The attack to shut down Oregon suction dredging has begun

[Jeffro]

"Can ya'all feel all the luv now??" "lost it all hahahaha--John"

You come across as snarky and comical John. Is there something that's funny to you in this? Just wondering where you are standing, cause to me the root cause of all this is eco-wack jobs, not other miners.

[Ads]

TreasureNet.com is the premier Treasure Hunting Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[Fullpan]

Jeffro, you got to cut HJ a little slack - I had same reaction till I went back into ancient posts here, and also researched his involvement trying to save dredging
for more than 15 years. He's a good man but gets a little squirrely when dredge bans come up, don't blame him till you know how hard he fought, and how
much pain there is. For instance, John was the only dredger to enter the public input process with multiple pages of evidence
back up with factual references - must have spent several weeks and significant money to get it into final form for submission
and that's just for starters.

[Fullpan]

Can't keep my big mouth shut. You dredgers in Oregon think this upcoming fight is about individual rights, truth versus enviro bs, fairness? No - right now,
its ALL about politics, money, and influence. After you lose this fight, and stop saying "wha happen'd", there's a chance the courts will ultimately decide in
your favor, after 10 or fifteen years. For years the enviros have been laying groundwork, by smooshing Ore. agency heads, filling the pockets of lobbyists,
brainwashing wealthy foundations, and financing their puppet legislaters. Unless the miners have 5-10 million to do your own dirty dealing, your dead meat.
While you stand on the porch next year, crying "that wasn't fair! boo-hoo", the big dogs will be long gone, zeroing in on their next target. The only cards
you have to play is trying to scare all parties to this madness, by threatening individuals with lawsuits, everyday, all day long! And even this won't work
unless you actually hire multiple law firms to send "letters of intent to sue" That's my 2 cents.

[Hefty1]

Sent: Mon, January 21, 2013 9:18:52 PM
Subject: FW:

Hefty
Just thought you might like to see who is responsible for the mining bills in Oregon. Got this reply today. Might pass this guy’s name around.

From: Sen Thomsen [mailto:sen.chuckthomsen@state.or.us]
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 7:04 AM
To:
Subject: RE:



Me too. These bills are brought to you by Sen Dingfelder. They will be tough to stop with D’s in majority. Chuck

From:
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 9:54 AM
To: Sen.HermanBaertschiger@leg.state.or.us; Sen Bates; Sen Beyer; Sen Boquist; Sen Burdick; Sen Close; Sen Courtney; Sen Devlin; Sen Dingfelder; Sen Edwards C; Sen Ferrioli; Sen George L; Sen Girod; Sen Hansell; Sen Hass; Sen Johnson; Sen Knopp; Sen Kruse; Sen MonnesAnderson; Sen Monroe; Sen Olsen; Sen Prozanski; Sen Roblan; Sen Rosenbaum; Sen Shields; Sen Starr B; Sen Steiner Hayward; Sen Thomsen; Sen Whitsett; Sen Winters
Subject:



All Oregon Senators,
It makes me “SICK” when bills like SB 115, SB 370 & SB 401 are even considered in this state or any state for that matter. I have lived in Oregon for well over 35 years and I spend a lot of time outdoors.
I have raised my kids to enjoy and respect the outdoors and everything that comes with it.
As for the so called Oregonians that have created these bills they show no “RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE OUTDOORS IN THE STATE OF OREGON” It’s the people of Oregon that voted them into power and it’s the people who will vote them “OUT”.
When it comes to mining and my mining “RIGHTS” under the mining “LAWS” I will not allow the state of Oregon to trample all over my rights. It’s time to stop trying to please all the special interest groups and start doing something for “YOUR STATE” that will “ACTUALLY” help the state and not “DESTROY IT”.
If you look at the state of California they banned dredging and just from that they have lost Millions of $$$ a year and a lot of small businesses have gone out of business due to the hardships.
“EVERYTHING THAT WE AS PEOPLE USE EVERY DAY COME FROM MINING AND FARMING, EVERYTHING”……
I urge you to vote “NO” on SB 115, SB 370 & SB 401 for the Best interest of the state, not the best interest of a special interest group.

