WASHINGTON -- The states will not ratify a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget unless the measure protects them from unfunded federal mandates, state and local lobbyists said yesterday.
Even though the new Republican-controlled Congress appears likely to approve a balanced budget amendment when it convenes in January, the groups representing state and local officials say they will fight to defeat any amendment unless it prevents the federal government from imposing new programs on states and localities without helping to pay for the cost.
"Nobody's kidding themselves. You can pass abstract resolutions all you want, but it doesn't help solve the problem" if the federal government doesn't change the way it works, said Milton Wells, executive director of the National Association of State Treasurers.
State and local governments want assurances that Congress won't just shift the federal government's costs to them in order to balance the federal budget, said Jim Martin, the director of state-federal relations at the National Governors' Association.
"A balanced budget amendment that does not recognize the interests of state governments will be difficult to pass in the nation's 50 state legislatures," said James Lack, the president-elect of the National Conference of State Legislatures and a New York State representative. Amending the U.S. constitution requires approval by three-fifths of the states.
The main lobbying groups for state and local governments, or the "Big Seven" as they call themselves, will work to ensure that the balanced budget amendment "is done without phoniness. You can't just shift the bill from one taxpayer to the next," Martin said.
The "Big Seven" has been lobbying Congress for the past year and a half to approve legislation to deter lawmakers from imposing new requirements on state and local governments without providing adequate funds to pay for the new programs.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., told the National Association of Governors' fall meeting earlier this month that the unfunded mandates bill will be the first piece of legislation the new Republican-led Congress takes up when it convenes Jan. 4.
Several versions of mandate-relief legislation were introduced in the last Congress, but the bill that garnered the most support was one requiring a separate vote by lawmakers on whether to pass on a so-called unfunded mandate to state and local governments. The mandates are generally in the form of regulations that states must adhere to, such as requirements for testing drinking water contaminants or making public buildings accessible to the disabled.
Since winning control of both the House and Senate, the Republican leadership has vowed to follow through with its promise to pass a balanced budget amendment in the first few months of the new session.
If it weren't for the probable passage of the balanced budget amendment, the state and local lobbying groups wouldn't be pushing for a constitutional amendment against unfunded mandates, said Mary-Margaret Larmouth, legislative assistant with the National League of Cities.
"It will be a priority of state legislators to ensure that the federal budget is not balanced by cost shifting and additional unfunded mandates," Lack said.
With such a strong show of support from the new congressional leadership for both unfunded mandates legislation and a balanced budget amendment, Larmouth said, the state and local groups are working hard to get every possible concession.
Agreeing that the state and local groups "are pretty heady with the success [unfunded mandates legislation] appears to be having, Wells said "we're looking for the best deal we can get." But, he added, the real test will come when Congress convenes.
"Everybody's talking the good talk now, but we'll have to see when we get to the nuts and bolts" of the legislative process, Wells said.
