    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                   EXAMINING ``SUE AND SETTLE'' AGREEMENTS:
                                    PART II

    =======================================================================

                                  JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                           INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                     THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 25, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-36

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    27-740 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

                      Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Blake Farenthold, Texas              Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Peter Welch, Vermont
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Jimmy Gomez, California
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama
    James Comer, Kentucky
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan
    Greg Gianforte, Montana

                         Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
                      Robert Borden, Deputy Staff Director
                        William McKenna General Counsel
                     Kelsey Wall, Professional Staff Member
                             Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                   Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs

                         Gary Palmer, Alabama, Chairman
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Vice      Val Butler Demings, Florida,
        Chair                                Ranking Minority Member
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              (Vacancy)
    Mark Walker, North Carolina
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina

                                     ------

             Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment

                       Blake Farenthold, Texas, Chairman
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair   Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    Dennis Ross, Florida                 Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Jimmy Gomez, California
    James Comer, Kentucky                (Vacancy)
    Greg Gianforte, Montana
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 25, 2017....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    The Hon. John Engler, Former Governor, State of Michigan
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     8
    David Sanders, Ph.D., Executive Vice-President of Systems
      Improvement, Casey Family Programs, Seattle, Washington
        Oral Statement...............................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    15
    Mr. Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen, Washington, D.C.
        Oral Statement...............................................    20
        Written Statement............................................    22
    Mr. Carl E. Geffken, City Administrator, Fort Smith, Arkansas
        Oral Statement...............................................    51
        Written Statement............................................    53

                                    APPENDIX

    Opening Statement of Chairman Gary Palmer........................    76
     Alabama Policy Institute article titled, ``Consent Decrees in
      Institutional Reform Litigation: Strategies for State
      Legislatures'' submitted for the record by Chairman Palmer.....    79

                EXAMINING ``SUE AND SETTLE'' AGREEMENTS: PART II

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, July 25, 2017

                      House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, joint
    with the Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
                                           Environment,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary J. Palmer
    [chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs]
    presiding.
        Present from Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs:
    Representatives Palmer, Grothman, Duncan, Foxx, Walker,
    Demings, DeSaulnier and Clay.
        Present from Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
    Environment: Representatives Farenthold, Gosar, Ross, Palmer,
    Gianforte, Plaskett, and Raskin.
        Also Present: Representative Womack.
        Mr. Palmer. The chair notes the presence of our colleague,
    Congressman Womack of Arkansas. We appreciate your interest in
    this topic and welcome your participation today.
        I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Womack be allowed
    to fully participate in today's hearing. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        This hearing is the second part of a set of hearings to
    examine the impact of certain Federal settlements referred to
    as ``sue and settle.'' The sue-and-settle phenomenon refers to
    a process where an outside group will sue a Federal agency,
    State, or local government for an alleged violation of Federal
    law or constitutional right. The parties will often choose to
    settle by entering into a consent decree agreement rather than
    face a long and costly trial. These legally binding consent
    decree agreements are then approved by a judge and enforceable
    by contempt and can only be modified by court order.
        Consent decrees can last for decades and end up costing
    more than if the parties had gone to trial because the parties
    can use consent decrees to set provisions that extend beyond
    the scope of the original violation of law, they have become an
    effective tool to circumvent policymaking by elected
    representatives in order to push a political agenda across
    governmental institutions. These actions place an enormous
    burden on States, local governments, industry stakeholders, and
    taxpayers, who may be shut out of the negotiations but are left
    to foot the bill.
        Under the threat of enforcement by contempt charge, State
    budgets are being reorganized. Local governments across the
    country are spending multiple decades and billions of dollars
    to comply with impossible mandates through never-ending Federal
    oversight. Penalties for the inevitable violation of decrees
    redirect funds from these communities to Washington. Worse,
    some feel afraid to speak to Congress about what they are
    experiencing. Multiple State and local leaders cited fear of
    political retaliation from Federal court monitors if they were
    to appear to testify before the committee on this issue. This
    is unacceptable and a threat to the principles of Federalism.
        Unfortunately, I have witnessed this firsthand in my home
    State of Alabama. I watched as a consent decree between
    Jefferson County and the Environmental Protection Agency
    ballooned from a $1.5 billion estimate to cost over $3 billion
    to address the storm sewer issue in Jefferson County. Sewer
    rates quadrupled over four years in order to pay for the
    project, and Jefferson County became the Nation's largest
    municipal bankruptcy in history until Detroit filed in 2013.
        Because of incomplete data and the lack of proper
    categorization, we are unable to fully evaluate the total
    amount taxpayers spend as a result of collusive settlement
    agreements. For example, in my previous experience leading an
    Alabama think tank, I was unable to obtain a complete list of
    all Federal consent decrees that apply to the State from the
    Department of Justice because of inadequate recordkeeping.
        This lack of transparency limits our constitutional duty to
    conduct oversight of the management of taxpayer resources. It
    is time for the Federal Government to move away from
    emphasizing its role as prosecutor or political monitor and
    return to serving as the American people's partner in setting
    priorities that best represent their interest.
        Recently, Congressman Doug Collins introduced the Sunshine
    for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of
    2017 to increase transparency and public engagement by ensuring
    opportunity for public notice and comment on consent decrees
    and other settlement agreements. I thank Congressman Collins
    for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to
    exploring additional solutions with our panel today.
        Mr. Palmer. I now recognize Mrs. Demings, ranking member of
    the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Affairs, for her opening
    statement.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for our witnesses for being here. Thank you for holding
    this hearing today.
        Today, we have the opportunity to discuss the Federal
    Government's responsibility to ensure that Americans can buy
    safe food, have clean air and water and access to the ballot
    box. Our great democracy has many ways to do this, but perhaps
    the most fundamentally ``little D'' democratic tool is
    concerned citizens working together to hold Federal agencies,
    the watchers, accountable under the law.
        Unfortunately, some of my colleagues view these citizen
    actions as irrelevant annoyances that slow down progress. The
    result is legislation that seeks to make harder and more
    expensive for Americans to use the courts to compel government
    agencies to uphold and comply with the law.
        These are not small stakes. One of the most frequent
    reasons for suits is missed deadlines that leave the public
    unprotected. A 2012 study of public health and safety
    rulemaking with congressionally mandated deadlines showed, and
    I quote, ``most rules are issued long after their deadlines,
    which ultimately are putting American lives at risk,'' unquote.
        I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just one
    rule criticized as, quote, ``too expensive,'' which was long
    delayed until, ultimately, a lawsuit pushed the final rule over
    the finish line. In 2008, the House and Senate unanimously
    passed a bill to help prevent back-over accidents, which
    tragically kill more than 200 Americans and injure more than
    15,000 every year. Most often the person injured or killed is a
    young child, too small to be seen in a rearview or sideview
    mirror. Despite a statutory deadline in 2011, a final rule
    would not come until 2014, and then only because of public
    outrage, and yes, litigation.
        When will new passenger vehicles be required to have
    cameras? In 2018, 10 years after the bill became law and
    several years after auto manufacturers voluntarily installed
    cameras on virtually every new car.
        Mr. Weissman, I look forward to hearing more about Public
    Citizen's work to finalize this long-delayed rule.
        When it comes down to it, some in Congress and the
    administration would be fine with indefinitely slowing the
    rulemaking process, leaving Americans, the people that we swore
    to represent, particularly the most vulnerable at risk of
    injury from unsafe products and unscrupulous corporations.
    Please be assured that won't happen without a fight.
        I thank our witnesses for sharing their testimony today,
    and I look forward to this very important discussion.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you. I will hold the record open for five
    legislative days for any members who would like to submit a
    written statement.
        We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
    to welcome the Honorable John Engler, former Governor of the
    State of Michigan; Dr. David Sanders, executive vice president
    of systems improvement for the Casey Family Programs, Seattle
    Washington; and Mr. Robert Weissman, president of Public
    Citizen, Washington, D.C.
        I now recognize Congressman Womack to introduce our last
    witness.
        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the
    chairman and to the ranking members for allowing for this
    testimony here today. At the outset, I would just like to
    associate myself with the remarks of the chairman in his
    opening comment.
        It is not my job here today to pass judgment on the subject
    matter of the activities that are under consideration here
    today. Moreover, it is my intent to introduce a friend and
    somebody that I have an enormous amount of respect for because
    he happens to be the city administrator of the largest city in
    the 3rd District of Arkansas, that being the city of Fort
    Smith.
        His name is Carl Geffken, and he is no stranger to the
    subject matter today because he was hired by the city of
    Reading, Pennsylvania, as a director of finance, and in 2011,
    just for the benefit of the audience here this morning, Reading
    was deemed the poorest city in the United States of America. In
    slightly less than two years' time and after entering the
    Pennsylvania Fiscally Distressed Municipalities Program, the
    city of Reading had a $12 million general fund reserve and a
    revitalized plan to manage its consent decree. The cost of the
    consent decree was reduced from $475 million to $200 million.
        Now, Carl, in his quest to get back into municipality
    government after some time in Berks, Pennsylvania, as a chief
    operating officer, accepted the job as city administrator in
    the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, and inherited a pretty
    egregious consent decree that has strapped the people and the
    administration of the city of Fort Smith.
        It's nearly a half-a-billion dollars in improvements to its
    wastewater treatment facilities over a 12-year period of time,
    and already the citizens of Fort Smith have endured three,
    three rate increases. Median household income is going down,
    the price to pay for its sewer facilities going up.
        So, we are delighted that Carl is here to speak on this
    subject. He speaks with great authority, and we are proud to
    know that he is running the show in the city of Fort Smith,
    Arkansas.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
        I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin
    Islands, Ms. Plaskett, who is the ranking member on the
    Subcommittee for Interior, Energy, and Environment for her
    opening statement.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    calling today's hearing.
        The practice we are discussing today is really very
    unremarkable: enforcement actions by government agencies.
    Congress passes the Nation's Federal laws, and Federal agencies
    must implement them by issuing regulations and enforcing them.
    When those agencies fail to do that, they are in jeopardy of a
    court order requiring them to do so.
        Congress has passed laws allowing citizens to sue Federal
    agencies when they fail to enforce the laws that Congress has
    passed. Because of citizen suits, Americans have had recourse
    when their right to vote has been threatened. Because of
    citizen suits, Americans have had recourse when housing
    discrimination threatened their chance at attaining their piece
    of the American dream. Because of citizen suits, doors have
    literally been open to Americans with disabilities to create a
    more inclusive and accommodating society.
        My colleagues would like to diminish citizens' access to
    court to enforce Federal statutes. Today, the Republican
    justification is that Federal regulations and citizen suits to
    enforce them impose a burden on State Governments. Instead,
    they would leave States alone to comply with Federal law to the
    extent that it is convenient for those States. I say ask the
    people of Flint, Michigan, if that makes sense to them because
    if we have learned nothing else from the tragedy of water
    poisoning in Flint, Michigan, it is that State Governments
    should not be left to their own devices to enforce health and
    safety regulations.
        The Governor's own Health Department director, a member of
    his inner circle and cabinet, has been charged with felonies
    that contributed to the poisoning, so has the Governor's
    appointee who ran the city of Flint under an emergency
    management law. And the Governor has accepted responsibility
    for that tragedy.
        Voting rights, housing laws, education, discrimination, in
    terms of disabilities, all of these things, because of the
    right of citizens to sue to enforce Federal regulations.
        Some States do need help to comply with Federal rules, and
    the Federal Government should provide that support and help. An
    infrastructure bill and funding that addresses the funding
    problems of State and local governments would be a step in the
    right direction. But curbing Federal health and safety
    regulations is not.
        Contrary to what my Republican colleagues might say,
    Federal regulations have a positive impact on the economy. A
    2016 study conducted by OMB looked at a range of regulations
    across the economy and found that their benefits far outweighed
    their costs. OMB said, quote, ``found that a decade's worth of
    major Federal regulations had produced annual benefits to the
    U.S. economy of between $269 billion and $872 billion, while
    imposing aggregate costs between $74 billion to $110 billion.''
        In spite of these facts, congressional Republicans aim to
    diminish the use of citizen suits. That is why I believe we are
    called here to today's hearing, but what we should learn from
    the hearing is the incredible value to the public's health,
    welfare, and environment that Federal regulations and citizen
    suits have had. I really look forward to the lively discussion
    that I know we are going to be having, and thank you again, Mr.
    Chairman, for calling us all to this hearing.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlewoman and now would like to
    welcome our witnesses.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Please be seated. Let the record
    reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        In order to allow time for discussion, we would appreciate
    it if you would please limit your testimony to five minutes.
    Your entire written statement will be made part of the record.
        I would like to recognize now Governor John Engler for his
    testimony.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                        STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGLER

