2002 FARM BILL LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP CHRONIC CAREKeon Chi • Laurie Clewett Chad Foster • Ed...

August 2002

2002 FARM BILL LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP CHRONIC CARE

Legal Notice Legal Notice

If You Are a Present or Past Owner or Operator of a Commercial,Governmental or Residential Building In the United States orCanada in Which Asbestos-Containing Products Are or WerePresent,You May Have a Property Damage Claim Against theFollowing Entities (The “Debtors”) in Bankruptcy Proceedings:

Federal-Mogul Corporation J.W. Roberts LimitedT&N Limited TAF International Limited

NOTE: The above Debtors are four of 157 affiliated Debtors in the Federal-Mogulbankruptcy proceedings. While these four Debtors are the only companies affiliated with Federal-Mogul that have been sued in asbestos property damage litigation, you may assert a claim against any one of the 157 affiliated companies. Please consult theFederal-Mogul Claims Website, the Federal-Mogul Claims Helpline, or the Claims Agent listed below to obtain a complete list of the Debtors.

Your Property Damage Claim Must Be Filed by March 3, 2003 at 4:00 P.M.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the United States BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) has establishedMarch 3, 2003 at 4:00 p.m., Eastern time (the “Bar Date”),as the last date and time by which claims may be filed in theDebtors’ chapter 11 cases on account of damage causedby asbestos to property located in the United States andCanada (the “North American PD Claims”). North American PDClaims include claims from losses or damages to propertyor property interests for which any of the Debtors may beliable arising out of such things as the cost of removal, testingand maintenance, or the diminution in value resulting fromany products or material containing asbestos. All entities,including governmental units, that wish to assert anyNorth American PD Claims against the Debtors arerequired to file proofs of claim on or before 4:00 p.m.,Eastern Time, on March 3, 2003.

PROCEDURE FOR FILING PROOFS OF CLAIMIf you wish to assert a North American PD Claim, you arerequired to use the Debtors’ proof of claim form for NorthAmerican PD Claims. These forms can be downloadedfrom the Federal-Mogul Claims Website, or obtained bycalling the Federal-Mogul Claims Helpline listed below.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAdditional information about the claims process and theBar Date may be obtained from the Federal-Mogul ClaimsWebsite, the Federal-Mogul Claims Helpline, or the ClaimsAgent listed below. Information about asbestos-containingproducts manufactured or sold by the Debtors, the knowngeographic regions where the asbestos-containing productswere applied and the dates of such applications, and thenames of the Debtors’ sub-licensees who may have sold orapplied the asbestos-containing products may also beobtained from the website.

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF CLAIMAny entity that fails to file a proof of claim by March 3, 2003, shallbe forever barred, estopped, and enjoined from assertingany North American PD Claim against the Debtors; or votingupon, or receiving any distributions under any plan or plansof reorganization in these chapter 11 cases in respect ofsuch claims.

You may wish to consult an attorney regarding this matter.

Federal-MogulClaims Website

www.fmoclaims.com

Federal-MogulClaims Helpline

1-888-212-5571

Claims Agent for Federal-MogulThe Garden City Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 8872Melville, NY 11747-8872

This is a summary notice only.

For complete information, including all relevant forms,notices and instructions, please consult:

HP Government Solutions. When the city of Bellevue, Washington needed to expandtheir communication network’s capabilities, they turned to HP for help. Now they’ve got afuture that’s as limitless as the mobile solutions they employ. To find out how HP solutionscan maximize your capabilities without minimizing your prior investments, including HPProLiant servers and Compaq Evo N800v Notebooks, call 1-888-202-GOV2 today.

HP Deskjet 920c Printer

$99*Product number: C6430B A2L

• Photo-quality color graphics with up to 2400 x 1200 dpi color

• Prints up to 9ppm in black, up to 7.5ppm in color

• Space-saving fold-up tray• Convenient one-touch print cancel button

Compaq PCs use genuine Microsoft® Windows®

www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell

*Prices shown from HP Public Sector refer to U.S. estimated selling prices. Actual reseller pricing may vary. Prices and availability are subject to change. 1Financing available through Financial services to qualified U.S. businesses,subject to credit approval and execution of documentation. Monthly payments are based on a 36-month Fair Market Value lease, and do not include taxes or fees. Other restrictions and exclusions may apply and HP reservesthe right to change or cancel this program at any time without notice. Call for more information. 2For hard drives, GB=billion bytes. 3Certain restrictions may apply. Call for warranty details. 424X rate is 10,800 KB/s. Duringthe HP-Compaq product transitions, some HP ProLiant products and packaging may be labeled with the Compaq brand. ©2002 Hewlett-Packard Company. Intel, the Intel Inside Logo, and Pentium are trademarks or registeredtrademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Microsoft and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Other productsmentioned herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. 20002/08/02

Order now by calling 1.888.202.GOV2Or visit www.hp.com/go/wireless0408

Compaq Evo Notebook N800v

$1,692*Lease for as low as $51 per month1

Product number: 470036-855

• Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 processor 1.60GHz–M

• 256MB 266MHz DDR SDRAM• 20GB2 SMART ATA/100 hard drive• 15" TFT XGA display (magnesium enclosure)• 24X Max CD-ROM4 drive (MultiBay)• Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional• 1-year limited warranty3

In Bellevue, Washington, government workers never leave the office. They take it with them.

ProLiant Server DL360

$1,939*Lease for as low as $58 per month1

Product number: 236084-001

• Intel Pentium III processor FC PGA21.266GHz, with dual processor capability

• 512KB level 2 ECC cache• 145.6GB2 maximum internal storage• 128MB SDRAM, expandable to 4GB2

• Two Compaq NC3163 Fast Ethernet NIC (embedded) PCI 10/100 WOL

• Integrated Smart Array Controller• 3-year limited warranty3

This add-on will add flexibility to your network's capabilities:

4 state government news august 2002

featuresfeatures

managing editorElaine Stuart

associate editorGary Moyers

graphic design coordinatorSusie Bush

contributorsMichele Bushong • James Carroll

Keon Chi • Laurie ClewettChad Foster • Ed Janairo

Karen Marshall • Amy Lindon Trudi Matthews • Magdalena Mook

John Mountjoy • Jenny Sewell Allison Spurrier • Bill Voit

Chris Whatley • Laura Williamsproofreader

Nancy J.Vickersreprint permissions

Susan Haney(859) 244-8235

advertising and publication sales(800) 800-1910

[email protected]

(859) 244-8001e-mail

[email protected]

www.csg.org

on the coverStates possess control over who has the right to

possess a driver’s license.Cover by Jeff Bledsoe

homeland security

Plugging the holes 8States play large roles in border security.

by Chad Foster

legislation

Show me the money 11Budget shortfalls dominated the 2002 legislative sessions.

by Gary Moyers

technologyLess money, more service 14NASTD members asked to do more, save more.

by Wayne Hall

agriculture

The 2002 Farm Bill 16Is it farmer welfare or a consumer subsidy?

by Carolyn Orr

interstate compacts

Adult Compact version 2.0 26An interstate compact comes of age.

by John J. Mountjoy

health

Be aware of chronic care 28Growing problem must not get lost in states’ budget shuffle.

by Richard Bringewatt

page 8

page 11

August 2002

page 16

page 14

the council of state governments 5

state trendsstate trends

states news 6• Supreme Court rulings cut broad path through states• Candidates picked for November elections• Utah fails in bid for extra seat• State parties raise ‘soft’ money

trends alerts 31States revisit term limits legislation.

by James Carroll and David Moss

excellence in action 32CSG activities and events, and those of affiliates and other associations, are highlighted.

conference calendar 37Meetings and conference activities of CSG, affiliates and other associations are listed.

perspective 38More than a leader.

by Alan Rosenthal

state trendsLicensed by the states 20Keeping driver’s licenses in the hands of the states.

by Albert Harberson

headquarters2760 Research Park Drive

P.O. Box 11910Lexington, KY 40578-1910

(859) 244-8000

washingtonJim Brown, General Counsel

and DirectorHall of the States

444 N. Capitol St. N.W., Suite. 401Washington, DC 20001

(202) 624-5460

easternAlan V. Sokolow, Director233 Broadway, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10279(212) 912-0128

midwesternMichael H. McCabe, Director

641 E. Butterfield Road, Suite 401Lombard, IL 60148

(630) 810-0210

southernColleen Cousineau, Director3355 Lenox Road, Suite 1050

Atlanta, GA 30326(404) 266-1271

westernKent Briggs, Director

1107 9th Street, Suite 650Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 553-4423

council officesDaniel M. Sprague, Executive Director

departmentsdepartments

Executive Committee

ChairSenate President Pro Tem John Chichester, Va.

PresidentGov. Parris Glendening, Md.

Chair-ElectRep. Dan Bosley, Mass.

President-ElectGov. Mike Huckabee, Ark.

Vice ChairSen. John Hottinger, Minn.

Vice Presidentvacant

executive committeeSen. David Adkins, Kan. • Sen. Richard Alarcon, Calif. •Assemblywoman Elaine Alquist, Calif. • Rep. David Alukonis, N.H. •Ms. Mollie Anderson, Director, Department of Personnel, Iowa • Sen.Manny M. Aragon, N.M. • Mr. Karl Aro, Executive Director,Department of Legislative Services, Md. • Sen. Rich Bagger, N.J. • Ms.Linda Renee Baker, Secretary, Dept. of Human Services, Ill. • ChiefJustice Robert Bell, Md. • Treasurer Marshall Bennett, Miss. • Mr. CarlBianchi, Director, Legislative Services, Idaho • Sen. Pam Brown, Neb.•Sen. Brenda Burns, Ariz.• Attorney General Steve Carter, Ind. • Rep.Robert M. Clayton, III, Miss. • Sen. Steve Cohen,Tenn.• Rep .JohnConnors, Iowa • Sen. Jim Costa, Calif.• Rep.Toni Crosby, N.H.• Rep.Susan Crosby, Ind.• Ms. Brenda Decker, Director, Divison ofCommunications, Neb. • Rep. Carol Donovan, Mass.• Treasurer JimDouglas,Vt. • Treasurer Dan Ebersole, Ga. • Judge Susan Ehrlich,Ariz.• Sen. Hugh Farley, N.Y. • Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, R.I. • SpeakerTim Ford, Miss.• Sen. Karen Fraser,Wash. • Rep. Joe Green, Alaska •Sen. Herb Guenther, Ariz.• Rep. Joe Hackney, N.C.• Sen. PresidentJohn Hainkel, La.• Sen.Toni Nathaniel Harp, Conn. • Sen. DouglasHenry,Tenn.• Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Nev.• Sen. Lyle Hillyard,Utah • Gov. Bob Holden, Missouri • Mr. Lamar Holland, AssistantDirector, Ga. State Finance & Investment Companies • Rep. DeborahHudson, Del. • Judge Robert Hunter, N.C.• Gov. Mike Johanns, Neb. •Rep. Douglas Jones, Idaho • Ms. Lilia Judson, Executive Director,Division of State Court Administration, Ind. • Gov. Dirk Kempthorne,Idaho • Ms. Elisabeth Kersten, Director, Senate Office of Research,Calif. • Member Robert Kieffer, Quebec National Assembly • Sen. SueLandske, Ind.• Gov. Mike Leavitt, Utah • Mr. Edward Lurie, Director,Senate Research, N.Y. • Sen. Lisa Madigan, Ill .• Sen. Carl Marcellino,N.Y. • Sen. John J. Marchi, N.Y. • Rep. John Martinez, Conn. • Gov. JudyMartz, Mont. • Sen. Kenneth McClintock, Puerto Rico • SenatePresident Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, Jr., Md. • Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, Del.• Sen. Angela Monson, Okla. • Attorney General Mike Moore, Miss. •Sen. Stephen Morris, Kan. • Speaker Thomas B. Murphy, Ga. • Sen.David Nething, N.D. • Ms. Jane Nishida, Secretary, Dept. ofEnvironment, Md. • Mr. John Olsrud, Director, Legislative Services,N.D. • Gov. George Pataki, N.Y. • Gov. Paul E. Patton, Ky. • Secretaryof State Sharon Priest, Ark. • Mr. Virgil Puskarich, Executive Director,Local Government Commission, Pa. • Sen. Pam Redfield, Neb. • Ms.Mary Regel, Administrator, Div. of International Development,Wis. •Lt. Gov. Jack Riggs, Idaho • Sen. Claire Robling, Minn. • Rep. RogerRoy, Del. • Mr.Tom Ryder, Ill. • Sen. Steve Saland, N.Y. • Sen. DiAnnaSchimek, Neb. • Assemblyman Robin Schimminger, N.Y. • Lt. Gov.Gary Sherrer, Kan. • Assemblyman Robert Straniere, N.Y. • Sen.Robert Thompson, Pa. • Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, Kan. •Mr. Eric Tolbert, Director, Div. of Emergency Management, N.C. •Senate President Earl Ray Tomblin,W.Va. • Rep. Joe Toomy, La. • Sen.Donne Trotter, Ill. • Sen. Rich Wardner, N.D. • Ms. Kathy Waters,Division Director, Arizona Supreme Court • Mr. Jeff Wells, Counsel,Dept. of Labor and Employment, Colo. • Sen. Jeff Wentworth,Texas •Assemblyman Robert C.Wertz, N.Y.

STATE GOVERNMENT NEWS, ISSN 0039-0119, August 2002,Vol. 45, No. 7 — Published monthly with combined issues in June/Julyand Nov./Dec. by The Council of State Governments, 2760 ResearchPark Drive, Lexington, KY 40511-8410. Opinions expressed in thismagazine do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Council ofState Governments nor the views of the editorial staff. Readers’ com-ments are welcome. Subscription rates — In the U.S., $45 peryear. Single issues are available at $6 per copy. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to State Government News, Sales Department,P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40578-1910.

Advertising — Black and white, two-color and full-color advertisingavailable. For complete circulation and advertising information, contactthe advertising department at (800) 800-1910. Mailing lists are avail-able for rent upon approval of a sample mailing.

Copyright 2002 by The Council of State Governments. Periodicalspostage paid at Lexington, Ky., and at additional mailing offices.

page 6

page 20

page 32


states news: find the latest news on CSG’s Web site – www.csg.org

The Supreme Court ruled that juriesrather than judges must make the crucialfactual determinations that subject a con-victed murderer to the death penalty, in adecision that invalidated the death penal-ty laws of five states and cast doubt onthe laws of four others. Nearly 800 peo-ple are on death row in the nine stateswhere judges ultimately determine sen-tences. Several inmates will be entitled toresentencing as a result of the court’s 7-to-2 decision. In addition, state legisla-tures will be forced to redraft laws that

were constitutional under Supreme Courtprecedents before the justices changedcourse on the respective roles of judgeand jury in criminal sentencing two yearsago. In Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,Montana and Nebraska judges determinethe existence of the “aggravating factors”that separate murderers eligible for deathsentences from those who are not. In fourother states, Alabama, Delaware, Floridaand Indiana, the jury presents an advisoryverdict but the judge makes the final decision.

Court says death penalty up to juries

The Supreme Court approved the useof taxpayer money to send students tochurch schools, ruling that Ohio’svoucher plan does not violate theConstitution’s ban on an “establishmentof religion.” The 5-4 decision, comingon the last day of this year’s term,upholds Ohio’s tuition grant of $2,250that families in Cleveland can spend atprivate schools. Chief Justice William H.Rehnquist said the state aid program was

designed to help low-income children,not to promote religion. Moreover, theflow of money depends on “true privatechoice,” he said. “No reasonable observ-er would think a neutral program of private choice, where state aid reachesreligious schools solely as a result of numerous independent decisions of private individuals, carries with it theimprimatur of government endorse-ment,” the chief justice said.

The Supreme Court agreed tohear a major federalism casewhen its next term begins inOctober. The justices acceptedan appeal filed by the State ofNevada that challengesCongress’ authority to requirethe states to give their employ-ees unpaid leave to deal with family medical emer-gencies. A decision in favor ofthe states would cut closer tothe core of Congress’ authorityto enforce the equal protectionguarantee of the 14thAmendment.

Supreme Court backs school vouchers

In another death penalty ruling, theU.S. Supreme Court decided thatexecuting mentally retarded people isunconstitutional. The opinion offersstates little guidance on who must beconsidered mentally retarded andwho gets to decide. Legislatures in 20states allowing such executions willbe forced to draft new statutes. TheCourt said the death penalty for theretarded should now be seen as crueland unusual punishment that violatesthe Eighth Amendment. Of 38 stateswith a death penalty, 18 exempt men-tally retarded people, up from onlytwo when the court considered theissue in 1989.

