July 3, 2007
The "NATaT Washington Report" is a monthly email newsletter that provides timely information to town and township officials on the legislative, regulatory, funding, and policy decisions in Washington that could affect your communities. The Washington Report focuses on NATaT's primary federal issues. The Washington Report is produced by NATaT's federal representative in Washington, The Ferguson Group. For more information on the legislation described in this report, see http://thomas.loc.gov/ or contact The Ferguson Group. Contact NATaT federal director Jennifer Imo at 1.866.830.0008 or jennifer.imo@natat.org for more information.
The June 2007 Washington Report Contains Summaries of the Following Issues:
Census
NATaT President Keith Hite Delivers Testimony
On June 26, NATaT President Keith Hite delivered testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives. The hearing focused on the impact of the Local Update Census Addresses (LUCA) Program on local governments. LUCA is a partnership that allows tribal, state and local governments to review, edit and help update the official Master Address File (MAF) that will be used in the 2010 Census. The director of the Census Bureau, Mr. Charles Kincannon, testified at the hearing, and highlighted several LUCA improvements:
- There will be a longer review period: 120 calendar days versus 90 calendar days
- There will be more advance notice so that participating governments can prepare
- There will be more comprehensive communications as well as periodic contact to answer questions and gauge each participating government's progress
- State governments will have an opportunity to directly participate in LUCA
Mr. Hite did an excellent job representing towns and townships nationwide. He recommended to the committee that additional training, outreach and communication from the Census Bureau was necessary to improve the participation of local government in LUCA and the 2010 Decennial Census.
Census Funding
On June 28, Census Bureau funding for Fiscal Year 2008 was approved at $1.2 billion, nearly $30 million above Fiscal Year 2007 funding, and $23 million above the Administration's budget request. Funding to maintain 2010 Census programs and activities will continue.
Accurate census counting in small communities is essential to NATaT's membership, and the organization supports efforts such as the LUCA program that are designed to ensure more accurate census counts.
Clean Water Restoration Act
On May 22nd, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) introduced H.R. 2421, a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the US over waters of the US.
Representative Dingell and Representative Oberstar introduced legislation in reaction to a high court ruling in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. US Army Corps of Engineers that prohibited the government from using migratory bird protections to protect wetlands isolated from navigable waters and in response to an additional court ruling in the joint cases of Rapanos v. US and Carabell v. US Army Corps of Engineers.
Both Supreme Court cases hinged on the phrase waters of the United States, which defines the extent of regulatory jurisdiction under the 1972 Clean Water Act's (CWA) Section 404, requiring anyone who wants to dump into navigable waters to get a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.
The bill seeks to replace the term navigable waters of the United States with waters of the United States, which re-establishes the commonly held understanding of the CWA prior to the Supreme Court rulings. The legislation also includes a savings clause that clarifies that existing CWA exemptions, including those for agriculture, mining and silviculture, will remain in place.
The bill currently has 164 cosponsors and is pending before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bill is being opposed by a coalition that includes the National Water Resources Associations, the National Association of Counties, the National Corn Growers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
In the Senate, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is expected to introduce a companion bill to H.R. 2421.
Towns and townships are concerned about an overbroad federal jurisdiction over the waters and wetlands in our local communities, and the NATaT Board of Directors will remain active in monitoring the progress of proposed federal legislation to expand federal control over local waters.
Election Reform
On June 12th, Representative Pete Sestak (D-PA) made a speech to the House in support of H.R. 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2007. H.R. 811 was introduced by Representative Rush Holt (D-N.J.) to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by requiring a voter-verified permanent paper ballot in time for the 2008 elections. This bill would impose numerous federal mandates for the 2008 elections including a requirement that all ballots to be printed on archival quality paper and meet federal standards for converting the printed ballot into accessible media for verification by visually impaired voters.
NATaT is working with NACo to oppose this measure, emphasizing that the federal mandates prescribed in the bill for next year's election are unworkable, as federal standards for many of the mandates have not yet been issued. Additionally, H.R. 811 would dictate extremely expensive and time-consuming practices for conducting audits and recounts even when one candidate wins by a wide margin. There is simply not enough time to enact state conforming legislation, do testing and procurement, develop training materials, and train election officials, pollworkers and voters on how to use equipment they have never used.
Eminent Domain
Despite the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in favor of New London, Connecticut, in Kelo et al v. City of New London, many local governments nationwide have become more apprehensive about using eminent domain for public purposes. Traditionally a tool used to support local redevelopment and improve blighted neighborhoods, the recent media spotlight on certain abuses of eminent domain has soured public opinion. As public opinion has shifted against eminent domain, the eminent domain debate has also shifted from the Supreme Court to the Congress, state legislatures and the ballot box. Freestanding eminent domain ballot measures passed in nine states in Fall 2006 - Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Nevada, Oregon, and South Carolina. Every state legislature in the nation has considered the eminent domain issue following the Kelo decision; approximately two-thirds of the states have adopted reform legislation. Political concerns have also limited its use in downtown redevelopment efforts and in partnership with private developers. At stake is local government's ability to revitalize blighted communities.
