►
From YouTube: House Health Committee- March 10, 2021
Description
House Health Committee- March 10, 2021
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
Seeing
none
we're
going
to
vote
on
House
Bill
1163
as
amended,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
Bill
moves
on
to
calendar
rules?
Thank
you,
chairman
members
of
committee.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
That
brings
us
to
item
number
two
on
the
bill
is
item
House,
Bill,
768
and
I.
Believe
representative,
chairman
Littleton
was
was
okay.
She
is,
has
asked
us
to
roll
that
to
the
hill.
So
without
objection
we
are
rolling
House,
Bill
768
to
the
hill.
B
It
is
amendment
number
zero,
zero.
Three,
seven,
six
seven
is
that
correct.
That's
correct!
Okay
can
I
get
a
motion
in
a
second
okay.
You
have
a
motion.
Second,
on
the
amendment,
any
discussion
on
the
amendment
right,
saying:
none,
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
and
get
that
Amendment
on
the
bill.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
amended,
Amendment,
zero,
zero,
three,
seven,
six,
seven
say:
aye
opposed
okay
eyes
have
it.
We
are
back
on
the
bill
as
amended.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
this
bill
would
simply
establish
a
child
care
task
force
for
our
state
I.
Think
it's
no
secret
to
anyone
how
difficult
child
care
finding
quality,
Child
Care
at
an
affordable
price
having
access
to
that
child
care.
It
was
already
an
issue
in
our
state
prior
to
covid,
and
that's
certainly
just
exacerbated
the
problem,
so
this
legislation
would
create
a
task
force
that
would
address
the
challenge
of
child
care.
D
It
would
look
holistically
at
this
problem
and
try
to
use
all
of
the
public
resources,
bring
them
to
bear
so
that
we
are
working
coordinating
those
resources
to
make
sure
that
we're
utilizing
the
dollars
most
efficiently
and
building
public-private,
Partnerships
I
think
that's
another
area
that
we
really
need
to
focus
on.
We
have
employers
who
it's
important
for
them
to
have
their
employees
come
to
work,
so
maybe
we
can
partner
with
them
to
help
either
provide
child
care
on
site
or
help
subsidize
child
care
for
those
employees.
D
D
The
task
force
would
have
the
responsibility
to
develop
a
strategic
action
plan
that
would
ultimately
increase
the
availability
of
high
quality,
affordable
and
accessible
child
care
in
the
state,
and
the
task
force
would
also
have
the
ability
to
hire
and
oversee
a
strategic,
consulting
firm
just
to
support
the
development
of
the
plan
and
the
Gathering
of
the
data
and
the
information
that
would
be
used
that
the
for
the
task
force
would
find
necessary
to
develop
that
plan
and
the
task
force
would
have
a
work
product.
We
would
have
an
end
result.
D
The
work
product
would
provide
findings
and
conclusions
about
child
care
needs.
What
those
needs
are
and
a
strategic
action
plan
of
how
those
needs
can
be
met
and
recommendations
for
whatever
LED
legislation
might
be
needed
to
implement
the
Strategic
plan.
I
think
it's
important
to
note,
too,
that
this
task
force
would
Sunset
December
31st
2022.
This
is
not
an
ongoing
issue
so
with
that.
B
B
E
E
Advocates
of
the
Department
of
Mental
Health
it
legislation
is
put,
is
aimed
at
putting
another
tool
in
judges
toolbox
that
they
don't
have
currently
is
for
those
people
who
have
been
repeatedly
threatening
to
kill
other
people,
not
harm
oneself
or
harm
others,
but
kill
other
people
repeatedly
and
those
who
are
threatening
an
act
of
mass
violence
like
a
bombing
to
kill
other
people
or
could
result
in
killing
other
people
right
now.
Legal
authorities
have
few
little
recourse
in
Tennessee
to
do
anything
except
through
a
very
expensive
and
lengthy
process.
E
This
is
also
the
story
in
other
states
where
people
have
committed
Mass
acts
of
violence,
whether
it
be
at
schools
or
other
facilities,
or
even
the
attempted
assassination
of
a
congressman
and
the
immediate
family
members
and
co-workers
in
most
of
these
situations
have
reported
that
individuals
were
threatening
to
harm
and
kill
other
people
repeatedly.
