Upcoming Bills at Oregon Legislature 02/24/2019
Dan Meek
|
Dan Meek |
503-293-9021 | d...@meek.net | 855-280-0488 fax |
2019
Oregon Legislature
02/24/2019
|
Hearing |
Dan's Comment |
Others' Comments
and/or Objections |
|
SUPPORT |
|||
|
SB 487 Prohibits
insurers from using credit history or
insurance score to decline coverage of, rerate or
otherwise determine eligibility for motor vehicle
insurance. |
Feb 26 |
A person should not be deprived of
the opportunity to drive on the basis
of credit score. People need to drive
to get to their jobs, and Oregon
requires that all drivers have insurance. |
|
|
SB 438 Allows
person issued disabled parking permit to
park in parking space otherwise reserved for
residents. |
Feb 26 |
|
|
|
SB 300 Repeals
exemption from universal service fund
charge for radio communications services, radio
paging
services, commercial mobile radio services,
personal
communications services and cellular
communications services. |
March 5 |
Landline providers have to pay
specified amounts into a Universal
Service Fund to subsidize phone
service for the low income. Cell
service is exempt from this fee, thus
giving them an unfair advantage over
landline providers. Also, landline
providers are getting smaller, so the
fee collection is getting smaller,
because of cell service. |
|
|
SB 99 Directs
Environmental Quality Commission to
adopt rules applying certain oil spill prevention
and
emergency response planning requirements to high
hazard train routes in this state. |
Feb 28 |
Needed. |
|
|
SB 90 Prohibits restaurant from providing single-use plastic straw to consumer unless consumer requests |
Feb 28 |
|
|
|
SB 595 Adjusts allocation percentages of net revenue from new or increased local transient lodging tax to allow up to 30 percent of such revenue to be used to fund affordable workforce housing. |
Feb 25 |
Thiswill allow local governments that
have a transient lodging tax (TLT) to
re-allocate 40% of those taxes to
provide workforce housing. Currently,
local TLTМs may only be spent on
general fund (30%) or tourism (70%). |
|
|
SB 684 Specifies requirements for covered entities that own, license, maintain, store, manage, collect, process, acquire or otherwise possess personal information, and for vendors that provide services to covered entities, to notify consumers of breach of security. |
Feb 26 |
Yes, but current law and this bill both
have a massive loophole: |
|
|
SB 203 Extends sunset for earned income tax credit. |
Feb 26 |
Extends it from 2020 to 2026. No brainer. |
|
|
SB 758 Increases percentage of federal earned income credit allowable as credit against Oregon personal income tax. |
Feb 26 |
Helps low-income working people. |
|
|
SB 478 Prohibits campaign moneys and public moneys from being used to make payments in connection with nondisclosure agreement relating to harassment in workplace. |
Feb 28 |
Prohibits using campaign funds or
public money to pay porn stars not to
disclose affairs with candidates or
public officials. |
|
|
HB 2218 Requires financial institution, when unilaterally closing account, to notify account holder of reason for closure. |
March 4 |
|
|
|
HB 2618 Requires State Department of Energy to adopt by rule program for providing rebates for purchase, construction or installation of residential and commercial solar electric systems and paired solar and storage systems. |
Feb 28 |
|
|
|
HB 2623 Prohibits
use of hydraulic fracturing for oil and
gas exploration and production. |
Feb 28 |
|
|
|
HB 2614 CARRIED OVER FROM 2/21/2019 AGENDA: Repeals driving privilege suspension and eliminates imposition of driving privilege restrictions for failure to pay fine. |
Feb 25 |
|
|
|
HB 2085 Regulates construction and removal of dams. |
March 5 |
|
|
|
HB 2097 Permits Oregon Government Ethics Commission to issue commission advisory opinions, staff advisory opinions and written or oral advice on interpretation of lobbying laws. |
Feb 27 |
Only if such advice is made public. |
|
|
HB 2595 Alters period during which former member of Legislative Assembly is prohibited from being paid lobbyist from sine die of next regular session that begins after person ceases to be member to one year after person ceases to be member. |
Feb 28 |
A slight improvement in Oregon
ethics laws. |
|
|
HB 2097 Permits Oregon Government Ethics Commission to issue commission advisory opinions, staff advisory opinions and written or oral advice on interpretation of lobbying laws. |
Feb 27 |
But it immunizes anyone who takes
"any good faith action in reliance on
an advisory opinion." Should be
changed to immunize only any action
that was expressly validated by the
advisory opinion. "Good faith" is a
subjective test. Should instead have
an objective test. Should keep the
existing language: "action or
transaction carried out in accordance
with an advisory interpre- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPPOSE |
|||
|
SB 218 Authorizes Oregon Liquor Control Commission to refuse to issue marijuana production licenses based on market demand and other relevant factors. |
Feb 28 |
This would allow the Liquor Control
Commission to stifle competition in
the market for marijuana production,
allowing only existing producers to
produce it. |
|
|
SB 621 Prohibits local governments from restricting use of lawful dwellings for vacation occupancy. |
March 5 |
Preempts all local regulation of use of
residences as vacation rentals, except
to collect a transient lodging tax.
