ARIZONA
STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT
LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
ON FEDERAL
MANDATES
Minutes of the
Meeting
Tuesday,
December 7, 1999
10:00
a.m. Senate Hearing Room 1
Members
Present:
President Brenda Burns, Chair Representative Marilyn Jarrett, Cochair
Senator Gus Arzberger Representative Jake Flake
Senator Russell Bowers Representative Kathi Foster
Senator Jack Brown Speaker
Jeff Groscost
Senator Scott Bundgaard Representative Leah Landrum
Senator Darden Hamilton
Senator Joe Eddie Lopez
Members
Absent:
Representative Joe Hart Representative John Loredo
Staff:
Mara Kelly, Senate FIR Analyst
Jodi Jerich, House Judiciary Analyst
Congressional
Members:
Senator John Kyl
Congressman J. D. Hayworth
Congressman John Shadegg
President Burns called the meeting to order at 10:12
a.m. and asked that everyone be brief in their statements as the Congressional
members would have to leave by 11:00 a.m. for a ceremony at the U.S.S. Arizona
anchor. She expressed her appreciation
to the Congressional delegation for coming and announced that item 4 on the
agenda would be discussed first. President Burns said the issue of federalism
is something that is continually on the minds of the State, and said she
appreciates Arizona’s delegation being leaders in the federalism movement.
Representative Jarrett also expressed her
appreciation to the Congressional delegation for coming to meet with the State
legislative members. She remarked that
she spoke to a legislator from another state who said their delegation did not
come back after their first meeting.
She said the Legislature also appreciates the fact that the Arizona
delegation is unique and understands the differences between state and federal
government and appreciates the opportunity to work with them.
President Burns thanked the delegation for
promptness in their responses to State requests on a variety of issues. She said she works with a domestic violence
organization and was speaking to some of the women seeking shelter there. It made her realize the huge amount of
issues that people who work at the shelters and safe houses must deal
with. Among the larger issues is
immigration, which is very difficult to work through. President Burns stated she had contacted Senator Kyl’s office,
and someone had helped find temporary homes for these immigrant women, who are
thrilled with their new quarters.
Senator Arzberger asked if the members could take a
few moments to bow their heads in honor of the men and women who lost their
lives at Pearl Harbor. President Burns
asked everyone to stand for a moment of silence.
Senator Hamilton extended a welcome to the visiting
Congressional delegation. He said the
federal gas tax has been going up steadily, and that the current tax is 36.4¢ per gallon; of that 18.4¢
is federal tax and 18¢ is state tax. The money goes to the federal government
and comes back in the form of grants, and the T-21 bill. Senator Hamilton
stated that prior to the T-21 legislation, for every dollar of gas tax sent to
the federal government, 85¢ was returned to the State for transportation
needs. Since the T-21 bill passed, the
State receives 90.5¢ for every dollar.
Of the 50 states, there are 23 that send more money than they get
back. Senator Hamilton said that
Arizona loses approximately $45 million a year from our tax money going to
other states to fund their transportation and infrastructure, while in Arizona,
specifically Maricopa County, there is the fastest growing county in the United
States. At the rate of $45 million a year,
through the five-year period of T-21, Arizona will lose $225 million of its tax
money that goes to other states that need it less than Arizona. When T-21 runs out, Arizona hopes that will
be changed. Between T-21 and the former
plan [of 85¢ on the dollar] Arizona will have been a donor state for 10
years. Arizona is considering raising
the gas tax to make up for the loss of revenue, and may have to raise it 8¢ to
offset the money Arizona has lost.
Senator Hamilton said another transportation issue
is the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane.
He noted that if there are 10,000 cars on the road sitting still that
will produce a lot more pollution. The
standards for pollutants that an engine produces at idle are a lot higher than
the standards at 30 m.p.h. If vehicles
are just moving at 30 m.p.h., the pollution will be cut by 80%, the air will be
cleaner and our compliance with the federal regulations for pollutants will be
a lot better. Senator Hamilton stated
one way to get people moving is to release the HOV lane to general use. He said they were not meant to get people to
carpool, but were meant to help with pollution, through the tactic of
carpooling. However, if people are not
carpooling and the traffic is not moving, the necessity of the lane is
lost. Once the vehicles are moving at
30 m.p.h., another HOV lane could be added, but until that happens having the
HOV lane is a luxury.