They
went
to
law
enforcement
and
they
couldn't
do
anything
until
they've
committed
an
act
of
violence.
E
This
is
aimed
at
if
the
immediate
family,
member
or
law
enforcement
has
evaluated
a
situation
in
which
people
are
repeatedly
threatening
to
kill
other
people.
They
can
file
a
petition
with
a
mental
health
court
judge
in
14
counties.
Hopefully,
if
this
works
out
and
we
work
out
any
kinks,
it
could
be
expanded
to
protect
every
County
in
Tennessee.
E
These
mental
health
court
judges
can
then
require
a
person
and
and
privacy
will
be
maintained
away
from
the
public.
So
no
one's
reputation
is
hurt.
They
can
evaluate
from
the
immediate
family
members
and
the
police
whether
that
person
needs
to
be
evaluated
by
a
psychiatrist
to
see
if
they
need
to
be
treated
and
if
they
do
need
to
be
treated
or
analyzed
that
they
can
be
productive
members
of
society
and
be
safe
to
everyone.
E
We've
got
to
do
something
to
avoid
these
mass
shootings
and
mass
bombings,
and
even
people
that
wanted
to
harm
people
could
be
in
a
car
through
a
crowd.
We've
got
to
do
something
with
people
that
desperately
need
help,
and
these
people
very
very
rarely
will
seek
help
themselves
and
they
can't
be
forced
into
treatment
or
therapy
at
this
time
without,
like
I,
said
a
lengthy
legal
process
and
they
usually
resist
treatment
and
resist
any
effort
to
help
them,
and
this
is
being
brought
to
protect
the
public
and
to
protect
the
individual.
E
E
That's
been
added
this
year
versus
last
year,
when
we
discussed
the
bill
was
after
the
Nashville
bombing,
I
included
a
provision
of
threatening
in
the
mass
act
of
violence
so
that
that
person
could
be
awarded
too,
and
in
that
instance,
when
the
person's
lawyer
and
girlfriend
told
police
that
they
were
making
a
bomb
with
bad
intentions,
the
police
said
they
couldn't
do
nothing
because
they
couldn't
see
the
bomb.
In
this
case,
they
actually
can
now
investigate
that
further.
E
C
E
C
E
Yes,
currently,
the
judges
can
only
charge
can
only
police
can
only
arrest
a
person
and
charge
them
after
they've
committed
a
crime.
They
can
go
and
talk
to
them
if
they
threaten
somebody,
but
there's
not
much
action,
they
can
do
unless
they
admit
to
the
police
officer
they're
going
to
go
around
killing
people,
so
this
is
just
trying
to
get
them
into
treatment,
so
they
can
be
productive
citizens.
F
Sure
is
that
me?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
sponsor
I,
so
I
I
guess
I
received
a
letter
like
everybody
else
did
from
seven
different
organizations
based
here
in
Tennessee
and
with
the
Tennessee
disability,
Coalition
and
Disability
Rights
Tennessee
puts
it
on
my
radar,
then
I
I
I
take
pause
and
I'll.
Look
at
it.
They've
listed
nine
different
things
here
and
I
guess.
My
question
to
you
is:
has
there
been
a
a
tennessee-based
mental
health
organization
that
is
in
support
of
this
bill
that
you
know
of.
E
You're
right
well,
first
of
all,
I
never
heard
of
any
of
these
organizations
before
Monday
when
I
got
their
email.
When
I
arrived
in
office,
none
of
them
have
been
in
my
office
or
contacted
me
before
this
week
or
Friday
after
hours
when
they
sent
me
an
email
or
left
me.
A
message
on
the
office
phone
which
we'd
already
left
the
office
I
have
had
Tennessee
mental
health,
Advocates
and
National
Health
advocates
in
my
office
either
supportive
of
the
last
three
to
four
years.
E
E
F
F
E
They
are
strong
Believers,
which
is
why
we
don't
have
mental
health
hospitals
much
anymore,
except
for
the
violent
convicted
criminal
they
believe
in
halfway
houses
and
Community
houses.
They
don't
believe
in
any
hospitals
or
treatment
like
that.
