Until now both the House and the Senate have worked together in the following ways: (1.) deciding to break the inefficient shackles of budgetary tradition by implementing Performance-Based Budgeting for the 2005 session of the Oregon Legislature (click here), (2.) agreeing generally on the Six Core Government Principles for which Oregon state government exists (click here), (3.) dividing all government programs and expenditures among the six areas; (4.) prioritizing all expenditures from the most essential to the least essential, and (5.) agreeing on how much revenues could be spent to fund state government during the 2005-07 biennium (click here). The next step is to agree how to divide the available revenues among the six divisions. Here is where the Senate has apparently reached an impasse. Both the House and the Senate understand there is only $12.393 billion available to be spent for the next biennium. The Senate wants to fund K-12 education with at least $5.325 billion, which results in drastic cuts in programs for needy seniors, children and families. The House is willing to allot $5.175 billion to K-12 while using the $150 million difference to maintain important services for Oregon’s most needy citizens.

The Senate has only hours left to face reality and come back to the negotiations table with either a reduced demand for K-12 education or with a plan showing how to fund education at such high levels without harming Oregon’s other vital programs. If the Senate is unwilling to do either, the House is prepared to continue the course for Performance-Based Budgeting without the Senate. The question on everyone’s mind is whether the Democrat Senators are willing to stay the course and live within their means, which is the agreed upon revenue amount of $12.393 billion, and work out a budget with cooperation from the House, or will the Senate Democrats break their agreement and gush forward on their own with unbridled spending and the usual biennial-demand for higher taxes.

In addition to the drama over the imminent meltdown of the joint ways and means process, the debate is heating up over Civil Unions vs. Reciprocal Benefits.

By way of review, the campaign against Measure 36 centered around certain “issues of fairness”, such as hospital visitation and end-of-life questions. The Senate Civil Rights Bill (SB 1000) would address these limited issues by duplicating all legal rights, privileges and benefits of marriage under the heading of Civil Unions, while elevating “sexual orientation” to the protected status of a civil right. Since Oregon voters constitutionally defined marriage as only between one man and one woman, enacting Civil Unions is a blatant attempt to circumvent the voice and vote of the people under the pretense of fairness.

Reciprocal Benefits are a reasonable alternative to Civil Unions. Reciprocal Benefits are specific rights relating to hospital visitation, financial and inheritance matters that are granted to non-married couples regardless of sexual orientation.

Reciprocal Benefits are not a marriage substitute. They are specific benefits appropriate for any two unmarried adults in a dependent relationship—such as two elderly sisters sharing expenses, or any other couple who cannot be married.

Reciprocal Benefits are limited to certain enumerated benefits, such as:

1. Property Ownership and Intestate Succession. Legal precautions can provide safeguards for any couple, but may require multiple legal documents. Reciprocal Benefits offer automatic solutions for financial and other protections; preventing eviction from a shared home, on the death of one beneficiary; streamlining provisions for joint property ownership with rights of survivorship; and, providing for distribution of property after death, if the decedent had no Will.

2. Medical and End-of-Life Decisions. Significant suffering and hardship often result from the death of the person on whom a companion is dependent. Reciprocal Benefits offers a series of specific rights and benefits, including (a) hospital visitation; (b) medical decision-making; (c) access to records; (d) possession and disposition of a deceased beneficiaries’ remains; (e.) etc.

A surviving Reciprocal Beneficiary may examine contents of a bank or credit union’s safe deposit box upon death of sole lessee of box.

Sincerely,

Dennis Richardson
State Representative
Fourth District

Rep. Morgan Provides Education Budget Update

The following is from Rep. Susan Morgan's April 29 Newsletter:

Budget issues again dominate the legislative session. Negotiations over the Co-Chairs budget, which traditionally starts the funding discussions in the Ways and Means Sub-Committees, is high centered.

Currently, we have a House Co-Chair’s budget and a Senate Co- Chair’s budget. For the last month, we have disagreed over two fundamental points, and that disagreement continues. At issue is about $150 million (out of a $12.393 billion) budget.

The Senate Democrats want to give that $150 million to the K-12 system. The House Republicans feel that adding $150 million to the K-12 budget (currently over $5 Billion in both co-chairs budgets, excluding local property tax revenues and federal dollars) will not significantly add capacity to the K-12 system.

When that $150 million is parsed out across all the schools in the state, each school doesn’t even get enough money to buy one more teacher. Because of the size of the K-12 budget, it takes a very large addition of revenue to make a significant difference in added services.

However, if that same $150 million is targeted at other education programs (like community colleges), services to the elderly and vulnerable, and public safety programs like the court system and corrections, the money can make a big difference. Because these programs use much less funding, an increase really does make a difference for Oregonians, and real service increases result. The discussions continue, and it is possible that the budgeting process will be broken apart and separate committees will be run on the House and Senate sides. I will keep you posted.

House Profile: Rep. Susan Morgan State Representative Susan Morgan (R- Myrtle Creek) is serving her fourth term representing House District 2, including Central Douglas County, the Northwestern part of Jackson County, and the Northeastern part of Josephine County. Representative Morgan is vice-chair of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means Committee, and Chair of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Natural Resources. Visit Rep. Morgan's Legislative Web site at http://www.leg.state.or.us/morgan.

