R. Lee Ware ... United States House of Delegates ... 65th District

January 15, 2007

"Virginia in the Vanguard" is the title of a new account of the Commonwealth's politics in the late-20th century. The title purposefully harkens back to the early leadership of the Old Dominion in American political history. It might just as easily serve to characterize the remarks of Vice-President Richard Cheney before the General Assembly on opening day last Wednesday.

The legislature convened for 2007 in a small brick church adjoining the Jamestown Settlement, marking the quadricentennial of Virginian society and culture. As we met in that church, the site of meetings of the House of Burgesses of olde, the unpretentious yet dignified remarks of the Vice-President included a remembrance of the state's pioneering people and manner of governance.

He recalled the beginnings of representative government, the institution of private property, the defense of liberty, and the fact that eight Virginia-born men have shouldered the burdens of the Presidency. Interestingly, as Mr. Cheney recited the litany of Thomas Jefferson's resume, he paused briefly to quip that Jefferson was also "the second Vice-President."

Our journey back to Jamestown for the ceremonial opening of the 2007 session allowed for a fitting recollection of the principles and purposes that those settlers so precariously began and which succeeding generations have striven, often enough tenaciously, to sustain here in the terms appropriate to fond remembrance—“The Old Dominion.”. The sharp, cold wind that blew across James River, and the bright, but low winter sun served to remind us, too, of the many difficulties and actual tragedies that our forebears both survived and surmounted in their time.

The press of the 46 days of the short session has since begun in earnest, but the ceremony in Jamestown provided a particularly inspiring venue for our convening.

One seemingly perennial issue that already has been joined is a proposal to abandon a prudent practice that dates to our earlier days as an independent Commonwealth. That practice is the limitation of the Governor to one immediate term in office. (As former Governor Mills Godwin demonstrated, a governor can be elected to office twice—only not to consecutive terms.) In testimony to the wisdom of our forebears in limiting the power of government generally, and the powers of the Executive specifically, all states originally hemmed in the governor's powers of appointment and also the term of office. A couple states that allow governors to succeed themselves still limit governors to two-year terms.

In yielding to the inexorable tendency of government to expand in power and scope, Virginia ’s sister states have granted greater authority and longer tenures to their chief executives.

Virginia has wisely resisted the temptation. Some claim that our approach is outdated, and that advances in business practices and technological systems somehow require us to mimic other states in their “change” or “progress.” However, most advocates of a two-term Executive seem to forget that Virginia’s balance of power between the Legislative and Executive (and Judicial) branches of government allots more direct power, for appointments and budget-crafting, to our Governor than is enjoyed by the Executive of forty-five of the fifty states.

Further, advocates of altering the constitutional provisions regarding the Governor might wish to consider several notes actually struck by Governor Kaine in his address to the Assembly in Jamestown last week. For as Gov. Kaine pointed out, Virginia has, under leadership from governors of both parties, maintained a vibrant and growing economy. We have several times been judged the best-managed state in the country in the last decade, and only recently a major publication asserted that Virginia is in fact the most business-friendly state, from the standpoint of tax rates and the general operations of government. Further, Education Week magazine recently declared that Virginians enjoy the best conditions for children to grow up in.

For all these reasons and more, I continue to believe that Virginia's practice of not allowing a Governor immediately to succeed himself is a prudent policy that has the added characteristic of being a tradition tested—and proven worthy—by the long passage of time. One of my favorite of all the Founders, Patrick Henry, well declared that he would be "guided by the lamp of experience”—and not by pressures for “change” or “progress” or by “ideology.” Just so, experience has proven the wisdom inherent in so much of Virginia ’s political order, not least in our constitutional provision for an Executive that enjoys enormous power—but for only one term at a time.

(Delegate Lee Ware represents House of Delegates district 65, consisting of Powhatan County and western Chesterfield . During Session, his office telephone is 698-1065. Email is Dellware@house.state.va.us.)

back to top

Predatory Lending in Virginia - January 19, 2007

Whoever first remarked that “politics is the art of compromise” might well have spoken of a debate like that taking shape around my House Bill 2563. This proposed legislation would reform “payday loans” so that the lending service remains available to Virginians while eradicating practices that have led to calls for outright abolition of these businesses throughout the Commonwealth.

