COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS e: Presentations by members of the House of Representatives
Stenographic reporto f hearing held in Majority Caucus Room, Main Capitol, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday And Thursday February 13 and 14,2002
N JOHN E BARLEY, CHAIRMAN i Gene DiGirolamo, Secretary i Patrick E Fleagle, Subcommittee on Education i. Jim Lynch, Subcommittee on Capitol Budget i John J. Taylor, Subcommittee/Health and Human Services i. Dwight Evans, Democratic Chairman
MEMBERS OF APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Hon William F Adolph Hon. John Myers Hon Matthew E Baker Hon Steven R. Nickol Hon Stephen Barrar Hon, John R. Pippy Hon Lite I Cohen Hon. William R Robinson Hon Craig A Dally Hon Samuel E. Rohrer Hon Teresa E Foraer Hon Stanley E Saylor Hon. Dan Frankel Hon. Curt Schroder Hon Babette Josephs Hon Edward G Steback Hon Frank LaGrotta Hon Jerry A Stern Hon David K Levdansky Hon Stephen H Stetler Hon. Kathy M Manderino Hon Jere L Strittmatter Hon Eugene F McGill Hon. Leo J Trich, Jr Hon. Phyllis Mundy Hon. Peter J Zug
> Present
>ert Greenwood, Executive Director y Soderberg, Democratic Executive Director
Reported by ORIGINAL Dorothy M Malone, RPR
MALONE REPORTING SERVICE 135 S LANDIS STREET HUMMELSTOWN, PA 17036 INDEX
NAME PAGE
Rep. Gene DiGirolamo 7
Rep. Jennifer Mann 9
Rep. John Evans 10
Rep. Gayle Wright 16
Rep. Daryl Metcalfe 19
Rep. Mark Cohen 22
Rep. Kathy Watson 26
Rep. Tim Solobay 29
Rep. Tom Stevenson 32
Rep. Tom Tigue 36
Rep. Jeff Coleman 39
Rep. Greg Vitali 43
Rep. Jess Stairs 46
Rep. Tom Michlovic 50
Rep. Paul Clymer 55
Rep. Rich Grucela 59
Rep. Larry Sather 62
Rep. John Yudichak 65
Rep. Bob Bastian 68
Rep. Mike Sturla 70
Rep. Ed Wojnarnoaki 73 Rep. Paul Costa 77
Rep. Kerry Benninghoff 81 •J
INDEX
NAME **S£
Rep. Mike Turzai 87
Rep. Joe Markosek 91
Rep. Steve Samuelson 94
Rep. Tom Scrimenti 98
Rep. Guy Travagllo 101
Rep. Jim Wansacz 104
Rep. Ray Bunt 107
Rep. Julie Harhart 111
Rep. Bob Flick 114
Rep. Kelly Lewis 116
Rep. LeAnna Washington 123
Rep. John Pallone 127
Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland 130
Rep. Michael K. Hanna 133
Rep. Ted Harhai 137
Rep. Harold James 139
Rep. Louise Williams Bishop 141 CHAIRMAN BARLEY: I would like to call our hearing to order please. If members would find their places and we will get underway. We have another budget season beginning for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003. And we are here today at the first of our bdget hearings and we will have before the Appropriations Committee today various members from the house who will be giving testimony on issues they feel are important to them and to their constituents as it relates to the budget. So, we are going to be hearing quite a number of members today on, again, issues that they feel are significant. We have our members scheduled at five minute intervals, and I would like to remind those that are giving testimony that it is very important that we hold to that schedule.
We do have some potential conflicts today.
We originally were planning a token session on the floor of the House. It now has become necessary for a voting session later in the day. We believe our schedule is such that we will be able to hold the hearing at least through noon. And then we will have to make a decision based on what we will be doing on the floor at tht time. Now, as things change, obviously, I will be making announcements as the hearing progresses this morning.
That is really all I have. I want to welcome everyone. I will ask Representative Evans, the Democratic
Chairman, if he has any comments for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, join with the chairman and look forward to the opportunity to hear the members give their testimony and their views of the governor's proposed budget as he made in his speech last week. I see this as a unique opportunity for democrats and republicans alike to work together and try to meet the needs of the Commwealth of Pennsylvania.
Obviously the issue that will be first and foremost in most of our minds is the question about education and the investment in our young people in the Commonwealth' of Pennsyl- vania. But also, Mr. Chairman, an opportunity for us to demonstrate how we have been working together in the past and will continue to work together in the future. I look forward to working with you and working with your staff.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Evans. With that I would like the members of the committee if they would just introduce themselves and we will begin with Representative Dally and we'll work down through.
REPRESENTATIVE DALLY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Craig Dally, 138th Legislative District in Northampton and Monroe Counties.
REPRESENTATIVE SAYLOR: Representative Stan Saylor, York County, 94th District.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON: Representative
Bill Robinson, Allegheny County, 19th District.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNDY: Representative Phyllis
Mundy, from Luzerne County in the great northeast.
REPRESENTATIVE STABACK: Ed Staback, Lackawanna and southern Wayne.
REPRESENTATIVE MCGILL: Eugene McGill, Montgomery
County, 1st District.
REPRESENTATIVE TRICH: Leo Trich, Washington
County.
REPRESENTATIVE FLEA6LE: Pat Fleagle, Franklin
County.
REPRESENTATIVE STERN: Jerry Stern, 80th
District, Blair and Bedford Counties.
REPRESENTATIVE ROHRER: Sam Rohrer, 128th
District, Berks County.
REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Peter Zug, 102nd District,
Lebanon County.
REPRESENTATIVE DIGIROLAMO- Gene DiGirolamo,
18th District, Bucks.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: And I would like to recognize
Bob Greenwood, the Executive Director of the Appropriations
Committee,and Mary Soderberg, the Executive Director for the democratic side of the committee as well.
t Okay, with that I would like to ask Representative Gene
DiGirolamo of Bucks County to be seated and he is the first member to have the opportunity to present his testimony.
Representative DiGirolamo.
REPRESENTATIVE DIGIROLAMO: Chairman Barley, Chairman Evans, Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about, as I have in the past, about the need for increased funding in the state for drug and alcohol treatment. Who among us here today has not been affected? Who has not been affected by a loved one, a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, or a constituent with a drug of alcohol problem? Drug and alcohol addiction is the third leading disease killer in
America. And yet there are waiting lists, waiting lists for treatment around the Commonwealth. The third leading disease killer in America and yet today we are rationing treatment in most of our counties. Can you imagine the outrage if there were waiting lists for cancer patients?
Can you imagine the outrage if there were waiting lists for people with heart disease?
This is a problem that impacts one in four families in Pennsylvania and throughout the nation. That means one in four people in this room has a friend or a loved one who has a drug or alcohol problem. I'm one of those people. I had a 22 year old son who was a heroin addict.
Alcohol abuse and alcoholism alone kills
over 100,000 Americans each and every year. Here is an
illness that we know how to treat. It affects one in four
families and kills over 100,000 people a year.
In addition, if you are interested in economy,
according to federal sources untreated alcohol and drug
problems cost us $246 billion a year in economic impact.
Despite this cost we spend less than six percent of that amount for treatment. Alcohol and drug addiction drive
over 70 percent of the crimes that are committed in Pennsyl vania. And I will tell you what, if you had the true statis
tics I bet you it would be more than that. And yet today as we meet here in Harrisburg, people in need of treatment will be turned away at the door. Our county drug and alcohol
treatment systems are overwhelmed. They have been forced
to devise a system to make too few dollars stretch across
a 12-month period. Often funding for treatment is doled
out one month at a time on a first-come-first serve basis
and then all admission stops. And your constituents and mine are turned away from needed treatment until the next month and the next too little allocation.
We must no longer tolerate waiting lists
for untreated addictions. My friends, waiting lists for
treatment of drug and alcohol problems are time bombs ticking in all of our backyards. We can no longer tolerate that.
Please help me to increase the budget for addicition treat ment, and I am asking for ten million dollars specifically for the Department of Health in the Bureau of the Drug and Alcohol problem.
Treatment works. Treatment works. My son is a testament to that. He is coming up on his third anni versary of sobriety. A productive member of society going back to school at nights, supporting himself, holding down a full-time job. Treatment works.
In the name of suffering families and children and our teenagers all across the state, let's do the right thing. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you very much, Repre sentative DiGirolamo.
We now have Representative Jennifer Mann, who is scheduled to give testimony before the committee. Representative Mann.
REPRESENTATIVE MANN: Thank you. And good morning, Chairman Barley, Chairman Evans and members of the Appropriations Committee, and thank you for this opportun ity to speak before you today.
My message today is straightforward. I simply ask for fiscal responsibility and government account ability in these troubled economic times. As Pennsylvania and the entire nation face an economic recession, the common wealth has the opportunity to closely scrutinize where state dollars are being allocated and how they are spent.
Let's face it. When we have annual budget surpluses as we have had in the past several years, we have more funding available to allocate to more programs. But during these times of economic belt tightening, we must wisely consider how all funds are being allocated and hold those programs accountable for how those dollars are spent.
Last week's budget address raised the red flag for me and I hope it did for you as well. The phase out of the capital stock and franchise tax is a key component of our economic stimulus. However, when we must borrow money from programs like Growing Greener, FIDA, P-I-D-A, and the tobacco settlement to realize a tax cut, we are not being fiscally responsible. Not only are we delaying the roll out of a much needed adult health insurance program, but we are pushing back Growing Greener and we are in effect borrowing money today to give tax cuts.
What should we be doing? We should be looking at economic stimulus organizations that we know are working like our Small Business Development Centers. Last year we allocated six million dollars and we realized a seven dollar return for every dollar spent on this investment.
Another important investment, which is headquartered in J. J. the Lehigh Valley, is the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Tech nology Alliance, PITA, P-I-T-A. That is why I made that distinction.
PITA is a partnership between Lehigh Univers ity, Carnegie Mellon University and Pennsylvania industry which focuses on technology development in education in an effort to enhance economic development and promote brain gain in Pennsylvania. Last year PITA asked the state for a $4.5 million allocation and received four million. The governor has reduced that allocation this year to 3.5 million.
Let me just briefly tell you a little bit about PITA's accomplishments in the last year with the help of our state. PITA worked on more than 200 projects,
45 Pennsylvania companies. They created six new companies, were instrumental in three new technology licenses and seven patents and leveraged state funding by a 1.7 to 1 ratio. More than 195 graduate and 300 undergraduate students participated with PITA. In the future the organization plans to not only increase business involvement by 50 percent, but also plans to bring together multi-disciplinary teams to develop technologies in the emerging fields of bioengineer- ing and environmental remediation. PITA is generating real jobs for Pennsylvania's economy. These are the types of efforts we need to build and we need to build these from the bottom up. We need to invest in programs that keep Pennsylvanians working in Pennsylvania.
Another important facet of economic development is education. I am concerned that while we are publicizing the fact that we are holding the line on state taxes this year, we are not only shortchanging our schools with $75 million being allocated to the Philadelphia schools and a mere one percent basic education subsidy increase to be shared by 500 other school districts. But in doing so, we are forcing many school districts to raise local property taxes. Not only is it unfair that the bulk of the funding increase goes to one school district, but we are not supporting our public schools but not providing even a cost of living increase.
In the past seven years local property taxes have gone up by $1.7 billion and much of this can be directly attributed to the state's commitment to funding education.
Yes, difficult times have put us in this position of having to make difficult choices. But the solution is not floating bonds to cut taxes or raiding important programs. But instead it is found in aggressive economic stimulus. We must invest in Pennsylvania programs that annually provide a return on our investment. We have to hold these organizations accountable to the state and ultimately we must hold ourselves accountable to the tax payers. We have a unique opportunity facing us in Pennsyl- vania today. Let's make the most of it and use these trying times to finely tune Pennsylvania's budget and create an economic stimulus package that will help us pull out of this recession and insure a more robust economy in the future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Mann.
We now have Representative John Evans that will be coming before the committee. Representative Evans.
REPRESENTATIVE EVANS: Good morning, Chairman
Barley, Chairman Evans and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning.
After hearing the governor's budget address last week, I think we all realize we have some serious budgetary problems this year in the Commonwealth and it is going to be a very tight year. I do believe it is entirely appropriate that the Rainy Day Fund is being used to help balance this year's budget because of the tough times that we are seeing.
But I'adhere today to voice my concern about the proposed funding levels for education in our Commonwealth and the lack of financial support for our fire companies, who serve as the first line of defense in every type of emergency.
First, our schools. While I understand the challengingfiscal issues facing our Commonwealth today,
I do not believe cutting funding for education is the way
to meet this challenge.
I am particularly concerned about the three
percent cut in funds for the State System of Higher Education.
My legislative district is home to Edinboro University,
and we indeed are fortunate to have such a quality school
in our area that is accessible to students of all income
levels.
I fear that this cut in funding will force
schools like Edinboro to increase their tuition, thereby making it difficult for lower-income families to give their
children the same opportunities the same as those in higher
income families.
We have come a long way in making a solid
higher education available to all students, regardless
of their economic status. Cutting the funding for our
state system schools will be a major step backwards.
In addition to the impact on future students,
cutting funding for higher educaton will also have a negative
impact on Pennsylvania's job climate.
At a time when economic competiveness is
reaching new heights, we need to invest more in training
and educating our young people for jobs of the future —other wise, the jobs, and the young people, will simply go elsewhere. I think it is also important to do everything we can to find additional funding for our public school districts. The one percent increase in basic education funding and 1.5 percent increase in special education funding is simply not enough. An investment in our children is an investment in the future, and I believe we can make the tough decisions necessary to find funding for our K through twelve education.
Our kids deserve it, and so do their families who have to bear the brunt of public education costs through rising property taxes.
Now 1 would like to briefly talk about our fire companies. We all saw the aftermath of September
11th just how important our local fire departments are to the safety and security in our communities. They are the first responders, and in the new world we live in times that demand- they have the resources to get the equipment and the training that they need.
Two years ago, we were able to help our fire departments with a grant program. It was a good start, but it certainly wasn't enough then and it isn't enough now now that our nation is facing new threats from cowardly terrorists.
I am pleased that Governor Schweiker is making a substantial investment in homeland security, but I believe he left our the critical element of dedicated funding for our local fire departments, our fire companies and our emergency responders.
We all know that the vast majority of our communities served by volunteer companies are served by those volunteers, and these volunteers are already dedicating a great deal of time to raising money just to keep their companies going.
Pennsylvania cannot afford to lose its volunteer responders...and helping them meet their training and fund- raising goals is a way to keep the fine tradition of volun teer service alive in Pennsylvania.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Evans. I appreciate your testimony.
We now have Representative Gayle Wright. scheduled to come before the committee. Representative
Wright, welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT: Good morning, Chairman
Barley and Chairman Evans and all. Thank you for allowing me to be here today to voice some of my concerns about the proposed budget.
I understand that in the face of a slowing economy and a shortfall of revenues coming into the state, this budget will require that some very difficult funding \ choices be made.
To that end, I don't envy the task you face in the coming months.
But it is for these reasons that now, more than ever, the state must ensure that those choices do not further harm Pennsylvanians f particularly working familieii, already feeling the impact of these uncertain economic times.
I am increasingly concerned that this is what will happen if the Governor's proposal for education funding becomes a reality.
The state's continued failure to adequately fund public education has left Pennsylvania homeowners overburdened by school district property taxes that have increased some $1.7 billion over the last seven years.
If there is a single issue that my constituent» question me about on a regular basis, it is the rising cost of school district property taxes.
And this is not just a concern for senior citizens.
It is a concern for every Pennsylvanian who once made a good living but now finds himself without a job due to plant closings and layoffs.
Erie, like many communities across the Common wealth, has had its share of job losses in recent months. As you probably are aware, 6E transportation
systems recently announced it was laying off more than
900 employees at its Erie County facility.
This was devastating news to workers and it is devastating news for our local economy.
And it demonstrates what many lawmakers have been saying all along in the property tax debate, for many communities there is simply no more money at the local well.
As a former teacher and as a mother, it is easy for me to say that the Commonwealth needs to raise its financial stake in our school districts and in our children's future.
As a lawmaker whose constituents are being taxed out of their homes and whose constituents no longer can rely on family sustaining wages, I say it is imperative to make education funding a priority.
A one percent increase in basic education funding does not do that. A one percent increase will not keep pace with inflation and next year, school districts and school district taxpayers will again suffer for it.
