[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6203054,"mediaKeyId","3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df","parentId",3784469,"title","Committee hears bill increasing penalties for drones that interfere with emergency response and wildfire suppression","audioSeconds",81,"startMs",4221000,"endMs",4302000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df&start=4221&end=4302","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df/thumbnail_4221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6203054/Oregon/Committee-hears-bill-increasing-penalties-for-drones-that-interfere-with-emergency-response-and-wildfire-suppression","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6203054-59b578b2aff605c546a811129765cd2a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036062&Signature=IQVuE5kA9ZUwhHg~5oVRfSOlzKKiJZJ5gkqrFWj8dPbs1Rq8IFEguoruAUAWSIrwk1sdxAlYfibVDG5x98D-jNW7Q2QF~FTmPSxylOeZ9dTg5a304fcqR2Bh3UyuoCcANNizQy7PBrVQF7T~GmNbQI1fLpNiHJDFBSMd7cJCazrA~CzAynDo5lejb4F0VRG-X6MMO4EdhMpLvTGuqKMJLC0~HQImlByu9uvHHG1J8cxlrpo3Sf3iV5t91J0R5JmAC3mAWZkWr2qxVsS4TM8eqdoRsoQrK8bJTxELAdaSyWvm1t4kdf5R9~JJQ3Updd-TtuZgDLhqfARhpSffBvdGmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon State Legislature","date","2025-06-11T08:00:00Z","article","The House Committee on Rules held a public hearing June 11 on Senate Bill 1125A, which would increase criminal penalties for using an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to interfere with law enforcement, firefighting, search and rescue or other emergency response operations, and would create new misdemeanor and felony offenses for conduct that causes interference and serious harm.

The A‑2 amendment reconciles draft language with companion House Bill 3426A and broadens protections to include search and rescue and all firefighting efforts. Under the consolidated language the measure creates a class B misdemeanor for recklessly causing UAS interference, a class C felony for intentionally or knowingly causing interference that disrupts public‑safety operations, and elevates penalties to a class A felony where death or serious physical injury results from the interference. The amendment removed a separate class B felony for causing property damage and refined other offense elements.

Representative Boice (Boyce in transcript) and Senator Pruzanski (appearing) and supporters told the committee the measure is meant to protect first responders and pilots whose operations can be disabled by drones, citing incidents in which firefighting aircraft were struck and response helicopters could not land. Representative Boyce recounted an incident in which a drone struck a firefighting plane, creating a four‑by‑six inch hole and requiring a safe landing.

Committee members reserved further deliberation and the chair carried the bill over to allow Senator Pruzanski and other witnesses to be present at a later hearing; the committee preserved witness registration and written testimony for an afternoon session.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Committee On Rules 06/11/2025 8:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 1125A would raise criminal penalties for knowingly or recklessly using an unmanned aircraft to interfere with law enforcement, firefighting, search and rescue and other emergency operations; the committee heard testimony and carried the bill for additional hearing time.","taxTitle","Rules, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Oregon","taxId",18187,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6203057,"Retailers, sponsor tell committee ID‑swipe bill is a narrow tool to keep age‑restricted goods from minors",82,3736000,3818000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df&start=3736&end=3818","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df/thumbnail_3736000.jpg","/articles/6203057/Oregon/Retailers-sponsor-tell-committee-IDswipe-bill-is-a-narrow-tool-to-keep-agerestricted-goods-from-minors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6203057-8e07e08f12a8139e4b839281e246b2eb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036062&Signature=FLrNxUHy-DETo5WtYfsdMgWBKaeB0d3RCNvqqDqSuciGNo3u0tXv4PzxErqsRswtGIFGFSBbsK-LvXbm5IFOZMDUIcmyDMMw80Znx4W00Si-JjeoiG2gqaTm63hVTJj-P-NHLQIbPzbNHWF1cYCOZvdakJrPYkAPsA2nx0ZFqINjjWF-hDlqNTrzmMRykuR2oVstU49k0DEVwxpKnGqXcoE4KQDkS4lp5RNS7iYsOfjsowR6qI4P8E1ZjYbRZTvC3XSV7LUxd-nUyoKIbNTadTTjYFznvFep3TgRnJIbzClEQ-cjcgORJooiuuSAUTuCgbzlJc7GwFmZKJFzfDk52Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rules Committee on June 11 heard testimony on Senate Bill 1005, which would allow private entities to swipe a customer’s driver’s license or identification card to verify age when selling age‑restricted products, regardless of whether the clerk has a reasonable doubt the buyer is 21. The committee heard testimony in a public hearing; a dash‑2 amendment increases statutory damages for unlawful storage, sale or sharing of scanned personal information from $1,000 to $5,000 or actual damages if greater.

