Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/31/2022 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB306 | |
| HB60 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2022
9:08 a.m.
9:08:29 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Andi Story, Sponsor; Sara Chambers,
Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community
and Economic Development; Representative Matt Claman,
Sponsor.
SUMMARY
HB 306 EXTEND BOARD OF PHARMACY
HB 306 was REPORTED out of committee with three
"do pass" recommendations and six "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN1
(CED).
HB 60 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the morning
meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 306
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of
Pharmacy; and providing for an effective date."
9:08:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, SPONSOR, thanked the committee
for hearing the bill. She stated that the Board of Pharmacy
must be extended for the critical work of licensing and
regulation of the profession. She agreed with the auditor's
recommendation of extending the board for six years. She
remarked that legislators all shared a concern about the
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). She believed
fixing the PDMP was a separate issue from the extension of
the board. She clarified that the PDMP was housed under the
Board of Pharmacy; however, the board only had enforcement
power and regulatory oversight over pharmacists. She
highlighted that the Medical Board, Board of Nursing, Board
of Dental Examiners, Board of Examiners and Optometry, and
Board of Veterinarian Examiners all participated in the
PDMP. She relayed that the chairs of the boards met twice a
month solely about the PDMP. She shared that her staff had
been working closely with the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development (DCCED) and Sara
Chambers [Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, DCCED] and they all felt strongly
about how to make some progress in the PDMP. She requested
to hear from Ms. Chambers.
9:11:10 AM
AT EASE
9:11:37 AM
RECONVENED
SARA CHAMBERS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS, BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, appreciated the
members' desire for a solution to ensure the PDMP was doing
what the legislature had set forth for the program to do
and to ensure it was doing it well. In addition to that,
everyone understood and agreed on the expectations of the
PDMP. She appreciated the bill sponsor's desire to find
some solutions. She communicated that since the last bill
hearing, the department had been working with the board
chairs and some members of the House Finance Committee to
identify existing funding sources that could help the
department locate a contractor, consultant, or individual
with PDMP expertise who could take a holistic view of how
the PDMP fit into the state's opioid crisis management.
Additionally, the individual could help determine whether
legislation could be recommended in a subsequent report to
the legislature to address changes ranging from small to
large, what the department, boards, and administration
could be doing differently, looking at other states, and
providing technical assistance.
Ms. Chambers stated the resources were out there and they
were working to connect the dots, especially with the
department's limited resources. She elaborated that they
had been working with the Division of Public Health to
identify some grant funding. They believed it may provide
an option to move forward on a report and analysis in a way
that would edify the concerns.
9:13:52 AM
Representative Edgmon relayed that he had been one to raise
concerns about the PDMP. He appreciated the information,
and it satisfied his concern. He was ready to support the
legislation.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS1434\A.2 (Ambrose, 3/16/22) [by Representative Carpenter]
(copy on file):
Page 1, line 5
Delete "2028"
Insert "2026"
Representative Edgmon OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment. He stated
that the committee had heard from the legislative auditor
there were some issues with board governance and the
working relationship between the Board of Pharmacy and the
agency. He thought the legislature would want to see
progress towards improving the work of the board. He
supported a reduction in the extension of the board from
2028 to 2026.
Representative Edgmon MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Josephson, LeBon, Thompson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (4/5).
9:15:58 AM
AT EASE
9:16:08 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to REPORT HB 306 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note.
Representative Johnson OBJECTED for discussion. She
remarked that she put a reminder in her calendar to bring
up the topic the following session. She wanted to ensure
the legislature was doing its do diligence. She had some
concerns about the length [of the board extension] because
some issues had been identified. She remarked that going
forward with the next year's budget, it was easy to let
things go by the wayside. She remarked there may be an
opportunity in the future to talk about boards and
commissions, which she believed would likely be healthy for
some of the state's boards. She was not interested in
shutting the board down or in spending a substantial amount
of money on another audit to come back to the committee to
report that the same thing was still happening. She stated
that somehow the legislature needed to figure out how to
get a report that may not be 100 percent or exactly what
the legislature wanted to vote on. The legislature would
need to determine how to deal with it.
Representative Johnson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, HB 306 was REPORTED out
of committee with three "do pass" recommendations and six
"no recommendation" recommendations and with one previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (CED).
9:17:59 AM
AT EASE
9:20:02 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 60
"An Act relating to mental health education."