Until the state is prepared to undertake the daunting task of creating a fairer and more equitable school funding system, the Commonwealth must be willing to provide the money necessary to keep property taxes down and keep education funding sufficient.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you very much, Representa tive Wright. We are doing very well on our time. We commend the members.
We now have Representative Daryl Metcalfe.
Representative Metcalfe, welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE METCALFE: Good morning,
Chairman Barley, Chairman Evans and members of the committee.
What is the state of Pennsylvania and where are we headed? Pennsylvanians currently pay an average of $5200 per person for the cost of state and local government.
This does not include federal taxes paid by citizens of the Commonwealth. The state is the second oldest in the nation. Our 21 to 29 year olds are the largest group leaving the state. Tomoirow's tax base is shrinking while the number of dependent citizens is growing.
In 2001 Pennsylvania ranked 46th among the
50 states for population growth. From 1970 to 2000, the state's operating budget using 1999 inflation adjusted dollars grew from 11 billion to 20 billion dollars.
Our state is one of the highest spenders in terms of economic development dollars and one of the lowest in job creation. We have had a net loss of 51,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 12 months or about 140 per day. We are the only state to tax both capital and earnings both at higher rates than most other parts of the country.
Over the last decade Pennsylvania job growth rate was 63 percent below that of the nation.
During the last three budget cycles, I have encouraged the legislature to adopt budgets that would have protected the hard working men and women of Pennsylvania.
I have called for reduced spending to enable us to eliminate the inheritance tax and the job crushing capital stock and franchise tax. The elimination of both these taxes was within reach. I've urged my colleagues to consider tightening the belt undergirding the excessive fats surrounding the midsection of the state budget to allow us to apply the savings toward eliminating the property tax.
We have missed many excellent opportunities over the last several years to protect Pennsylvania taxpayers, but that was yesterday and this is today. We now have before us another chance to help the taxpayers of Pennsyl vania who pay the bills. A challenge could be heard knocking at the Pennsylvania budget door. The challenge is one of a slow economy and state revenue shortfalls of 600 million plus combined with needed wartime expenditures to combat terrorism. Some suggest we meet this challenge by using the Rainy Day Fund to sustain wasteful government spending.
Much has been made of the fact that the Fiscal Year 2002-2003 state budget will contain no tax
increases. Thanks primarily to the Rainy Day Fund. But what is the Rainy Day Fund other than a tax increase that has been paid in advance2 It is an overpayment of state
taxes that the government has hoarded. After the Rainy
Day Fund has been exhausted the inevitable future increases will follow.
We should use this challenge before us as an opportunity to reevaluate the role of our government.
To bring government in line with its constitutional role and nothing more. We must end government's role as redis- tributor of wealth and of a legalized plunderer. We have a chance to prioritize the legitimate expenditures of state government to insure we protect the life liberty and property of every Pennsylvanian. The time has come once again for us to tighten our belt, to cut the fat from the budget, to end the excessful wasteful spending which has been occur ring in this state.
With a properly prioritized budget, we would be able to eliminate the immoral death tax and the job crushing capital stock and franchise tax and we would be able to end the infringment on our right to truly own our own homes by eliminating the burden of property taxes I have called for in House Bill 418, my Property Tax Elimina tion Bill. Chief Justice John Marshall said, "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
The past policies of our state government certainly show one form of the destruction in the lives of people referenced by the former chief justice. Let us stop the destructive power of excessive taxation with this year's budget.
I propoose that we ignore the special interest groups in this budget and pay attention to the group who is paying our government's bills, the taxpayers. I urge this committee to pass a budget that will reduce spending to enable us to reduce taxes so that Pennsylvania can be an active and contributing participant in the effort to energize our economy during our nation's time in this war against terrorism. I implore this Appropriations Committee to deliver a budget that will tell Harrisburg to spend less so that Pennsylvania's families can keep more of what they have earned.
I thank the committee for this time today.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Metcalfe.
We now have Representative Mark Cohen to come before the committee. Representative Cohen.
REPRESENTATIVE COHEN: Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman, Democratic Chairman Evans, members of the Appropriations Committee.
My priority in this year's budget is to develop a system for state funding of the charter schools.
Right now charter schools receive only a small percentage
of their total operating budget from the state. In the
last year's budget, it moved from one million dollars as
originally proposed by the governor to four million dollars as backed by the legislature. This is a significant per centage increase, but it is still only a tiny percentage of the total cost of charter schools.
Right now charter schools are often the
stepchildren of the local school districts. The local
school districts, to some degree, resent their being there.
Their being there was our choice. It wasn't the local
school district's choice. If we had a state system, it would make it much easier to meaningful state oversight and state direction of the charter schools.
I have introduced an amendment to two educa
tion bills proposing a five-year phase in of 20 percent
the first year, 40 percent the second year, 60 percent
the third year and so on in which the state would gradually assume payment for all the charter schools in the Common wealth of Pennsylvania.
At the current time, charter schools are disproportionately in Philadelphia but that should change over time. The School Reform Commission On Legislation took away rejected charter shcool applicant's ability in
Philadelphia to appeal to the state charter court. So the effect of this is to, in all likelihood, impose a freeze on the number of new charter schools in Philadelphia.
There is no similar provision elsewhere. So gradually over time the percentage of schools that are in Philadelphia should go down. A state system of charter school funding would really serve everybody's interest. We probably would have better charter schools. We would have more connections between charter schools in one school district and charter schools in another district. We would have less money paid to the local school districts—we would have less money paid from the local districts and therefore the local school districts would be under a lot less financial pressure.
So the underlying theory of charter school funding, as originally stated, was that when you lose a student from the public schools and the student goes to the charter schools, then the public schools save money.
The experience all across the state has been that that doesn't happen to a signifcant degree. It may mean that the number of students in the classroom goes down from
30 to 29 or 28, but it doesn't mean that you hire less teachers or less teacher aides. It may mean that you pay for a few less school text books in the public schools but the savings are nowhere near commensurate with the total dollars spent for a child's education in a charter schoool.
We in the legislature have experience' with this kind of arithmetic because we have vacancies that occur from time to time in the legislature. And when a vacancy occurs in the House of Representatives, for instance, all the costs of the House of Representatives do not go down by one-half of one percent. The Bipartisan Management
Committee doesn't lay off anybody because we have a vacancy in the legislature. The committee staffs don't lay off anybody. The stenographers don't lay off anybody. Our expenses continue basically as they were before despite the fact that there is one or two or three vacancies as the case may be. The same thing holds with charter school students in the public schools.
Furthermore, the charter schools have been such a positive event in many communities, the charter schools have attracted people who were formerly going to nonpublic schools or people who are home schooled. So,
I think it is a good thing. It shows that public education is being made more relevant and more attractive by charter schools when somebody who is not in the public educational system now chooses to be part of the public system. The fact is that such a person there, there is not even nominal savings. All the costs are extra.
For all these reasons I believe the state ought to deal with paying directly for charter schools.
Right now I am told by your committee staff, Mr. Chairman, that charter schools cost $162 millon statewide. Doing
20 percent of it the first year would be $30 million.
I have confidence you could find that money in the budget if you really tried, and were enthused by the idea, you might be able to phase it in over four years or three years instead of five years. It would be something that would be a win/win situation for everybody and I urge your support of it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Cohen. We now have Representative Kathy Watson scheduled to come before the committee. Representative Watson.
REPRESENTATIVE WATSON: Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the House Appropriations Committee,
I thank you for the opportunity to come before you to highlight an' issue of conern that is Commonwealth-wide, and affects the quality of life in your community, and throughout my
144th legislative district.
This grave concern is the ongoing financial plight of our volunteer fire and emergency services department,
The mission of these organizations is the same whether the department or squad is in Erie or Linglestown or Warrington
Township where I live to protect the lives and property of their friends and neighbors, the citizens of this Common- wealth. Volunteers have carried out this mission for well over 250 years. Today, however, emergency services personnel do more than fight fires . They assist at automobile crash es; they respond to automatic alarms; they respond to hazard ous material incidents; they teach fire safety to school children and community groups; and the list goes on and on. Now they are asked to take on a new responsibility; to combat the aftermath of a terrorist attack or an incident involving weapons of mass destruction.
The impact of September 11th is with us each day emotionally, practically and economically. Like you, I am keenly aware of the limits of our financial resource! as outlined by Governor Schweiker in his budget address.
We are faced with many hard choices and there are many more valid requests for assistance than our "state pocket- book" can afford. However, even in this most difficult budget year, I am compelled to ask for your support for a budget line item of $40 million to support a grant program for volunteer fire and EMS departments throughout Pennsyl vania. This is the same grant program which is outlined in House Bill 5, referred to as the Volunteer Fire Company and Volunteer Ambulance Service Grant Act. This $40 million will guarantee the maximum grant award of $15,000 for volun
teer fire departments and $10,000 for volunteer ambulance
services.
This program is vital to the financial stability of our volunteer emergency services. According to the
Department of Community and Economic Development, only
slightly more than ten percent of our volunteer fire companies are financially sound. At a time when firefighters will be called on to become even better prepared for modern day emergencies through new training subsidized by the
state, to expect them to spend more time fundraising is unthinkable and I suggest to you it is economically unwise.
Each year volunteer fire departments save Pennsylvania taxpayers more than $4.5 billion dollars, which would otherwise be required of local municipalities and their taxpayers.
And of note, there are seven fire companies in my 144th district and they deliver almost $14 million worth of services, free of charge to my local residents each and every year.
Members of this committee, I think you can agree that an appropriation of $40 million today is a wise investment of resources which has a high yield of return in both dollars and lives saved. 1 understand that this budget was released just a week ago, and the Appropriations
Committee staff has just begun to review the document.
However, I am optimistic that a closer look at the admini- strative and operating line items in the various department budgets may provide the>necessary funding stream for this grant program to become a reality in 2003. Our volunteer firefighters, EMT's, rescue squad personnel and hazardous material response teams depend on us for assistance with their financial stability, as we depend on them for our safety and our well being.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your time and your careful consideration of this important request,
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Watson.
I now call Representative Tim Solobay.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOBAY: Thank you, Chairman
Barley and Chairman Evans and members of the Appropriations
Committee.
As I sat in the chamber last week listenting to Governor Schweiker's budget address, a proposal we knew would contain some budgetary cuts, I was frankly shocked at the programs our governor chose not to include.
On September 11th, volunteer and municipal service workers in Pennsylvania, New York and Washington,
D.C. responded immediately to each of the crash sites.
In New York, many of these everyday heroes gave their lives in the line of duty. It is a sacrifice that all of us in emergency service were willing to do. But one, you as the protected, should not take lightly.
Two years ago we budgeted a grant program for volunteer firefighters and emergency service workers.
Two years ago nearly every Department in Pennsylvania receive< some type of state grant. Two years ago nearly every department in Pennsylvania was able to hold the line on fundraisers that they had to do to be able to buy equipment, uniforms and insurance for their people. Two years ago nearly every company in Pennsylvania could take that extra time to train their membership, to recruit new members or even retain old members.
Last year Governor Ridge and the state Senate decided to eliminate the grant program despite our best protests to the contrary. In response to this, I introduced
House Bill 1899 which would create a permanent grant program for volunteer and muncipal emergency services departments.
These brave men and women save our municipal taxpayers approximately six billion dollars per year. Can you imagine the response of our local taxpayers if they were to get a six billion dollar tax cut under the new budget. The response would be overwhelming. But that is what our emergency services department do every year.
It is up to us to help them to continue to exist. I strongly urge the Appropriations Committee and all of my colleagues to take this worthy program into consideration.
On another front, following September 11th many of our national guardsmen were called away from their civilian jobs as bankers, teachers, lawyers, and doctors, and asked to patrol our airports, power plants and other activities. We have asked them to take a leave of absence from their civilian job and leave with no official end in sight and to take a significant pay cut, because military salaries are often less than their jobs payed in the private sector. I have introduced legislation that would help military families make up the difference in the paychecks by asking employers to pay the soldiers on active duty the difference between their military pay and their civilian pay. We are already asking these men and women to give their lives to defend our nation. Is it too much to ask that we not punish their families? Once again, I urge my colleagues to consider the need for funding this worthy program also.
With the elimination of the Growing Greener grants and Growing Greener money, we in southwestern Pennsyl vania are finding it hard to help fund water line extension programs. The progam is of particular importance because of the many waterways that have fallen victim to mine subsid ence, mine drainage and e.coli contamination to the ground water . We are asking also for continuation to add four muncipal water line funding programs and aid these muncipalities who have no other way to fund these extensions.
We must find a way to assist them.
In short, this budget is simply not an accurate representation of Pennsylvania's needs today. We need to carefully look at it and find ways to fund programs that are truly deserving of this funding. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Solobay.
I now ask for Representative Tom Stevenson to come before the panel. Representative Stevenson.
REPRESENTATIVE STEVENSON: Good morning.
And thank you for allowing me to testify today.
I am here to testify on behalf of the munici pality of Mt. Lebanon. Mt. Lebanon is in need of state funding to complete a critical regional project for the
South Hills section of Allegheny County. Mt. Lebanon is constructing a new public saftety center to serve as a regional facility for public safety. Currently, the fire and police departments are housed in the Mt. Lebanon Munic ipal Building which opened in 1929. Since that time the nature of the community has changed significantly. The
72-year old structure cannot meet the present public safety day needs. Some of the problems with the building with respect to the police department, there is inadequate prisoner management. Bascially the facilities are unsafe and unsecure
The present facility is inaccessible to the public. There is inadequate storage and workspace to accommodate daily operations. There is inaccessible and unsecure police vehicle parking and inappropriate male and female locker room facilities. Basically, they are together for the police. And inability to provide space for department and public meetings and training activities.
With respect to the fire department, they simply cannot house all the fire vehicles in the building that is currently there. There's inability to house all the fire vehicles in a single location. We had to spread them out. Actually, one of the vehicles is in an adjoining municipality. There is unsafe vehicle ingress and egress during emergency responses. Basically, there is no parking facility currently for the building where it is located for the firemen, and we have a paid and volunteer fire company. We are unusual in Allegheny County because we have a mix of both. The present facility does not meet
ADA requirements. No space is available for volunteer firefighter activities for training. There is inadequate storage and workspace just simply for the daily operations of the fire department. And there is very little space and inadequate space for our regional emergency management center.
Now'the project is going to entail construction of a joint police, fire and regional emergency management center. The facility will include four'floors totaling
47,000 square feet of space, of which 44,000 will be finished space and they are going to hold the remaining 3,000 for future use. It is located on 1.2 acres of land in the
Mt. Lebanon business district and I brought a picture of the facility so you can see it.
The new facility will generate the following benefits. Obviously, it will provide for ADA accessibility.
It will provide safe and secure prisoner management. It will provide appropriate storage space for all EMS operations
It will provide segregated locker facilities for male and female employees. It will provide a regional training facility which is where we are headed for the use of that building and it will house all the vehicles for police, fire and EMS.
It is the hope that the Mt. Lebanon facility will serve as the headquarters for the South Hills Investigat: ve
Task Force, the headquarters for the South Hills Area Group of District Attorneys Drug Task Force, a center for the
District Attorneys Criminal Intelligence Computer Network, headquarters for the Regional Emergency Management System, regional police and fire training center, regional center for special equipment storage such as the trench rescue trailers and the DUI trailer that they have, a potential site for a regional booking center which they are still looking around for and regional center for community groups to include local, state, and federal government officials.
The municipality of Mt. Lebanon has committed roughly $7.5 million to this nine million dollar project.
Private organizations have been working diligently, and so far they have commitments for about a half million and that leaves us with a million dollar shortfall. Currently, we have a grant request in to DCED for the million dollars.
As of today, the application has not been approved. To prove that the project is a regional project, Mt. Lebanon has received letters of support from neighboring communities that include the boroughs of Greentree, Dormont, Bethel
Park and Castle Shannon.
I urge the Commonwealth to become a partner in investing a million dollars towards this important regional effort and I ask the support of the Appropriations Committee when the item is included as a line item in the budget.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Stevenson. The next presenter on the list is Representative
Tigue. You have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present these recommendations for the 2002-200'
Commonnwealth budget.
I fully realize that because of the current and projected revenue shortfalls we must limit increases in spending and avoid any tax increases. I do support using revenue from the Rainy Day .Fund to craft this budget.
However, there must be drastic changes to the budget proposed by the governor last week.
As you have already heard today and I am sure you will continue' to" hear throughout the budget hearings, must be made to the education funding proposed by the governoi .
First, and foremost, the basic education funding and the special education, funding must be increased.