Court stops executions of mentally retarded

Justices to hear federalism case

A federal appeals court ruledthat reciting the Pledge ofAllegiance in public schools isunconstitutional because of theaddition of the phrase “underGod” in 1954 by Congress. Thecourt then stayed its own deci-sion two days later. A three-member panel of the 9th CircuitCourt of Appeals originallyremanded the case to a lowercourt, but the stay means thecase will be reviewed by eitherthe same three-judge panel orthe full nine-judge panel. Ifallowed to stand, the rulingwould apply to schools in thenine states covered by the 9thCircuit. The U.S. Senate passeda resolution 99-0 “expressingsupport for the Pledge ofAllegiance” and asking Senatecounsel to “seek to intervene inthe case.”

Portion of Pledge ruledunconstitutional


The New Jersey state SupremeCourt dismissed the conviction of ablack man whose license plate waschecked by an officer after the twocrossed paths outside a Ridgewood

bank. Earlier legal opinions hadalready prohibited police officers fromusing the computers in their squad cars— known as Mobile Data Terminals— to target drivers based on race orethnicity. The court said after a driverhas offered evidence that he had beenthe target of discrimination, the burdenthen shifts to the state to show that thepolice officer’s actions had been “race-neutral.” The state’s high court foundAlan Segars had made a strong case hehad been racially profiled by aRidgewood police officer.

A new report shows states to beskilled at soliciting the sort of unlimit-ed donations from corporations, unionsand others that will soon be off-limits

to national parties. State parties pulledin $307 million on their own in the2000 elections, according to the report

by the Center for Public Integrity, theCenter for Responsive Politics and theNational Institute on Money in StatePolitics. Political parties, lawmakersand lobbyists are working to figure outhow to adapt to the new law, whichbars national parties from raising orspending large soft money donationsfrom companies, unions and wealthyindividuals — but allows state partiesto continue such activity. In addition tothe $307 million raised on their own,state parties also received $263 millionin transfers from national parties.Many of the largest state-level donorsare strong Democratic backers, includ-ing the top three, the report found: TheNational Education Association, at

$3.6 million; the Association of TrialLawyers of America, at $2.5 million;and the Service EmployeesInternational Union, at $2.4 million.Over all, however, state-level dona-tions appeared roughly evenly splitbetween the parties, said CharlesLewis, executive director of the Centerfor Public Integrity. Lawyers donated$20.8 million, mostly to Democraticcommittees. Various unions donatedabout $23 million, also mostly toDemocratic committees. TopRepublican-leaning industries includedreal estate, with $11 million in totaldonations; securities and investmentfirms, at $8.5 million; and health pro-fessionals, at $6.4 million.

Five-term Alabama Rep. EarlHilliard was ousted in a Democraticrunoff in June. The victory by lawyerArtur Davis is in essence a generalelection win because there is noRepublican nominee. Hilliardbecomes the fifth incumbent congress-man to lose at the polls this year. Theothers were Democrats Gary Condit ofCalifornia, Frank Mascara ofPennsylvania and Tom Sawyer ofOhio, and GOP Rep. Brian Kerns ofIndiana, who — like Mascara — lostin a race between incumbents forcedby redistricting. Besides the Hilliardrace, voters chose nominees in fourother congressional races in SouthCarolina, Utah and Alabama. SouthCarolina Republicans also picked aformer congressman to take on fresh-man Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges thisfall. Alabama Democrats chose stateAuditor Susan Parker in a runoff toface Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions thisfall. In South Carolina, former Rep.Mark Sanford easily won the GOPgubernatorial nomination to challengeHodges. Also in South Carolina,Gresham Barrett beat fellow state Rep.Jim Klauber in the Republican race to

succeed GOP Rep. Lindsey Graham,who is running for the seat of retiring99-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond. InAlabama, GOP Rep. Sonny Callahan’schief of staff, Jo Bonner, won theRepublican nomination to succeed hisboss, who is retiring after nine terms.He will face Judy McCain-Belk, whowon the Democratic nomination in adistrict that has had a Republican con-gressman for four decades. In Utah,voters chose the top two nominees tosucceed Republican Rep. Jim Hansen,who is retiring after 22 years. RobBishop, the former Utah House speak-er, won the GOP nomination andadvertising executive Dave Thomaswon the Democratic nod. In the 2ndDistrict, state lawmaker John Swallowwon the GOP nomination to challengeDemocratic Rep. Jim Matheson inNovember.

States pick candidatesN. J. court challenges policeracial neutrality

State parties raising ‘soft’ money


stretch of border presents law enforcement,drug enforcement and customs agencieswith many complex security issues.Southern border states have opened dia-logues with neighboring, cross-border statesin an attempt to identify security issues andto develop multilateral solutions.

California Gov. Gray Davis traveled toMexico City in Dec. 2001 and signed aMemorandum of Understanding with hiscounterpart in Mexico, Baja CaliforniaGov. Eugenio Elorduy Walther. This agree-ment promotes and expands cooperation inmany fields to include ports of borderentry, infrastructure and public safety.

Likewise, the country’s northern border

homeland securityhomeland security

with Canada stretches over 4,000 miles andcontains more than 100 crossing points. Inresponse to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,border states are collaborating and cooper-ating with Canadian provinces to collec-tively develop and implement securitysolutions.

One specific example is New York’songoing dialogue with its Canadian neigh-bor, Ontario. Gov. George E. Pataki metwith Ontario Premier Mike Harris on Oct.16, 2001 to discuss issues of mutual con-cern, including cross-border trade andincreased border security.

Another example of partnerships toaddress border security is the International

ore than 500 million people areadmitted into the U.S. each year

through land, sea and air, according toSecuring the Homeland, Strengthening theNation, President George W. Bush, March2002. It is not surprising that the flow ofpeople and goods across our borders helpspush and steer our economy forward.However, those same borders can alsoserve as a conduit for terrorists, weapons ofmass destruction, illegal immigrants, con-traband and other unlawful commodities.

In March 2002, President George W.Bush published Securing the Homeland,Strengthening the Nation, his strategy andfocus for the FY2003 homeland securitybudget. Four specific policy initiativeswere deemed so urgent and so importantthat they required immediate attentionthrough additional funding: • Securing America’s borders• Supporting first responders• Defending against bioterrorism• Using 21st Century technology to

secure the HomelandPresident Bush also announced in June

2002 a plan to combine federal agencieswith border security responsibilities into aproposed Department of HomelandSecurity.

While many federal agencies areresponsible for the security of our nation’sborders, state and local jurisdictions play acritical supporting and, in many cases, leadrole. States are forging and fostering inter-governmental and international partner-ships to identify threats, share ideas anddevelop multilateral solutions.

State partnerships

The Mexico-U.S. border is notorious fordrug trafficking and the movement of legaland illegal immigrants. This 2,000-mile

MM

States play large role in border security

BY CHAD FOSTER

Plugging the holes

Ports are a major focus of heightened border security efforts in the United States. 361 U.S. portshandle 95 percent of the country’s overseas trade, according to the American Association of Port Authorities.


cerns. The region relies heavily on tradewith Canada as a critical source of revenue.At least one in four Washington state jobsis linked to international trade, and Canadaand the U.S. are the largest trading partnersin the world.

A Northwest Freight Conference washeld in Oct. 2001 in Seatac, Washington formembers of both public and private interestgroups. The purpose of the conference wasto address security concerns following

Mobility and Trade Corridor programbetween Washington state and BritishColumbia. The partnership was formedover five years ago to address internationalcommerce issues but has recently served asa medium to discuss border security andtrade issues since Sept. 11.

Regional partnerships

Another way states are playing a criticalborder security role is through regionalpartnerships. The Council of StateGovernments (CSG) held a forum, BorderLegislative Initiative (BLI), in March 2002for both Mexican and U.S. state lawmak-ers. This forum is the start of an ongoingpolicy dialogue between states sharingsimilar security concerns. The forum alsoaddressed other border issues such as com-merce, environment and quality of life.

The Northwest states have also enteredinto partnerships to address security con-

Sept. 11, 2001, to highlight successfulfreight partnerships that have made theNorthwest a national model, and to estab-lish priorities for freight mobility and secu-rity investments.

The Northwest region was selected bythe Federal Highway Administration asan area where agencies craft new public-private partnerships, intergovernmentalcooperation and technology to deal withfreight problems. Examples include the

In the wake of the Sept. 11 terroristattacks, governments on both sides of theU.S.-Mexico border have stepped upsecurity at ports of entry. One drawbackof enhanced security however, appears tobe increased waits and reduced bordercrossings to the detriment of trade andtourism. That’s according to public andprivate sector representatives from theU.S. and Mexico who briefed state legis-lators from both nations at the inauguralforum of CSG’s Border LegislativeInitiative (BLI).

The March 18-19 forum in San Diegoattracted participants from nine of the 10U.S.-Mexico border states. Lawmakersfrom Arizona, California, New Mexicoand Texas joined with their counterpartsfrom Baja California, Chihuahua,Coahuila, Sonora and Tamaulipas forthis unprecedented gathering of borderlegislative officials. CaliforniaAssemblywmn. Charlene Zettel chairedthe briefing convened by CSG’sSouthern Border Committee. TexasSen. Jeff Wentworth is vice chair of thatcommittee.

Maquiladora industry and BorderTrade Alliance spokespersons told legis-

lators that heightened security measureshave slowed border crossings and dis-rupted economic activity along the U.S.-Mexico border. Jaime Gonzalez Luna,representative of the MaquiladoraIndustry Association of Baja California,reported that despite efforts by U.S.Customs officials to keep border waits toa minimum, passenger vehicles, com-mercial vehicles and pedestrians allexperienced increased border delayssince Sept. 11.

Jayson Ahern, Director of the south-ern California Customs Service, toldparticipants that the solution to borderdelays lies in advanced technology,modernized ports of entry and more lawenforcement personnel.

The War on Terrorism along thesouthern border also has helped to crackdown on illegal drug transportation, saidJorge Villalobos of the MexicanAttorney General’s office in LosAngeles. Other Mexican officials, how-ever, are worried that the increased useof Mexican military and police check-points actually created a sense of insecu-rity among local residents.

Legislators heard from speaker

Carlos Borunda, vice chair of theForeign Affairs committee in theMexican Congress, who said the U.S.and Mexico have built a solid commer-cial relationship framed by the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement.Federal officials have set the groundrules, he said, but state legislators areclosest to the realities faced by the bor-der region.

The Border Legislative Initiative(BLI) is an effort by CSG-WEST and itsSouthern regional partner, the SouthernLegislative Conference (SLC), to estab-lish ongoing policy dialogue amongstate legislators on both sides of theU.S.-Mexico border. BLI will give leg-islators a forum to share ideas about themany challenges and opportunitiesalong the U.S.-Mexico border. The ini-tiative is made possible by a grant fromthe U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment to The Council of StateGovernments. — Edgar Ruiz is the Southern BorderProgram Manager for CSG-WEST. Formore information about the BorderLegislative Initiative, contact Edgar Ruizat (916) 553-4423 or [email protected].

CSG Forum looks at border security vs. trade

State legislators from the U.S. and Mexico gather for an unprecedented forum to discuss enhancedborder security in the wake of Sept. 11th.


lions of cruise passengers. Of the morethan two billion tons of freight, themajority of the cargo is shipped in con-tainers from ships onto trucks and railcarsand immediately sent out on our high-ways and rail systems. Vulnerabilityassessments found that only 2 percent ofthose containers are ever checked byCustoms or law enforcement. With theexpectations that maritime trade will dou-ble by the year 2020, port security willgrow increasingly important, accordingto the American Association of PortAuthorities, Nov. 21, 2001.

Public port authorities and state and localgovernment agencies are playing anincreased role in the security of these criti-cal ports. Partnerships between federal, stateand local authorities are required to sustaina heightened level of security at ports.

The Port and Maritime Security Act(federal legislation introduced in 2001)will establish port security task forces, lawenforcement subcommittees and local portsecurity committees. The law enforcementsubcommittees are comprised of federal,state, and local government law enforce-ment agencies to address port securityissues, including resource commitmentsand law enforcement sensitive matters.

Local port security committees consistof representatives from the port authority,labor organizations, the private sector, lawenforcement, and from the federal, stateand local governments. The purpose ofthese committees is to plan and coordinateport security activities, make recommenda-tions for the port security evaluations,review security plans annually and conductfield security exercises at least once everythree years.

Leading and supporting roles

State and local agencies play a criticalrole in securing our nation’s bordersdespite the lead role of the federal govern-ment. States and regions are taking a proac-tive lead in building intergovernmental andinternational ties to identify threats, shareideas and develop multilateral solutions.These ties will help combat terrorism in the21st century.

— Chad S. Foster is a policy analyst in thePublic Safety and Justice Group at TheCouncil of State Governments.

eral officials to make New Hampshire atest site for the Operation Safe Commerceprototype, a new approach to border secu-rity. Federal partners include the CoastGuard, the U.S. Customs Service, theImmigration and Naturalization Service,the Border Patrol, the U.S. Marshal in NewHampshire, and the U.S. Attorneys inVermont and New Hampshire. A public-private partnership was formed with TheVolpe National Transportation SystemsCenter in Cambridge, Massachusetts to testthe Operation Safe Commerce prototype.

On a larger scope, the attacks on Sept.11 prompted the signing of aMemorandum of Cooperation on BorderSecurity and Regional Migration Issues onDec. 3, 2001 between Canadian andAmerican officials. This accord strength-ens Project Northstar, an initiative toimprove communication and coordinationbetween American and Canadian lawenforcement agencies. This memorandumalso called for the expansion of IntegratedBorder Enforcement Teams and multi-agency law enforcement groups, consistingof Canadian and American representativesat federal, state and local levels.

Ports

Border security assessments followingSept. 11 revealed significant vulnerabilitiesalong America’s water borders, specifical-ly at seaports. A total of 361 U.S. ports with3,700 terminals handle 95 percent of thiscountry’s overseas trade, support the mobi-lization and deployment of U.S. ArmedForces, and are departure points for mil-

FAST Corridor partnership to improvefreight movement through the centralPuget Sound region, the Regional Freight Mobility Roundtable, and workby the Freight Mobility StrategicInvestment Board.

Intergovernmental partnerships

In addition to lateral partnerships, statesare forging intergovernmental partnershipsto secure the nation’s borders. In March2002, New Hampshire Gov. JeanneShaheen announced the Operation SafeCommerce initiative to improve bordersecurity while keeping free trade flowing.State officials have been working with fed-

18%

9%

16%

13%

28%

16%

Source: Securing the Homeland, Strengthening the Nation, President George W. Bush, March 2002.

Homeland Security Strategy Distribution of FY2003 Budget

Securing portsThe U.S. Department of

Transportation recently awarded$92.3 million in grants to 51ports located throughout thenation to enhance security. Thegrants will fund enhanced facil-ity and operational security,security assessments, and“proof-of-concept” projects,which will explore the use ofnew technology, such as elec-tronic seals, vessel tracking andelectronic notification of vesselarrivals, to improve maritimesecurity.

Source: U.S. Dept. ofTransportation, June 17, 2002.

Dept. of Defense

Bioterrorism

Support first respondersOther

Aviation security

Securing our borders

retirement programs, 10 states reorganizedagencies and programs, and 33 used a vari-ety of other methods.

Balancing the budgets

Eleven states called special sessions toenact budgets, and some of those budgetbattles were tougher than others. Tennesseedealt with a partial government shutdownwhen legislators failed to pass a budget bythe July 1 deadline. Gov. Don Sundquist

signed an emergency decree to fund essen-tial emergency personnel during the shut-down, but more than 22,000 state workerswere told to stay home for three daysbefore a budget was passed in the earlyhours of July 5.

Kentucky failed to draft a budget despitetwo special sessions after a compromisecouldn’t be reached on a public campaignfinancing provision. Gov. Paul Pattonenacted emergency spending powers onJuly 1 to fund essential state services, and a

oney – or more specifically, thelack of it — was the driving force

behind much of the legislation passed bystate legislatures during the 2002 sessions.A sharp downturn in the nation’s economy,coupled with unexpected rises in homelandsecurity expenses, hit the majority of stategovernments right in the pocketbooks.

In fact, the National Association ofState Budget Officers (NASBO) reportedin June that 47 states faced budget short-falls totaling just over $40 billion.Thirty-nine of those states acted toreduce budgets by $15 billion, tappedRainy Day and Emergency accounts andmade transfers from other reserves tobalance their budgets.

According to the National GovernorsAssociation (NGA), states that collectincome taxes showed a decrease of $14.5billion in the first three months of 2002.Overall tax collections were down by 21percent in April compared to the samemonth in 2001, while at the same time theaverage tax refund rose by 8 percent for thesame time period.

