99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–478

NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT INTERSTATE SCHOOL 

COMPACT 

MAY 20, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3180] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3180) to consent to certain amendments to the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 4

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 4

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 4

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 4

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 4

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 5

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 5

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 6

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3180, a bill ‘‘To Consent to Certain Amendments to the New 

Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact,’’ was introduced 

by Rep. Charles Bass and Rep. Bernard Sanders, to provide the 

consent of Congress to certain amendments to the New HampshireVermont Interstate School District Compact. Specifically, the bill 

provides participating interstate school districts with the option of 

2

1 U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 3. 2 Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104 (1938). 3 Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893); see also U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax 

Commission, 434 U.S. 452 (1978). 4Frederick Zimmerman & Mitchell Wendell, The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts, Chicago: 1961, 94–105 (1976). 5 JOHNNY H. KILLIAN; GEORGE A. COSTELLO; AND KENNETH R. THOMAS; THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION, http://www.crs.gov/products/conan/art01/288.htm [visited March 1, 2002]. 6James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937); see also Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 

341, 345 (1934). 7Pub. L. No. 91–21, 83. Stat. 14 (1969). 

choosing all-day, ‘‘Australian’’ balloting to incur debt to support 

school construction. The proposed amendments make these decisions a matter of local prerogative and do not dictate a State-wide 

or Federal approach to resolving these questions. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

INTERSTATE COMPACTS IN GENERAL

The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that ‘‘no State 

shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.’’ 1 As noted by the Supreme 

Court, the Compact Clause ‘‘adapts to our Union of sovereign 

States the age-old treaty-making power of independent sovereign 

nations.’’ 2 While the unequivocal language of the Compact Clause 

suggests that all compacts must receive congressional approval, the 

Supreme Court has held that consent is required only for interstate 

agreements which have the tendency to ‘‘increase the political 

power of states [or which may] encroach upon or interfere with the 

just supremacy of the United States.’’ 3

Interstate compacts have often been employed to facilitate cooperation across state lines and to advance interstate metropolitan 

and regional goals. Examples include interstate transportation, 

mining, school districting, water allocation, environmental, sanitation, education and taxing compacts.4 The Constitution makes no 

explicit provision with respect to when the consent of Congress 

shall be given to a compact between states.5 As a result, consent 

may be granted conditionally ‘‘upon terms appropriate to the subject and transgressing no constitutional limitations.’’ 6

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE-VERMONT INTERSTATE SCHOOL COMPACT

Originally approved by Congress in 1969, the New HampshireVermont Interstate School Compact was established to increase 

educational opportunities and to promote administrative efficiency 

by encouraging the formation of interstate school districts across 

the New Hampshire-Vermont state line.7 Two interstate school districts currently operate under the Compact. The Rivendell School 

District comprises the towns of Fairlee and Thetford, Vermont and 

Orford, New Hampshire. The Dresden School District extends into 

Hanover, New Hampshire, and Norwich, Vermont. Under the original Compact, state and local financial support was channeled into 

the combined Districts to reflect state and local contributions. Because Vermont contributed relatively more monetary support to the 

Districts than New Hampshire, uneven funding allocations began 

to emerge. For example, by the 1970’s, taxpayers in Hanover, New 

Hampshire received the benefit of approximately 70 percent of 

3

8 H.R. Rep. No. 95–1722 at 2 (1978). 9Pub. L. No. 95–536, 92 Stat. 2035 (1978). 10This paper ballot system was first adopted in the Australian state of Victoria in 1856, and 

in the remaining Australian states over the next several years. The paper ballot system thereafter became known as the ‘‘Australian ballot.’’ New York became the first American state to 

adopt the paper ballot for statewide elections in 1889. As of 1996, paper ballots were still used 

by 1.7 percent of the registered voters in the United States. They are used as the primary voting 

system in small communities and rural areas, and quite often for absentee balloting in other 

jurisdictions. See Federal Election Commission, http://www.fec.gov/pages/paper.htm [visited 

March 1, 2002]. 11 2001 N.H. Laws 485. 12 2001 Vt. Acts & Resolves 726. 

Vermont’s state aid, while taxpayers in Norwich, Vermont received 

30 percent of New Hampshire’s contribution.8 This imbalance led 

to the passage of amendments to the Compact in 1978. 

1978 AMENDMENTS

In 1978, Congress consented to a number of amendments to the 

original Compact.9 These amendments clarified the terms of the 

Compact to ensure that participating interstate school districts 

would receive support from their states commensurate with their 

respective contributions. The 1978 revisions also clarified the procedures by which amendments to the articles of agreement among 

interstate school district members could be approved. While the 

1978 legislation provided for a more equitable allocation of state resources, it did not change the requirement that debt incurred by 

interstate school districts be approved by secret balloting. In addition, the amendments did not change the requirement that debts 

be incurred by a simple majority vote of district board members by 

secret balloting. The lack of transparency in the voting process has 

stymied efforts to approve funding necessary to support capital improvements in the Dresden School District. This has provided impetus toward further revision of the Compact. 