House Passes Richardson Bill to Allow
Rural Sewer System Hookups

The House approved a bill this week to allow certain rural home owners to be served by sewer systems. HB 2705-A, sponsored by Rep. Richardson, passed on a 55 to 3 vote. The measure, which now moves to the Senate, is intended to provide home owners an alternative if their septic systems are failing.

Specifically, HB 2705-A authorizes service for dwellings that are "clustered." Typically, sewerage disposal for rural homes is provided by on-site septic systems. Because sewer connections in rural Oregon are highly regulated under land use laws, many homeowners have little alternative if their septic systems fail. Under HB 2705-A, homeowners would be able to establish their own system or receive service from a nearby local government.

To receive service, owners of these homes must enter into common maintenance agreements and share some costs with their respective, nearby local governments. The original bill was amended as a compromise to assure it only affected existing dwellings, or dwellings that could been lawfully constructed under the zoning in effect when the bill becomes law.

House Committees Explore Reforms in
DEQ Vehicle Testing Program

“We are kind of taking a look under the hood to see if it’s producing the results it should be producing,” said State Representative Jerry Krummel (R-Wilsonville) at a special legislative field hearing today. Krummel is Chairman of the House Audits Committee which held a joint hearing with the House Environment Committee at Middleton Elementary School in Sherwood. Prior to the hearing, members of both Committees toured the Department of Environmental Quality’s Clean Air Station in Sherwood. Representative Krummel’s House District includes the City of Sherwood.

The Committees took testimony from several people on the accuracy of the DEQ’s Vechicle Inspection Program (VIP) which has been in effect in the Portland Metro area since 1975 and in the Medford Area since 1986. The VIP currently conducts over a million vehicle emission tests each biennium. During today’s hearing, the Committees learned 88% of the vehicles who go through the VIP pass, 12% fail the tests.

Representative John Lim (R-Fairview) told the audience the failure rate made it seem like a lot of motorists were going through the testing requirement unnecessarily. “It has been 30 years since this DEQ program started…we need a new policy to make sure so time, money and gas is not wasted,” said Lim.

Gary Adams, a local math professor, recently conducted his own study of the VIP, raising serious questions about the reliability of the tests. Adams asked the Committees to call for a more in-depth analysis because he noted, “cars are going through the system and failing. I’m not sure they should be failing.” Representative Krummel posed the question, “how many people are going out and paying for repairs when they don’t have to?”

DEQ representatives testified about plans to experiment with a self-serve testing system which would reduce waiting lines at the testing centers. They also discussed a new method to allow motorists to submit the results of their car’s on board diagnostics on-line from their home computers. Krummel said after the hearing “we want to know that the bugs have been worked out” before any expansions or large changes are made to the VIP.

Krummel would like to see the Committees issue a report recommending the Joint Committee on Ways and Means authorize a comprehensive third-party audit of the VIP. To read more about professor Adams findings, go to www.oregondeqtesting.com.

Important Federal Update for Southern Oregon:
Congressional Committee Holds Hearing on County Payments Law Enacted to Aid Rural Counties

The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture held a hearing on the Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000 (PL 106-393), the critical “county payments” law that has been beneficial to Oregon’s Second District as well as rural communities throughout the nation since its enactment in 2001. Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, submitted testimony for today’s hearing outlining the benefits this law has provided and urging the Committee to support bipartisan legislation he introduced, H.R. 517, that would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act through 2013.

“The Secure Rural Schools Act has been vital to rural counties not only in Oregon’s Second District and our state as a whole, but also throughout the nation,” said Walden. “By providing a stable source of revenue for counties that are unable to generate revenue as a result of non-taxable public land holdings, the federal government has taken a responsible course of action allowing for the delivery of critical services such as transportation and education in rural communities. The law has been a tremendous success and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its continuance through the passage of my legislation.”

In response to the precipitous decline in federal timber receipts during the nineties, a portion of which used to go directly to counties containing federal forestlands to help offset losses in tax base and subsequent revenue, the Act authorized an alternative, formula-based payment system. Eighteen of the twenty counties in Oregon’s Second District – which covers eastern, southern and central Oregon and 60% of which is public land – receive funds under the law.

The Act also established of Resource Advisory Committees (RACs), councils established to build partnerships between local government, residents and the federal government for the management of projects and activities on federal forestlands. Projects approved by RACs have included fuels reduction, habitat improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance and rehabilitation, reforestation, campground and trail improvement, and noxious weed eradication.

Walden introduced H.R. 517 on February 2 along with Representatives from across the nation, including Peter DeFazio (D-OR). This bill would extend the program beyond its current sunset of 2007 until 2013, allowing rural counties throughout American to continue receiving assistance that is critical to the survivability of rural communities.

“Reauthorization of this law is essential, especially given the funding problems facing Oregon schools. This is also a fundamental issue of federal fairness,” said Walden. “The financial benefit from this law to central, southern and eastern Oregon is directly proportional to the loss in forest jobs and the resultant harm to the economy of these same communities over the last 20 years. For much of Oregon, this really is a safety net.”

Missed a Newsletter? Download all past newsletters for the 2005 Session at http://www.leg.state.or.us/richardson/news.htm

Capitol Office
900 Court Street NE
H-285
Salem OR 97301
Tel: (503) 986-1404
Fax: (503) 986-1590
E-Mail: rep.dennisrichardson@state.or.us

Please tell a friend about House District 4 Legislative Update.

Click here to subscribe.

To unsubscribe to this newsletter, send an e-mail to nick@dennisrichardson.org with "unsubscribe" in the Subject line.