HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

 

 

February 20, 2003   Hearing Room D

1:00 PM Tapes  29 - 30

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Jeff Kropf, Chair

Rep. George Gilman, Vice-Chair

Rep. Kelley Wirth, Vice-Chair

Rep. Terry Beyer

Rep. Dave Hunt

Rep. Donna Nelson

Rep. Patti Smith

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Ray Kelly, Committee Administrator

David Peffley, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURES HEARD:                     HB 2372 – Work Session

                                                HB 2416 – Public Hearing

                                                LC 689 – Work Session                       

                                                HB 2416 – Work Session

 

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 29, A

004

Chair Kropf

Calls the meeting to order at 1:04 and opens a work session on          HB 2372.

HB 2372 – WORK SESSION

017

Ray Kelly

Committee Administrator.  Speaks to the revenue impact relating to   HB 2372.

024

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves that the SUBSEQUENT REFERRAL to the committee on Revenue BE RESCINDED.

028

Rep. Beyer

States concern as to the revenue impact and announces that she will vote no on HB 2372.

036

Rep. Hunt

Asks what the process is when there is no referral, but there is a probable revenue impact.

040

Chair Kropf

States that normally the bill would be referred to the relevant committee.  Adds that in this case there is some debate as to whether there is any impact or not and that a revenue statement will be forthcoming.

048

Ray Kelly

Notes that this bill can’t be dropped unless there is a revenue statement.

051

Chair Kropf

Informs the committee that it was not his intention to move the bill.

055

Rep. Nelson

States agreement with Rep. Beyer.  Affirms the need for a revenue statement. 

063

Rep. Hunt

Also affirms that his vote to rescind the referral should not necessarily be construed as a vote in favor of the bill.

071

Chair Kropf

Affirms that if an impact statement is issued, then the bill would come back into committee.

077

Rep. Wirth

Asks for confirmation that this bill will go to revenue on the Senate side.

080

Chair Kropf

Expresses near certainty that HB 2372 will go to Revenue on the Senate side.

083

Rep. Wirth

Asks if there is a precedent for this situation.

084

Chair Kropf

Asserts that there is, although not in the present committee.

090

 

VOTE:  5-2

AYE:            5 - P. Smith, Nelson, Hunt, Gilman, Chair Kropf

NAY:            2 - Beyer, Wirth

092

Chair Kropf

The motion Carries.

097

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves HB  2372 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

104

Rep. Wirth

States strong opposition to this bill, as she thinks that subverting the revenue process is breaking the rules.

111

Rep. Beyer

Also states a dislike for the procedural bypass.

124

 

VOTE:  5-2

AYE:            5 - P. Smith, Nelson, Hunt, Gilman, Chair Kropf

NAY:            2 - Beyer, Wirth

 

Chair Kropf

The motion Carries.

REP. T. SMITH will lead discussion on the floor.

136

Chair Kropf

Closes the work session on HB 2372 and opens a public hearing on  HB 2416.

HB 2416 – PUBLIC HEARING

141

Ray Kelly

Summarizes HB 2416.  

151

Rep. Betsy Close

Introduces her bill, HB 2416.  Submits (EXHIBIT A) and testifies in favor of the passage of HB 2416, as it would reduce the ambiguity of the various ways in which science is used. 

218

Rep. Nelson

Questions former Governor Kitzhaber’s opposition to this definition of science. 

226

Rep. Close

Summarizes Governor Kitzhaber’s statement of opposition.

240

Rep. Nelson

Summarizes that Governor Kitzhaber didn’t have a reason for his opposition to the definition of science.

245

Rep. Close

Replies that she was disappointed with Governor Kitzhaber’s opposition to the bill defining science during the last session.

247

Rep. Hunt

Asks if there are other possible definitions for science.

251

Rep. Close

States that there probably are, but asserts that she tried to take commonly-used definitions into account while drafting HB 2416.

252

Rep. Hunt

Asks if other states have adopted similar definitions.

256

Rep. Close

Responds that she doesn’t know.

260

Rep. Wirth

Asks what problem HB 2416 would help to solve. 

262

Rep. Close

Responds that her packet contains examples of science and when it’s wrongly used can lead to groups taking terrorist actions.

267

Rep. Wirth

Asks how the definition of science will change the manipulation of data.

275

Rep. Close

Responds to scientific inquiry and how it would be implemented. 

290

Rep. Wirth

Asks Rep. Close if she believes that empirical research is not currently being used. 

303

Rep. Close

States that this would keep people from saying it’s science when it’s not.

311

Rep. Wirth

Asks how we would confirm whether the scientist was using scientifically-proven methods.

316

Rep. Close

States that it if this definition were included in the statutes, then it would contribute to truthful testimony.

323

Rep. Wirth

Restates her skepticism whether this definition is necessary.

