HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
July 01, 2003 Hearing Room E
1:00 PM Tapes 89 - 91
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. Dan Doyle, Chair
Rep. Linda Flores, Vice-Chair
Rep. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair
Rep. Vic Backlund
Rep. Phil Barnhart
Rep. Betsy L. Close
Rep. Joanne Verger
STAFF PRESENT: Cara
Filsinger, Administrator
Janet Adkins, Administrator
Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant
MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: SB
903-A– Work Session
Introduction of Speaker-approved
committee bill – Work Session
SB 190-A – Public Hearing and Work
Session
SB 854-A – Public Hearing and Work Session
HM 10 – Public Hearing and 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 89, A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Doyle |
Calls meeting to order at 1:05 p.m., announces order
agenda items will be considered, and opens a work session on SB 903 A. |
|
SB 903
A – WORK SESSION |
||
|
014 |
Tim Nesbitt |
President, Oregon AFL-CIO. Testifies in support of SB 903-A (EXHIBIT A). |
|
053 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks if Associated Oregon Industries (AOI) will
testify. |
|
|
Nesbitt |
Responds that AOI supports the bill, that there has
been no opposition to the bill, and that the Employment Department Advisor
Council consisting of labor, business, and community representatives has
endorsed the bill. |
|
066 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves SB 903 A to the floor with a DO PASS
recommendation. |
|
070 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments in support of SB 903 A. |
|
|
Rep. Verger |
Comments she wishes she were voting to say that the
same number of jobs were going to be created. |
|
|
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. REP. DOYLE will lead discussion on the
Floor. |
|
080 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on SB 903 A and opens a work
session on introduction of Speaker-approved committee bill. |
|
INTRODUCTION
OF SPEAKER-APPROVED COMMITTEE BILL |
||
|
089 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves LC 3697 BE INTRODUCED as a committee
bill (EXHIBIT B). |
|
092 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on the introduction of
Speaker-approved committee bill and opens a public hearing on SB 190 A. |
|
SB 190
A – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
100 |
Rob Douglas |
Columbia River Steamship Operators Association
(CRSOA). Testifies in support of SB
190-A. States they believe SB 190 A
will streamline the Board of Maritime Pilots procedures for setting pilotage
rates. States that the operators, the
people who pay the rates, the representatives from the various pilotage
grounds, and the Board of Maritime Pilots support the measure. Explains that they have worked with the
Department of Justice and the Public Utility Commission (PUC). |
|
118 |
Dave Fiskum |
Representing the Columbia River Pilots, and speaking for Tom Gallagher, representative
for the bar pilots. Testifies in
Support of SB 190 A. States this is a
consensus bill and attains a very important purpose and is very limited in
its scope to allow the Board of Maritime Pilots access to the experienced PUC
rate hearings officers. Explains
they consulted with Rep. Shetterly in
an effort to not violate the hearings officer program. |
|
142 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks if the committee should proceed with the SB 190-A6
amendments (EXHIBIT C) |
|
|
Fiskum |
States that the SB 190 A6 amendments go further than
the SB 109-A7 amendments (EXHIBIT
D). The SB 190 A6 amendments
include the conflict amendments as well as a provision that was omitted. It would remove a section of the current
ORS 776.115(8). The language to be
removed in the SB 190-A7 amendments is on page 3, starting at line 18. States that it made more sense that once
rate proceedings are decided that the rates be implemented immediately,
rather than wait for a later deadline. |
|
165 |
Fiskum |
States they advocate for the SB 190-A6 amendments. |
|
154 |
Douglas |
States they also support the SB 190-A6 amendments. |
|
|
Rep. Verger |
Asks what recommendations the Economic Development Department
and the Port of Portland would be making. |
|
170 |
Douglas |
States the language is in existing law. |
|
|
Fiskum |
Comments on existing law. |
|
197 |
Susan Johnson |
Administrator, Board of Maritime Pilots. Advises that the board does support the bill
and the amendments. |
|
202 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session
on SB 190 A. |
|
|
||
|
SB 190
A – WORK SESSION |
||
|
207 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks the proponents to talk about the subsequent
referral to Ways and Means Committee. |
|
210 |
Douglas |
Explains that the bill was considered by Ways and
Means on the Senate side. |
|
220 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT SB 190-A6 amendments dated
7/1/03. |
|
224 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
225 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves SB 190 A to the floor with a DO PASS
AS AMENDED recommendation and the SUBSEQUENT REFERRAL to the committee on
Ways and Means BE RESCINDED. |
|
233 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks how many more hearings will be held. Comments there would be a cost. |
|
246 |
Douglas |
Responds that the number of hearings will depend on
whether anyone files for a rate hearing.