A one percent and a one and a half percent increase in these line items respectively are not acceptable. If education fudning is not increased, homeowners across our
Commonwealth will pay for the shortfalls through an increase in their property tax. Most of us agree that property taxes are not the fairest mehtod of funding schools. If education fudning is not increased, the homeowners will pay a greaater and more unfair burden of school funding for their local schools. That is simple. I think everyone of us understand that and most of us will support an increase
in the funding.
Secondly, we must either change the charter
school law to eliminate the inclusion of cyber-schools
from charter schools or the Commonwealth should pay the
cost for any student who does not receive permission from
their home district to attend cyber schools. In Monroe
County, especially in Pocono Mountain School District,
this has become a big ticket item in their budget. They have no control over whether these schools are approved, who can attend. And I think, as a supporter of the charter
school law, I have no intentions and I don't think anyone else did,of including cyber schools in the definition of charter schools. What happens is these charter schools are approved by some entity somewhere, whether it is a board or even a school district somewhere else. I think the home district in all charter schools, not only in cyber
schools, that student should have to receive permission to attend a charter school. Otherwise they shouldn't have to pay for it if it is outside the district. And if they do, then we should pay for that by allowing that to happen.
The other concern I have in education is for the proposed reduced funding. In some cases significantly for state colleges and universities. Obviously, this is going to be passed on in tuition increases which result
in students and parents who cannot afford the increases or they are just going to be further in debt when they graduate. And that is becoming a larger and larger problem.
Even though we have increased PHEAA, students graduating
from colleges and universities today have a bigger and bigger debt than they had in the past.
And finally, a small item in the budget
is the Rail-Freight Assistance Program, which last year was funded at a level of eight and half million, something
like that. It was cut in the current budget, the funds have been frozen, and it was cut in the proposed budget by 50 percent. Now this is a small item in the budget, however, in the northeast it is a very important item.
We have a lot of short line operators and this is an economic development problem. We will lose some of the businesses we have either entirely or they will lose revenue because they can't have shipping, receive or ship their products and the resources they need by rail. So we need more money in this actually, and we should definitely not be cutting this.
How do we pay for these recommendations?
It is easy to say give me more and more and more and I understand that. I think we should take a hard look at the budget and eliminate most, if not all, of the new programs that are being proposed. We have to make tough decisions this year. There is no question about it and I think we can make those decisions. But again, we have to set our priorities, and in my opinion, nothing is more important to all of us than the education of our young people and for the future.
So I am hopeful that we will make the changes to improve the budget as proposed. And again, thank you for .listening. If you i have any questions, I would be happy to respond.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Tigue.
We now have Representative Jeff Coleman scheduled to come before the committee. Representative
Coleman, you have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Chairman Barley, members of the committee, thank you for the chance to share another view of this year's frugal, and in my view, responsible spending package.
Governor Schweiker's budget draft is strong, it is prudent, it is responsible because it makes putting people to work with paychecks and home ownership and job security, our first mission in the year 2002. By continuing our eight-year tradition of tax cuts for working families and slicing away at the heavy roadblock on small businesses and manufacturers, we are endorsing this principle that
real jobs for real people will come from the real world
and are not grown in the halls and chambers of this great
building.
As you know, this plan will again pump more
resources into public school classrooms, will boost dollars
to strengthen our first-rate network of health care. And
friends, we will provide the people of Apollo and Leechburg
and Kittanning and Homer City, and all citizens of Pennsylvania, with a focused and sophisticated network of security. So
it is a good plan.
But with due respect and deference to the
authors of this 1,000 page collection of projections and
appropriations and expenditures, there is one glaring and
unredeeming flaw in the budget that has nothing to do with
tax cuts, our Rainy Day money, new spending or old spending.
I am talking about the $4.5 million spending package for
Planned Parenthood and related agencies in Pennsylvania.
Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar international agency
that is as described on its web site, a powerful lobbying
arm for abortion services and political causes in addition
to providing abortion services and a range of so-called
reproductive health options.
Now in fact if you take a moment today to
log onto this one-stop information sources, you'll find a brochure or two about women's health, but with the click of your mouse you will find on the same web site an encyclopedic
list of attacks on Attorney General John Ashcroft, President
George Bush and Republican leaders across America. Now
the money they argue from the Smith Family Tax Bill in
Apollo will not pay for bumper stickers or neon T-shirts or silk screen protest signs. No, our money will instead
go to help educate and inform and provide these critical
services to Pennsylvania women. So, that thin line that
separates one pot of money, one source of fudning is shrewd
ly, and I might add, legally painted into place. It is
like arguing that my tax dollars are only being used to build roads and bridges, but not pay for state police or public schools.
So, when Planned Parenthood raises private contributions to print and mail millions of campaign brochures
like this one for Al Gore, it is then able to convince governors and legislators that the millions of dollars
in taxes spent for health care have nothing to do with their campaign headquarters in the basement.
So in the spirit of real numbers and cold hard realities I urge my colleagues to make an honest and deliberate look and appraisal of the check we are writing to fund Planned Parenthood and related agencies. I respect fully propose and strongly urge the removal of every penny currently allocated to Planned Parenthood and reallocating those same dollars to Pennsylvania's Real Alternatives
Program. Real Alternatives provides valuable resources, as you know, to moms facing crisis pregnancies. These services include compassionate peer counseling, child support programs critical to help moms support and afford that child. Abortion is not an alternative supported, encouraged or funded by Real Alternatives.
And finally, and I think most importantly, the Real Alternatives Program at their office there are no recruitment posters for pet political causes in the front window. There is no phone bank on the third floor dialing for more dollars, no scary direct mail pieces about presidents or congressmen or attorneys general. No, this organization has proven through sound, fiscal and financial stewardship and real results that women in crisis can be given help at their greatest moment of need. That the cycle of destructive decisions can be shattered and families restored and strengthened. So let's reward a program that works this year and embrace the responsible family affirming choice of ending taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.
I thank you, Chairman Barley, and members of this committee for the opportunity to offer this testimony.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Coleman. I appreciate your remarks. I now ask Representative Greg Vitali to come before the committee for his presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE VITALI: Good morning Chairman
Barley, Chairman Evans and members of the Appropriations
Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to briefly address you this morning.
Global warming is a Pennsylvania problem.
I say this not just because global warming will likely have a profound effect on Pennsylvania, its environment and residents in the future, but also because
Pennsylvania, along with other states and much of the Western world, bears a significant measure of responsibility for the problem of global warming.
Our state currently produces about one percent of the world's man-made greenhouse gases.
These gases—primarily carbon dioxide—are produced by burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and gasoline for energy.
In Pennsylvania, coal-fired electrical power plants and automobiles are the two biggest producers of greenhouse gases, gases that, when released into the atmospherei, cause a gradual but steady increase in the earth's surface temperature.
The vast majority of the world's scientists accept global warming as reality, and predict that global climate changes resulting from greenhouse gas emissions will have many harmful effects.
In Pennsylvania, these will likely include an increase of the average summer temperatures by up to
10 degrees by the next century, leading to about twice as many heat-related deaths in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh than currently occur.
The steady warming of temperatures in the state also is likely to mean a reduction in the numbers and range of brook trout, brown trout and other cold-water fish; a greater threat to some of the state's already endangered plants and animals; a reduction in forest land of as much as 25 percent; and an increased risk of climate and other weather extremes such as floods and droughts.
But global warming and its consequences are not inevitable.
A full 19 states, including neighbors like
New Jersey and New York, already have developed and are developing state-level global warming mitigation programs.
Pennsylvania needs to join that group.
I have proposed a modest $200,000 investment so that the Department of Environmental Protection and other state agencies can inventory greenhouse gas sinks and emissions in Pennsylvania and develop a plan — including a clear timetable — for reducing greenhouse gas production and emidssions in this Commonwealth.
Some would argue that in these times of
lean budgets and public safety and security priorities,
such an investment is not appropriate.
I would disagree for two reasons.
First, more than 100 of the world's Nobel
Prize winners have signed a statement indentifying global warming, and this was after September 11th, as "the most profound danger to world peace in the upcoming years" because of the effect it will have on the world's poorest and most dispossessed nations and people.
The issues of our security and the health and safety of the world's people are inextricably linked.
It is not just a case of choosing between
the two, but of addressing one so that we can ensure the other.
Second, an investment of $200,000 in a budget of almost $30 billion is infinitesimal, especially when one considers the benefits such an investment will produce
for all Pennsylvanians — benefits like cleaner air and water, a healthier environment and significant energy conserva tion.
These benefits go well beyond the issue of global warming, and are desirable in and of themselves.
They will not be realized, however, without strong leadership from the state.
We must take that lead, and we must do it now.
It is imperative that we act on this issue because, unlike most other problems Pennsylvania faces, we will not get a second chance on this one.
I realize that sorting priorities for this year's state budget is an unenviable task, but I urge the committee to seriously consider investing in a plan of action that will put not just Pennsylvania but the rest is.' of the world on a path improving the environment, improving our health and safety, and improving our energy conservation and efficiency in the future.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you very much, Repre sentative Vital!.
I now offer the floor to Representative
Jess Stairs. Representative Stairs.
REPRESENTATIVE STAIRS: Thank you Chairman
Barley. It is always a pleasure to come in front of the
Appropriations Committee. As I look at the members here,
I feel very comfortable because I see a lot of friendly people to education. So, it is great to be here. I guess my only caveat would be I hope I am not here too late and all the money is gone. But if I am not, I have some good ideas for you.
I know these are tough times, but we have a very good committee so you guys and ladies will find the monies I know somehow.
But let me give you some requests for some more dollars and how we wrangle it or how we work on it,
I am certainly eager to work with you and try to be of help to our schools. I am going to be talking about our schools and some concerns that I have. I am going to be brief. I know you have a tight schedule and it is a busy day.
Cyber Schools, I'll start there, our districts are probably spending 18, $19 million on this and really the thing that upsets the districts, well, I shouldn't say the most, but very much so is the fact that they adopt their budget in June sometime or by the first of July, a couple weeks go by and so forth, and they get a bill.
Now that has to be frustrating to our districts. But we have to put a handle on this. Although I am a supporter of Cyber Schools, we have got to make them accountable and certainly accoutable in two ways. Fiscally with regard to monies and also the education that they are giving our students.
Special Ed — this is a sore spot for me for many years. The dollars aren't there to provide the services. A 1.5 increase in the funding is certainly not the answer. We were lucky last year to get 10 percent.
We have to get a couple more years at 10 percent if we want to solve the problem.
Good news maybe, the federal government wants to help a little more. We have to welcome that, but we have to do more at the state level to help special ed.
On the assessments, the recently enacted federal legislation that no children are left behind.
There ought to be assessments. Let's hope the money follows the assessment testing. I know there is going to be federal monies but is it going to be enough to meet the needs on assessments and are we going to have to pay for the extra, extra costs.
Vocational education — you know, we spent
$55.4 million and proposed in this budget the same amount.
It is not enough because this is such an important area in our education.
Last year we had the grant program. Although there was a freezing on some of these grant monies. There is no grant monies this year. We have to have the state-of-
the-art material as far as students to work with. We can't have them working on outdated, dilapidated and inade quate machinery or computers or what have you and expect them to go out in the workforce in the 21st Century and meet the needs of our businesses. It is so important that we have state-of-the-art equipment. I know one of the vo tech schools in my area went out and spent $100,000 for new equipment and the money was froze. They are caught holding the bag. What do we do? So that is just a small problem. I am sure it is magnified across the state.
Community colleges -- I guess as we look at the budget, they have done quite well and they deserve to do quite well. So I am not going to say too much at the community college level.
Higher education, our state related, state system, this is going to relate to higher tuitions. I know things are tight, but we have to do a little bit better on monies for higher education.
As I kind of wrap up, Philadelphia, I know we have to do something there, but it is difficult for me and other legislators to go back to our home districts and say, oh, yes, Philadelphia is getting $75 million plus the one percent. We are going to have find another $75 million or so to make it a little more palatable vote for us because it is difficult to not take more back to our districts. A one percent increase is certainly inadequate.
And just as a final comment, when you shortchange education, you shortchange the future. So I leave you with that word.
But one more word I guess I will leave you with. I am getting a lot of calls from retired teachers and state employees. I am sure you have too. We have to address the COLA. But I know we will do it somehow.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Stairs.
The next presenter, we have Representative
Michlovic. Is he with us?
(No response.)
Representative Clymer. Representative Michlovic in the nick of time. He was about to lose his spot.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Good morning, and thank you for affording me the opportunity to present comments on this year's budget appropriations. As you know, this is my final year representing the people of the 35th legislative district in Allegheny County, so I would like to use a few minutes of my time to discuss the legislative process dealing with the Governor's proposed budget.
Every year, afteer the Governor submits his budget and espouses its qualities in his address, we
hold hearings, discuss and debate and attach amendments
for projects and programs near and dear to the heart of
each one of us and our constituents. Every year we pass the budget in the House of Representatives and send it to our brethren in the Senate. Every year we receive a document back from the Senate that has stripped out all of our wishes and closely resembles the original. And every year we, Representatives of the people we claim to serve, pass this budget very nearly as the Governor proposed, and forego our responsibility to our constituents. This year let us stop this cycle of non-action and pass a budget that meets the needs and wishes of our people, not just those of the Governor.
Ibis budget simply does not do enough for the well being of the citizens of Pennsylvania. This budget spends far too much money on the prisons, while not spending nearly enough on education and human services. This budget gives too big a break to the business community, while endangering many homeowners with the burden of higher property taxes.
This year, the Department of Corrections budget will approach $1.3 billion, an increase of 56.6 percent during the Ridge/Schweiker administration. This year, the increase is 11.2 percent, or $130.4 million.
We cannot continue to escalate spending in Corrections at this rate. We have got to shift that to early childhood education and full day kindergarten or supervised day care that will significantly curtail those incarceration costs in the future.
At the same time, our colleges and universities will be hit with a three percent cut in funding this year and a five percent cut in the next year. Last fall, Penn
State projected a 7.84 percent tuition increase assuming a 4.25 percent in state support, while the University of
Pittsburgh projected a 4 percent tuition increase assuming a 4.3 percent increase in state support. Then, last month, the State System of Higher Education projected a 4 percent tuition increase assuming a 5.5 percent increase in state support. What will the tuition incrrease .have to be when Penn
State, Pitt, Temple and Lincoln eyeing a 5 percent across-the- board cuts in their appropriations? How high do tuitions have to rise before we consider better funding for our institutions, and removing ourselves from the No. 2 spot in the nationwide poll of states with the highest cost of college education?
Meanwhile, Governor Schweiker's proposal increases the line item for basic education by a mere $39.6 million, this is simply not enough. We need to do a better job of funding the education system in this Commonwealth.
With a basic education subsidy increase of just one percent, even Budget Secretary Robert Bittenbender himself conceded in the February 6th edition of the Allentown Morning Call, that the subsidy would force some districts to raise taxes saying rather coldly, "I think we will see property tax increases in many school districts." That is fine for him to say, he doesn't have run for election every two years promising to do something about this problem. Property taxes have increased $1.23 billion under the Ridge adminis tration and this year we'll see another dramatic increase unless we act to change it. Let's take $100 million of the increase for prisons and apply it to the basic education subsidy to a point where they won't have to have their school taxes raised. Add to it the $75 million reserved solely for the Philadelphia School District and we could provide about a 2.5 percent increase for every district in the state.
Another concern is that this budget will transfer $182 million from the tobacco fund, which is set up to pay specifically for health care programs, to the
General Fund. Instead of paying programs to improve the health of thousands of residents, the money would be used to eliminate budget deficits this year and "balance" the
2002-03 spending plan. That's not what we and Governor
Ridge promised with these tobacco monies and we should not allow it to happen.
Also ignored in this year's budget are the needs of our veterans. Gone is the $250,000 line item to the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs with the specific purpose of enhancing Disabled American Veterans
Transportation Network. This transportatiion web provides rides to Commonwealth veterans that need medical treatments at the various VA medical facilities across Pennsylvania.
The network not only assists disabled veterans, but all honorably discharged veterans within the Commonwealth.
We should do what we can to ensure that this line item is retained.
This budget cuts program after program and endangers property owners by creating the possibility of higher property taxes while continuing to bow to the interests of the business community. In this year's proposal Governor
Schweiker has proposed cutting the Capital Stock and Franchise tax by one-half percent instead of the planned one percent.