Should localities be forced to accept
having a large portion of housing
transformed into vacation rentals
(think AirBNB)? Should that be a
local decision? |
|
|
SB 508 Specifies that electricity generated by hydroelectric facility or other equipment that generates electricity through use of hydroelectric energy may be used to comply with renewable portfolio standard. |
March 7 |
This will substantially reduce the
amount of new renewable resources
that existing law requires be
developed in Oregon. It will also
perpetuate hydroelectic facilities that
kill lots of fish. |
|
|
SB 8 Requires petitioners to pay costs and attorney fees, including on appeal, to prevailing intervening developers of affordable developments that were approved by local government. |
Feb 25 |
This will massively discourage public
interest litigation regarding housing
developments. Already have laws
providing for attorney fees against
those who bring frivolous lawsuits.
This law would require the petitioner
to pay the developer's attorney fees at
LUBA and on appeal, regardless of
the soundness of the petitioner's case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEUTRAL |
|||
|
SB 90 Prohibits restaurant from providing single-use plastic straw to consumer unless consumer requests |
Feb 28 |
Really? |
|
|
SB 805 Provides definition of "major political party" for determining whether specific actions are contributions or expenditures. |
Feb 25 |
This is a work session. This bill never
had a hearing; thus, work session is
not allowed. This is the anti-Starnes
bill to make sure that candidate
debates do not have to include minor
party candidates. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Delk
--
<b>Progressive Party Management List</b>
To post, send email to progpa...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send email to progparty-ma...@googlegroups.com
To change options, go to http://groups.google.com/progparty-man?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oregon Progressive Party - Management" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to progparty-ma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
David Hess
Thank you, Dan. I added a comment on SB 90. I am a paper straw advocate. Every piece of plastic we can eliminate helps.
|
Should be banned entirely. Paper straws are available and should be used instead of plastic.
|
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oregon Progressive Party - Legislation Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
oregon-progressive-party-legi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
oregon-progressive-part...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at
https://groups.google.com/group/oregon-progressive-party-legislation-committee.
Dan Meek
So I would say our testimony should say that Oregon should ban all sale of plastic straws, period.
Dan Meek
David Delk
Chris Henry
Dan Meek
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
The SNO column designates Support Neutral Oppose on each bill.
To add your comments, scroll to the right and put them under Others' Comments. You can also get there by hitting Ctrl-- (that is, control and minus sign) a few times, which will reduce the size of the text.
IMPORTANT: When editing this document, always identify yourself first, like "Sal: This is what I think." Google Sheets does not have "suggestion mode" like Google Docs, so there is no way to automatically see where the edits are coming from.
I could put the table into a Google Doc, but that would eliminate the ability to sort by columns. In sheets, you can sort by column. Select all of the data (ctrl-A), then click on the little arrow at the top of the column you want to sort by. You can then choose to sort.
I would think it is best to leave the sheet sorted by date.
The testimony I have filed is here:
http://progparty.org/leg/leg19
Dan Meek
David Hess
These are all excellent. Thank you.
David Hess
--
David Delk
Dan Meek
http://progparty.org/leg/leg19
I have updated the table at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
David Delk
Dan Meek
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
New testimonies are posted at:
http://progparty.org/leg/leg19
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
David Hess
I do hope they will finally pass ballot return envelopes that don’t require postage.
Thank you, Dan.
David Hess
--
David Delk
Dan Meek
I am preparing testimony and updating the sheet almost every day:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
New testimonies are posted at:
http://progparty.org/leg/leg19
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
Dan Meek
http://progparty.org/leg/leg19
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
Dan Meek
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
David Delk
HB 3335Removes entering or remaining unlawfully in or on public transit vehicle or public transit station as manner of committing crime of interfering with public transportation. Public hearing 3-25-19 Human Serices and Housing committee
HB 2659Repeals special assessments and property tax exemptions for forestlands covered by timber plantations and nonforested land.
