ARIZONA
STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-third
Legislature - Second Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE
COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL MANDATES
Minutes
of Meeting
Tuesday,
December 15, 1998
House
Hearing Room 3 - 10:00 a.m.
(Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m.
by Cochairman Jarrett and attendance was noted by the secretary.
Members
Present
Senator Arzberger Representative
Flake
Senator Henderson Speaker
Groscost
Senator Lopez Representative
Hart
Senator Patterson Representative
Jarrett, Cochair
Senator Springer
President Burns, Cochair
Members
Absent
Senator Bundgaard Representative
Foster
Representative Loredo
Representative Newman
Speakers
Present
Elizabeth Hatch, House Majority Research
Analyst, Government Reform and States= Rights Committee
Melodie Jones, House Majority Research
Analyst, Ways and Means Committee
Representative Gail Griffin
Dan Shein, House Majority Research Analyst,
Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee; Environment
Committee
Representative Dan Schottel
Special
Guests Present
Senator Jon Kyl Congressman
Matt Salmon
Senator John McCain Congressman
John Shaddeg
Opening Remarks
Cochairman Jarrett thanked the members of the
Congressional delegation for attending the meeting, pointing out that Lisa
Jackson is present in the audience representing Congressman Bob Stump. She added that on March 15, 1941, Franklin
Deleanor Roosevelt declared December 15 Bill of Rights Day, so it is
appropriate to review the Bill of Rights.
Review of Articles of the Bill of Rights
Elizabeth Hatch, House Majority Research
Analyst, Government Reform and States= Rights Committee, read Articles of the Bill of Rights.
Senator Kyl and Congressman Shaddeg stressed
the importance of the meetings.
Congressman Shaddeg added that Congress rhetorically acknowledges the
existence of the Enumerated Powers Doctrine and specific language of the Tenth
Amendment, but continues to enact programs which pass down mandates to the
states. The Arizona delegation strongly
believes in Federalism, but that sentiment is not shared by delegations from
all other states.
Cochairman Burns thanked everyone for
attending the meeting, noting that the Legislature is going into Special
Session tomorrow regarding continuation of the emissions program, which is
mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She relayed the intent
to establish a Study Committee on the issue to determine if the program is
effective or changes can be made. She
advised the Congressional delegation that they may be contacted next year about
potential changes since Arizona has fully cooperated with EPA, with little
benefit, while states like Virginia and California refused to cooperate, but
did not seem to experience repercussions.
Senator Patterson commented that other states
continue to show interest in establishing similar committees, but have not been
able to, mainly due to resistance of Congressional membership.
TEA-21
Melodie Jones, House Majority Research
Analyst, Ways and Means Committee, reviewed a Fact Sheet regarding the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (Attachment 1).
Senator Kyl remarked that the chairman of the
relevant committee in the U.S. Senate represents a state that receives $2.17;
the ranking Democrat represents a state that receives $2.08; and the states on
either side of Arizona receive $1.14, so, clearly, Arizona was not treated
fairly. He and Senator McCain worked
diligently to obtain funding to the current level. He said he hopes to be on the Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee, which will address the issue.
He pointed out that Arizona is eligible to receive money, in greater
proportion to other states, from the federal lands fund and/or the border
infrastructure fund and speculated that the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) is aware that the funds are available.
Senator Salmon said he believes Arizona=s delegation, with the exception of
Congressman Pastor, voted against TEA-21because it is not only patently unfair
to Arizona, but the price tag in the work that was handed out in demonstration
projects across the country to buy votes was very heinous. He indicated that Senators Kyl and McCain
were working on the concept of devolution, i.e., returning all the money the state
gives back to the state, which is the fairest method.
Congressman Shaddeg acknowledged that the
U.S. House Members worked diligently to increase Arizona=s share and on legislation to eliminate the
formula altogether, but were not successful. He credited the U.S. Senate
members for improving the formula and noted that the fight will continue.
Mr. Flake expressed a concern that plans by
the Forest Service to pave a road intoYoung, Arizona may be jeopardized if
public land funds are sought.
Senator Kyl related that ADOT makes priority
decisions, but monies are provided from the fund because it is Forest Service
land. The state must apply for funds,
which are available for highways on federal land, and since Arizona has such a
large degree of federal land, the state should be applying for much of the
funds.
Senator Patterson said he appreciates the
remarks about devolution but suggested that it would be better to cut the
federal gas tax to support roads on federal land and the interstate system to
about two cents per gallon and allow the states to tax and build roads.