President Burns concluded that: 1) the State needs
return of all of its gas tax monies; and 2) the State would like to have a
waiver on the HOV lane on I-17.
Representative Foster asked how the formula is
determined for gas tax money being returned to the State.
Senator John
Kyl said it
is a very complicated formula and it is unfair to Arizona. He noted that of the five negative votes on
the T-21 bill, two were from Arizona because of that unfairness. He noted he spoke to the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) which was very angry with him for voting
against the T-21 bill because it brought a lot of money to Arizona. Senator Kyl said his response was that one
should not look at the money the State received, but at the money it lost
because Arizona could not do better.
Arizona can put in for the Federal NAFTA Corridor and Indian monies,
which it does, but that does not make up for the difference. He agreed with Senator Hamilton’s comments,
and agreed to work on it.
Federal
Redesignation of Land
Congressman Hayworth thanked President Burns for
revising the agenda so that the delegation could attend the ceremony at the
U.S.S. Arizona anchor. He stated that
Arizona sits on the precipice of a dangerous “land-grab.” He asserted the Legislature needs to know
that the Clinton administration is planning to create wilderness areas by a
roadless policy through the federally controlled lands. Congressman Hayworth
stated he feels this is the most egregious policy this administration has set
forth to date. He said that he does not
believe this administration can be called environmentalists, but they should be
call “prohibitionists,” because they seek to prohibit any activity in the
forests. Congressman Hayworth said this
could result in the destruction of the land they wish to protect. It has been proven that sound use of land
will protect it; they have to be forested to protect them from suffocation of
overgrowth. He asked if the nation should
sacrifice its national forests for something that sounds good, but only appeases
a special interest group. He said it is
false that we are running out of trees, and the government controlled forests
yield 18 billion more board fee annually than they did 50 years ago. With sound forestry techniques it is known
that forest growth has exceeded harvest continually since the 1940’s.
Congressman Hayworth stated that the roadless
promulgators say the roads are only used for loggers, but that is
incorrect. The roads are used for a
number of federal land management activities, and if eliminated, the forests
will be shut down for fire suppression, recreation, access for local residents
and environmental enhancement. 97% of
the roads are open for all uses, not just timber harvest. He said he believes the public should be
able to access the national forests that their federal tax dollars go to
protect. He said the most important
reason to keep the roads open is the effect on school children as money from
timber sales goes to fund education. In the year 1995, $60 million was returned
to timber dependent communities, chiefly in the West. Congressman Hayworth said
eliminating the roads will also eliminate critical education funds, and Arizona
has already suffered too much in this regard because the same prohibitionists
have filed countless lawsuits which have eviscerated Arizona’s timber industry.
Congressman Hayworth offered a solution, which was
the Education Land-Grant Act, which passed the House of Representatives and
awaits action in the Senate. It offers
a uniform way for rural school districts to apply for parcels of
non-environmentally sensitive land, which can be of sound benefit to the rural
counties. He said input must be
received from Arizonans against the
land-grab by Secretary Babbitt. He
offered a public entreaty to the Secretary of the Interior: “Don’t foist your
personal legacy on the backs of rural Arizonans.”
Representative Jake Flake offered his support for
Congressman Hayworth’s legislation and said he grew up in these areas [under
consideration] and he does not like what is happening. The timber industry built these roads and
when they discontinue logging they only leave open the major road for people to
access, use and enjoy the forests. All
other logging roads are discontinued, barriers are put up and the forests are
reseeded. Representative Flake said the
federal government has shut out the logging industry, and is now making an
effort to shut out the cattle industry which also uses these roads to service
the cattle. In addition, it will shut
out the public, and then the forest will be of no use. He said his major concern is what will
happen to the forests. He is alarmed
with the condition of the timbered forests, and became more so after hearing
Dr. David Garrett, because if something is not done, the forests are going to
burn. Representative Flake noted
Arizona had good rains this spring, but is not receiving any snow pack so far
this winter, and that is what keeps the forest healthy. Rain brings up the weeds and grass, which
are additional fuel for a fire. He said
the forests will definitely burn if this land-grab takes place.