|
|
249 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments on consolidation of the hearings officers
several years ago, and states that he sees this bill as a fix to get the
Board of Maritime Pilots back into a situation where they have a
knowledgeable hearings officer so they do not have to retry every single
issue. |
|
268 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. |
|
275 |
Chair
Doyle |
MOTION: Moves SB 190 A be placed on the CONSENT
CALENDAR. |
|
276 |
|
VOTE:
7-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
251 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on SB 190 A and opens a
public hearing on SB 854 A. |
|
SB 854 A
– PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
282 |
Sen. Roger Beyer |
District 9. Testifies
in support of SB 854 A. Explains
efforts in developing the bill due to court decisions on commodity
commissions across the nation. Explains
case involving the Washington State Apple Commission. States that no one can guarantee that if sued we will win the lawsuit. The bill is what the Department of
Justice, Legislative Counsel, administrators of the commodity commissions,
and the boards and directors of commodity commissions have all decided as a
group that this is the best defense we have with today’s history of court
cases. |
|
309 |
Sen. Beyer |
Explains that he worked with the commodity
commission groups, the Farm Bureau, and other producers to come up with SB
190 A. States that not all producers
support the bill as is; some want all commodity commissions to be required to
offer refunds for their marketing, at least, if not for the entire
program. |
|
324 |
Sen. Beyer |
Explains that three of the 28 commissions wish to have
the option to offer refunds. States
that the problem of making refunds mandatory is that the commissions are
controlled by the producers. Gives
example of the Fryer Commission that has two processors and if one should decide
they don’t want to pay into the commission that would get rid of the
commission even through the people who raise the chickens may still want to
have commission. |
|
345 |
Sen. Beyer |
Explains that to ensure the commissions are working
with their producers, they have included that all commissions must survey
their membership and make the survey public so the legislature will know
where the producers are. Notes the
sunset on the parts of the bill. |
|
|
Sen. Beyer |
Explains the sunset dates on the public member on
the commissions, and the increased oversight of the commissions by the
Department of Agriculture. |
|
392 |
Sen. Beyer |
Urges committee to pass the bill as it is. |
|
408 |
Chair Doyle |
Comments it is his intention to pass the bill out
today. |
|
415 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if this bill is in response to the Supreme
Court case U. S. versus United
Foods. |
|
|
Sen. Beyer |
Responds there have been about six lawsuits. The first was the mushroom case and the
last was the Washington Apple Commission. |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
Advises Sen. Beyer that comments have been made that
this bill expands state government and entitles more employees for PERS. Asks if those issues have been discussed
on the Senate side. |
|
439 |
Beyer |
States there will not be additional people brought
in as state employees by the bill.
States there is an increased oversight by the Department of
Agriculture but that consists of approval of budgets, specifically the
marketing part of the budgets.
