[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERALISM IMPLICATIONS OF TREATING STATES AS STAKEHOLDERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-68
__________
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
30-397 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, [email protected].
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
Blake Farenthold, Texas Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Ron DeSantis, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
Mark Walker, North Carolina Val Butler Demings, Florida
Rod Blum, Iowa Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
James Comer, Kentucky
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Christina Aizcorbe, Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee Staff
Director
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 27, 2018................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Gary Richard Herbert, Governor of Utah
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
The Honorable Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
The Honorable Clement Leroy Otter, Governor of Idaho
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
APPENDIX
National Governors Association Statement for the Record submitted
by Mr. Palmer.................................................. 44
Western Governors Association Statement for the Record submitted
by Mr. Palmer.................................................. 49
Recommended Principles for Regulatory Reform submitted by Mr.
Connolly....................................................... 81
NACo Statement for the Record submitted by Mr. Connolly.......... 82
Letter of January 20, 2017, from NACo submitted by Mr. Connolly.. 88
NewDEAL Statement for the Record submitted by Mr. Connolly....... 95
FEDERALISM IMPLICATIONS OF TREATING STATES AS STAKEHOLDERS
----------
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary Palmer
presiding.
Present: Representatives Palmer, Gowdy, Duncan, Jordan,
Sanford, Amash, Gosar, Meadows, DeSantis, Walker, Blum, Hice,
Grothman, Hurd, Mitchell, Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Kelly, Plaskett, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Welch, and DeSaulnier.
Also Present: Representatives Bishop, Gonzales-Colon, and
Zeldin.
Mr. Palmer. The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
I would like to thank Governor Herbert, Governor Martinez,
and Governor Otter for the time they are taking today to share
important testimony with the committee and the Speaker's Task
Force on Intergovernmental Affairs.
The committee and task force have been engaged in a review
of federalism, identifying opportunities to improve the
partnership between the Federal Government and State local
counterparts. Your testimony will serve an important piece of
this narrative as we look toward reform.
It is my understanding Governor Herbert must leave by noon,
so I will keep my statement short to maximize time for
questions, and I will encourage our members to be sensitive to
the time. And if there is a question toward the end of the five
minutes that would require a longer answer, I would encourage
the witnesses to provide the answer in writing.
To the extent members do not need to use their full five
minutes, please be mindful of the Governor's time. We will work
our way through questions quickly to accommodate everyone's
schedule.
We would like to welcome those members of the task force
for joining us today. I ask unanimous consent to waive members
of the Speaker's Task Force on Intergovernmental Affairs for
today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. I will also ask
unanimous consent to insert statements from the National
Governors Association and Western Governors Association into
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Palmer. I now recognize the ranking member, my friend
Mr. Connolly, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I thank my friend Mr.
Bishop in particular with the intergovernmental task force we
both serve on, and I want to welcome our distinguished guests,
the three Governors, for joining us this morning.
We are conducting this hearing in collaboration with the
Speaker's Task Force on Intergovernmental Affairs. As a member
of that task force, I have been glad to work with Mr. Bishop
and our colleagues over the course of the past year on several
meetings and events centered around the topic of improving
coordination among all of the levels of government.
One thing our task force has done well is to promote an
intergovernmental dialogue that incorporates all perspectives.
While I would have preferred to include in on today's panel a
local government perspective as well as the State perspective
with equal billing, I hope we can invite in the near future
American mayors and local government officials to testify to
the full committee on this topic. And I was gratified that
Chairman Gowdy agrees with that request. This is a dialogue
best had without segregating the different levels of government
in a way that promotes the very divisions we seek to address.
In the spirit of promoting intergovernmental collaboration,
I intend to introduce the Restore the Partnership Act to
establish the National Committee on Intergovernmental
Relations, a successor to the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations that operated from 1959 through
1995. The commission will promote mechanisms for fostering
better relations among the levels of government; provide
technical assistance to the Federal, executive, and legislative
branches in the review of proposed legislation; recommend the
most desirable allocation of government functions,
responsibilities, and revenues among the various levels of
government; and help coordinate and simplified tax laws and
administrative policies to achieve more orderly and less
competitive fiscal relationship among the levels of government.
As a former local government official who served for 14
years on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, including
five years as the chairman of the county, I have witnessed the
good, the bad, and the ugly of intergovernmental relations. In
our community, we led efforts to improve regional air quality
enabled by strengthened Federal clean air regulations. We also
dealt with the burden of unfunded mandates on localities like
those imposed at the Federal level by the No Child Left Behind
Act.
And in Virginia, we adhere unfortunately to the Dillon
Rule, which means local governments in my State only have those
powers expressly granted to them. The Dillon Rule severely
constrains the ways in which local governments can raise
revenue to pay for public safety, public education, and
mandates placed on localities by both the Federal and State
Governments, and I think that is really important. Not all of
the problems emanate from Washington. Many of them from the
local government perspective emanate from State capitals.
The revenue burden is why those of us from Dillon Rule
States are particularly offended by the Trump budget and the
administration's so-called infrastructure plan. Undergirding
both is an assumption that the Federal Government defunds an
activity or shifts the funding burden down to State and local
governments and that there are untapped and unlimited revenue
reserves that will fill the vacuum left by the Federal
Government.
The infrastructure plan, for example, would be paid for by
taking money from Federal transit investments, and the plan
would flip the Federal highway funding match on its head by
requiring local governments to come up with an 80 percent of
project costs as opposed to the current 20 percent. A Penn
Wharton Budget Model team found that the plan would likely lead
to an additional at best $30 billion in State, local, and
private spending, 98 percent less than the $1.3 trillion the
administration has claimed would be raised by the plan.
The President's budget would compound the infrastructure
investment crisis by retreating on Federal funding for things
like Metro and the types of infrastructure loans, TIFIA loans,
that have helped fund transit throughout the United States. The
budget also sweeps the rug out from under local affordable
housing initiatives by eliminating entirely the Community
Development and Community Services Block Grants, as well as the
HOME Investment Partnership Program. These housing cuts alone
would cost my communities in Fairfax and Prince William
counties right across the river nearly $10 million, local
government, in affordable housing investments. The proposed
cuts would expose the conservative panacea of block granting as
potentially a more expedient method of cutting Federal
investments in local communities.
I look forward to our discussion today and hope it is not
bound by rigid ideology. We should be mindful that not all
unfunded mandates consist of the Feds putting mandates on
States. All 50 States guarantee their citizens the right to a
public education, but it is often local governments that bear
the majority of the financial burden for public education. In
my community, for example, 80 percent of the cost of public
education is borne my local taxpayers, not by the State.
Additionally, not all regulations or mandates are bad.
There are Federal regulations that ensure everyone's right to a
quality education. This Federal intervention was necessitated
by State- and local-level intransigence in the past. This
equality was hard fought for, and we should never again open
the door to the abuse and discrimination that preceded it.
Finally, we cannot ignore that a lack of regulation can be
a form of an unfunded mandate in itself. For example, pollution
from a State that lacks strong environmental protections can
and will drift into neighboring States, creating air-quality
issues and health problems that impose costs on both private
and public sectors. Through the work of this committee and the
task force, I hope we can create bipartisan support for
unfunded mandate reform and find broad agreement that the
Federal Government can and should improve its coordination and
collaboration with State, local governments, and tribal
governments. I hope the discussion today furthers our work
towards those ends.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling us together for
this hearing.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
I am now pleased to introduce our witnesses, the Honorable
Gary Richard Herbert, Governor of the State of Utah; the
Honorable Susana Martinez, Governor of the State of New Mexico;
and the Honorable Clement Leroy Otter, Governor of the State of
Idaho and a former Member of Congress and the old '70's TV show
Welcome Back Kotter, welcome back Otter. Welcome to you all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify. Please rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Palmer. The record will reflect all witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Please be seated.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
testimony to five minutes. Your entire written statement will
be made part of the record. As a reminder, the clock in front
of you will show you your remaining time. The light will turn
yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is
up. Please also remember to press the button to turn your
microphone on before speaking.
Our first witness to give testimony will be Governor
Herbert from Utah.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY RICHARD HERBERT
Governor Herbert. Well, thank you. And, Chairman Gowdy,
Chairman Palmer, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Connolly, and
members of the committee and the Speaker's task force, I thank
you for inviting me here today. I've been speaking about this
issue for many years on--about the importance of federalism,
what some describe as the vertical separation of powers between
the State in the Federal Government, and to me this hearing is
a sign of progress.
Often when we talk about federalism, we focus on its
constitutional foundation. That's important, but there's a very
practical reason for federalism, to create better policy. As
States, we've tried a wide variety of approaches to solving
specific problems and developed expertise across the spectrum
of public policy. When our political culture mistakenly
presumes that the greatest expertise resides in Federal
agencies, Americans miss out on the lessons already learned by
the States.
Today, I'd like to suggest several Federal laws that need
to change to respect the separation of the power and
responsibility and facilitate better policymaking. First, I
would like to point out that laws and rules are poor
substitutes for cultural norms, and what we really need is a
cultural change within the Federal Government. Congress and
Federal agencies must stop viewing States merely as--State
input as merely a box-checking exercise rather than the genuine
attempt to learn from what we're doing.
Some infractions of federalism are process problems. The
U.S. Code is littered with suggestions that Federal agencies
consult with States as simply one among many stakeholders. For
example, the Water Resources Development Act suggests that the
Secretary may consult with key stakeholders, including State,
county, and city governments. Similar language is found in the
National Historic Preservation Act, the Energy Policy Act, and
many, many more.
And even as the title of today's hearing implies, the
States are--States are not stakeholders. We're sovereign
governments, partners who have been involved in--should be
involved at the beginning of and throughout the policymaking
process. The boilerplate language of these laws should be
amended to reflect that reality.