I commend the Governor for making an effort in face of a budgetary crisis, but it doesn't go far enough. Yet, after announcing his proposal, the business community reared its greedy head, demanding that the planned one percent ,, reduction be honored. I propose that we completely eliminate the reduction of the CS&FT for this year, restoring $91 million for other more necessary purposes. We cannot continue favoring the Business Community at the cost of all the other communities in Pennsylvania, especially those in our legislative districts. Let us not be held captive by business. Let's use every available resource to balance this budget.
Finally, I want to again urge you to increase the appropriation for Community Based Family Centers in the state, which do a tremendous job of supporting families in our communities all across Pennsylvania.
Thank you again for your time and attention.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Michlovic.
I now recognize Representative Clymer.
We are doing pretty well. Ijust want to remind the members of the five minute allocation. If they can stay within that time, I would appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE CLYMER: Or less.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Or less.
REPRESENTATIVE CLYMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
And I do not have any written testimony. I am going to just make a presentation on the issue of health care. Health care services has certainly been on the minds and been in the news media these past several weeks here in Pennsylvani i.
When we sometimes look at health care, we look at the most obvious signs that are available to us, the brick and mortar that have an assigned community hospital attached to it or a doctor's office. Health care services go deeper and further than the obvious physical buildings or signs that indicate that these are buildings where people can go and be healed.
Health care services and quality health care is a result of dedicated men and women. Whether they be doctors, nurses or hospital employees who faithfully perform their duties day in and day out. That comprises quality health care in Pennsylvania. And we are so fortunate to have some of the best health care not only in the United
States, but in the world right in our Commonwealth.
These outstanding health care centers mean that our citizens have access to some of the best physicians and to some of the best hospitals that I just mentioned.
In fact, it is quite interesting because as technology has increased, we have people who are cancer survivors.
A number of years ago that would be an item that would not be in our vocabulary. But because of the outstanding health care centers that we have, we are treating people and defeating some of these very serious and dangerous diseases that have impacted on Pennsylvanians, not only
Pennsylvanians but citizens around the world.
I have said that because the health care services provide thousands of high quality jobs, and that is always an issue here in the General Assembly. How do we create more jobs? How do we make our economy stronger?
Well, in Pennsylvania we can be very fortunate that, because of our outstanding health care centers, we have thousands of Pennsylvanians who are employed in this industry.
And so they make a major contribution, a major economic contribution to our economy. And because of this high technolgy that we have in our hospitals and the doctors and nurses that we are privileged to have here in the state, we see millions of dollars for research flowing into the
Commonwealth. And with those millions of dollars for reasearc i come new job opportunities, the expansion of the economy, and of course, providing ways to cure people from serious illnesses and disease.
We also have in this Commonwealth that was instituted back in 1994, a successful organ donor program.
And here again, it is only because we have the ability to have highly trained physicians, skilled physicians to make this program successful. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose some of the strength of our health care services because of problems that this General Assembly is now trying to resolve. But these organ donor programs provide new hope and in many cases new life for the recipient of 'those particular organs.
The outstanding health care programs do not go unnoticed by the pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, this is a growing and expanding industry in Pennsyl vania. And I can't help but believe they are in the state growing and expanding because they have access to our re- search centers, to hospitals, to doctors, and so the two
go hand in glove. Pharmaceutical jobs are outstanding
jobs paying high salaries with good benefits, and again, making a major contribution to the economic life of Pennsyl
vania .
Again, to emphasize the importance of having
strong medical health care services in Pennsylvania, Governor
Schweiker just recently in his Homeland Security Act that
he is proposing and for the people he plans to bring on
board, is asking the medical centers to be able to react
in a very expeditious way should there be biological warfare
or a nuclear fallout. He wants us to be prepared to do
that job.
Now, 1 am saying all of this because this
great health care industry that we have in this Commonwealth
is at risk. And even while I am making these comments
today, within a short time, the House will consider legislatioi
that will either make or break, from my perspective, the health care industry here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And this is a serious matter. And I trust that the House will do its duty as we look at legislation that we have
coming back from the Senate. Now this is a life and death
issue. It cannot be taken lightly. And as 1 just mentioned
in my remarks, Mr. Chairman, the reasons that we have to be appreciative and thankful that we have the wonderful medical centers and dedicated people in health care. Not only do they cure people and provide the jobs, but now the governor wants them to take additional responsibility regarding the biological warfare or a nuclear problem that may afflict this Commonwealth.
And so, I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts of appropriations today and look forward to working with everyone in maintaining the strength and health of our outstanding health care facilities here
in Pennsylvania. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Clymer.
Next is Representative Rich Grucela. Again,
I remind the members I am giving a five minute warning and I would, in order to keep us on schedule, we have a break in the afternoon, if we could stay within five minutes
I would really appreciate it. I don't mean to be rude, but I am going to be persistent and insistent.
Representative Grucela, I didn't take any of your time away for that admonishment. Go ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUCELA: Thank you and good morning. ^And.again, thank you Chairman Barley and Chairman
Evans and members of the Appropriations Committee for the
opportunity to address the Governor's 2002-2003 budget
proposal. I believe, listening to some of my colleagues
testify previously this morning, that you are going to
hear some recurrent themes. Although the governor has
called for no new taxes or tax increases and continues
certain tax cuts, I am concerned that we may be balancing
the state budget on the backs of local taxpayers, especially
in regard to our schools. With the property tax the major
source of funding for public schools, local school boards will invariably have toi increase this regressive tax which will
continue to adversely and unfairly affect our senior citizens.
Until we in the legislature muster the courage
to change the method of financing public education, one
of our priorities ought to be an increase in state aid
for our local school districts, the state aid for special
education and basic education. The very small increase
in these amounts is insufficient, and with all due respect
to my Philadelphia friends and colleagues, the disproportionate
allocation between the Philadelphia School District and
the other 500 school districts must be altered to reflect
a more fair and equitable distribution.
Budgets are a matter of priorities and it
is my hope that education would remain our top priority.
The governor quoted President Kennedy in his budget address
mentioning the tough choices and challenges that we must
make in government. But President Kennedy also said, "there is no greater asset in this country than an educated man or woman."
Uneducated or poorly educated children become uneducated or poorly educated adults and in the long run cost government more. Let's put the expenditure up front—an investment that will pay dividends for the future.
Additionally, I would ask that we reconsider our commitment to our state system of higher education and state related universities. Our colleges face cuts that will result in rising tuition costs to students and parents. As the son of a working class family, my parents were able to send me to East Stroudsburg University in our state system. That afforded me the opportunity to receive a college education. We need to continue this affordable option to Pennsylvania's students and parents.
While there are several other areas of the proposed budget I would prefer to alter, I realize we cannot be all things to all people and our current economic climate limits our resources.
Furthermore, the budget is a work in progress and hopefully by working together we can adopt a plan that is both fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth and within their ability to pay.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you very much, Repre sentative Grucela.
I now call Representative Larry Sather.
REPRESENTATIVE SATHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Appropriations Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to present my brief remarks to you this day.
Being fully aware of the economic challenges that are before us, I can appreciate the task you have before you and we have before us in the legislature to present a fiscally sound and yet responsive budget to the needs of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I supportthe governor's decision to utilize the Rainy Day funds in a time of economic challenge. That
is specifically what we had intended. I know others,
through the years, have encouraged us to spend those funds
down at one time or another. I support the expansion of
the tax forgiveness for our working families in Pennsylvania
and the continued commitment to the business community.
The Human Services Development Fund, I spoke
on this last year, which is administred by counties through
the Department of Public Welfare, is a flexible funding
source for which to fill the gaps in services left by tra ditional, categorial social service programs.
Most counties have experienced alarming increases for basic services provided through 'the HSDF_program and, with the downturn in the economy, human services in the counties will need even more discretion and ability to utilize these funds. I would ask that no funding changes be made to the Human Service Development Fund other than an increase.
Although I heard no definitive reference in the governor's address, I am hopeful that the commitment to address the needs of Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Programs will be continued by this administration. The commitment to these programs is vital in providing a quality of life, a quality of life for many of our citizens and vital also to the caregivers who courageously service their needs.
I would also request that consideration and support be given to the increased budget allowance to support t "improved- Medicaid reimbursements. I reside in an area where we are not in a MSA so our providers of services receive the lowest scale, if you will, for providing services.
Our rural physicians, particularly our pedia tricians, find it rather unfathomable to provide services to Medicaid patients, but the stagnation of reimbursement make this economically challenging, if you will, for them.
I am grateful for the commitment to public safety. I believe our local fire and emergency rescue teams need further support to provide them with all of their due needs.
The continued commitment to invest in our children and funding for quality public education should remain a priority of our state government.
Unfortunately, many of our Commonwealth's public schools lack the financial resources to provide their students with the advanced science curriculum needed for the workplaces and high technology industries of the future.
A solution to this matter is a partnership between public and private institutions of higher learning and participating public schools in our school districts.
A ''Science In Motion" program is in place at Juniata College in Pennsylvania, and with the assistance of state grants last year, the program has expanded across
Pennsylvania.
Keejping^ in line with the governor's vision for Pennsylvania, I plan to once again offer an amendment to provide financial support for a basic education-higher education science partnership and would encourage and appreciat 2 your favorable consideration.
With the economic difficulties Pennsylvania and the United States is experiencing, it is important for the state to provide help to individuals and businesses facing the loss of jobs.
The small business development centers (SBDC) have been instrumental in my area in working with firms and individuals to create new jobs by the information and assistance required to start new business ventures.
I support additional funding for the SBDCs to continue and enhance their economic development activities throughout the Commonwealth.
I want to thank you for your time and the opportunity to share my comments with you today.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Represen tative Sather.
We now call Representative John Yudichak.
REPRESENTATIVE YUDICHAK: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Chairman Evans, good morning. And members of the committee thank you for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts on the 2002-2003 budget.
I would like to briefly touch on several areas that are of great concern to the residents of northeaster i
Pennsylvania.
First, however, I want to applaud the Governor's commitment to homeland security. The Governor's bold investmen: in Pennsylvania's security infrastructure will benefit all Pennsylvanians. Unfortunately, that's where the good news ends'on this budget. The Administration has, again, missed the mark on three important issues—rising property taxes, health care uncertainty and support for local fire and ems departments.
The Commonwealth has a clear and, I believe, constitutional responsibility to be an equal partner in funding public schools and in helping school districts address property tax relief for local taxpayers* -
I fear the Administration's proposed one percent increase in funding for public education will, again, place an unfair burden on school districts to raise revenue needed to educate our children. The General Assembly must reject the Administration's basic education funding proposal and resolve to become a full partner in educating
Pennsylvania's children. Together, we must work to bridge the gap for struggling school districts and reform our failing school funding system.
Secondly, we have been told by the Administration that a crisis is looming in the FACE Program—yet there is no plan in place to ensure this vital program's stability.
Thenumber of Pennsylvania seniors without prescription drug coverage is growing. Access to programs like PACE or private insurance plans are dwindling. What standard of life are we condemning our seniors to if we deny them access to affordable prescription drug coverage? We must not let the PACE Program wither because tough choices have
to be made.
There is also much health care uncertainty
for Pennsylvania's low wage and unemployed workers. Utilizing
tobacco settlement funds, the Administration made a commitment
last year to provide basic health coverage to these Pennsyl-
vanians. Let's keep our word. With a sluggish economy
and increasing job losses, this is not a time to turn our
back on the 1.2 million Pennsylvania residents who remain
uninsured. We need to make the Adult Health Insurance
Program immediately available to these struggling families
in Pennsylvania.
Next, I would like to see money targeted
to our local fire and rescue services. The governor made
budget calls for an unprecedented $200 million for security
and homeland response. In the wake of September 11th,
this is essential and important. But what about the local
fire and ems services that are going to be the first responder i
to these emergencies? They are left out of the budget
again.
I sincerely hope that issues like property
tax relief, health care, and support for our local fire
and ems departments garner greater attentioni by the
General Assembly as the budget negotiations continue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the members of the committee for your attention. ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Representative
Yudichak.
I now call Representative Bob Bastian.
REPRESENTATIVE BASTIAN: Thank you to both
Chairmen of the Appropriations Committee to say few words.
I have four issues I would like to speak to very briefly. Three of these are statewide issues.
Number one, is just a local issue. And very quickly, the local issue is a flooding problem on the Stony Creek River which starts in Somerset County and goes toward Johnstown and finally ends up in Pittsburgh.
Hooversville is a small community on that Stony Creek River that floods often. We have helped that community in the past opportunities on grants and the Army Corps is now proceeding with design plans. However, the borough right north of there or downstream from Hooversville, Benson
Borough, however, the flood control and flood hazard control reduction money is in the DEP budget, but the redevelopment money has not been there and we would like to have that put back.
I realize that is a local program and maybe we can't do that this year, but the three statewide programs are this:
Our area ambulance association has been in contact with me different times to talk about medical assistance reimbursement. County medical assistance pays
less than 15 percent of the average for ambulance transport,
but at the same time their costs have gone up since 1990,
108 percent for employee cost, 200 percent for vehicle
and equipment cost and 900 percent vehicle insurance cost.
It makes it very difficult for this organization, like
other ambulance organizations around the state, to not
have that medical assistance go up.
The third issue I want to speak to very
quickly is the Pennsylvania Rail Freight Assistance Program.
That was cut by Governor Ridge before he left office from
8.5 million to 4.2 million. Somerset County has a great
coal industry. We depend a lot on rail shipment, and at
the same time if we don't keep those monies coming, we
don't fix those crossings, those grade crossings. Those
bridges need fixed and the cracked rails need fixed.
So we need to put that money back in for the Pennsylvania
Rail Freight Assistance Program.
Finally, and I think is as important as
anything, is the Governor's Veterans Outreach and Assistance
Center. This program was also cut. Governor Ridge took
a half million dollars away from this federal money that
went to the Veterans Outreach and Assistance Center.
We have people in this country who have protected us through
the second World War and the Korean War and the Vietnam War and we need to take care of these people. It has never had any increase and it is 22 years that this program has been going. They do assist the veterans in many different benefits, coordinate activities with all the VA clinics.
And I think it is very important to put this half million dollars back in.
I appreciate again the Appropriations Committee listening to this testimony, and hopefully we can do some thing about these programs. Thank you very much.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Representa tive Bastian.
I now call Representative Mike Sturla.
REPRESENTATIVE STURLA: Thank you, Chairman, members of the Appropriations Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to testify today.
Consistent with past years, I would urge improvements to the budget that would benefit urban communitiet and neighborhoods throughout the state. With shrinking revenues, it is imperative that we invest in programs that get the best return for our tax dollars. This includes not borrowing money to fund a tax cut as was proposed in the governor's budget.
First, I would urge committee members to craft a budget that compliments proposals to cut local school property taxes. Governor Schweiker asked for action on this issue in his budget address, but then failed to include it in his proposed budget.
Last year, I complimented then Governor
Ridge for taking a step in the right direction with significait increases in his budget with regard to education.
School districts in many small urban areas and other older suburban areas, as well as areas like Phila delphia and Pittsburgh, with shrinking property tax bases and dwindling average household incomes were and still are, in many cases, near their breaking point.
For. us the education funding portion of this budget was welcome relief last year. I cautioned however at that time, that we needed to know that these types of funding changes would be permanent and not just one time allocations. Unfortunately, the governor's proposal this year reenforces my worst fears. Structural changes to education funding formulas should accompany this budget in order to assure stability, not just deliver emergency relief, as was the case last year.
Instead of spending money studying the already documented benefits of early childhood education, we need to fund programs like Head Start and other early childhood education programs. Had we been doing that since the beginniig of the Ridge administration, we would be reaping the benefits now with improved grade school test scores. We have lost a lot of time, but it is never too late to start.
As an economic development tool related to education, I would again propose that we earmark some state budget dollars to promote higher education as an
"industry", if you will, in Pensylvania. We have a wealth of nationally recognized universities, both private and public in the state of Pennsylvania. This non-smokestack
"industry" provides high paying jobs and an educated workforce and imports millions of dollars from worldwide locations into the Pennsylvania economy. Even if, upon graduation, an out-of-state student decides not to stay in Pennsylvania, we at worst had a "tourist" that spent about $100,000 in the state.
Homeland security is an obvious priority also. But we should be investing in strengthening public health systems and adding to local police, fire and emergency services. An investment in prevention will preclude the necessity for more swat teams and other reactionary measures.
Also, we need to invest in the CHIP Program to expand coverage and prevent illness instead of reacting to the cost of emergency treatment. We can do that by using tobacco funds to expand CHIP for parents and by imple menting presumptive eligibilty for all children using exist ing funds in the CHIP Program.