Illinois ended the fiscal year on June 30with a balance of nine cents in its generalfund. Wisconsin’s coffers showed a 27-cent balance.

The ripples from the budget problemsspread outward to affect most areas of leg-islation passed or considered in the statesand territories this year, forcing many leg-islatures to consider or enact spending cutsacross the board. NGA reported that 26states used across-the-board spending cuts,22 used rainy day funds, 11 laid off stateemployees, three states implemented early


States spent a great deal of their 2002 legislative sessions dealing with revenue shortfalls and budget cuts.

Show me the moneyBudget shortfalls dominated the 2002 legislative sessions

BY GARY MOYERS

MM

legislationlegislation


lawsuit by the state treasurer was filed inthe state Supreme Court to determine hisauthority to do so.

California began the new fiscal year fac-ing a $23.4 billion deficit – and no budget.State Supreme Court decisions in the early90s allow the state to keep operating on anemergency basis while lawmakers attemptto pass a budget.

Connecticut lawmakers passed a $13.2billion budget at the last minute on June 30to avert a shutdown. The budget containsthe state’s first tax increases in 10 years,including a 61 cents-per-pack cigarette taxincrease, to make up for a projected budg-et deficit in the next two years.

New Jersey, Oregon and Pennsylvaniaall passed new budgets just hours beforethe new fiscal year began on July 1. Allthree raised cigarette taxes, whileWashington State laid off 419 workers tohelp make financial ends meet.

Homeland Security

A poll of the nation’s governors saidanti-terrorism measures would cost thestates collectively at least $4 billion in2002, and state governments scrambled tofund emergency management programs.Congress passed a comprehensive $3.5 bil-lion homeland security bill in June, with anadditional $1.1 billion anti-bioterrorismfunding measures, but the money won’t bereleased to states until October.

“The budget crisis has been exacerbatedby the homeland security effort obviously,”said NGA spokesperson Ann Beauchesne.“What we’re seeing is states tapping intotheir rainy day funds, tightening their belts,and what we’re seeing is that some statesare letting their departments run a deficit aslong as they are dealing with homelandsecurity.”

Wisconsin shifted money from itshighway safety program to homelandsecurity. Georgia enacted legislation thatgives law enforcement agencies broaderpowers to conduct wiretaps and listen tocell phone conversations. Iowa made thepossession of anthrax spores a crime. Allstates and territories passed homelandsecurity legislation of some kind, fromcreating state homeland security directorposts to designating various acts as “ter-rorist” acts and establishing the penaltiesfor committing them.

Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Florida,Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, SouthDakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington andWisconsin passed laws to create or definecrimes of terrorism. In Minnesota, the“Anti-terrorism Act of 2002” declared theintent of the Legislature to “empower stateand local law enforcement and public safe-ty personnel with the tools necessary tofight and respond to terrorism.” Bills inKentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolinaand Wisconsin addressed mandatory penal-ties for terrorism crimes. Penalties for ter-rorist hoaxes or false reports were passed in California, Delaware, Illinois,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah,Virginia and Washington. Michigan andWest Virginia passed measures late in 2001regarding biological or chemical hoaxes.Victim compensation laws were passed inDelaware and Ohio.

Education

Higher education took big hits in states’budgets this year. The National Council ofState Legislatures (NCSL) said eightstates, including California and Florida, cutspending for higher education while otherssuch as Oklahoma and Massachusettstrimmed money from the financial aid andsports program budgets. NCSL estimatedthat nationwide the cost of tuition at publicuniversities would increase by 7.7 percentto offset the funding cuts.

Public education in the K-12 area wasnot immune to the budget fallout. Manyschool districts in Kentucky were forced tohand out pink slips to teachers due to thelack of a state budget, and many other localdistricts in states were awaiting word onhow much they would receive when finalbudgets are enacted.

It wasn’t all bad news for education,however. Louisiana enacted a $10 millionprogram that helps certified public schoolteachers obtain low interest rates on homeloans and offers subsidies for the purchaseof new homes.

Medicaid and prescription drugs

Medicaid now accounts for 20 percentof states’ budgets, according to NASBO,and health care for employees and pro-grams for the elderly comprise another 7

percent. And the rate of inflation – between11 and 12 percent – means states are tryingto fund a growing program while revenuesdecline. In 2002, NGA reported that 28states experienced shortfalls totaling $7.1billion in their Medicaid budgets.

Several states, including Massachusetts,moved to lower provider-reimbursementrates. NASBO reported that Arkansas,Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maineand Washington made funding cuts toMedicaid programs ranging from $13 mil-lion (Arkansas) to $48.6 million (Florida). Prescription drug prices rose at an evenhigher rate – 12.5 percent – in 2001 thanMedicaid, according to NASBO. So far infiscal 2002, NASBO projects that in thestates, general fund Medicaid costs areexceeding budgeted amounts by more than$1.3 billion.

Missouri and Louisiana each passed leg-islation aimed at curbing the rising costs ofprescriptions, but Louisiana’s legislationfaced a court test over its constitutionality.

Insurance

Insurance rates skyrocketed followingSept. 11, but rising costs were evident evenbefore. Of particular concern to states wasthe rising cost of malpractice insurance forhealth care providers, and several statesmade moves in 2002 to curb the increases.The American Medical Associationreleased figures stating insurance compa-nies have raised the liability premiums todoctors by 79 percent in the last decade.

The Pennsylvania Legislature inMarch approved a malpractice insurancebill aimed at lowering doctors’ premiums.The bill, signed into law, gives judgesmore power to lower damage awards toinjured patients.

About 1,300 of West Virginia’s 3,500doctors were insured by St. Paul Cos. whenthat company announced it was quitting thebusiness. The West Virginia Legislatureresponded with a state-run plan with a billintended to ensure doctors could get andafford insurance.

Taxes

The majority of legislatures shied awayfrom tax increases, instead focusing onways to balance their budgets through cutsand creative financing. Cigarettes, howev-

er, were a revenue target in seven states,and sales taxes were raised in Tennesseeand North Carolina.

Smokers in six states paid more for theirhabit beginning July 1 when cigarette taxesincreased. New Jersey raised the tax by 70cents per pack. Oregon increased the tax by60 cents per pack, Vermont by 49 cents,Kansas by 46 cents, Indiana and Illinois by40 cents, Ohio by 31 cents and Louisianaby 12 cents. Pennsylvania tripled its ciga-rette tax to $1 per pack and raised landfill-dumping fees. Four additional states willsee increases beginning later this year.

Wisconsin moved the funds from itsshare of the tobacco Master SettlementAgreement into its general fund to offsetbudget shortfalls, while other states movedto securitize the money, in effect borrowing

against future payments. New Jersey,South Carolina and Washington passedmeasures to that effect, while legislaturesin at least nine other states were investigat-ing that route this year. A TrendsAlert byThe Council of State Governments (CSG)in March projected that the states’ shares ofthe Master Settlement Agreement wouldcome up $14 billion less than initially pro-jected over the next nine years.

Kansas increased inheritance, sales andbusiness taxes in an attempt to raise $252million to offset a budget shortfall. NewJersey imposed a $2 per day per vehiclecharge on car rental agencies. And NewJersey’s Gov. James McGreevey said hewould call that state’s lawmakers into spe-cial session after July 4 to consider a $1 bil-lion business tax overhaul that he said wasnecessary to balance the budget.

Gaming initiatives were debated in atleast 17 states, and promise to be a hottopic when new sessions meet next year.

Redistricting

Eight states are losing one seat apiecein the U.S. House of Representativesbased on reapportionment after the

Census of 2000. Those states areConnecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma andWisconsin. Two states, New York andPennsylvania, are losing two House seats.Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Texas eachgained two seats, while California,Colorado, North Carolina and Nevadaeach gained one seat.

State legislatures in nearly all the statesacross the country went to work to redefinedistricts, and challenges to the plans inMichigan, New York, Florida and SouthCarolina went to the state Supreme Courts.

Other legislation

Death penalty laws changed in Indianaand Alabama. Indiana raised the minimumage for execution from 16 to 18, andAlabama changed its method of executionto lethal injection. Other states will beforced to rewrite death penalty laws afterJune decisions by the U.S. Supreme Courtstruck down executions of the mentallyretarded and gave sentencing responsibili-ties to juries rather than judges.

A scandal at a Georgia crematoriumearly in the year prompted that state toenact legislation ensuring crematoriumsare subject to inspection, and abandonmentof a corpse was made a felony.

Mississippi, South Dakota andWyoming lowered their legal intoxicationlimits from 0.10 percent blood alcohol con-tent to 0.08 percent. That lower figure isnow embraced by 32 states and conformsto a federal standard required by Oct. 2003for states to avoid losing some highwayconstruction funds.

The sexual abuse scandal in the CatholicChurch prompted action in state legisla-tures regarding the reporting of suspectedabuse. Four states – Colorado, Illinois,Massachusetts and Missouri – passed lawsthat specifically require the clergy to reportabuse to law enforcement agencies. Elevenother states already had that requirement,while 18 states currently require everyoneto report abuse.

Election reform was a hot topic after the2000 Presidential election and its associat-ed controversies, but Sept. 11 and thebudget crises pushed many states’ pro-posed actions to the back burner. Georgialegislators voted to install new, state-of-the-art ballot machines this year, while

Florida passed reform legislation aimed atavoiding problems that surfaced in 2000.

Campaign finance reform was a topic atstate capitols, particularly after the U.S.Congress passed nationwide reform legis-lation in March that would ban soft moneygiven to the national political parties byindividuals, corporations and special inter-ests. Two states – Alaska and Connecticut– passed laws banning soft money contri-butions to state parties. Twenty-three oth-ers passed public financing measures ofone kind or another. Arizona, Maine,Massachusetts and Vermont passed bills toreplace their existing systems with taxpay-er financed campaigns.

More pain coming

The pain state legislatures felt this yearwhen dealing with budgets isn’t over. Untilan economic recovery is felt at the stategovernment level, legislators likely will bedealing with creative budgeting for at leastanother session.

“Governors are dealing with unprece-dented fiscal pressure,” said NationalGovernors Association (NGA) ExecutiveDirector Raymond Scheppach in a pub-lished interview. “Even as the economyturns around, the state budget forecast willremain stormy since revenue growth lagsthe recovery by at least 12-to-18 months.Additionally, ballooning Medicaid costsand the structural problems states have intheir tax base will continue to undermine arecovery in state revenues.”

“There is likely to be some pain contin-uing,” said Nicholas Jenny, policy analystat the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute ofGovernment.

—Gary Moyers is the Associate Editor ofState Government News.


Education faced budget cuts as states grappledwith an economic downturn.

States looked at tobacco money as a way to off-set budget shortfalls.

14 state government news August 2002

tate IT budget cutbacks are difficultto measure since the vast majority of

states do not use any general funds to sub-sidize their operations. Instead, IT spend-ing may be measured in staff furloughs,fewer capital expenditures and reduceddemand for goods and services providedby National Association of StateTelecommunications Directors (NASTD)members to client agencies.

Last fall a survey by NASTD revealedthat a majority of states were not looking totrim IT spending at that time. A majority ofstate IT agencies were, in addition, notanticipating reductions in client agencydemand for services.

State information technology managerswere recently asked to answer the samequestions. Were their IT budgets beingaffected by the economic downturn? Didthey foresee slackening demand for theirservices among client agencies? In general,the answers were “yes” and “yes.”

Making the trains run on time

Governing Magazine columnist ThomasR. Davis suggested in February, amongother concerns, that real-time government,commonly referred to as e-government,secure mission-critical infrastructure andwireless applications are driving IT invest-ment now. Anecdotal evidence from recentNASTD meetings in Seattle, Washingtonand Portland, Maine supports that view.

NASTD members, who are responsiblefor managing critical communications

infrastructure for the states, are particularlyconcerned about making that infrastructureas safe and secure as possible while citi-zens demand anytime, anywhere govern-ment access.

State budgets: More debt, more taxes

States have been playing budget catch-up since the fall of 2000. According to theNational Association of Budget Officers(NASBO), the states passed FY 2001budgets, cut nearly $2 billion from themlater that fiscal year, budgeted much moremodest increases for FY 2002 and havewatched revenue fail to meet even thoseexpectations.

According to a December 9, 2001 sur-vey by Dibya Sarker of NASBO, 35 statesfaced a total budget shortfall of more than$25 billion for the 2002 fiscal year — the

worst since 1992. Since then, revised pro-jections show 42 states facing a combined$40 billion in revenue shortfalls for FY ’02.

To meet declining revenue, states col-lectively have enacted the first tax increasein seven years According to NASBO, thestates combined “enacted net tax and feechanges [increases in] fiscal 2002 revenuesby $303.8 million,” meaning “Fiscal 2002ended seven consecutive years of net taxreductions that began during the surge ineconomic growth during the ‘90s.”

Competing priorities

State budget obligations put a heavyburden on discretionary spending. Healthcare and Medicaid obligations, for exam-ple, account for roughly one quarter of allstate expenditures, second only to educa-tion funding, according to NASBO.

technologytechnology

SS

NASTD members asked to domore, save more

BY WAYNE HALL

Less money, more service

A majority of respondents to an NASTD survey regarding IT spending identified reduced ordeferred equipment purchases as a way to achieve savings.


Federal tax cutting efforts also hurt statetreasuries. For example, in 2001 Congressphased out the federal portion of the estatetax over 10 years, but the legislation elimi-nated the states’ share more quickly. Theloss to state treasuries is estimated to beabout $1.8 billion in fiscal 2003. The lossover the next 10 years is projected to be$50 billion or more, said NASBO in a fis-cal report.

Since a state “revenue recovery” laggedthe 1991 recession by more than a year,NASBO believes state revenue is likely tosuffer well into 2003, particularly as obli-gated spending continues to increase.

Corporate IT flat

Data from early 2001 was comparative-ly bullish regarding business IT invest-ment, according to Carolyn Marsan in anarticle in Network World Fusion in July,2001. In 2002, however, analysts are pre-dicting businesses will hold the line onspending in favor of maximizing the usefulness of existing hardware and infra-structure.

CNET says “Businesses plan to spendless on e-business technology this year andmake the most of what they’ve got beforethey resume shopping, according to a sur-

vey of 900 companies released by ForresterResearch…. Forrester defines e-businesstechnology as hardware and software usedfor facilitating communication and com-merce among a company and its tradingpartners (source: Companies on IT Diet in2002 by Alorie Gilbert, CNET News).

State IT spending?

Since most central state IT agencies arecompletely funded by user fees, they mustrely on that business to generate revenue.Instead of cutting appropriated funds, leg-islatures ask state information technologyagencies to freeze hiring, cut or fireemployees, defer or reduce IT purchases orput off new contracts.

Indeed, when asked if state budget cuts were affecting the IT agency, a sub-stantial majority of respondents answering“yes” also identified “reduced or deferredequipment purchases” as a way to achieve savings.

One could infer that general economicweakness would affect general fundreceipts, which in turn might impact thatportion of state budgets appropriated toclient agencies. One way to measure ITinvestment would be to ask the providersof information technology, NASTD mem-bers, his or her impression of demand.

Since the 2001 survey, state informationtechnology “consumer sentiment” hasdeteriorated. While five of 23 statesexpected client agencies to spend less onNASTD member services in 2001, theupdated survey shows that 11 of 23 statesnow actually do spend less.

The Center for Digital Government sug-gests state and local IT spending willincrease slightly - in contrast to state budg-ets as a whole. The emphasis on homelandsecurity issues, public safety and wirelesscommunications may help sustain state IT spending.

NASTD data casts some doubt on thatassessment. Since NASTD members large-ly operate on a fee-for-service basis, areduction in demand for those servicescould harm future investment in IT infra-structure and services vital to electronicgovernment. National priorities such ashomeland defense could alter that picture,particularly if a substantial portion of that money comes from the federal government.

On the front lines

Gail Wekenborg, Deputy Director,Missouri Division of Information Services,offers this view: “Most agencies are experi-encing a 25-to-40 percent reduction in [gen-eral revenue] appropriations. Needless tosay, that means their ability to pay our bill isbeing reduced. Nothing has been taken outof the revolving fund spending authority,however. My response to the situation is toreview the Data Center budget. We havepaid off hardware this year to reduceexpenses next year. The Commissioner ofAdministration has asked that we develop a“Hints” brochure for agencies which mighthelp them reduce or at least controltelecommunications costs. We are doingthat. Not rocket science but things like[making sure] the lines you pay for are real-ly in service, [using] an 800 number forremote staff to call in rather than have themuse cell phones…. Many agencies have hada FTE reduction. We have not.”