Congressman Shaddegg commented that such
legislation was introduced but did not move.
Mr. Hart advised the Congressional delegation
that a major issue in northwestern Arizona is the need of a bridge below Hoover
Dam. Roadways to the Dam are adequate,
but continue on in two-lanes for about 16 miles. During the summer, traffic moves about five miles an hour, which
can add one or two hours onto a trip to Las Vegas, which is generally an
hour-and-a-half away. It is imperative
to obtain funding to complete the bridge, if at all possible.
Endangered Species Act
Representative Gail Griffin, stated that the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) has caused the devastation of individuals,
families, and entire communities, as well as the natural resource, timber,
ranching, farming, and mining industries.
Americans are losing jobs and employment opportunities to foreign
countries with less regulations and red tape, and those countries are selling
products back to the United States.
She reviewed a handout regarding the Cactus
Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl (Attachment 2), noting that the Members have been
provided with a report prepared by Quarles and Brady for an Environmental
Breakfast Seminar on the Pygmy-Owl (Attachment 3, Original filed in the Office
of the Chief Clerk). She noted that
Pima and Maricopa Counties are in the northern edge of the range for this species,
which is abundant in Mexico.
Ms. Griffin related that the Southwest Center
for Biological Diversity is requesting that 90 miles of the San Pedro River be
identified as critical habitat for the Huachuca water umbel (lily), which was
listed two years ago. The Federal Register
states that transplants have been successfully established and well-managed
livestock grazing is compatible with these lilies. A lily population growing on the site of grazed land for more
than 100 years is larger and more vigorous than a population growing at a site
ungrazed since 1969, yet the federal government took cattle off of the
land. She related that wolf-release
programs are failing throughout the country, yet taxpayer money is still spent
for that purpose.
She submitted that if an endangered species
is found on private property, the landowner loses the right of control of the
property. Steve Smith, in the Globe
area, noticed a few people on his property who turned out to be officials from
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. F&WS) introducing a
species of minnow in the creek. The
species was not native to the area and did not survive, but within two years,
that introduction of experimental population of species became an endangered
species. Mr. Smith was told that he would
have to obtain a permit, which may take 60 to 90 days to obtain, to ride his
horse or drive his truck across the creek on his privately-owned property. His 1912 water rights can no longer be used
because he has an endangered species in his creek and has to fence off the
creek. While attending a Cattlemen=s Association meeting, one of his neighbors
mentioned that his property was proposed critical habitat for the species. He hired an attorney, which cost thousands
of dollars and took months of his time.
Ultimately, some important people intervened and US F&WS backed
down, but never denied originally planting the species.
Ms. Griffin said last year she sat next to an
individual whose community was expanding a roadway and an environmental group
requested an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which was ordered. There were no endangered bats in the area,
but it was such nice property that it was determined that the bats might
someday visit the community. The
community ended up spending more money on bat houses for bats that did not
exist, but might visit the area someday, than for affordable housing for people
in the community. She contended that
meaningful ESA reform is desperately needed, and related the following
recommendations:
! Stricter scientific
standards for the listing process and critical habitat designations with blind
peer review.
! Conduct economic analysis
concurrently with listing.
! Make decisions solely
based on adequate scientific data.
! Consider economic factors
and impacts of individual landowners.
! Add strong property
rights language so landowners cannot be penalized for providing critical
habitat.
! Require that the listing
process include hearings in affected areas and notification of local elected
officials.
! Encourage the use of
captive breeding, propagation, and recovery efforts.
! Provide incentives to
encourage management of property in a manner that benefits the species.
! Prohibit frivolous
listings, such as no subspecies or hybrids.
In conclusion, Ms. Griffin said the ESA has
put thousands of Americans out of work, stopped scientific progress, closed
schools, halted building activity, and turned communities into ghost
towns. It is time for a change with a
common sense approach to benefit species of all kinds, including human
beings. She provided maps showing
Arizona Land Ownership Distribution (Attachment 4) and Arizona Estimated Land
Ownership (Attachment 5). She provided
a copy of the Arizona State Seal, pointing out that it identifies climate,
etc., but no endangered species (Attachment 6), and reviewed A New
Environmental Vision (Attachment 7).