Jonathan Polonsky, CEO of Plaid Pantry, said his chain of 104 convenience stores uses ID scanning solely to verify authenticity and age and that the company “has never stored or sold any of our customer's personal information.” He told the committee that without the bill, retailers would revert to less robust age‑verification practices and compliance rates could fall.

Senator Daniel Bonham, a sponsor, described the bill as a short, targeted change: “This bill is about 15 words, 1 of which is a contraction and a number, that's it,” he said, arguing that authorized scanning improves compliance in compliance audits. Representative Emily McIntyre, who testified in support, highlighted the dash‑2 amendment’s strengthened penalty for data misuse and said the bill protects minors while allowing businesses to verify age.

Members of the committee asked about privacy concerns raised by written testimony from a private citizen who expressed distrust of scanning ID images. Representative Croft suggested retailers might post visible notices clarifying that the store does not store scan data and that civil remedies are available under the statute; supporters said the dash‑2 amendment expressly increases penalties to deter misuse.

No committee vote was held on the bill during this session; the record includes public testimony and sponsor remarks. The committee preserved written testimony and closed the public hearing on SB 1005.

","Supporters of Senate Bill 1005 told the Rules Committee the bill permits retailers to swipe IDs to verify age and raises damages for unlawful storage or sale of scanned data; proponents said scans are used only to validate ID authenticity and age.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6203061,"Committee backs extending grievance window for executive‑session records to 90 days",145,3495000,3640000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df&start=3495&end=3640","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df/thumbnail_3495000.jpg","/articles/6203061/Oregon/Committee-backs-extending-grievance-window-for-executivesession-records-to-90-days","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6203061-d1021844d8fdba83e60dde0d5574ed95/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036062&Signature=SX0Dg8pYwsflb-DzvznZQqCtaS0dzTsOG0Nh5ZFjFJKcHblLzndxsV9wXClwWlsUz5O-w-jJCDZvCoRP02ZuVgO7yEHuzFZ68~QdsDVP33Pykbh2T0NSarV0RBXyS36pJiQCGaqpDXdTHV4nfvrbSf0t-QFm2H84lSfMVB5z6WVNlqxNhaZht1cy2ygdN5mRDZQ11reGIJ0b9ZMCBq9cdc9WLzbdRZWgFhWXuP6Dx-2YNIMa217-iK5-qZgbQ01nlZ7MDny66ZYiJxoGo9Hw~i~kF5aNk3XS83L0XsjCCBFn4qVfcMUXPwo0I6oBAY4Hv3FX~785KMH3Zd~sDi3dVw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Rules on June 11 adopted the A‑2 amendment to House Bill 3638, which modifies deadlines for filing written grievances under the public meetings law related to executive sessions. Under the A‑2 amendment the time to file a grievance is 90 days after a relevant record becomes available to the public.

Supporters said the change addresses situations where records tied to executive sessions are not published immediately and a longer window allows members of the public to review materials and, if necessary, file a grievance. Representative Jeff Helfrich, the bill sponsor, told the committee the A‑2 amendment reflects stakeholder input and allows 90 days after publication for grievances. He said the change resulted from conversations with stakeholders who noted records tied to executive sessions can appear in later quarterly postings and the 90‑day window gives the public a reasonable opportunity to review them.

The committee adopted the amendment and then voted to move House Bill 3638, as amended, to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation. Committee members present recorded their votes by roll call.

The A‑2 amendment also defines “record” for the purposes of the 90‑day clock. There was no fiscal impact reported beyond a minimal level and no revenue impact on the posted fiscal statement. Representative Helfrich said there had been no opposition in April but subsequent stakeholders raised issues and the A‑2 reflects negotiated language.

Committee action now sends the bill to the full House for consideration; the sponsor was assigned to carry the bill to the floor.

","The Rules Committee adopted the A‑2 amendment to House Bill 3638, changing the allowable time to file a public‑meetings grievance to 90 days after a record becomes available, and moved the bill to the floor with a due‑pass recommendation.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6203064,"House committee advances wide-ranging changes to restraint, out-of-state placement rules for children in care",3017,75000,3092000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df&start=75&end=3092","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3784469-0eb13019cb044756c3cb0099577f72df/thumbnail_75000.jpg","/articles/6203064/Oregon/House-committee-advances-wide-ranging-changes-to-restraint-out-of-state-placement-rules-for-children-in-care","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6203064-509b36f2b1744e25823a729ca0db590e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036062&Signature=NVeS-H-LVTHeGhpXKXIIjj2UkVjFtXGwjWyrGaDcQTV8xJTwIStuy0DblAleqLaEJOSbkP4UtwQzle97eIc5N0d2MoDo2~wGyvILt9Oqgcj-88RDnCPyqAOwc3-FCjyYMMBBHDH4c-1m97lnKruZ1QnHNm2SjI-zSGdeeVlv5u4AqLq45rqycSwy7IkTuxrtoSd23mO4nYirP2atl63sNT7dYDXGY79PrVOQn5xZ7-QHSThg8ICcOI9x~0j~ziuvfHdNnM2xxcDTX~6aALqJ8cAbAS03G-vlhrriknXnXIsJyjM-6uu6uJAJGzxZc73kPvIOa8ZN7jF4BW6N3lDprg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Committee on Rules on June 11 adopted amendments to House Bill 3835A, a comprehensive measure that changes when and how restraint and seclusion may be used in child and adult care settings and creates new procedures for out‑of‑state placements of children in state care. The committee approved the A‑13 amendment and voted to send the bill, as amended, to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

