OREGON LAW COMMISSION Date: January 18, 2005 Capitol Building, Hearing Room 50 2:00 p.m. Tapes 1 - 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Lane Shetterly, Chair Sen. Kate Brown, Vice-Chair Wallace P. Carson, Jr. Prof. Sandra Hansberger Prof. Hans Linde Greg Mowe Craig Prins Phil Schradle (for Hardy Myers) Dean Symeon Symeonides Prof. Dom Vetri Sen. Vicki Walker MEMBERS EXCUSED: Attorney General Hardy Myers Prof. Bernie Vail STAFF PRESENT: David R. Kenagy, Executive Director Wendy J. Johnson, Deputy Director Julie K. Gehring, Administrative Assistant MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD: Approval of Minutes from November 19, 2004 These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. TAPE/# Speaker Comments TAPE 1A 03 Chair Lane Calls the meeting of the Oregon Law Commission to order at 2:10 Shetterly p.m. at the Capitol Building, Hearing Room 50. Reminds members of the Oregon Law Commission Legislative Reception at 5:00 p.m. tonight. 14 Wendy Johnson Reminds Commissioners to wear nametags in front of them to the reception. 18 Shetterly Minutes approved. 23 David Kenagy Talks about progression of bills and scheduling OLC meeting for February. Alerts Commission and Work Group members that bills will be sent to numerous committees and will appear before at least 33 house members. Work Group Members will be asked to testify before various committees. (EXHIBIT A) 61 Shetterly At 3:30 p.m. Shetterly will be meeting with the Governor, but Senator Brown will take over as chair at that time. 71 Johnson Start with Juvenile Guardian Ad Litem, SB 230. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 2 77 Julie McFarlane McFarlane, supervising attorney at the Juvenile Rights Project, and Jason Janzen, Willamette University Research Assistant, who wrote the report. (EXHIBIT B) The group worked together and came up with proposed legislation regarding guardianship of parents with mental issues. In section 2 of this bill a motion for a GAL can be oral or written and can be made by the court or a party to the proceeding. The court is required to grant the motion if there’s enough proof showing that the parents don’t have the mental capacity to make decisions. The group was aware of the significant impact of appointing a GAL on the parent and a standard was made so GALs aren’t appointed unnecessarily. 129 McFarlane The bill also required that a hearing be conducted to afford a parent the opportunity to contest the appointment of a GAL. In Sub 6, section 3, a GAL can’t be a member of the family and must be an attorney or mental health professional. 164 McFarlane Continues talking about changes on page 3. This section describes the type of authority a GAL should have, and the legal decisions involved in the adoption of child or parent. It provides direction to the attorney regarding decisions the parent would normally make. 208 Shetterly C and D are retained and redesignated as D and E? 212 McFarlane Correct. Continues talking about changes to sub 4, 5, and 6 and Section 4. These sections involve decisions a GAL makes for the parent, privileges to be asserted, and termination when GAL is no longer needed. 259 Hans Linde Refers to 6A. How is an evidentiary privilege exercised by a GAL to prevent a person from disclosing a confidential statement? How does the GAL know to use his privilege to prevent such disclosure? 270 McFarlane The language was taken from another section. 274 Linde Good idea to read them first. Questions whether the provision should be redrafted. 278 McFarlane THE GAL can tell the attorney not to disclose. 279 Linde It’s fine if the attorney works for you. This sounds like a privilege and should be looked at. 289 McFarlane Will look into it. Section 4 subsection 3’s process is being used currently. Doesn’t feel this will increase number of appointments. 300 Phil Schradle Do you always have to have a hearing to appoint a GAL, and can the hearing requirement be waived? 307 McFarlane Currently, some counties appoint the GAL ex parte, and there hasn’t been a procedure that allows a parent to contest. Sub-work Group wanted a hearing on this issue. 314 Schradle Is a hearing needed if the parent doesn’t request one? 317 McFarlane Yes, but they don’t always need to be present for it. 321 Dom Vetri Subsection 3 sub 4. Did the group consider options regarding a standard for what a parent would decide? 329 McFarlane Yes, discussed the minimum relationship between a parent and attorney before they could represent them. Decisions are set out in These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 3 the bill. 345 Vetri Doesn’t understand. The bill states that when a guardian makes decisions, they should be based on what the parent would decide if incapacitated. 