State and local governments addressed a Senate subcommittee and called for an expansion of provisions in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would further relieve them from their obligations to provide important public protections. The Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia held a hearing April 14 on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. After accounts from the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and the Congressional Budget Office on the first 10 years of UMRA, a second panel featured testimony from representatives of state and local governments demanding relief from their obligations under government mandates. Representatives from the National Association of Counties (NACo), the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National League of Cities all decried their obligation to comply with federal requirements in federally funded programs. In testimony before the subcommittee, NACo Vice President Colleen Landkamer presented a NaCo study that looked at obligations of counties associated with 10 common mandates from which NaCo is presumably seeking relief. The study criticized the following public protections:

• Clean Air Act, which requires compliance with federal air pollution standards.
• Clean Water Act, which requires compliance with regulations regarding wastewater treatment and discharge.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which regulates solid and hazardous waste.
• Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects the rights of disabled citizens.
• Help America Vote Act, which establishes minimum standards for voting equipment used in federal elections.
• Endangered Species Act, which protects jeopardized species against harm, including destruction of their habitats.

Rather than calling for increased funding of these important public safeguards, state and local governments asked for relief from compliance. Landkamer outlined the approximate costs of some of the federal obligations. For instance, according to the study, the compliances costs borne by a family of four for the Americans with Disabilities Act is $8.38 while the cost for the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act is $26.11. NACo's figures, however, failed to take into consideration the cost to the states in the absence of the mandates. CBO Deputy Director Elizabeth Robinson testified that any study of costs to states must take into consideration the counterfactual -- what the states would have done in the absence of the federal requirement. In most cases, such as public education requirements, the states would have more than likely chosen to spend money even in the absence of a federal mandate. Taking those expenditures into consideration, the cost of the federal mandate is actually much lower than the figures presented by NACo. Landkamer also decried the one-size-fits-all approach of federal mandates. Federal mandates are applied equally across the board to all state and local governments in order to ensure that all citizens are guaranteed the same basic level of public health, safety and environmental protections. Landkamer's arguments ignore that to apply obligations on the state on a case-by-case basis is to deny citizens the same degree of protection. State and local governments also called on the committee to consider changes that would strengthen UMRA by closing loopholes and exemptions. Currently, for instance, UMRA does not apply to costs associated with enforcing constitutional rights or providing for national security. UMRA also excludes grant conditions. State and local groups called for expanding UMRA to cover these exemptions. If UMRA is expanded in this way, state and local governments may no longer have to comply with such important public protections as the Help America Vote Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act, which safeguard many important rights. Though representatives of state and local governments were united in calling for an expansion of UMRA's provisions, the suggestions for reform varied considerably. Committee Chairman George Voinovich (R-OH) asked for the groups present to coordinate their efforts and bring to the committee a singular legislative package of recommendations. Voinovich told the panel that with a coordinated effort from state and local governments, they would be able to "move mountains." The Senate hearing is part of a coordinated effort to expand the provisions of UMRA. Provisions already in the Senate budget resolution would increase the number of votes needed to overturn an UMRA point of order. The House of Representatives has also held a hearing that sought suggestions on how to expand UMRA's provisions, and that hearing featured many of the same organizations represented in the Senate hearing.