The bill matters because it rewrites definitions that determine when physical restraint and involuntary seclusion are permitted, alters reporting and licensing requirements for providers, and creates new oversight and reporting tied to out‑of‑state placements — changes advocates say could widen or narrow protections for children depending on implementation.

Committee Vice Chair Pham moved to adopt the A‑13 amendment and the committee adopted it after roll call. The committee then voted to refer House Bill 3835A, as amended, to Ways and Means. Representative Anna Scharf, vice chair of the committee of origin, warned committee members the draft before them “is not an agreed bill by any parties,” said 36 questions by the House Human Services chair remained unanswered and urged caution before passage. She noted an earlier draft concept had been framed as a four‑year, $20 million pilot, while the amendment before the Rules Committee was a fiscal‑light amendment with no set sunset.

Michelle Pfeiffer, legislative coordinator for child welfare at the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS), walked the panel through the A‑13 amendments. She said the amendment restores the existing federal CMS‑aligned definition of chemical restraint, clarifies that “voluntary seclusion” may include age‑appropriate time‑out and that secure transport language remained applicable in statute. She described new requirements in Section 36 that a multidisciplinary team member accompany children to out‑of‑state placements, visit them at least every 15 days, and that rules be adopted to protect rights and respond if abuse is alleged in out‑of‑state settings. Pfeiffer also said the amendment requires ODHS to seek court approval for out‑of‑state placements and adjusts reporting dates to Oct. 1, 2025, and January 2026.

Senator Sarah Gelser Blouin, chair of the Senate Human Services Committee, testified in support of an alternate A‑11 amendment she circulated that includes explicit statutory definitions for thresholds such as “serious physical harm,” tighter requirements for medical necessity, and preservation of more granular public reporting about demographics and oversight. Gelser Blouin said removing certain restraint types from the statutory abuse definition but continuing to prohibit them risks creating “secret” practices that avoid accountability. She urged clearer limits on delegation of authority to approve out‑of‑state placements and preservation of public data, saying that earlier out‑of‑state placements had shown racial disparities and gaps in culturally specific services.

Committee members debated tradeoffs between expanding capacity to place children in licensed out‑of‑state medical programs and the need for statutory safeguards and transparency. Supporters said the measure moves capacity policy forward and included safeguards such as court approval and quarterly legislative reporting; opponents and some members asked for more clarity on definitions, delegation of approval, and prosecutable standards. Several LC (Legislative Counsel) opinions and a residential care ombudsman memo were cited during the discussion and placed in the record.

The committee record shows the A‑13 amendment was adopted and the bill ordered to Ways and Means. Committee members made clear they expect continued work in budget and policy committees if the bill advances.

Questions and discussion in the work session focused on three main implementation points: how ODHS would track and report prohibited restraints; what authority SOCAC (System of Care Advisory Council) would have in reviewing placement exceptions versus direct legislative access to data; and whether out‑of‑state facilities must be licensed by an equivalent health authority and tied to Medicaid contracts. ODHS told the committee the A‑13 requires quarterly provider reporting of prohibited restraints and that licensing will review incident reports and, where appropriate, both pursue licensing sanctions and report allegations to the child abuse hotline when thresholds for reckless or excessive force appear to be met.

The committee recorded no change in current law limiting storage or sale of data; members and testifiers referenced OLIS‑posted amendment text and LC opinions as the formal authorities for bill language.

The committee’s action sends the bill to Ways and Means; if the larger bill moves forward, members indicated they expect further deliberations on definitions, oversight pathways, and contract safeguards for any out‑of‑state placements.

","The House Rules Committee adopted the A-13 amendment to House Bill 3835A, moving the measure to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means after extended testimony and debate over definitions, out‑of‑state placements and oversight.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bill increasing penalties for drones that interfere with emergency response and wildfire suppression

Retailers, sponsor tell committee ID‑swipe bill is a narrow tool to keep age‑restricted goods from minors

Committee backs extending grievance window for executive‑session records to 90 days

House committee advances wide-ranging changes to restraint, out-of-state placement rules for children in care