358 Shetterly Previous response addressed sub 3. 360 McFarlane Misunderstood, addresses Sub 4. When writing this bill, the reasonable parent standard was used. It was decided that the GAL should make decisions based on what the parent would decide. 375 Vetri What’s the option when you can’t predict what parents will do? Who can challenge the GAL? 382 McFarlane That situation makes the GAL’s position difficult, but they receive assistance from family members in making the decision. 401 Vetri Was there much disagreement about the standard among Work Group members? 402 McFarlane Yes, but everyone eventually agreed with the standard. 408 Shetterly Was there group consensus? 409 McFarlane Yes. 413 Sandra Hansberger Section 2 sub 6. Can testimony and evidence be used subsequently? TAPE 2A 11 McFarlane Possibly. The Work Group looked at other state legislation regarding parents needing to undergo an evaluation. Felt it would be infringing on their rights because the evidence could be used against them. 24 Greg Mowe How does this statute resolve ethical issues for the attorney? Is it unethical for a parent’s attorney to request a GAL? Section 3 sub 3 sub c, can attorney ignore parent if GAL and parent disagree? 37 McFarlane The Work Group looked at ethics opinions. The GAL can’t be requested by a parent’s attorney. If the parent is competent enough to have a conflict with the GAL, they don’t need a GAL. The attorney should ask for removal of the GAL. 58 Shetterly Asks about text amending current law. Are these conforming amendments? 61 McFarlane Talks about conforming amendments in section 7, 8, and 9. 85 Shetterly You’re proposing amendments discussed at top of page 3? 90 McFarlane Explains amendments. 110 Shetterly The amendments are not in LC form yet and won’t be received until the bill is drafted and a hearing date set. Request from Linde regarding privilege. These are conceptual amendments representing consensus from the group? 114 McFarlane Yes. 123 Senator Kate Brown I move that we recommend that LC 1093 be amended on page 3, we support the report and proposal, and recommend the Commission’s support to the 2005 Legislative Assembly (bill number is SB 230.) These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 4 133 Shetterly Motion to move LC 1093 forward as amended and the report is approved. 142 Linda Guss Attorney for DOJ. Talks about changes made to SB 229 (LC 190). (EXHIBIT C) In Section 1, child parent relationship is changed to caregiver relationship as used in juvenile court intervention statutes. This was done to differentiate the relationship used in domestic relations proceedings. The Section 1 reference to juvenile code intervention provisions in ORS 419B.116 replaces the domestic relations statute ORS 109.119. Page 2 line 12 is changed to state that caregiver relationships should last for one year. 175 Shetterly Section 3 just regards the applicable date? 176 Guss Correct. 178 Senator Brown I would move that the Law Commission endorse LC 190 along with the recommended report and be forwarded to the 2005 Legislative Assembly as approved by the Oregon Law Commission. 181 Shetterly Motion carried. 190 Michael Livingston SB 231 (LC 1140). (EXHIBIT D) This proposed legislation addresses three problems governing the confidentiality of juvenile court information contained in two files: the legal and social history files. Numerous changes in this law have been made, but statutes haven’t been amended since 1959. The first problem is lack of express authority for district attorneys, DHS, and OYA to access confidential juvenile court materials, and whether they can share information with each other. The second problem is that there’s no provision requiring that the social history file be maintained by any particular entity. Some courts keep social file materials and other courts shred them after the hearing. The third problem is clarifying whether the juvenile court proceeding transcripts are confidential. 271 Livingston The Sub-Work Group came to the conclusion that ORS 419A.255 needed a series of new statutes to replace the old and this change couldn’t be done in time for session. So they decided, in accordance with the Judicial Department’s recommendation, to do a stand alone bill addressing and resolving the three problems mentioned above. 351 Linde “Has anybody ever squared the confidentiality provisions with Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution?” 