HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
July 22, 2003 Hearing Room E
1:30 PM Tapes 99 -100
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Dan Doyle, Chair
Rep. Linda Flores, Vice-Chair
Rep. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair
Rep. Vic Backlund
Rep. Phil Barnhart
Rep. Betsy L. Close
MEMBER EXCUSED: Rep. Joanne Verger
STAFF PRESENT: Janet
Adkins, Administrator
Cara Filsinger, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: Amendments to House Rules 2.20,
8.20, 9.01, 9.15, 13.05, and 13.10 – Work Session
HB 3651 – Public Hearing and 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 99, A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Doyle |
Calls meeting to order at 1:44 p.m. and reviews
agenda items. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Opens a work session on proposed amendments to House
Rules 2.20, 8.20, 9.01, 9.15, 13.05, and
13.10. |
|
AMENDMENTS
TO HOUSE RULES 2.20, 8.20, 9.01, 9.15, 13.05, 13.10. |
||
|
018 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO HR 2.20,
8.20, 9.01, 9.l5, 13.05, 13.10 DATED 7/16/03 (EXHIBIT A). |
|
016 |
Chair Doyle |
Explains reason for the proposed rule changes and
explains effect of each rule change. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Explains further that the proposed rule changes
provide flexibility to the budget process and preserve the process; it does
not abolish Ways & Means. |
|
100 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Speaks in opposition to the motion. |
|
160 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Speaks in opposition to the motion. |
|
185 |
Rep. Close |
Speaks in support of the motion. |
|
194 |
Chair Doyle |
Comments on budgeting efforts and proposals between
the two parties. Believes the
amendments allow a process that will get budgets to the other chamber. |
|
|
|
|
|
281 |
|
VOTE:
4-2-0 AYE: 4 - Backlund, Close, Flores, Doyle NAY: 2 - Barnhart, Monnes Anderson EXCUSED: 1 - Verger |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. REP. DOYLE will lead discussion on the
floor. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on amendments to the House
Rules and opens a public hearing on HB 3651. |
|
HB 3651
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
272 |
Rep. Billy Dalto |
District 21. Testifies in support of HB 3651. States that HB 3651 is a good compromise
from SB 10. Explains that there are three
categories of students not eligible to receive in-state tuition in Oregon
University System. The first category is the persons who are born here and are
legal residents and citizen of Oregon, but if the parents do not have legal
status, their children born here do not qualify for in-state tuition. States he wants to make sure citizens born
in this country are eligible to receive in-state tuition. |
|
333 |
Rep. Dalto |
The second category is the legal immigrant, the
Green Card holder; HB 3651 would allow those students, if they have resided
in Oregon and have attended an Oregon high school for three consecutive years
and received a diploma, to receive in-state tuition at a school in the
University System. |
|
350 |
Rep. Dalto |
The third category is the student without legal
status; this bill does not allow in-state tuition for those students. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
States that seven states, including Washington and
Texas, have passed the broader version.
|
|
371 |
Rep. Dalto |
Comments that the Legislative Revenue Office does
not have a mechanism to put a statement on a bill like this; they work
closely with the Legislative Fiscal Office and put something on the Fiscal
Impact Statement. Reviews SB 10 Fiscal
Impact Statement (EXHIBIT B). States that the three categories are
not going to school because it is out of reach financially. If we enable the two categories, some
would be going. He expects the Oregon
University System (OUS) to testify they will receive an increase in tuition
revenue. States that the differences
of opinions were on the $780,000 and $1.64 million, whether it is a revenue
impact or a fiscal impact. |
|
444 |
Rep. Dalto |
Makes analogy that one guest in the House Lounge
supported by 85-90 members is at no additional cost and less than two dozen
students entering the system with 59,000 other students; believes the fiscal
impact is minimal. |
|
485 |
Rep. Dalto |
Notes comments in an earlier Fiscal Impact Statement
saying “the number of students who would be considered residents for purposes
of tuition and fees under SB 10, as amended, can not be estimated.” |
|
TAPE 100,
A |
||
|
025 |
Rep. Dalto |
Comments on challenges while working on this issue,
and states it solidifies his feelings that he is doing the right thing. |
|
066 |
Rep. Close |
Comments that Oregon can not educate the whole
world, and that her nephews live in Washington may want to go to school in
Oregon but they can not get in-state tuition because historically Oregon has
said that people who are citizens of Oregon take priority over people from
Washington, or some other country, because Oregon cannot afford to educate
the whole world. |
|
081 |
Rep. Dalto |
Responds by asking if there is a distinction between
citizens and legal residents. Adds
that people who have a Green Card and have legal status can work and pay
taxes in Oregon. |
|
091 |
Rep. Close |
Comments that a person who is a citizen of the
United States would have to be an Oregon resident in order for her to vote
for this. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
States that under HB 3651, they would have to be an
Oregon resident and have attended an Oregon high school for three consecutive
years and received a high school diploma.
