 |
| |
 |
|
| |
Olympia Office:
419 John L.
O'Brien Bldg.
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
Phone: (360) 786-7844
|
Toll-Free Legislative Hotline
1-800-562-6000
Website
www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Schmick |
Committees:
Health & Human Services (Ranking)
Higher Education (Asst. Ranking)
Ways & Means
Rules |
|
| |
Oct.
26, 2009
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
It's been a busy, productive summer and I've enjoyed
seeing so many of you at parades, fairs,
and other community gatherings over the last few months.
Your continuing comments, suggestions and encouragement
mean so much to me. You are an involved citizenry
and I feel blessed and honored to represent you in
Olympia.
As fall work progresses this
year, I wanted to take a minute to update you on a few
important issues. First of all, it looks like our
state's budget problems continue. If you remember,
the Legislature passed a budget last session that closed
a $9 billion hole, but used way too much one-time money
to do so. Many of us in the Legislature were
concerned that since we failed to address the
fundamental problems of overspending, we'd eventually
see another billion dollar deficit on the horizon.
 |
Now, since the last revenue forecast came out in
September, it looks like we'll be facing at
least a billion dollar budget hole next year in
2010, and possibly a larger shortfall in the 2011-13 budget! I guess
I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, but
until we get back to the priorities of
government process and address the overspending
of the last four years, we're going to find
ourselves in a vicious circle. This
problem is too big, too important, and too
impactful on our families to fix with a
Band-aid. |
Another important issue is the area of health care
reform at the state and federal level. I recently
attended a town hall meeting in Spokane where Washington
State House Republicans presented our health care plan
to citizens. Our plan focuses on five main themes:
1) Lower health care costs
2) More choices for
health care
3) Increased access to health care
4)
Strengthen the state's health care safety net for our
most vulnerable
5) Fix what needs to be fixed, but
don't try to fix what's not broken
We've held
health care town halls across the state and are getting
great feedback from citizens. If you want to see a
quick presentation of our plan,
click here.
Thanks again for reading my
e-newsletter. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Joe Schmick
Representative, 9th
District
Farmers, do you need a CDL?
An update on regulations
by Rep. Joe Schmick
Hey, Rep. Schmick, do I need a CDL if...?
If I had a dime for every time I've been asked this question in the last
couple of years, I'd be in a serious position to help bail out our state
from its continuing budget shortfall.
Regulations have changed recently and farmers, truckers and business
owners are playing a frustrating game of "catch up" on whether or not a
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) is required for varying situations.
With this short article, I am going to attempt to explain what I know
about the most commonly asked questions and hope to alleviate citizens'
concerns.
The most frequently asked question I receive is: "Do I have to have
a CDL if I'm hauling my own product to market in my own vehicle?"
The answer is NO, with a couple of caveats. You are not required
to have a CDL if you're hauling your
own product to market in
your own vehicle, as
long as you're not traveling more than 150 miles (air mile radius) and
as long as that vehicle is not used in the operation of a contract motor
carrier. This CDL exemption is valid even if you're traveling to
Idaho or Oregon.
However, if you are traveling over 150 miles or if your vehicle is also
used as a contract motor carrier, you would not qualify for the farm
exemption and would have to have a CDL. |
|
 |
Another commonly asked question is a little more difficult: "Do I
have to have a CDL if I'm hauling my neighbor's product to market?"
This particular question includes several different scenarios and is
more likely to cause frustration and confusion as many farmers rely upon
the old fashioned "hand shake" barter system to get through the year.
I know I've had to ask my neighbors for help, especially during session
when I'm over in Olympia away from the farm.
 |
First of all, if any money changes hands, then a CDL is absolutely
required. However, if the hauling service is part of a barter
transaction in exchange for a future or previous service, and the
neighbor is driving a vehicle that
belongs to the farmer,
no CDL is required.
Finally, the issue of CDLs for employees of agribusinesses has generated
many questions.
Until June 30, 2011, individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for
agribusiness purposes are eligible for a five-year restricted CDL
without meeting state minimum training requirements. This agribusiness
restricted CDL is only good for agribusiness purposes -- no moonlighting
as a freight carrier or driving truck for John's Trucking.
|
After June 30, 2011, agribusiness employees will have to comply with all
prescribed health, safety and training requirements in order to obtain a CDL.
It is important to note that the scenarios mentioned in this article are
by no means exhaustive. But so far, these are the ones that seem
to come up most frequently in discussions with local residents.
As any farmer or small business owner can tell you, it is imperative to
know the rules and laws that govern our transactions. It can be
frustrating, especially when things change. But there is truth to
Benjamin Franklin's old adage: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure."
If you have further questions or want to explore this issue more, you
can contact my office at 360-786-7844, or e-mail me at
Schmick.Joe@leg.wa.gov.
