TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 91, A

002

Chair Brown

Calls the meeting to order at 9:14 a.m.  Opens the public hearing on HB 2814 and HB 2815.

HB 2814 AND HB 2815 – PUBLIC HEARING

008

Rep. Vicki Berger

House District 20.  Speaks in support of HB 2814 and HB 2815.  Talks about Willamette Valley Vineyards.  Mentions that the wine industry has become an important part of the economic landscape in Oregon.  Believes that HB 2814 and HB 2815 will help promote the growth of the wine industry in Oregon.

033

Jim Bernau

Willamette Valley Vineyards.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2814 (EXHIBIT A).  Talks about how the vineyard encourages their customers to recycle the wine bottles and return the bottles to the winery.  Notes that Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) has ruled that the vineyard cannot put a 10 cents refund on wine bottle labels.  Believes that HB 2814 will allow wineries to state that there is a refund when used bottles are returned to the winery.

075

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if grocery stores and distributors are responsible for refunding the 10 cents when the wine bottle is returned.

077

Bernau

States that grocery stores and distributors will not be held responsible.

078

Rep. Holvey

Asks if he can take his used wine bottles to any winery or if the wine bottle has to be taken to the winery of origin. 

082

Bernau

Says that participation in the program is voluntary. 

091

Rep. Holvey

Asks if a person can return the wine bottles to any participating winery.

093

Bernau

States that each winery could decide if they wanted to honor bottle refunds from other wineries.

095

Janet Adkins

Committee Administrator.  Submits the HB 2814-1 amendments (EXHIBIT B).  Asks if the issue is over how the refund can be advertised.

097

Bernau

Indicates that the issue with the OLCC has been whether the refund can be advertised on the wine bottle label.

105

Chair Brown

Asks about “the credit towards future purchases at the winery” language that HB 2814 would allow on the wine bottle label.

109

Bernau

States that the -1 amendments corrects a drafting error that involved using the word credit.  Speaks in support of HB 2815.  Talks about the antioxidant Resveratrol.  Wants to include the antioxidant on the wine bottle label for intrastate sales.

131

Greg Thomas

Submits written testimony in support of HB 2815 (EXHIBIT C).  Talks about the antioxidant Resveratrol.  Notes that Resveratrol occurs in greater quantities in pinot noir wines from the Willamette Valley.

147

Bernau

Says that Willamette Valley Vineyards has had a major break through on the federal level.  States that the federal government has approved the Resveratrol label.

166

Rep. Holvey

Asks if white wine contains Resveratrol.

169

Bernau

Says that smaller amounts of Resveratrol occur in white wine than in red wine.  Talks about the French Paradox broadcast on 60 Minutes and how it helped the sales of wine.  Explains why Resveratrol is so abundant in the Willamette Valley.

201

Rep. Holvey

Says that he believes that milk will not be the state beverage for long.

203

Bernau

Talks about the value of wine as compared to other agricultural products and states that wine has surpassed Christmas trees in income to the state.

209

Chair Brown

Closes the public hearing on HB 2815.  Leaves the public hearing on HB 2814 open.

216

Paul Romain

Oregon Beer and Wine Distributors.  States that the federal government has done the right thing in terms of recognizing Resveratrol.  Speaks in opposition to HB 2814.  Mentions that no restriction exists on giving a refund on the bottle, but the law does prohibit coupons being placed on alcoholic beverages for future purchases of alcohol.  Asserts that HB 2814 is not needed, because every winery can advertise a refund on wine bottles.

274

Romain

States that only beer bottles and soft drinks mandate giving refunds on returned containers. 

280

Chair Brown

Clarifies that refunds on wine bottles are permissible in Oregon.

282

Romain

Affirms statement.

286

Bill Cross

Willamette Valley Vineyards.  Says that he did contact the OLCC and states that he sought amendments to replace the word credit with refund.  Indicates that the OLCC said that they could probably put a refund on a wine bottle.   Expresses concern about not clarifying Oregon law on this issue.

315

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if refund instead of credit will be put into HB 2814.