356 Livingston Yes, that was a big part of our consideration. In sub 3 it states that the transcript of a juvenile court proceeding is confidential when it’s filed. A letter sent to a newspaper from an attorney regarding public records prompted this. Several cases were looked at regarding Article 1, Section 10 and there wasn’t a guarantee regarding record access of the hearing. 379 Shetterly You’re referring to Appendix 2? 383 Livingston Yes. 391 Linde If you have confidential reports and there’s an open hearing at court, the reports are received, considered, and then the hearing is over. Does this meet Article 1, Section 10 guidelines? These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 5 393 Livingston These are considered by the court outside of the proceeding? 405 Linde Yes. I understood you to say these aren’t heard in the court room, and the case is decided and done in chambers. How would Article 1, Section 10 work in this situation? 421 Livingston Clarifies that there are more procedures in that circumstance. 424 Linde What if that was all that happened? TAPE 1B 14 Shetterly Clarifies Article 1, Section 10. 17 Linde If people have an open hearing in which a number of reports are offered and the hearing is over when the reports are taken, does this meet Article 1, Section 10? 20 Livingston Yes, believes this meets the standards. The hearing is open and all materials are accessible to the parties. 26 Linde Believes a previous court case said openness can’t be waived if only the parties meet. 29 Livingston Thinks that’s correct, but nothing in the bill authorizes or reauthorizes this hypothesis. Talks about public records. Section 4 will be added as amendment to SB 230. 64 Sen. Brown One issue that wasn’t resolved regards using information from the juvenile court case to prosecute the parent. 70 Livingston This disclosure is only to be used for official duties in the juvenile court proceedings in regards to the parent or child. 79 Linde Can this system of confidential records be used in adult criminal and civil cases? 88 Livingson Only aware of this in the mental commitment statutes. 89 Linde Will this be an exception to a constitutional conviction? 92 Livingston If it does, it’ll just add to what’s been done before us. As the group continues, we’ll work on replacing the current system. 101 Brown I would move that the Oregon Law Commission approve LC 1140 (SB 230) along with the recommended report and forward both to the 2005 Legislative Assembly with our endorsement. 103 Shetterly That would be LC 1140 with recommended report, which includes the conceptual amendment in Section 4. Motion approved. 124 Timothy Travis Court Improvement Manager with Oregon Judicial Department. Chair of Code Split Sub-Work Group. 131 Shetterly Wants to switch to Ethics since he’ll be leaving. The Commission will hear Professor Watson’s report today and then will present it again at the February meeting due to its extensive nature. 150 Professor Jerry Staff Attorney for OLC. Talks about the 11 sections in the Ethics Watson Report. (EXHIBIT E) This report addresses the meaning of ethics the proper role of government and how to regulate ethics. The first two sections are introductory, the next five chapters deal with substantive issues (ethics law, financial gain, honoraria, reporting economic interest, conflicts of interest), and the remaining chapters cover scope These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 6 of coverage, government’s responsibility of authority, lobbying, and the conclusion. 225 Watson The Commission should decide if the lobbying, public meetings and executive session law portion of the report should be expanded. Ch. 244 is where the governor’s initial request comes from. Talks about the chapters’ structures and the 5 appendices that go with them. Each of the appendices indicate the states that they cover and the text of the statutory provisions discussed. 309 Watson Reminds Commission that it’s a staff report and not a work group report and that a work group hasn’t been appointed yet. In writing the report, he tried to draw as few conclusions as possible so the work group wouldn’t be biased. Talks about how the report was written. He used a descriptive comparative approach so the report can be evaluative. 374 Watson Used principles from a variety of areas. Also, took into consideration the factors the governor mentioned in his request to the Commission. Tried to make this a tough approach to government ethics law. Talks about having a model with basic principles that match closely to the ethical guidelines. TAPE 2B 25 Watson Statute provides for 4 exceptions to receiving financial gains from government service: compensations for services or products rendered, reimbursement for expenses, honoraria, and unsolicited awards. 