In the same vein, the National Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA, requires a Federal agency to work with States to develop
various alternatives and an environmental impact statement but
also allows the agency to ultimately ignore input from the
States. Sometimes the NEPA process feels like a little more
than an exercise in generating high-quality paperwork. The law
should be amended to give States not just a voice but a vote in
the selection of a NEPA alternative, a change that would make
Federal land management in the West far more democratic and
responsive to the voters.
States should also have a more substantive role in
execution. The Endangered Species Act authorizes the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to write management plans, designate
critical habitat, and impose land-use restrictions. This
doesn't make necessarily sense to me. Utah's Division of
Wildlife Resources is staffed with some of the best biologists
in the field, who have a profound knowledge of Utah's ecology
and wildlife. There is no good reason States shouldn't take the
lead in species recovery.
I don't want to leave you with a completely negative
picture. We are currently enjoying a season of good
relationships with many Federal agencies, many of whom are
trying to push decision-making back down to the States, and
that is refreshing, though it does illustrate what I said
earlier about the importance of a culture of cooperation with
the States. Good cooperation should not depend on a particular
official or administration; it should be simply the way things
are always done, regardless of who is currently in power.
Again, I think we are making progress. Yesterday, several
of my colleagues and I met with Speaker Ryan and later with
Minority Leader Pelosi. Representative Pelosi quoted--reminded
all of us of the famous quote of Judge Brandeis who said States
of the laboratories of democracy, and she said let's let States
help lead in developing good policy. I couldn't agree more.
I also added another famous quote that most of you know
about our Father of our Constitution James Madison who, in
talking about in trying to ratify the Constitution and
alleviate the fears that the States had about this new stronger
Federal Government said to the States not to worry, Federalist
45, it's an interesting read and it's a short one so it won't
take a long time, but he said don't worry about the Federal
Government because the powers we've given the Federal
Government are few and defined, article 1, section 8 of the
Constitution. He went on to say the powers we've given to the
States, though, are numerous and indefinite.
We need to get back to the vision of our Founding Fathers.
We do need to change the culture and the thought process. We
the American people are asking you the Federal Government to do
more than your responsibilities would entail, more than what
our Founding Fathers expected you to do. Rather, they should
be--in fact, if they have problems and issues, they should
first ask the States and their local governments and see if
they can find a solution to the problem. We should get back to
asking the States. As I said in my initiative as chair of the
National Governors Association three years ago, the States,
which are closer to the people, much more responsive to the
people, quicker to act, and doing it less expensively and more
effectively, are where in fact we should be working. States are
finding solutions and improving people's lives.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Governor Herbert follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. I thank Governor Herbert.
Governor Martinez, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSANA MARTINEZ
Governor Martinez. Chairman Gowdy, Ranking Member Connolly,
Task Force Chairman Bishop, and members of the committee and
the task force, I am very grateful for this opportunity to
speak with you today about the balance of power between the
States and our Federal Government.
As Federal legislators, you all face an incredible
challenge in finding solutions that work for a nation of 320
million people in urban, rural, and frontier areas spread over
3.8 million square miles. In fact, our nation's incredible
geographic and human diversity makes finding a cookie-cutter
solution next to impossible. What works in South Carolina may
not work in Virginia. And what works in New Mexico may not work
even for our neighbors in Utah, which is precisely why it is
imperative the Federal Government recognize the sovereignty of
States, work with us, and allow us to lead and to innovate.
When you do, great things really do happen.
The New Mexico Human Services Department implemented our
State's Medicaid managed care program, Centennial Care, in 2014
under a demonstration waiver granted by the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services. Through this innovative
program, managed care organizations administer a full array of
services to New Mexicans through an integrated model. Care
coordinators across the State help to ensure members receive
the right services at the right time. New Mexico is a leader in
providing home- and community-based services, and we are
actually decreasing per-person healthcare costs. This
innovation and resulting success is possible because the
Federal Government allowed New Mexico to design and implement a
Medicaid program that works for our State and for our people.
House Resolution 1333 sponsored by Congressman Earl
``Buddy'' Carter of Georgia would provide us with even more
freedom to further improve program efficiencies. When we do not
receive that flexibility, inefficient Federal processes tend to
have dire consequences that reverberate across my State.
As another example, it takes our Energy, Minerals, and
Natural Resources Department just 10 days to review new oil and
gas permits, but it takes the Bureau of Land Management in New
Mexico an average of 250 days. This delay has led to a BLM
backlog of more than 800 applications for permits to drill in
Mexico at a cost of approximately $1.9 million to New Mexico
and $3.4 million to the Federal Government per day. Annually,
this amounts to 100--excuse me, to $710 million for New Mexico
and $1.2 billion for the Federal Government in lost and delayed
revenue.
If the BLM were to delegate its oil and gas revenue process
to New Mexico and to other Western States for those--for these
resources on Federal lands--States like Montana and Utah--it
would result in billions of dollars of additional State and
Federal revenue.
During my time as New Mexico's Governor, I've seen two
different sides of the State-Federal partnerships. At times,
regulations and edicts from Washington have brought rigid and
formulaic programs to New Mexico that do not allow us to adapt
them to our unique States. That tide seems to be turning as
Federal agencies like the Department of Interior and the
Department of Transportation are engaging with us to face
common challenges. As elected officials, we all strive to
deliver the best possible results for those that we represent
as well. We do that best when we work together and--
constructively and collaboratively as true partners.
And I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.
[Prepared statement of Governor Martinez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Governor Otter, if you would give
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CLEMENT LEROY ``BUTCH'' OTTER
Governor Otter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate very much the opportunity to be here. Chairman Rob,
good to see you again--Chairman Bishop, good to see you again,
and Ranking Member Connolly. It is indeed--members, it is
indeed a pleasure to be here today and have the opportunity to
appear before you and talk about the relationships between the
Federal Government and the Federal Government's creators, the
States.
I come to you in my 12th year as Governor of the great
State of Idaho. I have approximately 113 days, 13 hours, 27
minutes until I leave office, but then, who's counting? During
my tenure, there's been three presidential administrations. At
times, they have provided me the opportunity to see federalism
at its finest. Idaho has been treated as a true partner with a
meaningful voice in national policies and most--that most
directly impact all our citizens.
At other times and far too often, I have experienced the
kind of dysfunction and heavy handedness from our national
government that make a mockery of what the Founders referred to
as federalism. In fact, I've seen both interpretations of
federalism come into play on a single issue not only during my
six years here in Congress but also as my three terms as
Governor.
The limited and narrow powers granted to the Federal
Government by our Constitution have been expanded
exponentially, constantly reaching far beyond those originally
enumerated and the central powers relegated through the Tenth
Amendment to the dustbin of history. The kind of mission creep
is most apparent in Idaho and throughout the West wherever the
Federal Government controls access to the enormous and vast
swaths of our lands. Instead of being recognized as sovereign
States with equal standing in our union and essential interest
at stake, when it comes to managing our resources, we find
ourselves continually having to ask the Federal Government,
``Mother, may I?'' And the problem increasingly extends beyond
land management to issues as diverse as immigration and health
care.
Nevertheless, hope abounds. I want to express my
appreciation to Congress and the current administration for
working to restore the standing of States as true partners in
governance. After years as an afterthought, how we collaborate
and develop our own solutions once again matters again.
In Idaho, this rebirth of federalism is resulting in
development and application of innovative approaches to
addressing shared challenges. With the encouragement of
President Trump and the Congress and consistent with our role
as the States as laboratories of democracy, I signed an
executive order in January of this year directing my Department
of Insurance to seek creative ways of improving access to
affordable health care coverage in Idaho.
We have seen premiums for the Affordable Health Care Act
skyrocket in Idaho over the past three years. As a result,
individuals and families are forced to make unacceptable
choices: paying for health care or paying for groceries. But
encouragement by elimination of the individual mandate and this
administration's expressed support for greater flexibility,
Idaho will now have the opportunity for an off-exchange's State
plan that provides essential coverage at more affordable rates.
Despite some overwrought arguments to the contrary, our
plan actually will complement the ACA. That's because Idaho is
requiring that insurance company carriers that offer choice in
the State-based plans must also provide ACA-qualified plans.
And most importantly, all ACA and State-based plans will be
within the single risk pool, thereby broadening the risk and
providing for the individual marketplace.
Instead of standing idly by as more and more hard-working
Idahoans are priced out or left out of the ACA insurance
coverage, we decided to tackle the problem head-on using a
first-of-its-kind approach, and we are confident that it will
work.
Another good example of our improving relationship with the
Federal Government relates to a program known as the Good
Neighbor Authority. In 2014, during the last administration,
the 2014 Farm Bill authorizes States to lead forest restoration
projects on national forest lands. That collaborative, cross-
jurisdictional effort is increasing the pace and scale of
timber harvest projects in areas prone to insect damage,
disease damage, and subsequent wildfire.
Over the next three years, we expect to treat nearly 11,000
acres of Federal Forest Service land using the Good Neighbor
Authority, harvesting 70 million board feet of timber and
bringing $14.5 million in revenue. Good Neighbor Authority
improves the forest health, reduces fire risk, boosts the rural
economy, and pays for itself. It truly is the gold standard for
cooperative federalism.
We are similarly encouraged by the Trump administration's
commitment to streamlining efficient and costly environmental
review process. Decisions too often are being made in
anticipation of being sued rather than based on sound science
and local conditions.
And finally, we are--continue to benefit from the
flexibility that's being offered in Every Student Succeeds Act.
Idaho now is empowered to be the architects of our own K
through career education in Idaho.