I would request that approximately five million dollars be earmarked for a home ownership mortgage
insurance guarantee program also with the Pennsylvania
Housing Finance Agency administering that. By allowing
FHFA in cooperation with private mortgage insurance providers
to underwrite the risk of the last five percent loan-to-value
ratio, \of a mortgage; collateralized with the five million
dollars, you allow banks to place these "in house" mortgages on the secondary market and, in turn, free up hundreds of millions of dollars and private banking dollars for
reinvestment in Pennsylvania communities.
I would appreciate your consideration of
these and other innovative proposals that will help stretch
the finite dollars available in this year's state budget.
Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Representa
tive Sturla.
At this time I would like to call Representa
tive Ed Wojnaroski.
REPRESENTATIVE WOJNAROSKI: Good morning.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear this morning.
This morning I would like to discuss my priorities for the 2002-2003 General Fund Budget. My primary
focus today is educational funding.
To put it simply, I am concerned. I am concerned about the five percent cut in state funding for the University of Pittsburgh. I am concerned about the funding for basic and special education. And I am concerned about the lack of an increase in funding for vocational technical schools.
The University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown is the largest campus of Pitt, and it happens to be located within my district in Cambria County. The majority of its students are from the area—fully 29 percent of UPJ's students are from Cambria County. Another 30 percent come from the adjacent six counties. Unfortunately, this region also has the highest unemployment rate in the state.
Families are struggling—they are struggling with putting their children through college while facing unemployment prospects and shrinking savings accounts because of the economic recession and the falling stock markets.
If the University of Pittsburgh receives the proposed five percent state funding cut, families with college students almost certainly will be facing tuition hikes. This year alone, tuition increased 7.5 percent at Pitt. And last year, at the University of Pittsburgh projected a four percent tuition increase assuming a 4.3 percent increase in state support. I expect this projected tuition increase to grow larger now that Pitt is facing a five percent cut from the state. At the" K through 12 level, local school
districts are only due to receive a one percent increase
for basic education, while special education is proposed
to receive a 1.5 percent increase. These minimal increases
are not enough to compensate for inflation costs, nor school
districts1 investment losses and increased employee retirement
contribution rates.
In addition, vocational education—a necessity
for ensuring that Pennsylvania has skilled workers to meet
the needs of employers—is not slated to receive any increase
in funding. As it stands now, vocational education is
funded only at 86 percent of basic and special education
funding levels. A lack of an increase only ,"furthers the
discrepancies in funding. Additionally, vocational educa
tion's adult programs are only funded at 80 percent of
the current level of state subsidy for community colleges,
yet many vo-tech schools, including the Greater Johnstown
Career and Technology Center, provide significant workforce
development training.
The basic education curriculum is academic
and college-based, but 60 percent of high school students
do not go to college. Vocational education deserves a more equal footing with basic education.
Another point I find distressing is that
there is no money being allocated for equipment grants for vo-tech schools. In order to properly train displaced
workers and the workers of the future, schools must have
the right equipment that meets industrial standards, with
the most up-to-date technology. In the constantly changing
marketplace and with advancements in technology, it is
imperative that our educational tools reflect the needs
of the 21st century. Pennsylvania cannot afford to be left
behind.
It is also important to fund our community
colleges. In economic downturns, many students tend to
enroll in the nearby community colleges for their higher
education instead of moving to a costly four-year program.
Therefore, I am happy to see that the budget does provide
community colleges with a 4.4 percent increase.
Now, before I conclude my remarks, I would
like to petition this committee on a related matter: the
capital budget. The bill that is currently before you,
I would ask the committee to consider a $3.5 million appropri
ation for renovations to the Point Stadium in Johnstown.
The Point Stadium is a historical centerpiece
of Johnstown. It is a primary venue for sports in the region
and an important part of the downtown landscape. Built
in 1926, it underwent phase one of its first major improve ment in 1997, the year of the flood. But the remaining
phases of work were never completed due to lack of funding. Meanwhile, the stadium has begun to deterior ate and is near state of collapse. I ask you for your help.
The stadium stands as a key gateway to the downtown. For many, including the numerous tourists in our city.
The Point Stadium is the heart of Johnstown.
We want to keep it that way, but the window of opportunity
is closing. If we do not act soon, the historical structure will face a wrecking ball. I need your help.
If anyone on the committee would like addition
al1' information on the stadium project, I would be happy to provide you with the information you require.
Thank you very much for your attention.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Repre
sentative Wojnaroski.
We are going to try to conclude today's hearing by having three more members testify before we conclude and break at noon.
At this time I would call Representative
Paul Costa and remind the remaining members that will be testifying today to try to remain within the five minute guidelines. Representative Costa.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. How are you doing? Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you to discuss what I believe should be the priorities within the proposed General Fund budget.
My testimony today will focus on three points: relief for property owners, funding for: our local emergency services personnel and additional funding for higher education.
Right now, property owners in Allegheny
County are involved in a disastrous property assessment system that is riddled witf errors, as evident by the 11 percent aggregate increase in property valuations from 2001 to
2002.
But even while Allegheny County faces a difficult problem, the issue of skyrocketing property taxes is occuring all over the Commonwealth.
School districts faced with drecreasing funding from the state, are turning to their local tax base to make up the shortfall. As a result, homeowners, particularly senior citizens and others living on fixed incomes, are being hit the hardest.
And while homeowners keep seeing their property taxes increase, businesses in our Commonwealth continue to receive tax cuts.
We cannot continue to let property owners foot the bill of increased educational costs. There has to be a better way. I believe there is, which is why I supported House Resolution 386 that directs the Legislative
Budget and Finance Committee to study the property tax system in the Commonwealth to determine how property taxes can be reduced and to recommend alternative funding sources.
I am very interested to learn what the commit tee will find because we simply must do something about the state of the school property tax.
Another item missing from the governor's budget is the funding of our local emergency services personnel..
Many of us know the valuable services our firefighters and paramedics perform every day, and that was further recognized after their immediate response to the terrible attacks of last year.
The governor's budget allows an unprecedented
$200 million for security and emergency response, but we also need to consider funding for those who are serving in the front lines at the local level—the first responders to a crisis.
The state firefighters grant program in
2000 was an unqualified success and I believe we again should be offering our support to these fine community servants.
The final item of my remarks relates to the reduction of state funding for higher education. Schools within the state system as well as Penn State and the Univers- ity of Pittsburgh all have projected tuition increases based on receiving increases in their state funding. Now that these schools may; have to deal with three to five percent reductions, it is logical that these tuition increase projections will go even higher.
The governor keeps emphasizing the need to stop our Commonwealth's brain drain of young people and the importance of workforce development. My question is how can Pennsylvania raise concerns about these issues and then cut the funding that would improve the situation?
Yesterday an official from the University of Pittsburgh told me recently that 85 percent of the recent graduates are either employed or in graduate school. Of that, 75 percent of them remained in the area after gradua tion. These figures show that Pitt has been successful in educating and keeping young professionals in the Common wealth, but reducing state funding to our universities could create long-term harm by encouraging our students to attend colleges out of state. I believe that we need to recondsider the funding reductions for higher education within Pennsylvania.
And again, I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to voice my concerns. Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Representa- tive Costa. I now call on Representative Benninghoff.
REPRESENTATIVE BENNINGHOFF: Copies for the committee will be here shortly. I apologize we weren't able to get them sooner, but I am not the best typist.
I would like to thank the Chairmen (Majority and Minority) and the Committee for affording me time to
share some comments regarding the budgetary process as well.
You will probably be surprised and pleased,
to learn that I come before you today to ask for no additional dollars. While many people come before your Committee
in the next several weeks requesting additional funding and what the governor felt the Commonwealth could afford,
I am not here to do that.
Our country has faced several signifcant challenges in the past six to eight months. America is a great country because it continues to persevere in these times of adversity, and continues to adapt and make adjustments v&tb&x than falter in the face of economic challenges. Pennsylvania is no different. In the days of the first original thirteen colonies we were called the Keystone
State, a name that we continue to garnish. Pennsylvania was given that title because of our social, economical and political power and influences that we held. Pennsylvania was, and needs to continue to be the Keystone State in this great nation.
A keystone is a sign of strength, whose strategic placement holds all the other stones around it together, especially when under great pressure.
The Appropriations Committee has that very same roll here in State government, as it serves the great people of this Commonwealth. This nation is at war, and we here in Pennsylvania must not lose sight of that. All of the United States are a part of that military effort and we must stand united on all fronts.
I look at the current revenue short falls as an opportunity for the legislature and your committee to re-evaluate the role of state government. What the core functions are of state government. Who all do we have a moral responsibility rather than a politial liability to be funding? Government cannot, and should not,, try to be all things to all people. We must tax people less so as to allow them to keep more of their money and empowering them to do more for themselves. More importantly, allowing the people to choose where they wish to spend their money.
Government at all levels SHOULD NOT be a redistribution center for the public's hard earned money. This process has enabled people to believe that government can and should be responsible for paying for all services that affect their lives.
Government enabling strips people of the knowledge that government has NO money of their own. Governmeit never spends a single dollar that they have not first taken from the pockets of the taxpayer.
This budget cycle gives the Keystone state the opportunity to refocus on the core functions of state government such as safety and protection of its citizens, a good quality transportation infrastructure, and a strong, progressive public education system. By investing in these core functions of government, the quality of our state economy will be enhanced automatically as will the strength of the private business sector. It will encourage entrepreneui s to come to Pennsylvania and those here to reinvest more money into Pennsylvania and create more family sustaining jobs.
To do this, we must limit Government spending.
First and foremost, this budget should require a true, minimum five percent decrease in spending for all state agencies and departments. This must be done to show that we will lead by example.
While I am glad about the millions of dollars state government has cut taxes over' the past seven years as well as the monies we have been able to invest for rainy day, I have been concerned that we continue to spend addi- tional dollars in good economic times.
When I first ran for office in 1996. the
State budget was approximately $16 billion dollars. Now
entering my sixth year, we have a spending budget just
shy of $21 billion. These increases are occurring at the
same time when our state's population has remained around
12 million. That means that roughly about the same amount of people are paying for a budget that has increased almost
20 percent. This trend must stop and your committee must help lead the way. Most family incomes have not grown at the same rate. In tough economic times or when taxes
are raised, families must make tough decisions as to what
they can afford versus what they need. Government must do no less. If we do not control state spending, we will
require more from the taxpayers, thus forcing them to make
the tough decisions that the policymakers; should make.
For the past two budget cycles, 14 members of the House of Representatives, myself included, proposed a zero-growth budget. This budget idea, while appearing radical to some at the time, would have slowed spending growth. This budget idea would have additionally allowed
us to reduce the Capital Stock and Franchise tax by 25 percent a year and eliminating it over four years. In addition, a zero growth budget would have allowed us to eliminate the inheritance tax, something I have been working on to accomplish for a while, by 50 percent for two years and it would have been gone. This would have allowed more small businesses and our agricultural community to be better able to help themselves and growu stronger. Instead we have instituted taxpayer subsidized farmland preservation programs, often times funded by citizens who don't own the land. We all love open green space, but it is wrong for government to take the peoples' tax dollars then turn around and decide whose farmland we should save. Smart land preservation programs begin with lifting the tax burden on the private landowner so he can afford to keep his own land in private production. This is more financially bene ficial to all in the process.
We must move away from the idea that just because the fiscal calendar year changes from June 30th to July 1st, we need to be spending and funding more than we did just 24 hours prior.
In closing, I would recommend that this budget process be global enough to encompass the next two years or more of revenue projections. I would advocate an annual state department spending reduction program, such as we did with PRIME. Additionally, we should consider speeding up the time in which we, the state, liquidates unclaimed property that is held for years and years in state warehouses. We should eliminate that within two years, thus putting more money into the general budget and reducing the cost to be holding the property. There are other small areas to reduce the cost of state government, but we must lead by example. A small example would be eliminating the newspaper distributions we have throughout the capitol, especially those that are available on the internet. Those small collective reductions such as these can add up to thousands of dollars. Finally, we must stop initiating any additional non-preferred line items, and cap or eliminate those that do not fall under the core functions of state government nor preserve the health and safety of Pennsylvania's citizens.
Tough times call for tough decisions. I believe your committee has the ability to do what is right, even though it may not always be popular. The alternative to making tough decisions and spending reductions, is not pretty nor desirable. I remain willing to assist you with this in any way. Today's tough choices will give us a better tomorrow for Pennsylvania.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the committee for the time to testify before you.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Representa tive Benninghoff.
Our final presenter this morning will be
Representative Turzai. REPRESENTATIVE TURAI: Good morning, Repre sentatives .
I applaud the governor's attempt to balance the budget and to prevent any additional tax increase.
His budget proposal is an important starting point. I think its modesty and its focus on not increasing taxes are very important components.
Pennsylvanians are, I believe, not looking for additional programs. But prefer to see that we here in the General Assembly are providing adequate funds and efficient use of those funds to take care of those areas with which we are specifically charged; law enforcement, security, emergency response protection, education, and infrastructure and particularly our roadways.
I have one specific item that I would appreciate bringing to this committee today. Our public schools have to pick up the tab with respect to certain state mandates.
As a result, those mandates directly impact the amount of local taxes levied, particularly property taxes. One specific mandate that a school district in my legislative district has had to adhere to and pay for is the use of school funds to improve a state roadway. This particular school district is the fastest growing school district in Allegheny County and its student population has almost doubled over the past 15 years. Demographic studies conducted by the district indicate that this substantial enrollment increase will continue over the next ten years. With the increase in student enrollment, the district undertook major renovations and construction of new facilities.
As a result, the school district was required to widen the entrances to the campus and to put in turning lanes at both entrances. Typically whenever new entrances or expanded entrances to a state road are desired or required, the entity or person seeking that entrance must acquire a highway occupancy permit from PennDOT. The current infra structure leading to this campus was deemed to be inadequate to accommodate the anticipated growth of the secondary school enrollment, and the district agreed to construct two turning lanes on state roads leading to the main en trances of the secondary campus.
The district has worked closely with local
PennDOT officials to secure permits for those projects.
A great deal of planning, designing, utility relocation and land acquisition was necessary for the approval of these projects. Their estimated costs are over a million dollars.
The financial burden for both of these turning lane projects falls on the school district. These are significant educational dollars for improvement to state roads. When I spoke to PennDOT officials to help look for financial assistance from the state for this project,
I was told that the only available state monies for which
this project might be available were from the TIP. Yet
there was little likelihood of receiving TIP money for
this project for two reasons. First, in the scheme of
road projects for Allegheny County in southwestern Pennsyl
vania, a project like this would not be listed as a high
priority. And second, it takes significant time to get
on the list and a project such as this would not be fore
seeable at the time necessary to make the application.
At a minimum, it seems to me that there
should be a separate pool of money to be used to pay or
at least defray costs incurred in improving state roads
when those improvements are necessitated by school construction
and which would be borne by our public school districts.
Public schools should not have to pay for road improvements,
particularly on state roads. Public schools should not
have to utilize their funds, which are collected to educate
their children, to improve state roadways. Public schools
should not be treated like a developer.
In its 2002 legislative platform, the Pennsyl
vania School Board Association supported legislation that
would exempt school districts from designing, constructing
and financing any improvements to municipal or state road ways. This concept was first proposed by Betsy Kane, past President of the School Board for Pine Richland. While
different from the suggestion I put forth today, a separate
pool of funds for state roadway improvements as a result
of school construction,, it seeks to accomplish the same
goal.
I thank you very much for having this opportuni :y
to speak with you here today. Just as an add on, I would
like to say that I do think that it would be important,
given the attacks on our country and the continuing security
threat, to adequately fund law enforcement personnel and
emergency response personnel. I would like to voice my
support for House Bill 5 which would establish the volunteer
fire company and volunteer ambulance grant 'whose prime sponsor
is my colleague, Representive Karl Boyes. Thank you very,
very much.
ACTING CHAIRMAN STERN: Thank you, Repre
sentative Turzai. That concludes the presentation by the
members, the House of Representatives for this morning.
This committee meeting will adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow morning when we will begin with the Public Utility Commission
followed by the Office of Consumer Advocate, the Office
of Small Business Advocate and at eleven o'clock the Tobacco
Settlement Programs. Beginning at two o'clock tomorrow
afternoon, we will finish with the remaining presentations
by the other house members who have not had an opportunity today to give their remarks to this committee.
So this committee now stands adjourned until
9:30 tomorrow morning, Room 140, Main Capitol Building.
(Whereupon at 12:00 noon the hearing
was adjourned.)