Explains that in order for those to be considered public speech so
they are not in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, there
must be an increase in oversight by a state agency of those budgets. |
|
478 |
Chair Doyle |
Notes that the bill has a minimal fiscal impact. |
|
TAPE
90, A |
||
|
023 |
Beyer |
States that the commodity commissions already exist,
they function with private citizens running the boards, most, if not all of
them hire private firms to run the commissions, and this will only require
increased oversight of their budget by the Department of Agriculture
employees. |
|
029 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if the commissions will continue to contract
with outside companies for management services. |
|
|
Beyer |
Responds that will be a commission-by-commission
decision as it is today. Nothing in
the bill forces them to do something different. |
|
037 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if they would have to come back to the
legislature for new PERS positions. |
|
|
Beyer |
Responds they would have to come back to get
authority to fund additional positions. |
|
055 |
Rep. Jeff Kropf |
District 17.
Testifies with “tepid” support for SB 854 A. Submits the SB 854-7 amendments. Comments on importance of the Mint Commission that allowed them
to have the tools necessary to manage their crops. States that commissions
are threatened because of, in large part, the United Foods ruling. Change is being forced upon them and he
does not know what the proper response is to the United Foods ruling. Believes that SB 854 A gets them most of
the way there, but he does not believe the bill as written will survive a legal challenge and that is why
he offers the SB 854-7 amendments (EXHIBIT
E). |
|
109 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Ask Rep. Kropf to explain the United Foods ruling. |
|
|
Rep. Kropf |
States that commodity assessments are used for a
number of purposes. Most commissions use their funds for promotion. The United Foods ruling centers on
promotion. As he understands the
ruling, it is a violation of free speech to compel a farmer to spend the
assessment on promotional dollars if he should disagree with that. |
|
125 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks if refunding is the issue. |
|
|
Rep. Kropf |
Responds that is exactly the issue. SB 854 A as currently written allows an
exception for three of the commodity commissions, who chose this in the
negotiations. The three commissions
have the authority to refund the assessment; it is not mandatory. The SB 854 -7 amendments extends that to
everyone because he believes it offers a more defensible position in court to
defend the concept. The SB 854-7
amendments do not provide protection from a lawsuit. Believes it will be challenged anyway, but
the amendments would help prepare for
the best legal defense possible. Without mandatory refund, they have been put
on notice they will be sued. Others
think it will pass the legal challenge.
|
|
147 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks if she would benefit from others’ assessments
even if she demands her money back. |
|
|
Rep. Kropf |
Responds affirmatively and states that is why
mandatory refund ability is not part of SB 854-A. |
|
184 |
Chair Doyle |
Advises that the committee will hear about the court
cases and why the refund ability is an issue. |
|
|
Rep. Kropf |
States that he believes Oregon would be sued even if
the SB 854-7 amendments were adopted. |
|
201 |
Janet Adkins |
Administrator.
Explains the differences between SB 854 A and the SB 854-7 amendments
is in Section 22 of the SB 854-7 amendments, which gives all commissions the
authority to make refunds. |
|
211 |
Rep. Donna Nelson |
District 24.
Testifies in opposition to SB 854-A.
Comments on 2001 legislation.
Comments that the commissions were established to maximize the
marketing arm. Comments on
establishment of assessment rates and moneys raised by the apple commission
in Washington. Submits and reviews
letter from Brian C. Leighton, attorney, who challenged commodity commission legislation
in other states (EXHIBIT F). |
|
351 |
Rep. Nelson |
States her concern is that growers maintain and sustain
their right to free speech; their voices should be heard in any kind of
marketing campaign, and that should they feel their voice is not being heard
or it is more expensive than they can afford, they have the right to opt
out. Adds that we do not need to
establish 28 more government agencies. |
|
365 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks what part of the bill establishes new
government agencies. |
|
|
Rep. Nelson |
Reads summary of the bill. |
|
400 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks if Rep. Nelson has expressed her concerns in the
Senate and to members of the lobby. |
|
|
Rep. Nelson |
Responds she did not testify on the bill in the
Senate, and that she has expressed her concerns to the lobby. |
|
423 |
Rep. Nelson |
Adds that her office polled all the commodity
commissions and found that many did not know this bill was coming up. |
|
440 |
Mike Dewey |
Representing a consortium of the commodity
commissions. Testifies in support of
SB 854-A because without the various commodity commissions, we take
immediately $10 to $12 million out of the Oregon economy. About $2.5 million of that is for research
at Oregon State University (OSU). |
|
|
|
Comments on working with the office of attorney
general. States that the commissions
must look like and act like a state agency if they are going to be able to
collect the money. They must be under
the umbrella of the government to have the government speech. Believes the agency has adequate FTE
because the Department of Agriculture is already doing this. |
|
TAPE 89, B |
||
|
014 |
Dewey |
Comments on consensus of the groups working on the
bill: the survey, the oversight, and the public member. Having the requirement for the survey on
refund ability will tell more about the organizations and they can come back
next session to offer refund ability.