Congressman
Shadegg
stated he would like to discuss the roadless issue further. When the Clinton
administration came forward with a new policy designating 60 million acres as
roadless areas, the Western governors passed a resolution stating this process
would preclude multiple use in all 60 million acres. He said it has been impossible to obtain a specific designation
of acreage. The Council on
Environmental Quality did release a statement to the press on October 13, which
indicated 1.8 million acres would be in Arizona. He said this is an issue on which specific action should be
taken. The Administration sites Article 4, section 3 as the authority for this
roadless designation. In actuality,
that Article gives the Congress the authority to regulate U.S. forest lands,
and it is believed that this action is illegal. He said he agrees with Congressman Hayworth that this is a
significant threat, and with Representative Flake that this is a serious
problem. Congressman Shadegg said if
there is a legitimate argument that the federal government is acting outside
the law, he would like to see resolutions from the Arizona Legislature in
support of a legal challenge to that action.
He said it is one more attempt to lock up the land in Arizona. He also said he believes that Governor Hull
supports multiple use.
Representative Flake said there are only 5 million
acres of forested land in Arizona, and that land grab would take one-third of
it.
Congressman Shadegg stated his second concern is
that of designation of national monuments.
He said the Clinton administration contemplates designating national
monuments, and the Congress has been trying to find out what areas they are
discussing. Secretary Babbitt appeared
before the Resources Committee, at which Congressman Shadegg asked for a list
of the national monuments so the American people could have input. The Administration would not provide a list
of the areas under consideration, but on November 22nd, the
Secretary released a list to the press that indicated a dozen sites in the West
(Attachments A & B). He noted that Congressman Kolbe had argued against
federal legislation on the Las Cienegas area, saying the parties involved were
working out an agreement. Congressman
Shadegg stated if any of the members are familiar with what happened in Utah,
and the federal government refusal to talk to their Congressional delegation,
they know of the blind-siding by the federal government which lied to the Utah
delegation many times. He said Arizona
needs to be very aggressive on this, should be actively involved and have input
on designating areas in Arizona.
President Burns agreed this is a critical issue, and
she wants Congressman Shadegg’s remarks and maps in the record. She said the Legislature hopes there is a
united front from the Congressional delegation, and she asked Congressman
Shadegg to advise the members of what is being proposed to remedy the
situation.
Central
Arizona Project Repayment and Water Distribution Update
Senator Kyl stated there are several
different issues involved in the Central Arizona Project (CAP), the first of
which is the San Carlos Water Settlement concluded in the early nineties, which
has not yet been finalized. The Central
Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) must still sign off on that portion
of the settlement. The CAP district
will not do that as long as the federal government maintains its present
position on repayment. That agreement
will terminate on December 31, 1999, if there is no meeting of the minds, and
may not be revisited.
The second part is the Little Colorado River stream
adjudication, which has been going on for a long time, and was nearing a point
of settlement when the Navajo Tribe brought a lawsuit against many of the
non-Indian participants dealing with royalty payments and power plants. That settlement has been “stopped dead in
its tracks.” He noted there are plans
to have a briefing the week following this meeting by the Navajo Nation on the
project they would like to build if the settlement is reached.
The third part involves the CAP repayment deal with
the Gila River Tribe, which is within 80% of resolution since all parties want
to get this resolved. The negotiations
have been slowed because the Department of the Interior does not know if it
wants to expend the energy to conclude the process. He said there are still some outstanding issues, which will
require a lot of hard work. Senator Kyl
said he believes there will be an effort to continue the negotiations to bring
it to closure, but without the active involvement of the Department of
Interior, he is not sure it will be done within the next year.
Senator Kyl stated the next item he would like to
discuss is the CAWCD financial dispute with the federal government over how much
Arizona’s share of CAP is. The basic
financial issues have been agreed to in a settlement that would accompany the
Gila River settlement and one other, which he will discuss momentarily. Since the Gila River settlement is not
finished, and they are tied together, the issue remains in court and the
federal government is not willing to allow CAWCD to litigate a crucial element.
The situation has already been resolved by the parties but since it has not
been finalized, it remains in court, and in court they continue to fight it
out.
Senator Kyl said there are some rough outlines of a
settlement; where-in the non-Indian parties have expressed a willingness to
make up to 200,000 acre feet of water available for Indian settlements. The federal government has theoretically
agreed to no out-of-state transfers to the State of Arizona and has
theoretically agreed to water banking by the State. That overall settlement structure languishes in the Department of
Interior, and Secretary Babbitt is unsure it is worth his effort to bring the
settlements to conclusion. Senator Kyl
said this is “too bad” as many people are concerned about whether Arizona will
be protected. Senator Kyl said he
thinks a settlement can be reached that adequately protects Arizona’s interests
which would be far superior to litigating all of the settlements.