317

Cross

States that the word refund will be used.

319

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if the refund amount will be specific.

322

Cross

Says that the amount will not be specific and will not exceed ten cents.

327

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if the OLCC has seen the HB2814-1 amendment.

331

Cross

States that the OLCC received a hand engrossed version of HB 2814.

336

Chair Brown

Clarifies that the language in HB 2814 says not less than a 10 cents refund will be given.

338

Cross

Affirms the statements.

340

Jessie Lyon

Davis, Wright, Termaine LLP.  Talks about the concern with the OLCC’s rules that addresses discount coupons and rebates on alcoholic beverage labels.  Says that it is important to clarify a voluntary refund program in statute.  References OAR 845.007-10

369

John Stubenvoll

Communications Director, OLCC.  Takes a neutral position on HB 2814.  Says that they do not know whether a consumer would know that the wine bottle is not a part of the bottle refund program.  States that the federal government approves the labels for containers with alcohol.  Notes that an issue may exist concerning the increased workload for label approval at the OLCC.  Asks the committee to allow the OLCC to take a look at the issue.

416

Chair Brown

Asks if the federal government prohibits having refunds on wine bottle labels.

420

Stubenvoll

Responds that he does not know what the position of the federal government will be.

TAPE 92, A

001

Chair Brown

Closes the public hearing on HB 2814 and HB 2815.  Opens the work session on HB 2180.

HB 2180 – WORK SESSION

010

Janet Adkins

Committee Administrator.  Explains HB 2180.  Submits the -1 amendments (EXHIBIT D). 

035

Mark Long

Administrator, Building Codes Division.  Speaks in support of HB 2180 with the -1 amendments. 

042

Chair Brown

Asks what the -1 amendment does.

043

Long

States that the -1 amendments allow the Building Code Division to prioritize elevator inspections.

053

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if everyone is happy with HB 2180.

055

Long

Affirms that everyone is happy.

056

Adkins

Talks about how the Northwest Pulp and Paper Workers are in support of the -1 amendments.

060

Rep. Kitts

Wonders if the workers are happy with HB 2180.

064

Chair Brown

Advises the committee that HB 2180 has a subsequent referral to Ways and Means and that he intends to request that the referral be removed.  Closes the work session on HB 2180 and opens the work session on HB 2181.

HB 2181 – WORK SESSION

071

Janet Adkins

Committee Administrator.  Explains that HB 2181 also has a subsequent referral to Ways and Means.  Explains HB 2181 and the HB 2181-1 amendments (EXHIBIT E). 

093

Rep. Holvey

Comments on work of the work group.  Says that agreement has been reached on HB 2181 and states that some of the technical issues could be addressed before it is reported out of committee.

106

Mark Long

Administrator, Building Codes Division.  Says that HB 2181 will help create better customer service.  Commends Rep. Holvey for his work with the work group and Legislative Counsel for drafting the -1 amendment and states they would like to work on a couple of words in the bill.  Says that there is no fiscal impact.

135

Rep. Schaufler

Asks what two words are being changed.

137

Long

Says on page two, in line 21 of the HB 2181-1 amendments, “building officials” will be added.

145

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if those are the only two words that need to be changed before HB 2181 is sent to Ways and Means.

148

Long

States that those are the only two words that need to be added.

150

Adkins

Asks about the standardization of language.  Notes that the language on the first page in line 16 of HB 2181, it still says licensing, certification or registration.

155

Long

States that they had to use the broad terms and says that they still wanted those words in HB 2181.

166

Rep. Kitts

Asks if section two in the original HB 2181 has been moved to another section or if it has been taken out.

179

Long

Believes that pages two through 65 are being deleted in the original HB 2181. 

187

Rep. Kitts

Reads section two of the original HB 2181.  Says that the language in the amendment is completely different.  Asks if section two has been renumbered anywhere in HB 2181.

205

Long

States that he did not see it anywhere in the amendments. 

218

Rep. Holvey

Talks about how the owner and operator do not always have a construction contracting license.  States that Legislative Counsel was concerned that section two of the original HB 2181 would forbid people from suing when they in fact should be able to sue.

