Willamette Week | Lead Story

That's not to say there aren't some sweet legislative proposals on the table (see "A Few Bills We Like"). It's just that when we followed our nose, it led to the stench. In fact, the problem became sorting out which bad bills to highlight. We left out some of the obvious battles, like prison siting, as well as a disastrous phone deregulation bill WW has hammered all session (see "Dial 'O' for out to Lunch").

We settled on five that we hope illustrate the myriad ways the legislative process can run amok.

Senate Bill 769 (relating to prescription labeling) shows how sensible agency rules aimed at improving safety can be threatened by out-of-state business interests.

House Bill 2486 (relating to the Oregon Family Leave Act) demonstrates how a seemingly small change in language can be slyly used to roll back hard-fought worker protections.

Senate Bill 937 (relating to genetic testing) reveals the potential damage that can result when science and profits collide in the legislative process.

House Bill 3587 (relating to the Willamette River cleanup) shows that good intentions can't save flawed legislation.

And, finally, House Bill 2648 (relating to state-agency lobbying) confirms that selfish politics often come before sound policy in Salem.

For our part, we plan to follow these bills--and five others (see "Dishonorable Mentions")--for the rest of the session. We urge you to get involved by using the contacts we've provided. There's still a long way to go before the Legislature adjourns. With a little luck and some public pressure, these stinkers may go down the tube.

Senate Bill 769
Prescription Labeling
Hidden agenda: 4
Unintended consequences: 1
Politics at its worst: 2
End of the world as we know it: 2
SCORE: 2

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE BACKER: Sen. Bill Fisher (R-Roseburg)
STATED PURPOSE: To make pill labeling voluntary
UNSTATED PURPOSE: To boost Rite Aid's profits

WHO'S PULLING HIS STRINGS: Oregon Community Pharmacy Council--the local front for national drugstore chains

WHO'S OPPOSING IT: Oregon Board of Pharmacy

How it would work: Ever notice how prescription medicine comes in all sizes, shapes and colors? These markers help pharmacists tell the drugs apart to prevent deadly mistakes.

In 1998 the Oregon Board of Pharmacy passed a law requiring that labels for all prescription medicine include a physical description of the drug and, in the case of pills, whatever number the manufacturer has printed on them. For example, a 20 milligram Prozac pill, which is stamped with the identifier number 3015, would be described as "green/white/3015." A 1.25 milligram pill of Premarin (a hormone-replacement drug for women) would be "yellow/oval/1.25." The law is due to go into effect July 2000.

Why it's so bad: Pharmacists have a tough job, and their mistakes can prove fatal. Patients' No. 1 complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy is that they've been given the wrong medicine. The new labeling helps the pharmacist and the patient (who can compare the label with the pills), as well as other health-care providers, such as school nurses.

Locally, many smaller pharmacists are already following the law, thanks to in-house software programs that can include pill descriptions--or sometimes even a picture--when printing prescription labels.

But the big chains are against it, claiming the upgrade is too expensive and that they haven't been given enough time to meet the requirements. Instead of asking for an extension, though, they're trying an end run around the law.

Chance of success: Unclear, but there are some signs that the big drugstores may be losing. Sen. Marilyn Shannon (R-Brooks), a member of the Health and Human Services Committee, says she's normally inclined to be on Rite Aid's team, but she isn't supporting SB 769.

Status: The bill had its first hearing before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on March 30.

Who to contact:
* Sen. Bill Fisher, (503) 986-1723; e-mail: fisher.sen@state.or.us
* Pat Amedeo, Oregon Community Pharmacy Council, (503) 222-1515; e-mail: pamedeo@bogle.com
* Oregon Board of Pharmacy, (503) 731-4032

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE BACKER:Rep. Steve Harper (R-Klamath Falls)
STATED PURPOSE: To give employers flexibility while protecting workers
UNSTATED PURPOSE:To give employers flexibility
WHO'S PULLING HIS STRINGS:Associated Oregon Industries
WHO'S OPPOSING IT: Oregon Commission for Women, Service Employees International Union

How it would work: In 1995 Gov. John Kitzhaber hammered out an overhaul of the Oregon Family Leave Act. The law, which had primarily been used for maternity leave, now covers a host of situations. It requires employers (at companies with 25 or more workers) to provide an employee up to 12 weeks of annual unpaid leave to care for a newborn, a newly adopted child or a newly placed foster child--or to care for a child, spouse or parent who is sick. It even covers employees whose in-laws are sick.