In Nebraska, Brenda Decker, Director ofthe Division of Communications, said, “theNebraska Legislature just cut $265 millionfrom total state spending over the past ninemonths. We don’t anticipate any huge cutsfrom our agencies in the IT area other thanin areas where facilities were closed.However, agencies have some discretionon how they distribute their spending cuts.If they decide to eliminate additional pro-grams or functions, there is no way that wewon’t see a decrease in our operations.”

Conclusions

State telecommunications and technolo-gy managers may experience shortfalls intheir agency revenue because of generalfund cuts faced by their clients. Thosebeing asked to save money are often defer-ring equipment purchases. NASBO sug-gests that a state “fiscal recovery” may lagthe national economy by 12-18 months.State IT spending may similarly lag thenational economic recovery.

— Wayne Hall has spent the past 14 yearsworking with NASTD - the Association forTelecommunications and TechnologyProfessionals in State Government. The fullNASTD survey may be viewed at www.nastd.org/library/documents/bg2002mayjune.pdf

Just the factsNASTD members have

embarked on an effort to cata-log, describe and report on theinformation technology infra-structure in all state govern-ments. The organization devel-oped a searchable Web-baseddatabase of state technology,services and IT management towhich state members ofNASTD contribute data at anytime. That data is available 24/7in the form of customizablereports answering questions thatbegin, “What states…?” Initialtesting of that database hasbegun. More critical answers toquestions of budget, infrastruc-ture and the management ofstate IT resources will be forthcoming.

griculture is an essential part ofAmerica’s security, economy and

way of life. The food and fiber industrycreates 25 million jobs, 15 percent of theU.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) andis larger than construction, transportationand utilities combined. Governmentalfarm policy, while it costs just over 0.5percent of the U.S. budget, has importantimplications with regard to other budget items.

In November 2001, The Council ofState Governments (CSG) convened aforum on the 2002 Farm Bill from whicha series of recommendations entitled“Providing Food Security and RenewableEnergy to America” was released. Manyof these recommendations wereaddressed in the legislative conferencereport that was enacted as the “FarmSecurity and Rural Investment Act of2002” (Farm Bill). It became law early inMay, and quickly became the subject ofdebate from all sides. Critics assailed itfor everything from its cost to benefitsdistribution, but these complaints havebeen heard about every farm bill everenacted. The 1996 Freedom to Farm billwas supposed to decrease subsidies,reduce regulations and increase trade,while in reality there are more regula-tions, markets did not increase and emer-gency assistance programs totaled $30billion over the last four years. Themajority of criticism of the 2002 bill hasbeen aimed at the Commodity Title,while ignoring other features of the newlegislation.

Keeping food prices low

Members of the agricultural communi-

ty have tried not to react defensively tothe criticism. Farmers realize that there isa great disconnect between producers andconsumers, the so-called gate-to-platedistance. “The whole U.S. economy isbased on a cheap food policy,” said ChadSullivan, who raises row crops in partner-ship with his father and grandfather inrural Kentucky. “It is not realistic toexpect farmers to get all their incomefrom the market, because of our stance inthe past, we have lost market opportuni-ties to countries like Brazil and Argentinawho could undersell us. The public maynot like subsidies, but they don’t wanthigher food prices either. Politically, itseasier this way.”

The U.S. farm policy is intended tokeep most of America’s food coming

from American farmers while keepingfood prices low. Kentucky Commissionerof Agriculture Billy Ray Smith says thedistaste for the farm bill would be nothingcompared to the public outcry if foodinflation and availability suddenlybecame a problem. “In the United Stateswe have a very cheap food policy,” saidRep. Jo Ann Emerson (Mo), duringCongressional consideration of the Act.“Consumers spend 11 cents of every dol-lar on food, while in Europe they spendabout 22 cents. In Russia they spend 50 cents.”

State officials need to be aware of theopportunities available in the differenttitles of the 2002 Farm Bill, and how tomaximize the legislation for their com-munities. According to USDA Secretary


agricultureagriculture

AA

Is it farmer welfare or a consumer subsidy?

BY CAROLYN ORR

The 2002 Farm Bill

“Farming looks mighty easy when your tractor is a pencil, and you are a thousand miles awayfrom the corn patch.” President Dwight Eisenhower in reference to Uncle Sam taking up farming, Sept. 1956.


Ann Veneman, “The new bill will bringmuch-needed stability to farmers andranchers as they conduct their business.It creates a new system of counter-cycli-cal payments based on market prices in relation to target prices. It provides a record level of support for conservation,and it adds new programs to preservewetlands and improve soil and water quality.“

The state legislative and executivebranch officials who participated inCSG’s Farm Bill Forum recommendedthat the 2002 farm bill strengthen thesafety net for America’s agriculture pro-ducers. According to Kansas Sen. SteveMorris, it is “not a perfect bill but it doesprovide a safety net for farmers.” In hisregion, “90 percent of the farmers wouldbe out of business if it weren’t for gov-ernment payments and crop insurance”(that safety net includes the first time evercounter-cyclical dairy payment for 2.4million pounds of milk produced –approximately the yield of 135 cows.

The 1996 Bill authorized direct pay-ments with little relationship to the levelof farm prices, which resulted in emer-gency bills to supplement farm incomes.The 2002 bill’s dairy program safety net,like those of other commodities, is moreclosely tied to the performance of thefarm economy. Under the new farm bill,producers of wheat, corn, sorghum, bar-ley, oats, cotton, rice, soybeans, peanuts,peas, lentils, sugar, honey, wool andmohair are provided with loans, loandeficiency payments or counter-cyclicalpayments to allow them to manage theiroperations with less uncertainty and risk.While program spending may be higherover the life of the new farm bill, this isdue to lower expected farm prices, not alarge increase in the structure of support,with forecasted costs being virtuallyidentical to that spent from 1998-2001.

This price support system generatesmost of the complaints. The outcry frominternational trading partners was imme-diate and intense in response to the levelsof commodity support provided. The factis, it is compatible with our existing tradeagreements under the World TradeOrganization. The WTO figures showthat 22 percent of American farmers’income comes from the government.European Union farmers average 38 per-

cent and are subsidized at an average of $300 per acre compared to $40 forU.S. farmers.

The bill contains the largest conserva-tion funding increase in history, signifi-cant gains for food stamps and nutrition,more resources for agricultural research,increased incentives for renewable fuelsproduction, and a strengthened commit-ment to rural communities, all within thelimits of the Congressional BudgetResolution.

Feeding the needy

The farm bill includes the food stampprogram and other emergency food assis-tance programs that have often beenadministrative quagmires for states.These programs are extended andexpanded under the provisions of the2002 bill. Altogether, nutrition programspending is increased by $6.4 billionabove baseline levels. These programsserve “the children, the elderly, and theworking poor, most of whom live inurban areas,” said Sen. Marge Kilkelly ofMaine. She said, “the expansion of a pilotprogram that has been providing seniors

and WIC recipients with free vegetablesfrom farmers’ markets improves the dietof consumers and the profitability offarmers’ markets in the Northeast.”

pThe legislation also offers states atransitional food stamp that would elimi-nate paperwork requirements for thosefamilies moving from welfare towork. States’ flexibility is increasedunder the new legislation, while reducingthe federally required paperwork. Thebill also provides states the opportunity toalign definitions of income and resourcesin the food stamp program with the onesused for Medicaid. This will give statesthe authority to align eligibility.

One of the most profound reforms tothe food stamp program is the new direc-tion for the quality control system. Thenew system eliminates the current lawthat puts half of the states under sanctionseach year. Now the USDA will focus itsenergies on states with persistent pay-ment accuracy problems.

Cleaner water and air

While much of the criticism is focusedon the Commodity portion of the Act, its

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Philippinnes

Mexico

France

India

Israel

Japan

Germ

any

New

Zealand

UK

USA

1012

15.418 18

20.5

51.3

16

38

55

U.S. citizens spend a smaller percentage of their total budget on food than residents of any othercountry, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

Percent of income spent on food

future success or failure actually lies inthe Conservation, Rural Development,Energy and Research Titles. Many of ourinternational trading partners avoid WTOreview by assisting farmers through con-servation funds. The 2002 Farm Bill fol-lows this pattern, providing an 80 percentincrease in conservation spending.Agricultural producers are facing ever-increasing environmental concerns andregulations with issues like air and waterquality affecting decisions made at everyopening of the farm gate. The public offi-cials attending the CSG Forum inNovember strongly recommended that thenew farm bill provide a variety of flexibleconservation programs. The new billaddresses environmental concerns on awhole farm basis through a large increasein flexible conservation spending.

According to Commissioner Smith,“helping farmers become better stew-ards of their environment helps every-one, and with the new ConservationSecurity Program the public that bene-fits from cleaner air and water will helpcarry the financial burden.” Previousfarm bills stressed land retirement pro-grams as a way to achieve environmen-tal goals, often affecting rural communi-ties. When farmers had to forgo produc-ing or harvesting crops near creeks andrivers to maintain water quality, thefarmer paid the price. Under a separateCredit Title, a beginning farmer andrancher development program and apilot program for contract land saleshave been initiated to provide opportuni-

ties for beginning and disadvantagefarmers to get into farming.

The 2002 legislation provides almostone billion dollars to states for farmlandconservation. The attendees at the CSGForum were unanimous in supporting thereauthorization of this program.According to the American FarmlandTrust, states have already preserved over900,000 acres from development. Thisnew infusion could help slow urbansprawl and keep family farmers in busi-ness. According to Sen. Kilkelly, thisprogram is critically important due topressure on aging farmers to fund theirretirement by selling their producing

farms to developers.” There is also fund-ing to create market systems for pollutionreduction and the restoration and protec-tion of native grasslands, wetlands andwildlife habitats. The nuts and bolts por-tion of previous conservation titles, theEnvironmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP), will provide increasesin funding to livestock and crop farmersfor construction of facilities that reduceagriculture’s effects on soil and water quality.

Profitability

Agriculture is one of the few industrieswhere the U.S. has a positive balance oftrade. The CSG Forum recognized theimportance of broadening internationaltrade to the profitability of agricultureand the strength of the American econo-my. They recommended that methods toenhance trade and marketing of agricul-ture products be made an inherent part ofthe 2002 Farm Bill – and got their wish.The Farm Security and Rural InvestmentAct of 2002 has increased emphasis onthe export of value-added products intoemerging markets as well as increasedspending for the Market Access Program.Domestic sales may be strengthened bythe inclusion of a requirement that foodlabels identify the country of origin ofmeat, fruits and vegetables, fish, and


Agriculture is one of the few industries where the United States has a positive balance of trade.

peanuts and by the Value-added MarketDevelopment Grants program. This pro-gram has been broadened in its scope andemphasis to include technical assistanceand feasibility studies that can offer helpto small and medium-sized farms.

Revitalizing rural communities

The farm bill should never be consid-ered a substitute for progressive rural pol-icy, but this Act establishes a NationalBoard on Rural America and provides itwith $100 million for planning grants toregional investment boards. It alsoincludes funding for initiatives inimproving rural Internet and telecommu-nications service. The benefits of sus-tainable forest management and relatedindustries to rural communities were rec-ognized through the funding of a programto manage and restore private woodlands.

Promoting renewable, domestic energy

An important conclusion of the CSGForum was the need for increased empha-sis on renewable energy as an alternativemarket for agriculture products. In addi-

tion to a value-added marketing alterna-tive for farmers, the use of renewableenergy sources reduces the nation’sdependence on foreign oil. This is thefirst farm bill to recognize the importanceof bioproducts and renewable energy.The new program includes funds to edu-cate government and private fleet opera-tors about the benefits of biodiesel, pro-motes the purchase of biobased productsby federal agencies, initiates a certifica-tion and labeling program, and providesfinancial and technical assistance forfarmers and rural small businesses toconvert to renewable energy systems.Rep. Mark Kennedy (Minn) reported thatthe bill would be of significant benefit tohis state through rural development andincreasing clean energy.

Rep. Douglas Jones of Idaho, co-chairof CSG’s Agriculture and Rural PolicyTask Force, is concerned “that the billand the process that formed it didn’t helpagriculture’s image,” but he wasimpressed that many of the recommenda-tions that were drafted during CSG’sforum ended up as part of the final legis-lation. The USDA is currently develop-ing the implementation plans for all the

programs and is keeping the publicupdated at a new web site(http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/).

—Carolyn Orr is a Senior Policy Analystfor Agriculture and Rural Policy for TheCouncil of State Governments.


Commodities

Conservation

Trade

Food stamps, Child nutrition

Rural development

Research

Forestry

Energy

Miscellaneous

TOTALS

77,045

21,412

2,610

528,657

0

360

0

0

43,316

673,400

47,771

17,079

1,144

6,400

870

1,323

100

405

-1,594

73,497

124,816

34,491

3,754

535,057

870

1,683

100

405

41,772

746,897

16.7%

5.2%

.5%

71.64%

.1%

.2%

.01%

.05%

5.6%

100%

TITLEBASELINESPENDING

2002 FARMBILL

TOTALSPENDING % OF TOTAL

ResourcesProviding Food Security and

Renewable Energy to America;State Government Recommen-dations on National FarmPolicy. The Council of StateGovernments. November, 2001

The Facts on the U.S. FarmPolicy. House AgricultureCommittee, June 2002.Washington, D.C.

State PACE Programs—Status. American FarmlandTrust Fact Sheet, January 2002

Farm program spending (millions of dollars) FY2002-2011

• Based on CBO’s 4/01 baseline.• Does not include costs of discretionary programs which are funded through annual appropriations process, (i.e. salaries and administration, etc.)• Most research is funded through annual appropriations.


State TrendsState Trends

States have moved rapidly to addresssecurity issues highlighted by the terror-ist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, particularlythose related to driver’s license

issuance, administration, enforcementand verifiability. Although not essen-tial or directly related to the atrocitiescommitted on 9/11, the discovery thatmany of the terrorists held driver’slicenses – some fraudulently issued andsome due to lax issuance standards –has focused state leaders’ attention onopportunities to improve driver’slicense integrity for a host of importantpublic safety reasons.

In 2000 alone, drivers with invalidlicenses killed more than 6,200 people.The total economic impact of thoseinvalid drivers in that year is estimatedto have exceeded $25 billion, accordingto the National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (NHTSA). Enhancingissuance standards, driver’s license doc-

ument authenticity and driver informa-tion verifiability would significantlyimprove the driver’s license for its onlyrequired use – to prove state sanction tooperate a motor vehicle – and for itsassociated permissive uses relating toidentity verification. States are increas-ingly aware of incidents of fraud andneglect that pervade many driver’slicense issuing authorities, an issue atthe heart of comprehensive driver’slicense program reform.

Federal legislation to preempt states’control of their driver’s license pro-grams is currently being considered byCongress. States are addressing thisissue by updating and modifying their

current driver’s license regulations andfederal legislation in this area would besubject to significant legal challengesover jurisdiction and would likely resultin an unfunded mandate for states.

States administer driver’s licenses

Driver’s licenses are issued by statesunder the constitutional authority of theTenth Amendment, which reads, “Thepowers not delegated to the UnitedStates by the Constitution, nor prohibit-ed by it to the states, are reserved to thestates respectively, or to the people.”Individual states have adopted drivingstandards appropriate to their own resi-

Licensed by the statesKeeping driver’s licenses in the hands of the states

BY ALBERT HARBERSON

The driver’s license has only one required purpose – to prove state sanction to operate amotor vehicle.


critical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government State TrendsState Trendscritical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government

dents and have vested the authority toissue driver’s licenses in a variety ofstate agencies. A majority of states leaveit to their respective Departments ofMotor Vehicles or Departments ofTransportation; in some states thisauthority is under the jurisdiction of theSecretary of State or even the State TaxCommission.

Rhode Island passed the first driver’slicense law in 1908. Since then, everystate and territory has established statuto-ry provisions and administrative regulations to govern the privilege ofdriving. Driver’s licenses were createdfor the purpose of protecting public safe-ty by recognizing those individuals whomet the necessary standards to receivestate sanction to operate a motor vehicle.Generally, those standards include age,knowledge of traffic laws, physical capa-bility to drive and practical driving com-petence. All states have required driversto be licensed since 1954. Today,although driver’s licenses are also usedfor many permissive purposes tied to ver-ifying identity, the principal purpose of adriver’s license remains unchanged — toprove state sanction to drive. Except forthe commercial driver’s license (CDL),states retain control of the standards gov-erning driver’s license issuance andenforcement.

Two interstate compacts currentlygovern states’ administration of drivers.The Driver’s License Compact (DLC)and the Nonresident Violator Compact(NRVC) facilitate states’ cooperationand information sharing. These com-pacts were developed by the states andare currently administered by theAmerican Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators (AAMVA). The DLC, created in 1961 and adopt-

ed by 45 states, ensures that a driver’shome state receives and processes infor-mation about traffic violations commit-ted by that driver in another state. TheNRVC, adopted by 44 states since itsdevelopment in 1972, standardizesmethods used by different jurisdictionsto process traffic citations received byout-of-state residents.