33 Vetri Does the role or status of a state employee make a difference? Honoraria seems significant. 36 Watson Possibly. Those who wanted to differentiate would need to provide a solid rational as to why it should exist. An issue regarding honoraria is whether the honorarium is related to the person’s government work. At the federal level there’s a policy and some case authority, but most states limit their honoraria restrictions to those related to government service or employment. 69 Brown Any difference between states that pay legislators and the ones that don’t pay legislators? 72 Watson The issue was raised. It’s a tricky subject because if the state statute allows someone who doesn’t make a living wage to receive honoraria, it’s basically saying that it’s okay to receive benefits from someone else because you’re not getting paid. It can be perceived that this could have an impact on your job performance. 94 Schradle Is there a reason states haven’t adopted substantial parts of the Council of Government Ethics Laws? 98 Watson Number of issues regarding this. It’s a very comprehensive statute and government ethics are discussed very broadly in this section. The more you add to it the more difficult it becomes. 124 Kenagy Wanted to point out that procedurally, the Commission authorized this project one year ago. Ideally the Commission will meet in several weeks and a motion will authorize the formation of a work group consisting of the people from the governor’s request. When These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 7 authorized a year ago it was subject to funding. This is Willamette University’s gift to the Law Commission. Dean Symeonides and Jerry Watson’s commitment enabled the making of this report. Wants to make known this work is coming from the Willamette side of the equation. 165 Brown Some issues raised in the report are definitely political. Since the Commission has tried to avoid political issues, how will a work group resolve and tackle those? 182 Kenagy The Commission and work group will need to communicate closely. Reports perhaps should be brought to the Commission and reviewed so every step is known. 204 Dean Symeon Agrees the work group should work closely with Commission. If Symeonides there are political issues regarding policies, they should be brought to the Commission. Also, 2 or 3 alternative recommendations could be presented to the legislature. This should prove we’re an impartial body. 230 Martha Walters Would this be a project where one draft deals with all of the issues or will it be presented in pieces? 236 Watson Thinks it’s good to do it comprehensively. 255 Timothy Travis SB 233 (LC 1142) (EXHIBIT F) In Section 1, the bill conforms a portion of the delinquency code to the policy behind the delinquency statutes. The current statutory language was written when both delinquency and dependency laws were based upon the best interest of the child. The delinquency system has shifted from the child to public safety, offender accountability, and reformation. The bill amends the statute to conform to the delinquency code policy. 391 Travis Additional amendments will be presented at the February meeting. The work group has done most of the easy stuff and are now having problems with certain aspects of the juvenile code. A solution has not yet been reached. TAPE 3A 18 Travis For example, in certain cases the juvenile departments across the counties do some things the same and some things different. Writing a statute to legitimize what counties are doing is impossible. 38 Linde “If you follow the delinquency model you can’t go to this other kind of preventive intervention? Could you, even under the bill, simply amend the pleadings or have a dependency proceeding for the other one? Would it be in a separate proceeding with a new judge or a different one? You said the issue of alcohol dependency can’t be attached to a delinquency proceeding. You could have a separate proceeding. How does the system deal with it? Does it amend the original or file a second pleading?” 52 Travis If the judge says you’re right, and he doesn’t need this treatment, you should file a dependency case, it’s not possible because a dependency petition can’t co-exist under a delinquency petition. 68 Linde Can that be changed? These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 8 78 Travis Yes. Suggest that different departments with co-equal jurisdiction over a child isn’t good. Solution is a more global approach. 82 Linde Is a more global approach provided by your bill? 83 Travis Yes. 84 Walters How do the criminal defense attorneys feel about ORS 419C.001 when representing juveniles. Is it sufficient? 