Sincerely

[dieselram94]

I think it is time we just do what ever we want. That is what all the enviromental whack jobs do anyways.
Just what is happening to our country anyways? How can we as Americans just let this trash into office?

[1866]

Fullpan,

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that we're going to lose in Oregon ...

[Fullpan]

Why not? I really hope you guys can defeat these bills, but unless you,ve got Bill Gates on your side - doesn't happen. Tell
me how? Without revealing any big secrets - what are going to do? Just reread your comments on oct. 2012 concerning
Hefty1 situation. Good research! Facts are well presented! I don't have issues with anything you said. Unfortunately irrelevant
to passing laws in a democratic controlled legislature. Your info is well suited to arguments in the courts, but remember
Ore. can pass a law tomorrow requiring all livestock to be removed from the state - and all you can do is resort to the courts.

I'm saying what are you doing to keep the laws from being passed?

[Hefty1]

Here is another reply that I got back with a few of the Democrats that need to be worked over.

From: Sen Thomsen [mailto:sen.chuckthomsen@state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 11:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE:



Dear . Get the crazies out of office. For this particular set of bills, we will need at least 3 or 4 democratic senators. I would concentrate your efforts on sen Johnson, Beyer, Edwards, and Roblen. We need 15 votes to stop this in the senate. Chuck

Sent from my iPhone


On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:30 PM, "" <> wrote:

Sen Thomsen
Can you tell me what we the people can do to stop this type of thing from happening? it seems to be just one attack after another when it comes to our rights as American Citizens. I hate to say it but if these bills pass Oregon is going to get “HAMMERED” with some pretty serious law suits. I “WILL NOT” give up my rights. I own several Federal mining claims and I have Granted Rights to mine my claims, If they want to make everyone outlaws then that’s what will happen.

[Hoser John]

Thanx for lookn' Fullpan. These 2 organizations and their afflitiates kept mining open for over 64 years in kalif and your 3 local organizations can do the same because they are still active. Oregon hasn't bought into the mega club bs of cancer from the klamath and the pay to mine your public lands scams. Truly wish the folks in Oregon all the luck in the world as the many headed hydra that slew kalif has definately come for your rights now too. WMC/MA gone due to mega club and pocket pickn' incompetant miners rights organizations line a bs-- believe in us-pay us-we'll take care of all your needs,jus' play play play all day and forget all your nasty political problems we're covered by the 1872 mining laws NOT. Only problem is they bled the system dry and DID NUTTN' . RIGHTS DEMAND CONSTANT VIGILANCE AND PROTECTION-proof is kalif-no rights poof overnight--people working on the problem,constantly calling,writing,seeing the bureauratz and showing your real people with real concerns and NOT just some stinkn' lawyer sent or paid protaginist but a REAL MINER WHO CARES... John

[Fullpan]

Much better HJ - understood the whole post this time lol BTW whats up with you and the docs?

[gold nuggets]

I sincerely hope that your predictions of loosing the right to mine in Oregon doesn't come to pass Fullpan. I personally think that the miners here in Oregon have learned a little something from the examples in Cali where the miners are suffering from regulations, fees and bans. We are applying pressure on the environmentalwackos (ie: those in the legislature that have been "INFLUENCED" by environmental groups that mining is a bad thing) on many issues with everything we can muster to convince them that these bills are not good for Oregon. When we win, it could make it easier for those miners in Cali to regain the rights they lost....hope so anyway.

[Fullpan]

gn, - It certainly will make it easier for us in Ca.! I don't want to sound like doomsday, but only emphasize what a monster you are fighting. We thought
naively, that presenting facts, evidence, and fair play would take the day. We got steamrolled. If you have "all hands on deck" working together, as one
unit, there's a chance - we didn't. The speed in which the enviros rammed thru their agenda, took our breath away.