President Burns stated it is a very complex issue
and difficult to resolve. Senator Kyl
said the CAWCD and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) have
performed magnificently in this area.
He noted there is a sunset review of the DWR soon, and he feels the
worst thing that could happen would be to sunset DWR. He also added he appreciates the members’ of the Legislature
interest and their patience, and he will be ready to communicate in any way the
Legislature deems appropriate.
Representative Flake asked if the portion allotted
to the Indians has no repayment. Senator
Kyl said a large portion of the problem with CAWCD and the federal
government has to do with how the accounting occurs with respect to water to
the Indians. Representative Flake
clarified that as Globe transfers to the San Carlos Tribe, the issue is whether
that amount has to be repaid.
Congressman Shadegg commended Senator Kyl for his
“yeoman’s work” on this issue. He said
he does not envy anyone who has to negotiate with the Clinton administration,
and the Babbitt section of that
Administration. He said no one knows
Arizona water law better than Senator
Kyl. Several of the issues are
those where the Clinton administration has said they tentatively agree to
things and then do not want it nailed down.
He said the implications for Arizona’s growth and its rights to the
water, as well as clarity and finality on these issues, are too important to
take just a settlement. He commended him for negotiating in good faith, and for
standing strong.
Senator Arzberger stated he has followed this issue
all the way through, and the concern is that the courts ruled that CAP owes
$1.7 billion, and the government says they own $2.3 billion. The federal government wants to take the
Indian water payment off of the $2.3 billion, and Arizona said no, because the
courts have ruled that it should be taken off the $1.7 billion. He asked that Senator Kyl and the rest of
the Arizona delegation “hang tight” and settle it all from one end of the State
to the other.
Senator Bowers questioned the practicable benefit of
the over-construction of the federal government, and stated it is $1.72 billion
that Arizona legally owes, but because the State has a practicable benefit from
construction he believes the federal government is suing the State.
Senator Kyl said that is correct, but he is not
involved with the amount of repayment; that is between CAWCD and the federal
government. The problem is that
situation impacts other things and vice versa.
Senator Kyl said he is not at all involved in the negotiations, but
added CAWCD’s position is that it has reached agreement on the $1.72 billion
settlement, but in the litigation, the federal government takes the position it
has to be otherwise. He said there does
not seem to be a way to resolve this at present.
Senator Bundgaard stated the issue regarding
taxation of the Internet revolves around four points: the tax nexus; the tax
base; tax rates and tax administration.
He said the Committee knows that Congress passed the Internet Tax
Freedom Act which prohibits state and local governments from adding on new
taxes for a period of three years. The
bill prohibits states from levying taxes on e-commerce or on Internet access
charges.
Senator Bundgaard noted that Senator McCain has
proposed legislation to make the current ban permanent to specifically prohibit
attempts to impose sales tax on Internet sales. It would also add a global moratorium on Internet taxes, and he
said he believes this would undermine states’ rights to a certain extent. He stated the Legislature’s tax policy is to
make sure that taxes are flat, fair, the administration is simple and the rates
low. He asked for a discussion on the
taxation of Internet sales, and said it has ramifications on all sales,
including taxing the sale of goods across state and international boundaries.
Senator Bundgaard said he believes there will be an
effect on revenues to the states if taxation is banned. He noted there are 101 taxing jurisdictions
in Arizona which are an administrative nightmare. He said the National Governors Association (NGA) has a proposal
they are forwarding, but he opined it is more bureaucracy in a different form.
He said he believes there is middle ground between Senator McCain’s proposal
and the NGA’s. He asked the
Congressional delegation what the status of Senator McCain’s proposal is and if
there are other ideas developing in Congress.
President Burns asked for a breakdown of the issue
of the federal government versus the state government and where the authority
lies because Arizona has not yet made a decision on this type of taxation.
Congressman Shadegg responded he thinks this is
going to be a “turf war” because he has had local officials approach him and
indicate they cannot survive as the Internet expands because the sales may “eat
into” local resources and the tax base.
