Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Federal Relations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear 'Recourse Act' to let Oregon withhold payments to federal government after uncomplied court orders
Summary
Willie Choetzen and a coalition of lawmakers framed House Bill 4143 as a narrow, last‑resort tool to protect Oregon funds when a federal court order is ignored; supporters stressed guardrails requiring consent of governor, attorney general and treasurer, while members raised escalation and fiscal risk concerns.
Willie Choetzen (House District 46) and other sponsors presented House Bill 4143 — dubbed in testimony the "Recourse Act" — to the House Committee on Rules, saying the measure would allow Oregon, with the governor’s direction and consent of the attorney general and state treasurer, to withhold certain direct payments to the federal government up to an equivalent amount when a federal court has ordered payment to Oregon and the federal government has not complied.
Choetzen told the committee that over the past year federal actions had attempted to withhold approximately $4.6 billion owed to Oregon and that although litigation has often resulted in courts ordering payment, delays have caused real harm to families, shelters and local services. "If the federal government does not release funding after ordered by a court, the Recourse Act would authorize the Oregon governor with the consent of both the attorney general and state treasurer to withhold direct payments to the federal government up to an equivalent amount," Choetzen said.
Supporters emphasized strict guardrails. Lamar Wise said the bill applies only after a valid federal court order has not been complied with and requires consent of the governor, attorney general and state treasurer; he added that withheld funds would be placed in segregated holding accounts, not spent on unrelated state needs. Anthony Broadman highlighted potential impacts on disaster and wildfire funding, urging the committee to consider the bill as a tool of last resort to protect continuity of services.
Members questioned escalation risks and practical limits. Representative Scarlato worried that reciprocal withholding could lead to an arms race with the federal government and observed Oregon could run out of funds first. Choetzen and other supporters responded that the measure is designed to be narrow, only applying after judicial determination and with unanimous consent among the three state officials, and that litigation alone can leave communities waiting for years for funds needed for health, safety, and disaster response.
The committee heard that the measure would not apply to payroll taxes and that the governor, attorney general and treasurer must agree for action to proceed — a safeguard sponsors said prevents unilateral escalation. Committee members asked for additional clarifications about situations involving slow administrative payments versus deliberate noncompliance; sponsors indicated willingness to work on language but stressed the court‑order requirement as the principal guardrail.
The hearing closed with supporters reiterating that the bill is intended as a last‑resort accountability mechanism; the committee did not vote on the measure during this session.