The 1995 act states that employees must get their old jobs back when they return. SB 2486 would change that provision by requiring the employer to provide only an equitable job with the same wages.

Why it's so bad: Many employees will tell you that "equitable" is often in the eye of the employer. Sure, wages must be the same, but the law says nothing about responsibilities and job satisfaction. It's not hard to imagine employees returning to "equitable" jobs they hate. The law is also troublesome for employees who are paid by commission, rather than wages. A sales representative forced to give up an established roster of customers for a new client list could see a drastic cut in pay. Opponents see it as a tool for bad employers to make life so miserable for workers with family responsibilities that they'll quit their jobs or be discouraged from taking leave.

The business lobby claims the existing family-leave bill is overly burdensome. An equally powerful argument is that it should be expanded to include more Oregon workers (see "Family Grief," page 17).

Chance of success: The governor is not likely to sign this bill in its current form. Still, it warrants attention because it indicates a growing sentiment in the Legislature toward diminishing workers' rights in Oregon.

Status: This bill has already been on the House floor once but was pulled back when critics convinced lawmakers that the language was too vague. Now it's back in the House Business and Consumer Affairs Committee. A work session is scheduled for March 31.

Who to contact:
* Rep. Roger Beyer (R-Molalla), chair of the Business and Consumer Affairs Committee, (503) 986-1428; e-mail: beyer.rep@state.or.us
* Betsy Earls, Associated Oregon Industries, (503) 588-0050; e-mail: betsy@aoi.org
* Laurie Wimmer, former lobbyist for Oregon Commission for Women, (503) 684-3300

How it would work: Genetic tests for predispositions to various ailments can also be used to discriminate against people who may be prone to costly illnesses. In 1995, lawmakers passed the Genetic Privacy Act, making genetic tests and materials private property. This gives people a clear means to sue if insurance companies or employers use information gleaned from genetic tests against them. SB 937 would remove this provision.

Why it's so bad: SB 937 would seem to open the door to potential genetic discrimination. Pharmaceutical companies are nonetheless backing the bill. Why? Because genetic tests are used to develop new drugs and treatments for diseases. The private-property provision of the 1995 law has stymied scientists who want to use genetic tests for research.

The Oregon Bioscience Association, a biotech trade group, says that genetic material shouldn't be treated any differently than other medical information, which has no special protections.

Larry Simmonsmeier, an OBA representative, told WW that the personal-property provision makes pharmaceutical companies hesitant to conduct genetic research, but he could not cite any specific examples. Suspicion among SB 937's opponents is that the pharmaceutical industry is worried about getting sued for developing profitable drugs using biological material that belongs to someone else.

The language in SB 937 is so convoluted that Dr. Brad Popovich, who helped draft the 1995 law, doesn't understand all the implications. A couple of things are clear, however.

First, for those worried about obstacles to legitimate research, there is a better alternative. A panel of attorneys, primary-care physicians and OHSU researchers has drafted another measure, SB 1008, to address those concerns without eliminating the private-property elements of the current law.

Second, decisions about something so serious as our DNA blueprint should be made by doctors, not by pharmaceutical companies.

Chance of success: No one knows yet. Sen. Bryant, who worked on the 1995 law, has become convinced it's a good idea to eliminate the property-rights clause. Gov. Kitzhaber's office has yet to take a position.

Who to contact:
* Sen. Neil Bryant, (503) 986-1727; e-mail: bryant.sen@state.or.us
* Larry Simmonsmeier, Oregon Bioscience Association, (503) 241-7802;
e-mail: orbio@easystreet.com
* Dr. Brad Popovich, Oregon Genetic Privacy Advisory Board, e-mail only: popovich@ohsu.edu

How it would work: This sweeping bill is aimed at improving the water quality of the Willamette River in several ways. It would, among other things, prevent the Port of Portland from dumping more toxic waste on Ross Island, prohibit capping any contaminated sediment in the riverbed, head off a federal Superfund listing of the contaminated waters of the Portland Harbor and force the City of Portland to eliminate combined sewer overflows. Leonard, who is frustrated with the Port's environmental record, has a similar bill aimed at cleaning up the Columbia Slough.