While doing some research on the "public comments" part of the process, I came across a draft document that listed comments from hundreds of miners.
Some desk jockey at Fish and Game was making notations like "spelling, unclear, etc." When I scanned down further, I saw a comment from a LAW FIRM
representing pro enviro view (friends of the river - FOR) The comments began something like "Jones and Jones, Attorneys at Law on behalf of our client, FOR
we present the following.....blah blah". There was a BOLD notation beside this entry saying "what do we do about this?", "this should be looked into"?
We, in Ca. found out later there was virtually no consideration given to the little guys. It was all about power and influence. I pray you guys are not
as naive as we were.

[Jeffro]

gn, - It certainly will make it easier for us in Ca.! I don't want to sound like doomsday, but only emphasize what a monster you are fighting. We thought
naively, that presenting facts, evidence, and fair play would take the day. We got steamrolled. If you have "all hands on deck" working together, as one
unit, there's a chance - we didn't. The speed in which the enviros rammed thru their agenda, took our breath away.

While doing some research on the "public comments" part of the process, I came across a draft document that listed comments from hundreds of miners.
Some desk jockey at Fish and Game was making notations like "spelling, unclear, etc." When I scanned down further, I saw a comment from a LAW FIRM
representing pro enviro view (friends of the river - FOR) The comments began something like "Jones and Jones, Attorneys at Law on behalf of our client, FOR
we present the following.....blah blah". There was a BOLD notation beside this entry saying "what do we do about this?", "this should be looked into"?
We, in Ca. found out later there was virtually no consideration given to the little guys. It was all about power and influence. I pray you guys are not
as naive as we were.

Truer words were never spoken Fullpan. You guys obviously didn't have miners helping miners instead of tearing each other apart. Some are too busy tearing other miners a new azz that they have no time to put into working as one cohesive unit. Hopefully we up here will do a much better job of fighting the common enemy instead of each other.

I think every bodies resources are much better focused that way.

[Jeffro]

Jeffro, you got to cut HJ a little slack - I had same reaction till I went back into ancient posts here, and also researched his involvement trying to save dredging
for more than 15 years. He's a good man but gets a little squirrely when dredge bans come up, don't blame him till you know how hard he fought, and how
much pain there is. For instance, John was the only dredger to enter the public input process with multiple pages of evidence
back up with factual references - must have spent several weeks and significant money to get it into final form for submission
and that's just for starters.

To this day I have no idea why people tell me to cut John slack as if i have no idea who he is. We've been wrassling for over 15 years. I am well aware of John's experience and sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't. This is one of those times I quite simply do not. Johns stance that other miners are to blame is complete BS. It's thinking like this- bickering, fighting, squabbling, etc. that gave the eco-wackos the leg up in the Californicate fight. Miners were to busy busting each others balls rather than getting their stuff TOGETHER and standing for the common good.

[Gramps43]

I wrote my state Senator and Rep. about these bills. Senator Johnson wrote back that she does not support and will not vote for them. Representative Boone thanked me for sending her the link to them but hasn't commented further as of yet.

Gramps

[Hefty1]

Sat, January 26, 2013 11:26:17 AM
Impacts of SB 401 and SB 388 on YOUR property

From:	Kerby Jackson <kerbyjackson@mail.com> View Contact
	poster-SB401-338.pdf (19KB)

---

Please forward this message on.


Oregon Senate Bill 401, introduced by Senator Alan Bates (D-Ashland) seeks to greatly expand Oregon's Scenic Waterways as an under-handed way of attacking gold miners in Oregon. But, it's not just the miners who will be adversely impacted by SB 401. YOUR property may also be adversely effected.