The officials do not feel it is fair for the Internet sales not to be
taxed. He said he is not aware of other
proposals besides Senator McCain’s. He
added there is no doubt there will be counter legislation advanced by various interests
to address if it is fair to take sales tax from local government by continuing
to ban taxes on the Internet. Congressman Shadegg said he believes there is no
need for new taxes. He recognized that
e-commerce is expanding, and believes it will expand the market so the local
tax base will not disappear. He said it
is the number one lobbying issue of the cities.
President Burns said there needs to be a discussion
on where that authority lies.
Congressman Shadegg said he introduced legislation
called the “Enumerated Powers Act” which must cite in every law the specific
authority giving the federal government the power to enact that law. He said the United States Constitution is a
constitution of granting the federal government certain specific powers and
granting all remaining powers to the states under the 10th
Amendment. Congressman Shadegg stated the U.S. House has made it a rule that
report language must contain citation to the authority of the legislation. That has not been enacted in statute. He said he is encouraged that the
Constitution Subcommittee has asked to schedule a hearing on that legislation
(H.R. 1018 – Attachment C). He said it goes to the area where the federal
government legislates when it has no authority.
Congressman Shadegg stated Senator Fred Thompson has
legislation dealing with the question of federal pre-emption to state
authority, as does Congressman MacIntosh. Senate Bill 1214 (Attachment C) and
H.R. 2245 are parallel bills under which the Congress would be required to cite
any state law that would be pre-empted by the passage of a federal law. As an example, he said if the Congress
enacted a ban on Internet taxation that would pre-empt any state or city tax on
e-commerce, the federal legislation would have to say “this legislation
pre-empts county, local and state taxes on the Internet.“ He said the legislation is getting some
attention in the Senate, but has not been heard in the House, and he cannot
give the Committee an updated status.
It does put people on notice as to when the federal government acts to
steal authority from the states.
President Burns said she appreciates Congressman
Shadegg’s efforts with his bill, and questioned where the hearing of the bill
will be. Congressman Shadegg replied it
will be shortly after the first of the year, in the Constitution Subcommittee
of the House Judiciary Committee.
President Burns said she believes Senator Thompson’s bill is being
supported by NCSL, and the support of ALEC has been enlisted.
Representative Jarrett said she just left an NCSL
meeting and those members are supporting Senator Thompson’s bill because they
are very concerned as well.
Representative Jarrett said she would relinquish her
time to Jessica Funkhouser.
Jessica
Funkhouser, Office of the Secretary of
State, stated
Secretary Bayless would have been here today but she is visiting election
officers in other counties. Ms.
Funkhouser stated she appreciates the memo prepared by Representative Jarrett
because it summarizes the discussion between them on simple things which could
be addressed at the federal level regarding the Voter Registration Act. Ms. Funkhouser asserted it is a very
expensive act for the states to implement, and the counties bear the cost of
voter roll clean-up. A mailing was
recently done to all registered voters in Maricopa County, and the County was
able to eliminate 240,000 from the rolls to help prevent voter fraud and also
the cost of mailings for elections. The
inflated numbers give an unrealistic figure for the voter low for the
population. That cost the County
$770,000. She suggested the cumbersome
procedures could be revisited, and if there is a way to make less mailings, it
would be very helpful.
Ms. Funkhouser also discussed the declination form
(Attachment D) and said whenever someone applies for public assistance, they
must be offered the opportunity to vote, even if they are already registered,
and if they do not want to register, they must be offered this piece of
paper. This happens every month, and
the forms are saved in storage boxes. So
far this year the Secretary of State’s office has 123 boxes, which are in turn
shipped to Archives, where they stay for two years. In response to Congressman Shadegg, she said there are 258 boxes
in the office from the last two years.
Congressman Shadegg said if she would bring them to him, he would take
them to the floor of the U.S. House and discuss the issue.
Speaker Groscost said he would be feeling coerced to
be sure he is registered. He asked if
there is a statement of the qualifications necessary to be a registered voter,
or if, during the process, is it pointed out that it may not be appropriate for
them to register under certain circumstances.
Ms. Funkhouser stated it is not on this form, but it is on the voter
registration form, which asks if they are citizens, are 18 years of age and are competent to vote. She said the declination form is exactly
what the federal law requires.
Congressman Shadegg asked if there are similar
storage boxes of declination forms all around the country, i.e., California or
New York, where there is a larger voter population. He said the reality of
these meetings is that the West gets out-voted on issues very quickly, and it
would be of value to him to know that one of the states with a large congressional
delegation had 1,000 of these boxes, so he could invoke an environmental piece
of legislation.