329

Rep. Close

States that Rep. Wirth did vote against this last time, so she understands her opposition to this legislation.

340

Mary Buckman

American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter.  Submits (EXHIBIT B) in opposing HB 2416. States that this definition is limited and would hamper the scientific community and that this bill will not clarify anything.

TAPE 30, A

002

Rep. Wirth

Asks if this law would force scientists to do their job differently and whether HB 2416 would have a financial impact.

009

Buckman

States the desire to have science scrutinized, but states concern that this definition would hinder scientists’ ability to properly conduct research.

017

Rep. Wirth

States her belief that this legislation would cause scientists to do their jobs differently.

021

Rep. Hunt

Asks if other states have adopted similar definitions.

027

Buckman

Replies that there are some federal definitions

028

Rep. Hunt

Asks if there is value in having some definition which is perhaps broader than the current definition.

031

Buckman

States that it is something which could be pursued.  Affirms that the process of science needs to be maintained.

036

Rep. Wirth

Asks if there are any instances where statutes were written to compel legislators to base their decisions on science.

038

Buckman

Replies that many statutes instruct them to use the best scientific methods available and that she believes that is occurring.

040

Rep. Wirth

Asks if this legislation solves any current problems.

042

Buckman

Replies that she doesn’t believe that it solves any problems, but believes that it could create some problems by limiting scientists.

048

Chair Kropf

Asks what part of the bill creates her biggest concerns.

054

Buckman

States that she is very concerned about the phrase about testable laws and theories. 

060

Chair Kropf

States concerns about scientists and scientific analyses.  Asks how we can ferret out the truth if you don’t have some replicatable evidence. 

076

Buckman

Agrees that replicability is very important, but states that scientists don’t always have 100% of the information and sometimes have to rely on the best evidence available.

091

Chair Kropf

Explains frustrations which come about from the word science.  Offers his concern about being able to establish truth, which may not be based upon sound science. 

109

Buckman

Agrees with Chair Kropf.  States her belief that it’s just not that simple.  Also submits that peer review is an important part of the equation.

121

Katie Fast

Submits (EXHIBIT C) and testifies in support of HB 2416.  States the Cattlemen’s concern about pseudoscience and belief that this legislation is vital to holding scientists accountable.

167

Jean Wilkinson

Submits (EXHIBIT D) and testifies in support of HB 2416.  Agrees with Fast’s testimony and adds that this legislation provides a fundamental basis for sound science. 

197

Gil Riddell

Association of Oregon Counties. Asserts strong support for HB 2416.

207

Rep. Nelson

Asks if one definition of science is better than none. 

223

Fast

States that we need an efficient definition which is endorsed by the scientific community, and that this definition does fine.

237

Wilkinson

Agrees with Rep. Nelson, that one definition is better than none.

247

Chair Kropf

Asks Gil if he would respond to Buckman’s comments about scientists needing more flexibility.

251

Riddell

States his belief that this definition will not hinder the scientific community.

276

Rep. Nelson

Asks Buckman if one definition is better than none. 

296

Buckman

Reiterates her concern of what we are able to call science.  Affirms that any definition would have to be far more encompassing. 

314

Rep. Nelson

Recommends that schools drop science since we can’t decide what the definition is.

325

Buckman

Believes that the definition is more complicated. 

330

Rep. Beyer

Asks what problems this legislation would solve.

341

Buckman

Speaks to testable laws.

364

Rep. Beyer

Asks who determines what laws are testable and how. 

369

Chair Kropf

Offers that it comes down to the issue of whether or not a result is replicated.

415

Buckman

Agrees with Chair Kropf.  Speaks to a hypothetical example of the scientific process.  Reaffirms that the American Fisheries Society is concerned that this bill would limit them.

TAPE 29, B

002

Stephen Kafoury

 The Wildlife Society.  Introduces his agency’s concern with the issue. 

025

Warren Aney

Chair, Conservation Affairs Committee, Oregon Chapter, The Wildlife Society.  Submits (EXHIBIT E)  and states that the definition of science contained in HB 2416 is too narrow.  Asserts that it’s a complicated definition.  Also testifies that the Wildlife Society questions the need for such a definition. 

095

Rep. Smith

Asks that if this definition is too narrow, how Aney would amend it. 

100

Aney

States that he would add a lot and that it would change from field to field within science.

112

Rep. Wirth

Asks if Aney thought that this legislation would prohibit bad science from being presented to the legislature.

119

Aney

Testifies that the definition is so narrow that very little evidence would be admissible as science.

126

Rep. Nelson

Asks who the most famous scientist of all time is.

132

Aney

Responds that he thinks it’s probably Galileo.

136

Rep. Nelson

Asks if we should use his definition of science.