That's
why
we
don't
have
many
anymore
they've
gone
to
a
different
approach
where
they
believe
in
volunteer
a
softer
approach.
This
is
different
than
dealing
with
a
mentally
ill.
This
is
the
violent
mentally
ill
who
have
actually
spoken
that
they
repeatedly
want
to
kill
other
people.
F
But
these
may
not
be
on
the
bill.
I
think
the
reason
they
go
to
these
different
homes,
community
homes,
because
you
can't
segregate
people
in
one
area
and
then
leave
them
there.
That's
not
right!
So,
yes,
that's
violates
federal
law
and
that's
why
we
shut
down
Arlington
and
Clover
Bottom
and
Greenville
we've
shut
those
down
because
they
have
a
right
to
be
in
the
community
like
everyone
else,
but
I
think
that's
not
really
on
the
bill.
F
F
G
And
thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
thank
you.
Mr
sponsor,
as
you
can
see,
I
signed
on
to
this
bill
and
I
kept
seeing
these
notations
come
in
from
the
behavioral
health
foundation
and
and
I
kind
of
wondered
at
the
time.
I
thought
we
were
on
a
very
Solid
ground,
but
they
raised
some
specters
and
the
other
six
folks
that
that
came
in
and
a
couple
of
them
actually
have
lobbyists
up
here.
G
G
This
actually
does
force
citizens
into
treatment,
which
can
include
involuntary
injections
with
side
effects
and
without
even
a
criminal
charge
or
certificate
of
need,
and,
and
the
question
that
they've
asked
me
to
ask-
is
since
Tennessee
already
has
the
mandatory
outpatient
treatment
program
and
in
voluntary
mental
health
commitment
Statute
in
the
state
of
Tennessee.
Why
do
we
need
this
bill?.
E
Excuse
me,
their
information
is
incorrect.
First
of
all,
as
I
said
earlier,
most
likely
someone
who
is
possibly
Disturbed
or
schizophrenic
and
threatening
to
kill
other
people
repeatedly
is
not
going
to
volunteer
and
walk
into
a
clinic
and
see
pill
in
all
likelihood,
also
the
as
I
said
earlier,
the
the
process
for
a
family
member
to
do
it
now
is
a
very
complicated
and
lengthy
process
at
their
expense.
E
There's
already
existing
state
laws
that
protect
people
against
fraud
like
someone
wanting
to
seize
an
estate
of
the
mentally
ill
or
disabled,
those
laws
are
in
existence.
I
did
not
address
it
in
this
bill,
because
they're
already
they're
already
in
existence
now
for
filing
false
forms,
false
reports
Etc
that
could
be
punished
for
that
that
would
be
covered.
That
would
cover
this
as
well.
G
And
and
that's
that's
a
good
explanation:
I
I
guess
one
thing
that
that
kind
of
chills
me
about
the
bill
and
it
I
I
do
have
the
greatest
respect
for
recovery
courts
that
we
have
in
our
communities
and
I
I've
done
everything
I
can
to
to
help
those,
but
those
folks
volunteer
and
so
I
guess.
This
is
kind
of
a
chilling
effect.
I
think
that
that
these
folks
are
going
to
be
put
into
position
to
defend
themselves
so
I
any
any
answer
to
that.
E
I
was
contacted
by
one
of
the
mental
health
judges
that
advised
on
writing
this
bill
that
that
advised
me
on
it.
I've
been
working
with
and
they
organization
and
talking
about
sent
the
recovery
courts
a
letter
as
well.
This
is
not
concern
the
recovery
courts
and
they
would
not
be
impacted
by
this.
This
is,
would
be
handled
by
the
mental
health
courts.
G
B
H
E
Through
the
last
four
years
ago,
when
I
first
came
to
the
legislature,
of
course,
we
had
a
series
of
Columbine
and
and
Parkland
and
Sandy
Hook
and
Gabby
Giffords
and
other
incidents
that
had
happened,
and
all
of
these
instances
were
people
who
had
repeatedly
threatened
to
kill
other
people
and
law
enforcement.
Couldn't
do
anything
so
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
dedicated
myself
to
down
here
was
for
this
and
I've
been
working
on
it
four
years.