        Mr. Engler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman
    Palmer, Chairman Farenthold, ranking members, subcommittee
    members of the committee--two committees on Oversight and
    Government Reform, thank you for the invitation to appear this
    morning as you continue your examining of sue-and-settle
    agreements. And I appreciate the work of the two subcommittees
    on this important topic, and I'm certainly appreciative of the
    excellent staff who's helped to make the logistics of my
    appearance here this morning so easy.
        I want to begin this morning by quoting from a foreword to
    a publication, Mr. Chairman, you're very familiar with because
    it was prepared by the Alabama--or for the Alabama Policy
    Institute located in Birmingham, Alabama. And I brought a copy
    of it that I--it's entitled ``Consent Decrees in Institutional
    Reform Litigation: Strategies for State Legislatures.'' And I
    think, given that I'm--my background is 20 years as a State
    lawmaker and then 12 years as Governor, I have a distinctly
    State perspective and a strong bias toward a robust Federalist
    system and the role that States and local government play in
    that. And I would like to leave one for the staff so that it
    might be added to the record. I think that it is an important
    document.
        Mr. Engler. And the foreword that I want to quote was
    written in 2008 by then-Senator, now Attorney General Jeff
    Sessions, and maybe it's good to show him some love today. It
    seems maybe in short supply. But Sessions in 2008 wrote this,
    and this is quoting extensively from him: ``One of the most
    dangerous and rarely discussed exercises of raw power is the
    issuance of expansive court decrees. Consent decrees have a
    profound effect on our legal system as they constitute an end
    run around the democratic process. Such decrees are
    particularly offensive when certain governmental agencies
    secretly delight in being sued because they hope a settlement
    will be reached, resulting in the agency receiving more money
    than what the legislative branch or other funding sources would
    otherwise have deemed justified. Thus, the taxpayers ultimately
    fund the settlement enacted through this undemocratic process.
        ``A consent decree is the equivalent of a legislative
    enactment created at the hands of the courts, often less
    subject to modification. By entering into the decrees, current
    State executives such as Governors or Attorneys General can
    bind the hands of future State executives and legislatures. A
    predecessor's consent decree is difficult to alter or end, and,
    in practice, a decree can last for many years, longer than the
    remedy that was needed.''
        Sessions actually went on to describe a remarkable in my
    view and somewhat unimaginable example that he personally dealt
    with when he became Attorney General in Alabama. His
    predecessor had somehow agreed to a consent decree that
    mandated an increase in the number of justices on the State
    Supreme Court in that State. I thought that went pretty far,
    and Sessions viewed that as essentially amending the Alabama
    Constitution. Now, he was, as a new Attorney General,
    successful in taking an appeal and eventually having the
    Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reject that consent decree.
        While the Alabama example, pretty creative example, it is
    the tip of the iceberg, representing merely hundreds of consent
    decrees that cover an array of subjects. And for the most part
    they remain in force today. And the cost of compliance and the
    usurping of State and local decision-making I think will be
    truly stunning when the true scope of the abuse is made known
    by the work that your committees are doing, and that's why I
    was pleased to be able to join you today to put a spotlight on
    the end run around accountability that this litigation often
    represents.
        And I certainly look forward to discussing some of the
    judicial battles that we were engaged in when I was elected
    Governor of Michigan as we sought to end costly consent decrees
    and restore public policymaking to those who were elected to
    the legislative and executive branches.
        Now, winning reform is not going to be easy. Activists,
    they always insist institutional reform litigation, merely
    their effort to impose broad, long-term reform of government
    programs and laws on backward or recalcitrant States or local
    governments, but often the reality is quite a bit different.
    These same activists have made their case, given their
    arguments, and then lost either in elections or in legislative
    forums, and so their last shot at achieving their policy
    objectives is litigation. And then these lawsuits are designed
    to convince State and local governments now to settle through a
    consent decree and you can avoid the long, expensive trial. But
    as I point out in my testimony, there are some real weaknesses
    in that approach.
        Congress has grappled with this in the past. I cite a
    proposal from some years back, but I will not--I'll save that
    for the questions. But I want to just say the bottom line I
    think for Federal policymakers, the State and local governments
    you represent are asking for help, the restoration of their
    right to exercise the powers reserved for them under the
    Constitution. They'd like to be held accountable for their own
    decisions and have those decisions made by men and women who
    actually are elected, and they want policy choices according to
    the wishes of their constituents and set the spending
    priorities based on those choices and be freed from having
    unelected judges, you know, controlling and reporting for years
    to court-appointed monitors who have no accountability.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Engler follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.
        Dr. Sanders?