Congressman Shaddeg said he understands that
a study by ornithologists showed that a major reason for the decline in the
pygmy-owl population in Arizona is that the owls migrated north from Mexico
during a spate of warm years, and when the climate returned to normal, most
returned to Mexico, leaving small patches of the species in Arizona, which is
not their natural habitat. He said that
is not mentioned under the category of Reasons for Decline and Vulnerability on
page 5 of the handout (Attachment 3).
The handout also states that the species is primarily found in Sonoran
desert scrub vegetation, etc., but he understands that information was developed
in Tucson that the bird is thriving in and around homes because of increased
water and vegetation, demonstrating that it is very adaptable to populated
regions.
Ms. Griffin said she believes the information
Congressman Shaddeg cited is in the Federal Register. Eighty percent of the owls are found around municipalities,
people, and development. She added that
she would like a copy of the report he quoted since the comment period is still
open and it could be submitted to U.S. F&WS.
Congressman Shaddeg speculated that since
information shows that the species is found in significant numbers in and
around human habitat, the sentence under Reasons for Decline/Vulnerability that
says the species is threatened by the destruction, modification, and curtailment
of its habitat and range is, perhaps, opinion rather than fact.
Ms. Griffin reiterated the fact that the
information is verbatim from the Federal Register.
Indian Health Services
Mr. Flake indicated that he believes the
Congressional delegation is aware of the issues relating to tribal health care
and briefly related the situation. He
provided handouts about the crisis counties are facing with suggestions for
resolution (Attachments 8, 9, 10 and 11), adding that the issue involves an
unfunded mandate to the state, which is passed on to the counties. He expressed a wish for a permanent
resolution.
Senator McCain submitted that the counties,
especially Navajo and Apache, have a legitimate concern. He and Senator Kyl have been working on the
issue and will continue to attempt to enforce the intention of the original
statute and increase health care funding for IHS to a level where problematic
costs can be absorbed.
Senator Kyl agreed, adding that he and
Senator McCain wrote a letter to three key people in the Senate and the
Director of the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) and are awaiting the
Director=s response.
He noted that there may be a concern regarding loss of dollars at the
federal level. The issue may ultimately
have to be resolved through authorization or appropriation, both of which he
and Senator McCain are prepared to tackle, if necessary.
Cochairman Jarrett stated that she attended a
meeting last week at which Senator Tsosie from the Navajo Nation expressed
frustration in dealing with three different states.
Mr. Flake related that he has been hearing
about the possibility of IHS building a hospital on the reservation so patients
do not have to be air evacuated to Phoenix.
Senator McCain advised that funding was
obtained for a health care hospital on the Hopi Reservation, noting that the
existing facility at Chinle needs significant improvements.
Senator Kyl submitted that there is still the
occasional case where an air evacuation cannot be avoided, which is when the
county ends up Aon the hook@. Right now, the state is
picking up the tab and paying for the counties, but that fund is being
depleted. If relief is provided from
the federal level, the state can continue to pick up the burden of the
counties. If not, it becomes a very big
burden for the state.
EPA Attainment
Dan Shein, House Majority Research Analyst,
Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee; Environment Committee, addressed
the Committee regarding EPA attainment (Attachment 12). He advised that legislation passed last
Session established a special position in the Arizona Department of
Administration (ADOA) with the responsibility of monitoring state and fleet
activities. A report issued in November
1998 shows that the federal government is not meeting the time frames and
percentages outlined in statute for conversion of vehicles to alternative
fuels. He offered to make the report
available to the Members.
Speaker Groscost said, except for the Post
Office, until the Manager, who was very proactive, retired last year, three
federal vehicles in Arizona have been converted to clean fleet. Those are Forest Service vehicles operating
at the Grand Canyon. He related that
Arizona has implemented air quality measures in order to have clean air for
future generations and huge strides have been made in ozone and carbon monoxide
emissions. However, he does not
perceive any ability for the state, with the existing climate, to ever come
into compliance with particulates.
Restrictions are offensive given the fact that Arizona must come into
compliance with a standard not difficult to meet on the eastern seacoast where
there is much rain to scrub the air and prevailing winds blow debris out and
away from cities. Also, as Arizona
actually reaches attainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, modeling does not
show attainment; therefore, the state will still be under federal
strictures. He expressed a hope to make
the model for carbon monoxide and ozone more realistic, adding that help may be
needed with particulates.
(Tape 1, Side 2 - speed must be adjusted)
Congressman Shaddeg said he would like a copy
of the ADOA report referred to by Mr. Shein.