THURSDAY FEBRUARY 14, 2002 1:35 p.m. CHAIRMAN BARLEY: I would like to call the
hearing to order and ask Representative Markosek to be seated
by the microphone and he has his five-minute opportunity
to present the testimony that he would like to present
on the upcoming budget. Representative'Markosek, you
have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE MARKOSEK: Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman, staff.
As the Chairman mentioned, my name is Represent
ative Joe Markosek. The subject of my testimony here today
is funding for mass transit in Pennsylvania.
By way of personal introduction, I have
been a representative now for 20 years representing the
25th Legislative District which is in Allegheny County
as well as Westmoreland County and the suburbs of Pittsburgh.
For most of those 20 years, I have served on the Transpor
tation Committee. And as a result of that service, I have
had chance to visit rail systems, particularly high speed rail systems not only here in the United States, but in
Spain, France, England, Belgium and Germany including the mag/lev. I have also served on the Allegheny County Port
Authority Board of Directors,;- the Port Authority is the transit unit in Allegheny County, for five years.
State funding for mass transit has been seriously neglected for the last several years. For example, both the current fiscal year budget and next year's proposed fiscal year budget have a zero percent increase for the mass transit line item. This is tantamount to drastic, even draconian cut, in the line item given that the transit costs are rising at a rapid pace.
Also, back in 1991, the last year that our
Commonwealth experienced a deficit before this current year, some of us who are still serving in the legislature or were serving then created the Pennsylvania Transportation
Assistance Fund or PTAP, which was an ecclectic group of new taxes on such items as tires, batteries, rental vehicles and utility property taxes that are known as PURTA tax that serviced mass transit needs at that time. Unfortunately, these so-called PTAP taxes have never produced the expected added revenues for transit that was predicted back in 1991.
They continually fell short of their goal and the shortfall was compounded from year to year.
In fact, perhaps the most successful tax of this group, the PURTA tax was basically phased out two years ago by the promulgation of utility deregulation in
Pennsylvania. This has resulted in a cumulative loss of approximately $50 million through this tax over the last two years.
The Administration promised to replace this tax by other means, but that promise has never materialized.
In conclusion, I offer four recommendations for this committee and the legislature to consider. One, increase the mass transit line item to reflect an increase of three percent in lieu of the current zero percent.
Two, develop an alternative to the demise of the PURTA tax perhaps through a dedicated portion of the current sales tax. Or I should say a greater dedicated portion of the current sales tax.
Three, encourage the passage of House Bill
1498, which I have sponsored,swhichf will remove the cap from the current dedicated sales tax that is dedicated to mass transit. Currently that stands at 1.2 percent of the sales tax up to a cap of $75 million. House Bill
1498 would remove that cap and allow that to flow to the amount that would more than likely be something higher than $75 million.
And four, quiz the staff of the Department of Transportation when they testify in front of your committee as to how they can allow mass transit funding to fall so
far behind.
I close by saying that we legislators cannot
allow the 390 million rides per year commuters in this
Commonwealth to be let down year after year. More importantly, we cannot allow the lack of mass transit funding to affect
or threaten the more than five million para-transit trips
each year provided Pennsylvanians with disabilities.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the
committee for listening.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Markosek.
The next presenter will be Representative
Samuelson. Mr. Samuelson, you have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELSON: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The budget that Governor Schweiker presented
to the General Assembly last week can be described as austere with the overall budget projected to increase by six-tenths of a percent. The General Assembly faces many difficult choices in the weeks to come as we examine the choices
the Governor has made and as we consider amendments to reallocate funding and readjust priorities within the budget where appropriate.
The main issue I would like to address today is education funding — education funding for all of Pennsyl vania's children.
We all know that Governor Schweiker has proposed a one percent increase in basic education funding for 500 school districts in Pennsylvania, and an increase that is significantly larger than that for one school dis trict — the Philadelphia School District.
First, let's examine the numbers. Newspapers across the state and Governor Schweiker himself have talked about his proposal for an additional $75 million appropria tion for the Philadelphia School District.
Actually, the proposed increase for the
Philadelphia schools is higher than that. In the Governor's plan, Philadelphia schools would get both the $75 million special line item and also the one percent that is being proposed for all school districts across Pennsylvania.
(For Philadelphia, this means an additional $6.9 million next year.)
Taking these two items together, Governor
Schweiker is proposing that the Philadelphia School District receive and additional $81.9 million in basic education funding.
What is astonishing to those of us who represent other areas of the state is that the Governor, at the same time, is proposing that students, parents, school boards and taxpayers in all other communities would have to get by next year with just a one percent increase in state funding.
That is not acceptable. We should be talking about educational opportunites for all of Pennsylvania's children.
Let's look at these same numbers taken together.
Governor Schweiker is actually proposing a $114.6 million increase in basic education funding. This includes:
His proposed $75 million special line item for Philadelphia
And an additional $39.6 million to fund the one percent increase in basic education for all 501 school districts -- including Philadelphia
This budget includes $114.6 million in new education dollars and that represents a 2.89 percent increase in basic education funding when you compare it to last year's basic education line item of about $3.95 billion.
The problem is that Governor Schweiker is
choosing to distribute the $114.6 million in an extremely
inequitable way.
81.9 percent for Philadelphia
32.6 for everyone else.
We can choose otherwise. We should consider
the education of all of Pennsylvania's children. 7 1
This inequity is dramatically illustrated when you calculate the percentage increase in state funding for each school district in Pennsylvania. i An 11.7 percent increase for students in Philadelphia
A one percent increase for students in the entire rest of the state
I brought along one state phone book from my office to illustrate the proposed one percent increase for 500 school districts in Pennsylvania from Bethlehem to Scranton to Reading to Erie.
I also scoured my district office and my capitol office and I found 11 other phone books -- I had to go back many years of phone books, but 11 other phone books to illustrate the 11.7 percent increase that Governor
Schweiker is proposing for Philadelphia.
Let me say as clearly and as strongly as
I can, that any budget that includes an 11.7 percent increase for students in one school district and a one percent increase for students who live anywhere else in Pennsylvania is unacceptable.
Citizens across Pennsylvania are outraged by this unequal allocation — and they could very well pick up one of these phone books and call their legislator or call our Governor. I know that legislators on both sides of the aisle also feel very strongly that this budget proposal has to be changed, and I know that Republican and Democratic
House leaders are working hard for a fairer solution.
I appreciate your efforts.
Let's work together on behalf of all of
Pennsylvania's children, and let's rework this education budget to address the interests of students and taxpayers in all areas of Pennsylvania.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Samuelson.
I now call Representative Scrimenti for a presentation before the committee. You have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE SCRIMENTI: Good morning,
Mr. Chairman. Does the committee request copies of my testimony? ,
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: No, that is fine. The court reporter would like one please.
REPRESENTATIVE SCRIMENTI. Greetings and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,and members of the Appropria tions Committee as well as staff and citizens. I thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify today.
I find it very difficult to muster excitement for the proposed budget, a budget that fails to properly address public education funding for our children's academic
success, investments for our brafe fire fighters and support
for early childhood development and the successful Head
Start program.
Once again, the proposed budget fails to make a fair and adequate investment in our public education
students and their school districts. The only significant
increase in education is targeted for Philadelphia, which will do nothing to help purchase textbooks, update curriculum
or ensure the most up-to-date academic equipment for the
schools in my Erie County district. It also won't do any
thing to stem the skyrocketing property tax burden on local
residents.
As we move forward with the process, I ask
the committee to take a better and more honest look at how we are funding our schools -- in effect the future of our state.
This budget also does not reflect the under
standing that our brave and hearalded fire fighters need modern equipment and training to fight fires, protect lives and property. It also doesn't show an understanding that
it takes hours and hours of volunteered time to raise the funds necessary to keep these fire departments going.
Should the safety and security of our communities depend on the succaaas of a s^ss^g&t&H dinner or large bingo events? Is our safety a game of chance? The answer to
both of these questions is obviously no; especially when
you take into•consideration volunteer fire, fighters7 save
state taxpayers six billion dollars each year.
In turning back to our children, it is widely
recognized that Head Start builds for children a stronger
foundation for education and confidence to progress through
school. Head Start, which is a federally funded program, has received drastic funding cuts in recent years. Our
state has failed and will fail again with this proposed budget to step up to the plate and support this program.
Families also have budgets, and their limits
are being stretched to provide their children with this vital educational jump-start.
he early years of a child|s education are very critical to future success in education. This has been documented time and time again. I believe it would a wise investment to invest in this program, that has a proven success, to promote the sucess of our students.
We should not be throwing our dollars into programs that are untested and unproven, while solid founded one's like Head Start are struggling financially.
In closing, I aga'in would like to thank the
committee for listening to my concerns. With today's economy,
I know this process will be a difficult one and tough choices will have to be made. But those choices should not include sacrificing the, betterment of our children and the safety of our residents. Please keep those two issues at the forefront during these appropriations.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Tharik_you, Representative
Scrimenti.
I now ask Representative Travaglio to come before the committee for his presentation. Representative
Travaglio.
REPRESENTATIVE TRAVAGLIO: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today.
My message is straightforward. I simply ask for the reopening of our community health centers that were closed. We've lost a real asset to our communities and no longer have the added security of having such a facility right in our own backyard. In fact, every county should have their own health center. You will hear more about my proposal in the next few minutes.
When Butler County's State Health Center closed, we, along with two other counties across the Common wealth, lost a real asset. Prior to their initial closings, state health centers served as a central location in cases of countywide emergency. Our current state health system has eliminated the one-stop shopping appeal of these commun ity health centers.
Before theyclosed, the centers could quickly and easily assist residents in emergencies, and could provide basic health-care services, including immunizations, sexually transmitted disease testing, HIV/AIDS testing and counseling and tuberculosis testing.
It seems logical that with anthrax scares and the threats of bioterrorism, that we would need those community health centers more than ever before. The face of America has forever changed and we do not know when centers like these will be needed in the event of cata strophic emergencies. Furthermore, the day-to-day function provides for jobs as well as a haven for medical necessity.
Residents of our Commonwealth need the security of knowing there is a central location in their community where they can turn for their health care and other assistance in an emergency. This is not too much to ask. This is today's reality.
And for that very reason, I plan to introduce legislation soon that would reestablish health-care centers in each county in the Commonwealth. In doing so, we could promise residents of our state quick and easy access to emergency and basic health care and information. My bill would locate each center in the county seat, since these municipalities already play a central role as a hub for each county.
Please imagine, if you will, that an attack were to break out over western Pennsylvania. Although neighboring counties each have their own medical centers, an emergency would cause a potential backlog and'&utler county residents could be left without assistance. It seems far more logical to have health centers in each county rather than regional. There is no, way thae,, if in the event of an emergency, neighboring centers will be able to support all of Butler's residents, keeping in mind that Butler County is home to Slippery Rock University, Butler
County Community College and the growing area like Cranberry
Township.
Without state funding, however, our counties will be unable to support local facilities. It is important, especially in these fear-filled days, that we make every
Pennsylvanian feel safe. A county health center right in your backyard is certainly one way to keep our constituents calm and safe.
I ask you all to think about your constitutents, think about their neighbors, think about their safety and their health and think about how much reinstating county health systems would benefit them. Times and demands are changing, and so should decisions that hurt our citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I hope this initiative finds support during the budget
negotiations. Thank you very kindly.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you very much, Repre
sentative Travaglio.
We now ask Representative Wansacz to come
up for his five-minute presentation. I now recognize Repre
sentative Wansacz.
REPRESENTATIVE WANSACZ: Good afternoon,
Mr. Chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee:
thank you for providing this opportunity to testify today.
We are all well aware of the less than bountifu .
economic climate under which this budget has been developed.
During lean times we must focus and organize our priorities.
Creating a budget is about priorities and I would like
to highlight my priorities for the 2002-2003 budget.
First is education. For years, we have
spent more and more on prisoners while shortchanging our
local schools. And in the proposed budget it looks like
this trend will continue. A priority should be to edcuate
our children and give them the tools necessary to succeed
so that they will not end up in prison. Thus, by committing more state dollars to education, we should relieve the burden of property owners and maybe stop the overcrowding
of our prisons. How much longer will we depend on property
taxes for education funding and how much longer will we
allow the inequity of funding created by this system to dictate the quality of education the state's children receive?
I will not be passive until we can answer, "no longer"
to these questions.
Higher education also is pushed to the ropes with this budget. We will see a repeat performance of
last year as state-owned and state related institutions
spike tuition.
To assist the residents of the 114th District and personally as a proud graduate of a state-system school,
I am encouraging additional funding be made available for higher education. Our students currently go to the third most expensive state schools in the country and after this decrease in allocation our students will probably go the the second or most expensive state schools in the country.
So much for Brain gain and wanting to keep our youth here
in this Commonwealth.
Another priority that seems to have been misplaced in this budget ,is providing affordable prescription drugs for seniors. As the state's population continues to grow older and older, drug prices continue to rise, the pressure on lawmakers to find a solution increases.
We should not allow this budget to ignore the need for affordable prescription drugs for seniors. What this budget has done is again ignore the hard-working seniors who chose
to be frugal and save a little bit for the future not knowing that a life-saving prescription drug would force them not to be able to heat their house or buy food. How about an increase for our older ciitizens. They deserve it.
We also should ask ourselves, "What is the price for safety?" House Democrats have made it known that volunteer fire fighters save the Commonwealth an estimatec
six billion dollars each year. While they struggle to raise enough money to stay afloat, they save us six billion dollars, and in this budget we don't throw one dime their way. This is unacceptable. I support an annual budget allocation to our hard working emergency service volunteers.
One last priority should be our environment.
I am appalled the Governor's budget freezes $50 million in the Growing Greener funding. I am sure it looked good to the accountants who cut the corners to make this budget appear to work. But by freezing $50 million, we allow drinking water to remain unsanitary, watersheds -ip^-fcay polluted and drainage systems to remain clogged. The health and safety costs that could mount from this cut would far exceed $50 million. The environment is the legacy that we leave behind for our future generations. They deserve the right to a good clean environment. Once again, I ask the committee not to cast aside our most important priorities. I request for the amount of funding for education, prescription drugs, volunteer fire fighters and Growing Greener be reviewed and increased.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share my priorities for Pennsylvania with the committee.
Please consider these issues which are vital to improving the quality of life for all residents - a priority that we should all share as lawmakers.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Mr. Wansacz.
I now recognize Representative Bunt.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNT: Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee.
I am Representative Raymond Bunt from the
147th District in Montgomery County. I am proud to represent my constituents from Montgomery County in the General Assembly and am pleased to also serve as the Chairman of the House
Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee. It is in that capacity that I appear before you today.
As chairman of this important committee,
I have direct interest in several specific areas of the budget including support for the Department of Agriculture, the State Conservation Commission and ceretain items within the budget for the Department of Environmental Protection. I will be submitting to the committee my written thoughts and recommendation in those areas in the near future.
But today we would like to focus on another major area of concern which is the state support for our land grant institution, Penn State University. As a land grant university, Penn State has a unique relationship not only with the agricultural community, but with all the Commonwealth and all its citizens. It is a relationship that fills a role and provides a service unlike that of any other of our fine institutions of higher learning.
In this role, Penn State's impact is far greater than that of merely providing an' excellent post high school education. Through the efforts of cooperative extension, it has a presence in all 67 counties often providing informa tion and services that are available nowhere else.
As an aside, Mr. Chairman, and not intending to mix secondary and higher education issues, I find it ironic that this budget proposes a special appropriation of $75 million to Philadelphia Schools when Penn State has approximately 30 extension personnel in Philadelphia
County. Many working in conjunction with those schools. knd unlike all other counties, I would like to reiterate, and unlike all other 67 counties, that county provides no cooperative funding for their extension programs. Yet in the Governor's proposed budget, Penn State and the other
< state related universities appear to be singled out for cuts at a level far greater than that of most other educational institutions receiving state support.
Not only did Penn State suffer a three percent or $10 million freeze in the current year, which was not the case with others such as the state system schools, but now it faces an additional five percent across the board or a $17 million cut when others in higher education are proposed to receive much less severe restrictions on their budgets.
I completely understand that we are dealing with an extremely tight fiscal situation and realize that hard choices must be made among state programs. But I must say this. Are fiscal constraints being used as an excuse to determine policy and set state funding priorities among different entities within the higher education arena?
Why else would there be such dramatic differences between cuts proposed for Penn State, and for instance, so-called state system cuts?