Legislators have been bombarded with emails urging us to “end predatory lending in Virginia .” Numerous well-intentioned citizens note that the Assembly in 2002 agreed to allow payday lenders to charge more than the 36% cap that applies to other financial institutions—but only because payday loans are of $500 or less. Mass mailings from advocates of abolition also express indignation that payday lenders charge “close to 400% interest on two-week loans.”

My own natural instinct on reading such statistics would be to join the chorus for abolition of payday lending in the Commonwealth. However, I submitted my reform bill precisely because there is another important side to this issue. In fact, there are many sides to the issue, and there is, in my judgment, a way to accommodate the interests of them all. And that is just what an artful compromise is obliged to accomplish.

First, over 450,000 Virginians secured a payday loan last year. That figure represents eight percent of our adult population. Obviously, payday loans are important to many of our citizens.

Second, most large lending institutions, such as banks and credit unions, do not offer short-term loans—and certainly not loans of $500 or less. Were such loans not available through payday lenders—which are regulated by the Virginia Bureau of Financial Institutions—many individuals would seek loans in unsavory places.

Third, short-term loans are often the only way that many Virginians can tide themselves over to avoid late-fees for bounced bank checks or late credit card payments. Preventing the loss of utilities or repairing a car are among other reasons many Virginians require the occasional short-term loan available, for most consumers, only from a payday lender.

Fourth, credit card companies routinely charge not only a late fee but ratchet the percentage rate charged against a loan to nearly 25%. Just as worrisome, late payments on a credit card can throw card holders into a bad-risk category that precludes borrowing more even against a currently active line of credit. Moreover, if debit card fees on bounced-check charges were calculated on the same basis as payday-loan rates, their percentages can be even higher.

Obviously many Virginians find it distasteful to see payday loan business sprouting on the corners of our suburbs and central cities, not least near military bases in northern Virginia and Tidewater. But, if less obviously, “the business of America is business,” as another observation from long ago might well be invoked to justify the entrepreneurial spirit of even seemingly “distasteful” yet contributing businesses such as payday lending.

The challenge for every Session of the General Assembly is to bring opposing sides on any issue to the table, to provide for full, open, and honest debate, and to seek a compromise that ensures justice for all parties concerned.

House Bill 2563 offers such a just resolution to just such a contentious issue.

All told, my bill would establish ten safeguards for payday loan borrowers. Most importantly, HB 2563 would require the industry to establish a statewide database that would prevent borrowers from securing more than three loans simultaneously. Further, the maximum amount that anyone could borrow would be capped at $1,500.

Significantly, too, my bill would prohibit payday loans to members of the United States armed forces or to their spouses. In addition, payday lenders would be prohibited from pressing legal claims against a late-paying borrower for 60 days after a loan default. The industry has agreed to allow an interest-fee installment plan that would enable borrowers to both pay off the loan while avoiding a potentially damaging—and costly—lawsuit or credit report.

Finally, HB 2563 would prohibit lenders from engaging in any unfair, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent practices in either making or collecting a loan, under terms of the federal Fair Debt Collections Protection Act.

To say the least, reform of payday lending practices in the Commonwealth lacks the glamour of grand debate about some fine point of the state Constitution. My own preference would be that the issue never arose. However, the untidy realities of life compel a legislator to seek solutions that take into account hard economic facts with which hundreds of thousands of our fellow Virginians must deal every day—or, at least, once in a while on pay day. It is not enough to express distaste at the fact that many Virginians are sometimes behind the eight ball financially—or, that there are enterprising businesses that will offer small loans to individuals with modest credit while demanding a rate of return on the investment and, emphatically, the risk, they take.

So, abolition of payday lending is simply not a prudent option, no matter how unseemly the practice may appear to those who have never faced the need for a payday loan. Interestingly, and importantly, not one person who has urged me to abolish payday lending has cited a bad personal experience with the practice. And I have received over 1,000 notes, email, and calls urging the abolition of payday lending institutions.

At the end of the day, I am confident that a majority of legislators, in the Senate as well as in the House, will see the wisdom and also the hard necessity of reaching an honorable compromise. Safeguards against potential abuses will be established. And, a half-million Virginians will still be able to count on being able to borrow a modest amount of money for a short amount of time when they need it.

Delegate Lee Ware represents House of Delegates District 65, consisting of Powhatan County and western Chesterfield

back to top

January 22, 2007

One of the best examples of the slow-but-sure way in which government accommodates the views of every active citizen occurred this past week as plans progressed for a new state park in Powhatan—Yates State Park, the General Assembly hopes the proposed facility will be named.