While this recent renewal of classic federalism is welcome
and refreshing, there still remains much work, and I appreciate
this committee's attention to that work. Again, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today. Your continuing--
and thank you also for your continuing service to the United
States of America. And, Mr. Chairman, I stand ready to answer
questions.
[Prepared statement of Governor Otter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Palmer. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. The
chair now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, the chairman of
the Committee on Natural Resources and chairman of the
Speaker's Task Force on Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Gary, and thank you, the three
Governors, for joining us here today. It is extremely good to
have you back here. And I am grateful to be here, especially
for the task force. I noticed I think about six members of the
task force have been or were here or are leaving here at the
same time, whatever.
Let me tell you what I am going to ask each of you so you
can be thinking about it and then preface this for just a
second.
So, Governor Herbert, I want to hit you up on the
consultation concept again, go into more detail on that. Ms.
Martinez, I do want to talk to you about how we can make this
effort on federalism a bipartisan approach, and for Governor
Otter, I want to talk to you again about what you called
mission creep or creeping conditionalism. You have to realize,
I mean, there are about 266 former legislators who are Members
of Congress. I don't know why we forget our lessons we learned
in State legislature, but it seems when we come here to
Congress, all of a sudden we want to solve all sorts of
problems, regardless of how those problems are solved.
There is something that is very unique now as both parties,
both liberals and conservatives, are now talking about
federalism under different titles more than ever before. If I
notice, you know, Senator Feinstein has a bill that deals with
federalism dealing with drones and Representative Cohen has one
that deals with drug policy and Senator Baldwin has one that
deals with health partnership. And one of you mentioned a
resolution by Representative Carter. People are now talking
about that. This is an opportunity we have of actually trying
to implement it.
So, Governor Herbert, let me start with you. You talked
about collaboration, how important it is. We have long talked
about consultation is important. How do we actually define
consultation here to allow that State and local governments are
ensured that they are consulted and that their comments are
taken seriously? For example, we have had court cases in the
State of Utah where commissioners' decisions have been thrown
out because they said the commissioners had too much influence
vis-a-vis NGOs. How do we ensure that States actually do
fulfill that consultation role?
Governor Herbert. Well, I think part of it is what I talked
about, a culture change. We need to go back and review the role
of the Federal Government in conjunction with the role of the
States. It is often forgot that Federal Government was, as
Butch Otter has said, created by the States. And we are
sovereign States. We are, as Justice Brandeis said, you know,
laboratories of democracy. We do have a role to play. And that
is part of an attitude thing. For whatever reason, we have got
to the point where we seem to ignore the role of the States and
aren't listening to what the States are doing and let them
perform their role as laboratories of democracy.
Mr. Bishop. You went through a litany of laws in which it
is allowed. Would it be better if we actually wrote laws so it
was mandated?
Governor Herbert. I think that, one, there ought to be a
mandate to listen and respect the role of the States and,
again, it's not just a matter of checking off a box and saying,
well, we've got your input, now we'll ignore it.
Mr. Bishop. Okay.
Governor Herbert. We think that the States should have a
role to make decisions, and we ought to devolve the decision-
making power back to the States. We'd get a better result and
less cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Bishop. Governor Martinez, how can we make this concept
of federalism bipartisan? I mean, you represent a purple State,
whereas in Utah and Idaho I think we have got zoning ordinances
that keep Democrats at bay.
Mr. DeSaulnier. If only you had a little purple.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I am not going to say anything about
Californians. So how do we make this issue bipartisan?
Governor Martinez. Thank you for that question. So sorry, I
forget the button. Thank you very much for that question,
Congressman Bishop. I think it's important that we remember
that we're not politicians but we're actually leaders. I am a
Republican Governor in a State where we're outnumbered three to
one by Democrats and independents, and so therefore, I have a
very clear understanding that I represent all the people of New
Mexico and not just those who voted for me or those of the same
party.
We have done this many times through, for example, when I
expanded Medicaid. When I expanded Medicaid, it was not
necessarily something that was a Republican thing to do.
However, I went on a listening tour, private and local
communities, private businesses, I did it with organizations
and advocacy groups and wanted to hear why I should or should
not expand Medicaid. And at the end of the day I did what was
right for the people of New Mexico. I actually did expand
Medicaid and I have also, through that process, costs per
month--per person and per month have actually gone down, and
that's why we're a leader in New Mexico because this was not a
political decision.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate you doing that because you're
talking about the attitude that Governor Herbert was talking
about, and in the five seconds I have got left, I appreciate
what you are talking because we are going to have an energy
bill that tries to partner with the States to allow the States
to do all the paperwork, keep the Federal standards but the
States do the paperwork to see if we can actually work together
more. I hope that comes in there.
Butch, I am out of time, but if there is a second round, I
want to come back to this idea of mission creep and creeping
conditionalism with you. I will yield back but--sorry.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Governor Martinez, I appreciate the decision you made
on the expansion of Medicaid. I believe Governor Kasich, your
Republican colleague in Ohio, made a similar decision. And we
are now wrestling with it yet again in Virginia. It is costing
my State billions of dollars not to do it. It is 400,000 people
not getting coverage that otherwise would get it. And
ironically, it is the red parts of the State, it is rural areas
that are seeing the pressure on their hospitals and clinics
closing because they financially can't make it. And the
expansion of Medicaid would save those hospitals and provide
care to people who desperately need it. So I applaud your
nonpolitical decision, and I think that is the spirit in which
Republicans and Democrats ought to approach governance,
especially at the State and local level.
All three of you come from Western States, and I know that
if we had the Governor of New York and the Governor of Virginia
and some other Governors, we might have a different perspective
about the Trump administration and how helpful it has been or
not, and I guess the jury will be out. We will see. But the
philosophy you all are sharing with us, I find myself largely
in agreement in principle. And, Governor Herbert, I was shaking
my head listening to thinking, you know, a lot of wisdom there,
but doesn't that apply to local governments, too? Are any of
you Dillon Rule States?
Governor Herbert. I come from local government.
Mr. Connolly. You come from local government.
Governor Herbert. I was a local county commissioner, and I
have concerns about making sure that the State and the
legislature and the Governor respect the role of the counties
and the cities, so certainly there's some tension there.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Governor Herbert. The difference is, though, the States
created those local entities, so they have--they are the
mother. They're the ones that created it. The Federal
Government is created by the States, that miracle in 1787, so
it's a matter of roles and responsibilities under the law.
You're right; it should not be a partisan issue. It's the
vision of our Founding Fathers embedded in our Constitution.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. Certainly, there is a legal argument
that local governments are the creatures of the State. They are
created by the State. But practically speaking, that doesn't
really get us very far. In my State, the local government I
headed is the biggest in the State and one of the biggest in
the United States. We were a full-service--you know, my budget
is bigger than the--you know, our budget was bigger than seven
States' budgets. And what we constantly were subjected to--and
this is not unique to my State. You see this tension in lots of
States.
But, you know, the State legislature was prejudiced against
the more affluent northern part of the State, which, by the
way, funds about half of the State. And so when you look at
formulas for allocating resources, we always got the short end
of the stick. In fact, one egregious example, there was a
library fund years ago created, of course mostly funded by
Northern Virginia by my taxpayers, and they actually had a
formula that said no jurisdiction larger than 900,000 could
qualify for benefits from the fund. So we funded the fund, and
we got zero benefits because of course we were the only
jurisdiction with more than 900,000 people in the State of
Virginia it just so happened. It got that egregious.
And, you know, we get real nervous when people talk about
block granting things because that goes to the State capital
where we know we are going to get the short end of the stick.
We won't get a fair share. And so I am just curious, since none
of you actually address local government in your opening
remarks--understandably, you are talking about your
relationship with the Feds--but what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. What about your local governments? Have
you ever taken a careful look at the State level about the
unfunded mandates you impose, not you personally but the State
does and sort of the imposition sometimes you make in laws and
regulations that they then have to implement? Because the
ultimate implementer of everything is local government.
Governor Otter, you are shaking your head.
Governor Otter. Yes. Well, thank you, Representative
Connolly. I can tell you this, that in my 12 years as Governor
and all the legislation--probably 350 pieces of legislation
that I signed--am responsible for either signing or not signing
or vetoing every year, in the most cases, the limitations that
are put on local units of government are actually edicts from
the Federal Government. And you can go right through almost
every agency starting with the EPA and the Clean Water Act and
those sort of things, so if a local government wants to develop
in a certain area, they must certainly follow through all the
----
Mr. Connolly. If I can interrupt, Governor Otter, because
of time. Forgive me. But, I mean, that is not true in the case
of education funding formulas. That is a State formula, not a
Federal formula. And it has a huge impact on local governments
and the tax rates they have to charge or not charge to fund
their local education. In my case 80 percent of our school
funding we bear because the State has a funding formula that
just so happens to discriminate against certain parts of the
State and benefits other certain parts of the State. I am sure
politics has nothing to do with it. That is not a Federal
issue, that is a ----
Governor Otter. Well, perhaps ----
Mr. Connolly.--State issue.
Governor Otter.--we are a little more fair in Idaho because
we actually assign so much money for each and every classroom
unit no matter whether it is in Weippe, Idaho, or Boise, Idaho,
the largest school district or the smallest.
Mr. Connolly. My time is up. I want to learn more about
that. Maybe we could get you to Richmond and educate them a
little bit about ----
Governor Otter. Be happy to.
Mr. Connolly.--the funding formulas. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for five minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank each of you
for your testimony here today. The first one, the committee has
reviewed a number of major Federal regulatory actions where the
Federal Government actually did not adequately consult with the
States. Some of those were with the EPA Army Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Labor and its overtime rule,
Department of Interior in terms of stream buffers are just a
few examples of those.