9:20:04 AM
Co-Chair Merrick noted the bill had been tabled the
previous day.
Representative Rasmussen MOVED HB 60 be taken up from the
table.
Representative Thompson OBJECTED. He thought hearing the
bill had the potential of being a waste of the committee's
time. He believed the committee had better things it needed
to get done. He thought hearing the bill was the wrong
thing to do currently. He stated the Senate version of the
bill would come to the House floor. He believed the
committee would rehash the topic a second time over the
next couple of weeks.
Co-Chair Merrick noted that any amendments made in the
committee could be rolled into a committee substitute.
Representative Thompson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
9:21:20 AM
AT EASE
9:21:31 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick asked to clear the previous roll call.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Wool, Merrick,
Foster
OPPOSED: LeBon, Thompson, Edgmon, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/4). There being NO further OBJECTION,
HB 60 was back before the committee.
9:22:18 AM
Representative Thompson MOVED to ADJOURN the meeting.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson, Johnson
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Merrick, Foster
The MOTION to adjourn FAILED (4/6).
9:23:34 AM
Co-Chair Merrick asked if the bill sponsor had an opening
statement.
REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, replied that he did
not have opening remarks and was happy to discuss the
amendments as needed throughout the process.
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0261\B.17 (Marx, 3/4/22) (copy on file):
Page 2, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. AS 14.30.360 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(e) A district shall, before instructing students in
mental health as part of a program in health education
under (a) of this section, provide notice to parents
and guardians of students participating in the program
that
(1) describes the mental health components of the
program;
(2) identifies the time and place of the mental health
instruction; and
(3) informs parents or guardians how to, under AS
14.03.016, object to and withdraw the student from the
program."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Johnson explained that the amendment would
add transparency and parental involvement. She shared that
many of her constituents were concerned about schools
overlapping with parents when it came to raising kids. The
amendment would require notices to be provided to parents
about any mental health program including a description of
the program and instruction. Additionally, the amendment
would give parents the right to opt out of the program. She
stated that schools used the process for other topics
including sex education. She believed the mental health
program should be no different.
Vice-Chair Ortiz opposed the amendment. He highlighted that
the bill provided for an optional opportunity for districts
to adopt guidelines that would come forward from the state.
He elaborated it would be optional for districts to adopt
any form of a mental health program within their
curriculum. He stated the amendment would reach into local
board control and mandate what a local board may or may not
do. He believed most of the legislature was in support of
local control of schools. He stated it was the whole
foundation of the school board system. He believed the
amendment went against the basic principle.
Representative Rasmussen supported the amendment. She
stated that the most local control possible involved a
parent and their child. She agreed that districts should
have some flexibility; however, she believed the amendment
would help ensure parents were involved and informed about
the curriculum being taught to their children.
9:26:14 AM
Representative Wool did not support the amendment. He
highlighted that the bill provided guidance for developing
instructions in mental health. He stated that the language
was about a student's physical and mental health. He
remarked that a child's health included mental and physical
health. He elaborated that if a child was sick, they were
not physically well and if they were depressed, they were
not mentally well. He did not believe talking about the
subject of mental health in a classroom should require
parental permission. He disputed the claim that it was like
sex education. He remarked that perhaps families discussed
mental health at home, but perhaps they did not. He pointed
out that no one talked about the need for parental buy-in
to discuss nutrition. He thought mental health was akin to
that. He noted that many schools included a mental health
section in health class. He did not see any problem and had
not heard any complaints. He stated the topic had been
included in his kids' education since the beginning. He
shared that in elementary school kids went to "counselor"
to talk about things. He stated the bill was not overly
prescriptive and pertained to guidelines. He did not
support requiring parental permission or notification.
Representative LeBon supported the amendment. He stated
that the process would require school board endorsement of
whatever came out of the mental health arena through the
State Board of Education. He stated that a local school
board would have a weigh-in opportunity. He believed the
concern was whether a program would come out of the bill or
if there would be an embedded expectation or cultural
change within each school district's curriculum. For
example, if a district chose to develop a mental health
class, the amendment would enable parents to opt in or out.
9:28:38 AM
Representative Edgmon opposed the amendment for two
reasons. He believed the amendment was redundant. He
detailed that state law gave school districts autonomy and
worked through an organizational structure that included
school boards. He stated that schools could already do this
[instruct on mental health]. Second, if the amendment went
into law, they would be picking up mental health and not
having the same application apply towards alcohol, drug
abuse, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, early cancer
prevention/detection, dental health, family health,
environmental health, and all of the rest of the Bree's Law
portion. He stated the amendment was highly prescriptive
and unnecessary.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if the bill sponsor was aware that
the concept was included the companion bill, SB 80.