Submitted to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Delegates were my two proposed amendments to the state’s 2006-2008 budget, seeking a total of $17,520,000 for development of the park. Of this amount, $5.2 million would be derived from the General Fund to construct improvements to the interchange of Route 522 and Routes 617 at the entrance to the park. These funds would ensure that the concerns for safety and accessibility expressed by residents along Old River Trail are well resolved.

The other $12 million also would derive from the General Fund and would pay for the development of Phase I of the park proper.

Of course Senator John Watkins, my colleague in the Senate, has also worked closely to ensure that the park is properly developed and appropriately funded—and, like me, has striven to protect the interests of all affected citizens while fully aware of the prospective benefits of a state park for all the people of Powhatan and the surrounding area. His support on the Senate Finance Committee will be indispensable; I serve on the Finance Committee in the House.

In a letter to me received this week, Joseph H. Maroon, director of the state Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), assured me that, “Should funding be made available, DCR has agreed to limit park development to the Phase I level (essentially day-use only) until the road improvements have been made.” He emphasized that, “To address safety concerns, improvements should be made at the Route 522/617 intersection and the speed limit on Route 617 should be lowered. Until such time as the necessary improvements are made to the interchange, DCR will postpone additional park developments beyond Phase 1.”

Once funds are secured—and securing these funds will be a priority for me and also, no doubt, for Senator Watkins—park development would begin with basic infrastructure, including roads, trails, utilities, maintenance and administrative facilities, and day-use (and only day-use) recreation areas.

Accompanying Mr. Maroon’s letter was DCR’s “Master Plan” for the park, which would encompass 1,564 acres, about 320 of which consist of open fields that have been farmed for row crops or hay. The remaining acreage is in timber land that has been cultivated

The total projected cost of the park would be $28 million.

Phase II projects would include a campground, group camp, equestrian campground, extension of roads to a day-use area downstream at the bank of James River, a Downstream Riverside Day-Use and Picnic Area with restrooms, a downstream boat launch, a gazebo and shelter at the Visitors Center, an amphitheatre, a visitors and education center, and a residence for the park ranger. These projects would cost $8 million.

Also estimated at $8 million would be Phase III projects, consisting of construction of eighteen cabins and two family lodges.

Work on the park has been proceeding at several levels for quite some time now, as Maroon points out—and as Senator Watkins and I could readily attest. The happiest recent development was a resolution passed by county supervisors last week, unanimously, with one abstention, expressing official county support for the project. Understandably, supervisors were determined to ensure that access and safety concerns were resolved for Old Trail residents before giving their stamp of approval to so large and important an endeavor.

Supervisor Ken Hatcher was quoted as remarking that cross-governmental work on behalf of the park, and on behalf of all affected citizens, showed “government at one of its finest examples.” I couldn’t agree more. Though often slow, at times frustrating, and at other times confusing and even confounding, the park proposal has advanced in the only manner in which a major public (and taxpayers’) project can advance: one step at a time, with pauses to ensure that everyone’s voice has been heard and everyone’s concern has been considered.

Some day, when the park is a reality, a whole lot of people can take credit for a fine addition to life in Powhatan.

back to top

January 29, 2007

No topic has generated greater debate in the General Assembly for the last two years than roads and transportation. A special session last year on the subject ended inconclusively. So, the development of a compromise proposal last week is a promising prospect.

For several years, House Republicans have insisted that new transit funding should proceed only in tandem with new thinking on land use and also reform in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Since his inauguration, Gov. Kaine and others have argued for simply a billion dollars in a statewide tax increase, without concern for land use or VDOT reform.

It is in light of this ongoing debate, that a comprehensive transportation reform package has been formulated. Admittedly, it is a compromise plan and has been crafted by House and Senate GOP leaders and contains elements of all three reforms. As with any such wide-ranging legislation, it contains items more and less palatable.

Under the proposal, new funding for roads and mass transit would derive, in significant part, from surpluses in the state’s budget. For the past two years or so, surpluses have ranged from roughly $500 million to $1 billion. Notably, the Republicans propose no major tax increase. There would be a $10 annual rise in vehicle registration, and this would be the only cost most residents of the 65th District would pay.

The share of the surplus dedicated annually amounts to one and a half percent of the state's General Fund, a fund which has been averaging surpluses in the range of six percent annually. The proposed figure seems reasonable for such an important state purpose—one which the governor, among others, has identified as his top priority this year. The Commonwealth's fastest-growing regions-- Northern Virginia and Tidewater--- would be granted authority to raise additional revenue through taxes that could be adopted and levied in those areas.

