HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ADVANCING E-GOVERNMENT
July 1, 2001 Hearing
Room E
3:00 PM Tape
67-68
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Jim Hill, Chair
Rep. Rob Patridge, Vice-Chair
Rep. Kathy Lowe
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Adkins, Committee
Administrator
Patrick Brennan, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: HJR 51 Work Session
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 67, A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Hill |
Calls the meeting to order
at 3:21 p.m. Opens a work session
on HJR 51. |
HJR 51 WORK SESSION |
||
|
008 |
Don McIntyre |
Gresham. Testifies in support of HJR 51. Provides a brief history of efforts to
institute a constitutional state spending limit in Oregon. States that unlike a similar measure
referred to voters in 2000, Ballot Measure 8, HJR 51 exempts federal matching
funds, gifts, and grants from state expenditure calculations. Explains that passage of the measure would
place the issue on the ballot once again.
Indicates that preliminary estimates have determined that the measure
would have no impact on state spending during the 2001-03 biennium. |
|
054 |
McIntyre |
States that the measure
prevents the growth of government from outpacing the growth of Oregon’s
economy and the personal wealth of Oregonians. Acknowledges that a similar measure, HB 3997, would place the
same restriction in statute, but asserts that the legislature could easily
bypass a statutory spending limit, rendering that measure meaningless. Mentions that HJR 51’s spending limit can
be overridden only by a ¾ vote by both the House and Senate, which is a
substantially strenuous requirement that nonetheless offers a safety valve in
case of emergency. |
|
102 |
Vernon White |
Senior Analyst, Oregon Tax
Research. Reiterates that the measure
would have no effect during the 2001-03 biennium, and would have only a
slight impact during 2003-05 biennium.
Explains the calculations used to project averages for both the growth
of government and the growth of Oregon’s economy. |
|
130 |
Chair Hill |
Declares the meeting to be
in recess during a call of the House. |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------RECESS------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
|
|
|
135 |
Chair Hill |
Reconvenes the meeting. |
|
141 |
Rep. Bruce Starr |
House District 3. Testifies in support of the –8 amendments (EXHIBIT A) to HJR 51. States that the amendments would remove
dedicated state funds from HJR 51’s spending cap. Emphasizes the difficulty that the measure’s spending cap would
place on highway funds. Mentions that
there are additional funds that are constitutionally dedicated, including
some lottery funds. |
|
160 |
White |
Estimates that by the
2011-13 biennium the all-funds state budget will have grown to approximately
$69.5 billion, compared to the current level of $34 billion. |
|
172 |
McIntyre |
Voices opposition to the
–8 amendments. Explains that the
calculations that went into the spending cap included the gas tax, which is
dedicated to state highways and would be exempted by the amendments. Asserts that the legislature could
intentionally circumvent the spending cap by dedicating specific funds. Opines that constitutional amendments
should address a philosophical issue, in the case of HJR 51 limiting the size
of government. |
|
204 |
Chair Hill |
Declares the meeting to be
in recess during a call of the House. |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------RECESS------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
|
|
|
207 |
Chair Hill |
Reconvenes the meeting. |
|
208 |
Rep. Patridge |
Notes that the House has
HB 3997 under consideration. Solicits
Mr. White’s opinion to referring HB 3997 to the voters as a constitutional
amendment. |
|
220 |
McIntyre |
Opposes the exemption made
by HB 3997 for certificates of participation. Notes that HB 3997 contains no mechanism for returning excess
revenues to taxpayers. States he
cannot support referring HB 3997
as a constitutional amendment because there is no guarantee that it would be
as effective at limiting state government as HJR 51. |
|
253 |
White |
Concurs with Mr.