|
|
036 |
Dewey |
Explains there are mandatory assessments but not
mandatory refunds. Comments on survey
by the Wheat League in other states that shows that 10 to 30 percent have
refund ability. States that when the
budget fluctuates it is difficult to have contracts. Everybody benefits by the research and
promotions and if they benefit, they should pay in. Some producers would like to promote their own particular brand
name. Three commissions chose to
provide for refunds. The other 25
said they believe they can win a lawsuit if SB 854 A is passed without any
amendments. |
|
067 |
Dewey |
States they believe a lawsuit will be filed. |
|
078 |
Rep. Flores |
Asks if they know if the memberships would like to
have the opt in or opt out provision, and how wide the inquiry was. |
|
|
Dewey |
Responds that it would vary from commission to
commission. They made it clear that
refunds were an issue. Comments on
efforts to educate the commissions’ members about the legislation. |
|
119 |
Rep. Close |
Summarizes a letter from George VanLeeuwen, a grass
seed farmer, indicating that the commodity commissions have outlived their
usefulness, and the constitutional free speech problem could be addressed by
eliminating the promotional activities and just doing the research and
transportation. Asks that the
witnesses respond. |
|
129 |
Dewey. |
Comments on activity by government trade missions,
and states it is very difficult for private business to access a China market
because of the way the government imposes their regime or opportunity for
access. Believes some are making progress
in terms of their own promotion but by and large, they must pool the money to
have the opportunity for economic development. States he respects VanLeeuwen’s opinion but does not believe it
is time to say everyone should be on his own. |
|
141 |
John McCulley |
Representing commodity commissions. Comments that VanLeeuwen may feel it is an
issue in the grass seed industry; but it would not work in the fryer, mint,
or hop industries because of the diversity of the commissions. |
|
156 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks the witnesses to talk about the litigation
schedule. |
|
172 |
Dewey |
Responds they have entered into the record a letter
from an attorney who has a client who is willing to test this statute and it
has an emergency clause. They
anticipate they will see litigation soon.
Comments on efforts of the individual producers to form the
commissions and set the assessments. States
that in the opinion of the attorney general, the commodity commissions were
created illegally and they had to recreate the commissions. It is another issue that must be dealt
with. |
|
201 |
Dewey |
Comments on the Senate vote on the measure. |
|
213 |
John McCulley |
Oregon Dairy Products Commissions and other
commodity commissions. |
|
233 |
McCulley |
States that each commission had to vote in public
meetings to have this bill introduced and then vote and pass a motion in
those same meetings saying that they would help support the lobbying effort
for the bill. Notes the matrix
attached to his testimony (EXHIBIT G) showing
what exists now and what the changes would be under SB 854 A. States that commodity commissions are part
of the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODOA). Their budgets are currently approved by ODOA. The commission contracts are approved by
ODOA, and if the contracts are a certain size, they are approved by the
Department of Justice. States the
commissions are audited and are subject to the state Public Meeting Law. They report annually to the Secretary of
State’s office the annual financial report, and they report to Legislative
Counsel all the accounts receivable under a bill a couple of sessions ago. They do act as state agencies now. SB 854 tucks them more tightly under ODOA,
primarily in the area of promotions.