Certain members of the Administration have indicated that perhaps we have a greater responsiblity to particular schools because they are ours. I maintain that this is a false distinction. We have the same or greater duty to support our sole and unique land institution.
Now one final point. This is very specific :o my agricultural priority. The eight percent cut over
two years in funding applies to more than just the general
education portion of Penn State's budget. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, the cut includes two line items of specific
interest to those of us in the agricultural community and
to those counties where agriculture plays such a big role
in our economy.
Agricultural research and the agricultural
extension services are truly essential to the well being
and continued viability of our largest industry. Historically
as you know, they have been the lifeblood of generations
of farmers. At a time when these two lines have gradually
increased to a level where losses to a previous Administration budget process were being restored and the College of Agri
cultural Science is where it is being positioned to truly
help our farmers compete with a rapidly changing agricultural
economy. Cuts of this magnitude are devastating. And while the argument, legitimate or not, can be made that
higher tuitions can make up for the general education deficits,
this does not hold true with respect to these two critical
areas. Not a dime, not a dime of tuition money can fund
necessary and timely research nor pay the salary of the
county extension agencies or agents communicating those
research results to our farmers.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these observations. And frankly, my encouragement to restore Penn State's funding level to at least that of last year.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Bunt. We do appreciate your testimony.
I now recognize Representative Harhart.
REPRESENTATIVE HARHART: Thank you, Repre sentative Barley and members of the committee. I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak with you today regarding budget funding for Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Technology Alliance, known as PITA, i request that you include PITA currently in its fifth year of funding in the DCED budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 at the level of $4.5 million.
As we all know, workforce development is a key to achieving economic growth and stability in the
Commonwealth. Along with the creation of new jobs, we also have to look for ways to keep our graduating students working in Pennsylvania instead of leaving to find job opportunities in other states. PITA is devoted to accomplish both these goals through technology development and education.
A joint venture between the Commonwealth,
Lehigh University Center of Advanced Technology for large structural systems and Carnegie Mellon University Institute for Complex Engineering Systems, PITA seeks to extend economic development benefits, increase the number of Pennsylvania industry partners, broaden educational and outreach programs and expand new technology in the areas of biomedical, health engineering and environmental technology. By working with the workforce environment where highly trained graduate students remain in Pennsylvania to work for Pennsylvania companies and agencies, the program is achieving a brain gain in Lehigh Valley and Pittsburgh as well as across the rest of the state.. In fact, 20 percent of Lehigh Univers-. i'ty's graduate students in" the. PITA-pr'og'ram-.are from Pennsylvania and 41 percent of -all PITA graduates from
Pennsylvania and other states that attend Lehigh University end up staying or relocating in the Commonwealth. This is a great boom to Pennsylvania's workforce. As referenced,
25 percent of Lehigh University's undergraduates are from
Pennsylvania and 25 percent of the school's undergraduates stay in Pennsylvania.
Some of the accomplishments of the program include an overall combined brain gain increase of 13 percent of the Pennsylvania students graduating and staying on to work for Pennsylvania companies. This spinoff of the six charter companies based on PITA supported technology, as well as, the preparation of hundreds of students for future careers in the science and technology industry.
However, students' employment, students' employment works both ways. Not only do PITA educated students go out and search for jobs, but the program also serves as a human resource base for those companies involved in the fields of science and technology to locate future employees.
Both Lehigh and Carnegie Universities also benefit from the funding of PITA by attracting highly skilled students to the schools and maintaining a top notch research and educational program. The mission of PITA is to increase our rating efficiency and enhance economic development in Pennsylvania. This is a mission we must all share if we are to continue to succeed economically through job retention and creation.
Again, I would like'you to". consi.aer allocating the four point million in the DCED budget for a most worthy program.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Harhart.
Our final presenter for the day is Representa tive Flick from Chester County. Representative Flick, welcome. You have the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE FLICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess since I'm the final one I could take ten or 15 minutes? That might be an incorrect assumption.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: I might dispute that.
REPRSENTATIVE FLICK: Thank you very much
Chairman Barley, Chairman Evans, Mary and others. Thanks for the opportunity to testify before you.
I think the 2002-2003 proposed budget is going to be a very difficult one to balance. And not many people would dispute the need to provide expert medical care to disabled children. Someone once said that cherishing children is the mark of a civilized society. Last July the Department of Public Welfare estimated there were 24,725 children in the Commonwealth with special needs receiving
SSI related Medicaid. Families caring for children with special needs face difficult challenges. There are emotion al challenges, physical challenges and financial challenges.
All of us realize the budget challenge we face this year is going to be difficult. Recessions hit budgets hard two ways. Because first they reduce revenue and second there are more services that are demanded.
We need to set our priorities to make certain we deal with those individuals who are most, and children with disabilites, are those most in need. The Administration opts to do just the opposite for an estimated 1,000 severely disabled children in Pennsylvania. Currently, children with disabil- ities receive Medicaid based on their own income without regard for the income of their parents. These children are regarded aa loophole children.
In order to save money, DPW proposes to begin to consider parental income, gross income, in determining
Medicaid eligibility for these disabled children. Disabled children whose parents1gross income is greater than the federal eligibility standards do not receive SSI to help pay for medical care. Currently these disabled children receive Medicaid only after private insurance is exhausted no matter what the parents' gross income is. DPW would use certain criteria applied to parents' gross income to determine eligibility for Medicaid on a case-by-case basis.
The projected savings in state dollars, this proposal, is $1.1 million, a very insignificant amount, probably less than one tenth of one percent of the DPW's budget.
And I don't think we should be balancing the state budget on the backs of disabled children. Nor should we assume that all parents' gross income exceeds the federal—above the federal average, have sufficient money to care for all their children.
I don't think it is fair to punish disabled children, and I don't think that the state should consider reducing medical coverage for disabled chilren so other disabled children can receive benefits. This Robin Hood 11U of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, we have more than enough room to find $1.1 million so these 1,000 kids, these are kids, disabled children many with autisism, many who have severe challenges. And I think it wouldn't be fair and I don't think it would be good public policy that we deny those children that care.
So respectfully I ask that the Appropriations consider replacing that line item to fully fund the DFW budget item for children with disabilities.
Thank you very much for your attention.
CHAIRMAN BARLEY: Thank you, Representative
Flick. As I indicated, that does conclude the members that are scheduled to come before the,committee. That will conclude the hearing for today.
1 would like to announce that on February
25th at 10:00 a.m. in the Majority Caucus Room, the Appropria tions Committee will convene for the continuation of hear ings. We now stand adjourned.
(Whereupon at 2:20 p.m. the hearing was
concluded.)
* * *
(Prepared testimony of Representative Kelly
Lewis was as follows:)
Chairman Barley, Minority Chairman Evans,
Appropriations Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to address your committee today.
Since we have a tight schedule today, let me specifically address the major concerns of Monroe and
Pike County and the 189th legislative district.
By far the main issue remains the school property tax crisis in fast growing areas in Pennsylvania.
Our existing school funding system is unfair, inequitable and punishes homeowners on fixed incomes, especially citizens of moderate incomes. The existing school funding formula absolutely punishes fast growing areas. If the budget for next year is passed as presented, every school district in Monroe County will experience a 10-20 percent increase in school property taxes. This is 10-20 percent increases on top of the record setting increases Monroe and Pike
County taxpayers have already been forced to pay.
Before September 11th, Monroe County was part of the fastest growing area in the State. Since September
11th, the growth and demographic changes have been unbeliev able. One school district has already added over 360 stud ents or an eight percent increase. By all accounts, students and parents must be living in hotels and motels in order for our fast growing area to absorb such tremendous growth in so short a time period.
The majority of Monroe and Pike County senior citizens are paying over 15 percent of their income toward the school property tax. This excessive taxation must
end. King George in the American Revolution never contem
plated such outrageous rates of taxation. Yet, today in
the Poconos, America's greatest generation is literally
being taxed out of their very own homes.
Today, I urge the House Appropriations Commit
tee to protect the American Dream of homeownership for
all Pennsylvanians. I urge you to treat all Pennsylvanians
fairly and equally in this budget proposal. It has been
entirely unfair for Monroe and Pike County residents to
pay 150-200 percent school property tax increases over
the past 10 years, when some of Pennsylvania residents have seen little or no increase in the school property
tax bill.
At a minimum we need to maintain the per
student basic education funding levels. The proposed budget
actually reduces Monroe County's per student basic edcuation
subsidy by $1,889,109, while Philadelphia gets $6,995,819
increase. We get $68 dollars less per student, while Phila delphia gets $33 more per student. And this calculation does not include a $75 million special request for Phila delphia.
Please help me restore fairness to our Pennsyl vania tax system.
There are two initiatives that specifically help our schools.
First, I urge the House Appropriations Commit tee to strongly support an increased growth supplement.
Last year only $8 million dollars was allocated. To maintain fairness, this figure should be increased to $100 million dollars and the rates increased from $1,000 to $4,000 per student for schools with 3.1 percent or more, student popula tion growth.
Second, I urge your consideration in elimin ating the School Property Tax System. I am proposing reason able legisltion that eliminates the existing system and replaces it within our existing taxing systems. Under the School Property Tax Elimination Act, Pennsylvania would end an unfair taxing system and replace with a system based on ability to pay. I urge senior citizens and homeowners on a fixed or near-fixed incomes to join me in this fight I
In other business, in our fast growing areas
I am concerned that local taxpayers are subsidizing growth and sprawl to the great benefit of new homeowners. It's time to modernize and simplify our tax system. We need a new system that doesn't force existing homeowners to subsidize new construction.
In this year's budget I specifically support maintaining or slightly reducing Governor Schweiker's proposed spending level of 0.6 percent increase in state spending. Do not increase this spending level I During our past
years of good economy, Pennsylvania enjoyed "real" spending
increases, spending increases above inflation. Now, while
we experience slower economic times we must tightly control
spending and maintain or reduce our tax rates so' Pennsylvania's
have enough of their own money. We must control spending.
Further, we must focus on our requested expenditures while
eliminating and reducing non-required spending.
A summary of appropriation requests for
your review and consideration:
* Department of Education $100 million dollars. Kindly consider increasing our Growth Supple ment for fast growing school districts, to maintian school funding fairness.
* Department of Education $4.0 million. AED
Heart Defribillators. Together we have helped
place over 1,500 AED Heart Defibrillators
in Pennsylvania schools. This year I urge
your support to make sure every police vehicle,
every fire company vehicle and every emergency
service vehicle contain and maintain an AED.
Together we are saving lives.
* PennDOT, $5,000,000. 1 respectfully request
an additional Monroe County supplement to
fund the Interstate 80 Highway Safety and Improvement Study. Our Sa£e80 Task force needs
your help I The Montroe County section of
1-80 is the oldest in the State, predating
1964. The highway and the exit and entrance
ramps desperately need to be updated and improvec .
Traffic has increased from 13,000 vehicles
per day to over 65,000 vehicles per day in
the last 20 years.
* PennDOT $3,015,000. $3015,000 dollars is
needed to complete the purchase price for
the railroad line known as "the Lackawanna
Cutoff," a 28-mile segment along the New York
City transportation corridor. These monies
are vital, necessary and part of an agreed
upon arrangement with New Jersey. On behalf
of many Pennsylvania and State Jersey legis
lators, I urge your strong support.
* DCNR $10 million. With DCNR we need a $10
million dollar appropriation for trail extension!
to connect the McDade Trail in the Delaware
Water Gap Recreation Area on the north end
from the Park to Grey Towers, home of former
Governor Gifford Pinchot and on the south
end, from the Park to the Appalachian Trail
in Delaware Water Gap. These trail extensions will cpnnect our state trail system with the
Appalachian Trail system. Our part of the
Appalachian Trail is the busiest part from
Maine to Georgia. Accordingly, the trail
extension will attract even more visitors
to Pennsylvania.
* DCED $150,000. To be split evenly between
the existing downtown Stroudsburg Borough programs
through the Jacob Stroud Corp. and the new
East Stroudsburg downtown projects. Please
maintain this positive momentum and keep the
downtown Stroudsburg project and the new East
Stroudsburg projects fully funded. These are
at risk brain-drain communities due to our
proximity to metropolitan New York/New Jersey.
* DCED $5 million. Within the DCED tourism
budget, I urge consideration of maintaining
the prior year funding level. Tourisim is
big business in Pennsylvania and our recent
investments have provided recognizable returns.
The Pocono region is experiencing real tourism
growth. Maintaining these funding levels and
a concurrent effort to address Pocono traffic
congestion will go a long way to maintaining
this important industry. I urge the adoption of Tourism Infrastructure Grants that allocate
monies to address traffic concerns in congested
tourism areas.
DCED $175,000. Pocono-Jackson Municipal
Water Authority - to upgrade its water facility
to meet growing water-user demand.
* PennDOT $5.2 million. Lehman Township, Keystone
Performing Arts Center. With the Governor's
October announcement this $30 million dollar
project is DCED funded. With a projected
May 2003 start date we must improve existing
roadways to the site. The fiscal impact of
this project will positively promote Pennsylvania.
* Continuing assistance in growing greener,
land preservation, growing smarter and other
.'important environmental initiatives.
Under separate cover I will discuss the funding of various submitted and to be submitted grant applications. I respectfully ask that you consider the same in your deliberations.
(Prepared testimony'of Representative Leanna M. Washington, Chair, Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus was as follows:)
Thank you Chairmem Barley and Evans for providing me with this opportunity to speak before my colleagues who sit on the House Appropriations Committee today.
After reviewing Governor Schweiker's proposed budget, I must say that I am pleased with the funding level proposed for the Philadelphia School District. A good, solid education beginning in elementary and extending into high school is crucial if our young people are to succeed in college, technical school, or any other form of higher education. As Pennsylvania continues to "gray", it is incumbent upon us to lift up our young people through education as they are tomorrow's taxpayers and leaders.
I am concerned, however, by the escalating cost of higher education in Pennsylvania, and the reduction in financial support to Penn State, The University of Pitts burgh, Temple University, and Lincoln University. All four of these institutions are well-known across the country
— the world, even—and attract not only Pennsylvania resi dents, but out-of-state residents who are intent on receiving first rate educations. We must not discourage individuals from attending school here, because these graduates often make Pennsylvania their home, and infuse our Commonwealth with new ideas. These newly-relocated, educated Pennsylvan- ians help to boost our economy by providing needed tax dollars when they become well-employed.
The same thing can be said for reductions in higher education funding for the University of Pennsyl vania, Drexel University, MCP Hahnemann, Thomas Jefferson,
PA College of Osteopathic Medicine, the Pennsylvania College of Optometry, Philadelphia University of the Arts, Berean
Institute, Johnson Technical Institute, and Williamson
Free School. Adequate funding is essential if these institu tions are to remain cost-competitive, and attract and keep young people in Pennsylvania.
Decreases in funding for the CHIP program and lack of state funding supplements for the WIC program are counterproductive for insuring the good health of Pennsyl vania's youngest citizens—those who need us to speak for them because they cannot vote. If we hold true to our commitment to care for those who are unable to care for themselves, we must first start with the children.
Healthy children in safe schools make for stronger and better communities. Money spent at the beginning of life is well-spent because stable, self-sufficient families tend to require less in the way of expenditures for social and medical services in the future.
We must be mindful of the needs of those families who have reached the sixty month lifetime limit on welfare. Because of current conditions in our economy, over which these individuals have no control, it may be difficult to impossible for the unskilled and unschooled to secure employment. Although these families are eligible
for extended TANF benefits, care must be taken to provide
them with realistic, individualized life plans to help
them secure and maintain gainful employment.
Our elders are important also, and a 50
percent reduction in the Alzheimer's Outreach Program is
unthinkable, as is the elimination of Legal Advocacy for
Older Pennsylvanians. Who, if not us, will see to the
needs of the Commonwealth's aging population. Pennsylvania
is number two in the country in its percentage of senior
citizens. These seniors, who have worked, paid their taxes,
raised their families, and made ou.r state what is today
i are all deserving of our assistance and support in helping
them to navigate a new world they never conceived of 40,
50, and even 60 years ago.
1 urge this committee to think of our grand
children and grandparents when fashioning a workable and
equitable budget for fiscal year 2002-2003. In budgets
past, those with the most have benefitted the most with
tax breaks. Let us break that pattern in fiscal year 2002-03,
and provide the most for those with the least.