|
|
097 |
Rep. Close |
Comments there is a question about who is paying the
tuition. There is a difference if the
student is emancipated and paying on their own, or if there parents are
paying as an illegal alien. It is a
question of breaking the law. |
|
104 |
Rep. Dalto |
Comments he does not understand why it matters where
the money is coming from to pay the tuition if someone who is born in this
country and has legal status as a citizen under the Constitution of the
United States wants to go to school.
States he understands the questions on the immigration status of the
parents. To him, it is a federal issue,
not a state issue. The federal
government is complacent in their responsibility to effectively manage our
borders and are not doing the job they need to be doing. Adds that he does not believe people
should be here illegally. Adds that
it does not matter where the money comes from as long as they are able to
pay. |
|
125 |
Rep. Close |
Responds that historically, it has mattered where
the money comes from. Comments on
taxpayers paying for the colleges and the schools are for Oregonians. |
|
138 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks Rep. Dalto to look at Section 2 (b) and (c) of
the bill to help answer Rep. Close’s question. |
|
142 |
Rep. Dalto |
Comments there is a higher standard under this bill
for students in these two categories than for an American citizen coming from
another state who would only have to be here one year and prove they have
residency before they are eligible for the in-state tuition. |
|
155 |
Rep. Close |
Comments that she does not have a problem with the
citizen; she has a problem with the non-citizen being considered a resident
and getting in-state tuition over citizens from other states. |
|
169 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments that the requirements are conjunctive; they
must meet all three tests in lines 9 through 17. The parents have to be residents under Section 2 (a), the
student has to have been a resident of the state for three years while
attending high school, and have received a high school diploma or the
equivalent. Asks if that is
correct. |
|
181 |
Rep. Dalto |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Clarifies that Section 2 (a) does not require the
parents to be citizens. The residency
status applies to the student. Adds
that the basis for this is when determining tuition, and using the parents’
residency status. |
|
194 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments that Section 2 (a) establishes the
exception, that is, the student is a resident and the parents are not citizens
of the United States. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
Responds that the parents are not recognized as
legal residents of the United States. |
|
199 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Questions if the use of the second “residency” in
line 9 is being used in a different sense than “legal residency.” |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
Responds he believes Rep. Barnhart is correct. |
|
208 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments that we are talking about people whose parents
are living in Oregon, pay taxes and do the other things that anybody else who
lives in Oregon does. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
Responds that he agrees completely, but others would
disagree. |
|
222 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks what the “broader version” is that other states
have passed. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
Responds that the broader version includes the third
category--the student without legal status who resides in this country. |
|
|
Rep. Flores |
Asks which states besides Washington and Texas have
passed the broader version. |
|
|
Rep. Dalto |
Responds he does not have the list with him, but
Illinois and New York are two more. |
|
236 |
Rep. Backlund |
Reads the list of states that had passed legislation
at the time SB 10 was heard: Texas, California, Utah, and New York. States that since that time Washington,
Oklahoma, and Illinois have passed similar statutes. |
|
262 |
Chair Doyle |
Comments that SB 10 was in the House Education that
was chaired by Rep. Backlund. |
|
|
Rep. Backlund |
States that currently if parents are living in
Oregon illegally, their children cannot get state tuition. We can say that the students are being
held responsible for the sins of the parents. If we pass HB 3651, we are saying the parents who are here
illegally will not prohibit a student from having an opportunity to attend
higher education with in-state tuition. |
|
281 |