Originally
there
was
a
law
and
I
believe
Washington
state
that
I
follow
very
interesting.
E
That
was
past,
muster
at
past
federal
courts.
It
was
put
in
place
by
the
legislature
there
to
deal
with
this,
but
as
we
and
I
copied
that
and
gave
it
to
the
to
the
our
legal
department
to
base
it
on,
but
their
law
went
far
far
beyond
where
I
wanted
to
go.
We
already
have
many
things
in
code
that
we
didn't
need
to
do,
and
it
was
just
a
total
rewrite.
I
think
it
was
Marcy's
law
or
Stacy's
law.
E
E
There
are
other
states
that
have
since,
during
that
time,
like
Alabama
I,
believe
Mississippi
have
current,
have
passed
similar
bills,
but
not
exactly
like
this
and
working
with
the
national
mental
health
Advocates
that
have
also
commented
on
this
over
the
years
and
actually
fallen
in
and
helped.
They
said
that
this
is
the
best
Bill
of
any
they've
seen
in
the
state.
It's
a
clean
bill.
It
doesn't
totally
rewrite
the
mental
health
law
addresses
just
the
violent,
mentally
ill
that
repeatedly
threatened
to
kill
people
originally.
They
everybody
wanted
it
to
also
include
oneself.
E
If
you
threatened
to
kill
yourself,
that's
what
I'm,
after
I'm
trying
to
avoid
mass
killings
and
I'm,
not
after
suicides,
there's
already
laws
on
the
books
for
suicide
and
I
also
don't
want
to
go
after
if
a
neighbor
gets
under
dispute
over
hedge
and
makes
a
statement
I'm
going
to
kill
you,
that's
not,
who
that's
why
I
repeatedly
is
in
here?
We
don't
want
to
capture
anybody.
That's
also
why
the
physical
note
is
lower.
H
E
It's
it's
similar,
both
bills
that
have
been
written
after
this
one
and
before
this,
when
we've
looked
at
them
and
see
how
effect
they
are
and
took
pieces
of
it,
but
no
it's
not
modeled
after
any
one.
That's
why
the
mental
health
Advocates
nation,
National
mental
health,
Advocates
they've
said
that
they
really
have
said
that
this
is
the
best
Bill
they've
ever
seen
that
deals
with
this
situation.
Thank.
H
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
chairman
Rudd
I've.
Had
several
people
and
groups
come
to
talk
to
me
about
this
bill
and
I
do
have
some
some
concerns
with
it
and
I
know.
We've
got
a
fellow
here
today,
who's
going
to
testify,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
you
the
mental
health
Court
judges
have
you
talked
with
any
of
them
and
are
they
for
it
or
against
this
legislation?.
B
E
Have
not
talked
to
every
mental
health
court
judge
I've
talked
to
like
Barry
Tidwell,
the
mental
health
court
judge
and
Nash
Murfreesboro,
which
has
a
mental
health
court
and
his
advised
on
it,
and
he
has
reached
out
to
other
mental
health
court
judges
during
this
three-year
process
that
I
first
went
to
him
and
they
have.
None
of
them
have
expressed
any
any
negative
about
this
at
all
that
this
would
the
toilet
would
give
them.
E
The
only
question
I
had
was,
after
the
people
that
are
going
to
testify
today,
falsely
claimed
to
them
the
that
the
recovery
courts
would
be
burdened
with
a
flood
of
people
which
is
not
true.
They
called
and
said.
Is
this
bill
changed
from
what
we
talked
about
and
I
said?
No,
it
is
not
so
they
were
led
to
believe
that
it
would
even
they
were
calling
me
saying
that
this
is
going
to
be
everybody
that
attempts
suicide.
This
does
not
concern
suicide.
Speaker,
Marshall.
B
H
E
Chairman
of
marsh,
as
I
said
earlier,
no
no
Mental,
Health
Group
in
Tennessee,
has
endorsed
this
as
of
before
last
week.
None
had
denounced
it,
the
ones
that
have
been
in
my
office
since
this
bill
is
the
same
as
last
year,
except
for
the
bombing
that
one
little
sentence
that's
been
put
in
for
Mass
acts
of
violence.
They
said
they
were
deferred
on
it
when
they've
been
in
my
office
before
is
the.