We need to support this. Proposal is from organizations iinterested in increasing the revenues going to timber counties Public hearing 3-26 Natural Resources Committee
HB 2709CARRIED OVER FROM THE 3-18-2019 AGENDA: Lists specified types of expenditures that are definitively considered to be made in coordination with candidates for purposes of determining whether expenditure is considered independent expenditure.
Poss work session, 3-20 Rules Committee
Dan Meek
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
Dan Meek
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
Dan Meek
Oregon Progressive Party
Position on Bill at 2017
Session of Oregon Legislature:
SB 870: Support
Dear Committee:
The Oregon Progressive Party (OPP) supports this bill, which would enact the Interstate Compact for Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote (NPV).
The President of the United States should be chosen in an election in which every vote is equal. That is obviously not the case now. The ideal solution would be to amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and choose the President by means of national popular vote. But the structure of the U.S. Senate (which parallels the Electoral College) makes that very unlikely.
But a problem with the NPV Compact needs to be addressed. Under the existing system, the most electoral votes that a single state can control is its own electoral votes. So damage from unscrupulous state conduct is limited. The NPV Compact has the potential for allowing unscrupulous conduct by one state (or a few states) to change the outcome of the presidential election. I have presented this point in my testimony about the NPV Compact to the Oregon Legislature several times over the past 5 years. I have not seen any refutation of it anywhere. At the end of this testimony is my review of the nearly nonexistent attempt of National Popular Vote, Inc., to refute it.
In the past, some states have kept major party candidates off of their general election ballots, for whatever reason or excuse. Alabama excluded Harry Truman from its ballot in 1948 and Lyndon Johnson from its ballot in 1964. The important point is that states are not required by any federal law to place all major party candidates on their ballots. If any state were to exclude a major party candidate from its ballot, after implementation of the NPV Compact, the outcome of the national popular vote could be changed.
The NPV Compact (as set forth in SB 870), Article III, is written to allow each state to determine the number of popular votes for each candidate within that state and within each of the other states as well:
Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a “national popular vote total” for each presidential slate.
* * *
At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.
The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state’s final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.
Although the above wording is awkward, it appears to require that every state recognize the presidential vote count in every other state, as provided by the chief election official of each state.
If a state were to keep a major candidate off the ballot, there would apparently be no basis for any state election official to put more than zero in that candidate's column for that state. If Texas had kept Hillary Clinton off the 2016 ballot, she would not have received most or all of her 3.88 million votes there (depending on whether write-in votes for her would have been tallied). That alone would have eliminated her national popular vote margin of 2.86 million votes. If Florida had kept her off the ballot, she would have lost all or nearly all of her 4.50 million votes there. Simply keeping a major party candidate off its ballot (or otherwise refusing to count votes for such candidate) would enable one or more populous states to swing the entire presidential election, under the NPV Compact.
In 2000, Al Gore received 544,000 more votes nationwide than George W. Bush. That margin could be nullified under the NPV Compact by the decision of any one of about 30 states to exclude one major party candidate.
Excluding major candidates from the general election ballot is not impossible, as Alabama has demonstrated. Further, the Oregon Legislature in 2017 considered SB 888 and HB 2909, which would exclude from the Oregon primary ballot and general election ballot any candidate for President or Vice-President who has not (1) publicly disclosed his or her income tax return for the most recent year or (2) filled out the statement of economic interest required of Oregon candidates under ORS 244.060. Under the NPV Compact, such an Oregon exclusion would reduce the national popular vote total for the affected major candidate by about 1%. And, if Oregon can impose that exclusion, why can't Texas exclude any candidate who is "under FBI investigation" or who fails to support the Second Amendment? In national power politics, the potential for skulduggery cannot be disregarded.
The California Legislature in 2017 did pass a bill requiring disclosure of presidential candidate tax returns. It was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. A different governor might have signed it. Applied to the 2016 election, that would have reduced Donald Trump's national popular vote by4.48 million. The New Jersey Legislature passed such a bill in 2017, but it was vetoed by Governor Chris Christie. Noted constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School has written that such state laws, excluding major party candidates from Presidential ballots, are constitutionally valid.
Laws in other states could disqualify major national Presidential candidates from the state ballots for various reasons, such as:
> candidate's failure to maintain lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association
> candidate's failure to have run a successful business for a specified number of years
> candidate's current or past membership in a labor union
> candidate is under investigation for misuse of government email
The reason could be tailored by the state legislature to match the characteristics of the most prominent Presidential candidate disfavored by that legislature. And the state does not actually have to provide a reason for excluding a major party candidate from its ballot.