Rep. Dalto |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
289 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks if HB 3651 is to allow these students to
receive in-state tuition, not scholarship money. |
|
293 |
Rep. Dalto |
Refers to the language in the Legislative Fiscal
Statement that says there will be a net increase in revenue to the Oregon
University System if these student decide to go to school. Suggest Rep. Flores ask the University
System the same question. |
|
314 |
Brenda Sifuentez |
Co-chair, Oregon Students of Color Coalition. Testifies in support of HB 3651 (EXHIBIT A). |
|
354 |
Jose Sandovol |
Latinos Unidos Siempre. Presents a prepared statement in support of HB 3651 (EXHIBIT C). |
|
362 |
Sara Sparks |
Latinos Unidos Siempre. Presents a prepared statement in support of HB 3651 (EXHIBIT E). |
|
441 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if Sifuentez has numbers on Latinos who receive
minority scholarships. |
|
|
Sifuentez |
Responds she does not have them. |
|
451 |
Rep. Close |
Asks how many of Sifuentez’ peers are paying
out-of-state tuition. States she is
trying to figure out what the use of minority scholarships is among the
Latino population. |
|
463 |
Sifuentez |
Responds that she would say that most of her peers
who are U. S. Citizens in college receive scholarships. |
|
470 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if the student must be a resident to receive
the scholarship. |
|
|
Sifuentez |
Responds the student must be a resident to receive
scholarships. |
|
475 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks Sifuentez if the first two numbers on tuition
in her fourth paragraph (EXHIBIT C) refer
to the amounts paid per term for tuition. |
|
493 |
Sifuentez |
Nods yes. |
|
TAPE 99, B |
||
|
030 |
Phil Kennedy Long |
Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. Testifies in support of HB 3651. Comments
on services provided, including a small high school for children of immigrants
or refugees who are struggling to succeed in the normal Portland Public
School system or other school systems that they contract with. They support HB 3651 because it removes a barrier
to education, and education is the key to success. |
|
070 |
Bob Castagna |
Oregon Catholic Conference. Testifies in support of HB 3651. States that the Catholic church, in its
history and ministry, prizes education, and has over 50 private Catholic
schools, K-12, in Oregon. The
minority community is a significant part of the people they engage in
outreach to and who participate in the schools. They wish the bill could be broader. |
|
092 |
Grattan Kerans |
Director, Government Relations, Oregon University
System. Testifies in support of HB
3651. States that HB 3651 is a legislative
solution to an equity question. The
equity issue is those people addressed in the bill that would otherwise
qualify for resident tuition status but are denied by virtue of their
dependency. Agrees with Rep. Backland
that the residency irregularities of the parents should not be visited upon
their children if the children have normalized their residency status or were
born here and have citizenship. |
|
122 |
Kerans |
It is an issue that needs legislative solution as in
other states. It is not an issue that
the State Board of Higher Education would drive itself into; they depend upon
the legislature for legislative direction.
The residency requirements of the University System are among the strictest
in the United States; they are that way by legislative direction. |
|
134 |
Kerans |
The fiscal impact is a narrow gauge issue. Those covered by this bill would be those
who are citizens by birth, and those who have achieved resident alien status
on their own motion. That is a
smaller group than those who would be non-citizens without normalized
residency status but would otherwise meet the test of living here with a
guardian or parent, attending a school for three years and getting a high
school degree. Adds that the
institutions have a bias in favor of access and they, too, hope the committee
supports HB 3651. |
|
153 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if students would get in-state tuition if they
have residency and chooses to pay their own tuition. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds that is why there are such stringent
residency requirements. Their
legislative direction is that they be vigilant to make sure that only those
who can qualify and make their way through the residency hurdles gain
resident tuition. If the student is
financially dependent, he/she faces an almost impossible hurdle of
establishing independent status financially.