226

Rep. Kitts

Says that his concern with section two was people’s ability to seek legal recourse.

230

Chair Brown

Says that the committee will not move HB 2181 today.

233

Rep. Kitts

Wants the amendments to be written before it is sent out of the committee.

248

Chair Brown

Says that is the intention of the committee.

252

Adkins

Mentions section 14 may be the new section two.

259

Long

Says that it looks like a reworking of existing law.

263

Rep. Kitts

States that section 14 is not all bolded like section two of the original HB 2181 was.

264

Long

Indicates that he will have to look at the law.  Emphasizes that the intent of HB 2181 was not to change policy.

270

Chuck Taylor

Legislative Counsel.  Talks about the -1 amendment and says that it just reflects terminology changes. 

296

Rep. Kitts

States that he will look at HB 2181 more closely.

302

Jerod Broadfoot

Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council.  Thanks Rep. Holvey for his hard work.  Speaks in support of HB 2181. Wants the referral to Ways and Means to be rescinded.

320

Chair Brown

Closes the work session on HB 2181 and opens the public hearing on HB 2790.

HB 2790 – PUBLIC HEARING

330

Rep. Patti Smith

House District 52.  Speaks in support of HB 2790.  Talks about her experience with chiropractors and the positive experience that she had when seeking treatment from a chiropractor.  Mentions that HB 2790 improves the oversight of chiropractors in Oregon. 

Bob Olson

Submits written testimony without oral testimony in support of SB 2790 (EXHIBIT H).

395

Michael Mason

Oregon Doctors of Chiropractic.  Submits written testimony and speaks in support of HB 2790 (EXHIBIT J).   Introduces Dr. John Schmidt and Dr. Roger Setera.

TAPE 91, B

030

Roger Setera

Chiropractor and Vice Chair, Oregon Doctors of Chiropractic.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2790 (EXHIBIT G).  Believes that greater access to chiropractors will lower the cost of workers’ compensation claims.  Adds that it will also improve the health and well-being of workers in the state.

051

John Schmidt

Chiropractor and President, Oregon Doctors of Chiropractic.  Submits written testimony, a summary of five studies, in support of HB 2790 (EXHIBIT F) and the five studies summarized in his statement about the effectiveness of chiropractic care (EXHIBIT I).  States that current studies show chiropractic care as being cost effective.  Talks about the benefits of chiropractic services over treatment through drugs and/or surgery. 

100

Schmidt

Says that 90 days is an adequate period of time to deal with a back strain.  Asserts that the numbers regulating how many times a person can see a chiropractor does not have a practical scientific basis.  Notes that current law only allows chiropractors to treat simple strains. 

150

Schmidt

Notes that chiropractors are better equipped to deal with skeletal-muscle problems than physicians. 

161

Chair Brown

Asks how legislators determined the length and amount of time a person with a worker’s compensation claim could seek treatment from a chiropractor.

165

Schmidt

Gives history of the legislation, starting in 1998.  Says that the State Accident Insurance Fund (SAIF) came to them complaining that chiropractors were two and one-half times as expensive as other physicians.  Talks about how he and other chiropractors refuted SAIF’s claims. 

205

Setera

States that the statistical parameters of chiropractic cost were different than the physicians, because the cost for chiropractors was bundled while the other physicians’ costs were not.  Notes that 40 chiropractors were abusing the workers’ compensation system and they were asked to stop.  Adds that 1100 chiropractors were not abusing the system.

220

Schmidt

Notes there is an evaluation of the SAIF study in Section 8 of the book (EXHIBIT I, pages 213 – 231). 

240

John Shilts

Administrator, Workers’ Compensation Division.  Submits and summarizes written testimony in opposition to HB 2790 (EXHIBIT K).  Says that the Workers’ Compensation Division has been able to save money for workers while decreasing the cost to employers.  States that the time that workers are spending away from work has been reduced.  Believes that current treatment and safety regulations have benefited workers.  Notes that the time a worker spends away from work is important as is their wage recapture ability after treatment. 

