SALT LAKE CITY - July 19 - The growing trend of federal preemption of state law threatens to limit the traditional role of states as the laboratories of innovative public policy, according to a new report by the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs). The state PIRGs are presenting the report this week at the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Salt Lake City.

"By tying the hands of state governments, the federal government is hurting more than the residents of any one state," said PIRG Research Director Alison Cassady, author of the report. "Federal preemption suppresses the creativity of state problem-solvers and shrinks the marketplace of ideas-leaving us with 'lowest common denominator' solutions across the board."

Over the last three decades, states have become increasingly active in passing strong laws to protect the health, safety, and well-being of their residents. The federal government has increasingly responded to state-level problem-solving with its own powerful political tool-preempting the right of state governments to legislate on a given issue and establishing federal law as the "ceiling," or maximum level of protection.

The state PIRGs' report, "Tying the Hands of States: The Impact of Federal Preemption on State Problem-Solvers," examines this recent trend and profiles five issue areas where preemption has affected states' ability to enact protections that are more stringent than federal law: consumer privacy, banking regulation, health care, global warming, and nuclear power. The state PIRGs interviewed several state legislators and regulators to relate their personal experiences and frustrations with federal preemption.

This report comes as Congress is considering new preemptive legislation on insurance and toxic chemical regulation. Congress has proposed preempting state insurance regulation and replacing it with a "one-size-fits-all" federal approach that would override insurance protection laws in states across the country, such as California's Proposition 103, a 1988 measure that requires insurers to justify proposed auto insurance rate increases to the state insurance commissioner. Just last week, a House subcommittee discussed proposed legislation that would prohibit states from regulating any chemicals included as part of an international treaty on persistent pollutants or chemicals that may be added to the treaty in the future. This could nullify bans on toxic flame retardants enacted in California, Maine, and Hawaii, and proposed in Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Washington.

"Without the states acting as incubators of new ideas, Congress and other federal decision-makers are not likely to enact any proactive legislation to protect consumers, the environment, or the health and well-being of Americans," stated Cassady. "Active state governments compel a federal response."

###