E
The
Department
of
Health
is
not
promoting
it,
but
they
they
were
confident
with
it
and
said
they
deferred
on
it.
After
I
made
changes
and
worked
with
me
over
the
last
two
years
to
adapt
to
what
they
wanted.
They,
they
actually
helped
write
parts
of
this
bill
to
get
it
to
where
they
were
happy
with
it
and
they
have
deferred
on
it.
B
E
I
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
sponsor
to
the
extent
you're
seeking
to
ensure
Public
Safety
I
appreciate
the
spirit
of
this
legislation.
To
that
extent,
I
think
what
you've
done
is
made
a
compelling
argument
here
today
for
red
flag
laws
to
to
that
end.
I
applaud
you
as
well,
but,
as
you
admitted,
there's
a
process
in
place
to
do
this
currently
under
state
law,
and
it
was
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
and
experience
with
it.
I
Of
course,
there
are
laws
to
address
that
as
well
and
criminal
laws
to
prosecute
those
individuals
if
legitimate
threats
are
made
like
getting
back
to
my
point
about
the
current
laws
on
the
books,
the
system
to
do
that
is
a
civil
law
process
and
goes
through
civil
courts
in
most
counties.
I
know
it
does
here
in
Metro,
and
our
mental
health
court
is
a
criminal
court
in
General
Sessions,
and
so
my
concern
and
I
think
a
concern
of
some
judges.
At
least
the
ones
with
whom
I've
spoken.
I
Is
that
we're
taking
something
out
of
the
Civil
process
and
putting
it
into
the
criminal
courts
and
the
mental
health
courts
that
are
within
that
criminal
court
system
are
not
equipped
to
handle
the
Civil
matters?
I
think
they
want
them?
Staying
in
the
same
I,
don't
know
why
we
want
to
cross
over
from
civil
to
criminal
is
a
big
concern
of
mine
and
I'm,
not
sure
our
mental
health
Courts
at
least
the
ones
from
whom
I've
heard
are
excited
about
that
and
and
certainly
have
concerns
about
that
issue.
E
Well,
the
reason
why
civil
courts
have
failed
to
deal
with
this
all
over
the
country
is
because
once
they've
committed
an
act
of
violence
and
killed
people,
it
becomes
a
criminal
matter
and
the
judges
that
deal
with
actual
criminals
that
commit
violence
is
the
mental
health
court
judges
orange
counties
where
there
is
no
mental
health
court
judges.
It
could
be
a
Chancellor
or
another
judge.
E
So
they
are
the
only
courts
that
specifically
are
trying
to
deal
with
the
mentally
violent,
mentally
ill
and
potentially
someone
who
would
be
mentally
Disturbed
to
the
point
that
they
would
be
a
threat
to
others
most
mentally
ill.
People
are
not
a
threat
to
others
and
many
are
not
even
a
threat
to
themselves
but
they're
more
of
a
threat
to
themselves
than
they
are
to
the
public,
and
this
is
in
no
way
of
course,
aimed
at
them.
E
This
is
aimed
at
the
violent,
mentally
ill
that
could
kill
people
and
I'm
trying
to
head
that
off
and
I
don't
feel
a
civil
court
would
really
be
qualified
to
deal
with
the
violent,
mentally
ill,
the
kremely
mentally
ill
and
criminally
insane,
almost
as
you
could
say,
and
also,
as
I
said
earlier,
it's
very
very
cumbersome
on
a
family
member
at
their
own
expense,
to
take
someone
to
civil
court
and
try
to
get
them
into
treatment
at
their
own
expense.
Most
families
can't
afford
that
and
that's
why
the
system
fails.
I
Yeah,
thank
you
and
I
appreciate
that
response,
but
I
think
there's
a
very
fine
distinction
here
and
I
think
there
are
courts,
civil
courts
that
are
very
well
equipped
to
deal
with
this
I
mean
they.
These
same
courts
handle
conservatorships
and
mental
illness
or
disability,
is
mental
illness
or
disability.
I
I,
don't
know,
but
that
process
exists
and
it's
designed
carefully
to
protect
the
individual
rights
and
Liberties
of
individuals
and
not
discriminate
against
anyone
or
shift
them
into
a
criminal
system
simply
because
they
have
a
mental
illness
or
disability.
