[House Report 107-478]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-478
======================================================================
NEW HAMPSHIRE VERMONT INTERSTATE SCHOOL COMPACT
_______
May 20, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3180]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 3180) to consent to certain amendments to the New
Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Vote of the Committee............................................ 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 5
Markup Transcript................................................ 6
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3180, a bill ``To Consent to Certain Amendments to the
New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact,'' was
introduced by Rep. Charles Bass and Rep. Bernard Sanders, to
provide the consent of Congress to certain amendments to the
New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School District Compact.
Specifically, the bill provides participating interstate school
districts with the option of choosing all-day, ``Australian''
balloting to incur debt to support school construction. The
proposed amendments make these decisions a matter of local
prerogative and do not dictate a State-wide or Federal approach
to resolving these questions.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Interstate Compacts in General
The Compact Clause of the Constitution provides that ``no
State shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into
any Agreement or Compact with another State.'' \1\ As noted by
the Supreme Court, the Compact Clause ``adapts to our Union of
sovereign States the age-old treaty-making power of independent
sovereign nations.'' \2\ While the unequivocal language of the
Compact Clause suggests that all compacts must receive
congressional approval, the Supreme Court has held that consent
is required only for interstate agreements which have the
tendency to ``increase the political power of states [or which
may] encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the
United States.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Const. art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 3.
\2\ Hinderlider v. La Plata Co., 304 U.S. 92, 104 (1938).
\3\ Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893); see also U.S.
Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate compacts have often been employed to facilitate
cooperation across state lines and to advance interstate
metropolitan and regional goals. Examples include interstate
transportation, mining, school districting, water allocation,
environmental, sanitation, education and taxing compacts.\4\
The Constitution makes no explicit provision with respect to
when the consent of Congress shall be given to a compact
between states.\5\ As a result, consent may be granted
conditionally ``upon terms appropriate to the subject and
transgressing no constitutional limitations.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Frederick Zimmerman & Mitchell Wendell, The Law and Use of
Interstate Compacts, Chicago: 1961, 94-105 (1976).
\5\ Johnny H. Killian; George A. Costello; and Kenneth R. Thomas;
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and
Interpretation, http://www.crs.gov/products/conan/art01/288.htm
[visited March 1, 2002].
\6\ James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937); see also
Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 345 (1934).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact
Originally approved by Congress in 1969, the New Hampshire-
Vermont Interstate School Compact was established to increase
educational opportunities and to promote administrative
efficiency by encouraging the formation of interstate school
districts across the New Hampshire-Vermont state line.\7\ Two
interstate school districts currently operate under the
Compact. The Rivendell School District comprises the towns of
Fairlee and Thetford, Vermont and Orford, New Hampshire. The
Dresden School District extends into Hanover, New Hampshire,
and Norwich, Vermont. Under the original Compact, state and
local financial support was channeled into the combined
Districts to reflect state and local contributions. Because
Vermont contributed relatively more monetary support to the
Districts than New Hampshire, uneven funding allocations began
to emerge. For example, by the 1970's, taxpayers in Hanover,
New Hampshire received the benefit of approximately 70 percent
of Vermont's state aid, while taxpayers in Norwich, Vermont
received 30 percent of New Hampshire's contribution.\8\ This
imbalance led to the passage of amendments to the Compact in
1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Pub. L. No. 91-21, 83. Stat. 14 (1969).
\8\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-1722 at 2 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978 Amendments
In 1978, Congress consented to a number of amendments to
the original Compact.\9\ These amendments clarified the terms
of the Compact to ensure that participating interstate school
districts would receive support from their states commensurate
with their respective contributions. The 1978 revisions also
clarified the procedures by which amendments to the articles of
agreement among interstate school district members could be
approved. While the 1978 legislation provided for a more
equitable allocation of state resources, it did not change the
requirement that debt incurred by interstate school districts
be approved by secret balloting. In addition, the amendments
did not change the requirement that debts be incurred by a
simple majority vote of district board members by secret
balloting. The lack of transparency in the voting process has
stymied efforts to approve funding necessary to support capital
improvements in the Dresden School District. This has provided
impetus toward further revision of the Compact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Pub. L. No. 95-536, 92 Stat. 2035 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Consideration of Proposed Compact Amendments
Early last year, residents of the Dresden School District
approved warrant articles to amend the Compact to enable the
implementation of all-day, Australian Balloting procedure when
voting on whether to incur debt. Australian Balloting is a form
of modified secret balloting. Australian Rules balloting
employs uniform official ballots of various stock weight upon
which the names of all candidates and issues are printed.