You can also visit the Washington State Department of Transportation
commercial vehicle page at:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/CommercialVehicle/default.htm
Dam
Breaching - No means No!
Anybody else tired of urban environmental elitists
telling those of us in rural areas how to live?
Congressman Jim McDermott, D-Seattle, has introduced
legislation in Congress to breach Snake River dams in an
effort to protect salmon, which is quickly gaining a
favorable eye from the Obama Administration.
Really? We're going to go down this road again?
Don't these guys get it that no means NO?!
|
Our
region depends upon the affordable hydro power, the
agricultural irrigation, and the recreational
opportunities these dams provide. Our clean,
efficient, RENEWABLE and carbon-neutral hydro power is the envy of
every state in this nation. Why are we even
considering the possibility of breaching the dams? |
|
 |
| |
|
Lower Granite Lock and Dam in
Whitman and Garfield County |
And it's not
like our state has been sitting around doing
nothing in terms of trying to protect fish.
In fact, we're seeing record and near-record
numbers of returning salmon in several different
salmon runs. The habitat management, the
hatchery efforts, and better stream flow
management are all paying off.
Especially during these tough economic times, government
should adhere to the old adage of "do no harm" to jobs
and employers. Breaching just one dam would have a
devastating effect upon our local economies and our
ability to attract and retain jobs. But there are
those who will continue to demand more in terms of
environmental protections. These are the people
who put fish in front of families and extreme
environmentalism before gainful employment.
New Building Code regulations could drastically
increase cost of housing
During the
2009 session, the Legislature approved a measure that
implements new energy building codes.
Senate Bill 5854 would incrementally increase energy
codes for homes and buildings, beginning in 2013, with
the goal of a 70 percent reduction in energy consumption
by 2031.
Home energy efficiency is certainly a
laudable goal. But with any legislation, impacts
to people and the costs versus benefits must be
carefully considered. Those of us who opposed this
bill were concerned these new, overly restrictive codes
could impact construction and affordability of housing
for families. To ease those worries, the bill
required the Washington State Building Code Council to
incrementally advance the codes
over an 18-year
period.
Although the bill was signed into
law, our concerns reached new heights when, in May, the
governor directed the State Building Code Council to
accelerate the
timeline to require a 30 percent energy-use
reduction for buildings by July 2010. This
directive was issued without an economic impact
statement which would have measured the effects to the
housing industry and to jobs.
 |
|
Ramping up energy codes by 30 percent over 10
months is not only unrealistic -- it's
unattainable. The building industry has lost
47,750 construction jobs since 2007. At a time
when state unemployment is near a record high, I'm
concerned the proposed new codes could
potentially eliminate more jobs.
How
would this affect average families? Imagine
having to pay 10, 20 or even 30 percent more for
a home because of new regulations. In this
economy, that puts affordability out of reach
for many people. Consider also that any savings
in energy costs would be negated by the higher
costs consumers must pay up front. Even if you
rent, your costs could go up if your landlord is
forced to pay more. |
This bill also prohibits state agencies from leasing
or renewing leases of buildings unless the owner agrees
to upgrade to new energy efficiency standards. This
could mean thousands of dollars in unaffordable
out-of-pocket costs, leaving many leasable buildings
vacant. And yet, this could be the tip of the
iceberg. Imagine that before you sell your home, you
would have to meet new, expensive energy codes, and your
home would have to be inspected and approved by the
state before the sale is allowed. This too, has been
under discussion in the Legislature, and a direction I
adamantly oppose.
The council is taking public comments regarding
the new codes and will review input Oct. 29. I
encourage you to get involved and voice your opinion.
Get more information from the council's Web site at:
www.sbcc.wa.gov or submit your comments to:
State Building Code Council, P.O. Box 42525, Olympia, WA
98504-2525.
State Parks "Opt-Out" fee goes into effect...
Here is an updated look at what your vehicle license
renewal now looks like after the Legislature changed the
previous "opt-in" fee to an "opt-out" fee.
Citizens that want to donate money to our state parks
have been able to do so for years. Now, unless you
very specifically check the box and subtract the
donation yourself, you'll be charged with a fee that you
otherwise may not have wanted to pay.
An
ingenious and dishonest way to raise money for state
parks, in my view. The state says it will raise
more money this way, but it's still wrong. So, if
you want to donate money to our state parks, do nothing.
If you can't afford to, don't forget to check the box as
seen below:
Visit my Website for further information
and news
You can always visit my Web site for updated
information and to contact me via e-mail. You can
also sign-up for my E-newsletter by going to
my home
page and clicking on the "sign up here" link on the left
side of the page.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
For more
news and information, visit my website at
www.houserepublicans.wa.gov/Schmick
If you would rather not
receive legislative e-mail updates, please
click here and send me an e-mail.
In the subject line, please include the words UNSUBSCRIBE ME. |
|
|