In 1986, under its authority to regu-late interstate commerce, the federalgovernment enacted the “CommercialMotor Vehicle Safety Act” (CMVSA).This act established national standardsfor the issuance of the CDL.Commercial drivers have been requiredto obtain a CDL since 1992. According

to the U.S. Department ofTransportation (USDOT), CDLs repre-sent approximately 5 percent of the totalnumber of 190 million driver’s licensesin the United States.

Current issues

A more effective structure for statesto comprehensively enforce drivinglaws would significantly enhance publicsafety. Such enhancements would, bynecessity, include the following ele-ments: Integrity of license issuance(ensuring that the person receiving alicense meets necessary driving compe-tency standards and has a verifiableidentity) and verifiability (providingaccess for appropriate law enforcement

White House endorses state-led driver's license initiative

The White House endorsed TheCouncil of State Government’s(CSG) organizational positionregarding a state-led driver’slicense initiative by including it inPresident George W. Bush’sNational Strategy for HomelandSecurity.

Released by President Bush onJuly 16, 2002, the security initiativedirects the federal government tosupport state-led efforts to improvethe integrity of state issued driver’slicenses. The national policyincludes the following directive:

“Coordinate suggested mini-mum standards for state driver’slicenses. The licensing of driversby the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, and the United Statesterritories varies widely. There areno national or agreed upon statestandards for content, format orlicense acquisition procedures.Terrorist organizations, includingAl-Qaeda operatives involved in

the September 11 attacks, haveexploited these differences. Whilethe issuance of driver’s licensesfalls squarely within the powers ofthe states, the federal governmentcan assist the states in crafting solu-tions to curtail the future abuse ofdriver’s licenses by terrorist organi-zations. Therefore, the federal government, in consultation withstate government agencies and non-governmental organizations, shouldsupport state-led efforts to developsuggested minimum standards fordriver’s licenses, recognizing thatmany states should and will exceedthese standards."

A 50-state survey conducted byCSG in June and July 2002 showsthat state leaders endorse this posi-tion. More than 95 percent of offi-cials in 47 responding states andthe District of Columbia favoredstate-directed efforts to address dri-ver’s license integrity, rather than creating a "federalized" driver’s license.


State TrendsState Trendsofficials to verify the authenticity of thelicense document, driving history andidentity of the license holder).

Integrity of license issuance: Allstates attempt to verify the identity of apotential license holder by using docu-ments known as foundation documents.Foundation documents include but arenot limited to birth certificates, utilitybills, passports and other states’ dri-ver’s licenses. The principal challengerelated to foundation documents is thestates’ ability to verify authenticity and validity.

A related issue is the process bywhich a state verifies that the individualpresenting valid foundation documentsis indeed the individual to whom thosedocuments belong. Under many exist-ing systems it is possible for Jane topresent Sally’s birth certificate and get avalid driver’s license in Sally’s name.

Fraud presents a challenge. Under thecurrent systems, individuals who pro-duce fraudulent foundation documentshave a good chance of illegally procur-ing a valid license or licenses. Suchdocuments allow the perpetrator toassume the identity of another individ-ual in order to commit a host of criminaloffenses or to avoid responsibility forpreviously committed acts.

The most comprehensive system,however, is only as strong as its weakestlink, and many times the weak link hasproven to be licensing authority employ-ees. For example, on October 1, 2000,

The Orange County Register reportedthat California Department of MotorVehicle (DMV) employees were sellingfraudulent driver’s licenses for up to$4000 each and that 60 active cases offraud existed. In New Jersey, rings ofDMV employees selling licenses wereuncovered by law enforcement during atwo-year investigation that is still under-way, according to The Star-Ledger.

Verifiability: Although systems existto access driver information from anoth-er state, they do not allow informationretrieval in real time. The result is apractical inability to verify license infor-mation and driver history in a timelyfashion. It is possible that an individualstopped for a traffic offense could pro-duce a counterfeit license and escapedetection because of that time lag. Thisis a significant public safety issue, sinceaccording to the NHTSA, individualswith invalid driver’s licenses causedapproximately 11 percent of fatal acci-dents in 2000. The cost in human life,injuries, property damage and increasedinsurance premiums is enormous.

Most states require a picture andsome form of physical description toappear on license documents. A devel-oping issue, however, concerns whetheror not states should incorporate addi-tional types of uniquely individual personal identifiers (e.g. fingerprints,retinal scans, etc.) into the licensingprocess to attempt to strengthen the con-nection between the license holder and

the document and to decrease fraudulentissuance and use.

The “Federalized” driver’s license

Three pieces of federal legislationthat would “federalize” the driver’slicense are currently under review by Congress.

Driver’s License Modernization Actof 2002 (DLMA): This act, introducedby Rep. Jim Moran and Rep. Tom Davisof Virginia, requires that within fiveyears states will implement driver’slicense programs with the followingrequirements:

• Driver’s licenses will become“smart cards” with computer chipsthat store a variety of information.

• Biometric data to match the licensewith its owner will be collected.

• States’ participation in nationaldatabases will be required.

• Tamper-resistant security featureswill be incorporated into all licensedocuments.

• States will adopt and implementprocedures for accurately docu-menting the identity and residenceof an individual before issuing adriver’s license.

This legislation directs the Secretaryof Transportation to establish necessarystandards within six months of its adop-tion in consultation with the AmericanAssociation of Motor VehicleAdministrators (AAMVA), the GeneralServices Administration, and theNational Institute of Standards andTechnology. The bill also authorizesthe federal government to appropriate$315 million for grants to states to help


State TrendsState Trendsoffset initial costs of this new system.The specific language of the bill shouldbe of interest to state leaders, however.It repeatedly directs the Secretary ofTransportation to set standards but does-n’t require federal funding to pay fornew federally imposed requirements.

Driver’s License Integrity Act of 2002(DLIA): Similar to the DLMA, this leg-islation drafted by Sen. Richard Durbinof Illinois would require:

• Minimum uniform standards forissuance and administration ofstate-issued driver’s licenses.

• Interstate sharing of driving infor-mation for verification withenhanced privacy protection withinfive years of enactment.

• Enhanced ability for verificationand authentication of the driver’slicense.

• Prevention of abuse and enhancedpenalties for internal fraud.

• Similar state funding allocation.DLIA requires the Secretary of

Transportation to develop the minimumset of verification and identificationrequirements and supervise state implementation.

HR 4043: This legislation, introducedby Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, wouldbar Federal agencies from accepting astate-issued driver’s license for anyidentification-related purpose unless thestate requires licenses issued to nonim-migrant aliens to expire upon the expi-ration of the aliens’ nonimmigrant visa.

Arguments for federalization– and their flaws

Supporters of a national identifica-tion system often make two argumentsfor driver’s license system reform: theoversight of foreign nationals and curb-ing identify theft. It’s important tounderstand these arguments in order tofully appreciate the implications of dri-ver’s license system reform currentlybefore Congress – legislation that would“federalize” the driver’s license.

Foreign nationals: The federal gov-ernment has the responsibility foradmitting, regulating and monitoringforeign nationals in the country. It fol-

lows that the federal government musttake actions that would prevent terror-ists from entering the country in the firstplace. As for foreign nationals the gov-ernment chooses to admit, informationabout these individuals should be madeavailable to states in real time so visasand other documents can be verified.

One option would be for the federalgovernment to consider certifying cer-tain foreign nationals as being eligibleto receive a driver’s license, giving thestates a clear sign that those foreignnationals have been thoroughly investi-gated. States may wish to re-evaluatewhether issuing licenses to “non-status”immigrants is appropriate, despite pub-lic safety arguments for doing so. (Atleast four states currently issue licensesto non-status immigrants on the basisthat public safety is better protectedwhen individuals who are likely to driveare required to meet minimum compe-tency standards).

Should the federal governmentattempt to shift responsibility for moni-toring foreign nationals to the states,however, the costs and liability issuesfor the states would be enormous.

Identity theft: The problem of “iden-tity theft” in the United States is signif-icant, and is often used as a principalargument for federalizing driver’slicenses. The argument cites evidencethat there are more than 500,000 casesof identity theft a year, and since the dri-ver’s license is the most widely usedform of personal identification, improv-ing the current driver’s license systemand creating a better driver’s licensedocument can eliminate identity theft.

A close examination of this argumentreveals its flaws, however. The FederalTrade Commission’s (FTC) own statis-tics show that the majority of “identifytheft” is actually credit fraud and bearslittle relation to the issuance of a dri-ver’s license

Evidence exists that the “more than500,000” figure could be overstated byas much as 500 percent. The numbercomes from self-reporting by the threemajor credit-reporting agencies(Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) tothe General Accounting Office (GAO).

Because these agencies became con-cerned that individuals were placing“fraud alerts” on their accounts as a pre-ventive measure, whether or not they hadactually been victims of credit fraud, theagencies changed their fraud alert proce-dures. Now, fraud alerts come in twoforms. That procedural change hasreduced the estimated number of “identi-ty theft” cases from over 500,000 toapproximately 100,000 cases per year.

Data from the FTC suggests that thenumber of cases of identity theft peryear in which a falsified driver’s licenseis implicated is actually about 2,700.

Those who advocate the use of thedriver’s license to stop the vaguelyrelated problem of “identity theft” in itsvarious forms admit that they want toexpand the required use of a driver’slicenses to non-driving purposes (e.g.the verification of identity for a host ofother activities – banking, health care,etc.). This would require tying publicand private databases together and, per-haps more importantly, such a systemcould certainly not be characterized asanything less than a “national identifica-tion system,” with significant opportu-nities for misuse of information, violations of privacy and license-holder“tracking.” Additionally, approximately33 percent of American citizens, residents and visitors don’t have dri-ver’s licenses because they don’t drive,according to the USDOT. It is quitepossible that such proposals would ulti-mately lead to the requirement thateveryone be “licensed” in some form bythe government, whether they intend to drive or not. In other words, the driver’s license would become an identity license.

The scope of the real solution

States should move to improve theintegrity of issuance of driver’s licensesand the verifiability of those licenses.Doing so will address important publicsafety concerns related directly to theprimary purpose of a license – statesanction to operate a motor vehicle –and will improve the license documentfor a host of other permissive uses. The


State TrendsState Trendsscope of a real solution, then, mustaddress the following elements:

• Issuance standards: States shouldconsider adopting standards forissuing driver’s licenses thatinclude the use of verifiable (e.g.authentic and valid) foundationdocuments. Such standards willnecessarily involve enhancement ofthe control and verifiability offoundation documents withinstates, among states and betweenstates and the federal government.

• Driver information - collection,sharing and exchange: Statesshould consider enhancing theirability to share information aboutdrivers by consistently collectingand sharing driver information.This information should then beavailable to appropriate lawenforcement officials in real time.

• State operation and enforcement:States should consider examiningtheir own driver’s license authori-ties and whether their respectivelead law enforcement organizationsshould take enhanced roles inadministering the driver’s licenseprograms. Fraud in offices thatissue licenses is a significant issueand cannot be ignored. Anenhanced law enforcement role inlicensing administration couldreduce fraud, ensure compliancewith established standards and pro-mote government efficiency bytying the issuance of licenses to theenforcement of them. Additionally,states should consider additionalpenalties for criminal activity relat-ed to the improper issuance or man-ufacture of driver’s licenses.

• Tamper and counterfeit-proof fea-tures: States should consider mak-ing the driver’s license documentmore tamper resistant and difficultto counterfeit.

• Accurate and reliable personal iden-tifiers: States should considerenhancing the type of uniquely indi-vidual personal identifiers they use totie a driver to a driver’s license doc-ument. This information should beverifiable in real time by appropriate

law enforcement officials. • Verifiability: States should consider

enhancing their communicationsand information infrastructures toallow real time access to drivinghistory information and authentici-ty verification of the driver’slicense document.

State-driven solutions

States have an opportunity to drasti-cally increase public safety and reducethe associated costs of unsafe drivers byaddressing current driver’s licenseissues. State approaches to the problemcan include:

• Establishing a “State Clearinghousefor Best Practices” to promoteeffective regulatory and legislativechanges in states, mirroring the on-going efforts of The Council ofState Governments (CSG), TheNational Conference of StateLegislatures (NCSL) and TheNational Governors Association(NGA) on a wide array of issues.Information could be posted elec-tronically and made availablethrough annual or semi-annualwritten reports. The clearinghousewould document legislative enact-ments, regulatory changes, execu-tive orders, interim committeereports and judicial decisions andprovide links to related articles,publications and reports.Additionally, clearinghouse staffcould provide necessary technicalsupport to states.

• Drafting model legislation relatedto the issuance and verificationprocesses. Model legislation couldbe collaboratively drafted by CSG,NCSL and NGA or by an organiza-tion experienced with the produc-tion of model legislation. Modellegislation would identify issuesthat have surfaced in many statesregarding driver’s license issuanceand verification and create a mark-er for states to target when makingchanges and modifications.

• Developing uniform minimumstandards that could be adopted by

states for issuance and verificationof driver’s licenses through a jointCSG, NCSL and NGA effort.States would have flexibility to gobeyond the minimum standardsand, therefore, continue to testadditional ways of enhancing theintegrity of the overall system.Intergovernmental agreements toensure compliance could also be adopted.

• A new “Interstate Compact onDriver’s License Integrity” couldbe developed. Modeled on CSG’srecent experience with the develop-ment and adoption of the Compacton Adult Offender Supervision, anew compact would replace theexisting compacts. As a contractamong states, the new compactwould provide a mutually agreeableand enforceable framework forcooperative state action. Keyadvantages and elements of a newinterstate compact include:

• Speed of enactment: The compactcan be developed and implementedby states in as few as 30 months,consistent with CSG’s experiencewith the adult offender compact.Compact development involves aconsensus approach in which allstates will have the opportunity toparticipate.

• Fifty-state and full territorial adop-tion: The compact’s language canencourage all states to adopt it inorder to provide protection fromunsafe drivers for their own residentsand lower associated insurance andother costs. For instance, the lan-guage of the compact can precludethe sharing of driver informationwith non-compacting states.Additionally, compacting statescould refuse to honor the driver’slicenses from non-compacting states.

• Administration and enforcement:The compact can establish anInterstate Commission to oversee itsadministration and enforcement.This Commission could be grantedauthority to make and enforce rulesin a far more effective and dynamicway than can the federal govern-


critical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government State TrendsState Trendscritical issues, emerging trends and best practices in state government

ment, which can only establish staticrequirements. Enforcement provi-sions could include a range of mech-anisms from alternative dispute reso-lution to fines and costs assessment,suspension and termination of mem-bership in the compact, and judicialenforcement. The Commissionwould also oversee the developmentof an integrated information sharingsystem that preserves state control ofdriver information.

• Cost: Development and enactmentof the compact could likely beundertaken for approximately 1percent of the funding authorized inrecently introduced legislation tofederalize the driver’s license.Long-term costs would be

addressed in the compact itself.This cost analysis is consistent withCSG’s experience with the adultoffender compact.

• Standards: States could mutuallyagree to more rigorous standardsthan have been proposed in federallegislation.

Conclusion

States thus far have moved expedi-tiously, both independently and in con-cert, to address the issues with the currentdriver’s license system. Although muchwork remains, state leaders increasinglyunderstand the appropriate scope ofissues to be addressed and the urgency ofaction. CSG and NCSL, in concert with

other national organizations, remain com-mitted to working closely together andthrough their members – every electedand appointed state official in the nation –to improve the integrity of the state-issued driver’s license.

— Albert Harberson is the NationalPolicy Director for The Council of StateGovernments. This article representsthe organizational positions of TheCouncil of State Governments and theNational Conference of StateLegislatures, and was developed withinput from the National GovernorsAssociation. The original position paperwas delivered to the White House onJune 26, 2002.

Following the attacks on Sept. 11,most states undertook efforts to bolstersecurity in the driver’s licensing process.Issues such as license design changes,biometric information, increased penal-ties for fraud, limited replacement licens-es, improved training for Department ofMotor Vehicle staff members and othersafeguards are all being considered orhave been acted upon. Below is a sum-mary of actions taken by states:

Expiration of visa

Several states have enacted legisla-tion that ties expiration of an individ-ual’s driver’s license to the expiration ofthe immigration visa. Arizona, Florida,Kentucky, Minnesota and Ohio have allpassed similar legislation. Additionally,Rhode Island and Michigan have passedlegislation that requires driver’s licenseapplicants to submit proof that they arein the United States legally.