                       STATEMENT OF DAVID SANDERS

        Mr. Sanders. Good morning. I'm David Sanders, executive
    vice president of Systems Improvement at Casey Family Programs.
    Casey Family Programs is the Nation's largest operating
    foundation focused on foster care and child protection. We work
    directly with child welfare systems in all 50 States, the
    District of Columbia, two U.S. territories, and 16 tribal
    nations.
        Before coming to Casey, I led the child protection systems
    in both Los Angeles and Minneapolis, and I recently served as
    chair of the Federal Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and
    Neglect Fatalities.
        Today, I'd like to provide a national perspective on the
    topic of child protection consent decrees and offer
    observations about system reform, oversight, and support, and
    successful opportunities for improvement.
        Casey Family Programs convened three meetings in 2011,
    2014, and 2016 to discuss this issue. These meetings,
    including--included leaders and staff from child protection
    agencies who had been sued who were under consent decrees, in-
    house counsel, Attorney General offices, and others. Before I
    share what we learned during these meetings, I'd like to
    provide some context.
        Over a period of 40 years, class-action lawsuits have
    governed some aspect of child welfare or child protection
    practice in nearly 30 States. Numerous jurisdictions have had
    multiple lawsuits filed against them. The consent decrees have
    an average lifespan of 16.8 years, but some have been in place
    for decades.
        Currently, about 15 States are operating under a consent
    decree. Only two have exited successfully--Alabama and Utah--
    and most recently, Tennessee just announced its exit from
    Federal oversight after 17 years. However, the terms of
    Tennessee's exit agreement include oversight of the agency by
    an independent commission for 18 months.
        Here are some important insights from States. First,
    consent decrees can place large demands on State in terms of
    both cost and time. We estimate that the legal monitoring and
    consulting fees can reach or surpass $15 million on average.
        Second, States often felt the consent decrees were cookie-
    cutter agreements that didn't adequately address the unique
    challenges facing their communities and systems.
        Third, the measures that systems are obliged to monitor are
    often inconsistent with current best practices defined under
    the Child and Family Service Reviews developed by the U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services. In many cases, it's
    because the measures predate these critical Federal benchmarks.
    At the same time, the measures are significantly more difficult
    to achieve than the Federal measures.
        In working with States, it's become clear that, by their
    very nature, consent decrees are based on process measures
    instead of outcomes measures, in other words, how things are
    done versus what the outcomes actually are for children. And
    more importantly, because the decrees essentially lock child
    welfare services in place, the eight States are unable to use
    system flexibility and adopt new and improved practices.
        The bottom line is this: Consent decrees have not led to
    improved outcomes for children. We believe a better-balanced
    approach that recognizes the right of States and plaintiffs and
    uses alternative oversight mechanisms will be important.
        Overall, we should create a more productive path for child
    welfare agencies to address the needs of their system in a
    problem-solving approach that involve Governors, legislators,
    the judiciary, other agencies, the community, and advocates.
    The use of evidence-based practice, knowledge of brain science
    and trauma, the special attention needed for certain
    populations like very young children, the need for cross-agency
    coordination, the importance of partnerships with the
    community, and the ever-evolving use of technology and data,
    including to help us identify who's at greater risk--at greater
    risk for maltreatment in the future are fundamentally changing
    the path to success for child welfare systems. Reform efforts
    should have processes in place to adapt to these new
    opportunities.
        Which brings me to my final point. Child welfare cannot
    serve the needs of all children and families who are or may
    become at risk. Many of the children and families who are
    involved with child welfare agencies are already known to other
    agencies beyond the child protection system itself. But consent
    decrees place responsibility for performance and improvement
    solely on the child welfare agency. Child safety is a community
    responsibility, and any discussion of the merit or challenges
    of consent decrees ought to consider how to best support
    collaboration and shared responsibility as a means of achieving
    successful reform without the necessity of a lawsuit.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Sanders follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes Mr. Weissman for his testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF ROBERT WEISSMAN

        Mr. Weissman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In 2002, Dr. Greg Gulbransen was backing his SUV into his
    driveway. As he did every evening, he paused, looked in his
    rearview mirror, looked over his shoulder, saw nothing behind
    him, and backed into the driveway. What he didn't see was that
    his two-year-old son Cameron had run into the driveway behind
    him, and he backed over his son and killed him. It's
    unimaginable.
        Dr. Gulbransen I would say is a hero of mine. I don't think
    I could have survived that, but he did and chose to turn his
    tragedy into a crusade to make sure that other parents didn't
    suffer the same horror that he did. He lobbied this Congress
    and in 2008 succeeded in getting passed the Cameron Gulbransen
    Act, which required automakers to adopt technologies to prevent
    that from every happening again. That technology existed then
    and it exists now. We're familiar with it. It's effectively
    rearview cameras in cars.
        The legislation that this Congress adopted required the
    Department of Transportation to adopt a rule by 2011 to force
    automakers to install this technology and to prevent this
    horror from happening in the future.
        The Department of Transportation did not act by 2011.
    Instead, it gave itself four extensions, although it was unable
    to show, as the statute requires, that there was some reason
    for those extensions.
        In 2013, my organization Public Citizen sued the Department
    of Transportation to force it to comply with the rule and the
    deadline established by this Congress.
        In 2014, although we did not settle the case, it was
    dismissed because the agency finally committed to do what the
    Congress had required it to do, years later.
        The consequence of that delay is that we have a lot more
    Cameron Gulbransens. We have hundreds of children. We may not
    know their names, as we do Cameron, but they were run over in
    preventable accidents. That's what it means when regulations
    aren't issued on time, as required by this Congress. Now, this
    is actually a small example, but it's a heart-wrenching one.
        As I explain in my written testimony, regulations adopted
    pursuant to congressional action save this country enormous
    amounts of money, they make our economy stronger, they protect
    the lives of Americans, prevent corporate rip-offs, and achieve
    a variety of social aims.
        Unfortunately, agencies are growing slower in issuing new
    regulations. My written testimony discusses research we've done
    on this. For substantial regulations, it is very difficult for
    an agency to get a rule done in the course of a single
    presidential term.
        Delays aren't just growing; they are the norm when it comes
    to statutory deadlines. Those are deadlines required by this
    Congress. The agencies routinely fail to meet those deadlines.
    When they do fail to meet the deadlines established by this
    Congress, organizations like mine are proud to step in and
    enforce the standards, the deadlines that you have established.
    We did that in the Cameron Gulbransen case. We do it in others.
        Those deadline suits or enforcement suits hold agencies
    accountable to the Congress and help achieve the important
    objectives that Congress has sought to do. They do not lock the
    agencies into any substantive outcome. They only force the
    agencies to comply with schedules already determined by this
    Congress. They don't actually comply; they just comply less
    slowly than they otherwise would. These are lawsuits that the
    Congress should both embrace and appreciate as enforcement
    mechanisms for the laws that you have passed.
        I want to say just a final quick word on the issue
    generally of settlements apart from enforcement or deadline
    suits. As I discuss in my testimony, I think there are some
    serious issues at the Department of Justice regarding where is
    an enforcement agency and entering into settlements or not
    prosecuting corporations for wrongdoing. I think there is
    bipartisan--there's been expressed bipartisan concern about
    that issue, whether it's civil settlements or deferred or non-
    prosecution agreements regarding big banks and other large
    corporations, and I think that would be an area of very
    fruitful investigation by this committee.
        Thank you very much.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Weissman follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize Mr. Geffken for his testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF CARL E. GEFFKEN