That
is
a
very
fine
line
and
we
need
I
think
it's
very
important
for
us
to
keep
the
system
intact
as
it
is
now
improving.
That
system
is
certainly
again
an
option,
but
now
here
we're
creating
an
entirely
new
one,
as
you
responded
to
a
previous
questioner
and
that
creates
multiple
issues.
E
I
respect
the
rights
of
mentally
ill
and
we've
gone
overboard
here
to
make
this
a
private
process.
Unless
you
appeal,
if
you
can't
afford,
if
you
want
to
appeal
the
judge's
decision,
you
can
have
a
corner,
pointed
attorney
represent
you.
If
you
can't
afford
one
and
again
this
is
private,
so
we're
trying
to
protect
them.
E
I
think
we
reach
a
point
in
any
society
is
the
rights
of
an
individual
greater
than
the
threat
and
the
rights
of
the
victims
and
their
families
is
someone
that
needs
help
going
to
be
inconvenienced
to
get
that
help
versus
telling
a
family
member
that
their
loved
ones
have
been
killed
in
a
plaza
or
a
stadium
or
an
arena,
or
in
a
parking
lot
or
a
picnic
or
any
other
event
of
Mass
to
act
of
violence.
So
at
some
point
we
have
to
say
we
got
to
at
the
best.
J
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
sponsor
one
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
from
is
my
County
Sheriff's
department,
and
his
comments
to
me
were
that
at
any
given
day,
26
to
40
percent
of
our
local
County
census
in
the
jail
are
those
who
are
mentally
ill,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
I
do
see
is
while
these
may
not
be
individuals
that
need
to
be
certified
and
and
taken
into
court
in
state
custody.
I
do
appreciate
the
fact
that
we
need
this.
J
If
you
wouldn't
mind
you
know
relative
to
the
scope
of
this
bill,
is
it
your
belief
or
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
legal-
that
if
your
bill
doesn't
pass
as
the
only
remedy
for
someone
to
be
certified
and
to
put
into
State
custody
or
to
be
arrested?
Is
that
the?
What?
What
are
the
current
Pathways
now
absent
your
bill
for
individuals
who
pose
a
threat
because
clearly,
the
way
this
is
written?
This
is
directed
toward
a
population
of
people
that
are
posing
some
type
of
threat
to
the
public
and
or
themselves.
J
E
It
representative
Smith,
it
varies
greatly
as
I've
I've
pointed
out
that
one
of
the
processes-
and
one
of
the
processes
that
was
just
pointed
out,
is
to
take
a
relative
to
civil
court
and
try
to
have
a
judge
do
what
this
is
doing.
That
is
a
very
lengthy
process
and
it's
an
expensive
process
to
the
family
members
that
are
trying
to
do
it
during
that
that,
year
to
year
and
a
half
or
even
up
to
two
years
or
could
go
through
several
months
and
then
lack
of
funds,
they
drop
it.
E
Someone
could
get
killed
and
the
person
would
never
get
help
till
it
was
too
late
as
far
as
police,
if
you're
threatening
to
kill
people
to
the
police,
they
have
actions
that
can
take.
It's
still
not
an
easy,
not
an
easy
way
that
police
can
get
someone
into
treatment,
they
can
investigate
them,
they
can
go
to
them
and
even
during
this
process
as
a
family
member
has
threatened
and
said
that
my
son
is
threatening
to
kill
all
these
classmates
over
and
over
again
I'm
afraid
that
he's
going
to
harm
someone.
E
That's
why
in
almost
every
state,
where
there's
been
an
act
of
mass
violence,
the
police
were
called
but
family
members
or
co-workers,
and
they
were
told
that
they're
they
continually
threatened
to
kill
other
people
the
police
investigated,
but
they
did
not
have
this
law
so
there's
nothing.
They
could
do
when
they
go
to
a
judge
and
the
person
acts
perfectly
normal
in
front
of
them.
They
say:
there's
nothing.
I
can
do
until
they've
committed
an
act
of
violence.
E
It's
very
hard
to
bring
a
person
like
this
and
depending
on
who
evaluates
them
at
a
below
a
psychiatrist
level.