He noted that he recently accepted a position on the Commerce Committee,
which has jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act (CAA). The ranking member of the committee, who helped write the Act,
believes it is being interpreted in an irrational fashion. He offered to work with the Legislature, the
Speaker, etc., on air pollution issues.
Census Sampling
Congressman Shaddeg stated that a decennial
census is approaching and the issue has been surrounded by controversy. In the
last census, there was much discussion and substantial documentation of an
undercount in certain communities, and although the Constitution specifically
calls for an actual enumeration, the Census Bureau, Commerce Department, and
the Clinton Administration have proposed that statistical sampling be utilized
in order to remedy another undercount.
Many statisticians have testified that, in theory, statistical sampling
will improve the count; however, many of those same scientists say that the
particular method the Commerce Department has chosen will not improve the
count. Nevertheless, the Clinton Administration
and the Commerce Department are proceeding and have written a plan to use
statistical sampling in the upcoming census. The plan is perceived by many
people to be greatly flawed and will result in Arizona suffering another
undercount.
He advised that two federal lawsuits over
this issue were filed in District Courts and went on to the Court of
Appeals. One was filed by the
Southeastern Legal Foundation and another by the U.S. House of Representatives. Both lawsuits resulted in federal court
rulings that sampling, at least for purposes of the census reapportionment and
redistricting, is unconstitutional.
Those two lawsuits have now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and
are on the docket, with a decision anticipated in March 1999. Consequently, this year, Congress wanted to
stop funding for the sampling, but the Clinton Administration wants to continue
funding. Congress agreed to fund the
census through June 15, 1999, ceasing funding until the litigation is resolved
and it is known if sampling will be utilized.
The Clinton Administration wants to fund all of the Commerce Justice
State Appropriations bill, which includes many departments beyond the Commerce
Department. An agreement was reached
that funding for all of the agencies under the Commerce Justice State
Appropriations bill will expire on June 15, 1999; therefore, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruling is anticipated in March 1999 and a funding battle is expected in
the U.S. Congress sometime before June 1999, at which time the position will be
resolved.
Congressman Shaddeg indicated that he is most
offended by the fact that the Native American community was one of the largest
undercounted communities in Arizona, and
yet, the Commerce Department and Census Bureau=s proposal does not include sampling on
Indian reservations. His office has not been able to obtain an explanation for
the decision. He added that he will no
longer be a member, but the Census Subcommittee is planning a hearing in Phoenix
toward the end of January 1999, where those who are interested in the issue can
raise the question of why sampling will be conducted of Hispanic and other
minority inner city communities but not Native American communities.
Congressman Shaddeg speculated that an
ultimate decision regarding sampling will be made shortly after the Supreme
Court rulings. Since two previous
rulings declared sampling unconstitutional, there is a chance that the Supreme
Court will also. He added that there
are mechanical aspects of the census that are going forward, which are
contained in a handout (Attachment 13).
Executive Order 13083
Cochairman Burns alerted the Committee about
Executive Order 13083 (Attachments 14, 15, and 16). She added that President Clinton subsequently rescinded his
order; therefore, President Reagan=s order is still in effect, but she understands that there could be an
attempt by President Clinton to issue another Executive Order. She congratulated Congressman Kolbe, who was
instrumental in adoption of an amendment in the budget bill, supported by the
Arizona delegation, stating that no monies can be spent on the new Executive
Order, although it is a moot point now.
She asked for feedback on what can be anticipated, or the President=s purpose.
Speaker Groscost expressed amazement that the
Executive Order did not include a notwithstanding constitutional clause because
it refutes the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states that all
powers not granted to the United States or prohibited to the individual states
will be kept by the states and the people.
He thanked the Congressional delegation for individual efforts to insure
that the mind set of who actually created the federal government is retained on
the other side of the Potomac River.
Cochairman Burns said she understands that an
Executive Order holds much substantive power because federal agencies must
adhere to them, which make a big difference, philosophically, in the direction
of government.
Congressman Shaddeg stated that at the
initial meeting of the Committee, he announced his intention to introduce
legislation in Congress requiring Congress to cite the specific provision of
the U.S. Constitution authorizing the federal government to legislate any given
area as distinguished from the states.
When the legislation was introduced in the 104th Congress, as the
Enumerated Powers Act, there were a significant number of cosponsors, but the
bill was not heard or passed. With
reintroduction in the 105th Congress, where more members realized that it would
take power away from the federal government, there were fewer cosponsors and
the bill, again, was not heard.