94 Travis This has the full support of the group and the defense community. 98 Brown The chair would move that we forward LC 1142 along with the report to the 2005 Legislative Assembly with the approval of the Oregon Law Commission. 102 Linde Will there be more amendments? 105 Travis Amendments will be in to Legislative Counsel by Friday. 111 Linde Our vote is needed today before we see the amendments? 112 Travis Correct. 115 Brown Motion approved. 125 Professor Leslie SB234 (LC 1143) Leslie Harris, professor at Oregon State University, Harris and KayT Garret, Assistant Attorney General and Chair of Putative Father Sub-Work Group. (EXHIBIT G) This report talks about juvenile court treatment of putative fathers. Defined as “alleged biological father whose paternity hasn’t been established.” This bill will do three things. First, change the definition of when putative fathers should receive substantial procedural safeguards. Second, the juvenile code provisions aren’t consisted with ORS Chapter 109 similar provisions, so they will be reconciled. Third, the juvenile code doesn’t provide judges with clear authority in paternity disputes so this bill resolves that problem. 220 Harris Talks about proposed amendments to the bill and the basic concepts of the three solutions. 288 Linde Who does the alleging, if you’re an alleged father? 294 Harris Nobody. I believe you’re asking who makes these inquiries to decide if a guy fits this? 297 Linde Can a social agency say multiple people are the father, but not know which one? 300 Harris DHS does the petition and they decide who might be the father. The notice is issued then. Alleged is used because it’s unknown. 315 Linde The proceeding starts with an allegation you’re the father? 320 Harris Doesn’t begin as paternity proceeding. A notice is sent out to these people. In Oregon, as soon as a father’s paternity is established he has the same legal rights as any father. Talked about difficulty of amending Chapter 109 and Chapter 419. Were unable to define which putative fathers will receive notice in non-juvenile court proceedings of substantive rights. 400 Harris The Commission has approved a work group for the next session to decide if the UPA should be adopted in Oregon. They will work on resolving issues in Ch. 109 that weren’t fixed with this bill. These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 9 TAPE 4A 29 Harris The statute was amended in regards to voluntary acknowledgement so the child, child’s attorney and DHS could challenge in a juvenile court proceeding for material mistake of fact. 52 Mowe Why doesn’t Section 8 refer to genetic testing, because it’s in the challenge proceedings? 56 Harris Genetic testing isn’t done routinely, and since it’s expensive and intrusive the Work Group didn’t want every case to require it. 63 KayT Garrett In Oregon, any father married to the child’s mother at conception is presumed to be the legal father. The UPA Work Group will deal with this issue. 76 Symeonides You said the child and the father. Did you mean or? 76 Harris Either one. 78 Symeonides The child can do it on his own if not under department care? 79 Harris Correct. 80 Linde You stated that consistent with due process is language that would be put in. Could you reword it to say consistent with constitutional standards. 83 Harris Section 8 actually talks about the court providing a separate party notice for an opportunity to be heard. 85 Linde Not incorporating the 14th amendment? 86 Harris No. 87 Walter Is it binding in civil proceedings if a juvenile court decides who the father is? 89 Harris Yes. 90 Walters Really concerned with implementing these substantive changes when another Work Group will be working on the determining the definition of parent. Feels like juvenile court will be given more authority to do different things in Ch 109 then another court. 97 Harris Not an issue, because those disputes weren’t resolved by this Work Group. The Work Group in the next session will be deciding on the voluntary acknowledgements of paternity. 103 Walters This challenge is being put in and it wasn’t before. 104 Harris Correct. But the amendment isn’t just for juvenile court, it’s in Chapter 109. 106 Walters Establishing parentage is a huge issue, and we’re redoing it? 110 Harris That’s not being changed inside or outside of juvenile court. 112 Garrett It’s referenced in Section 8. 114 Harris To comply with Chapter 109. 115 Walter This is the same definition of putative father? 117 Garrett As defined in Chapter 109. 