

Do you believe that cutting programs such as this leaves local 

government then holding the bag? 

Mr. MCKAY. It absolutely would leave us holding the bag. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much. 

Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

I have a few additional questions. 

Senator Niederhauser, you mentioned in your testimony that 

State-based innovation is being stifled because of Federal mandates. I’ve been involved in this area for a number of years, going 

all the way back to the passage of the Unfunded Mandates Relief 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

Act. The thing that I’ve seen is that, particularly with the EPA and 

other Federal agencies, they’ve gotten outside of what the original 

intent was. Originally, it was designed to operate within a framework of what we called cooperative federalism where the—let’s just 

use the EPA as an example. They would write the regulations. 

Congress would pass the law. The EPA would write the regulations. But it would be up to the States—they were given broad latitude and flexibility to implement the regulations as long as they 

met the objectives. In your experience in the State of Utah, is that 

intent still being complied with? 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Well, we want clean water, and we want 

clean air. Those are good outcomes. But we feel like we’re tripping 

over a bunch of regulation that’s costing us a lot of money, creating 

inefficiencies and burning State tax. 

Mr. PALMER. Let me ask it this way. Does the State of Utah have 

the ability to effectively partner with the Federal Government, 

whether it is the EPA or another Federal agency, to implement 

Federal regulations. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. No. It’s a top-down approach to government. 

Mr. PALMER. But do you think you have the ability within the 

State of Utah to implement these guidelines if given the flexibility 

and the latitude to do so. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Yes. Absolutely. 

Utah has shown through a number of different policies that we 

can innovate, that we can do things and have outcomes and save 

tax dollars. 

Mr. PALMER. Do you believe that you can do it in a more costeffective manner and accomplish the same objectives than within 

the current framework that you’re having to operate under. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Absolutely. No question. 

Mr. PALMER. Senator Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d love to speak to this issue. I think that the presumption that 

all wisdom and knowledge emanates from our Nation’s Capital or 

our State’s capital is an erroneous one. Some of the most creative 

and innovative ideas that I’ve ever seen are from local government. 

As a matter of fact, I use them as a resource. Unfortunately, many 

of them tell me that ‘‘nobody from the State has ever asked me how 

to accomplish this.’’ And for that reason, I strongly support blockgranting a lot of things to the State and to the local government. 

Hold them accountable. Tell them what the goal is and what the 

end product that you want. But get rid of a lot of needless regulations. Those people on the ground, they know what they are. Just 

release them. 

Mr. PALMER. To your point, I’d like to point out that if you look 

at the data—and it’s government data—improvements in air quality, water quality, and land use, that sort of thing, most—and, obviously, it was the low-hanging fruit—but most of the improvements, the biggest improvements, occurred when we operated 

under the concept of cooperative federalism. 

Judge Moore, does Boone County have the ability to carry out 

these mandates without it being a top-down, inflexible approach? 

Judge MOORE. No. We need to be at the table during the process. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

Mr. PALMER. You don’t think you can, or do you agree that you 

could carry this out if you’re a partner in this? 

Judge MOORE. If we’re a partner and we have a voice in the process, many times, I think we can. There may be some situations we 

cannot. 

An example, with the Clean Water Act and with the paymentin-lieu fees for impacts to streams and wetlands, I mentioned we 

have combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. 

We’re not allowed to use these mitigation fees to clean up our 

streams in the same watershed. Instead, those revenues are pulled 

to another watershed, usually in another county, and we never see 

the revenue again. 

We do agree with the environmentalists in our area, a better use 

of those funds would be to use them in the same watershed to 

eliminate SSOs and CSOs. That would be a perfect example of not 

spending more money at the Federal level but receiving a better 

outcome if we’re part of the process. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Reed—and I realize that there’s certain programs, particularly at the local level, that would be outside your 

expertise. But you mentioned health care and the burdens of Medicaid that are being imposed on you. If given the ability to have 

more flexibility in the administration of these programs, do you 

think you could do that effectively and efficiently. 

Mr. REED. Well, I didn’t in my testimony mention—I believe it 

was one of my other partners here on the dais who mentioned the 

health care. But I think I share, of course, the same example, is 

that if we have to carry these out, we, of course, as a community, 

will. But the relief that we need is, of course, having the opportunity to address these items in the beginning, and having a seat 

at the table to talk about ways that we can actually pay for it is 

most important to us. 

Mr. PALMER. Mr. McKay, you’ve been nodding your head. 

Mr. MCKAY. Yeah. I agree entirely with what’s been said. The 

flexibility in so many of these things is important at the local level. 

One size does not fit all. And many times, Federal regulations don’t 

recognize the local environments under which they’re being applied. And the only way to realize that is to have local officials at 

the table and a good, cooperative relationship. 