Increased identification requirements

A majority of states have altered therequirements necessary to obtain a driverslicense. Previously, in some states, an

applicant needed only one form of identi-fication (in some instances, a picture iden-tification was not required). However,following Sept. 11, restrictions have beenimplemented to make obtaining a driver’slicense more stringent, but also, safer.Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesotaand Nebraska are some of the states thatmandated increased requirements in thedriver’s license application process.

Technological/Physical changes to driver’s licenses

A few states have increased the tech-nological aspects of their motorists’ dri-ver’s licenses. These changes includebiometric identifiers like thumbprints,facial structure, voice or the structure ofthe eye’s retina to establish and verify—Georgia and West Virginia currently usethis technology. California, Colorado,Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Texas, andWest Virginia collect fingerprints in thedriver’s licensing process, although onlyGeorgia uses them to verify identitywhen issuing replacement licenses.Additionally, other states have mandatedthe implementation of a central databasecontaining information on license

holders. Kansas has passed legislationrequiring a person’s thumbprint on thedriver’s license. Nebraska in 2003 willintroduce a digital license containingpersonal information on a magnetic bar-code. Connecticut will, effective July 1,2002, issue a new driver’s license con-taining a bar code with encrypted infor-mation, one-to-one biometric facialrecognition capability, and six state-of-the-art “overt” and “covert” security fea-tures. Minnesota has passed legislationthat makes noncitizen’s driver’s licensesa different color from a citizen’s license.

Federal support against ID fraud

The federal government has alsoworked to aid states in the fight againstID fraud. With the passage of the USAPatriot Act, states are prohibited fromissuing or renewing the license of any-one seeking to transport hazardousmaterials unless the U.S. Department ofTransportation has cleared the individualseeking the license of any security con-cerns. Additionally, the Department ofJustice must also perform a backgroundinvestigation into the individual prior toissuance or renewal of a license.

Driver’s license summary of states’ actions

he Interstate Compact for AdultOffender Supervision, a new inter-

state agreement adopted by 38 states, sig-nificantly updates the 65-year-old mecha-nism for tracking and supervisingparolees and probationers that movebetween states. The new compact also isan example of how the over 200-year-oldstructure of interstate compacts is chang-ing to meet the modern policy demandsof states.

Since 1937, the Interstate Compact forthe Supervision of Parolees andProbationers has provided the sole statuto-ry authority for regulating the transfer ofadult parole and probation supervisionacross state boundaries. All 50 states, aswell as the District of Columbia, PuertoRico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are mem-bers of this interstate agreement.

With more than 4.5 million offenders onprobation and/or parole, overseen by 3,285different local probation and parole officesand operated by more than 860 separateagencies, this 65-year-old compact was inneed of significant revision.

The compact authority and structureare seriously outdated, as evidenced bythe following symptoms: the rule makinggroup is not specifically created in com-pact language and is not legally empow-ered to carry out certain key activities; itis difficult to create new rules for thecompact; there is limited ability to enforce rule compliance; andexchange of case information is slow and unreliable.

A new solution

In 1998, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) Advisory Board, fol-lowing several public hearings, directed itsstaff to begin pursuing a revision of thecompact. NIC and The Council of StateGovernments (CSG) partnered to developand facilitate a Drafting Team of state offi-cials to design a revised interstate compactthat would include a modern administra-tive structure, provided for rule making andrule changing over time, required thedevelopment of a modern data collectionand information sharing system among thestates, and was adequately funded to carry

out its tasks.In creating compacts, two divergent

strategies can be chosen. One leads to put-ting the important details in the text andterms of the compact, which cannot beamended without amending the agreement.The other strategy creates a system inwhich the compact can respond to changesover time without having to implement theamendment process. This is the coursechosen for the Adult Compact, with theinterstate commission empowered to makeand revise rules over time.

The inherent disadvantage of this choiceis that the interstate commission cannotconvene until the compact is enacted, mak-


interstate compactsinterstate compacts

TT

The Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision significantly updates the methods of track-ing and supervising parolees and probationers who move between states.

Adult Compact version 2.0An Interstate Compact comes of age

BY JOHN J. MOUNTJOY

ing it impossible for compact rules to beknown at the time a compact is enacted bythe state/territory. The major advantage isthat rules are made and maintained bystates/territories choosing to enact the com-pact, and the compact is not tied to a fixedset of rules that were made by some outsidegroup before participating states/territorieshave the opportunity for input.

Compact specifics

Developed in 1999, the new InterstateCompact for Adult Offender Supervision’sprimary goals include:

• The establishment of an independentcompact operating authority to admin-ister ongoing compact activity, includ-ing a provision for staff support.

• Policymaking level appointment rep-resentations of all member states on anational governing commission whichmeets annually to elect the compactoperating authority members and toattend to general business and rulemaking procedures.

• Rule making authority, provision forsignificant sanctions to support essen-tial compact operations.

• A mandatory funding mechanism suf-ficient to support essential compactoperations (staffing, data collection,training/education, etc.)

• To compel collection of standardizedinformation.

Specifically, the compact mandates:• A more efficient communications sys-

tem between states and state agencies. • The revised Compact facilitates state

autonomy AND national cooperationby establishing State Councils and byparticipating in the NationalCommission.

• State Council membership mustinclude at least one representativefrom the legislative, executive andjudicial branches of government, vic-tim groups and the CompactAdministrator.

• Each state determines the qualifica-tions of the Compact Administrator,who shall be appointed either by theGovernor in consultation with theLegislature and the Judiciary; or bythe State Council.

• State dues in support of the NationalCommission are based on a formula to

be developed by the state within theNational Commission.

• Rules and bylaws for the NationalCommission are developed andpassed by the Commission and havethe effect of law upon states.

• The National Commission will havean Executive Committee composed ofCompact Administrators from mem-ber states.

In order to take effect, the Adult Compacthad to be enacted by a minimum of 35 states(per the language of the compact). Thisnumber was chosen by the team as signifi-cant enough to compel the other 15 states toaction once the threshold was met.

First introduced in January 2000, theAdult Compact was quickly enacted inseveral states, first by Colorado on April10, 2000. A little more than 26 months lateron June 19, 2002, Pennsylvania becamethe thirty-fifth state to enact the compact.

Since its founding in 1933, CSG hasplayed a key role in helping states devel-op, implement, and administer dozens ofinterstate compacts. Currently, CSG isthe administrator of the EmergencyManagement Assistance Compact and isalso working with the NIC to ensure thesuccessful enactment of the InterstateCompact for the Supervision of AdultOffenders and with the Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention in the U.S. Department ofJustice on the development of theInterstate Compact for Juveniles, which

deals with juvenile offenders.

John J. Mountjoy is the Associate Directorfor National Policy for The Council ofState Governments.


WA

OR

NV

CA

AZ NM

TX

MT

ID

UT

WY

CO

AK

ND

SD

NE

KS

OK AR

LA

MSAL GA

SCTN

KY

IL INOH

NC

VAWV

PA

MO

IA

MNWI

MINY

MEVT

NHMARICTNJ

HI

DEMDDC

FL

Enacted into Law

Introduction

Passed by one chamber

Sent to Governor

Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (status as of 7/15/02)

Internet CSG’s Interstate Compact

Directory ssl.csg.org/compact-laws/comlistlinks.html

CSG maintains links to allinterstate compacts known to bein existence in 1998 and to itscomprehensive guide to com-pacts, Interstate Compacts &Agencies, 1998.

Interstate Compact for AdultSupervision www.csg.org/-clip/policy/isc.htm

An interactive, up-to-the-minute source on the adult com-pact, including fiscal notes, state-by-state status, FAQ on the com-pact, case studies and download-able compact language.

Emergency ManagementAssistance Compact www.nema-web.org/emac/index.cfm

The site, under the NationalEmergency Management Associa-tion, a CSG affiliate, is your one-stop source for news and informa-tion for the Emergency Manage-ment Assistance Compact.


Insurance for People with ChronicConditions).

While it is true that continuous growthin healthcare inflation is unsustainable, itis important to recognize that our health-care system was not designed to addressthe multi-dimensional and ongoing prob-lems of chronic illness. Instead of ongoing, prevention-oriented, multidisci-plinary care, people with chronic condi-tions experience a plethora of confusing,costly, disconnected and disease-orientedencounters.

An all-too-common case study, basedon a composite of National Chronic CareConsortium member experiences, illus-trates the problem: Mr. Jones is 69 andhas congestive heart failure, chronicobstructive pulmonary disease, and dia-betes. He takes nine medications, pre-scribed by three physicians. A recent hipfracture necessitates trips to the emer-gency room, hospital, and a rehabilita-

fastest-growing service group, account-ing for 75 percent of all healthcare spend-ing (source: The Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation). Some 125 millionAmericans have a chronic condition; by2020 that number is expected to rise to157 million as the Baby Boom generationages, according to S. Wu and A. Green’sProjection of Chronic Illness Prevalenceand Cost Inflation. Of those eligible forboth Medicare and Medicaid, the Centerfor Medicare and Medicaid Services, for-merly the Health Care FinancingAdministration, says 80 percent have twoor more chronic conditions. Chronic ill-ness affects more than a third of working-age Americans, according to Marie C.Reed and Ha T. Tu’s Triple Jeopardy:Low Income, Chronically Ill andUninsured in America, and about 7.4 mil-lion of these Americans are uninsured(source: Ha T. Tu and Marie C. Reed.2002. Options for Expanding Health

he terrorist attacks of September 11,combined with significant changes

in state and federal budgets, have funda-mentally changed the nature of publicpolicy, including healthcare policy. Whileit is critical that we respond to threats ofterrorism and stem the tide of deficitfinancing, we cannot ignore anotherthreat to our society: chronic diseases anddisabilities.

Most health policy is primarilyfocused on stemming the tide of health-care inflation and establishing a drugbenefit. Healthcare expenditures areexpected to reach $2.8 trillion in 2011, 17percent of the Gross Domestic Product(GDP). Medicaid expenditures areexpected to grow 8.5 percent per yearover the next five years, and Medicareexpenditures are expected to grow 5.8percent per year (source: “HealthSpending Projections for 2001–2011: TheLatest Outlook.” Health Affairs 21).

The typical response to this projectedacceleration is to cut budget allocationsto mainstream healthcare providers.While this response is understandable inthe face of pending deficits, it fails to rec-ognize that the nature of healthcare hasfundamentally changed from acute tochronic care. Future cost and quality con-cerns cannot be addressed without chang-ing the nature of health policy.

People with chronic conditions, suchas heart disease, lung disease, asthma,arthritis, and Alzheimer’s disease arehealthcare’s largest, highest-cost, and

healthhealth

Growing problem must not get lost in the states’budget shuffle

BY RICHARD BRINGEWATT

Be aware of chronic care

People suffering from chronic conditions such as heart disease, lung disease, asthma, arthritis andAlzheimer’s disease are healthcare’s largest, highest-cost and fastest-growing service group,according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

TT


tion unit, before returning home withhome health care. With his problemreassessed at every stop, Mr. Jones pro-vides much of the same information overand over again. Each care provider takesaction with little regard for whatoccurred previously.

Given the confusion surrounding thistrauma, Mr. Jones has difficulty remem-bering all the medications he is taking,resulting in multiple complications incare. He has a delay in discharge fromrehab, and his home care skilled nursingvisit is delayed due to a mix-up in the dis-charge notes. Mr. Jones is home for threedays without home care services. On thefourth day, the home care nurse conductsanother assessment. Mr. Jones’ medica-tions include some that were prescribedbefore his hospitalization, and the nursesuspects that he is taking too many differ-ent prescriptions for the same condition.

On the eighth day following hospital-ization, Mr. Jones awakes from sleepfeeling shortness of breath, very light-headed and dizzy with a “tingly” feelingin his limbs. He is alarmed and calls foran ambulance. He is taken to the nearesthospital, which is not the same facilitywhere he was treated for his hip fracture.He is admitted through the ER where it isdetermined that his diabetes is out ofcontrol. He also has a mild case of bron-chitis. The orthopedist involved in hiship fracture rehabilitation, the cardiolo-gist he normally sees and his primarycare physician are not notified of thisnew admission.

Dr. Alan Lazaroff, director of geriatricmedicine at Centura Health in Colorado,specializes in chronic illness care andreports how the current system actuallythwarts the ability of many physicians toprovide quality care. He said in testimonybefore the U.S. Senate SpecialCommittee on Aging in 1998, “Much ofmy most important work is unrecognizedand uncompensated. If I hospitalize apatient, I can bill Medicare every day Imake a hospital visit—never mindwhether this is the most appropriate treat-ment. If I meet with family members of apatient with Alzheimer’s Disease, coordi-nate the services of several professionals,counsel patients and families about boththe benefits and limitations of aggressivetreatment, and help my patients cope with

the emotional consequences of their ill-ness, however, I can bill nothing. I maybe able to improve quality of life at thesame time that I reduce inappropriate andunproductive hospitalizations, ICU care,and emergency room visits, but the moreI focus on preventing or delaying the pro-gression of disability and the moremoney I save the Medicare program, theless I am paid. Something is terriblywrong with a system that rewards theunnecessary use of high-cost, high-techservices for a patient population that isequally dependent upon a vast array ofsupportive services and which penalizespractitioners who provide the servicesneeded most, often at a lower cost.”

The transformation of healthcare is ahuge task, yet one way government canbegin the task is by adopting the follow-ing health policy principles: (1) focus onchronic illness — it is the primary costdriver; (2) empower consumers —today’s well-informed Americans havemore capacity for control than we givethem credit for; (3) leverage technology— it is costly in the short-term, but infor-mation and medical technology hold rev-olutionary potential for long-term gain;(4) think long-term — chronic illness is alifetime concern; (5) think systems — theactions of all purchasers, payers,providers and consumers are interde-pendent; (6) focus on disease and disabil-

ity prevention — chronic illness is a pro-gressive condition; and (7) be proactive— delaying action will only cause moreproblems at a later point in time.

Most government officials have limit-ed resources to work with, yet significantlong-term cost and quality outcomes canoccur if government officials begin to:

1.Shift the primary focus of health pol-icy from reducing reimbursementrates for each provider segment toreducing the incidence rate of chron-ic disease and disability.

2.Create financial incentives to targetand serve people at risk of seriousand disabling chronic conditions.

3.Create financial incentives to preventdisease and disability progression.Most payment methods create incen-tives encouraging providers to waitfor a crisis to occur.

4.Change the existing regulatory struc-ture. Current rules and regulationslock in place a highly fragmentedand antiquated approach to chronicillness care.

5.Revisit managed care financing.Paying for care, one piece at a time,defies the ongoing and interdepend-ent nature of chronic illness.

6.Define new quality and systemmeasures. We cannot contain costsand ensure quality outcomes until wecreate measures that let us knowabout the cumulative effects of serv-ing people with chronic conditionsacross time, place, and profession.

The United States is threatened by actsof terror, and most states are also threat-ened by severe budget limitations. Yet asresponses are made to these larger policyconcerns, it is important to pay attentionto another crisis that rests at the core ofAmerica’s healthcare institutions. Theway healthcare is financed, administeredand delivered is fundamentally out ofsync with the nature of chronic illness.The time to resolve this crisis is now.America’s system of healthcare shouldwork for all Americans.

—Richard Bringewatt is president andCEO of the National Chronic CareConsortium, an alliance of health plansand providers collaborating to developsolutions to chronic illness care.

Richard Bringewatt is president and CEO ofthe National Chronic Care Consortium.


4 decision in the 1995 case of U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton.The Court held that such limitations could not be allowedwithout a constitutional amendment granting states thepower to set qualifications for members of Congress.

Opponents of term limits often argue that denying citi-zens the opportunity to vote for a candidate infringes onour democratic system. At least four states (Arizona,

Idaho, Missouri and Wyoming)considered legislation that wouldamend their states’ constitutionsto repeal legislative term limits.Of these four states, Idaho is theonly one to successfully repeal aterm limit law. Lawmakers whooppose term limits often cite adecline in institutional knowledgeamong newly elected officials andincreased power to the unelectedbureaucracy as negative effects ofterm limits.

Even though many state officialsembrace term limits, several states considered measures toalter their term limit laws. Legislation in five states tochange either the length or number of terms failed to passduring this year’s sessions. In addition, California votersrejected a ballot initiative in March to allow voters to peti-tion the Secretary of State to allow a state legislator to serveone additional term. Some officials recognize value in termlimits, but still consider them a work in progress.

Other state lawmakers are content with the function ofdemocracy under term limit laws. Many officials contendthat the benefits of term limits can outweigh the costs men-tioned above. According to these lawmakers, term limitsbring new opportunities and new individuals into the demo-cratic process.