The lawsuits have suggested that is the area where commissions are
most vulnerable for the compelled speech argument. |
|
266 |
McCulley |
States that on page 11, the language in lines 4
through 11 shows the close relationship with ODOA. Comments on current operations and the addition of a public
member to each commission. Notes that
the second page of his testimony lists the key elements of the bill. Explains compromise. |
|
298 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks if a grower could be a part of the commission
and not pay the assessment. |
|
|
McCulley |
Explains exceptions to the assessment, including
organic blueberry growers. Adds that
someone cannot opt out because they do not like the commission. |
|
352 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks why someone would want a refund if they are benefited. Gives example of a commission. Ask what the problem is. |
|
|
McCulley |
Responds there are people who want something for
nothing and are willing to have someone else pay for them to benefit; some
just do not want to pay the money to the commission. |
|
362 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks why the bill goes a step further with the oversight
by ODOA. |
|
|
McCulley |
Responds that the attorneys read the various cases
and brought everyone to the table and advised that additional government oversight
was necessary to show that the State of Oregon was involved in providing that
speech to the public. Under the
umbrella of government’s speech the commissions’ messages would be protected. It was determined that the best defense is
to be more closely aligned with ODOA and have the agency make the
reviews. |
|
447 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks if she could have her own advertising money
while the pool of money is strictly under the umbrella of the State of
Oregon. |
|
464 |
McCulley |
States that Rep. Verger is correct. |
|
|
Dewey |
Comments that under SB 854 A the Director of ODOA
appoints the commission members. |
|
TAPE 90, B |
||
|
023 |
Chuck Craig |
Assistant Director, Oregon Department of Agriculture. Comments on opportunities provided for
public comments. States they believe
they have a good compromise that represents the points of view that the vast
majority of folks have brought and that have been accepted. They feel that taking the step to try as
best they can to ensure the future viability of Oregon commodity commissions
is an important part of this administration’s program for rural economic
development, and to try to protect the infrastructure that serves the economy
of rural Oregon. ODOA very strongly supports
the bill as it came from the Senate. |
|
047 |
Craig |
Adds that the ODOA oversight for the promotional
program has been explained. The
reason they feel this will not result in additional work or fiscal impact is
that they have been trying for some time to create a stronger linkage between
the international marketing program and the marketing programs of the
commodity commissions. This is a good
venue for them to come together with a stronger working relationship in those
areas. |
|
050 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks why three groups are being treated differently |
|
|
Dewey |
Explains why three commodity commissions have chosen
the opportunity to offer refunds. |
|
067 |
Rep. Verger |
Comments that she understands this was voluntary to
help them have some balance that would give them legal protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
070 |
Dewey |
Responds their advice was that the issue is about
free speech and this would get them closer to 100 percent in winning a
lawsuit. The surveys will tell a lot
and thinks the legislature will want to ask for that information on what the
growers think about a refund. |
|
071 |
Rep. Verger |
Asks if the three commission offering refunds would
help defend a lawsuit against any other commission. |
|
|
McCulley |
States that those three commissions will have to
make those decisions, just like the other commissions will have to decide if
they will step forward and help whichever commission is sued. |
|
081 |
Rep. Barnhart |
States that the Leighton letter (EXHIBIT F) talks about government speech. Asks if the committee will have a review