So the executive order 13132 on federalism and unfunded
mandates actually required consultation with State and local
governments. Can each of you very quickly let me know how you--
how do you think that this particular executive order is
working? Is the consultation actually taking place? And so,
Governor, will you go ahead and--Herbert, if you will go ahead
and start.
Governor Herbert. Thank you. The fact that we are here
today talking about it, I think we see progress. I'm hopeful.
The fact that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, first thing out of
her mouth yesterday meeting with a few of us Governors was,
hey, Judge Brandeis, laboratories of democracy, we need to let
you guys take the lead on these policy issues. I think we are
getting heard. I think there's been an attitudinal change that
needs to continue, and so I feel good about the direction we're
headed.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. Yes, sir. Thank you. Certainly, there's
been more collaboration in the last two years than I
experienced in the previous six years as being Governor. I've
actually been asked to sit at tables within the Department of
Transportation, as well as sitting at the table with a
variety--yesterday with a committee in reference to our prisons
and the reforms that can take place for individuals that are
moving from within the prisons and out into the communities.
That never happened before. I never even received a phone call
when things were taking place. And particularly when an
endangered species was being listed, it was--the State wasn't
given the opportunity to protect that species as it's supposed
to be given in order to eliminate the Federal involvement so
that we can protect it and continue to have that not on the
list of endangered species.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you, Governor. Governor
Otter?
Governor Otter. Congressman, I can think of several times
when we have been consulted many times and never listen to.
I've served as Governor under three presidential--under three
different Presidents, three different administrations, and from
time to time early on in my first two years when the Bush
administration, things began to change and not for the better.
They got worse for the next eight years. Now, they're starting
to get better again. So simply in--simply requiring
consultation doesn't always work. Sometimes, there has to be a
result and whose side are we going to make the final decision
on, the States or the Federal Government's side?
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me real quickly in the two
minutes I have remaining follow up on that because what you are
saying is it is not enough to just listen but it is actually to
take that input and actually put it into action. So would you
say that what we are seeing is actually more efficient policy
and cost savings as a result of that collaboration?
Governor Herbert. Clearly, as we look back and just again
one of the controversial issues of the Affordable Care Act,
Obamacare, the Governors were never one time consulted and
asked what's our opinion, yet we're going to be on the
frontlines of having to implement the program.
Mr. Meadows. So what you are saying is is this
collaboration could actually save the American taxpayer dollars
----
Governor Herbert. Dollars and ----
Mr. Meadows.--in a real way?
Governor Herbert.--develop better policy.
Mr. Meadows. Yes. Okay.
Governor Herbert. And certainly, again, we ought to have
the States weigh in, and we ought to not just be listened to
but respected and considered and let us be part of the
decision-making process.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Governor Martinez, do you agree
with that?
Governor Martinez. Well, I agree that certainly in the
education reform that was discussed by Congressman Connolly is
that we were--in collaboration with the Federal Government,
the--under the Obama administration, we were in collaboration,
we were in agreement on education reforms, but it was our
Democrat State legislature that was not in collaboration with
the States and local communities.
Mr. Meadows. But I can't help with that problem so ----
Governor Martinez. I understand, but there are
opportunities that we have actually agreed.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Governor Otter?
Governor Otter. I would say yes, and improving daily.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So if that is indeed the case,
would you encourage more reforms of this type where we can
actually streamline this, yes or no in my 12 seconds? Yes,
Governor?
Governor Herbert. Yes, the more you involve the States, the
better it's going to be.
Mr. Meadows. Governor?
Governor Martinez. Absolutely. There is no cookie-cutter
solution that can be done for all States.
Mr. Meadows. Governor?
Governor Otter. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chair, thank you so much for putting
together this terrific panel, and it is an honor to be in the
presence of these Governors.
Everybody loves federalism in principle. Everybody loves
federalism in theory, in the abstract. The question is whether
you are willing to defend federalism when it cuts against your
deepest-held policy preferences. And so I want to try to get
beyond the level of principle, which we all embrace, to the
critical issues that are facing us in this Congress.
Let's start with marijuana. Right now, this might be the
greatest federalism issue in the country. We have dozens of
States that have embarked upon experiments with medical
marijuana, with decriminalization of marijuana, with treating
it as a public health problem rather than a criminal problem,
and we got the Attorney General of the United States, Attorney
General Sessions, who wants to come down like a sledgehammer on
the States to crush all of these experiments and to revive a
war on marijuana. And I just wonder whether any of you are
willing to take a position on behalf of States' rights and
federalism against what the Attorney General is trying to do?
Governor Otter, perhaps you could start and just quickly go
down.
Governor Otter. Of all the States that I border, four of
them have legalized recreational marijuana, and it would be one
thing if that stopped at the border, but it doesn't stop at the
border.
Mr. Raskin. Well, nothing ever stops at the border. That's
always the argument that the nationalizers take against people
who I thought you were siding with, which was the States'
rights people.
Governor Otter. But it doesn't cause harm to my State ---
Mr. Raskin. That is always the argument made it. Do you
see? There is the problem.
Governor Otter. Well, maybe that ought to give ----
Mr. Raskin. We all love federalism in theory, but are we
really willing to stick to it when it comes to a specific case
where we are against it? I assume you don't favor the
decriminalization of marijuana?
Governor Otter. I do not.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So, Governor Martinez, where do you stand
on it?
Governor Martinez. As a prosecutor for 25 years and on the
border of New Mexico with the Mexican border, I do not support
the legalization of marijuana. I completely support ----
Mr. Raskin. As a matter of States--you mean as a matter of
exercise of your State power. The question is do you think the
Federal Government should crush the experiments in the States
with dealing with the marijuana problem?
Governor Martinez. As the law stands today, it is my
responsibility as a lawyer, as the Governor to the people of
New Mexico. I have to comply with the laws of the United States
Government, and that means there's no legalization of marijuana
in my State. However, we do have a medical marijuana program
that is very successful.
Mr. Raskin. And they want to crush that, too. Governor
Herbert?
Governor Herbert. You've put the States in a Catch-22
problem. You have a Federal law that says it's illegal. If you
don't like that, change the law.
Mr. Raskin. Yes, so you ----
Governor Herbert. So that allows us then as States to take
on the responsibility on a statewide basis. We are learning.
We're next-door to Colorado. I've worked with Governor
Hickenlooper. He's told us as a State and other Governors be
very careful, watch we do. I ----
Mr. Raskin. So you are supporting a change in Federal laws
----
Governor Herbert. I support ----
Mr. Raskin.--to allow the States ----
Governor Herbert. Change the Federal law.
Mr. Raskin.--to experiment ----
Governor Herbert. Yes, you can't ----
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
Governor Herbert. You put ----
Mr. Raskin. So let's try another one, which is again
something we are dealing ----
Governor Herbert. Take it off the schedule I so we can
actually do the research necessary to backup ----
Mr. Raskin. Good.
Governor Herbert.--science to back up what--at least the
anecdotal stories.
Mr. Raskin. Here is another one that is happening right
now. There is an effort to wipe out medical malpractice laws
across the country and to impose one Federal one-size-fits-all
solution in terms of medical malpractice where the awards are
set when you get a jury trial and so on. Do you favor that, or
do you think each of the States should be able to decide for
themselves what their medical malpractice laws are?
Governor Otter. We already have that in Idaho.
Mr. Raskin. You have what?
Governor Otter. We have limitations on medical malpractice.
Mr. Raskin. Sure, but they are set at different places in
different States. You think we should have one-size-fits-all
national solution or do you think the States should be able to
decide for themselves?
Governor Otter. I do not think we ought to have a national
solution.
Mr. Raskin. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. I agree completely.
Mr. Raskin. Yes?
Governor Herbert. State decision-making, no one-size-fits-
all.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. Well, so there I just want you to know
you are siding with the Democrats in Congress against the
legislation that is being pushed by the Republicans ----
Governor Herbert. It shouldn't be partisan.
Mr. Raskin. And that is why I am with you. I appreciate the
fact that you are standing up for the federalism principle, you
know, in reality when it counts. Let me just do one more. The
conceal-carry permits, there is an attempt to wipe out all of
the laws of the States on concealed carry to say that if you
get the right to carry a loaded weapon in Florida, which has
very liberal laws on this, you should be able to come into my
State, for example, which doesn't allow people who have
domestic violence offenses or other violent misdemeanor
convictions to get one. Do you think that should be a matter of
national law or do you think it should be up to the States who
gets to carry a loaded pistol in their ----
Governor Herbert. I can tell you ----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Governor Herbert.--it's clearly--it's been tested all over
the Supreme Court, it's a State issue. We have reciprocity. We
have people that come to Utah, get a concealed weapon permit
when 31 other States ----
Mr. Raskin. And you can make the reciprocity agreements and
----
Governor Herbert.--run State by State by State ----
Mr. Raskin. Yes.
Governor Herbert.--reciprocity, there should not be a
national norm.
Mr. Raskin. Got you. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. Absolutely, I am--I have a conceal-carry
license, and I at first was very leery, but I certainly
appreciate the fact that it's something that can be decided
within the State because, as a law enforcement family, my
father, my husband, my son, it always worried me that citizens
were carrying it. However, with the training that we have
implemented, it is a very safe thing to be able to have a
concealed carry.
Mr. Raskin. And you don't want us trampling the laws of New
Mexico to say we know better than you, we are going to bring it
down to the lowest common denominator?
Governor Martinez. That's exactly right.
Mr. Raskin. Governor Otter?
Governor Otter. I believe the same. It's a State issue.
Mr. Raskin. Well, I thank you very much for standing up for
federalism in that case, and I am happy to yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman. The chair now recognizes
the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico, Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, for five
minutes.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
all Governors, for being here today and for your testimony.