        Mr. Geffken. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairmen Palmer and Farenthold, I am pleased to join you
    and your fellow subcommittee members for today's important
    hearing on public policy considerations behind Federal
    litigation settlements. On behalf of the city of Fort Smith,
    Arkansas, I want to thank the committee for allowing me to
    share with you our experiences regarding the Fort Smith consent
    decree with the EPA and the State of Arkansas. I can assure you
    the city has taken this consent decree seriously. In fact, not
    only has the city raised its sewer rates 167 percent in three
    years, but it also has complied with all the provisions
    contained in the consent decree to date.
        We seek successful implementation of all sewer utility
    improvements within the consent decree. However, the city has
    major concerns about future compliance because aspects of it
    are unattainable for the city.
        Fort Smith has a population of 87,351, but it is also a
    regional metropolitan center in northwestern Arkansas of about
    300,000 and the largest manufacturing hub in the State.
    Unfortunately, it has experienced some manufacturing setbacks
    due to business relocation and foreclosure. Twenty-nine percent
    of Fort Smith's population live below the Federal poverty line,
    while the national average is 14.7 percent. One of more
    troubling statistics is the fact that the median household
    income for the city is decreasing.
        When the consent decree was finalized in 2015, the MHI was
    $37,600, 32 percent lower than the national average. Today,
    Fort Smith's MHI is now projected to be $33,500, 11 percent
    lower than two years ago. While our resident's incomes dropped
    11 percent, the sewer utility bills have increased 167 percent
    to pay for the initial work on the consent decree.
        Leading up to the consent decree, the city was under an
    administrative order with the EPA, one of the oldest active
    administrative orders in the country. However, the city was
    actively attempting to improve the compliance issues raised by
    the EPA by investing $200 million in its sewer infrastructure.
    Unfortunately, having one of the oldest administrative orders
    may have made us a target for enforcement.
        Despite our willingness to comply, the Department of
    Justice and the Arkansas State Attorney General browbeat and
    coerced Fort Smith into accepting a consent decree. The city
    was presented with two options: spending millions in legal fees
    required to contest the consent decree or accept it.
        The consent decree has many features and requirements in it
    that are typical of many other decrees. However, there are six
    items in the consent decree the city believes are not realistic
    and need modifying. The six items are, first, the city has only
    12 years to complete the consent decree; however, there are at
    least 12 cities who were granted 20 to 25 years to comply.
        Second, the consent decree contains a detailed and
    prescribed list of tasks that must be performed over the 12
    years. It does not allow for adequate flexibility or an
    iterative approach to maximize public benefits with limited
    dollars available.
        Third, the cost of the consent decree exceeds the Federal
    guideline of 2 percent of median household income. The sewer
    portion alone of the city's utility bill is already at 2.2
    percent of MHI, and rates will need to increase further in
    order to complete the consent decree. Funds over and above the
    amount needed for the consent decree will be needed for non-
    consent decree projects.
        Fourth, stipulated penalties in consent decrees are
    counterintuitive. Assessing penalties is a tool to change
    behavior. However, Fort Smith worked on sewer issues prior to
    the consent decree. When a city is complying with its consent
    decree, assessing penalties only reduces the funds available to
    comply in the future.
        Fifth, Fort Smith's consent decree is flawed in that there
    is a set, fixed time to complete it, but the ultimate scope of
    the projects and the actual cost of these projects was unknown
    when the consent decree was finalized.
        And sixth, the consent decree requires Fort Smith to repair
    structural problems instead of focusing on spending those
    dollars where it will have the greatest impact.
        The city shares its experiences and concerns with both
    subcommittees to show that Fort Smith has made every effort to
    comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. The city is spending a
    great deal of time, money, and effort on the consent decree.
    However, the current consent decree has a price tag of over
    $450 million. That makes it the single largest project in the
    city's history, and it is more than two years of Fort Smith's
    total budget for all government functions. In addition, the
    cost of this agreement has resulted in utility rate fatigue
    amongst our residents.
        As the Fort Smith sewer utility rates rise, our city
    becomes less competitive for private economic investment. What
    company would choose a city in which sewer utility rates are
    three to four times higher than non-consent decree cities? This
    results in cities becoming poorer and exacerbates decreasing
    investments in cities. It is an unrealistic attempt to coerce
    compliance. Cities in consent decrees become less able to
    comply financially.
        The modification that we will eventually propose to the EPA
    will be aggressive in compliance, affordable to the community,
    and provide the greatest public benefits for the dollars
    invested.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share the Fort Smith
    perspective on Federal consent decrees, and I will be pleased
    to answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Geffken follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Palmer. I thank the witnesses for the testimony.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Duncan, for five minutes.
        Mr. Duncan has left the hearing.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar,
    for questions for five minutes.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we talk about sue-and-settle and their associated cost,
    I want to focus a little bit on the EPA. In the last few years,
    we have seen the EPA run rampant, imposing extraordinary costs
    on States. We know that the EPA and other Federal agencies
    collect fines and enforce penalties when consent decrees have
    been violated. Mr. Geffken, do you know where these fines go
    once they are collected?
        Mr. Geffken. Representative, I believe they go into the
    Federal coffers. I know when Fort Smith entered its consent
    decree, it had to pay $300,000, and the main goal of our--of
    the consent decree relates to sewer sanitary system overflows,
    and we were hit with stipulated penalties that were thankfully
    waived after much pushing back, but that was to go into the
    Federal coffers back to the EPA.
        Mr. Gosar. Into the EPA ----
        Mr. Geffken. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gosar.--specifically?
        Mr. Geffken. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. Okay. Now, do you ever receive assistance
    through Federal grants to assist in being compliant?
        Mr. Geffken. No, sir, neither in the city of Reading, nor
    in the city of Fort Smith. The only benefits we can get are
    usually from the States if they have available funds.
        Mr. Gosar. Are you aware of any other municipality getting
    any type of grant to assist them?
        Mr. Geffken. No, sir.
        Mr. Gosar. Okay. So other than being fined for
    noncompliance and then being stuck with the bill to fix the
    problem, how else can consent decrees be duplicative?
        Mr. Geffken. One more time, sir?
        Mr. Gosar. So being fined for noncompliance and then being
    stuck with a bill to fix the problem, how else are consent
    decrees duplicative?
        Mr. Geffken. They--well, that's--your first example is the
    most telling, that we're having to spend $450 million and then,
    while we're in the consent decree, if there is a violation,
    which we could be charged a stipulated penalty.
        But in terms of other duplicative actions, you know, there
    are areas that we already have NPDES permit levels, and that is
    one area that we have the consent decree that requires certain
    actions, and yet there are certain--there are other compliance
    avenues that we have that duplicate the need to update and
    maintain our system.
        Mr. Gosar. Now, we have obviously seen a number of changes
    with the new administration, so how have things differed
    between the last administration and this one?
        Mr. Geffken. At this point I can honestly say that we have
    seen a greater benefit to having discussions and a willingness
    to take our requests under consideration.
        Mr. Gosar. So more flexibility?
        Mr. Geffken. Yes, more flexibility.
        Mr. Gosar. Isn't it true that the EPA, under the direction
    of Administrator Scott Pruitt, recently waived all penalties
    owned by the city of Fort Smith?
        Mr. Geffken. That is correct.
        Mr. Gosar. Now, can you explain the impact these fines make
    both in terms of the additional fees associated with them and
    in terms of being waived?
        Mr. Geffken. Well, we had the--we were going to be assessed
    approximately $400,000 for violating the corrective actions
    that are in the consent decree, and that was reduced to
    $120,900. And we spoke with the EPA and the Department of
    Justice, and they were able to waive that after much
    discussion. We were very grateful for that flexibility, but it
    is still--that is money that's taken away from doing other
    work. We offered to spend that money to clean sewer lines in
    order to go on green projects, and it was denied until such
    time as there was a change in the direction and greater
    flexibility.
        Mr. Gosar. Now, many times specialists are called in to
    investigate as well. Do you know how many of these cases are
    settled at a rate inconsistent with the manner set forward with
    Congress?
        Mr. Geffken. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that one.
        Mr. Gosar. Yes. Do you know how many of these cases are
    settled at a rate consistent with the manner set forward from
    Congress?
        Mr. Geffken. Well, many of them actually do result in
    consent decrees.
        Mr. Gosar. Right.
        Mr. Geffken. Instead of moving forward and looking to go
    through the legislative path, we wind up having cities that are
    poorer like Reading and starting to look like Fort Smith that
    are having to take their scarce resources and put them in one
    project instead of being able to spend it on many different
    areas that the city needs.
        Mr. Gosar. Yes. What I am alluding to is in many cases in a
    sue-and-settle application and particularly highlighting maybe
    an endangered species, what ends up happening, we don't see a
    rate that is being utilized that is consistent with Congress.
    What we see is specialists actually being jacked up because
    there are only so many people that have so many--have the
    expertise in certain areas. And it is very inconsistent with
    what Congress.
        Last but not least, in our first question in talking about
    fees, I don't think Congress dictates how the agency actually
    spends those. They are up to the agencies' flexibility to
    whatever they would like to do, and so that is problematic in
    that regards to perpetuating certain agenda items that may not
    be consistent with what Congress. Giving you an example of that
    is the Waters of the U.S. Here, you had parts of five Supreme
    Court rulings defying the EPA even going to that aspect, and
    yet they still did. And so once again, it took an action by the
    States to reel them back in to actually stop the promulgation
    of a false type of narrative.
        So I want to thank you very, very much for your testimony
    today, and with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
    Florida and ranking member, Mrs. Demings, for her questions.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weissman, I want to take just a few minutes to discuss
