SB 1 An Act relating to state implementation of federal statutes. HCS CS SB 1 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of Law and a zero fiscal note by the Senate Finance Committee dated 3/2/95. SENATE BILL 1 "An Act relating to state implementation of federal statutes." TERRY OTNESS, STAFF, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, testified in support of SB 1. He stated that SB 1 was introduced as a companion measure to SJR 7, the Tenth Amendment resolution which has already passed the Legislature and been transmitted to the Governor. The resolution demands that Congress stop the practice of passing federal mandates which exceed Congressional authority under the Tenth Amendment. He added that SB 1 would be an attempt to identify federal 4 mandates, both statutory and regulatory, which conflict with State policy or exceed Constitutional limitations. Mr. Otness commented in order to accomplish that goal, SB 1 would require an annual review by the executive branch of each program mandated by Congress. An annual report to the Governor and the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee would set forth conclusions and would then make recommendations for changes in federal law to make the program consistent with state policy. Representative Brown spoke to Amendment #1. [Attachment a thorough review every four years rather than every year. Section (B) would stipulate that when there is a new federal law or requirement imposed, a review of "only" that material would be required. Representative Martin recommended dividing Amendment #1. Representative Brown explained that she had requested Legal Services to draft the amendment in order that a review would be provided every four years and when there was something new added, it would be reviewed. She understood that the amendment would cover that request. Representative Mulder agreed that the comprehensive review for the first year made sense, although questioned the timeliness to each new mandate. He felt anytime there were new changes, it would not be too cumbersome for each department to provide a review of those changes. Representative Brown agreed with Representative Mulder. (Tape Change, HFC 95-108, Side 2). Representative Parnell recommended adopting the amendment. Representative Martin stated that he would rather divide the question. He felt that four years would be too long and that annually would be too often. Representative Brown noted that on Page 2, Line 23, there was a "time certain" for the annual review. The reason that the date was added in the amendment, was to clarify which year it was to be submitted. Representative Martin reiterated that four years would be too long to wait for the information. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. Representative Martin MOVED TO DIVIDE Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was divided. Representative Brown MOVED to adopt 1(A). Representative Martin OBJECTED. He recommended that the time be changed to three years. Representative Navarre remarked that the report was being given too much attention and focus. He stressed that administrative ability was being reduced as 5 was the department's ability to manage. He advised that with the proposed legislation, additional costs will be placed on those departments. A roll call was taken on the MOTION to adopt Section 1(A). IN FAVOR: Therriault, Brown, Martin, Mulder, Navarre, Parnell OPPOSED: Kohring Representatives Hanley, Kelly, Hanley, Foster were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-1). Representative Mulder MOVED to adopt 1(B), Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Parnell MOVED an amendment change to Page 3, Line 15, adding the language "and the Legislature" following the word "Governor". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Parnell MOVED to report HCS CS SB 1 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying Senate Finance Committee fiscal note. Representative Brown pointed out that the Senate Finance Committee had zeroed out all the fiscal notes. She recommended that the Committee consider passing a fiscal note for the Department of Law. She stressed that their role will become more difficult with passage of the legislation and that they will need to support all of the departments. She stressed that the Department of Law will have specific duties. She reminded members of the large operating budget reduction made to the civil division within that Department. Representative Parnell also MOVED to adopt the Department of Law fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, the SFC and the Department of Law fiscal notes were adopted as well as reporting the bill from Committee. Representative Navarre commented that the Department of Health and Social Services will have fiscal impact also, although he opted not move the fiscal note. HCS CS SB 1 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Department of Law and the Senate Finance Committee dated 3/2/95.