Representative Claman answered that he believed there may
be parts of the language included in SB 80, but he did not
believe it was identical.
Representative Wool referenced a statement by
Representative LeBon that a class may be offered in mental
health. He remarked that there was already a class on
psychology offered in high school and likely in junior
high. He pointed out the class included the subject of
mental health. He had not seen a permission slip for the
class. He stated that the bill merely pertained to basic
knowledge and talking about the subject of mental health.
He stated that no one was advocating for therapy sessions
or anything in that realm. He underscored the bill only
pertained to guidance for districts. He believed the
amendment was far too prescriptive.
Representative LeBon responded that psychology had been an
elective in the Fairbanks School District when he had
served on the school board. He countered that in a sense,
parents did have a say whether their child took the course.
He asked what the harm would be in allowing parental input
one way or the other for psychology or other mental health
course.
Representative Wool suggested that perhaps the child that
needed to hear about mental health had a family that did
not want them to hear about the topic and perhaps the child
needed the mental health education portion. He was not
trying to subvert parental intent, but he emphasized mental
health was a very important issue in school. He remarked
that some kids were hiding their mental health illness and
teen suicide was extremely high. He pointed out that many
times the parent of a child who had committed suicide did
not know anything had been going on with their child. He
believed mental health was an important component of
overall holistic health.
9:32:05 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz underscored that the bill provided an
option for districts to adopt guidelines. He believed that
prior to a local board adopting any kind of mental health
program, there was plenty of opportunity for the public to
provide input and express concerns. He stated the school
system in Alaska was based on local control. He thought it
was likely the case in many places in the U.S. He
emphasized the amendment allowed government to tell
districts what to do and took away local control. He
stressed it was not in the spirit of the basic principle of
local control.
Representative Claman did not support the amendment. He
explained that the entire point of the guidelines was to
not force them on any district. He stated that the
amendment took away from local control and created an
unfunded mandate. He encouraged committee members to vote
against the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for verification that the idea
included in the amendment could be adopted by the local
school board or school district at their discretion.
Representative Claman replied affirmatively.
Representative Johnson provided wrap up on Amendment 1. She
did not find providing a parental opt-out to be overly
prescriptive. She believed it was the right thing to do.
She referenced a prior example used by a committee member
where a child had mental health issues they were hiding or
were not talking to parents. She asked about kids who were
already in therapy or psychiatric treatment and the parents
were involved. She considered what would happen if the
child also received mental health curriculum in school that
their parents were unaware of. She stated there could be
conflicting issues and advice. She believed it could be
dangerous and she had concerns about the possibility. She
did not see how the amendment would be an unfunded mandate.
She agreed it was important to think about mental and
physical health. She stated that the bill was wide open.
She noted there had been a lot of discussion about suicide
prevention, which made sense, but it was not specified in
the bill. She noted that the bill did not refer to the
diagnostic manual or specify what mental health would mean.
She believed parents should be involved.
9:35:40 AM
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Johnson, LeBon
OPPOSED: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Merrick, Foster
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 1 FAILED (3/6).
9:36:37 AM
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0261\B.18 (Marx, 3/4/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, lines 7 - 8:
Delete "Department of Health and Social Services,
regional tribal health organizations, and
representatives of national and state mental health
organizations"
Insert "Statewide Suicide Prevention Council"
Page 2, lines 6 - 8:
Delete "Department of Health and Social Services,
regional tribal health organizations, and
representatives of national and state mental health
organizations"
Insert "Statewide Suicide Prevention Council"
Representative Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Johnson explained that the amendment would
remove the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS)
and other organizations from page 2, lines 6 through 8 and
inserted the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council. She
stated the committee had heard a lot of public testimony
about suicide and mental health issues, but the bill did
not include the Statewide Suicide Prevention Council, which
she believed should be the top entity listed. She believed
it made more sense for the council to be the primary source
working with other entities. She explained that the
organization already worked with state departments, tribal
and other health organizations, and local communities.