of the cases so the members can see where the courts are going with
“government speech.” |
|
092 |
Dewey |
States that Richard Whitman, the chief counsel on
this, is in the room. |
|
091 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks Craig if the reason for this bill is not really
in response to this line of cases; the reason for the bill is to make certain
that we do a good job with our commodity commissions and integrating our
international sales efforts. |
|
104 |
Craig |
Responds yes, and the bill serves both purposes. |
|
101 |
Bernie Faber |
Dairy farmer in west Salem. States he is a member of the State Board
of Agriculture and has served on the Oregon Dairy Commission, and his son is
currently a member of the Oregon Dairy Commission. States they support SB 854-A without additional amendments. Comments on history of Oregon Dairy
Commission assessment to promote dairy products. Comments that anyone could have any kind of excuse to ask for a
refund. Explains that once one
producer opts out, it allows other producers to ask why they want to be a
part of it when somebody else is riding a free ride. They don’t have that situation now. Tells of failure of a commission because
of the opt out provision. |
|
147 |
Glen Stonebrink |
Executive Director, Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association. Comments on Oregon Beef
Council, made up of two segments of the beef industry. States that the ranchers and the Oregon
Cattlemen’s Association support SB
854-A. |
|
179 |
Dave Nelson |
Representing commodity commissions. Comments in response to VanLeeuwen letter
mentioned by Rep. Close. Comments on
chart on grass seed export (EXHIBIT H)
and the Connection (EXHIBIT
I). |
|
260 |
Rep. Verger |
Comments that Oregon has the broadest free speech in
the nation and asks why they are so concerned about free speech. |
|
267 |
Richard Whitman |
Attorney in Charge of Natural Resources Section, Department
of Justice. Responds that Rep. Verger
is right, Oregon does have an extremely broad free speech clause in the State
Constitution. States there has been
no challenge to these programs under the State Constitution. There has been a case brought under the
free speech clause having to do with license plates. It raises some similar issues about free
speech and whether people are compelled by certain government actions to
speak in a particular way. States
there is a holding from the Oregon Court of Appeals that indicates the Oregon
courts are likely to follow the direction of at least some of the federal
courts in that if the government is speaking, then free speech clauses of the
Oregon Constitution or the federal Constitution do not apply. The free speech clause guarantees citizens
the right to free speech; they do not guarantee citizens the right to be free
of their government speaking. |
|
294 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks how the growers are assessed. |
|
|
Nelson |
Explains how the assessments are made and collected. |
|
292 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Asks if there may be one or two large producers who
are providing most of the funding for a commission. |
|
|
Nelson |
Responds that the Highland bent grass growers are an
example. |
|
360 |
Rep. Close |
Comments that many state commissions are tax funded
and many of them take positions that not everyone agrees with. Ask what the difference is. |
|
369 |
Whitman |
Comments on other organizations that are not
governmental yet people are required to pay into them. States that the courts have pretty much
struck those down. |
|
398 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks how the issues in SB 854 A differ from the case
involving the California State Bar around these kinds of issues. |
|
403 |
Whitman |
Responds that the key difference is the California
State Bar was found not to be a state governmental entity, at least for
speech purposes. In this situation we
have an Oregon Court of Appeals decision saying the assessment funds that are
collected are public funds. The
purpose of this bill is to ensure that the use of those funds for promotional
activities by being subject to additional oversight by ODOA is considered to
be state speech, rather than private speech.