McIntyre. Remarks that HB 3997
reduces the effectiveness of the bill to the point where it could affect
little more than the General Fund. |
|
266 |
McIntyre |
Voices support for the –7 amendments (EXHIBIT B), which merely clarify the measure by delineating the mechanism for returning excess revenues to taxpayers. Indicates that Legislative Counsel determined it wise to clarify that federal funds would not be returned to taxpayers. |
|
280 |
Chair Hill |
Concludes that HJR 51
would allow for redistribution of state gas tax funds, corporate income
taxes, and all other state revenues. |
|
288 |
McIntyre |
Responds that all the
aforementioned funding sources go into state appropriations. Expresses the belief that returning money
to taxpayers will not be a big factor, as money that cannot be spent will
likely not be appropriated. |
|
304 |
Rep. Lowe |
Asks why 1989-1991 was
used as a baseline for income rates. |
|
311 |
White |
Answers that his goal was
to reach back as far as possible and that 1989 was the earliest year for
which data was readily available. |
|
330 |
Rep. Lowe |
States that since 1989 the
state has experienced a high rate of economic growth, especially compared to
the recession in the 1980s. Wonders
if Mr. White considered averaging out both the good years and bad years. |
|
345 |
White |
Recalls that most of the
bad economic times were in the early 1980s. |
|
350 |
Rep. Lowe |
Concludes that HJR 51 does
not provide a good picture of the state’s economy as a whole. |
|
356 |
White |
Contrasts the growth of
the Oregon economy from 1989 to present. |
|
363 |
Rep. Lowe |
States that by 1989 the
problems that had plagued the state’s economy in the 1980s had been overcome
by new opportunities. |
|
389 |
White |
Reiterates that the growth
of state government has nevertheless outpaced that of the state economy
during the same period. |
|
393 |
Chair Hill |
Asks Mr. White whether he
would agree that the growth of state government has been due in large part to
ballot initiatives approved by voters, which shifted services such as public
education from local governments to the state. |
|
396 |
White |
Agrees that is part of the
equation, but not the whole answer.
Argues that many state agencies are overstaffed. Identifies the Oregon Youth Authority
(OYA) as a state entity that could likely get by with fewer employees, as
there are more OYA employees than there are youths served by OYA. |
TAPE 68, A |
||
|
019 |
Rep. Lowe |
Responds that OYA needs
all of the staff it has, given the duties and expectations of the
agency. Requests figures for both the
good years and the bad. Notes that
the current spending limit was enacted in 1979 and has been exceeded on only
four occasions, the most recent as a result of the cost of Ballot Measure
88. Expresses support for the –2
amendments (EXHIBIT C), which
exempt funds passed through state government to local governments. |
|
065 |
Rep. Lowe |
Submits additional
amendments for the committee’s consideration: ·
-3 amendments (EXHIBIT D),
which exclude funds that must be allocated in return for federal matching
funds ·
-4 amendments (EXHIBIT E),
which exclude funds used to fund programs enacted or approved under Section
1, article IV of the constitution ·
-6 amendments (EXHIBIT F),
which exclude payment of restitution
as required by Ballot Measure 7 |
|
091 |
McIntyre |
Concedes that opponents of
HJR 51 will raise issues similar to those raised by Rep. Lowe. Asserts that the disparity between state
spending and economic growth will need to be addressed sooner or later. States that HJR 51 will force the
legislature to economize and cut out waste.
Suggests that state government consider hiring out some of the
services it provides, as it could then pass the benefits of the lowest bidder
to taxpayers. |
|
151 |
Rep. Lowe |
Wonders whether Mr. McIntyre
would consider exempting funds used to hire out services to private
companies. |
|
155 |
McIntyre |
Replies negatively. Says that government invariably spends all
the money it brings in, which is why it is necessary to curb the growth of
state government. |
|
171 |
Rep. Lowe |
Says she is unaware of any
class of government worker who has enjoyed a 12 percent increase in wages or
benefits since 1989, adding that some such as circuit judges have had no
increases whatsoever. Mentions that added
benefits through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) have been one
of the only benefits accrued by state employees during the 1990s. |
|
207 |
McIntyre |
Reiterates that the
12-percent annual growth in Oregon’s economy is all-inclusive and takes into
account inflation, population growth, and other factors. Restates that a similar calculation for
the same period indicates a 15-percent growth annually in state government
spending. |
|
225 |
White |
References a chart (EXHIBIT G) that visually demonstrates the difference between the growth of the economy and of state government. |
|
241 |
McIntyre |
Submits that the public
should be allowed to deliberate the merits of limiting state spending. |
|
245 |
Rep. Lowe |
Concurs. |
|
246 |
McIntyre |
Emphasizes that state
government should not be growing faster than the state’s economy. |
|
254 |
Chair Hill |
Asks Mr. McIntyre to
respond to the assertion that ballot initiative requirements and federal
regulations have forced the state to spend more money. Wonders whether the disparity between
economic growth and state spending can be totally accounted for by the shift
in funding for K-12 education from local to state government. Inquires what might happen if future
ballot initiatives force the state to spend faster than the rate of economic
growth. |
|
278 |
McIntyre |
Responds that the people,
the primary legislative body of the state, approved ballot measures 5 and
11. Measure 11 addresses public
safety, a primary function of government even for libertarians. If the voters make a similar decision in
the future that is okay, but they should know the consequences. Highlights Ballot Measure 5 (1990), which
provided much-needed tax relief, especially to those on fixed incomes who
could no longer afford to pay the property tax on their homes. |
|
320 |
McIntyre |
Elaborates that Ballot
Measure 5 became necessary because state government allowed the
responsibility for public education to devolve to local government. |
|
346 |
Chair Hill |
Points out that it was
still a ballot initiative that compelled state government to become the
primary funding source for public education, thereby creating the perception
that its growth was too rapid. |
|
364 |
McIntyre |
Suggests that the spending
cap will become part of the equation when voters consider ballot initiatives. |
|
373 |
Chair Hill |
Contrasts the ballot
initiative process with the compromise and coalition building that is
required in the legislative process. |
|
384 |
McIntyre |
Responds that most of the
people who have a voice in Salem are those who want the government to spend
more. Concludes that citizens will
need to make thoughtful, informed choices. |
TAPE 67, B |
||
|
013 |
Rep. Lowe |
Notes that Ballot Measure
8 was defeated by 12 percentage points.