290

Shilts

States that the committee has HB 2588 which would consider the cost effectiveness of chiropractic services. 

310

Rep. Schaufler

Asks if HB 2588 is the bill that chiropractors requested.

313

Shilts

Affirms that it is.

315

Rep. Holvey

Asks if physical therapists are required to operate under attending physician laws for workers’ compensation purposes.

318

Shilts

Says that oversight must be given by an attending physician when workers go to physical therapists.

330

Rep. Holvey

Asks how long a plan for physical therapy can last and how often the plan is reviewed by the attending physician.

335

Shilts

States that he does not know if there is a time limit on physical therapy plan evaluation and says that the physical therapy plan does need to be reviewed periodically.

343

Rep. Holvey

Asks if a set amount of days exists in which the attending physician must review the physical therapy plan.

345

Shilts

Offers to get the information for the committee.

352

Lisa Trussell

Associated Oregon Industries.  Speaks in opposition to HB 2790.  States that in 1990 Oregon successfully resolved workers’ compensation issues for employees and employers.  Notes that the Management Labor Advisory Committee has not approved HB 2790.  Says that chiropractors can continue to treat the patient if they have oversight by an attending physician.

400

Trussell

Encourages chiropractors to get involved with a managed care organization.

Tape 92, B

001

Trussell

Notes that those workers’ compensation claims that were dealt with by chiropractors had the greatest time-loss days authorized.

006

Chair Brown

Closes the public hearing on HB 2790 and opens the public hearing on HB 3006.

HB 3006 – PUBLIC HEARING

010

Janet Adkins

Committee Administrator.  Explains HB 3006. 

024

Rep. Steve March

House District 46.  Speaks in support of HB 3006.  Says that HB 3006 is an attempt to clarify the relationship between contractors and state employees.  States that Oregon’s conflict of interest laws are “toothless”.  Mentions that, when he worked in California, he filed a conflict of interest statement and notes that there was follow up on conflicts of interest. 

066

Rep. Kitts

Asks about direct familial relationships between private contractors and state employees.

080

Rep. March

Says that it would apply if it is a state employee and not if it is a county employee.

087

Rep. Holvey

Asks why HB 3006 is limited to state employees only.

091

Rep. March

Wants to focus on the issue brought to him which involved state employees.  Offers to work with committee members to address additional concerns.

102

Dugan Petty

Deputy Administrator, Department of Administrative Services.  Submits written testimony which takes a neutral position on HB 3006 (EXHIBIT L).  Says that the public contracting procurements should be held to the highest standards, but cannot support the bill how it is currently written.  Expresses concerns about the broadness of HB 3006.  States that current ethics law is administered by the Government Standards and Practices Commission and HB 3006 would be administered by the contracting agency involved.

163

Jessica Harris Adamson

Associated General Contractors.  Says that they have significant concerns with HB 3006 as it is currently written.  Agrees that the contracting process in the state needs to “be above board”.  States that in Southern Oregon there may only be one contractor available for the state and private sector.  Supports the spirit of HB 3006. 

217

Chair Brown

Closes the public hearing on HB 3006 and reopens the public hearing on HB 2790.

HB 2790 – PUBLIC HEARING

223

Rep. Dennis Richardson

Attorney and House District 4.  Speaks in favor of HB 2790.  Talks about the late 1980s and early 1990s when chiropractic treatment was reduced and says the conflict was between the medical physicians and chiropractors.  Believes that people who needed chiropractic treatment lost this battle.  Says the cost for chiropractic treatment is lower than other medical costs in the treatment of back injuries.  Asserts that there is a place for chiropractic treatment in helping injured workers to heal.   

287

Chair Brown

Closes the public hearing on HB 2790.

295

Janet Adkins

Committee Administrator.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 3272 on the behalf of Ransford S. McCourt, Peter L. Coffey, and Carl D. Springer (EXHIBIT M).  (NOTE: Public hearing was held on April 8th, 2005).

300

Chair Brown

Adjourns the meeting at 11:10 a.m.