So, while I agree with many of the Federal requirements, certainly of the EPA, and want clean air and clean water, we would 

like to see more flexibility in how those are applied; a recognition, 

particularly, of local governments’ ability to pay and absorb these 

regulations; and, frankly, more flexible timelines, less punitive actions and more cooperation, especially with the jurisdictions who 

are making attempts to do the right thing. There doesn’t ever seem 

to be a recognition of that when the Federal Government is looking 

at these. 

And so one size does not fit all in the ground-level application of 

these regulations. We need that flexibility. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, I ask these questions in the spirit of—I believe it was another Virginian who had this observation that the 

government that governs best governs closest to the people. And I 

think you have more transparency. You have more accountability. 

But you also have the ability to innovate. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

One size does not fit all. That’s particularly important, I think, 

in the area, for instance, of Medicaid and giving the States the 

flexibility to innovate, and I think it eliminates a lot of the problems we have with improper payments of Medicaid. We sent out 

$36.3 billion last year in improper payments on Medicaid. 

Same thing is true of going back to the original intent of the EPA 

and cooperating with State and local government and allowing 

State and local government to implement Federal regulations with 

broad latitude as long as you meet the standard, because the objective, as Senator Niederhauser has mentioned several times, is we 

want clean air, clean water. We want wise land use. We want to 

preserve the environment for the future. But those are not inconsistent with allowing the States more latitude in carrying out these 

regulations. And I think the situation that we find ourselves in 

right now with these unfunded mandates makes that extremely difficult for you and extremely costly and diverts resources away from 

other programs that really need the money and makes it—and particularly at the local level because you’ve got so little ability to generate revenues to meet some of these mandates. 

I now recognize the vice chairman, Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. I just want to give you guys one more chance, 

because I can think of so many ways that—constantly, constantly 

ran into situations where States are doing something that is sometimes a complete waste of money and sometimes even counterproductive to meet Federal mandates. 

Particularly for the State guys, Mr. Niederhauser and Mr. Davis, 

do you have any experience on problems with education because of 

Federal mandates, things where your schools are maybe doing 

something they wouldn’t have to do otherwise? 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Well, there’s a lot of examples. One was 

just—it’s been several years ago—how school lunches changed, 

mandated by—well, that was an administration issue. They were 

working fine in Utah, but the new requirements—actually, my wife 

works at the elementary school across the street. She found that 

children were eating less. Even though some of those were intended to—some of those mandates were intended to help nutrition, the outcomes were not there. In fact, it was the opposite. So 

that’s just one. There’s—— 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Could you give us some others? 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. Yeah. For example, I mentioned the Perkins 

Program in my testimony. But just the thing that really we struggle with in Utah is—education is a big deal. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. NIEDERHAUSER. And 91 percent of the money comes from 

State assessments, taxes. But yet 9 percent of the money coming 

from here in Washington is driving the ship. And the outcomes 

that we could accomplish without those regulatory burdens and the 

desire we have for every dollar that—those are all precious dollars. 

So we don’t want to give up any of them, and, consequently, we 

allow Washington to dictate a lot of what we do. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Right. 

Okay. Mr. Reed, it looks like you’ve had problems—we’ve had 

problems too. Nobody argues with the idea that we should help 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

people with disabilities. But sometimes when you hear about the 

Federal mandates, they require things that you wonder who they’re 

really helping, other than the construction companies. You had 

some problems with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Do you 

care on elaborating about that? 

Mr. REED. Thank you. 

I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate a little further. 

You know, I think one of the things is the time constraints for 

our resources in directing how much work has to be done and when 

it has to be done. We want to make sure that we’re meeting the 

terms and the agreements as part of our settlement. But a longer 

timeframe and also additional flexibility for priority of the projects 

also benefit our city and our citizens, allowing a more efficient plan 

of how we think the resources should be used. 

As I mentioned earlier, too, about our general obligation bond, 

which we passed, I mean, we want to make sure we’re compliant. 

We want to make sure we’re providing places where many of our 

citizens are able to get in and out of facilities and have the access 

that they need and deserve. But we also need to do it within a good 

timeframe that allows for us to do it in a way that the resources 

are actually there. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you ever find you’re being asked to do things 

that cost more money that you look at and you wonder, who are 

you even benefiting. 

Mr. REED. Sure. I mean—yeah. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. It’s horribly designed. The Federal Government 

ought not be involved in this stuff or should be much less involved. 

I’ll put it that way. 

The Clean Air Act, I guess, is a problem for Kansas City, right? 

The Ozone Standard? 

Mr. REED. Correct. Yes. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And this is something, I take it, the Federal 

Government may make it much more expensive to operate manufacturing facilities in Kansas City. Is that right. 