Coming from Puerto Rico, we also have got the same problem
in the States, and when these executive orders may not apply to
the island as we do not have that sovereign power, I may say
that all those regulations did apply and do apply to Puerto
Rico. And each agency it says the executive order shall have
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications within 90 days. Of
course, that 90 days never occurred, and that designation that
comes with that mandate always put a burden on some of the
States to comply with those regulations. So what kind of burden
in terms of the expenses all of your States are incurring to
comply with all those regulations in your States? Governor
Otter?
Governor Otter. Well, I haven't got--I haven't added up the
list of the costs that we've had, but I can tell you this:
Nearly every public policy that we deal with in Idaho we have
to factor in what the Federal Government wants us to do, as
well as how much of the cost they want us to suffer. So I would
tell you when we establish public policy, we really need to see
who it helps and who it harms. And sometimes there's very
little attention or care paid, especially from the Federal
level.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. Yes, thank you so much. And certainly
our prayers continue to be with your people ----
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you.
Governor Martinez.--in Puerto Rico. Regulations, for
example, with BLM and the duplication of work that takes place
with the Federal Government and the State Government, the types
of testing that is done, environmental testing, that's a
duplication of costs not only to State Government but also to
the Federal Government and the people who are conducting
business within our State. You know, time is money, and when
something can take 10 days within a State regulation, what
takes 250 days in a Federal regulation, you can see where time
is money and that business people will end up going someplace
else to conduct business where it is easier and better to do it
because they don't have the Federal land that they're having to
deal with with BLM but actually having to deal with just State
land.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Are we talking about NEPA?
Governor Martinez. NEPA is one of those that is required,
yes, and then sometimes it's not required but they're making us
do it anyway, which ends up being more expensive. There are
regulations that actually have exclusions, but we're made to
comply nonetheless.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. And how much will that cost your State?
Governor Martinez. Oh, cost--the costs that I was quoting
you just a while ago, it costs the Federal Government in actual
dollars. It is $1.9 million to New Mexico per day and $3.4
million to the Federal Government per day in revenues. That is
what is being lost right now because of these regulations.
Governor Herbert. Let me just speak about Utah, and again,
it kind of goes to what Representative Connolly was talking
about, local government. When we put together our budget, we
have local government comes to us and said we'll trade you one
dollar of Federal money that comes to the local government for
85 cents of a State dollar, and that's because the red tape,
the regulations are so expensive they'll give a discount of 15
percent just to get a State dollar.
Why does it take so long for the Federal Government to make
decisions? We had a question with Interior here on a road,
whether it should be opened or closed on some of our public
lands. It took us 7-1/2 years, 7-1/2 years to get a decision,
and the only reason we got a decision was because we eventually
decided to sue to make them make a decision. That is time is
money, and when you have local governments say we'll give you
the Federal dollar, give us back just 85 cents, we know that
the cost of the Federal oversight is really getting too
expensive and too time-consuming.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. So you know that with President Trump's
infrastructure plan we also are looking for a streamlined
process in NEPA. Are you in favor of that?
Governor Martinez. Yes.
Governor Otter. Yes.
Governor Herbert. Absolutely.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Can you provide some examples of
specifically what can we be looking at that process directly
for the States?
Governor Otter. Well, I can tell you that we find most of
the standards for our highway systems in Idaho if there's any
Federal participation in those--in some cases if it's our State
highways paid for by our State-only money leading to a Federal
connection--intersection, those are required to meet the same
standards, and those are standards that may work very well in
Virginia or New York or someplace else, but in Idaho it's a
little different.
Governor Martinez. I agree. Certainly, I think NEPA has its
place, but to have it overly expansive on a State that not
necessarily--like, we're very rural, and to have similar type
of testing. I believe in the facts and the evidence and the
data that shows that--whether or not NEPA is something that
should be applied to a particular project. If it doesn't
support it, then we shouldn't be doing it just for the sake of
that's how we've always done it.
Governor Herbert. I think it speaks to the lack of trust.
Again, the Federal Government doesn't believe that our own
environmental scientists can make the assessment and the
evaluation. We're doing a reconstruction of our interstate
along the Wasatch front. It's the same right-of-way and roads
that we've had for 50 years. Why are we having to go--because
we're expanding capacity--a complete revival of an
environmental assessment costs time and it's a waste of time
and money.
Ms. Gonzalez-Colon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
the District of Columbia, Mrs. Holmes Norton, for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Much of the discussion both from those of us in Congress as
we question you and from you have, it is assumed, an
adversarial relationship. Of course, there is a built-in
adversarial relationship when you are part of a whole and yet
we are very different. We are exquisitely different from coast
to coast.
On the other hand, the deep pockets of the Federal
Government does allow it, along with the Constitution and
Federalist notions, to fund important benefits that the States
want.
I want to ask about Medicaid expansion because of the way
you all have approached it. There are States that apparently
prefer to leave a considerable amount of money, indeed most of
the money the Federal Government would pay for--most of it on
the table, which is to leave the health care of their own
residents on the table. Governor Martinez, you did not make
that decision. An article was provided from the Albuquerque
Journal where you stated, ``Access to health care has the
potential to improve the well-being of our families so our kids
can learn better in school and so Mom and Dad can be better
parents and more productive employees.'' You did accept
Medicaid expansion.
Governor Martinez. I did.
Ms. Norton. And would you discuss the remarkable results
there? The figures I have show that your uninsured rate was 25
percent and that it is down now to 10.2 percent. Are those
figures correct?
Governor Martinez. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Governor Herbert, so you found that rather than
assuming the Federal Government was an adversary, working with
the Federal Government, particularly when there was money on
the table and the health and lives of your own residents was at
stake, that that is not always an adversarial relationship. It
can be a very beneficial relationship, perhaps the way the
Founders saw it.
Governor Herbert, you of course tried to expand Medicaid in
Utah, and I commend you for the several compromises that you
tried to achieve so that Medicaid could be--or so that health
care could be available for more in Utah. And you were not able
to do that. You said, ``The poorest among us will continue to
struggle until Utah leaders can find agreement on this
difficult issue.'' What was difficult with the Federal
Government funding the lion's share of health care and your
compromising approach so as to try to bring together people who
might otherwise be adversaries?
Governor Herbert. Well, one, I respectfully reject the
attitude that it ought to be adversarial. I think it ought to
be collaborative. We have difference of opinion. There may be
some tension there, but it shouldn't be adversarial. We should
try to solve the people's problems.
Ms. Norton. Exactly.
Governor Herbert. All the money that the Federal Government
gets comes from State taxpayers. You take the money from us,
you come back, you come up with programs. Sometimes we like
them, sometimes we don't. We learn from the States. We learn
from Susana Martinez, New Mexico, and how it works in there and
we'll learn maybe that will--we'll want to adopt in the State
of Utah.
Ms. Norton. Well, why were you unable, since you were
willing to compromise, to get Medicaid expansion?
Governor Herbert. Because we could not convince members of
the legislature, particularly in our House side, that it would
be the fiscally responsible thing to do in the long term. It's
not just a matter of what can we get today, get some of our
taxpayers' money back, but what's going to be the ongoing
obligation in the long term? Can we afford to buy today and not
afford to buy tomorrow?
Ms. Norton. Yes, that was the reason that that was given
even though there was a huge amount of money on the table and
no indication that Congress was going to pull it back.
Governor Otter, did you mention that you had tried some
sort of compromise in this regard as well?
Governor Otter. I have and I continue to. In fact, I have
one before the Legislature this year.
Ms. Norton. I just want to say that what this does indicate
is that the Governors are closest to the people, and while we
see some States that would rather leave that health care--leave
where, for example, Governor Martinez was unwilling to leave
the health care of her residents, increasingly we do see more
States. Even though the affordable health care has been under
such assault in Congress, we now see more States wanting to be
a part of the program, and I think that has everything to do
with who is closest to the people. We can debate the matter
here. You have got to live with the matter in the States. Thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlelady. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum, for five minutes.
Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panelists today for being here. I must say, first of all, I am
a huge, huge supporter of the Tenth Amendment. In addition to
it being in the Constitution, I also know that Governors and
their State legislators can do most everything less expensive
than this Federal Government and produce better results. You
see here in Washington--this is not news to you all--there is
no penalty for failure. Typically, when a program here doesn't
produce results, we just spend more money on it. It is always
we haven't spent enough money. But you all are CEOs of your
States and you have to live with the results, so thank you for
being here and thank you for what you do.
I don't have an agenda here but I would like to chat about
sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties. I am from eastern Iowa,
and when I am out there talking to people, they just don't
understand how cities, counties--it is not States per se, but
how they can choose to ignore the law. And we have had
Presidents who, if they didn't like a law, let's just not
enforce it. You know, I think you would all agree one of the
reasons we are the greatest nation on the face of this earth is
because of the rule of law, and we are a nation of laws. And I
am going to listen. I would like to have your opinions about
sanctuary cities, how you deal with that in your State. I don't
know if you have any in your States, but what your thoughts on
that are.
Governor Herbert. Well, us going first, it's a challenge
because we do respect our local governments in Utah, so our
cities, our mayors and council people, our county
commissioners. We don't support anything other than the rule of
law. We think if anybody goes contrary to that, that's a
mistake. If you don't like the law, change the law, whether
it's a Federal law or a State law. So I think we're asking for
chaos and division in our country if we don't adhere to the
rule of law.
Mr. Blum. Do you have sanctuary cities in Utah?
Governor Herbert. We--maybe Salt Lake City. I think the
mayor there was--indicate we--we're not going to round up
people and violate their peace and tranquility to be upholding
the law of the Federal Government, so they don't feel like it's
their responsibility. So I don't know if I'd say we're a
sanctuary city there, but that would probably be the only place
it would be considered at all. I don't think they claim to be a
sanctuary city.