Because widespread consensus regarding term limitseludes many states, lawmakers continue to introduce bills onboth sides of the debate.

James Carroll is the Southern Regional Coordinator for TheCouncil of State Governments, and David Moss is aResearch Analyst for The Council of State Governments.

tate officials and citizens continue to debate term lim-its for elected state offices and a sharp division existsbetween those favoring term limits and those who

oppose them. Legislation to alter term limit laws is thenewest wave to hit state capitals.

Possibly the most well known term limited position inUnited States government is the office of the President.According to the 22nd Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution, no presi-dent may serve more than twofour-year terms. Similarly, 38states currently have gubernatorialterm limits in place. Of thesestates, 31 allow a governor to servetwo consecutive four-year terms,while two other states limit a per-son to eight years of service in any16-year period. Five states allowtwo consecutive four-year terms,after which a person must take afour-year respite to be eligible again.

Despite the popularity of term limits for the highest exec-utive branch offices, opposition has developed to term lim-its for legislative offices. Citizens and lawmakers continueto debate the benefits of state laws regarding term limits forcongressional seats, state legislative office and local offices. Seventeen states have enacted state legislative term limits,while no term limits exist for members of Congress.Consistency exists among states regarding gubernatorialterm limits, but the models for state legislative term limitsvary greatly. Limits for lower chamber members range fromsix years (in three states) to 12 years (in four states). Theremaining nine states limit House or Assembly members toeight years of service. Fewer differences exist regardingterm limits in the upper chambers of the state legislatures.Twelve states allow Senate members to serve eight years,while the remaining four states allow for 12 years of service.One state, Oklahoma, allows for a total of 12 years of serv-ice in the House and the Senate combined.

Twenty-one states successfully passed federal congres-sional term limits, including 16 of the 17 states now withstate legislative term limits. The United States SupremeCourt, however, struck down the congressional laws in a 5-

trendsalert

STerm Limits

BY JAMES CARROLL and DAVID MOSS

The debate over the merits and drawbacks of term limits continues.


excellence in action: spotlighting CSG activities, events, resources and affiliated organizations

With the recent launch of Georgia’sHigher Education Savings Program,South Dakota’s College Access 529 andHawaii’s TuitionEDGE, all 50 states nowhave an operational Section 529 state col-lege savings program. Over three millionchildren across the country have beenenrolled in a state college savings plan.Parents and other individuals have savedmore than $18.9 billion to help pay forfuture college costs. More importantly, inexcess of 154,000 students have usednearly a billion dollars from these plans tofund their college education.

The mission of the state plans is to

increase access to higher education byoffering families a way to save for collegetuition. State college savings plans comein two forms: prepaid tuition programsand savings plans. The prepaid tuitionprogram offers families a method to pre-pay tuition based on today’s costs of col-lege tuition and provides a guarantee tokeep pace with tuition inflation. The sav-ings plans offer dedicated qualified statecollege savings accounts, which providefamilies a variable rate of return in a taxadvantaged college savings account.

Last year, the programs received feder-al tax exemption as part of the Economic

Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Actof 2001. Participants in both types of pro-grams receive federal tax exemption onthe investment earnings of the accountswhen the funds are used to pay for quali-fied higher education expenses.

In addition to the federal tax exemp-tion, 23 states also offer significant statetax incentives, which include deductionsfrom state income taxes based on annualcontributions. By the end of 2002, all 50states and the District of Columbia willhave operational savings plans and 20states will also offer prepaid tuition plansto their residents.

All states now offer college savings plans

National Youth Court Conference 2002Nearly 1000 youth and adults from 47

states, the District of Columbia, PuertoRico and Canada attended America’sYouth Justice System, The NationalConference of Youth Courts 2002, inArlington, Virginia. Adults and youthinterested in developing or improving ayouth court program, (also called teenpeer, or student court) attended more

than 65 workshops offered on topicssuch as volunteer training, program eval-uation, public speaking, ethics, legalissues, creating constructive sentencesand restorative justice.

In youth court, juvenile offenders arequestioned, defended and sentenced bytheir peers. Currently, there are over 860active youth court programs operating indistrict-level juvenile justice systems,schools and community-based organiza-tions. This number has risen from 78operational courts in 1994 — a 1,200

percent increase. The conference was conducted by the

National Youth Court Center at theAmerican Probation and ParoleAssociation and sponsored by the Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Office of Justice Programs,U.S. Department of Justice and theNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration, U.S. Department ofTransportation. Featured speakersincluded Deputy Assistant AttorneyGeneral Cheri Nolan and NHTSADeputy Administrator Annette M.Sandberg. New resources to help sup-port youth courts were released at theconference and the Urban Institutereleased findings from the first everNational Teen Court Evaluation.

The National Youth Court Center atthe American Probation and ParoleAssociation, one of CSG’s affiliateorganizations, provides training andtechnical assistance and serves as aninformation clearinghouse to youth courtprograms in the United States. TheCenter aims to assist communities indeveloping and operating effective youthcourt program models that strengthen theability of the juvenile justice system tohold youths accountable for their behav-ior, while enhancing public safetythrough active youth participation in thejuvenile justice system.

Court honoredOn June 5, 2002, the Youth

Court Volunteer Training/EducationMaterials package, developed by theAmerican Bar Association through asubcontract from the National YouthCourt Center at the AmericanProbation and Parole Association andsponsored by the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,won the “Distinguished AchievementAward for Instructional Materials forChildren” at the 2002 DistinguishedAchievement Awards Gala. TheNational Press Club hosted the Gala.

This award is considered a premieraward for excellence in publishing.There were more than 1,000 entriesand 299 finalists for the six categoriesof awards ceremony. Other nomineesincluded Scholastic Inc., NationalGeographic Society, Sesame Street,and TIME for Kids.

The Youth Court VolunteerTraining/Education Materials packagecontains student-training manuals foreach program model of youth court, aninstructor’s guide, a promotionalvideo, and a CD-ROM. To order acopy of the complete package (cost$45), call 1-800-285-2221.

For more information on youthcourts, contact the National YouthCourt Center at 859-244-8193 or visitonline at www.youthcourt.net.


Lifesavers 2002 - NHTSA Award presentedTracy Godwin Mullins, Director of the

National Youth Court Center, Lexington,KY has been selected to receive theLifesavers 2002 – National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)Award at the Lifesavers NationalConference On Highway Safety Prioritieson June 11, 2002 in Lake Buena Vista, Florida.

Lifesavers is the annual “highwaysafety” conference, sponsored by numer-ous safety organizations includingNHTSA. Lifesaver awards are given toindividuals for outstanding contributionsto highway safety. The NHTSA PublicSafety Award recognizes Tracy GodwinMullins, Director of the National YouthCourt Center, for her leadership and ded-ication to the prevention of underage

drinking and impaired driving through theimplementation of youth court programsnationally.

Mrs. Godwin Mullins is a seniorresearch associate with the AmericanProbation and Parole Association (APPA)and has been the youth court projectdirector since the initiation of a NHTSAgrant in FY94. Under her direction APPAhas expanded community youth court(also known as teen court, peer court, orschool court) programs by many hun-dreds. Extensive support materials and aweb site have been developed. Theengagement of an additional federal part-ner, the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, to continuefunding to support youth courts has beenachieved. This program has achieved

success in all ways: addressing the needsof youth, providing communities withwelcome assistance, developing profes-sional and popular publications and train-ing, and garnering significant supportfrom other national organizations.

Tracy Godwin Mullins

Legislators from Montana, Idaho,Washington and Oregon gathered May6-7 in Olympia, Washington for thetenth meeting of the LegislativeCouncil on River Governance.Resolving water disputes among thefour states and finding ways to workwith the Bush Administration on fish-eries, water and hydropower manage-ment topped the agenda.

Lawmakers also discussed potentialthreats to Northwest power facilities inthe wake of 9/11. In his capacity as the

president of the Pacific NorthwestEconomic Region (PNWER),Washington Rep. Jeff Morris emphasized

the interdependence of gas, water, trans-portation and electrical transmission sys-tems among the Northwestern states andAlberta and British Columbia. He saidcooperation is now essential because ofthe susceptibility of these systems to ter-rorists. Morris briefed legislators onPNWER’s critical infrastructure plan forthe region. He suggested the region needsto rethink the rationale behind somehydropower site decisions in order to dis-perse rather than concentrate criticalinfrastructure.

With regard to national domestic poli-cies affecting the Northwest, Bob Lohn,the new regional administrator of theNational Marine Fisheries Service, out-lined his management approach to theEndangered Species Act, saying that thefederal government is only one of severalpartners with an interest in species listing.Lohn told state lawmakers that the Actwas intended to be “an emergency room,not a rest home.”

Lohn’s remarks, along with those ofLarry Cassidy, chair of Northwest PowerPlanning Council, and Steve Wright,administrator of the Bonneville PowerAdministration, struck a recurring theme

of cooperation with states. These guestspeakers stressed expanding the numberof players in the policy process and grant-ing discretionary authority and funding atthe sub-basin planning level.

Opportunities offered by guest speak-ers to participate in the policy process willconstitute the framework for the nextmeeting of the Council to be held inHelena, Montana in late September.Council members thanked SenatePresident Tom Beck for his leadership ofthe Council over the past year as the gavelwas passed to Washington Sen. HarrietSpanel. Sen. Spanel will chair the Councilin the coming year.

The Legislative Council on RiverGovernance is made up of legislatorsfrom Montana, Idaho, Washington andOregon. Legislative leaders in theNorthwest organized the Council in 1998as a way to increase the legislative role indecisions affecting water, power andsalmon habitat in the Columbia and SnakeRiver Basins. CSG-WEST has served asthe convener of the Council under thedirection of the legislative steering com-mittee and the legislative staff in the four states.

Northwest legislators discuss river basin policies

Montana Senate President Tom Beck (left)discusses Washington Rep. Jeff Morris’ pres-entation at the opening session of theLegislative Council on River Governance.



On July 12-16, 33 legislators from the11 member states of the MidwesternLegislative Conference (MLC) andthree members of the MLC’s affiliatemembers, the provinces of Ontario andSaskatchewan, gathered in Madison,Wisconsin, to take part in the eighthannual Bowhay Institute for LegislativeLeadership Development.

A steering committee of Midwesternlegislators, co-chaired by Ohio Sen.Kevin Coughlin and Minnesota Sen.Mark Ourada and vice chaired byIllinois Rep. Mike Smith, awarded thisyear’s fellowships through a competi-tive, nonpartisan process. This year’sgroup joins the ranks of 225 lawmakerswho have completed the BILLD pro-gram in previous years. For a completelist of the 2002 BILLD class, visithttp://www.csgmidwest.org/billd02.htm.

The Midwestern Office of The Councilof State Governments produces theBowhay Institute in collaboration with the

University of Wisconsin’s Robert M. LaFollette School of Public Affairs. Thefive-day program consists of seminars onleadership training, professional develop-ment and policy analysis taught by LaFollette faculty, professional developmentexperts and legislative leaders from

across the region. Funding for the 2002 BILLD pro-

gram was provided through grants from:Verizon Communications; AventisPharmaceuticals; Bayer Corp.; Merck &

Co., Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals;Pfizer Inc; Johnson & Johnson;Pharmacia; Philip Morris ManagementCorp.; TAP Pharmaceuticals; UnitedParcel Service; American ChemistryCouncil/American Plastics Council;PG&E* National Energy Group, andQwest.

The Bowhay Institute is named inhonor of the late James Bowhay, long-time director of CSG’s MidwesternOffice. For more information, contactLaura A. Tomaka at 630-810-0210.

*PG&E National Energy Group andany other company referenced herein,which use the PG&E name or logo, arenot the same company as Pacific Gasand Electric Company, the Californiautility. These companies are not regulat-ed by the California Public UtilitiesCommission, and customers do not haveto buy products from these companies inorder to continue to receive quality-reg-ulated services from the utility.

Bowhay Institute for Legislative Leadership Development

CSG State Directory II, III now availableCSG Directory II includes the name,

address, phone, fax and e-mail and webaddress of officers and principal staffand selected standing committees of

the Senate and House of each state andU.S. jurisdictions, as well as primarycontacts for selected legislative func-tions. New officers and staff listingsthis year include chiefs of staff for sen-ate presidents, senate minority leaders,house speakers, and house minorityleaders. New committee listingsinclude budget/appropriations, correc-tions, security and technology. Thedirectory gives a listing of all statesand U.S. jurisdictions by position,issue area or legislative function.

CSG Directory III provides the name,address, phone, fax, e-mail and webaddress for elected and appointed offi-cials with primary responsibility in morethan 110 state government functions.Sample categories includeAdministration, Arbitration andMediation, Banking, BordersManagement, Debt Management,Elections Administration, InternationalTrade and State Security, to name a few.

To order, please contact CSG’s pub-lication sales order department at 1-800-800-1910 or access CSG’s onlinestore at: www.statesnews.org/store/


Delegates from the Eastern Office’sNortheast States Association forAgricultural Stewardship (NSAAS)met in early June with state agriculturecommissioners from across theNortheast to discuss ways of increasing regional cooperation onfarm issues.

NSAAS Chair, Sen. Marge Kilkellyof Maine, and Sen. Sara BrannonKittell of Vermont, conferred with theNortheast commissioners at theirannual meeting in Newport, R.I. June2-4. NSAAS Washington consultantFran Boyd also attended. Kilkelly andKittell said that improved coordinationamong the region’s state agricultureofficials was key to the inclusion of somany Northeast-friendly provisions inthe 2002 Farm Bill passed last month.Indeed, agriculture officials fromacross the region hailed this year’sFarm Bill as one of the most beneficialto the Northeast ever.

“Northeast farmers make an impor-tant contribution to our nation’s econ-omy, and it’s heartening to see that ourefforts have encouraged the federalgovernment to begin recognizingthat,” Kilkelly told the commissioners.“Rather than rest on our laurels, weneed to work aggressively to improveregional collaboration even further, sothat we speak with one strong, focusedvoice when it comes to fighting for our farmers.”

In addition to the Farm Bill,Kilkelly and Kittell discussed othervital issues, including emergency man-agement, biotechnology, and foodexporting. Federal representativesfrom the U.S. Department ofAgriculture were there to help provideanalysis of current law and the federalrules-making process.

Kittell said the meeting confirmedthe benefits of regional cooperation. “Iwas pleased to join the Northeast agri-culture commissioners here this week,because they really contribute so muchto our efforts,” Kittell said. “Theirexpertise is invaluable. They trulyunderstand what is working, and

where more resources are needed,because they are on the frontlines ofagriculture management. Only byworking together, can we ensure theviability of our farms, which are so

crucial to our region’s economy andquality of life. ”

Kilkelly and Kittell also invited thecommissioners to participate in twoupcoming events. On August 3-4,NSAAS will meet in Buffalo, N.Y. toestablish a plan for implementing pro-visions of the new Farm Bill, as wellas tour area farms. Then, on Sept. 25,state officials from across the regionwill gather on Capitol Hill for“Northeast Ag Day.” The group willmeet with key members of Congress,and thank the region’s congressionaldelegation for their efforts on behalf ofthe region’s farmers.

An affiliate of The Council of StateGovernments/Eastern RegionalConference, NSAAS includes mem-bers from Connecticut, Delaware,Maine, Massachusetts, NewHampshire, New Jersey, New York,Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermontand the Commonwealth of PuertoRico. The organization is dedicated topromoting the region’s small andmedium-sized family farms. Towardsthat goal, it works with its members toincrease regional cooperation on inter-state and federal-state matters. TheAssociation’s membership includesthe chairs, vice chairs and rankingmembers of the state legislative agri-culture committees. The region’s agriculture commissioners serve asadvisory members.

NSAAS meets with ag commissionersOn May 19-23, Nebraska Gov.

Mike Johanns, chair of theMidwestern Governors’ Conference,led a delegation of the region’s stateagriculture officials to the EuropeanUnion to discuss food safety and thebenefits of applying biotechnology toagriculture. Originally scheduled forOctober 2001, the trip was planned inorder to include state officials in thetransatlantic dialogue about agricul-tural biotechnology. Officials fromIowa, Missouri and Ohio, as well asNebraska, were part of the MGC dele-gation. Travel expenses for the delega-tion were provided by grants from theGerman Marshall Fund of the UnitedStates and the Pew Initiative on Foodand Biotechnology.

During meetings held in Brussels,Belgium, the group discussed the pro-posed regulations to require labelingand traceability of genetically modi-fied products in the European Unionand talked to EU officials aboutreopening the approval process forallowing GM products into Europe.The approvals process has effectivelybeen frozen for more than three years.