118 Walters Could you be a putative father for juvenile court, but not for Chapter 109 purposes? These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 10 120 Harris Yes. Because of Chapter 419B existing provisions. 123 Walters The UPA Work Group may have changes to what you’ve done. 125 Harris Hopes they will interconnect with this bill so juvenile code can be changed to coincide. 129 Vetri Can the alleged father appeal a court decision immediately or do they wait until the end of the proceeding? 135 Garrett Didn’t discuss what a father could do, but generally interlocutory appeals aren’t allowed. 138 Harris This issue exists, but wasn’t in the scope of our Work Group. 142 Brown The Chair would move that the Oregon Law Commission approve LC 1143 with proposed amendments dated January 13, 2005 and the report and that these be forwarded to the 2005 Legislative Assembly. Commissioner Walters are you still concerned? 150 Walters I understand. 155 Garrett Talks about minor changes discussed at morning meeting. The bolded language on page 2 will be changed. Men in paternity proceedings will now receive notice, termination of parental rights, and entitlement to summons in juvenile dependency cases. 185 Brown The motion will read: approve the amendments, LC draft, and written report. The proposed amendments will be further modified as KayT Garrett amended. Motion carried. 202 Mary Claire Executive Director of Psychiatric Security Review Board and chair of Buckley Sub-Work Group. Talks about PSRB bill SB 232 (LC1141). (EXHIBIT H) This was approved by the commission last legislative term and its the same bill with only one change regarding the term mental disease or defect. This has been changed and is in the bill. The fiscal impact will still be about the same. 265 Brown The Chair would move that the Law Commission approve LC 1141 and the written report and submit these to the 2005 Legislative Assembly. Motion approved. 272 Johnson The flow chart goes with the PSRB report. 283 Hansberger Talks about HB 2276 (LC 1247). The Welfare Code Work Group worked on outdated language and provisions in ORS Chapter 412 and 413. (EXHIBIT I) 313 Lorey Freeman Started with Chapters 412 and 413 because old age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the disabled don’t exist in Oregon. These individuals receive federal supplemental security income. 334 Freeman “We had a very representative work group, and I’m pleased to say they were very collaborative. I hoped that by going through the Law Commission we would be able to work in a more collaborative way than just submitting legislation and battling it out before the legislature. This really proved to be true. I appreciate all the efforts of DHS and other people who worked on this.” 344 Heather Vogelsong Everything’s detailed section by section and most of the changes concern updating and incorporating them into Chapter 411. These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes. OREGON LAW COMMISSION Page 11 352 Hansberger Doesn’t believe the amendment to ORS 411.111 is addressed in the report. The changes are listed on the bottom of the amendment page. 376 Schradle Any federal funding changes? Loss of TANIF funds? 382 Freeman No. The OSIP program and federal SSI program are connected. These don’t relate to the medical program, just to the cash supplement. 403 Schradle Will have someone in DOJ review it. 409 Freeman Did want DOJ to have a member on the committee, but DHS sent representatives from their agency. 412 Brown Numerous DOJ members are on the Juvenile Code Work Group. 417 Brown The Oregon Law Commission submits its approval of HB 2276 , which has already been introduced to the House Chamber with the amendments and the report. 426 Hansberger Add the changes to ORS 411.111 438 Brown Chair moves Commission approval of HB 2276 with amendments along with accompanying report. Motion approved. TAPE 3B 19 Brown LC 1139 Juvenile Fitness to Proceed project will not happen for 2005. At February meeting we can decide if this should continue. 32 Kenagy Would like to set a meeting in the first two weeks of February 39 Brown Friday’s won’t work because Senator Walker and I travel. 42 Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Submitted By, Reviewed By, Julie K. Gehring David R. Kenagy, Administrative Assistant Executive Director EXHIBIT SUMMARY A – Annotated Oregon Law Commission Agenda B – Guardian Ad Litem Report/Bill C – Intervenor Cleanup Report/Bill D – Confidentiality of Juvenile Court Records/Bill E – Code of Ethics Project F – Juvenile Code Split Report/Bill G – Putative Fathers Report/Bill H – Juvenile Panel of PSRB Report/Bill I – Welfare Code Report/Amendments/Bill These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.