Mr. Blum. Recently, I saw on TV--you probably all did as
well--the Oakland, California, mayor saying that she felt it
was her--ethically, she needed to forewarn potentially illegal
immigrants that ICE was going to conduct operations in their
area, in their neighborhood. Governor, can you give me your
thoughts on that?
Governor Herbert. Well, my thoughts really are it's a
Federal issue. We actually tried to find a State solution. We
went to the--we were challenged in court by the Obama
administration. We lost where the court said this is a Federal
issue. I later met with President Obama and he talked about his
executive order, and I said, well, you're trying to do the same
thing I did. We tried to do it by law and a State-right
position. You're trying to do it by executive order, and you're
going to lose in court, too, because it's a congressional
responsibility.
It's disappointing I think to many people across the
country that we can't come together on that. Maybe there are
different aspects we have disagreement, but we all agree we
should secure the borders. Why don't we just do that? We--is
not just the gate--or, excuse me, not just the fence, the wall,
again talking to President Obama about this. The gate doesn't
work. We ought to work on the gate so the people come and go as
we think would be appropriate, and he agrees. He says, why
can't we get Congress to act? That was President Obama to me.
Well, that's the frustration I think of many people across the
country.
Mr. Blum. Well said. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. Yes. As Governor, I took an oath to
enforce the rule of law, whether that be the Federal Government
and the implementation of their Federal laws and the State
laws. However, I also understand that the enforcement of
immigration laws is that of the Federal Government and not of
the State. I do not support sanctuary cities. I think it is
something that is--can be very chaotic. We are releasing
individuals from jails, et cetera, that are violent offenders
and not notifying the Federal Government that someone is within
our community who is a violent offender, whether be released
from prison or from the State or from local jails that now are
amongst the population of the people.
And I have a responsibility to protect the people of the
State of New Mexico, the citizens of New Mexico from anyone who
is violent and being released from a jail. So I signed an
executive order just shortly after becoming Governor and doing
away with sanctuary State policies. That doesn't mean cities
have not declared themselves as a sanctuary city. However, I am
very much not in favor of that.
If the law needs to be changed, the Federal law, then
change it, but the confusion that is taking place is going to
end up in some very terrible outcomes, and so that is why I
don't support it. I support making sure that we're enforcing
the rule of law.
Mr. Blum. With the indulgence of the chair, could Governor
Otter answer my question?
Mr. Palmer. I yield additional time to Governor Otter.
Mr. Blum. Governor Otter?
Governor Otter. Well, thank you very much, Congressman. You
know, it really is a pretty simple--28 words. ``Those powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor
denied to the States by it are reserved to the States
respectively or to the people.'' And if you want to view the
scope and the jurisdiction of supremacy, look to article 1,
section 8--or, pardon me, section 8 of article 1 because those
enumerated powers are exactly what the Tenth Amendment was
talking about. That is where the government--Federal Government
is supposed to exercise supremacy. Those are the limited and
delegated powers.
Mr. Blum. Thank you. I have gone past my time, but thank
you for your service to your States. Thank you very much.
Governor Otter. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. Yes?
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, if you would just allow me real
quickly, picking up I think on a distinction made by Governor
Herbert. There is a distinction between declaring oneself a
sanctuary city or county and a local police force or sheriff's
office saying it is a Federal responsibility for enforcement,
not ours, and we are not going to take that on ourselves. Those
are two different things, and I think I heard Governor Herbert
make that distinction. Certainly, in my community that is our
position, one that we don't declare it sanctuary but we don't
feel that it is our responsibility locally to enforce Federal
immigration laws as such. That is a Federal responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Palmer. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New
York, Mrs. Maloney, for five minutes.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all the
Governors for your service and for your testimony today.
I would like to ask you about President Trump's
infrastructure proposal and how it is going to affect your
States. When the President released his proposed budget for
2019, he announced the vague outlines of a plan that he claims
will boost investment in infrastructure in our nation. We need
it. His plan includes $40 billion through a rural block grant
program, as well as $130 billion in various funding pots for
which States will compete. But even if they win this
competition, States would receive only 20 percent of the amount
needed to fund an infrastructure project, and States and
localities would have to contribute the remaining 80 percent of
the cost.
And he further went forward with his idea to allow States
to impose tolls on all interstate highways, and he says this
would allow them to raise the revenue for the infrastructure
investment.
So I would like to ask all of you, would you raise tolls on
interstate highways to generate revenues for the infrastructure
funding under this plan for your State? Are you planning to
raise tolls which--if you want to go down just starting with
Governor Herbert and Martinez, Otter.
Governor Herbert. There may be some appropriate use of toll
roads. We see them around the country. Certainly, the
Pennsylvania Turnpike and others have been worked out very
successfully. I'm not really in favor of toll roads. I think
that we need to address our infrastructure needs that has been
neglected. I think President Trump is right about that since
the Eisenhower days. But probably an adjustment of the gasoline
tax, which has not been done for, what, 25 years or so ----
Mrs. Maloney. I agree.
Governor Herbert. So if you're going to do that, at least
to recapture what we've lost from inflation, it would probably
be a good thing.
That being said, you know, States aren't waiting for the
Federal Government. Again, we appreciate the partnership when
it's appropriate. You're taking money from us, and we'd like to
get some of it back. But we just completed one of the larger
construction projects in America, $1.7 billion of our
interstate, did it all with State dollars.
Mrs. Maloney. Governor Martinez, would you support a gas
tax for infrastructure?
Governor Martinez. No, ma'am, I would not.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay.
Governor Martinez. We've actually done something very
different in New Mexico. Having had continuing resolutions with
the budget, we had to become very creative in how we were going
to widen roads, make roads more accessible. We do not have any
tollbooths in New Mexico, and so what we've done is made sure
that there was skin in the game for local communities,
counties, the legislators that represent those counties and
municipalities in the State legislature, that their port
dollars are going towards true infrastructure. The State
would--and then the port--the part of the infrastructure
dollars that were given to me were part of that, and then
Federal dollars were.
Also private sector, they were laying, for example--
Facebook, when we brought them in, they were going to lay down
cable for the internet, and what we did through the Department
of Transportation is actually dig the trenches for them to be
able to then lay down the cable that was necessary for the web.
And so these are public-private community local projects for
very big projects of road infrastructure that were not only
funded but completed and completed on time and on budget.
Mrs. Maloney. And, Governor Otter, would you support a gas
tax or would you support tolls on your interstate highways?
Governor Otter. As recently as two years ago, I increased
the gas tax in Idaho and also the licensure of automobiles. One
of the problems with just looking at the gas tax is that we
have so many automobiles that are either 50 miles to the gallon
but still want the same amount of safety, still want the same
amount of space on the highway but are getting 50 miles to the
gallon or a run-off of electricity.
In Idaho--in fact a lot of places in the West--it would be
very difficult to put in toll roads because of the access to
the freeway--to the State freeways. So that's something we'd
have to--we might be able to find some isolated places where we
could do that, but I can tell you this, the infrastructure in
all the West and especially Idaho--because we are a value-added
manufacturing State and there's only one way to get our
products to market, and that's down that highway.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. And also, his budget would cut $122
billion from the existing Highway Trust Fund over 10 years, and
this means States would receive less money from Federal highway
and transit formula programs, which currently match at a rate
of 80 percent Federal to 20 percent local. So let me ask all of
you. Would your States like to receive less money from the
Highway Trust Fund?
Governor Herbert. You know, we would take less money if
you'll take away the red tape and redundancy. I've met with our
contractors in Utah, seven major road builders, and say if we
could get the money block granted to the States without all the
Federal red tape, we'll build the same number of roads for 50
percent less money. You don't have to have more money, you just
cut and save.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, my time is expired. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record statements from the National Association
of Counties on this subject and from the NewDEAL Coalition,
Debbie Cox Bultan, the executive director ----
Mr. Palmer. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I have one request if I could from the task
force at the end of this. All of you have spoken very well
about how, if everyone has good intentions, we can always get
along. The problem that Congress has to try and come up with
rules to make sure that if people are jerks, we can still get
along. So what the task force needs from you three, if you
would be kind enough, are some specific recommendations of what
we can do not just to ensure that you are consulted but you are
remembered for it. But we can talk about--I didn't get a chance
to ask you about the mission creep, how we can deal with those
issues, the mission creep. Should States have not just
standing, which they have, but special standing in order to sue
on issues that are imposed upon you? Some specific ideas that
can be very helpful to ensure that, regardless of what happens,
States are recognized, States are understood, and States have
the right to have that statement.
So I am asking that for the task force, not for the
subcommittee purposes but for the purpose of the task force as
we try and come up with recommendations. So anything you could
give me that is specific as to what we can do statutorily to
help on all these issues, as the gentlelady from the District
said, you know, what you do with the money that is laying on
the table.
Governor Otter. Representative Bishop, I can tell you this,
consult us at the beginning. Generally, what we find is we
come--we are invited late to the party. Public policy has
already started to see its first or second or third draft by
the time--if they ever do ask the States--by the time the
States are asked. And make it a requirement for the agencies
that are going to put in new rules, new--which become laws and
which become those laws that we have to operate by, but ask us
at the beginning. Is this something you folks need? Are we
solving a problem here or are we looking for--just to create
another law?
Mr. Bishop. Perfect. Help me find a place that we can
statutorily mandate that.
Governor Herbert. Can I add, Congressman Bishop, that it
would be nice if the Congress would say--when issues come
before them and say is this best handled at the State level?
That'll be the first question. Maybe it's their responsibility.