(Tape 2, Side A)
Congressman Shaddeg noted, however, that
House rules now require that as legislation goes through the U.S. House, the
Committee report must contain language explaining from whence the federal
government has the authority to pass the legislation as distinguished from the
states, so some progress has been made.
Senator Kyl stated that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme
Court because there was not an adequate federal constitutional authority for
the declaration that states could not abridge religious freedom by certain
acts. Conservatives in Congress, who
believed it was important to have the Act, which restores, in some senses,
people=s freedom to practice religion without state
interference, sought other federal authority for the legislation. He was rather appalled by the search and
skeptical of the bill as a result of the arbitrary search for a federal
authority. He added that sometimes
people think they have a great idea meriting passage, but in order to pass
legislation at the federal level, must find this nexus, resulting in great
violence to the concept of federalism in the name of great works. He added that everyone must be cognizant of
that.
Teacher Funding
Representative Dan Schottel commended the
Congressmen for doing an outstanding job for Arizona. He cited statistics relating to Federal Funding for Class Room
Teachers (Attachment 17) and provided a handout relating concerns about $17
million from the federal budget to hire new teachers (Attachment 18).
Senator Salmon cautioned the Legislators to
beware of accepting dollars from the federal government because there are
always strings attached and fine print involved. He said he understands that the funding to hire teachers is
applicable for only one year, after which local school boards will be
responsible. He noted that many
politicians fought diligently to allow maximum flexibility by school districts,
so limiting dollars from the federal government for hiring new school teachers
is too restrictive. He would rather
place the responsibility for educating children at the local level.
Cochairman Jarrett observed that a few
restrictions make it difficult to accept the funding. The school district must have grown by 20 percent and have an 80
percent poverty level; therefore, she believes only one school district in
Arizona qualifies.
Senator Patterson opposed federal government
influence in education, opining that federal regulations have been onerous and
contributed to mediocrity in the classroom.
Senator Kyl opined that the majority party in
Congress next session will include education reform as a priority, with block
grant funding to states with no strings attached. There may be a few secondary components, such as dollars
following the student or encouraging or authorizing that use of funding. He asked for advice on how best to block
grant funds, noting that while traveling around the state, almost every city,
county, school, and law enforcement official indicated a preference for a
federal program versus block grant money to the state, particularly to Maricopa
County, because they may not ever see the funds. It is important for the Legislature to work with the Governor,
cities, and counties to determine the best method to block grant funds, with
the concern of local people in mind.
Senator Arzberger related that the state is
set up into four districts, and federal funds are provided to the state and
distributed through Association of Governments in those districts. He suggested that education funds be
directly provided to County School Superintendents, with other funds disbursed
from the different districts in the counties.
Senator McCain stated that the original intent
of the federal government becoming involved in education funding was to provide
for specific needs like special education and other programs. That has obviously grown, but funding for
schools is derived from state and local funding.
Mr. Schottel related that thirty years ago,
the state provided about 20 percent of education funding and now provides about
90 percent. He does not know the impact
of the new Students= First
bill, but the state is currently providing the majority of education
funding. He perceived a problem because
the bureaucracy in the United States Department of Education (DOE) in
Washington, D.C., when offering new funding, attempts to find solutions when
the Department is causing the problems.
Senator McCain agreed, adding that only 13
cents out of every tax dollar earmarked for education is actually returned to
the states, with the rest absorbed by the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Hart indicated that education dollars to
Coconino County have decreased.
Senator McCain said every year an attempt is
made to increase impact aid, but efforts are outvoted, more often in the U.S.
House than in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Springer related that approximately
$6 billion to $7 billion of federal funds is received by the state and
disbursed through the Governor=s Office, with no accountability from the Legislature. She opined that bypassing not only the
Legislature, but the Governor, by direct funding on local levels is a terrible
mistake.
Speaker Groscost said one commonality between
cities, counties, and the federal government is that all were created by the
states, which has lost much meaning.
He, Senator Arzberger, and Senator Pat Conner introduced legislation for
more block granting toward cities and states and specifying authority for
actions. However, the State
Constitution requires all expenditures of monies in the state to be
appropriated through the Legislature.
He worked with the Treasurer for many years to draw unappropriated
dollars into the appropriations process because that is where prioritizing is
done and efforts are made to make sure that expenditures are efficacious. He
added that he would like an opportunity to include the $6 billion to $7 billion
of unappropriated funds that are never prioritized for needs in the state nor
subject to accountability.