Voters record their choices, in private, by marking the boxes
next to the candidate or issue choice they select and drop the
voted ballot in a sealed ballot box.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This paper ballot system was first adopted in the Australian
state of Victoria in 1856, and in the remaining Australian states over
the next several years. The paper ballot system thereafter became known
as the ``Australian ballot.'' New York became the first American state
to adopt the paper ballot for statewide elections in 1889. As of 1996,
paper ballots were still used by 1.7 percent of the registered voters
in the United States. They are used as the primary voting system in
small communities and rural areas, and quite often for absentee
balloting in other jurisdictions. See Federal Election Commission,
http://www.fec.gov/pages/paper.htm [visited March 1, 2002].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents contend that moving to all-day voting for bond
votes will have two benefits over the current Town Meeting
voting format, which requires a secret balloting process by
residents following a Town Hall Meeting. First, this method
will be consistent with the way the District conducts its
annual district meetings, which utilize all-day voting when
voting on district warrant articles. Second, the proposed
change would allow more voters to weigh in on bond issues. Last
year, the Vermont state legislature passed legislation adopting
these proposed changes.\11\ The New Hampshire state legislature
subsequently approved identical language.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 2001 N.H. Laws 485.
\12\ 2001 Vt. Acts & Resolves 726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
The Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law held a hearing on H.R. 3180 on March 6,
2002. Testimony was received from Rep. Charles Bass.
Committee Consideration
On March 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 3180 by voice vote, a quorum being
present. On May 8, 2002, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 3180 without amendment
by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
There were no recorded votes on H.R. 3180.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 3180 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the H.R. 3180, the following estimate and comparison
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 20, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed
cost estimate for H.R. 3180, a bill to consent to certain
amendments of the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School
Compact.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Donna Wong,
who can be reached at 226-2820.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 3180--A bill to consent to certain amendments of the New
Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact.
H.R. 3180 would give Congressional consent to amendments to
the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate School Compact. The bill
would allow the school districts governed under the compact to
use Australian balloting (all-day secret balloting) when
authorizing the incurring of debt to finance capital projects.
Currently the school districts must use a town hall meeting
voting format.
The bill would result in no cost to the Federal Government.
Because H.R. 3180 would not affect direct spending or receipts,
pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Donna Wong, who
can be reached at 226-2820. This estimate was approved by Peter
H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 2, clause 3 of the
Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. The bill amends article VII D of the Vermont-New
Hampshire Interstate School District Compact to read as
follows:
`D. AUTHORIZATION PROCEEDINGS--An interstate district
shall authorize the incurring of debts to finance
capital projects by a majority vote of the district
passed at an annual or special district meeting. Such
vote shall be taken by secret ballot after full
opportunity for debate, and any such vote shall be
subject to reconsideration and further action by the
district at the same meeting or at an adjourned session
thereof. As an alternative, an interstate district may
provide in its articles of agreement that such a vote
be conducted by Australian or official balloting under
procedures as set forth in the articles of agreement,
and that such vote be subject to any method of
reconsideration, if any, which the interstate district
sets forth in the articles of agreement.
The proposed amendments make these decisions a matter of
local prerogative and do not dictate a State-wide or Federal
approach to resolving the manner in which ballot school ballot
initiatives will be considered by participating school
districts.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. [Presiding.] The Committee will be
in order.
[Intervening business.]
The next item on the agenda is the adoption of H.R. 3180 to
give consent to certain amendments to the New Hampshire-Vermont
Interstate School Compact. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia, Mr. Barr, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, for purposes of a motion.
Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law reports favorably the bill H.R. 3180 and
moves its favorable recommendation to the full House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 3180 will
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 3180, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Georgia to strike the last word.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Introduced by Representatives Charlie Bass and Bernie
Samders, H.R. 3180 amends the New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate
School Compact originally approved by the Congress in 1969.
H.R. 3180 would enable participating interstate school
districts to modify the manner in which school bond issues are
considered.
Last year, residents of the Dresden Interstate School
District, which encompasses the cities of Hanover, New
Hampshire, and Norwich, Vermont, voted to approve these
changes. The Legislatures of New Hampshire and Vermont
subsequently ratified these amendments.
Rather than imposing a State or Federal solution on local
school officials, H.R. 3180 preserves the primacy of local
school authorities that are free to accept or reject the
modified voting procedures H.R. 3180 permits.
We were pleased to invite Representative Bass to our
Subcommittee hearing to testify about the importance of this
measure to residents of his district.
And I urge support of this bill today.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
Mr. Barr. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of the bill.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. That correction will be duly noted.
Mr. Watt. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may
insert opening statement in the record at this point in time.
Are there amendments?
If not, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum,
and the question occurs on the motion to report H.R. 3180
favorably.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute--no, no amendments adopted.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental,
or minority views.
Before going to the next item on the agenda, it is my great
pleasure to welcome to the Committee a former Member, the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Harold Sawyer, who
served with great distinction on this Committee from his
election to the House in 1956 until his voluntary retirement 10
or 12 years later.
Hal, we welcome you back. [Applause.]