Maybe they can address this better rather than just taking on
anything and everything. I think, again, we the people of
America are asking you to do more than was ever envisioned by
our Constitution or our Founding Fathers. And the States are
adept. As Congresswoman Pelosi said yesterday, laboratories of
democracy. You guys should be leading in on policy. We have a
lot of responsibility. You have a few. Article 1, section 8, as
Governor Otter mentioned. So ask yourself, is this really
something we should do or should we let this be handled by the
States?
Governor Martinez. I just have one last statement if I may.
I am certainly hopeful that federalism is not just a principal
or a theory but that it is actually a practice as a United
States citizen. And with that I think we will actually become a
better country every single day, understanding that the States
have the solutions for their people that may be very different
from our neighbors, allowing us to take lead in many of the
projects, many of the things in which the Federal Government
cannot make a single solution that satisfies us all.
Mr. Connolly. Would my friend from Utah yield for a minute?
Mr. Palmer. I don't know. Would I? It depends. What are you
going to say?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connolly. I would certainly support his request, but I
would remind ourselves respectfully we have three Governors
from Western States in front of us. We don't have the Northeast
perspective, we don't have the West Coast perspective, and this
is big country and there could be other points of view. And I
just hope that in inviting feedback to inform us in considering
a statute that we make sure we have broad feedback from other
experiences, including, well, other States just so that we are
well-informed at that we are getting all balanced points of
view, with no disrespect at all because I found the testimony
quite convincing this morning in many respects, but I just ask
that of my friend from Utah.
Governor Herbert. Can I just respond? Because I'm the one
here who's been the chairman here three years ago of the
National Governors Association, a bipartisan organization. We
get along actually very well, very congenial, and we respect
each other's difference of opinions on things. So I would
welcome all 50 States and the five territories for that matter
to weigh in on this issue. But I can tell you, having
experienced my involvement for eight years with the National
Governors Association, most all of us would say give us more
flexibility. Let us take on the challenges. We don't need the
one-size-fits-all mentality that comes too often out of
Washington, D.C. Democrats and Republicans alike would agree
with that. So I think get everybody. I think you'll find that
we have a lot of consensus on this issue amongst the States.
Mr. Connolly. I had dinner last night with your colleague
John Carney of Delaware, and he said very nice things about
you.
Governor Herbert. Well, and I'll say nice things about him.
We were Lieutenant Governors together, so we've been around for
a long time.
Mr. Palmer. Just for the record, we gave every opportunity
for a Democratic Governor to join the panel and would really
like to have heard from them. In that regard, what I would
recommend is that if there are other Governors, Republican or
Democrat, who would like to submit a statement for the record,
the record will be held open for two weeks. I will remind you
of that at the conclusion of the hearing.
At this time I will recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. DeSaulnier, for his questions for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And being from
California, I wish our Governor was here. It would be even more
entertaining; he always is.
Let me just say this challenge of course has been with this
country forever, how this relationship works. When I was on the
executive board of the National Conference of State
Legislatures, to your comments, Governor, I found that
environment to be very collegial, bipartisan, being a Democrat
from the bay area and the State Senate. So there are examples
where this works. And I think when you are involved in that, as
you are, you realize that 50 States are very different and
there are lots of communities within that.
But there are compelling places, and I want to talk
specifically about addiction and opioid addiction in my
questions and the results of the bipartisan commission that the
administration put together that was chaired by former Governor
Christie and what the relationship is in terms of best
practices to this epidemic and the Federal Government's role.
So one of the key quotes from that report from Governor
Christie is ``One of the most important recommendations in the
final report is getting Federal funding support more quickly
and effectively to State governments who are on the frontlines
of fighting this addiction battle every day.'' And my district,
very different from other places, it is a more upscale part of
the bay area, or much of my district, and it is upper middle
income. I have lots of meetings and put a good deal of my time
in my former job working with the Attorney General's Office,
now U.S. Senator Kamala Harris to deal with that. So knowing
that it is very different in different communities, what you
need from the Federal Government, and could you express the
urgency you need it when it comes to addiction and opioid
addiction in your States? Can you start?
Governor Herbert. We're not asking for much from the
Federal Government. Again, I am cognizant of your budget
challenges. The fact that you're $20-21 trillion in debt is not
lost on a State that has a AAA bond rating. We try to live
within our means and not spend more than we take in and we have
rational debt.
So, that being said, I'm not looking to the Federal
Government. We're trying to do this--this has been an issue
that's been raised by the National Governors Association four
years ago. We're on the cutting edge of this in the States.
We're doing things in our respective States to address this
issue. We're putting warning labels, we're--there's talk about
litigation, lawsuits against the pharmaceuticals that have
evidently withheld information about the addictive nature of
these drugs. That's probably something that's going to be in
our future. I think tobacco litigation.
We are training our doctors better. We have now put a
database in the State of Utah so that doctors can know if
you're doctor-shopping and what your issues have been, if
you've been in the emergency room, if you've been to a doctor,
and your general practitioner, they can all access this on the
internet without violation of HIPAA laws. We've got that wired
in so there's permission given.
So, again, we're doing things at the States. We're learning
from each other. And again, we'll homogenize together as we
find the successes that are taking place in the States. So I'm
not asking for anything from the Federal Government.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Either of you?
Governor Martinez. No, actually, we've done the very same
thing in making sure that we can prevent that kind of doctor-
shopping. You know, you go in for a root canal and you get 30
days' worth of opioids, which is really completely unnecessary.
However, that person can become addicted, and therefore, the
database is very helpful for us to make sure that there isn't
that doctor-shopping because from the opioids and we're not
able to continue to have access, then you turn over to heroin,
and heroin is very accessible because we're on the border. It
may be very different from Montana, may be very different from
the middle of the country, but right there in New Mexico it is
very accessible and very cheap.
Governor Otter. During our meetings this week, we had a
very good roundtable on--and we had a report from the task
force to which you referred that Governor Christie held. And
there was one thing that almost all the States need, and that
was a review of all Federal rules and regulations that inhibit
us from defending ourselves from that epidemic.
Mr. DeSaulnier. And that one thing I would ask for your
help with, Representative Carter, a Republican from Georgia, a
pharmacist, he and I have worked closely together. In
California, we spent $5 million, which was not significant in
our budget, to make sure that the Department of Justice and the
medical board has real-time information for people who are
doctor-shopping. So one of the things that Representative
Carter and I have been working on is interoperability as all
States try to bring this system up.
And then, just lastly, until I came to Congress, I never
was a States' rights advocate, but being from California, I am
becoming more and more of one. When you see things that work
well in one State that is very different from another State,
just if we could have more of a conversation that I would see
as more bipartisan, more evidence-based, that what works in the
bay area is not going to work in many of your jurisdictions and
vice versa. Some of that is politically driven obviously, but
when we really look at the evidence and what works, including
on immigration, I wish we had more of those discussions, and I
hope you have them when you meet with your colleagues.
Governor Otter. Thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Martinez. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Grothman, for five minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. It is an honor we have
three Governors at one shot.
The committee has heard from State and local governments,
and I certainly hear from them at home all the time that the
compliance of Federal regulations is very, very expensive. And
lawmakers have shared compliance with Federal--some lawmakers
have shared compliance with Federal regulators, forcing local
governments to create funding by increasing sales and property
taxes on citizens. Do you know how much money, say, your States
spend to comply with Federal mandates and regulations?
Governor Herbert. As I mentioned earlier--and I don't--we
could probably reduce it to a number, but it's--our local
governments tell us we'll give you a dollar--a Federal
Government dollar to spend in exchange for 85 cents, so it's
about a 15 percent margin as a minimum.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I will give you another question. I
used to be a State legislator in Wisconsin, and one of the
things that bothered me is sometimes Federal funds come with a
maintenance-of-effort requirement in which you are really
forced to spend money just to keep the Federal funds coming,
money that you don't want to spend. Have you guys had any
experience like that?
Governor Herbert. We have. Remember years ago the cops
grant where you're trying to get public safety and so you would
get money from the Federal Government to hire policemen, but
then you had to maintain those. You could not diminish your law
enforcement, so it was built into your baseline. You took the
grant and then you had to continue to spend money.
Again, as far as the concern we talked about with Medicaid
expansion, for our legislators, the concern is what is going to
be the ongoing cost? And the match just stays the same, so you
still get--have to come up with your portion of the match, and
that's an ongoing--I mean, with the rising cost of health care
has caused some of the legislators to say we can afford it
today, but we're not--we don't think we can afford our match
tomorrow.
Mr. Grothman. How about TANF? Do you guys have any problem
spending all your TANF dollars, or when things are going well,
do you find that you have to look around to spend things on
that you really wouldn't spend them on otherwise?
Governor Herbert. You know, we've taken a little different
approach in Utah. Again, we appreciate the programs that are
out there to help people get out of poverty. We're probably the
State leading the Nation in getting people out of poverty. The
average length of time when people come to us, say, on Medicaid
is only nine months because we emphasize we're going to help
you in the short term. We're going to give you education,
training, and skills so you can start helping yourself. It's
the old adage of we're not just going to give you ----
Mr. Grothman. Right.
Governor Herbert.--a fish, we're going to teach you to
fish. And that's something that I think is a good program that
we're doing in Utah that I think other States, work efforts are
----
Mr. Grothman. It is, but I am going to tell you the problem
that I think we bumped into in Wisconsin, and that is when you
are successful, you have to keep spending the same amount of
money or more, right, which is a problem. You are kind of
penalized for being successful because the Federal Government
says if you want to keep this money coming, find something to
spend it on. And in that way you kind of penalize the
successful States.
Governor Herbert. Well, that's an adverse incentive, and so
that's probably not a good policy.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But you guys never have a problem
spending all your TANF money. Okay.