The delegation also met with FranzFischler, the EU’s agriculture commis-sioner, and Margot Wallström, envi-ronment commissioner for theEuropean Union. They held a round-table discussion with key members ofthe European Parliament’sEnvironment Committee and met withgroups as diverse as Greenpeace andEuropaBio, Europe’s biotechnologyindustry organization.

Officials visit EU

Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns led an MGCdelegation of Midwestern state agricultureofficials on a May trip to Brussels,Belgium, to discuss food safety .

NSAAS chair Sen. Marge Kilkelly ofMaine led the annual meeting in June.



On June 9, 2002, the ExecutiveCommittee of the American Probationand Parole Association (APPA) adopt-ed a resolution in support of the formation and expansion on youthcourts. The resolution as it was adopted states:

“Therefore, be it Resolved, That the

American Probation and ParoleAssociation joins in the celebration ofthe first National Youth Court Monthand hereby recognizes the importance ofyouth courts to our communities andrecommends that probation, parole, andcommunity supervision agencies sup-port and assist in the formation and

expansion of diversionary programs,known as youth court.”

The complete text of the Resolution,as well as information on NationalYouth Court Month (September 2002),can be found on the National YouthCourt Center’s website at www.youth-court.net.

APPA passes Youth Court resolution

NASFA holds annual conference & tradeshow

The National Association of StateFacilities Administrators (NASFA) heldits 2002 Annual Conference &Tradeshow in Salt Lake City on June 15-19. The conference provided state andcorporate members the opportunity toshare information on vital facility issuesthat are affecting the country’s statefacilities administrators.

Utah Lt. Governor Olene Walker

began the conference by welcomingeveryone to Salt Lake City. The high-light of the meeting was the awards ban-quet, during which the state of California

was named the 2002 InnovationsAward Winner. New Mexico and Texaswere also recognized for outstandingstate facilities programs. GordonNelson (Md.) was named overall win-ner of NASFA’s Incentive Program.Outgoing president Lamar Holland(Ga.) presented the 2002-03 president’splaque to Tom Sandretto (Vt.).

NASFA’s 2003 Annual Conference &

Tradeshow will be held in OverlandPark, Kansas, June 21-25. For moreinformation about NASFA, log on towww.nasfa.net.

NASPE releases personnel office guide

The National Association of StatePersonnel Executives (NASPE)recently published HR Management:State to State, a comprehensiveoverview of each state’s personneloffice, its responsibilities, currentprojects and future plans.

State to State allows readers to iden-tify trends in public-sector humanresource management, state personneloffices of similar structure and size,and to gain innovative ideas in humanresource administration. This publica-tion replaces NASPE’s State PersonnelOffice: Roles & Functions and seeks toallow readers to better compare infor-mation from state to state.

The publication also includes aNASPE speakers’ bureau directoryand a listing of state personnel subjectmatter experts on topics such as ADAcompliance, compensation and classi-fication, recruitment and retention,retirement, and training.

This publication is available onCD-ROM or on a password-protectedsection of the NASPE Web site. Formore information, contact NASPEProgram Associate Lisa Collins at859-244-8179 or at [email protected].

NASPE is an affiliate organizationof The Council of State Governmentsand represents the directors anddeputy directors of the central person-nel agencies in the U.S. states and territories.

Tom Sandretto, Vermont (left) received the president's plaque from Lamar Holland, Georgia,at the NASFA annual meeting in June.


This calendar lists meetings as desig-nated by CSG’s Annual MeetingCommittee. For details of a meeting,call the number listed. “CSG/” denotesaffiliate organizations of CSG. VisitCSG’s Web site, www.csg.org, forupdates.

Other meetings have value to state offi-cials. Purchase a meeting listing bycalling 1- 800- 800- 1910 or [email protected]. Expose your meetingsto thousands in the state governmentmarket through an advertisement, aWeb listing, or a banner ad in In theNews, CSG’s weekly electronicnewsletter. Get your free subscriptionto In the News at www.csg.org.

AUGUST 2002

August 3- 7 — CSG/Southern Legis-lative Conference Annual Meeting— New Orleans, LA —SheratonNew Orleans. Contact ColleenCousineau at (404) 266- 1271 or seewww.slcatlanta.orgAugust 4-7— CSG Eastern RegionalConference Annual Meeting —Buffalo, NY — Adam’s Mark Hotel.See www.csgeast.orgAugust 7-11 — American LegislativeExchange Council Annual Meeting— Orlando, FL — Gaylord PalmsResort and Convention CenterAugust 18-21 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 57th An-nual Meeting — Fargo, ND —Holiday Inn. Contact Mike McCabeat (630) 810-0210August 25-28 — American Pro-bation and Parole Association 27thAnnual Training Institute — Den-ver, CO — Adam’s Mark Hotel.Contact Kris Chappell at (859) 244-8204 or [email protected] or seewww.appanet.org August 30-September 6 — CSG/National Emergency ManagementAssociation 2002 Annual Meeting— Asheville, NC — Grove Park Inn.Contact Karen Cobuluis at (859) 244-8143 or [email protected]

SEPTEMBER 2002September 14-19 — National Asso-ciation of State TelecommunicationsDirectors — Anchorage, AK — Hil-ton Anchorage. Contact Karen Brittonat (859) 244- 8187 or [email protected] 22-25 — CSG/NationalAssociation of State Facilities Ad-ministrators Western Regional Con-ference — Santa Fe, NM — RadissonSanta Fe. Contact Marcia Stone at(859) 244-8181 or [email protected] 28-October 3— CSG Hen-ry Toll Fellows Program — Lexing-ton, KY — Hilton Suites at LexingtonGreen. Contact Allison Spurrier at (859)244-8249 or [email protected] or seewww.csg.orgSeptember 29-October 2 — WesternState Treasurers Conference —Sunriver, OR — Contact AdneeHamilton at (859) 244-8174 [email protected] or www.nast.org

OCTOBER 2002

October 9-11 — CSG/National Asso-ciation of State Facilities Admini-strators Southeastern RegionalConference — Savannah, GA —Savannah Marriott Riverfront. ContactMarcia Stone at (859) 244-8181 [email protected]

October 27-28 — CSG/National As-sociation of State Facilities Admini-strators Eastern Regional Confer-ence — Albany, NY — Crowne PlazaAlbany Hotel. Contact Marcia Stone at(859) 244-8181 or [email protected]

NOVEMBER 2002

November 14-18 — CSG/FallLegislative Issues Meeting — Destin,FL — Hilton Sandestin Beach Golf Resort & Spa. Contact NaiVienthongsuk at (404) 266-1271 [email protected]

November 23-24 — National Asso-ciation of State Treasurers NewTreasurers Symposium— New York,NY — The Roosevelt Hotel. ContactAdnee Hamilton at (859) 244-8174

November 23-26 — State Govern-ment Affairs Council State Leaders’Policy Conference — Scottsdale, AZ— The Phoenician. Contact KellyCummings at (202) 728-0500

November 25-26 — National Asso-ciation of State Treasurers IssuesConference — New York, NY— TheRoosevelt Hotel. Contact AdneeHamilton at (859) 244-8174

DECEMBER 2002December 5- 8 — CSG 2002 AnnualState Trends and Leadership For-um — Richmond, VA — RichmondMarriott. Contact Wanda Hines at (859)244- 8200 or [email protected] 10- 13 — CSGWESTWestern Legislative Academy —Colorado Springs, CO — DoubletreeHotel. Contact Cheryl Duvauchelle at(916) 553- 4423 or [email protected] 11 — AFI/ASI JointMeeting — Washington, DC — HyattRegency. Contact Barbara Houlik at(202) 624- 5400

FEBRUARY 2003Feb. 13-16 – National LieutenantGovernors Association State-FederalMeeting – Washington, D.C. – WillardIntercontinental – Contact Julia Hurst at(859) 244-8111 or email [email protected] www.nclg.org

February 22-25 — National Gover-nors Association Winter Meeting —Washington, DC — Contact SusanDotchin at (202) 624-5327

MARCH 2003

March 2-5 — National Association ofState Treasurers LegislativeConference — Washington, DC —Willard Inter-Continental Hotel.Contact Adnee Hamilton at (859) 244-

8174 or [email protected] or seewww.nast.net

MAY 2003

May 15- 18 — CSG Spring Meeting— U.S. Virgin Islands — MarriottFrenchman’s Reef. Contact WandaHines at (859) 244-8200 [email protected]

JUNE 2003

June 21- 25 — CSG/NationalAssociation of State FacilitiesAdministrators Annual Conference& Tradeshow — Overland, KS —Sheraton Overland Park Hotel.Contact Marcia Stone at (859)244- 8181 or [email protected]

JULY 2003

July 11- 15 — CSG/Ninth AnnualBowhay Institute for LegislativeLeadership Development — Madison,WI — Fluno Center for ExecutiveEducation. Contact Laura Tomaka at(630) 810- 0210 or [email protected]

July 16-20 -- National LieutenantGovernors Association Annual Meeting– Little Rock, AR – Peabody Hotel, LittleRock -- Contact Julia Hurst at (859) 244-8111 or email [email protected]. Visitwww.nclg.orgJuly 21- 27 — National Conference ofState Legislatures Annual Meet-ing— San Francisco, CA— Hotel TBA

AUGUST 2003

August 9- 13— CSG/Southern Leg-islative Conference Annual Meeting— Ft. Worth, TX —Hotel TBA.Contact Colleen Cousineau at (404)266- 1271 or see www.slcatlanta.orgAugust 16- 19— National GovernorsAssociation Annual Meeting —Indianapolis, IN. Contact SusanDotchin at (202) 624- 5327August 17- 19 — CSG EasternRegional Conference AnnualMeeting — San Juan, PR — CaribeHilton. See www.csgeast.orgAugust 24- 27 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 58th AnnualMeeting — Milwaukee, WI — Hyatt.Contact Mike McCabe at (630) 810- 0210

OCTOBER 2003

October 23- 26 — CSG AnnualMeeting — Pittsburgh, PA — HiltonPittsburgh. Contact Wanda Hines at(859) 244- 8200 or [email protected]

FEBRUARY 2004

February 21- 4 — National GovernorsAssociation Winter Meeting —Washington, DC — Hotel TBA.

JULY 2004July 11-14 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 59th AnnualMeeting — Des Moines, IA— Marriott.Contact Mike McCabe at (630) 810- 0210

July 18- 25 — National Conference ofState Legislatures Annual Meeting— Salt Lake City, UT — Hotel TBAJuly 28- August 1 — American Leg-islative Exchange Council AnnualMeeting — Seattle, WA— Hotel TBA

AUGUST 2004August 14- 18 — CSG/Southern Leg-islative Conference Annual Meeting— Little Rock, AR —Hotel TBA.Contact Colleen Cousineau at (404)266- 1271 or see www.slcatlanta.org

SEPTEMBER 2004

September 25- 29— CSG Annual Meeting — Anchorage, AK — Hotel TBA.Contact Wanda Hines at (859) 244- 8103or [email protected] or see www.csg.org

FEBRUARY 2005

February 26- March 1— National Gov-ernors Association Winter Meeting —Washington, DC — Hotel TBA. ContactSusan Dotchin at (202) 624- 5327

JULY 2005

July 30- August 3 — CSG/SouthernLegislative Conference AnnualMeeting— Mobile, AL— Hotel TBA.Contact Colleen Cousineau at (404)266- 1271 or see www.slcatlanta.org

July 31- August 3 — CSG/MidwesternLegislative Conference 60th AnnualMeeting — Regina, Saskatchewan -Canada — Delta Regina. Contact MikeMcCabe at (630) 810- 0210

AUGUST 2005

August 14- 21— National Conferenceof State Legislatures Annual Meeting— Seattle, WA— Hotel TBA

DECEMBER 2005

December 1- 4 — CSG Annual Meeting— Wilmington, DE — Hotel TBA. ContactWanda Hines at (859) 244- 8103 [email protected] or see www.csg.org

FEBRUARY 2006

February 25- 28 — NationalGovernors Association WinterMeeting — Washington, DC — HotelTBA. Contact Susan Dotchin at (202)624- 5327

JULY 2006

July 22- 26 — CSG/SouthernLegislative Conference AnnualMeeting — Baltimore, MD — HotelTBA. Contact Colleen Cousineau at (404)266- 1271 or see www.slcatlanta.org

AUGUST 2006

August 12- 18 — NationalConference of State LegislaturesAnnual Meeting — Nashville,TN — Hotel TBA

conference calendar


perspective

on a matter about which he felt most strongly.Toward the close of the session, the Republican majority

decided to change the Senate rule on reconsideration to passa bill that had already failed twice. Snyder objected to a sud-den change in the rules, which were part of a long traditionof how the Washington Senate conducted its business. Afterdebate, with the majority finally bowing to expediency,

Snyder took the Senate floor, made an angryspeech criticizing the Republicans, andannounced that he had no choice but toresign from the Senate. He would not serveunless the rules were respected.

Before he sent his letter of resignation tothe governor, however, Snyder was urged bynearly all of his colleagues — including 23of 26 Republicans — to rescind his resigna-tion. “He’s the glue that holds this placetogether ... like one big tube of Superglue,”said Ralph Munro, the Republican Secretaryof State at the time. Snyder reversed his deci-sion and returned to the Senate a week afterhe had announced his resignation. Upon tak-ing the floor, he was greeted with cheers anda standing ovation by his colleagues.Throughout Snyder’s behavior was totally

genuine; he had been sincere when he left and he was sin-cere when he returned.

Because of his integrity and the respect in which he isheld, not only as a legislative leader but as a human being,Snyder could engage in an act of conscience that few legis-lators would have attempted and even fewer could havepulled off. Snyder is a very different type of leader; heembodies the institution in which he serves. Whatever hisambitions, they do not involve exploiting the legislature, butrather caring for the legislature.

It could hardly come as a surprise to members ofWashington state’s legislative community that Sid Snyderwon the 2002 William Bulger Excellence in StateLegislative Leadership Award — an award cosponsored bythe State Legislative Leaders Foundation, the NationalConference of State Legislatures and The Council of StateGovernments. The only surprise in Washington was that hehadn’t won it earlier.

Alan Rosenthal is a professor with the Eagleton Institute ofPolitics at Rutgers University.

or an intriguing view of legislative leadership, readRobert Caro’s Master of the Senate, a portrayal ofLyndon B. Johnson’s Senate years in Washington, D.C.

There’s no denying that Johnson was a highly effectivemajority leader; there’s also no denying that Johnson was aremarkably flawed human being. The LBJ way of leading —through manipulation and intimidation in furtherance of hispersonal ambition — is not the only way tolead in a legislature. Not if the career of SidSnyder, the Senate Majority leader in the stateof Washington, means anything.

Sid is the real thing. He grew up poor butborrowed enough money to open a grocerystore — Sid’s Market – in 1953. Four yearsbefore he went into business, he was hired asan elevator operator in the state capitol. Hewent on to work on the House and Senatestaffs, serving as Secretary of the Senate fornearly 21 years. In that role, according toWashington Governor Gary Locke, “For allpractical purposes, Sid Snyder created ourstate Senate as we know it today.”

In 1990, 40 years after his career on thestaff of the Legislature began, Snyder wasappointed to the Senate to fill a vacancy.Later that year, he was chosen by his colleagues to be cau-cus chair. In 1995 he was elected Democratic Leader, andsince has served both as Minority Leader and MajorityLeader. Fiercely loyal to his constituency and his party, hisfirst loyalty, however, has been to the legislature as an insti-tution. When Washington voters approved a term-limitslaw, he supported the lawsuit to overturn it. He was a namedplaintiff in the suit seeking to overturn a voter-approvedrequirement for super-majority votes on certain budget andtax issues, believing it to be an unconstitutional diminutionof the legislature’s power. In both cases Snyder’s belief thatthe measures would weaken the legislature outweighed forhim the potential political risk of challenging the elec-torate’s decision.

Many legislative leaders, in order to do their jobs, keepmembers happy, and line up votes on issues, favor pragma-tism over principle. Not Snyder. His faith in the legislativeprocess, in law and parliamentary rules, and in protection ofthe rights of the minority party is strong enough to raiseprinciple over pragmatism. Thus, in the 1997 session, whenhe was serving as Minority Leader, he threatened to resign

FMore than a leader

BY ALAN ROSENTHAL

Alan Rosenthalcalls Washington

State Senator Sid Snyder "the

real thing."

Richmond,

The Council of State Governments

2002 Annual State Trends and Leadership Forum

December5-9,2002

2002 FARM BILL LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP CHRONIC CAREKeon Chi • Laurie Clewett Chad Foster • Ed...

Documents

Transcript of 2002 FARM BILL LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP CHRONIC CAREKeon Chi • Laurie Clewett Chad Foster • Ed...