SB 401 will add hundreds of miles of streams and rivers into State Scenic Designation, including large portions of the Rogue, Applegate, Illinois and Umpqua Rivers, as well as Sucker Creek, Grave Creek, Cow Creek and about ten other creeks. Included in the bill is a provision (already part of ORS Chapter 390) that establishes a "scenic easement" for 1/4 of a mile on both sides. This scenic "easement" is placed under the control of the Oregon Department of State Lands and the Oregon State Parks Department and will give the State of Oregon regulatory authority on ANY property inside of that easement under the guise of "preserving" so called "scenic qualities" for the sake of the general public. ANY activity on the properties included inside the easement will become subject to heavy use regulation, especially in relation to visual changes made to the property, including (but not limited to) construction of new residences, expansions or modifications made to homes or outbuildings, removal of trees. Any existing home or outbuilding that is considered to not enhance scenic values "for the public" will be required to be screened from view or will be simply removed. Something so simple as changing the color of your home may be expressly forbidden if SB 401 becomes State Law.

Don't believe it?

In 1970, shortly after the passage of the Oregon Scenic Waterway Act, a Grants Pass woman named Helen Scott was forced to sue the State of Oregon. Scott owned eight acres adjacent to the Rogue River which she had purchased in the 1960's for the purpose of subdividing and developing. She tried to work with the State of Oregon and submitted a development plan for the property which she believed was more than reasonable. Her plan was to subdivide the property in half and build two houses on the river. These were to be high end homes suitable for summer recreational use on the river. The two houses would be painted gloss white. Helen Scott's plan was not good enough for the State of Oregon and in particular, the state protested about the homes being painted white because they would not blend in with the scenery on the river. Scott was forbidden from developing her property and subsequently took the State of Oregon to court, asking for $25,000 in damages as she believed that the State of Oregon had committed a takings of her property for public purposes. Scott spent the next five years in court, losing in both Circuit Court and also in the Oregon Court of Appeals. Both courts ruled that the state had been within its rights and that Scott's property rights had not been violated. (See "Smith v. State Highway Commission" - http://or.findacase.com/research/wfr...0278.OR.htm/qx )

If you live within 1/4 of a mile of any of the waterways mentioned in SB 401, you should be very concerned about the future of your home, even if you are just a renter. Large portions of Cave Junction, Grants Pass, Rogue River, Gold Hill, Roseburg and other towns will be effected by SB 401. Near the bottom of this e-mail, you can get an approximate idea of how SB 401 is going to influence the above mentioned towns.

To make matters worse, Alan Bates has also introduced another bill, SB 388, which will set aside five "segments" of Scenic Waterway easements (to be named later) that will apparently be open to the public. The bill includes a provision to "educate property owners" about the "public's rights". This seems to indicate that the "five segments" to be opened to the public are apparently actually some unfortunate people's own private property!

Amazingly, SB 401 does not appear to actually impact any of Senator Alan Bates' own constituents. Obviously, Bates knows that SB 401 is so bad that he does not dare impose it upon people who might vote him out of office!

SB 401 and SB 388 must be stopped! Please call your State Senator as well as your local officials and tell them what you think of these bills. You can also contact Senator Bates at:

sen.alanbates@state.or.us

541-282-6502 (local office) 503-986-1703 (state capital)

We have included a flyer about SB 401 and SB 388 that we encourage you to print out to share with others. It is in PDF format and can be opened with Adobe Acrobat or a similar PDF viewer.

Please also forward this e-mail onto your friends and contacts who might be adversely effected.

Please visit the "news" section at: Galice Mining District - Southern Oregon Mining to learn more about SB 401 and SB 388, as well as the other bills that Alan Bates has introduced.

Remember to scroll down to see how your town is effected by SB 401. Note that the boundaries are "approximate only", but will extend for 1/4 of a mile on both sides of the effected waterways. We have not included any maps on Sucker Creek, Cow Creek, Grave Creek and portions of the Umqua River other than Roseburg.