It
could
be
a
volunteer.
It
could
be.
Somebody
in
a
clinic
they
may
Dean
them,
even
though
they
may
not
be
professionally
trained,
they
may
be
per.
They
may
evaluate
him
as
just
fine,
just
upset
or
depressed.
So
we
need
to
have
these
people
evaluated
and
the
psychiatrist
could
very
well
say
he's
depressed
he's,
not
a
threat
to
others.
E
B
B
Foreign,
that
brings
us
to
item
number
five
House
Bill
13,
without
objection,
I
I've
spoken
with
the
sponsor
for
that
bill.
We
are
going
to
roll
that
to
the
hill
of
the
calendar,
without
objection
and
I
will
probably
call
that
up
back
out
of
order
here
shortly
without
objection.
That
brings
us
to
item
number
six
house
joint
resolution,
number
10.
A
K
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair
Mr,
chair
recently,
the
American
Medical
Association
recognized
racism
as
a
public
health
threat,
and
what
this
resolution
does
is
just
resolves
that
American
Medical
Association
recognizes
racism
as
a
public
health
threat
and
I
was
trying
not
to
bore
everybody
and
read
the
resolution.
But
if
the
members
want
me
to
read
the
resolution,
I'd
be
happy
to.
L
L
K
Recognize
thank
you,
Mr
chair
and
to
my
colleague
from
Shelby
County.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
We're
already
working
in
areas
of
improving
Healthcare
gaps
or
reducing
Health
Care
gaps
in
areas.
There
was
a
a
study
done
by
the
Robert
Woods
Johnson
Foundation,
that
that
showed
where
Health
Care
was
not
being
distributed
evenly
so
to
speak
and
I'll
give
you
an
example.
You
know
in
in
communities
of
minority
communities.
There
are
minority
communities
lead
our
state
in
areas
such
as
high
blood
pressure,
congestive
heart
failure.
K
Also,
as
the
person
over
minority
Health
under
the
Tennessee
Health
Department,
and
they
are
working
on
good
policy
and
initiatives
to
close
those
gaps,
and
so
that's
all
this
is
saying
is
that
this?
This
thing
does
exist,
whether
intentional
or
not
right,
it
does
exist
and
we're
going
to
do
we're
going
to
resolve
and
it's
not
a
law.
So
we're
not
putting
it's
not
a
law.
It's
a
resolution
that
we're
going
to
work
hard
to
to
close
those
gaps
in
in
those
disparities.
M
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
resolution.
I
just
had
one
I
think
it's
really
important
the
words
matter,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
or
one
of
the
things
on,
whereas
is,
as
someone
said,
was
structural
and
legalized
system
that
results
in
differential
access
to
goods
and
services.
I!
Guess
we,
if,
if
you
could
share
with
us
or
the
body,
maybe
an
example
of
what
that
what
that
is
in
Tennessee
as,
as
previously
stated,
what
would
be
a
a
structural
or
legalized
system
that
results
in
differential
access
to
goodness.
K
Yes,
sir,
so
so
I
think
thank
you
for
asking
that
chairman.
During
that
Robert
Woods
Johnson
study,
one
of
my
District
Hospital
Methodist
North.
They
decided
to
allow
themselves
to
be
part
of
the
study
which
was
rare.
You
know
you
rarely
see
an
institution
like
that
volunteering
to
see
if
they
have
challenges
in
in
applying
the
same
medical
treatment
to
every
individual
evenly
and
and
out
of
that
study
they
found
that
there
were
some
areas.
K
You
know
that
they
had
to
improve
on
and
and
I
applauded
them
for
that
now
this
has
been
a
few
years
ago.
I
I
applauded
them
for
that,
and
now
they
are
one
of
the
highest
recognized
hospitals
in
our
state
and
I.
Think
out
of
that,
I
forgot
the
name
of
the
the
award
that
maybe
somebody
that's
in
the
medical
profession
can
tell
me
what
the
name
of
that
award
is
for
for
hospitals
that
that
are
at
the
top
tier.
M
And
I
recognized
that
study
was
three
years
ago
right,
so
yeah,
so
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
that
I
think
is
really
important
is
that
we
just
don't
resolve
to
to
pass
resolutions.