    the benefits of rulemaking as it pertains to public health.
    According to the Center for Disease Control, foodborne
    illnesses contribute to about 48 million illnesses, 128,000
    hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths per year. The Food Safety
    Modernization Act is one of the most pivotal pieces of
    legislation that transformed our food safety industry.
    President Obama signed it, as I am sure you know, in 2011.
        Mr. Weissman, how will the Food Safety Modernization Act
    help to prevent foodborne illnesses and prevent the loss of
    economic activity attributable to sicknesses and deaths caused
    by those illnesses?
        Mr. Weissman. Well, thank you, Ranking Member.
        The act was passed after an amazing series of outbreaks of
    disease, salmonella, listeria, and other outbreaks. Because
    neither the--no agency, including USDA or FDA, had proper
    authority to ensure cleanliness in the fields and in processing
    factories. The Food Safety Modernization Act gave new
    authorities to the agencies, required them to issue some rules,
    which, as an aside, they were slow in issuing but is projected
    to save really thousands of lives by cleaning up our food
    supply.
        And I think in this case, as in many others--and your
    question alludes to this--the benefit is not just to the people
    who will avoid being sick, which is reason enough. There are
    massive economic benefits as well. When the cantaloupe industry
    is suddenly hit with an outbreak and no one buys cantaloupes,
    it affects the farmers, it affects the workers in the fields,
    it affects the stores that are selling the food, it affects the
    restaurants that wanted to serve dishes made with cantaloupe.
    It really goes all the way up, as it were, the food chain. It
    has broad economic impact.
        Mrs. Demings. You led, Mr. Weissman, with the story of
    Cameron Gulbransen, and you are right; it is a small example.
    He was two years old. But certainly, his death will have major
    lasting impact. Once the Kids Transportation Safety Act was
    passed, the transportation industry delayed implementing it.
    So, Mr. Weissman, what does history teach us? Why can't we just
    rely on the industry to prevent health and safety problems
    without Federal laws and regulations?
        Mr. Weissman. Well, on this, the history is overwhelming.
    Self-regulation will not work. The--although industry is
    incredibly innovative and sometimes on its own introduces
    lifesaving innovations, by and large, it also has a history of
    covering up defects in a wide array of products, failing to
    adopt new technologies that could save lives or protecting the
    environment, and responds primarily to new government mandates.
    When it does so, the retrospective analysis shows the costs are
    dramatically less than the industry insisted they would be,
    almost without exception, but the benefits are really enormous.
    There are endless examples of this, including many in the auto
    industry.
        In addition to this issue that we talk about with rearview
    cameras, we just think about the many abuses in the auto
    industry in recent years, including the GM ignition switch
    disaster where they covered up for at least six years and
    potentially longer what they knew about a flaw in their car
    leading to, as they've acknowledged, 174 preventable deaths,
    potentially many more.
        Now, people who were involved in accidents relating to that
    defect were prosecuted personally for manslaughter or for
    unsafe driving or sometimes driving under the influence. The
    problem wasn't the driver; the problem was the manufacturer.
    The manufacturer was not criminally prosecuted. They got off
    with a deferred prosecution and a payment of $900 million, a
    lot to you and me but not to them and, again, evidence both of
    their recklessness and their readiness to cover up safety
    problems unless forced by government to do the right thing.
        Mrs. Demings. Thank you so very much. Mr. Chairman, thank
    you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from
    North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, for her questions.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today and shedding light on this very
    important issue to all of us.
        Governor Engler and City Administrator Geffken, I would
    like to ask you a question. States are responsible for the
    administration of many Federal programs, including medical
    insurance, environment projects, housing, and food stamps. In
    fact, the Chamber of Commerce found that States administer 96.5
    percent of all Federal delegated environment programs, yet
    Federal categorical grants to States fund no more than 28
    percent of the amounts needed to run the programs. Can you
    explain how consent decrees compound the problem of Federal
    unfunded mandates? Governor Engler and then Administrator?
        Mr. Engler. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this is--you
    put your finger right on one of the real important abuses that
    exist. There are Federal mandates. Special education was one
    where there was a promise initially that, as you're familiar,
    half that was going to be funded by the Federal Government. I
    don't know that funding has ever exceeded, you know, 20 percent
    of the total cost. It's--but there are efforts then to use the
    litigation at the State level--and I'm--I know we're talking a
    lot about Federal laws and Federal agency rulemaking, but at
    the State level, it's a different issue. And your question goes
    to the heart of it.
        The litigation is designed to push the State into setting
    different spending priorities on the basis of which activist
    group happens to be pursing the litigation. It could be an
    education, it could be over in the environmental area, it could
    be a prisoners' rights group, but this is a process that we
    call the appropriations process at the State level where
    committees of the House and Senate fight these things out with
    the Governor's budget.
        The consent decree is an effort to come in on top of that,
    and one of the things that I--was in my testimony I will just
    stress, you have to look at who these parties are. Sometimes,
    in the legislature there's a difference between the two parties
    and we may have a different priority than the Governor but we--
    we've seen examples, and I can recall one where the corrections
    agency couldn't get what they wanted in the legislature,
    actually encouraged the litigation against the Department. The
    Department then says, oh, we've been sued; we better settle.
    They reach an agreement, which is to do exactly what they
    couldn't do politically in the legislature. Then they show up
    back at the legislature saying, hey, we've got a court order;
    we've--you have no choice. And at that point you don't.
        In my case, I happened to later on get elected Governor and
    went back to court to say we need to be freed from these
    consent decrees. And these were consent decrees--in Michigan's
    case, I got elected in 1990. One of these started in 1977; the
    others started in 1984.
        So to get to your question, whether it's education or any
    of these other areas, this is all a fight about spending
    priorities and who gets to decide, and I always come down on
    the side of let those who get elected fight these fights out.
    They're political questions. They're not legal questions unless
    there's an assertion there's been a deprivation of some
    federally constitutionally protected right, and in many of
    these cases, I think that's a very dubious proposition.
        Ms. Foxx. Mr. Geffken?
        Mr. Geffken. Thank you, Representative Foxx.
        In the case of the consent decree dealing with wastewater
    and stormwater issues, we believe that the EPA has pressured
    the States to step aside from their primary enforcement role
    and relinquish that back to EPA. And then the problem that we
    have with consent decrees is that both the Department of
    Justice and EPA, they do want comprehensive relief and not have
    the continued time--they don't want to spend continued time or
    money on overseeing these massive programs. And so frequently,
    rather than allowing communities to develop an integrated or
    innovative program, let's say, in five-year increments, they
    want 20 or 25, unfortunately, only 12 in the case of the city
    of Fort Smith.
        And so you wind up getting caught up and your hands are
    tied that in the case of Fort Smith, we see where we now need--
    where we need to spend our money on improving the goal of the
    consent decree because we do believe in making sure that there
    is clean water. However, we are required to replace pipes that
    are ranked on a specific and agreed-upon scale that if it's a
    problem of four or five, the pipe needs to be replaced. It may
    not be causing an issue yet, but it must be replaced due to the
    consent decree instead of allowing us to focus where we can
    have the greatest bang for the buck.
        The problem we're looking at is that we agree with the
    Clean Water Act. We want to make sure our residents have clean
    water and that everything is handled and treated properly, but
    the cure in some instances is killing the patient.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from
    the Virgin Islands, Ms. Plaskett, for her questions.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Geffken, although you are from Arkansas and my first
    husband is from Arkansas so I have a bias against it, Arkansas
    has been good to me. One of my sons is a graduate of University
    of Arkansas Pine Bluff in applied mathematics, so--but one of
    the things that you said is very intriguing to me and I would
    love to find a colleague across the aisle who might be
    interested in working on this issue is when you talk about the
    fines in the consent decrees and that they are going
    specifically to the Federal Government.
        While I understand the punitive impetus in creating those
    fines, I think that for areas like your own and I know in the
    Virgin Islands that those fines mean that there is less money
    to actually do the work that needs to be done. And so if there
    is a way that we can, through legislation, work on some of
    these areas being able to be fined necessarily but that money
    somehow be funneled back into working on the issues that the
    consent decree is for, I would be happy to work with someone on
    something like that. I think that is really important.
        EPA has created fines for the Virgin Islands that are very,
    very restrictive to us growing our economy, and so that is
    something that I hear you on and would be willing to support
    you, despite being from Arkansas.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Plaskett. But, Mr. Weissman, I wanted to thank you for
    your testimony as well and wanted to talk with you about the
    economic importance and the economic rather detriment or
    contribution that consent decrees have had. That is something
    that is very, very important to me, and I think that, as
    lawmakers, in creating these laws, that is something that we
    require to be done on the front end.
        It has been your testimony and studies that we have been
    looking at in the Office of Management and Budget has found
    that major Federal regulations have produced annual benefits to
    the U.S. economy of between $269 billion and $872 billion. Mr.
    Weissman, does this surprise you that the net impact, the net
    impact of Federal regulations is positive, meaning there is an
    overall economic benefit to those regulations?
        Mr. Weissman. It's--you're correct, and it's not surprising
    to me both because I'm aware well of that data, which, as you
    say, shows, depending on the range, benefits exceed costs of--
    by 2-1/2 to 1 or maybe as much as 12 to 1 over the decade
    period that you're referring to, so 12 to 1 is quite
    substantial.
        Ms. Plaskett. So can I ask, when we talk about--I mean,
    there are costs, and we have heard testimony today about the