Regards,

Kerby Jackson
Chief Executive Office - Galice Mining District
Galice Mining District - Southern Oregon Mining

P.S. - As for mining, SB 401 is intended to have an almost complete DESTROYING EFFECT on mining in SW Oregon. If SB 401 passes, the resulting lawsuits from miners against the State of Oregon has the potential to wreak fiscal havoc on the state's future.

[Hefty1]

Mark
We have one democrat out the four that we needed, that I know of.

J

From: Sen Johnson [mailto:sen.betsyjohnson@state.or.us]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 8:27 PM
To: 'J
Subject: RE:



Dear J

Thank you for your email.

I will be opposing all three of these bills.

Best regards,

Betsy
(503) 543-4046


From: J
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:37 PM
To: Sen.HermanBaertschiger@leg.state.or.us; Sen Bates; Sen Beyer; Sen Boquist; Sen Burdick; Sen Close; Sen Courtney; Sen Devlin; Sen Dingfelder; Sen Edwards C; Sen Ferrioli; Sen George L; Sen Girod; Sen Hansell; Sen Hass; Sen Johnson; Sen Knopp; Sen Kruse; Sen MonnesAnderson; Sen Monroe; Sen Olsen; Sen Prozanski; Sen Roblan; Sen Rosenbaum; Sen Shields; Sen Starr B; Sen Steiner Hayward; Sen Thomsen; Sen Whitsett; Sen Winters
Subject:



Attention all Oregon state Sen, “PLEASE READ”
I would like to pass this information on.
In Belk v. Meagher, the Supreme Court says of the Mining Act of 1866:
"(T)he locator of a mining claim has a possessory title thereto, and the right to the exclusive possession thereof. The words imply property. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of a mining claim includes the right to work it, to extract the mineral therefrom, to the exclusive property in such mineral, and the right to defend such possession. The right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of property, accompanied with the right to acquire the absolute title thereto, presupposes a grant, and the instrument of this grant, as applied to mining claims upon the public lands, is the act of congress above referred to. This act being of general application to all the mineral lands belonging to the government, and conferring a title or easement therein upon the locator thereof, and vesting the right in him to become the absolute owner to the exclusion of all others, is a legislative grant, and being given by act of congress, is equivalent to a patent from the United States to the same."
In the landmark case, Fletcher v. Peck, the Supreme Court ruled that public grants (such as those within the Mining Law) are considered to be contractual obligations that cannot be abrogated, even to the point that "a repeal of the law cannot devest those rights" because they are considered to be protected by several provisions in the United States Constitution.
In particular, the court ruled that: "The State legislatures can pass no ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. Such a law may inflict penalties upon the person, or may inflict pecuniary penalties which swell the public treasury. The legislature is then prohibited from passing a law by which a man's estate, or any part of it, shall be seized for a crime which was not declared by some previous law to render him liable for punishment."
I would like to thank all the Senators that replied back to my previous email and told me that they would not vote for SB 115, SB370 & SB 401. To all of those who are considering voting in favor of these bills I “STRONGLY” urge you to reconsider your line of thinking on this “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” taking of my “GRANTED MINING RIGHTS”.
If these bills pass we the miners are very aware of who the responsible parties are and “THEY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE” and will definitely not receive our votes in the next election.

Please submit this into your records,
Sincerely
J

[Hoser John]

Thanx Mark for more info, lookn' ugly but at least some kinda fight is on and NOT kalif rollover immediately. John

[Doug Watson]

Jeffro, if you'd been watching what happened years ago on the klamath and now has moved to Oregon you'd understand where John is comming from. I'm just wondering what state is next after Oregon.

[Hefty1]

Topic: To help respond to the anti-mining legislation threat.