Ms. Funkhouser said, in discussions with her
colleagues, there were two points of consensus: 1) funding should be updated to
further voting standards and proper equipment; 2) repeal this portion of the
law because all the states have many boxes in storage.
Speaker Groscost said he believes the Congressman is
asking one of the members of the Secretary of State’s office to make 49 phone
calls and give him a compilation of numbers of boxes. Ms. Funkhouser said she is already “composing the e-mail.”
Senator Bowers glibly commented if a scaffolding
were built around the Washington Monument, and these boxes piled on it, they
could cover the entire Monument. He added they could also
be used to build public housing.
Congressman Shadegg stated he would pledge to put
forth legislation to repeal this requirement.
He asked if the requirement requiring two first-class mailings is in the
same act. Ms. Funkhouser explained it
is actually an FCC interpretation of the rules. A person cannot be removed from the rolls if the letter comes
back with the sticker noting the person has moved but the mail is no longer
forwardable. She said they must mail
another form to the new address, and if confirmation is received that they have
moved to another state, they may be taken off the rolls; however, if no
confirmation is received, that person remains on the inactive rolls. Ms. Funkhouser noted that if the label
indicates the forwarding order is expired, it must be mailed again to that
address, and if two expired notices are received the person is put on the
inactive list.
Congressman Shadegg clarified people are put on the
inactive roll unless they confirm they are residents of another state. He pledged his support for legislation on
this and said he will work with Secretary Bayless on having people not placed
on the inactive roll, but removed completely.
He noted this is a subject which is sensitive and people are suspicious
of the Congress’ motives. He said if
there is support from both parties of the State, it would provide a great deal
of emphasis.
Representative Jarrett said she talked to Karen
Osborne of Maricopa County, who said it cost the County $775,000 to do this. She pointed out that just because a person
is removed from the rolls does not mean they cannot vote. If they have previously registered, the vote
will be counted as valid.
Speaker Groscost expressed his thanks to the members
of the federal delegation who came. He
said most states are incredulous that Arizona’s Congressional delegation will
come to talk to them, and they are interested in having similar discussion with
their delegations.
Representative Jarrett said, having just left NCSL
where states rights and federalism were discussed, that she hopes Congressman
Shadegg will go back with the thought that the federal government is trying to
take some of the states very good criminal laws and make them into federal
laws. She said that creates a dual
court system. For the best interest of
the citizens of the state, the feeling is they will be better served if the
case is heard by the local judge, and also that the federal government should
tread very lightly on criminal laws. It
is felt the states should be more in charge of those laws, rather than the
federal government taking away jurisdiction and the ability to tweak those
laws.
Congressman Shadegg replied he agreed and stated he
had declined serving on the Judiciary Committee because he believes primary
jurisdiction for criminal laws should be at the state level. He said most practicing attorneys will tell
you that the federal courts are overloaded and you cannot get a case heard. He said the federal judiciary and statutes
were not meant to be the place of enforcement for the average street crime, or
one that does not affect interstate commerce, or the unique jurisdiction of the
federal government, i.e., Indian reservations or military bases. He said Representative Jarrett is correct
and he has voted against proposed criminal statutes many times. He said this is an issue on which the
American people have lost their “civic lessons” and that federal law should
only deal with unique situations which state law cannot address.
Congressman Shadegg concluded that he believes these
meetings are extremely important and the dialogue valuable in keeping the
Congressional delegation in touch with the Arizona delegation. He expressed frustration that some of the
Congressional delegation do not attend and participate. He said perhaps a time could be found in
January when there is not much action in the U.S. Congress to bring them to
Arizona. He said perhaps the pressure
to have them come when Arizona is in session would be greater.
Representative Jarrett said most of the states have
passed a juvenile justice reform bill, and feel they have taken care of the
problem, and see no reason for the federal government to step in. She said the states can tweak their own laws
from time to time. She asked Congressman Shadegg to pass along those thoughts.
President Burns thanked everyone for coming, and
said the meeting had been worthwhile.
There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 11:29 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Karen
Neuberg
Committee Secretary
(Tape and attachments on file in the Secretary of
the Senate’s Office.)
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
Joint Legislative Study Committee
On Federal Mandates
December 7, 1999
Page 1
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------