On land use and zoning, the package would encourage the use of "urban development areas" incorporating elements of an approach to residential growth that has come to be known as the "new urbanism." In short, “new urbanism” calls for local and state governments to adopt zoning and related guidelines that discourage suburban sprawl and the traffic congestion that sprawl inevitably entails. This zoning would encourage mass transit, open space, walking trails, and a commercial-zone component while calling for relatively dense residential development. Taken together, these improvements in the way our residential areas “develop” would reduce our dependence solely on roads.

In addition, the legislation is intended to curb large-lot development in rural areas and thus to meet one of the major challenges faced by hard-pressed, fast-growing counties like ours. There are among several reform provisions related to VDOT.

This is a brief, thumbnail sketch of a large and complex legislative proposal. However, the proposal has several merits. Most importantly, the proposal is an admirably audacious attempt simultaneously to address transportation needs while also actually controlling the manifold challenges of “growth” that we are seeing all around us in the 65^th District and in many other parts of Virginia. I do have reservations about parts of the package; still, at this early stage of deliberations—and more deliberations and much more debate is certain—I also see much that is promising in the proposal to meet some of Virginia's most pressing needs.

One local issue that merits reference this week is House Bill 3073, concerning operation of off-road vehicles in residential areas. Submitted at the request of Powhatan supervisors, the bill is designed to address growing concerns with dust and noise caused by a few and apparently younger riders of all-terrain vehicles in some parts of the county. Several of us are working to ensure that the problem is addressed in a manner that does not infringe on the many riders who either ride such vehicles on their own property or who are respectful of neighbors and neighboring properties. In the end, I am confident that we will reach a positive resolution with which everybody can agree.

back to top

February 5, 2007

As these lines were written the House was in its ninth hour of Floor debate on Monday evening as delegates faced the challenge of concluding action on all bills to be passed to the Senate by midnight on Tuesday. At some point in the meantime the House will have had to decide two of the most important issues of Session—proposals for transportation projects and whether or not to reform regulations governing the generation of electricity in Virginia.

As usual, many delegates’ bills were able to foster consideration of new issues or a reconsideration of previously decided questions. Certainly this was the case for several of the bills I introduced this year.

House Bill (HB) 2103 was an administrative bill, unanimously approved by the House, allowing boards of private corporations to delegate certain professional responsibilities. There was no controversy with the legislation, not least because I worked closely with the Virginia Bar Association in its conception and presentation.

HB 2562 proved to be one of the highest profile bills of Session. This legislation would have required “dual endorsement” of insurance company checks issued to patients of doctors, irrespective of the doctors’ participation in group insurance networks. In other words, if you received a check from an insurance coverage for some medical service, the check could be cashed only with the signature of both the patient and the doctor who served the patient. The bill was designed to help reduce the number of instances in which doctors are not paid for their services. Insurance companies generally opposed the proposal, which, after much debate over many days, was defeated in the Commerce & Labor committee, 12-9.

HB 2563 also generated widespread debate and had not been decided at press-time. This bill would reform the Payday Loan Act. In a nutshell, the bill would allow payday lending institutions to continue to do business in Virginia but would set strict caps on the number, amount, and interest-rate of loans, protect members of the U.S. military from borrowing beyond their means, and provide for no-penalty pay-back schedules for borrowers who fall into arrears. A somewhat similar proposal has been passed by the Senate, and action on my bill was expected to be decided by mid-week.

HB 2564 would have established new guidelines for public schools’ academic programs for gifted students. We decided to pull the bill to allow for further study.

HB 2825, unanimously passed by the House, would redefine terms for disbursement of revenues from the Land Conservation Fund.

HB 3063, to increase the number of General District Court judges in the 11^th Judicial District, which includes Powhatan, has been referred to the Appropriations Committee. Judge Garland Bigley provided statistics that demonstrate convincingly that a new judgeship in the district is justified; however, the cost of doing so may prove prohibitive at present. On an unrelated note, Judge Bigley on Monday informed me that she is retiring from her seat on the bench, so there will after all be an opening in the 11^th Judicial District.

HB 3073, concerning off-road vehicles, was proposed by Powhatan County ’s board of supervisors to address serious concerns with the operation of these vehicles in some residential areas of the county. County Attorney John Rick assisted greatly in this endeavor, and the bill has been carried over until 2008 to allow riders and supervisors to try to reach a voluntary remedy to supervisors’ concerns.