Governor Herbert. Yes, I don't know--for example, CHIP, we
don't spend all the CHIP money. Again, we're working on trying
to get people off government assistance, and most people don't
want to have government assistance. They want to have a job;
they want to be able to be self-sustaining. That's the American
way. So we don't spend it just to spend it and find ways to
spend it. We're trying to actually solve problems.
Mr. Grothman. You can always find a way, though, to spend
it that might be good. I mean, the question is--I should put it
this way: Because of maintenance effort, are you spending
dollars that you feel you would never spend on your own if you
had to tax yourself for it? I guess I should put it that way.
Governor Otter. I think there's many areas, Congressman,
where we could cut down on the amount of Federal dollars that
we need if we're allowed to implement those things that the
Federal Government or those programs want us to achieve. And I
think Governor Herbert has spoken to it very well, and that is
we know that there's going to be a time when people are going
to hit an economic or a financial speedbump in their life, and
yes, it's important that they have a government which can
respond to that but only on a temporary basis. And if we had
the rules and regulations that we could enforce that say, okay,
while you're laid up, while you're doing this, you're going to
get an education. We're going to send you back to school. And
we would spend some of that money then on getting you a
retrofitted for the economy of the State of Idaho in a new
profession if we were allowed to.
Mr. Grothman. I think one final question here in the final
30 seconds, obviously, everybody is thinking about what went on
in Florida, and you get so much stuff on the internet and so
many articles on there, you don't know what is true and what is
not true, but it appears as though there have been Federal
grants in which you are encouraged to report less crimes or
less arrests or that sort of thing. So, in other words, maybe
people do things different to pretend that they have better
outcomes than they are having. In other words, they are in this
case apparently arresting fewer people than they should arrest
or I would say they should arrest to get more Federal money. Do
you find that there are any programs like that in which you are
incentivized to hit targets that you might not want to hit?
Governor Herbert. You know, I can't think of anything. If
in fact that's the case, again, we can see the incentive is in
the wrong place. It ought to be for--the incentive ought to be
have better outcomes, and we ought to be full and transparent
in how we collect the data and not try to game the system.
Governor Martinez. I think at times there's--there are
Federal dollars, for example, in law enforcement and the
maintenance of efforts that takes place. However, the
paperwork, the amount of documentation that is required to be
submitted, the limitations that come with those dollars when
they may be better used different than having to come to the
Federal Government for permission, to change the shift a little
bit but still under the umbrella of law enforcement, that
becomes a challenge for us.
Governor Otter. If I understand your question, Congressman,
probably the most egregious that I've seen is the introduction
of a new species under the Endangered Species Act that then the
State is required to maintain.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I would like to thank the chair for
giving me an additional minute.
Governor Otter. So would I.
Mr. Palmer. At this time I will recognize myself for five
minutes. And the first thing I want to do, Governor Martinez,
is your testimony talked about the fact that there are more
than 800 applications for permits to drill in New Mexico at a
cost of approximately $1.9 million to New Mexico and $3.4
million to the Federal Government per day. And I think you went
on to say that it takes an average of 250 days. That is $850
million just on the Federal side.
And the reason I bring that up is that I have been here--
what is today, the 27th? I have been here three years, one
month, and 21 days, and one of the first things I pushed was
opening up Federal lands for energy. We are an energy
superpower. There is no question about it. The Federal
Government has tremendous resources.
And I bring this up in the context of infrastructure
because I think a gas tax is the revenue source of diminishing
returns. Governor Otter made this point about the fuel
efficiency that we are achieving and we continue to want to do
that. Everybody wants more fuel-efficient vehicles. So when you
attach a gas tax, you know that that is a revenue source of
diminishing return.
What I think might be more helpful is if we take your
testimony and this whole permitting thing, expedite this, get
it down so that we not only can shorten the amount of time it
takes to take advantage of a lease but increase the royalties--
we haven't increased the royalties on Federal energy resources
since the 1920s--and direct a portion of that into the Highway
Trust Fund for infrastructure. We could set it up on a system
where there could be matching money for the States and let the
States manage it. Would you like to comment on that?
Governor Martinez. Yes. Thank you very much for that
question and comment. I think it's very important to understand
that New Mexico is really a gem within the country not only for
energy independence for the country but also the revenues that
it generates. There's--for petroleum, there are so many
products. It's not just for vehicles and ----
Mr. Palmer. That is right.
Governor Martinez.--gas is not just for vehicles. I mean,
what goes--what products use the petroleum? And if we took that
out of every product that we see and touch every day, we would
be shocked to know how much of that is used in a variety of
products.
The--under the previous administration, it was better to
say nothing to the private industry, not to give permission or
to deny it. Under my previous administration as a Governor, the
same thing. It was easier to say nothing, which costs people
money to have something sitting there. We had some of these
permits sitting there three years when I entered into office,
so it was a quick move of going forward and backwards for every
permit coming in the door and everything that was sitting
there. To be able to have the revenues that allow us for
education, allow for special projects, infrastructure projects
that we have, and our permanent fund. We have a permanent fund,
is one of the healthiest ones in the country because of oil and
gas just in case when it was developed we ran out of oil and
gas. But because technology is so great now, we're able to
actually produce more and make it more available so that we're
not reliant on countries that are in such turmoil.
Mr. Palmer. Well, it has been reported that there is a
formation out West in western Colorado, southwestern Wyoming,
and northern Utah, the Green River Formation, that holds three
trillion barrels of recoverable oil. That is three times what
the entire world has used in the last 100 years. I don't want
to stay focused on that. I want to talk about some of these
other issues and a more collaborative effort between State and
local government.
I think that is a legitimate discussion, particularly since
my brother is a county engineer--on how we can work on
infrastructure together on the permitting. What we have seen
over the last few years is just an enormous drag on
infrastructure and really on the economy because of permitting.
The infrastructure is so important to the economy.
I would like to get some feedback from each of you on how
you see we could improve that process, maybe let the State and
local governments do more of the work in a collaborative way,
as you talk about, Governor Herbert.
Governor Herbert. Well, thank you. Again, I come from local
government. I was a county commissioner for 14 years. I
participated with NACo on many things. We railed against the
Federal Government when I was there about the unfunded or
underfunded mandates would come to local government, so the
issue is still here. It's always probably going to be here, but
at least we ought to be cognizant of it.
In Utah, we in fact invite--they have an association for
the cities called the League of Cities and Towns. They come. We
have 245 of them that they represent, the cities of the State,
29 counties, part of our Utah Association of Counties. They are
probably the most active people on the Hill during the
legislative session to make sure that what we do, they get
input and they're invited.
We equalize our educational funding in the State of Utah so
that if you're in a rural part on the Navajo Nation that you
get as much education funding as you do if you're in the middle
of the urban heartland of the State of Utah. So we try to
respect, you know, all the local government and their
subdivisions and make sure that they're part of the decision-
making process in the State of Utah.
Again, a lot of it's just an attitude. We're saying we're
not going to make decisions at the State level until we've got
input from the local levels, and some of that we devolve down
and let them say, you know what, that's a county issue. In your
county, you take care of it. That's a city issue. You're a
city, you take care of it and the State will stay out of it.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. In that regard--and this is my last
question--we have talked a good bit about shrinking the State
and local consultation requirements of reforming the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act to help restore the States' partnership
with the Federal Government. What I want to know is how
important are these types of reforms, and are there other
possible areas for reform that Congress could be, should be
looking at to improve the relationship or communication between
the Federal Government and the States? And each of you can
answer that, and we will be done.
Governor Otter. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying we
learned a lot about ourselves during the recession between '08
and '10. And what we did is what almost every Idaho family did
is they sat around the breakfast table when the work ran out
for Dad and said, you know, what things do we--what are--what
is necessary and what is nice? To find out what is necessary,
we look to the Constitution, and the Constitution was pretty
specific about an education system for the State of Idaho and
other areas. And then we said, well, what is nice? If we
haven't got the money for nice, we're not going to do those
things anymore.
And so I think at every level of government, especially
when you run into a time like the Great Recession--like the
recession was, that's the process that you have to go through.
And even further than that, after the recession we didn't go
back to the old ways of doing things because we learned there
were a lot of things that were simply not the proper role of
government.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Governor Martinez?
Governor Martinez. I completely support that. You know,
having inherited the largest structural deficit in the history
of our State. I have not raised a tax once. And they can call
it whatever they want, revenue enhancements, whatever it may
be. We've not raised a single tax but we've actually become
competitive with our surrounding States, which didn't exist for
a very, very long time. It was believed doing the same thing
over and over again we were going to get different results, and
we didn't. We became competitive and we've actually recruited
companies and businesses to New Mexico because we're doing it
different.
However, now, we're turning over an amazing budget. We have
a surplus. We have great royalties. We have a permanent fund
that's outstanding. But I hope that the next Governor doesn't
see it as a way to start a spending frenzy and then growing
government back to where it used to be, which was absolutely
unnecessary, way too many employees to actually complete the
mission of the State. And so that's what we've done is reduce
our actual government size to fit what was necessary for us to
deliver the services that are required.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Governor Herbert?
Governor Herbert. I'll just finish by saying this. You've
heard me say this already. But all 435 Members of the House,
all 100 Members of the Senate, the President should always ask
the question, ``Is this an issue, something that should be
better addressed at the State level?'' That should be the
beginning of every discussion. And it'll be differences of
opinion, but many times you're going to say, you know what,
that probably is going to be better and more effectively
addressed at the State level. Let them take on that
responsibility. We will welcome that. And I think that's a
bipartisan approach, by the way, that feeling. Thanks for
hearing us today.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I thank our witnesses again for appearing
before us today. I think this has been an excellent hearing and
very constructive.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks for any
member to submit a written opening statement or questions for
the record.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
committee stands adjourned.
Governor Martinez. Thank you. Thank you for the
opportunity.
[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]