Again, I thank you, Chairmen Barley and
Evans for the opportunity to relay my thoughts and those
of my constituents on the Commonwealth's 2002-03 budget
proposal. (Prepared testimony of Representative John
E. Pallone was as follows:)
Good afternoon Chairman Barley, Chairman
Evans and all of the members of the Appropriations Committee
'First-, I would like to thank the committee for holding
these hearings and for making this forum available to accept
comments and concerns on the proposed budget. Second,
I would like to thank the committee members for your attention
and due diligence in reviewing the volumes of requests
and sorting through what I am sure are all important and
viable funding requests.
That being said, one of my biggest concerns
at this point with the budget is the lack of funding for
emergency service providers. It is absolutely imperative
to me and many others that we find the money in this budget
to include funding for our volunteer firefighters, ambulance
personnel, emergency service agents and police. Every
day, these individuals put their lives on the line for
us each and every time they report to work — work for
which many of them do not get paid. Our response to that
sacrifice should be one of extreme gratitude. Instead
we continuously tell these emergency responders and volunteern
to forget about state funding — that they need to go out
and have another bake sale or some other fundraiser if
they need money for a new ladder, bunker gear or vehicle. It is absolutely ridiculous and it needs to stop.
I am sure that budget time is never easy and that certain areas have to suffer cutbacks in order for others to thrive. But I stress that this is one area which should not, and cannot suffer a lack of funding.
By providing these emergency responders and volunteer fire companies with state money, we will be saving countless lives. We all have seen the importance that emergency" service personnel play in our society, particularly after
September 11th — it would be unreal for anyone to question the need for properly trained and equipped firefighters,
EMS and police. Yet we question it in Pennsylvania because we continue to refuse to help fund these otherwise valuable programs. I would ask you to consider fixing that problem and give back to the people who give us so much.
I would also ask the commitee to give its attention to important transportation projects across the state, particularly the projects in southwestern Pennsylvania and the Al]e-Kiski Valley. One transportation project that I consider invaluable to my constituents and to my area is the commuter railraod in Alle-Kiski Valley that would connect the New Kensington/Arnold area to the city of Pittsburgh. This is a project that I continue to push for and implore you to find the funding for it. It is an extremely important project for southwestern Pennsylvania and the Alle-Kiski Valley. This commuter train would greatly
enhance the area and the lives of many commuters in the
54th legislative district and surrounding districts. I would be happy to discuss this project further with any members who would like more information.
Additionaly, I continue to advocate for
funding of several other projects in my region and surrounding area without establishing specific priorities. These projecti as presented today are designed to promote economic developmeit,
foster safety for area motorists and to allow for easier access to already established roadways and highways. The
Parnassus Triangle, the Tarentum Bridge Road and State
Route 35i6 widening, improvements to State Route 356, the
Alle-Kiski connector bridge across the Allegheny River, and several other small roadway improvements projects require continued funding to mention only a few.
Lastly, I want the committee to take a long, hard look at the lack of funding this budget provides for education throughout the Commonwealth. I am pleased, however, that special education received a 1.5 percent increase in funding ideally I would like for that increase to be higher, but I hope that it will continue to get higher in the coming years.
That being said, however, it is an absolute necessity that this budget be revised to include more funding for basic education needs. A one percent increase in funding for each school district fails to meet even the current inflation rate, makes it nearly impossible for schools to properly educate our state's children and serves as a local tax increase as the local schools must raise property taxes to make up the shortfall. There is no way around it; the Commonwealth must increase the funding for our schools. Children — our most important resource, why are they forsaken.
Thank you again for your attention and for listening to my comments. These budget items will benefit the residents of Pennsylvania and will enable the local communities to enjoy continued and future economic development , growth and success. Your favorable endorsement of these funding needs shall be greatly appreciated.
(Prepared testimony of Representative Thaddeus
Kirkland was as follows:)
Good morning chairman and members of the
Appropriations Committee and thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify today.
We all want to see the children of the Common wealth receive the best education possible. A key factor in obtaining a good education is getting off to a good start, an early start. And, the program that provides this early start is Head Start. The proposed 2002-2003 budget doesn't provide any money for financing this building block program, it only provides for a study. We can study this all we want, but the fact remains children in kindergarten and elementary school are falling desperately behind.
Funding from this budget should be available to help more parents enroll their child in Head Start.
We should also be looking to extend the hours of Head Start through possible partnerships with licensed day-care prov iders. This will lend a special helping hand to single parents with workdays running past regular hours.
Under the extended hours program, the state
Department of Education would give priority in funding to Head Start providers applying for grants to provide extended day services.
A federally funded program, Head Start has received no supplemental funding from the state in recent years, which has been a harbinger to its potential. It is time for the state to step up and honor its Constitutional commitment to provide the best quality and most efficient education.
I ask the committee, how can we lose by investing in education? It is our duty to ensure that our children receive the best educational environment and opportunities available. By funding and examining Head Start programs, ,we are fine-tuning the future. Children also were neglected by the budget
by the omission of funding for the Women, Infants and Children
program, which provides pregnant mothers with prenatal
care as well as health care for infants. This organization
has watched its funding be slashed in recent years. There
is no state appropriation to equalize the negative balance.
According to the State Department of Welfare,
WIC saves approximately $853 million in health-care costs
during the first year of infants' lives. In preventing
babies from being born with critical birth weights, WIC
saves Medicaid an average of $12,083 to $15,385. Four
and five-year olds who benefit from WIC have better vocabular
ies and digit memory scores than comparable non-WIC
participants.
Now I ask the committee once again, how
can we lose by investing in the health and well-being of
our children?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to highlight
one more area of funding missing from the budget in my
testimony today. Next year's budget should provide funding
to allow for the educational benefits of House Bill 1313,
the instruction to the Visually Impaired Students Act,
which I introduced this session.
This bill would require teaching certificate candidates to demonstrate competence in the use of Braille, provide for one-on-one education on the language of Braille
for visually impaired students and require publishers wishing
to sell books in Pennsylvania to offer computer diskettes
that will facilitate the translation of the contents of the book into Braille for the same cost as the book.
We have a duty to provide a valuable and efficient education to all, let's fulfill this duty. Please do the -right thing by adding substantial funding streams to the 2002-2003 state budget for Head Start, WIC and the
Visually Impaired Student's Act.
Thank you.
(Prepared testimony of Representative Michael
K. Hanna was as follows:)
Due to conflicts in schedules, I will be unable to testify at today's hearing in person and would like to submit the following testimony for the record.
Thank you Chairman Barley and Chairman Evans for the chance to speak before you and the Appropriations
Committee today on the proposed budget. We are all well aware that our state and our nation are in the midst of a serious economic downturn. This is a tough time for
Pennsylvnia and we need to tighten our belt in every area possible. With that in mind, I am very pleased to see that no tax increase is included in this budget. Raising taxes is not the way to pull out of a recession and I would urge you not to consider that as an option throughout the remainder of the budget process. That being said, however, there are a few areas of the proposed budget that I am concerned about and that I feel are worth of your attention.
The two areas I believe we need to focus most on are iobs and education. Both should be a priority every year. However, we should pay even closer attention to them in a recession such as the one we currently face.
The current proposal recommends cuts in every program under the Department of Community and Economic Development.
Overall, the department's general fund budget would be reduced by $144 million — which tanslates to a more than
30 percent reduction in funding. Instead of cutting money from an area designed to help job retention and job creation,
I believe we should increase funding to the department and the specific programs that focus on helping Pennsylvan- ians train, receive and maintain jobs. Right now, more than ever, we need a skilled workforce ready to take on the challenges presented by a recession. Cutting funding to job programs is not the way to do that.
In order to have a skilled workforce in this state, we also need to focus on education. I am very alarmed with the low priority education funding received in this budget proposal. Just as it says in the governor's executive budget, higher education is one of the "industries
driving Pennsylvania's labor markets." At the rate we
are going, however, Pennsylvania college students and their
families will no longer be able to afford to pay for an
education. When that happens, what happens to the state's
labor markets? The State System of Higher Education will
see a decrease in funding of more than $14 million. Penn
State alone will lose more than $16 million. Faced with
those kinds of cuts, these schools will have no choice
but to significantly increase tuition. What choice does
that leave the students? I have no doubt that it will
leave a portion of them with no choice at all and they
will either be unable to afford a college education or
they will be forced to take out massive student loans.
Isn't there another way? How can we expect things to
change for the better when the future workers of Pennsylvania
can't afford our colleges? I believe that we can increase
funding for higher education and job creation without raising
taxes. We can either eliminate or substantially decrease
the non-preferred appropriations. That would provide addi
tional money for our basic education needs and for the
public owned and operated higher education facilities.
1 also want to mention two specific areas of the budget that concern me. First, this budget makes no provision for an increase in DCNR's payment in lieu of taxes to local governments for our state parks and forests.
This compensates county, townships and school districts for the nonpayment of property taxes for state owned lands.
Historically, this payment has increased every five or six years. It was last increased in 1995. It is time again and I urge you to do so. Currently, the payment is only 40 cents an acre. Please consider raising that price to 80 cents an acre, a far cry from what the average private property owner pays, at a total additional budget cost of $2.5 million.
Secondly, DCNR has been collecting and sitting on ATV and snowmobile registration fees throughout Secretary
Oliver's tenure. Despite a balance of more than three million dollars, not one new mile of ATV trail has been built in our public forests in the past eight years. Secre tary Oliver is ignoring the law. Registration fees are paid to the fund for trail development, among ottter things, and DCNR's refusal to do so is a slap in the face to this legislature. It disenfranchises a group of our constituents who have paid user fees that are not creating any new riding opportunities. This committee and the entire General Assembly need to require DCNR to move forward with trail development.
Thank you again for hearing my remarks.
I understand that this is a difficult undertaking and that some areas have to be cut in order to benefit others. I appreciate you taking the time to consider my suggestions.
(Prepared testimony of Representative Ted
Harhai was as follows:)
Thank you chairmen and members of the Appropri ations Committee for allowing me to speak to you today about several critical issues facing not only the communities in my Legislative District, but most municipalities across the state.
Specifically, I would like to address three key areas of the budget, where a greater investment would help strengthen the economy and protect Pennsylvanians.
During last week's budget address we all were hit squarely between the eyes with the reality of an economic downturn. No one is denying the need for a new frugality in state spending, but we must do so in ways that will not push the tax burden onto local taxpayers.
Over the past seven years, local property taxes have been raised about $1.7 billion. So, while we're heralding the fact that during a recession, Pennsylvania will not raise state taxes, we are doing a disservice to
Pennsylvanians, by not admitting that they could be facing higher local taxes, as a result.
One way to hold the line on taxes is to invest in basic education. We all know that the proposed budget infuses the Philadelphia School District with $75 million in state funds, while divvying up among the rest of the state's 500 school districts, a one percent basic education increase. This means that across the state, schools will be sharing about $32 million in new funding.
Schools like Belle Vernon, Monessen, Norwin and South Huntingdon, in my district, already are facing tight budget years and without a greater state commitment to financing public education, these and other school districts across the state, will be forced to either raise taxes or cut important programs.
Pennsylvania already ranks 47th in job creation after seven years of business tax cuts worth more than
$4.5 billion. Obviously, our current tactics aren't working and we need to go back to the basics of economic development, which means investing in our workers by revamping workforce development and focusing on and investing more in education.
This budget proposal does nothing to address another critical need and that is funding for PACE, the prescription drug program for seniors. After several years of this debate, we know that with a minimal investment of state dollars, Pennsylvania could be a national leader, by looking at cost-control measures, such as best-price practices, bulk purchasing and discounts from manufacturers.
We have studied this issue for long enough, now we need to begin fixing PACE, so that the program can serve more seniors.
Finally, I would like to briefly mention the needs of our local emergency personnel. We talk about earmarking $38 million for homeland security and while few would deny the horror of last year's terroist attacks warrant increased security on all fronts, shouldn't we be fiscally prudent and invest in volunteer firefighters, who save the state and municipalities about six billion dollars each year?
When the World Trade Center was hit in New
York, it wasn't cabinet-level officials who were the first on the scene and dedicated to saving people to the point of surrendering their own lives. No, it was, our local heroes — our firefighters.
We are facing tough economic times in Pennsyl vania and in the nation, but we must not allow these realitiei to overshadow the needs of families, children and local communities. As a state, we must commit ourselves to stabil izing the economy, educating children and providing the opportunities necessary to keep our best and brightest in Pennsylvania once they graduate from college.
Thank you.
(Prepared testimony of Representative Harold
James was as follows:)
Mr. Chairman, I know my time before you is short, so I will get right to the point. I would like the House Appropriations Committee to consider including funding to address the issue of racial profiling in next year's state budget.
Racial profiling is a practice where law enforcement officers target minorities, often African-Ameri cans and Latinos, and most recently, Arab-Americans, because they fit a race-based profile. It is a serious problem and I hope that Pennsylvania will join the other 20 states that have taken steps to eradicate the practice of detaining individuals simply because of the color of their skin.
Pennsylvania can do this by allocating money for training, for data collection and for unified police report forms so that our law enforcement can work to prevent racial profiling.
Last year, I requested that the Office of
Attorney; General receive the extra funding to combat racial profiling. However, it does not appear that Mr. Fisher is sincere in working to eliminate the practice of racial profiling, therefore, I think the funding should go to the House of Representatives, specifically to the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee ont Crime and Corrections, which is holding hearings on the subject. The committee could use the $600,000 — the amount the attorney general said he would need for the job — to conduct a study of its own. A study that the attorney general has so far failed
to do.
The committee is conducting hearings and
that is the reason why it is necessary now more than ever
to have money clearly earmarked in the state budget to
resolving the problems of racial profiling.
On a related matter, I also would like to
thank you for funding the state Supreme Court's Committee
on Racial and Gender Bias in the Justice System. The court
has received $1.1 million to aid in its study.
The Supreme Court's study is nearing completion,
with a report to be issued by the end of the year. At
this time I would like to remind you that Pennsylvania must consider earmarking funds to implement whatever recommend -
ations are made in the report. What good is a report that
suggests methods of correcting biases, if there isn't any
money available to make those corrections? We need to
take the helm as policymakers to make sure there is enough
money available to carry out the Supreme Court's recommend
ations for correcting racial and gender bias in the justice
system.
Thank you.
(Prepared testimony of Representative Louise
Williams Bishop was as follows:)
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to address some concerns about the 2002-2003 state budget.
While I applaud some key efforts to homeland security and safety and more obviously of the $75 million landmark effort to revitalize the Philadelphia school system, I think the budget also ignores other areas.
First, 1 am pleased that the state's $75 million commitment to revitalizing the Philadelphia School system was not eliminated from the budget. That money along with the mayor's pledge to deliver another..$A5 million is a start in making progressive changes to the school system. However, that won't entirely lift the $126 million deficit facing the school system. We need to keep the promise that was made during the takeover process to financial y support the system's 210,000 students. There's a long road ahead of us in combating teacher shortages, upgrading technology, repairing dilapidated buildings and improving low test scores in order to get the school system back to where it should be and hasn't been in many years. We must work together to provide the best educational opportun ities for the children of Philadelphia.
What I am most concerned with though is what the budget lacks. First, this budget includes no new funding for PACE, the prescription drug program for seniors. The Administration is cutting this budget, however, is making no effort to bring PACE finances under control. I support several legislative initiatives being proposed by other House members to bring this problem under control.
Some of those initiatives include best-price practices, discount cards and bulk purchasing discounts.
I also demand to know why the proposed Adult
Health Insurance Program was cut from the budget. More than 1.2 million residents in the state have no health insurance coverage, yet we're sending a loud message by ignoring this line item in the budget. We have to do more to help residents. The Tobacco Settlement money is there.
Why is the Administration delaying the implementation by at least another six months? This money should not be used to plug in budget holes, rather for what the state promised to the people.
Another area of concern continues to be the lack of funding for Head Start, which provides an early start in our children's education. There is no money in the 2002-2003 £ budget for this program. We can't lose by investing in our children's educationl It is our duty to provide opportunities for every child in our schools.
A federally funded program, Head Start has continued to receive no supplemental funding from the state in recent years. It is time to honor our commitment to education.
Finally, another area of concern that cannot be ignored any longer is property tax reform. This is the single most important issue that constituents bring to my attention is property tax reform. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to be an equal partner in funding public education. We need to consider other initiatives like a sales or income tax to help support public education and lessen the burden on our constituents. We must work to bridge the gap in school funding.
Thank you for allowing me to submit my remarks for your consideration. It is my hope that these concerns will be reflected in the final budget appropriation. 145
I hereby certify that the evidence and proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me during the hearing of the within cause, and that this is a true and correct transcript of the same.
Dorothy M.dfalone, RPR
The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.