To help respond to the anti-mining legislation threat in Oregon to all mining law beneficiaries: Thanks to Tom Quintal, government liaison of Willamette Valley Mining Association, for putting this together for any one wanting to respond. Below are some bullet points to write letters, phone, email or fax the Oregon legislators regarding the new anti-mining bills. The Senate Environment & Resources committee will be hearing SB115, SB401 and SB370 in this committee. Here's the framework of a letter or email. Make sure to put in the required info and use the bullet points as a guide but come up with your own if you can as well. Make the communication your statement, not a form response. Communications should begin to be accepted on these bills beginning next week starting around the February 5th after the Legislative Session starts. Red below is for instruction. Attention Senate Environment and Resources Committee Attention: To SB115, SB401 and SB370 Please make this letter part of the public record. If you write a letter state to make the letter part of the public record, as shown above. Dear Senator Dingfelder, you can send this email/letter, fax or use it to phone to every member on the committee and every legislative member. I OPPOSE the following bills SB115, SB401 and SB370 and ask this email be made as part of the public record. Dear Senator Dingfelder: All of the bills listed will cause financial hardship including mineral trespass for Oregon citizens with respect to our 1872 mining rights and Oregon mining law. SB401 in particular will cause a "Takings" for some of Oregon's most valuable placer mining streams with active Federal mining claims. SB401 will also eliminate future mining claims with respect to the new proposed Oregon Scenic Waters. Oregon already has 19 Oregon Scenic Waters including Waldo Lake. Please be aware with the proposed Oregon Scenic Waters addition Oregon cannot afford a "Takings" class action lawsuit from hundreds of Oregon Federal claim owners. If you write a letter or email I would list your name and address. John Doe 123 Santa Clause St. Salem, Oregon 97317 phone number could be optional. cc: Here are the folks that need immediate letters, emails, faxes and phone calls to their individual offices. Senator Jackie Dingfelder Party: D District: 23 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1723 District Phone: 503-493-2804 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-407, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 13432, Portland, OR, 97213 Email: Sen.JackieDingfelder@state.or.us Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/dingfelder Senator Alan Olsenp Party: R District: 20 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1720 District Phone: 503-936-8605 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-425, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 820, Canby, OR, 97013 Email: Sen.AlanOlsen@state.or.us Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/olsen Senator Alan Bates Party: D District: 3 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1703 District Phone: 541-282-6502 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-205, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: 2859 State Street #101, Medford, OR, 97504 Email: Sen.AlanBates@state.or.us Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/bates Senator Bill Hansell Party: R District: 29 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1729 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-423, Salem, OR, 97301 Email: Sen.BillHansell@state.or.us Interim Email:Sen.BillHansell@state.or.us Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/hansell Senator Mark Hass Party: D District: 14 Capitol Phone: 503-986-1714 Capitol Address: 900 Court St NE, S-207, Salem, OR, 97301 District Office Address: PO Box 536, Beaverton, OR, 97075 Email: Sen.MarkHass@state.or.us Website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/hass