144

Aney

States that he thinks he would like to use Dr. E. O. Wilson’s thirteen-page description of science. 

156

Rep. Nelson

Asks if we could use Galileo’s definition for the sake of brevity.

160

Aney

States that we have gone beyond his findings, which were based largely on observations. 

184

Rep. Nelson

States that she likes Aney’s definition of science.  Asks if science will be forever changing.

226

Aney

Affirms that Rep. Nelson understands the gist of scientific process.

229

Chair Kropf

Asks if the National Academy of Sciences has a definition.

236

Bob Seiwert

Associate Superintendent for Curriculum Instruction, Oregon Department of Education (DOE).  Testifies that this legislation could impact the Department of Education.

266

Kathleen Vanderwall

Oregon DOE.  Submits (EXHIBIT F) and testifies as to the definition of science as used by the Oregon School System.    

308

Ginger Redlinger

Testifies that she doesn’t think that some of her school activities would necessarily fit the definition contained in HB 2416.  Remarks that science is a process, which is not addressed by this legislation.

338

Chair Kropf

Asks about the financial impact on the DOE.

343

Seiwert

Responds that this bill would change standards and would impact staffing. 

350

Rep. Nelson

Asks if we could incorporate DOE’s definition into the definition of science in HB 2416.

370

Vanderwall

Asserts her belief that the overlap might make it confusing, so she’d like to weigh the two and have a working group come to a consensus.

402

Seiwert

Reiterates his concern with defining content in statute. Reaffirms the changing nature of science.

430

Rep. Nelson

Asks if we could change the definition in the future if necessary.

438

Seiwert

Affirms that this is an issue which would need to be revisited over and again.

TAPE 30, B

007

Rep. Nelson

As a former teacher, states concern about testable laws and theories which are not contained in the definition.

019

Vanderwall

Testifies to the wealth of standards that they adhere to, and that we need to continue to focus on scientific inquiry.

034

Chair Kropf

Asks if we need to prove scientific theories. 

038

Vanderwall

Asserts that it varies within the field of science.  What is true for agriculture may not be true for geology. 

050

Chair Kropf

Asks about nationwide or statewide policy. 

053

Vanderwall

Empathizes with Chair Kropf’s position.

064

Chair Kropf

Closes the public hearing on HB 2416.  Announces that HB 2372 needs to be pulled back for further consideration.

HB 2372 - WORK SESSION

080

Rep. Gilman

MOTION:  Moves to SUSPEND the rules for the purpose of reconsidering the vote on HB 2372.

086

 

VOTE:  7-0

090

Chair Kropf

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

095

Chair Kropf

Closes the work session on HB 2372

099

Chair Kropf

Opens a work session on LC 689

LC 689 – WORK SESSION

102

Ray Kelly

Explains LC 689. 

111

Chair Kropf

Reaffirms the intent and process of the Legislative Concept.

115

Rep. Nelson

Asks if this bill was addressed last September.

120

Ray Kelly

Affirms that this bill has not previously come before a committee.  Notes that it was drafted on September 11, 2002

124

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves LC 689 BE INTRODUCED as a committee bill.

127

 

VOTE:  7-0

134

Chair Kropf

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

137

Rep. Nelson

Requests the Chair to open a work session on HB 2416.

HB 2416 – WORK SESSION

142

Rep. Nelson

MOTION:  Moves HB 2416 to the floor WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION as to passage.

156

Rep. Hunt

Asserts that we should examine this issue further. 

161

Rep. Beyer

Agrees with Rep. Hunt.  States her belief that she does not have enough information to vote now. 

166

Rep. Wirth

States that this bill is a solution looking for a problem. 

172

Rep. Smith

Submits that she will vote for HB 2416.

177

Rep. Gilman

States that he is not prepared to move the bill at this point.

180

Chair Kropf

Offers Rep. Nelson the opportunity to withdraw her motion.

184

Rep. Nelson

Points out that she didn’t motion to move the bill with a DO PASS recommendation.

190

Chair Kropf

Asks Kelly for the consequences under parliamentary procedure.

195

Kelly

Affirms that if the legislation is voted down, the bill will be killed.

201

Chair Kropf

Stresses that we work the bill at a later date and not to finalize it at this point.

210

Rep. Nelson

Withdraws her motion.

217

Chair Kropf

Closes the work session on HB 2416 and adjourns the meeting at 2:46.

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 2416, written testimony and materials, Representative Betsy Close, 4 pp.

B – HB 2416, written testimony, Mary Buckman, 2 pp.

C – HB 2416, written testimony, Katie Fast, 3 pp.

D – HB 2416, written testimony, Jean Wilkinson, 1 p.

E – HB 2416, written testimony, Warren Aney, 2 pp.

F – HB 2416, written testimony, Kathleen Vanderwall, 1 p.