Representative Johnson stated the amendment was not about
excluding anyone. She relayed that the council was
established in 2001 by statute. The council's duties
included community education, informing and advising the
governor and legislature, working with the state and local
governments, schools, and Native communities on overall
wellness. She stated that members of the council included
representatives from the Alaska Federation of Natives,
DHSS, a survivor, youth, legislators, Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority, and the military. She noted there were
also public seats. She thought oversight by the council
made much more sense. She added that while the council's
name focused on suicide, its mission was holistic and
included wellness.
9:37:48 AM
Representative Edgmon believed that as with the first
amendment, Amendment 2 was well intended; however, he
believed it constituted overlap. He looked at language in
the bill under the legislative intent section for
consultation with DHSS, regional tribal health
organizations, and representatives of national and state
mental health organizations. He believed the Statewide
Suicide Prevention Council fit under the category of state
mental health organizations. He explained that listing out
specific entities got into a situation under the statutory
construct where every single thing included should be
itemized. He stated it was overly prescriptive. He did not
support the amendment.
Representative Wool did not support the amendment. He
agreed with Representative Edgmon that the Statewide
Suicide Prevention Council fit under the category of state
mental health organizations. He thought it was advisable to
cast the net as wide as possible. He stated suicide was
definitely a problem, but there were other mental health
issues as well. He listed other examples such as body
image, addiction, substance abuse, and anxiety. He believed
narrowing the bill to suicide was too narrow and overly
prescriptive.
Representative Claman did not support the amendment. He
recognized that suicide was a state and national issue. He
would not want anyone with a mental health issue to be
suicidal. He believed the amendment narrowed the bill's
focus. He agreed with the past two speakers that Statewide
Suicide Prevention Council fit under the category of state
mental health organizations that could participate.
Representative Josephson MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
Representative Johnson provided wrap up. She continued to
have concerns about the erosion of parental rights. She
liked the idea of including sideboards on the legislation.
She noted that suicide prevention dealt with wellness
across a spectrum. She stated that the amendment was not
prescriptive and recognized one of the largest problems in
Alaska. She emphasized the problem was not getting any
better.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Wool, Merrick, Foster
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 2 FAILED (3/6).
9:41:35 AM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-
LS0261\B.13 (Marx, 2/26/22) (copy on file):
Page 2, line 8, following "organizations.":
Insert "The guidelines must provide that an instructor
who is not a mental health professional may provide
only information within the guidelines, and that the
instructor must, before providing instruction in
mental health, provide a verbal disclaimer stating
that the instructor is not a mental health
professional and may provide only information within
the guidelines for instruction in mental health
established by the state board." 7
Page 2, line 17, following "provided.":
Insert "In this subsection, "mental health
professional" has the meaning given in AS 47.30.915."
Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment applied
whether mental health became a program within a school
district or was simply embedded into the health curriculum.
The amendment proposed that prior to instruction on mental
health, an educator would be required to read a verbal
disclaimer that they were not a mental health professional,
and they may only provide information with the guidelines
for instruction on mental health established by the state
board. He included the local board of education in the
description as well. He believed the change was necessary
because it acknowledges the complexity of mental health as
a topic. He detailed that licensed mental healthcare
providers had years of education requiring a master's or
doctorate degree and thousands of hours of internship and
training. He stated that scope of practice was about
staying in one's lane of expertise. He did not feel it was
the intent of the bill to place a teacher in a role that
was outside of their lane. The amendment would remind the
teacher and students of the limited intention to provide
mental health information in classrooms.
Representative Josephson opposed the amendment. He believed
the amendment would lead to a stilted class atmosphere. He
shared that his wife is a second grade teacher and she told
him often that her seven-year-old students were reflecting
some struggles with mental health, mostly through self
esteem concerns and lack of feeling of personal worth. He
thought requiring a teacher to tell a class of seven-year-
olds that they were not a mental health professional was
beyond awkward and seemed to prevent a conversation about
how to handle sadness or loss into story time. He did not
believe the amendment was necessary.
9:44:22 AM
Representative Edgmon stated his understanding that a
school board could already do what the amendment called for
at the local level. He struggled with the fact that the
amendment would apply higher standards to one component of
AS 14.30.360 (a). He highlighted child abuse, child
abduction, neglect, sexual abuse, domestic violence and
stated the items were not in law under the standards
included in the amendment. He stated the amendment did not
meet the disparity test for him. He opposed the amendment.