Why it's so bad: To Leonard's credit, no other lawmaker has taken the lead on cleaning up Portland's major waterways. The problem is that he's left some environmentalists scrambling to come up with a response to a bill that many say is guided more by passion than science.

They say, for example, that research isn't definitive on whether it is better to dredge or cap contaminated sediment in Portland Harbor. There is also disagreement on whether it is better to head off a federal Superfund listing--leaving cleanup in the hands of underfunded state regulators--or let the feds come in with their big money. Perhaps most troubling is Leonard's call to eliminate CSOs (a mixture of sewage and rainwater that occasionally spills into the Willamette). No one likes the thought of human feces floating in the waterway, but completely eliminating the overflows would cost billions of dollars and ignores problems in the larger Willamette watershed. In fact, Leonard's focus on Portland disregards agricultural runoff and timber practices that affect the waters upstream.

Leonard has been meeting with environmental groups to tweak the bill and may end up with good legislation. There's a potential land mine, however. Some people predict rural lawmakers, who blame the spotted owl for their weak economy, will try to keep the bill in its current form to show city tree-huggers what it's like to be slapped by environmental laws.

Chance of success: It's unclear at this point because of how much work needs to be done on the bill.

Status: Earlier in the month the Joint Stream and Restoration Committee took the unusual step of holding a hearing in Portland (which lasted five hours). A second hearing has not been scheduled.

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE BACKERS: House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass (R-Boring), Majority Leader Steve Harper (R-Klamath Falls)
STATED PURPOSE: To limit lobbying done on the taxpayer's penny
UNSTATED PURPOSE: To get out the Republican vote in 2000
WHO'S PULLING THEIR STRINGS: GOP lobbyist John DiLorenzo
WHO'S OPPOSING IT: The governor's office

How it would work: This time of year, the capitol's halls are chock-full of lobbyists. Most represent unions, business associations or other private-sector special-interest groups. But many are public employees, representing scores of state agencies, from the Department of Environmental Quality to the Department of Health and Human Services. HB 2648 would put a measure on the 2000 ballot that would limit the number of such lobbyists to two per agency and impose other lobbying restrictions.

Why it's so bad: We agree it's a bit galling that tax dollars pay the salaries of bureaucrats who pack public hearings or schmooze with lawmakers in an attempt to boost their budgets. This law, however, is unnecessary and insidious.

Last session lawmakers passed an identical bill. The governor vetoed it but agreed there were some problems with public lobbying. He issued an executive order that does many of the same things HB 2648 would do. Since then, his office reports, the number of public lobbyists has dropped from 175 to 100.

Proponents of the bill say the executive order has no regulatory teeth and that agencies are disregarding it. Rather than risk another Kitzhaber veto, they're going straight to voters with a ballot measure.

In reality, their motives have more to do with politics than policy. Over the years, it's been clear that ballot measures can bring certain types of voters to the polls. Republicans and the business interests backing them on this measure figure that a "No Tax Dollars for Bureaucratic Lobbying" campaign could help GOP candidates during the November 2000 election. It's telling that Republican election strategist John DiLorenzo has taken the lead on this bill. Although he says voter turnout isn't the primary motivation for the bill, he admits it's a nice side benefit.

We know that public employees are easy targets. But lobbyists, including agency staffers, play an important role in educating legislators, particularly in an era of term limits. What's more, many of Oregon's most vulnerable citizens are unable to pay for lobbyists, leaving state employees as their best advocates in Salem.

Chance of success Good. Since the GOP House leadership is behind this bill, there should be no problems getting the necessary votes from the Legislature. The governor can't veto it because it's a referral to the voters.

Status: There will be at least one more public hearing in the House Rules, Elections and Public Affairs Committee before the bill is sent to the House floor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally published March 31, 1999