At present, Republicans control both houses in 31 state legislatures, and Democrats control 18. There are 34 states in which one party controls both houses and the Governorship. There is no federal law to prevent any state from altering its laws so that a major party candidate for President does not appear on its general election ballot or that votes for such candidate are not considered valid. If the Presidency of the United States is at stake, it is a realistic scenario that one or more of those states would act to tip the national popular vote balance and, under the NPV Compact, change the outcome of the Presidential election.
Without the NPV Compact, these states could not sabotage the Presidential election. In a deep Red state, the most damage that a state legislature can do now is to ensure that the state's electoral votes go to the Republican, which is very likely to happen anyway. The same is true in a deep Blue state, ensuring that its electoral votes to go the Democrat. With the NPV Compact, the saboteur states could determine the outcome of the entire Presidential election by changing the balance of the national popular vote.
National Popular Vote, Inc. contends that keeping a major party candidate off the ballot in a state would meet with such a harsh public reaction that it would not occur. See http://archive.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/section.php?s=32. To me, that is wishful thinking. The reaction in a deep Red state to keeping the Democratic candidate off the ballot may not be harsh at all. Apparently the reaction of the public in Alabama in 1964 was not sufficient to prevent the state from excluding Lyndon Johnson from the ballot. The state senate of Maryland has passed a bill requiring that presidential candidates disclose their tax returns or be excluded from the general election ballot. Has there been a huge backlash against the Maryland Senate? Was there a huge backlash against the California Legislature in 2017, when it passed a bill requiring that? Was there a backlash against the New Jersey Legislature in 2017, where such a bill passed with 48-26 and 24-11 margins? I heard of no such backlashes.
National Popular Vote, Inc. then contends that "the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a strong legal basis for challenging any attempt to create a one-party state." But it provides zero explanation or documentation or case citations for that proposition. Similarly, it contends that "the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides an additional legal basis for challenging any attempt to create a one-party state." Again, they provide no explanation or documentation or case citations, except to an online article that does not at all support the proposition (and in fact argues that the NPV Compact itself is unconstitutional). Apparently those sections of the U.S. Constitution did not work in Alabama in 1964, and NPV Inc. states no reason to assume they would work in the future.
I believe that the NPV Compact needs to be amended to add this:
If a State fails to place all nationally-recognized major candidates for President on the general election ballot or fails to tally and report the votes cast for any such candidate, the national popular vote total, for the purposes of this Compact, shall exclude all votes from that State.
So, if a state were to exclude Hillary Clinton from the ballot (or not count her votes), then also none of the votes in that state for Donald Trump would be counted in determining the national popular vote winner. This would deter any state from excluding a major candidate from its ballot.
David Delk
Dan Meek
The flaw in the NPV is quite perverse. The states with incentive to sabotage the election are those that are heavily Red or heavily Blue, where control of state government is in the hands of a single party. Under the NPV Compact, those partisans have both the power and the incentive to arrange for the Presidential candidate of the other major party not to receive votes.
Your last point might have one flaw. It assumes that a state that would exclude both candidates would not do that because they want their candidates votes to count. However if a state like California who votes heavily democrat has a strong Republican Governor he/she might be fine with excluding all votes. Not likely but is this possible under your plan?
Sent from my iPhone
David Hess
Thanks, Dan. You have a real gift for clearly explaining complex election law.
If you want to get scolded by Nancy Pelosi, you can include the example of Texas passing a 2017 law requiring government contractors sign an oath promising not to boycott Israel. I can envision AIPAC pushing in every state, supported by both parties, for the exclusion of any presidential candidate who doesn’t sign such an oath.
David H
From: oregon-progressive-part...@googlegroups.com <oregon-progressive-part...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Meek
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 6:33 PM
To: Dan Meek <d...@meek.net>; oregon-progressive-part...@googlegroups.com; progpa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Indparty Info <in...@indparty.com>
--
Dan Meek
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
David Delk
Chris Henry
Phillip Norman
David Delk
Chris Henry
--
David Delk
David Delk
Dan Meek
I have updated the google sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lw-_sVT5YGW0-nOb8DWFm6Z-kHogdkbg0OXeOAtDbXU/edit?usp=sharing
It would be helpful if others would consult the Committee Agendas and flag future bills of importance. Agendas are here:
https://olis.leg.state.or.us/LIZ/Committees/Meeting/List
Dan Meek
Dan Meek
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gtwp2RTcOMmGR11W0TnvDhmTFoZmmJKg1r0k2Sk0sLY/edit?usp=sharing
These are the bills I have chosen as interesting. You may want to choose others.
If you have comments, you can create a new column to the right of the existing columns, or you can put your comments in the "Other Comments" column--but identify yourself if you do that. Unlike Google Docs, Google Sheets does not seem to have a "Suggesting" mode that would automatically identify you.