STATE AND LOCAL CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED COMPACT

AMENDMENTS

Early last year, residents of the Dresden School District approved warrant articles to amend the Compact to enable the implementation of all-day, Australian Balloting procedure when voting 

on whether to incur debt. Australian Balloting is a form of modified 

secret balloting. Australian Rules balloting employs uniform official 

ballots of various stock weight upon which the names of all candidates and issues are printed. Voters record their choices, in private, by marking the boxes next to the candidate or issue choice 

they select and drop the voted ballot in a sealed ballot box.10

Residents contend that moving to all-day voting for bond votes 

will have two benefits over the current Town Meeting voting format, which requires a secret balloting process by residents following a Town Hall Meeting. First, this method will be consistent 

with the way the District conducts its annual district meetings, 

which utilize all-day voting when voting on district warrant articles. Second, the proposed change would allow more voters to weigh 

in on bond issues. Last year, the Vermont state legislature passed 

legislation adopting these proposed changes.11 The New Hampshire 

state legislature subsequently approved identical language.12

4

HEARINGS

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 3180 on March 6, 2002. Testimony 

was received from Rep. Charles Bass. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law met in open session and ordered favorably reported 

the bill H.R. 3180 by voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 

8, 2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 

reported the bill H.R. 3180 without amendment by voice vote, a 

quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

There were no recorded votes on H.R. 3180. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 3180 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c) of 

rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 

expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the H.R. 3180, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, May 20, 2002. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: 

The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost 

estimate for H.R. 3180, a bill to consent to certain amendments of 

the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact. 

5

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Donna Wong, who can 

be reached at 226–2820. 

Sincerely, 

DAN L. CRIPPEN, Director.

Enclosure

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 3180—A bill to consent to certain amendments of the New 

Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact. 

H.R. 3180 would give Congressional consent to amendments to 

the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact. The bill 

would allow the school districts governed under the compact to use 

Australian balloting (all-day secret balloting) when authorizing the 

incurring of debt to finance capital projects. Currently the school 

districts must use a town hall meeting voting format. 

The bill would result in no cost to the Federal Government. Because H.R. 3180 would not affect direct spending or receipts, payas-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, 

local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Donna Wong, who can 

be reached at 226–2820. This estimate was approved by Peter H. 

Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. The bill amends article VII D of the Vermont-New 

Hampshire Interstate School District Compact to read as follows:

‘D. AUTHORIZATION PROCEEDINGS—An interstate district 

shall authorize the incurring of debts to finance capital projects 

by a majority vote of the district passed at an annual or special 

district meeting. Such vote shall be taken by secret ballot after 

full opportunity for debate, and any such vote shall be subject 

to reconsideration and further action by the district at the 

same meeting or at an adjourned session thereof. As an alternative, an interstate district may provide in its articles of 

agreement that such a vote be conducted by Australian or official balloting under procedures as set forth in the articles of 

agreement, and that such vote be subject to any method of reconsideration, if any, which the interstate district sets forth in 

the articles of agreement.

The proposed amendments make these decisions a matter of local 

prerogative and do not dictate a State-wide or Federal approach to 

resolving the manner in which ballot school ballot initiatives will 

be considered by participating school districts.

6

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. [Presiding.] The Committee will be 

in order. 

[Intervening business.] 

The next item on the agenda is the adoption of H.R. 3180 to give 

consent to certain amendments to the New Hampshire-Vermont 

Interstate School Compact. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Georgia, Mr. Barr, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Commercial and Administrative Law, for purposes of a motion. 

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Commercial and 

Administrative Law reports favorably the bill H.R. 3180 and moves 

its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, H.R. 3180 will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

[The bill, H.R. 3180, follows:]

7


I3180A.eps
8


I3180B.eps
9

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Georgia to strike the last word. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Introduced by Representatives Charlie Bass and Bernie Samders, 

H.R. 3180 amends the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School 

Compact originally approved by the Congress in 1969. H.R. 3180 

would enable participating interstate school districts to modify the 

manner in which school bond issues are considered. 

Last year, residents of the Dresden Interstate School District, 

which encompasses the cities of Hanover, New Hampshire, and 

Norwich, Vermont, voted to approve these changes. The Legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont subsequently ratified these 

amendments. 

Rather than imposing a State or Federal solution on local school 

officials, H.R. 3180 preserves the primacy of local school authorities 

that are free to accept or reject the modified voting procedures H.R. 

3180 permits. 

We were pleased to invite Representative Bass to our Subcommittee hearing to testify about the importance of this measure 

to residents of his district. 

And I urge support of this bill today. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. BARR. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I rise in support of the bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That correction will be duly noted. 

Mr. WATT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may 

insert opening statement in the record at this point in time. 

Are there amendments? 

If not, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum, and 

the question occurs on the motion to report H.R. 3180 favorably. 

Those in favor will say aye. 

Opposed, no. 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is adopted. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute—no, no amendments adopted. 

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to 

conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is 

directed to make any technical and conforming changes. And all 

Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House rules, in 

which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority 

views. 

Before going to the next item on the agenda, it is my great pleasure to welcome to the Committee a former Member, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Harold Sawyer, who served 

with great distinction on this Committee from his election to the 

House in 1956 until his voluntary retirement 10 or 12 years later. 

Hal, we welcome you back. [Applause.]

Æ