States that the rules have been tested twice in Multnomah County
Circuit Court and they have been sustained twice and neither case has been
appealed. It would be extremely
difficult for a student to be able to prove financial independence and
establish a separate domicile, have a separate income stream, and become
emancipated and be outside the supervision and control and financial support
of their parents. |
|
171 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if they are considered independent if they have
their own apartment and have their own income stream. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds they can establish that. They would have to demonstrate clearly
that they are financially independent, that they have no support from their
parents and they do not share a domicile with the parents. If they can meet all the obligations of
their education on their own, without financial contribution from their parents,
they can be identified as an independent resident student. They would get in-state tuition. |
|
198 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if a student is born here and is a U.S. citizen
and the parents are illegal aliens is eligible for a scholarship. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds they could be; it is a matter determined on
the status of the student. If the
person is a citizen of the United States of America and meets the residency
requirement for the State of Oregon, they are eligible for the Oregon Opportunity
Grant based upon their financial need.
They would also be eligible for the federal PELL grant. The other class of students addressed in
HB 3651 who would find themselves achieving resident alien status would not
be eligible for either of the scholarships regardless of their financial
need. |
|
216 |
Rep. Close |
Asks if they will look at the status of the parents
for the PELL grant. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds he believes they would not; it is an issue
determined by the status of the applicant, the student. If they are a dependent student, their
parent’s ability to contribute would be included in the equation, but the
first issue is the status of the student.
If the student is not a citizen, they are not eligible. |
|
225 |
Rep. Close |
Asks Kerans if he agrees that if the parents are
paying the tuition and they are illegal aliens, then we are giving illegal
aliens a break that a citizen does not get. |
|
230 |
Kerans |
Responds no; they look at the student. They are interested in the status of the
student and their ability, whether there are academically prepared and can
meet the admission standards and whether they are financially able, through
whatever means, to progress. That is
a bias in favor of access. They make
the decision based on the equity needs of that student. |
|
247 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks what Kerans view is about this increasing
enrollments. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds this bill would provide a net increase in tuition
revenue to the institution by virtue of the marginal increase in
admissions. It is a rather small
amount. |
|
|
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments this does not reduce tuition for anybody
because students who qualify under this bill would not otherwise be going to
school and paying non-resident tuition. |
|
|
Kerans |
Agrees with Rep. Barnhart. Adds that there are very few students today who by virtue of
their being undocumented are attending—it is less than two dozen in any given
year. The average per year is 17
students out of an FTE of 59,000. |
|
327 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks if the OUS is looking for direction from the
legislature in regard to this, and whether it is in the purview of the OUS to
make the determination. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds he believes they are looking to the
legislature for that direction. Reads
Administrative Rule on determination of residency. States that he doubts the board would insert itself directly
without legislative encouragement.
They want the legislature to resolve this matter as a public
policy. |
|
373 |
Rep. Backlund |
Comments that community college attendance has not
been discussed and that it will be interesting to see how many students might
switch or transfer from the community colleges to a four-year
university. Asks if Kerans has any
idea of the numbers. |
|
|
Kerans |
Responds that a significant minority of OUS’s
undergraduate admissions are Oregon community college transfer students. |
|
376 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session
on HB 3651. |
|
HB 3651
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
414 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves HB 3651 to the floor with a DO PASS
recommendation. |
|
418 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Speaks in support of the bill. |
|
409 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Speaks in support of the bill. |
|
TAPE 100,
B |
||
|
023 |
Chair Doyle |
Speaks in support of HB 3651. |
|
081 |
|
VOTE:
5-1-1 AYE: 5 - Backlund, Barnhart, Flores, Monnes Anderson,
Doyle NAY: 1 - Close EXCUSED: 1 - Verger |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
|
|
REP. DALTO
will lead discussion on the floor. |
|
091 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on HB 3651 and adjourns the meeting
at 3:15 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– House Rules, amendments to H.R. 2.20, 8.20, 9.01, 9.l15, 13.05, and 13.10,
staff, 2 pp
B
– HB 3651, Legislative Fiscal Statement on SB 10, Rep. Dalto, 1 p
C
– HB 3651, prepared statement, Brenda Sifuentez, 1 p
D
– HB 3651, prepared statement, Jose Sandoval, 1 p
E
- HB 3651, prepared statement, Sarah Sparks, 1 p