Dan Meek
The Google Sheets of bills remains on Google Drive and is editable by all.
I have created a folder "Oregon Legislature 2021" on Google Drive to hold the testimonies. It is here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jDbLAbkuv1_KZMIiX2vcQa4Jj3vUpEls?usp=sharing
It is set so that anyone can view or comment but not edit. I could set it to allow editing, but that could get pretty complicated.
I have posted there 4 testimonies. Please disregard any strange formatting, which is an artifact of Google Docs.
Dan Meek
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gtwp2RTcOMmGR11W0TnvDhmTFoZmmJKg1r0k2Sk0sLY/edit?usp=sharing
These are the bills I have chosen as interesting. You may want to choose others.
HB 2226
(1:05 pm) Requires ballots returned by mail to be postmarked not later than date of election.
HB 2687
(1:15 pm) Requires ballots returned by mail to be postmarked not later than date of election.
HB 2366
(1:30 pm) Allows persons convicted of felony to register to vote, update voter registration and
vote in elections while incarcerated.
HB 2679
(2:00 pm) Permits person who will be 17 years old on date of primary election and 18 years old
on date of general election to vote at primary election for candidates of major political party with
which person is affiliated if major political party has adopted rule to this effect.
HJR 11
(2:20 pm) Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution providing for same-day voter registration
Dan Meek
I have updated the spreadsheet. If you want my testimonies to indicate the positions of your organizations, so note on the spreadsheets in columns G, H, or I.
|
Dan Meek |
503-293-9021 | d...@meek.net | 855-280-0488 fax |
David Delk
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oregon Progressive Party - Legislation Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to oregon-progressive-party-legi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
David Delk
Dan Meek
I have again updated the spreadsheet and added 3 testimonies for today.
If you are interested in what the Oregon Legislature is doing, please participate.
The spreadsheet is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gtwp2RTcOMmGR11W0TnvDhmTFoZmmJKg1r0k2Sk0sLY/edit?usp=sharing
The filed testimonies are here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jDbLAbkuv1_KZMIiX2vcQa4Jj3vUpEls?usp=sharing
David Hess
I also support everything you and David D. support.
My internal comment for SB448 is it is another way to get rid of existing regulations without comment or debate. An agency could simply let the six years expire and take no action to get rid of regulation.
For SB246, it seems like part of laying the groundwork for “small, modular reactors.”
David Hess
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Oregon Progressive Party - Legislation Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
oregon-progressive-party-legi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/oregon-progressive-party-legislation-committee/976cf691-2926-5693-3111-94b41321d583%40meek.net.
Dan Meek
Independent Party of Oregon and Pacific Green Party folks on this list need to weigh in. Columns H and I are for your comments and opinions.
The spreadsheet is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gtwp2RTcOMmGR11W0TnvDhmTFoZmmJKg1r0k2Sk0sLY/edit?usp=sharing
The filed testimonies are here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jDbLAbkuv1_KZMIiX2vcQa4Jj3vUpEls?usp=sharing
Dan Meek
Hearing on the zero-waste bills is today at 1 pm. We need Sal's testimony so we can sign onto it.
-
SB 14 Establishes product stewardship program for plastic packaging and plastic food serviceware.
-
SB 581 Prohibits sale of products that make deceptive or misleading claims about recyclability.
-
-
Please note: SB 582 is being heard for the purpose of hearing testimony on an amendment, based on HB 2065, that would replace the language in SB 582. The amendment will be made available on OLIS as soon as possible.
-
-
Public Hearing
-
SB 582 Directs Department of Environmental Quality to study and make recommendations for modernizing Oregon's recycling system and provide results of study in report to interim committees of Legislative Assembly no later than September 15, 2022.
-
There are three major environmental bills coming up in the Senate on the 23rd.
This is a policy area that I have tracked in the last year very closely through my work on Zero Waste Oregon (ZWO) that has been badly affected by the Senate's actions, which are to take the work of the last year, stall it, and offer less workable versions of the bills that have been developed.
The plastics bill Dembrow came up with sounds good but is not enforceable, so it would be better if they went with Sollman's version of the bill. The stawardship bill is a less workable version of the bill DEQ brought that they do not intend to move that was changed into a study bill.
I will draft testimony this weekend on behalf of ZWO and share it with the group this weekend. Progressive Party and IPO are welcome to sign on as members of the coalition on any testimony I send on behalf of ZWO.
Thanks,
Sal
Dan Meek
I have added another 10 or so bills to the spreadsheet. They are
coming up for hearing on Monday, March 1.