Representative Wool opposed the amendment. He highlighted
that during public testimony, a teacher had said something
akin to what Representative Josephson had said. The
testifier had discussed that teachers and students had a
mentor/mentee relationship and often a student went to a
teacher to talk about "whatever." He stated that teachers
did not provide disclaimers they could not provide advice
because they were not healthcare professionals. He
clarified he did not think teachers were doing mental
health therapy sessions. He believed the idea further
stigmatized mental health, which he did not support.
Representative Claman did not support the amendment. He
pointed out that the amendment took authority away from the
local board. He explained if a local board chose to include
mental and physical health aspects in a curriculum adopted
through a robust public process that were not part of the
guidelines, the amendment would not allow the districts to
teach the items. Under the amendment, districts would be
limited to the guidelines adopted by the state board. He
pointed out that that the document for the current board
guidelines for health was only two pages without
substantial detail. He expected some school districts to
have a much more robust program. He believed the amendment
would limit the local authority he was aiming to encourage.
9:47:34 AM
Representative LeBon provided wrap up on the amendment. He
stated that each of the 53 school boards in the state would
have to interpret the guidelines as they saw appropriate.
He agreed there would be parental input and a vote up or
down by a school board. He referenced a comment made about
a seven-year-old showing mental health issues. He
considered whether the child could be having a bad day or
something wrong at home. He did not know how a classroom
teacher would know which was the case. He asked if a
classroom teacher would be motivated to write a note home
to share they were observing some disturbing behavior and
suggest the parent may want to seek a mental health
professional to talk with the child. He stated, "I don't
know if that is what we want to have happen." He was not
intending to downplay the importance of mental health. He
merely wanted to ensure there were reasonable sideboards in
the legislation and that classroom teachers were not
expected to become mental health professionals overnight;
the process to obtaining the skills included education and
experience.
Vice-Chair Ortiz MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Rasmussen, Johnson, LeBon
OPPOSED: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Merrick, Foster
Representative Thompson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 3 FAILED (3/6).
9:49:55 AM
Representative Rasmussen WITHDREW Amendment 4, 32-
LS0261\B.12 (Marx, 2/11/22) (copy on file).
9:50:12 AM
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 32-
LS0261\B.15 (Marx, 2/22/22) (copy on file):
Page 2, following line 17:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 4. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE. Two years after the
effective date of this Act, the state Board of
Education and Early Development shall submit a report
to the senate secretary
and chief clerk of the house of representatives and
notify the legislature that the report is available.
The report must
(1) include a copy of the guidelines for
developmentally appropriate instruction in mental
health developed by the state Board of Education and
Early Development as required under AS 14.30.360(b),
as amended by sec. 3 of this Act; and
(2) describe the process the state Board of Education
and Early Development used to develop the guidelines."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
9:50:22 AM
AT EASE
9:50:55 AM
RECONVENED
Representative Edgmon deferred to the sponsor to explain
the amendment.
Representative Claman explained the amendment. The
amendment called for a report to the legislature after the
two-year process establishing the guidelines had been
completed by the State Board of Education. The purpose of
the amendment was to make certain the legislature was aware
of the adopted guidelines.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
9:51:58 AM
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 32-
LS0261\B.14 (Marx, 2/22/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 15, following "health,":
Insert "physical health,"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Edgmon asked the bill sponsor to explain the
amendment.
Representative Claman explained that the amendment was in
response to debate in the House Finance Committee about
whether physical health was also included because it was
not specifically stated in the bill. The amendment
clarified that the guidelines would address physical and
mental health.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 6 was ADOPTED.
9:52:43 AM
Representative Edgmon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 32-
LS0261\B.19 (Klein/Marx, 3/25/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "education":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date" 3
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "and Social"
Insert ", the Department of Family and Community" 7
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "and Social"
Insert ", the Department of Family and Community" 11
Page 2, line 11:
Delete "and Social Services,"
Insert ", the Department of Family and Community [AND
SOCIAL]" 15
Page 2, following line 22:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. This Act takes effect July 1, 2022."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Edgmon deferred to the bill sponsor to
explain the amendment.
Representative Claman explained the amendment addressed the
changes in structure by Executive Order 121 that split DHSS
into the Department of Health and the Department of Family
and Community Services. He relayed that both departments
would be included in the list of parties participating in
the guidelines.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 7 was ADOPTED.
9:53:36 AM
AT EASE
9:54:29 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick closed the amendment process.
HB 60 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:55:05 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.