Wonders why the legislature should place the measure onto the ballot. |
|
017 |
McIntyre |
Remarks that placing the
measure on the ballot will spark a valuable public debate on the issue. Mentions that Ballot Measure 8 was
defeated in large part because of strong opposition by labor unions, whereas
several legislators have voiced support for HJR 51. |
|
037 |
Rep. Patridge |
Asks how a fundamental
shift in Oregon’s tax structure, such as a move to a user tax, might affect
the spending cap. |
|
048 |
McIntyre |
Clarifies that such a
shift would not make much difference, as HJR 51 addresses spending as opposed
to taxation. |
|
056 |
Chair Hill |
Declares the meeting to be
in recess during a call of the House. |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------RECESS------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
|
|
|
058 |
Chair Hill |
Reconvenes the committee. |
|
060 |
McIntyre |
Concludes that HJR 51 will
have an air of legitimacy if the legislature refers it to voters. Testifies against the proposed amendments
that would create loopholes to be exploited by the legislature. Urges support for sending the measure to
voters for consideration. |
|
075 |
White |
Reiterates that the
all-funds budget, currently $34 billion, is projected to be $69 billion by
2013. |
|
082 |
Rep. Lowe |
Asks what government
services should be considered expendable.
|
|
088 |
White |
Observes that many private
companies have successfully cut back on their workforces without a
corresponding drop in productivity and suggests state government could as
well if compelled to do so. |
|
098 |
McIntyre |
Submits that state
government is inefficient and could easily reduce costs, although the
decision of where to make those cuts would be left for the legislature to
decide. Remarks that taxes are collected through the coercive power of
government, which should then have the responsibility for provide good
stewardship for those dollars. |
|
124 |
Rep. Lowe |
Agrees that government
should be accountable and expresses pride in the service that government
employees provide. Wonders why the
legislature should provide not only legitimacy to HJR 51 by referring it to
voters, but also save Mr. McIntyre the $300,000 or more it would cost to
collect sufficient signatures to place the measure on the ballot as an
initiative. |
|
137 |
McIntyre |
Responds that the
legislature has no good reason not to do so.
Asserts that government should do its best to let citizens keep as
much of their own money as possible.
Notes that the legislature has twice tried to cripple the initiative
process and that initiative petitions become necessary when the government
refuses to do the people’s business. |
|
160 |
Chair Hill |
Expresses hope that a
compromise can be reached on the matter. |
|
170 |
Laurie Wimmer-Whelan |
Oregon Education
Association (OEA). Disputes the
assertion that per-student education spending has risen during the past
decade. Clarifies that government
does not grow except to respond to the needs or wants of the people as
identified directly or by their elected representatives. Laments the hyperbole so often used in
taxation discussions. |
|
193 |
Chair Hill |
Declares the meeting to be
in recess during a call of the House. |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------RECESS------------------------------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
|
|
|
196 |
Chair Hill |
Closes the work session on
HJR 51 and adjourns the meeting at
7:42 p.m. |
Submitted By, Reviewed By,
Patrick Brennan, Janet Adkins,
Committee Assistant Committee Administrator
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HJR 51, -8 amendments, Rep. Bruce Starr, 1 p.
B
– HJR 51, -7 amendments, staff, 1 p.
C
– HJR 51, -2 amendments, Rep. Kathy Lowe, 1 p.
D
– HJR 51, -3 amendments, Rep. Kathy Lowe, 1 p.
E
– HJR 51, -4 amendments, Rep. Kathy Lowe, 1 p.
F
– HJR 51, -6 amendments, Rep. Kathy Lowe, 1 p.
G
– HJR 51, chart and informational materials, Vernon White, 11 pp.