|
|
423 |
Chair Doyle |
Asks witnesses to respond to commodity commission
employees becoming state employees. |
|
|
Nelson |
Nelson responds he believes that was clarified in
the 1991 session of the legislature when the commissions were granted the
option of either hiring people as state employees; some commissions do have
state employees. The majority of the
small commissions have contracts with commission administrators such McCulley
and himself who provide the administrative services and they are not
qualified to become state employees unless they become full time employees or
they have an employee-employer relationship with the commission. This bill does not change that section of
the statute. |
|
449 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session
on SB 854 A. |
|
SB 854
A – WORK SESSION |
||
|
452 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves SB 854 A to the floor with a DO PASS
recommendation. |
|
458 |
Chair Doyle |
Comments he was not interested in the SB 854-7
amendments because they seemed to complicate things. Suggests the committee pass the bill as is
so it does not have to go back to the Senate for concurrence. |
|
|
Rep. Barnhart |
Comments as he understands the bill it is to help
figure out how to sell the commodities our farmers grow in Oregon and how to
continue to improve the product and the farming methods. The bill clarifies these are government
agencies and do speak for the government when they put out materials out, and
to integrate the efforts to sell commodities overseas by bringing the
commission closer to ODOA. |
|
498 |
Rep. Backlund |
Comments on the variety of issues before the
committee, and states he thinks SB 854 A is a good bill and will vote for it. |
|
TAPE 91, A |
||
|
015 |
Rep. Verger |
Comments that SB 854 A also takes into consideration
what we need to do in Oregon in promoting Oregon and Oregon products and
thinks we do that better collectively than individually. Believes everyone needs to pay in because
everyone benefits. |
|
027 |
Rep. Monnes Anderson |
Comments that she needs to clarify a situation and
will cast a no vote with the reservation that she will be a yes vote on the
floor. Explains that she has
producers in her area who do a lot of promotion and ship fresh berries to
restaurants in other states. States
she needs to touch base with them one more time. |
|
050 |
|
VOTE:
6-1-0 AYE: 6 - Backlund, Barnhart, Close, Flores, Verger,
Doyle NAY: 1 - Monnes Anderson |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. REP. DOYLE will lead discussion on the
floor. |
|
054 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on SB 854 A, announces that
HM 9 will not be heard today, and opens a public hearing on HM 10. |
|
HM 10 –
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
060 |
Rep. G. Smith |
District 57.
Explains he received notification that the U. S. Department of
Agriculture was going to be taking testimony in regards to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), mad cow disease.
States he feels a memorial is more appropriate than a letter to
express Oregon’s concern and to express support for an industry that is very
important to a very large segment of Oregon.
Reads HM 10. |
|
125 |
Glen Stonebrink |
Executive Director, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. Offers to answer questions. |
|
131 |
Roger Huffman |
Administrator, Animal Health and Identification
Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture.
Comments on wildlife brought back from Canada. |
|
148 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if it has been learned how the disease is
spread. |
|
|
Huffman |
Responds there are still some questions. Comments on contaminated feeds. |
|
164 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if the disease can be eradicated by not feeding
animal parts to other animals. |
|
|
Huffman |
Responds affirmatively. States they have taken further steps in the United States on
food. |
|
|
|
|
|
182 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if it is true that it is not known how the “prion protein” affects other
animals. |
|
|
Huffman |
Responds that it is true and it is even more
mysterious in subspecies. |
|
190 |
Brad Harper |
Executive Director, Water for Life. Encourages passage of HM 10. |
|
206 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the public hearing and opens a work session
on HM 10. |
|
HM 10 –
WORK SESSION |
||
|
210 |
Rep.
Flores |
MOTION: Moves HM 10 be sent to the floor with a BE
ADOPTED recommendation. |
|
212 |
|
VOTE:
6-0-1 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. EXCUSED: 1 - Rep. Close |
|
|
Chair Doyle |
The motion CARRIES. REP. G. SMITH will lead discussion on
the floor. |
|
222 |
Chair Doyle |
Closes the work session on HM 10, and announces that
he committee will meet on Wednesday and not on Thursday. |
|
231 |
Chair Doyle |
Adjourns meeting at 3:15 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– SB 903, prepared statement, Tim Nesbitt, 2 pp
B
– Introduction of Speaker-Approved committee bill, staff, 4 pp
C
– SB 190, SB 190-A6 amendments, Rep. Doyle, 4 pp
D
– SB 190, SB 190-A7 amendments, Staff, 2 pp
E
– SB 854, SB 854-7 amendments, Rep. Kropf, 78 pp
F
– SB 854, prepared statement, Rep. Nelson, 2 pp
G
– SB 854, prepared statement, John McCulley, 6 pp
H
– SB 854, charts, Dave Nelson, 3 pp
I
– SB 854, publication, Connection, Dave Nelson, 5 pp