    costs, which are real. How does that economic benefit actually
    take place, and where is that benefit being felt? Where does it
    play itself out in our economy?
        Mr. Weissman. Well, there are a lot of areas. The benefits
    are generally diffused. They're not focused on individual
    persons or individual corporations. They may be the benefits of
    averted illness, averted asthma, averted death in the case of
    the Cameron Gulbransen Act that we were talking about. They may
    be in consumer savings by the introduction of generic drugs,
    for example. They may be in the area of averted harm to the
    economy in the area of many of the Dodd-Frank rules. They may
    be savings to consumers by preventing rip-offs, and on and on.
        It's worth pointing out that the regulatory processes that
    currently exist requirements what some might say--and this is
    prior to the Trump Administration--an excessive focus on costs.
    It is almost never the case that an agency proceeds with a
    rulemaking where the costs, as defined in a corporate-friendly
    way, exceed the benefits.
        There are about two examples that I'm aware of over the
    last decade, and in those cases, Congress required the agencies
    to act. It's also--I'll pause there.
        Ms. Plaskett. So, you know, you are talking then about the
    requirements. I know that Congress itself requirements the cost
    of prospective regulations be considered before a final rule is
    ordered, and additionally--excuse me--OMB's annual report to
    Congress on agency compliance requires that each agency conduct
    a cost-benefit analysis and select the least-costly, most cost-
    effective or least-burdensome alternative before promulgating
    any proposed or final rule that may result in expenditures of
    more than $100 million in at least one year by State, local,
    tribal governments or by private sectors.
        So the Federal agencies are already required to do
    extensive economic analysis prior to issuing those regulations?
        Mr. Weissman. Yes. It varies by agency, by statute, and how
    the OIRA rules apply, but the general statement that agencies
    are required to look hard at costs before proceeding is
    correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And it appears I have run out of
    time. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentlewoman yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana, Mr.
    Gianforte, for his questions.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes, Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member.
        My questions are for Mr. Geffken. Were you aware that the
    Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division
    identified the city of Fort Smith as, quote, ``the most
    important case'' in all the settlements they negotiated by the
    division in 2015?
        Mr. Geffken. Thank you, Representative Gianforte. I did not
    know that. That is troubling to a city administrator because
    the board of directors approved the consent decree
    begrudgingly. When you have the world's largest law firm coming
    down and saying that, well, if you don't accept this, I have
    the complaint ready to be filed immediately. From my
    experience, I would have called them on that. I did not know
    that that is what it was.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes. And in the fiscal year 2015
    Accomplishments Report the Department of Justice wrote, quote,
    ``The city of Fort Smith agreed to spend what it estimates to
    be more than $480 million,'' end quote, on upgrades to its
    sewer system and $700,000 in civil penalties and costs. Do you
    believe that the EPA and the Department of Justice targeted
    Fort Smith with the intent to pressure the city into a consent
    decree?
        Mr. Geffken. I would have to answer in the affirmative on
    that. I mean, we did have the oldest administrative order
    outstanding. However, we did have--we did spend over $200
    million to come into compliance. And we had replied to the EPA
    on several occasions, but as is wont of happening, you do not
    get much reply back. We've asked many times who else has a
    consent decree that is only 12 years? Who else has a consent
    decree where the bill, the cost is already over 2 percent of
    median household income? We have yet to receive any of that
    information ourselves.
        So, to say that Fort Smith was targeted, I mean, I would
    believe so. The--in many instances it's good to make an example
    of someone, but unfortunately, the Federal consent decree will
    cost each and every household in Fort Smith over $15,000.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes. And also in your comments you said,
    quote, that the Justice Department ``browbeat and coerced Fort
    Smith into accepting this consent decree.'' What are some of
    the ways that they did that?
        Mr. Geffken. Well, as I mentioned before, one of the
    largest ways that--during the negotiations that if there was a
    contentious point, the city and its attorney were told that if
    you don't accept it, the complaint is already written and we'll
    just go ahead and file it. And this being my second consent
    decree, I wasn't there, but I have done a lot of my research
    with the city's attorneys and the staff that were there, and
    when you have the Department of Justice and the--at the time
    the former State Attorney General saying you need to take this,
    you need to accept this, it's very hard for a city that's on
    its own, you know, 87,000 people to try to say no to the United
    States Government, or the United States, as they're referred
    to.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes. And you also mentioned--you told the
    committee that, prior to entering into the consent decree, the
    EPA had sent you a letter acknowledging and thanking the city
    for the work it had performed prior to that point.
        Mr. Geffken. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gianforte. When did the EPA and the Department of
    Justice's approach to Fort Smith shift from a collaborative
    relationship to one that was more antagonistic?
        Mr. Geffken. I believe that was the 2013 time period is
    when that shift came. There was also a change in the staff
    assigned to the Fort Smith case at the Department of Justice.
    And so it did go from a more collaborative ``let's work
    together.'' And just as Representative Plaskett may know, that
    in Arkansas, the majority of funding is raised through sales
    tax, not through property tax as in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
    New York where I'm from. So, the citizens approved a 1 cent
    sales tax to pay off debt, which is a large commitment by such
    a small city to raise $200 million.
        Mr. Gianforte. And just to put a point on it, if you could
    just summarize very quickly, what are some of the ways that
    consent decree has harmed the community of Fort Smith,
    particularly the lower-income families?
        Mr. Geffken. Well, you know, we have people--we have
    residents that worry when their rent for their, you know,
    husband, wife--and it is literally two children will go from
    $350 to $450 per month ----
        Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank ----
        Mr. Geffken.--and then ----
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Geffken.
        Mr. Geffken. Thank you.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes. I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
    Clay, for questions.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The underlying issue of this hearing is the value of civic
    participation. Citizen suits are an avenue for Americans to
    right wrongs and compel the government to do better. When
    Americans bring attention to agency noncompliance, they act as
    an extension of their government, a lever to enforce the laws.
    Republicans would like to discourage that. If they get their
    way, they will foreclose a channel that has literally saved
    lives, not to mention money.
        Mr. Weissman, what are some chief benefits from successful
    citizen suits?
        Mr. Weissman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clay. The example I
    highlighted is one. I highlight in my testimony another 20-year
    effort on the part of my organization to have a rule issued
    requiring new truck drivers to be adequately trained. In the
    environmental area, citizen suits are quite common to enforce,
    again, congressionally made law and congressionally established
    deadlines, particularly in the clean air area with many lives
    saved and asthma attacks averted.
        The list is really very, very long, and it's--
    unfortunately, it's so long because there should be no need for
    these suits. These are suits, again, just to enforce what
    Congress has directed the agencies to do.
        Mr. Clay. And thank you for that response. You know, some
    of the legislation congressional Republicans support would
    delay the rulemaking process, make agency action more expensive
    or impractical. The main goal is to do away with consent
    decrees, yet continuing litigation can often be far costlier
    than settling. I know a little bit about consent decrees
    because I represent Ferguson, Missouri. And we entered into a
    consent decree last year with the Justice Department that made
    significant changes to the way the criminal justice system was
    conducted in that community, and it has reaped benefits for
    that community.
        So, Mr. Weissman, can you elaborate on the cost-
    effectiveness of consent decrees?
        Mr. Weissman. Thank you, sir. Well, you know, in regard to
    the consent decrees involving local and State Governments, I'm
    sure there are many examples and some cited here where things
    have gone awry, but the predicate for all of those lawsuits is
    the failure by a State or local government to comply with
    federally established rights. That's for sure what was
    happening in Ferguson, as well as in many police departments
    around the country. I think there is overwhelming agreement
    that those consent decrees, not unimportant, have meaningfully
    improved police performance in cities across the country.
        Mr. Clay. They certainly have. And, Dr. Sanders, thank you
    for your work in the foster care space at the Casey Foundation
    that impacts so many lives in such a meaningful way. You have
    seen firsthand how States have devoted more resources to foster
    care programs in response to consent decrees, correct?
        Mr. Sanders. That's correct.
        Mr. Clay. And it sounds like in this context foster youth
    are positively impacted when States in crisis are forced to act
    via consent decrees? Do you agree?
        Mr. Sanders. I would agree in some cases. In other cases,
    it doesn't appear that there have actually been improvements
    for children, their--improvements in their outcomes.
        Mr. Clay. Well, and I would think that that would be
    debatable because we know of--we all know of some atrocities
    that occur in the system, so anything that improves that, that
    protects the lives of those young people has to be beneficial.
    You know, Congress should not continue down a path that weakens
    civil participation and citizens' abilities to stand up for
    their rights. And I would hope that if we get anything out of
    this hearing, Mr. Chairman, is that citizens still need to
    participate in our process in an open process.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman for that last point.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Grothman, for his questions.
        Mr. Grothman. Well, Dr. Sanders, I will keep you going
    here. You cite in your testimony that child welfare consent
    decrees work against the people that are trying to help. Can
    you give us examples or elaborate on that a little bit?
        Mr. Sanders. Over the last 15 years, there have been
    numerous developments in brain science, in research around
    predictive analytics, other efforts that have resulted in
    improvements in the ability of government agencies to protect
    children. The consent decrees often lock States into agreements
    that were made at a point in time and don't allow the kind of