Two bills have recently been introduced in the 110th Congress that would further erode the power of eminent domain and provide federal controls over local land use. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) has introduced the "Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act of 2007" or the "STOPP Act of 2007" (H.R. 926). If enacted, the bill would prohibit all federal economic development assistance for states and localities that use eminent domain to obtain property for private commercial development or that fails to pay relocation costs to persons displaced by use of the power of eminent domain for economic development purposes. The proposed legislation defines federal economic development assistance as: the Department of Agriculture's rural development grants and loans; Economic Development Administration financial assistance; the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grants, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, rural housing and economic development programs, and Indian housing block grant program; the Bureau of Indian Affairs' grants, loans and loan guarantees; the Department of Treasury's community development financial institutions fund program; Appalachian Regional Commission development programs; the National Credit Union Administration's revolving loan funds; the Denali Commission's programs; the Delta Regional Authority's development resources; and the Department of Health and Human Services' discretionary awards. The bill is currently supported by 25 House co-sponsors.
In the Senate, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has introduced the "Private Property Rights Protection Act" (S. 48). This bill would also make a local government ineligible for federal funding if it "engages or participates in a taking or condemnation of any real property interest not for a public use or public purpose, without the consent of the owner of such real property interest, under the power of eminent domain." The bill would require local governments to certify, under penalty of perjury, that any federal funds it receives would not be used to "further any economic development associated with an exercise of eminent domain power which is not in furtherance of a public use or public purpose" and would allow the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to audit any town or township that has made such a certification. Furthermore, the bill would expose local governments to lawsuits for violation of the Act. The bill is currently supported by three Senate co-sponsors.
Prospects for the two introduced eminent domain bills are uncertain, as key Committee and congressional leaders question whether traditional local powers should be undercut. What is certain is that efforts to weaken the ability of local governments to judiciously exercise eminent domain while paying just compensation will continue. NATaT, will continue to work with other state and local government organizations to monitor proposed eminent domain legislation in this Congress and to protect local government prerogatives to oversee land use decisions in their communities.
Environment and Natural Resources
Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
Action on the bill has now moved to a conference committee, where differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill will be reconciled. Both the House and Senate are beginning to line up their conferees but there is no time table as to when the bill will go to conference.
Many towns and townships are directly involved or affected by water resource projects on their local rivers, lakes, coasts, canals, reservoirs, and wetlands. NATaT supports the passage of WRDA legislation that is badly needed to support local water resource improvements and projects. WRDA legislation should include increased funding for local projects, improvements to the Corps planning process to reduce delays in Corps projects, fair cost-share methodologies for local project sponsors, and broadened Corps authorities to support local waterfront revitalization.
Farm Bill
On June 6th, the House Agriculture Committee's Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee approved the Rural Development title of the 2008 Farm Bill, H.R. 2419. The Farm Bill's Rural Development title reauthorizes several existing annual programs through 2012, including: $30 million for grants that would support development, storage, treatment, purification, or distribution of water of the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural areas; $15 million for business development or labor training in rural areas; $25 million for the secretary of agriculture to establish a national rural water and wastewater rider program to provide technical assistance to help bring small public water systems into compliance with state and national environmental regulations; and $35 million to assist residents in rural areas and small communities comply with the Water Pollution Control Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The measure includes a new definition of rural towns eligible for loans to develop broadband networks. The current law defines eligible rural towns as any area of the US that is not contained in an unincorporated city or town with a population in excess of 20,000 inhabitants. The new definition would exclude suburban municipalities, where broadband access is often well established. The Secretary of Agriculture would also be prohibited from giving loans to communities that are already served by more than three service providers.
The subcommittee also included language offered by Chairman Mike McIntyre (D-NC) that would require the Secretary of Agriculture to favor applications for rural development funds from areas with the least median household income, the smallest population, and the least seasonal population increase.
The rural development and broadband deployment programs supported by federal farm legislation are essential to towns and townships. NATaT will remain active in the Farm Bill reauthorization process to ensure that these programs are adequate to handle the national needs of small and rural communities, and that NATaT communities are eligible to participate in these programs.
First Responders
Volunteer Responder Incentive Protection Act of 2007 (VRIP Act, H.R. 943/S. 1466)
On May 23rd, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Gordon Smith (R-OR) introduced S. 1466, the Senate companion bill to the House Volunteer Responder Incentive Protection Act, H.R. 943. The bill is currently pending before the Senate Finance Committee and has three cosponsors. The House version of the Volunteer Responder Incentive Protection Act of 2007 was introduced on February 8th by Representative John Larson (D-CT). The House bill has 150 cosponsors and is currently pending before the House Ways and Means Committee.