Mr. REED. Yeah, it is. You know, it’s one of the things that I 

mentioned even in my testimony earlier and also in my written testimony, that it is a problem. I mean, it’s 70 parts per billion that 

we continue to see. And our State, local government, and also our 

Mid-America Regional Council has been working to kind of find 

ways to—forward. And we’ve got to figure out how to fix it. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. You lived in Kansas City a long time. 

Mr. REED. Born and raised. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Wow. Did you feel unhealthy living in Kansas 

City 30 years ago. 

Mr. REED. Say that again. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Did you feel unhealthy living in Kansas City 30 

years ago. 

Mr. REED. Well, I wouldn’t recall 30 years ago. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. We have an ozone problem in the Wisconsin area. I felt quite healthy growing up, and now they’ve got 

a lot stricter things. 

But as we fight for jobs for our cities, there are—and I know 

there are people who—you know, I don’t know how they expect big 

cities to thrive without manufacturing jobs, but apparently people 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

do. But you do feel that you’re putting manufacturers in Kansas 

City at a competitive disadvantage with other areas around the 

country as well as other countries? Do you feel that way? 

Mr. REED. Yeah, we do. And it’s how do we provide that relief 

is what’s most important as well. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Well, I hope you let everybody in Kansas City 

know it’s the Federal Government who is making it more difficult 

to get these manufacturing jobs, and we’ll see what we can do 

about making that part of Mr. Trump’s Drain the Swamp initiative. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PALMER. I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the 

time to appear before us today. 

Mr. Niederhauser, I think there was a request for additional information on your TANF program in Utah, which if you provide 

that, appreciate if you provide it to the subcommittee, and we will 

provide that to Vice Chairman Grothman. 

Mr. PALMER. If there are no objections, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(51) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 26556.021

Opening Statement of Chairman Gary Palmer 

Today we are examining federal unfunded mandates and their impact on state and local governments. The issue 

of unfunded mandates is central to this subcommittee. which is charged with oversight of the relationship 

between the federal government and state and local government partners. 

In December the Chairman sent a letter to governors, state legislators, and county and local government 

oflicials soliciting feedback on the most burdensome or impactful federal unfunded mandates. Respondents 

cited over 645 individual federal laws and regulations that have taken away the ability of local governments to 

decide how best to serve their constituencies. Almost a quarter of those laws represented federal environmental 

requirements. Governor Eddie Calvo of Guam reported that compliance the costs lor EPA's enforcement of the 

Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act alone equates to almost $10,000 per man. 

woman, and child. and makes the basic cost of utilities tor the median household unsustainable. 

Unfunded mandates reported to the Committee covered a variety of topics, from labor to housing to 

transportation to prison administration. This issue docs not discriminate. 

Of the most cited laws. Medicaid was routinely reported to be one of the most burdensome- imposing billions 

of dollars on communities annually. for care that is often not reimbursed. Higher education institutions in the 

State of Virginia report spending millions annually on compliance with federal educational laws. The 

University of Virginia, for example, spends an estimated $20 million dollars a year just to comply with 

unfunded mandates. 

Respondents cited mandates imposing significant aU.ministrative costs with no identifiable benefits, mandates 

requiring standards inconsistent with the needs of the state, and mandates that are simply impossible to achieve. 

In certain cases. such as implementation of new National Ambient Air Quality Standards, unfunded mandates 

reportedly resulted in the direct loss of jobs. The corresponding costs of these mandates arc directly borne by 

the taxpayer. Merely looking at cost, however, is not sufficient. The time and resources that states and local 

governments take to comply with these mandates demonstrate that the current law does not adequately capture 

the extent of the burden of"unfunded mandates''. 

As an example, Speaker Mac McCutcheon from my home State of Alabama shared an unworkable Department 

of Transportation mandate that requires the state to outline a financial plan ior certain projects ior up to 30 

years, without knowing the source of funding that far out into the future, making this annual exercise just that. 

An exercise. 

What we heard from nearly all of the respondents is that the attempt to provide a "one size fits all" solution 

ctTectively strips officials of the flexibility necessary to govern at the state and local level. Every dollar a state 

or local government uses to comply with federal law is a dollar they can't direct to the specific needs at their 

own levels of government. The Committee learned that a Federal Aviation Administration policy change 

resulted in the use of State and local infrastructure funds to pay for flight inspections in Oklahoma. A small 

rural county in Nevada had to consider closing its sole library, which was residents' key source for internet 

access, aiier the Department of Labor implemented its overtime rule. 

These tradeoffs are made every day by state and local officials. I'd like to thank each of the witnesses today for 

taking valuable time out of their schedules to appear here today to testify. You arc uniquely situated to provide 

insight into this issue and where we go fi-om here. I now recognize the gentle lady from Virginia. 

Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, for the remainder of my time.