Bullitt Points against SB 401 1. The State of Oregon does not have the authority to take private property by establishing a “Scenic easement” one-forth mile from the bank of any river without either the consent of the owner, or without compensation. Establishing a scenic easement is a taking of private property or lands managed by the Federal Government, for public use without first offering compensation under the Oregon Constitution (Article I Section 18). 2. The “right to control the use of related adjacent land” and air space above for future uses that are currently lawful are outside the authority of the State of Oregon, and especially so with no offer of compensation. (Article I Section 18 Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution) 3. Mining in all of its forms are the intended use and rights of the citizens; it “shall be free and open” to prospecting, exploring, locating and occupying and purchasing the valuable mineral deposit, which includes the surface in lands open to mineral entry and belonging to the Federal Government. (30 USC 22, 26 & 35) 4. Under the Supremacy Clause, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is preempted. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). Any state legislation which frustrates the full effectiveness of federal law is rendered invalid by the Supremacy Clause, regardless of the underlying purpose of its enactors, Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 651-52, 91 S.Ct. 1704 20 L. Ed.2d 233 (1971). Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the “…Constitution and Laws of the United State…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” 5. The current scenic waterways statutes conflict with Federal Law governing use of federal lands, specifically prohibiting placer mining. SB 401 not only adds several more waterways to the conflicting law, but also compounds the existing problems by adding an improper savings clause that does not save the future right of use of property by the owner. 6. SB 401 cannot legally apply to “removal or fill activity”, because the gravels in such waterways in the public lands belong to the upland owner, which includes the mining claimant. 7. Certain water rights to use the lakes and running streams were “hereby granted” by the State of Oregon as a “public necessity” and a “beneficial use” for mining purposes (1899 Act) and partly codified in ORS 541.110 and cannot be denied or require permitting to the mining claimant. The State granted that right away. 8. SB 401 or any previous statutes governing the scenic waterway cannot restrict the public use of roads, railroads or utilities constructed within any creeks and rivers or “waterways”, especially RS 2477 right of ways, for maintenance and access to minerals on federal lands also see Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 18, which are “necessary to promote the transportation of raw products of mine or farm or forest or water for beneficial use or drainage is necessary to the development and welfare of the state…” 9. An emergency has not been established. How To Testify Before a Legislative Committee I found this link to the document: http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/testify.html And here is the text: How To Testify Before a Legislative Committee Committees are the heart of Oregon's legislative process. The committee process provides legislators more opportunity to closely study a measure than would be possible in a floor debate. Committees may hear from many people who support or oppose the measure. Giving public testimony before a legislative committee can be an exciting and fulfilling experience if you are prepared. Your testimony may influence the committee's action. It also becomes part of the permanent record and may be used in future research. Listed below are suggestions to help make your presentation successful. Know Your Audience The members of the committee are "citizen legislators." They care that you have taken time out of your day to come and testify before them. Be respectful. Don't accuse committee members of causing your particular problem. Resist the temptation to scold, put down, or insult the decision makers or other witnesses. This tactic will likely alienate them from your cause. Know the Issue Support your personal opinions with as many facts as possible. Be knowledgeable of the "other side of the story." You may be asked to discuss the differences. Draw from your own knowledge and experience. Be Familiar with the Committee Process Know the location of the building, the meeting room, and the meeting time. Agendas will be posted outside the meeting room. Check to make sure the measure you are interested in has not been removed from the agenda. The measures may not be heard in the printed order. If possible, attend a committee meeting before you testify to become familiar with the process and room layout. When you arrive at the meeting, sign the witness registration sheet. Witnesses are not necessarily called in chronological order. Presenting Your Written Testimony When you are called to testify, give copies of your testimony to committee staff before you begin your presentation. The number of copies requested is printed on the bottom of the committee meeting agenda. Begin your presentation by addressing the chairperson first, then members of the committee. "Chair___, members of the committee . . ." For the record, state your name, address, and the organization or group you represent. State whether you support or oppose the legislative measure being heard and briefly explain. Do not read your testimony to the committee word for word. Prepare an outline. Keep in mind you may have a ten minute version of your testimony--be prepared to summarize it in one minute--that may be all the time you are allowed! Thank the committee members and offer to answer any questions. "Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions." When a member asks you a question respond: "Chair ______ , Senator/Representative (state name), the answer to your question is . . ." Relax! The members understand that this can be an intimidating experience--they don't expect a perfect presentation. Group Testimony Select several people to cover different topics so the testimony is not repetitive. Address the problem, possible solutions, and your group's best solution. Special Needs If you require special accommodation in order to testify before a committee, please contact the committee administrator or support staff 24 hours BEFORE the meeting with your request. Contact Numbers: (503) 986-1813 or (503) 986-1187 TDD (503) 986-1467 (inside Salem) 1-800-332-2313 (outside Salem) If you need information regarding the legislative process, email the Legislative Liaison, or call 503-986-1000. If you have technical questions about this site, please email Oregon Legislative Information Systems,mailto:help.leg@state.or.us or call 503-986-1914. However, the staff of the Oregon Legislature cannot respond to requests for legal advice from anyone except members of the Oregon Legislature. To understand and protect your legal rights, you should consult your own private lawyer.