The bills would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: (1) to exclude from gross income real or personal property tax rebates or any other benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders; and (2) to exempt from social security, unemployment taxes, and wage withholding real or personal property tax rebates or any other benefits provided to volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders. "Any other benefits" is defined as a benefit, other than a property tax rebate, that a state or local government provides an individual for serving as a member of a qualified volunteer emergency response organization, such as a small stipend. Volunteer firefighters and emergency medical responders must be members of a volunteer emergency response organization that is organized and operated to provide firefighting and emergency medical services, as required and recognized by the state or local government.
Examples of some of the recruiting and retention incentives, aside from property tax abatements, that communities are currently experimenting with include modest stipends that are sometimes paid per call or in lump-sums per year or quarter, health benefits, retirement awards, state income tax credits, length of service awards, and death benefits. The bill language provides flexibility to allow states and local governments to adopt the appropriate incentive programs and structure them through their own legislatures. Various tax incentives are currently offered to volunteer emergency responders in five states: Connecticut, Maryland, South Carolina, New York, and Delaware.
Volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel are integral to public safety in towns and townships. NATaT strongly supports this proposed law that would provide appropriate incentives and protections for the men and women who volunteer to serve their local communities through volunteer fire and EMS companies. NATaT has teamed up with the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Congressional Fire Services Institute and the International Association of Fire Chiefs to support H.R. 943 and S. 1466, and sent a joint letter to Senators Dodd and Smith thanking them for their support of this issue.
Thanks to the information from towns and townships across the nation provided to NATaT from the recently disseminated tax surveys, we are currently compiling data regarding the impact of volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel on your state. That information will be shared with members of NATaT's congressional delegation, including Rep. Larson and Senator Dodd, who are spearheading this legislation.
Homeland Security
Grants for Local Law Enforcement
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Improvement Act & Byrne Grant Legislation
On May 15th, the House passed H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, by a vote of 381 to 34. The legislation, which was introduced by Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY), would increase the authorization for the COPS program to $1.15 billion in each of the next six fiscal years, beginning in 2008. Specifically, H.R. 1700 includes up to $600 million annually over six years for "officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror or homeland security duties;" $350 million per year for technology grants; and up to $200 million annually to help local district attorneys hire community prosecutors.
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) is the sponsor of the companion bill in the Senate, S. 368, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. On May 24th, S. 368 was put on the Senate Legislative Calendar and on June 20th a hearing was held before the Committee on the Judiciary.
On May 24th, the Senate passed S. 231, authorizing over $1 billion annually, through FY 2012, for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which awards grants for criminal justice enforcement, focusing on violent crime and serious offenders. S. 231 is sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). There is currently no companion legislation in the House.
Grant for Interoperable Communications
In approximately two weeks, the Department of Homeland Security will release program guidance and award amounts for its $1 billion Interoperable Communications Grant Program. The Ferguson Group continues to encourage local government entities to contact their state Homeland Security agencies to ensure they are included in statewide spending plans, which are due to DHS by November 1. DHS will make awards directly to states, which will have to spend their awards on behalf of, or in consultation with, local governments to improve communications among local first responders.
Projects supported with these funds must be compatible with the 700 mhz spectrum. That means funds may be used to acquire systems utilizing the 700 mhz spectrum, or they may be used to make another type of system compliant and interoperable with a 700 mhz system.
Many towns and townships have risks to local homeland security, and have needs for federal funding to protect against those risks. However, the homeland security funding provided by the federal government is heavily focused on urban areas, high security risk areas and state-based security plans. Towns and townships with genuine homeland security needs must demonstrate those needs and work in partnership with their larger regions and states to be included in state-based homeland security spending plans. Critical programs for towns and townships include FIRE grants and interoperability communications grants. These programs can fund small community projects but, again, towns/townships need to coordinate with regional and state authorities to demonstrate genuine need. NATaT supports approaches that provide additional grant funding to all communities, including small towns, for these needs.
Immigration
After months of negotiation, there will be no immigration bill passed this year. On June 28, the Senate failed to achieve the 60 vote threshold needed to invoke cloture on and pass comprehensive immigration legislation. Last month, we reported that a deal was reached and key senators agreed to bring a comprehensive package to the floor (S. 1348) In early June, senators debated over the bill, but did not agree to end debate and could vote on a final bill. After a week of inside negotiations, including a Senate GOP visit from President George Bush, Senators agreed to revisit the bill, which included a package of more than 20 amendments contributed from both sides. The new comprehensive immigration reform bill (S. 1639) was introduced with the hopes that the Senate would be able to pass some kind of immigration legislation before the year's end.
But once again, the vote to end debate did not pass, which means bill died before anyone could vote on it. The immigration debate will not resurface this year in the Senate or the House. It is unlikely that a bill will be introduced next year, due in part to it being an election year and the controversy associated with the bill.