Senator Kyl related that he recently learned
that Arizona actually spends more taxpayer dollars from the federal government
than are taxed and funded by the State of Arizona. He said it would be beneficial to the Congressional delegation if
the Legislature could supply a succinct summary of the $6 billion to $7 billion
in federal funds.
Speaker Groscost responded that the
information is contained in the budget books and he will ask Joint Legislative
Budget Committee (JLBC) to make it available.
Printz Decision
Senator Patterson explained that the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in mid-1997 on a provision of the Brady Law requiring local
jurisdictions to enforce background checks and found it unconstitutional on the
basis that any federal regulatory scheme with the object of state executives
enforcing the federal law is unconstitutional.
He submitted that this is a huge Ahammer@ that has been provided to states and should
be taken advantage of, noting that there are possibly many other laws that
could be included under these provisions.
It is very plausible, for example, if the federal government wants to
operate an air quality program, to have IM-240 stations run as federal Aoutposts on the frontier.@
Other constitutional problems would be raised, but at least the state
would not be administering a federal program.
Mr. Patterson moved that the Committee
request that Legislative Council review the decision of Printz v. United
States and research whether other existing federal laws may be affected by
this ruling. If applicable laws are
found, Legislative Council shall refer them to the Office of the Attorney General
and legislative leadership for further review and legal and/or legislative
action as appropriate.
Senator Lopez stated that he does not have a
sufficient amount of information to make a determination on the issue and
requested that material be provided to the Members prior to meetings. He added that because he is not familiar
with the issue, he will pass on voting.
Question was called on Senator Patterson=s motion.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-1-4 (Attachment 19).
Congressional Issues
Congressman Shaddeg noted that the issue of
proper balance of power between the states and federal government is not a
partisan issue. Referring to his
inability to pass legislation relating to this issue at the federal level, he
acknowledged that the federal government has assumed powers rightly given under
the Constitution to the states, and such legislation has had some difficulty at
the federal level because it is rightly viewed as giving away some powers. He believes legislation will not move until
more State Legislatures and Legislators engage in the struggle. He made a plea to Members of the Legislature
who share his sentiment to talk with colleagues in other states to support the
effort.
Speaker Groscost thanked the Congressional
delegation for attending the meeting.
He noted that at a National Speaker=s Conference, two-thirds of the Speakers of Houses across the country
talked about issues. He informed the
others about this meeting held on an annual basis, and many did not believe
they could get their Congressional delegations to attend such a meeting and
were somewhat in awe that problems are discussed and attempts are made to
coordinate efforts of the state. He
thanked the Congressional delegation for utilizing block grants, noting that he
is pleased that the last few have gone through the Legislative process.
Cochairman Burns stated that the
Congressional delegation is appreciated. With regard to Congressman=s Shaddeg comments about talking to
colleagues, she commented that everyone has been in this fight for some time
and it is very tiring; however, it is one of those battles in which only a tiny
fraction is gained at a time. She added
that everyone must stand fast and support those who are moving the fight forward.
She added that a play depicting the notion of
the Founding Fathers and the contrast between their intentions versus the
bureaucracy of today was developed and presented at a recent Arizona
Legislative Exchange Conference (ALEC) meeting in Washington, D.C. States around the country have asked that
the actors travel to their state or requested the script, which was written by
Arizona State University (ASU) students with latitude given to the actors to
make some changes. The play lasts about
15-minutes and is available for use by anyone who is interested.
Senator Arzberger, referring to block grants,
stated that some people believe Arizona sends more money to Washington, D.C.
than is returned; however, considering everything, such as funds provided to
military bases, social security recipients, etc., much more money is returned
from Washington, D.C. to Arizona than is sent there. He added that however block grants are administered, he does not
believe it is necessary to keep money in the state or the state will come out
on the Ashort end of the stick.@
Mr. Hart stated that last year he went to
Alaska with the Speaker and approximately ten other Congressional people to a
Western States Coalition. Congressman
Miller and Congressman Shaw from Florida said Arizona is doing a great job but
the Congressional members need to push federalism. He added that the Coalition is coming to Arizona this year.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at
12:10 p.m.
___________________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
(Original minutes, attachments, and tapes are
on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.
A copy of minutes and attachments are on file with the Senate
Secretary.)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER
---------
JLC ON
FEDERAL MANDATES
December
15, 1998
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER
---------