    flexibility that can be implemented to increase the likelihood
    that children will be protected.
        So, examples would include some of the States like
    Tennessee that were sued more than 15 years ago and aren't able
    to implement some of the research changes that have occurred
    more recently to improve lives of children.
        Mr. Grothman. Let's take an example of a kid. We will call
    him Joshua, you know, a fictional kid maybe, but Joshua, a
    child who--how would we deal with him without the consent
    decree and because of the consent decree, how are we dealing
    with him, hurting him?
        Mr. Sanders. I may take the liberty and suggest that part
    of the solution would be if there were an ability to modify the
    consent decrees more regularly based on changes in Federal
    regulation, changes in State performance, et cetera. That
    doesn't happen as much as we think it should.
        So, in Joshua's case, it's quite possible that Joshua, as a
    result of the consent decree, would be seen more frequently by
    a social worker. What might not happen is that Joshua's social
    worker would be better trained in trauma-informed practice,
    which is emerging as a way to keep children safe. And so the
    visits might occur, but the actual improvements in Joshua's
    performance and by the social worker may not occur.
        Mr. Grothman. Can you give me an example of, say, in
    Joshua's case this is what happens to him under the consent
    decree and this is what we would be able to do differently?
        Mr. Sanders. So under the consent decree we can assure that
    the State will send a social worker out to see Joshua. Under a
    consent decree, that would occur. What would not occur is that
    that social worker may be trained in new techniques that would
    result in Joshua actually being safer.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. In New Jersey in 2004 because of a
    consent decree, the State invested billions of dollars in its
    child welfare program, but they still haven't been able to exit
    their consent decree. In March of this year the Federal judge
    overseeing the case called New Jersey's program a national
    model. If the program is really so successful according to the
    Federal judge, why hasn't the State been able to exit from the
    consent decree?
        Mr. Sanders. I'm not entirely sure. What I speculate based
    on knowing something about New Jersey is that there are
    measures that have not yet been achieved that were part of the
    initial settlement agreement, and there is a continuing need to
    improve on specific measures that were agreed to at the time
    and that there is not 100 percent compliance.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Governor Engler, I think the whole
    problem here with consent decrees is it kind of gets at our
    whole form of government, okay? Like it or not, every November
    and spring elections, people show up and vote for people who
    they want to have vote on our laws. The idea behind consent
    decrees is that this system of elections doesn't work very
    well, and we'd be better off determining our laws when some
    bureaucrats and judges and lawyers get together and decide what
    they will be, right? So it is kind of--the whole idea is
    opposed to kind of our whole form of government. But can you
    give us some examples of consent decrees that you think were
    damaging to Michigan in your term as Governor?
        Mr. Engler. Sure. We had a Federal judge--this started in
    1977, but Judge Feikens, the late Judge John Feikens was in
    charge of the women's prisons in Michigan, and he referred to
    those as his women and he was very solicitous about what needed
    to be done in those prisons and he had lots of opinions. And we
    had a monitor that he had appointed, and basically, he was in
    charge of the prisons. He was setting policy and instructing us
    to, you know, follow that.
        We had another judge who was dealing with prisoners who
    were dealing with mental illness, and in that case, when I
    became Governor, we were being fined I think $25,000 a day was
    the suggested fine for the State because of the previous
    administration failing to comply with the consent decree.
        In both of those cases, what I found from our corrections
    experts, the people running the department, is that they
    thought having to take the temperature of the oatmeal being
    served or to be monitoring the temperature of the showers or a
    number of other reporting requirements were imposed had gone
    far beyond the pale. And they were arguing that you had
    differences in opinion respecting different philosophies I
    suppose that--of how we ought to run this system. And we even
    had at a point a requirement that we could only put one person
    in a cell, which we had--we thought that was pretty limiting in
    terms of our prison capacity.
        The latest one, which I made the decision as Governor not
    to enter into consent decrees. I said, look, we'll litigate
    these. My legal services actually are free. I've got the
    Attorney General to do that, so we'll fight these. And so we
    did not do that, but after I left, my successor entered into a
    consent decree which now has run, you know, for several years.
    It's going to be $50 million a year is what they're saying.
    This one is Dwayne B. v. Granholm against the Human Services,
    and it was brought by a New York group called Children's
    Rights, Inc., a perfect example, activist showing up and saying
    this is how you ought to run it. We'd already paid I think $6
    million in attorney's fees for them. They're involved with the
    monitoring and they're involved with the sort of day-to-day
    departmental operation. The State has been trying to modify
    that under Governor Snyder. They had a renegotiation of the
    consent decree. They end up with 211 goals that were part of
    the modified settlement agreement. And so they're not running
    these agencies when you're in that kind of situation.
        And your premise of the question is very important again
    and is something that Congresswoman Foxx mentioned. Who
    decides? And I think it ought to be the men and women who get
    elected. And if there's a deprivation of a constitutional
    right, that's not been a finding in this. This is just a
    difference, a fight over how you ought to run this system.
        And I thought Dr. Sanders' testimony--one of the things he
    pointed out, sometimes you're mandated to spend a lot of money
    even on technology because that's what the masters in
    Washington or the agencies want. That comes maybe at the
    expense of training the caseworker that's dealing one-on-one
    with the client.
        Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I wish I had more time.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman's time is expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Ross, for his questions.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
    panelists for being here as well.
        As a litigator for a little over 25 years, one of the
    things my client and I would discuss is the cost of defense
    because we understand, of course, that the economics of being
    sued, regardless of the principles, weigh just as heavily. And
    so therefore, you see a similar situation here under the APA
    under the sue-and-settle procedure, and the way we have
    addressed it in civil litigation of course has been with regard
    to presumptions, burdens of proof, recovery of attorney's fees,
    limitation of attorney's fees, and that has had somewhat of an
    impact in trying to keep just frivolous cases from being filed
    in an effort to try to force a settlement, again, irrespective
    of the principles but basically just on the economics of
    continuing to defend the litigation.
        So my question to the panel is what would be the most
    impactful way of reforming the process, the APA, in order to
    reduce these consent decrees? And, Governor, I'll start off
    with you.
        Mr. Engler. I had mentioned the Federal Consent Decree
    Fairness Act. That was a few years ago, but they wanted--there
    was sort of three goals in that act, and I think those are
    worthy of discussion in terms of--at least as it relates to
    State and local government.
        Mr. Ross. Right.
        Mr. Engler. One, permit the State and local defendants to
    apply for a modification or a vacation of the consent decree --
    --
        Mr. Ross. Based on a significant change in circumstances or
    just ----
        Mr. Engler. Well, the way they ----
        Mr. Ross.--within the discretion of the ----
        Mr. Engler. The way they set it up if there was a change in
    government, for example, as a new Governor coming in, I maybe
    wasn't in that fight, maybe I've got a different approach. I
    mean, I literally went down to a Federal judge's office and sat
    there and we talked through why he was unhappy and what had
    been done. I said, look, I haven't been here, but here's how
    we're going to approach this.
        Mr. Ross. Got you.
        Mr. Engler. Eight, nine years later, we got out of the
    consent decree. I mean--but--so that was a piece of it. The
    other element was to just to say that there ought to be on a
    periodic basis a review of these consent decrees just because,
    again, Dr. Sanders' ----
        Mr. Ross. Right.
        Mr. Engler.--situation changes. The other that I think is
    important is that there ought to be--is there any finding of a
    constitutional issue here? Because sometimes--I mean, you
    literally have a political fight being sort of fought out in
    this, and your observation about the cost of defense, that sort
    of is a seductive argument.
        Mr. Ross. Politically, from an economic--yes, you--I mean,
    you are almost forced into entering into a consent decree
    because you have to justify the expense of defending it.
        Mr. Engler. Yes, but I would say to the Governors and the
    Attorneys General--I actually think the problem is a little bit
    the other way. I think that sometimes somebody is--there might
    be an alignment of political interests trying to do an end run
    around the political system that hasn't previously agreed with
    that point of view.
        Mr. Ross. Got you.
        Mr. Engler. And that ----
        Mr. Ross. Thank you, Governor.
        Mr. Engler.--is also a reason for review.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you. Anybody else?
        Yes, sir, Mr. Geffken.
        Mr. Geffken. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
        You know, when it comes to EPA consent decrees and dealing
    with water, wastewater, when it--the consent decrees are
    comprehensive in nature, so instead of just focusing on the
    issue at hand--and this is a 147-page document that's $475
    million, and its primary goal was to take care of 22 sanitary
    system overflow points. And the problem becomes--it becomes
    much more than that. It becomes looking into fats, oils, and
    greases. It comes into examining each and every pipe and being
    very prescriptive and not iterative. And it also--and the
    biggest way to move forward with this is to allow an integrated
    planning prospect for consent decrees, so not only having a
    five-year window and then reexamining where we're going and
    moving forward but also making sure that we're not
    shortchanging the other aspects.
        You know, the city of Fort Smith spent millions to expand
    Lake Fort Smith, its primary reservoir. It spent millions
    creating a new reservoir, Lee Creek. Now, it's spending
    hundreds of millions of dollars on wastewater, and we still
    need to build a brand-new 48-inch transmission line to come
    into the city.
        Mr. Ross. I understand.
        Mr. Geffken. As it stands, we have to now raise water
    rates, and this is probably ----
        Mr. Ross. Right.
        Mr. Geffken.--the first that residents are going to be
    hearing that, but also then we've raised our sewer rates 167
    percent in such a very short period of time, so an integrated
    iterative plan that takes affordability into account but while
    not taking our eyes off the ultimate goal.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you. One second. Yes, sir, Governor?