HB 3194, which would provide civil immunity for folks who speak at public hearings, was amended on the Floor late Monday, so its fate was uncertain at press-time. Several of us were striving for a balance that would both protect citizens from unwarranted suits while protecting others from false statements, etc.

House Joint Resolution 626 is a proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution that would limit the growth in the state budget to a formula derived from state domestic product, the rate of inflation, and the rate of population increase—or decrease—in any given year. At press-time there had been no action, and prospects were modest. A similar proposal of mine was passed by the House two years ago but did not pass in Senate committee.

“Crossover Day” was Wednesday, meaning that the House would have to have completed action on all its bills, with those that gained approval being conveyed to the Senate. Conversely, all bills passed by the Senate will be coming to the House. In other words, we have reached the half-way point of the 2007 Session.

back to top

February 12, 2007

As these lines were written the House was into its first full week of considering bills that were passed by the Senate. Conversely, bills passed by the House are in the Senate. With adjournment just over a week away—on February 24—well over 1,000 bills remain to be decided. Foremost of all bills is House Bill (HB) 3202, a comprehensive compromise proposal to address transportation questions, patroned by Speaker William J. Howell of Stafford .

Invariably, adjustments at mid-term to a biennial budget—this time for 2006-2007—receive much of legislators’ attention, and this session has been no exception. Accordingly, the House this past week devoted two long meetings to consideration of scores of proposed amendments to the biennial budget.

In keeping with the majority’s determination to direct to transportation most of the $1 billion surplus generated by a robust economy, a large number of amendments were denied. Unfortunately for the 65^th District, this included my proposed amendments, totaling $17.5 million, for development of Phase I of proposed Yates State Park in Powhatan. Of this amount, $12 million would complete Phase I projects while $5.2 million would improve the intersection of Routes 522 and 617 at the proposed park’s entrance. Similar amendments introduced in the Senate by Senator John Watkins met a similar fate. Nonetheless, Senator Watkins and I remain committed to development of the park, and we will confer after Session to discuss next steps.

There have been many successes so far. The House passed bills that would:

dedicate half of any budget surplus each fiscal year to the Transportation Trust Fund;
amend the state Constitution to protect Virginians’ property rights to establish what constitutes a “taking” of private property for a public use. This legislation is in response to the notorious ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Kelo versus New London , in 2005, whereby the Court upheld a localities’ power to “take” private property simply for purposes of economic development. A majority of legislators believe this is an outrageous ruling that must be curtailed by state legislation, and I wholeheartedly agree;
Create income tax credits for businesses and individuals who contribute to eligible public school foundations and eligible scholarship foundations to foster greater access to quality education for all students;
Require the Virginia Community College System to grant in-state tuition to students who may live out of state but still within thirty miles of a community college in Virginia ;
Establish a Public Charter School Fund for development of alternative public education programs;
Prohibit illegal aliens from eligibility for in-state tuition at Virginia’s public colleges and universities;
Enable the Governor to enter into an agreement with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies to allow Virginia State Police to enforce civil immigration laws;
Increase the threshold for filing state income taxes for both individuals and families, resulting in the elimination of tax liability for over 300,000 low-income Virginians. At my instigation, this bill also contains a modest increase in the deduction for all taxpayers;
Discourage businesses from knowingly hiring illegal aliens by designating the willful employment of an unauthorized alien a violation of employment laws;
establish standard requirements for a technical high-school diploma in career and technical education, to bolster certification for students who want to go on to careers in industry or the trades;
provide new funding options for $500 million in grants for the installation of “nutrient removal technologies” at some public water treatment plants as a further step toward rejuvenation of Chesapeake Bay ;
establish new guidelines for regulating the rates of investor-owned electric utilities, balancing consumer protection with the need for increased generation of electricity generation within Virginia ;
provide in-state tuition for active-duty members of the armed forces who are stationed for at least six months within the Commonwealth.

Of course each of these—and scores of other—House proposals are subject to revision or even rejection by the Senate, but the array of bills passed by Crossover Day on February 6 were generally consistent with a cautious approach to the scope and expense of state government.

Near the top on every legislator’s list of interests over the next several days will be Senate response to the House proposal for transportation. Prospects appear good for Assembly agreement on a responsible approach to transportation needs while avoiding an increase in statewide taxes at a time when the state treasury has a large surplus.

back to top