        Mr. Engler. Yes. One thing that Mr. Weissman and I--we see
    the problem. We may have analyzed it differently, but it goes
    to what also can be done. We talked about--he testified about
    the openness of the process at the Federal level. One of the
    concerns I've got at the Federal level is the size of these
    fines, and I just totaled up in his testimony, J.P. Morgan, $13
    billion; Citigroup, seven. Anyway, the list of just the banks
    was over $56 billion. That just works out to about two years'
    funding for the Justice Department. Nobody knows where the $56
    billion went, and that would be a good question for the
    committee ----
        Mr. Ross. Okay.
        Mr. Engler.--to determine. Where does the money go? And
    there ought to be a lot of openness because part of the problem
    with this is that these settlements get made, and the
    disposition of the funds is handled administratively, and I
    think the Attorney General is trying to end that practice, but
    that ought to be--those ought to be appropriated dollars if the
    injury was to the public. That's two years' funding for the
    Department.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Palmer. The gentleman yields.
        I now recognize myself for questions.
        And first of all, Governor, you had asked that ``Consent
    Decrees in Institutional Reform Litigation: Strategies for
    State Legislatures'' be entered into the record, without
    objection, but for transparency's sake, I must confess that I
    am a coauthor of that report.
        One of the points I want to make here is that we are not
    arguing that all consent decrees are bad. In fact, consent
    decrees are a legitimate and useful tool in the legal system.
    They have proven so in both public and private cases. The point
    and focus of this hearing is the abuse of consent decrees, and
    I think we got a little off-track on that, particularly when
    they are used to circumvent the legislative process, which
    denies citizens their right to governance through their elected
    representatives. It is particularly egregious in the direct
    manner in which they bind State and local governments in
    administering their programs and allocating their resources.
    Illinois is a prime example of this. They are currently under
    80 consent decrees, some dating back to the 1970s.
        And just from your perspective as a former Governor, having
    served in elected office--and I also for transparency's sake, I
    have known the Governor for 20 years--you want that
    transparency and that accountability to the voters, which is
    denied them when they are under a consent decree and
    particularly when the consent decree is being administered by
    an unelected judge, an unelected control group, unelected
    bureaucrats, and unelected special master. Is that not
    problematic for representative government?
        Mr. Engler. That's exactly right, and there simply is no
    accountability there, at least no accountability back to
    voters. And we haven't talked about the role of monitors either
    today, but the Federal judge is appointing somebody to kind of
    be the master to oversee. And in the case of the ongoing
    litigation in Michigan, there's somebody that's reporting every
    six months back to the Federal judge.
        Now, the criteria for picking the monitors is sort of in
    the province of the Federal judge. That's often, you know, I
    suppose a qualified university professor or there's a little
    cottage industry of monitors that are out there. But the
    reality is that when there's 211 sort of factors that are being
    monitored, there's not much discretion left for the agency head
    or the legislature to set priorities or adjust priorities as
    new information becomes available, new technology emerges.
        One of the boondoggles that's been out there in the child
    welfare world has been the whole SACWIS implementation. Dr.
    Sanders is very familiar with this, but, I mean, States have
    spent literally tens of millions of dollars trying to meet a
    Federal mandate there. This is on data collection. And the way
    this has been done I would advise nobody would ever do a data
    project that way. But we--I faced that situation, and we were--
    by the time I was elected, we were several tens of millions of
    dollars into the project. It would cost many more millions to
    start over, and it was going to cost many more millions to
    finish. We simply slogged on to try to get that done and still
    wasn't adequate, and yet that's the kind of micromanagement
    you're getting.
        Another area where--and a lot of this area--and again, Dr.
    Sanders' testimony is important, especially when it comes to
    children and children's welfare, the cross-agency cooperation
    and collaboration that's necessary today often is precluded by
    the very Federal laws that are passed here. They don't allow
    the flexibility to bring the mental health services, the public
    health services, the education services all together, and in
    fact each of the programs often has their own administrator
    when we'd be better off--I've said you have to be very smart
    sometimes to be trapped in poverty because you've got so many
    different agencies with so many different programs who want to
    look out for you, and we ought to be able to literally appoint
    an individual who could draw all the services together.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, in Dr. Sanders' testimony he mentioned a
    couple of cases, Alabama being one of them, R.C. v. Hornsby, in
    which we were able to work through a consent decree to a
    reasonable solution. But there was another consent decree in
    Alabama involving the State highway department in which we
    literally spent enough money just on legal fees to repave every
    mile of interstate highway in Alabama twice. And for those who
    don't think we have paved roads, we have got lots of paved
    roads.
        That is the problem is the ability to work your way through
    these. And Dr. Sanders' testimony particularly I think is
    relevant in the area of children that as science changes, as
    techniques change, those aren't taken into account.
        Dr. Sanders, I would like to know, have you seen
    circumstances where full compliance with a consent decree is
    impossible? And I am thinking of New Jersey, which has been
    held up as a model, but they are still under a consent decree.
        Mr. Sanders. Thank you for the question. We actually in one
    of our convenings had a data expert from Emory University take
    a look at the--some of the agreements and found that it was
    impossible to achieve all of the measures that were required at
    the same time. And in part that happened because the
    negotiations for the consent agreement weren't made with data
    experts; they were made with attorneys, and they weren't
    familiar with some of the measures. And so it was--it would not
    be possible for some States to exit, given the current
    measures.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Dr. Sanders.
        Mr. Geffken, who filed the suit against Fort Smith?
        Mr. Geffken. I believe that actually came from the State
    and EPA ----
        Mr. Palmer. Okay. So was ----
        Mr. Geffken.--against the city in order to make--to make
    the city of Fort Smith compliant regarding sanitary system
    overflows.
        Mr. Palmer. And you believe they were trying to make an
    example of Fort Smith?
        Mr. Geffken. I do based on the information I've just heard
    from Representative Gianforte. Yes, that was unknown to me when
    I went there. I knew we had a large problem, and I knew it was
    being addressed by spending several hundred million dollars.
    Again, it--the whole process of a consent decree ties one's
    hands, and you're not able to apply the latest technology or
    focus on actually what yields ----
        Mr. Palmer. How much ----
        Mr. Geffken.--the best benefit.
        Mr. Palmer. How much did you say this is costing the
    residents of Fort Smith, say, an average household? What is it?
        Mr. Geffken. Fifteen thousand dollars.
        Mr. Palmer. Fifteen thousand dollars, and the median
    household income is ----
        Mr. Geffken. Thirty-three thousand five hundred.
        Mr. Palmer. Thirty-three thousand five hundred. This is one
    of the examples, again, where overregulation and the abuse of
    consent decrees does great harm to low-income people. I grew up
    pretty much dirt poor. My dad had an eighth-grade education. It
    would have been staggering to us to have had the type of
    increases in sewer payments that you guys have had in Fort
    Smith or that we have had in Jefferson County in Alabama and
    Shelby County. We are going through the same thing, and it has
    had a negative impact on the ability to grow the economy.
        And just to give you an idea of how overregulation harms
    the economy, Gallup put out a report, pointed out that prior to
    2008 there were 100,000 more businesses starting up than were
    closing. By 2014 in the United States now 70,000 more
    businesses are closing than starting up, and the primary
    problem is regulation.
        One of the problems that we point out in that paper that
    Governor Engler cited is the inability to track these consent
    decrees. We went to the Justice Department, we went to the
    judiciary to try to see if they categorize these in such a way
    that we could look at Arkansas or look at Michigan or the State
    of Washington and determine, you know, what consent decrees
    apply to those States, the State or local government. They
    don't track it that way.
        So, I would ask, Dr. Sanders and Mr. Weissman, should
    Congress consider legislation requiring Federal agencies,
    particularly the Justice Department and the judiciary to track
    and categorize and publish a list of these consent decrees? Dr.
    Sanders?
        Mr. Sanders. We found with the child welfare consent
    decrees that there actually wasn't any single place where it
    was--the information was captured, and so we've started to do
    that just based on the convenings and discussions with States.
    If--that presents a number of issues, and it seems that it
    would be a good direction for Congress to take a look at, at a
    minimum tracking the consent decrees, as well as the cost and
    the results.
        Mr. Palmer. Mr. Weissman, would you have a problem with the
    Federal Government tracking these and publishing a list so that
    they could be easily identified?
        Mr. Weissman. Absolutely not. I think that that would be
    highly desirable. I think, you know, there's some difference
    between this consent decrees where the Federal Government
    initiated the case versus where the--you know, a decentralized
    thing by a citizen group. But in--so the second would be harder
    to compile but would be desirable in any case.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, it really wouldn't because if the Federal
    Government entered into a consent decree, it doesn't matter who
    initiated the suit. It is a matter of tracking these so that
    there is a concise list.
        Governor Engler?
        Mr. Engler. I think the courts also ought to have an
    obligation here. There ought to be something in the judicial
    system where each of the--I don't know if it's the circuit
    court who oversees the district courts in their region, you
    know, whether the circuits would have it or somehow the court
    administrator--the Federal judges ought to know how many
    consent decrees they're actually enforcing in their
    jurisdictions, and that may be an easier way to get it than
    trying to go to the agencies and--because who knows? But
    they're all--there's a limited number of Federal judges and
    Federal, you know, circuit courts, and maybe that's--that--they
    should know their caseload, and that's part of it.
        Mr. Palmer. I would like to thank our witnesses for taking
    the time to appear before us today, and I would particularly
    like to thank the ranking member, Mrs. Demings, for her
    indulging me going a little bit longer.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    subcommittees stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]