We
resolve
to
past
bills
to
to
effectuate
change
the
reason
why
I
think
it's
important
to
ask
the
question:
what
are
the
structural?
M
M
I
recognize
you
might
not
have
the
answer
to
the
to
the
actual
structural
part
of
it,
because
the
study
was
a
few
years
ago,
but
I
think
it's
important
that,
if
we're
really,
if
we're
going
to
say
there
is
a
structural
problem
we
need
to,
we
need
to
fix
the
structural
problem
and
isolate
what
that
is
right.
You.
B
B
H
Thank
you
what,
ladies
and
gentlemen
of
the
committee,
what
house
bill
743
does
seeks
to
allow
Physicians
assistance
and
advanced
practice
nurses
to
be
able
to
write
orders
for
people
to
be
able
to
go
to
home
health
care
or
have
Home
Health
Care
directed
to
them,
so
that
they're
not
having
to
have
an
office
visit
with
a
doctor,
whichever
provider
that
they
have
coming
to
their
coming
to
their
home.
They
can
write
the
orders
for
the
Home
Health
Services.
B
B
L
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
and
committee
House
Bill,
1070
6.
It
just
removes
a
provision
that
requires
a
physical
therapist
who
graduates
with
a
doctorate
wait
for
one
year
before
they
can
fully
take
advantage
of
all
provisions
and
The
Practice
Act,
and
this
just
cleans
up
in
a
mission
from
a
more
comprehensive
bill
from
last
year.
L
B
B
Seeing
none,
we
will
be
voting
on
House
Bill
1275,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
House,
Bill
1275
goes
on
to
calendar
enrolls.
Thank
you
all
right.
So
if
the
committee
will
indulge
me
for
one
second
here
without
objection,
we
are
going
to
pull
up
from
the
hill
of
the
calendar
house
bill
768
by
later
Lambeth
and
chairman
Littleton
is
carrying
that.
So
without
objection,
we're
on
your
bill.
A
You
Mr
chairman
this
bill
will
make
significant
revisions
to
the
child
care,
equality
rate
and
Improvement
system,
the
mechanisms
for
conducting
quality
assessment
of
child
care
care
providers,
the
child
care
report
card
system
and
the
child
care
rated
licensing
systems.
The
new
assessment
system
will
replace
the
current
outdated
report
card
system.
Dhs
has
developed
an
assessment
tool
to
weave
the
quality
and
assessment
indicators
into
the
licensing
rule
so
that
it
is
a
seamless
system
for
parents
and
providers
to
navigate.
I
A
B
A
M
Just
to
follow
up
from
representative
from
Davidson
County's
question,
the
fiscal
note
says
that
it
decreases
state
revenue.
It's
my
understanding
that
this
bill
actually
decreases
the
fees
on
on
this,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
anyone
else
can
testify,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
it
is
I'm
getting
the
nod
over.
B
A
B
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
House,
Bill
80
is
an
Administration
Bill
about
the
control
substances
database,
and
it
makes
certain
changes
to
facilitate
transmission
of
data
in
this
data
is
very
critical
because
we
use
it
to
monitor
the
use
of
controlled
substance
such
as
opioids
and
in
the
past.
The
data
has
been
submitted
as
an
aggregate,
but
to
make
it
more
useful
to
these
facilities.
It
is
now,
according
with
this,
bill,
will
be
submitted
an
online
item,
but
it
will
be
de-identified
in
a
careful
way,
so
the
confidentiality
is
maintained.
N
B
C
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
House,
Bill
508
simply
allows
pre-licensed
graduate
or
doctorate
level
professionals
under
title
63.
So
that
would
be
your
Audiology
speech,
language,
pathology,
mental
or
Behavioral
Health
Industries.
Any
of
those
individuals
to
use
telemedicine
to
obtain
their
practicum
or
internship
hours.
C
B
B
Seeing
none
we
will
be
voting
on
House
Bill
508,
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye
was
opposed
highest
habit.
Bill
goes
on
to
calendar
and
rules.
Thank
you,
chairman
committee.
All
right,
thank
you.
So
without
objection
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
heel
of
the
calendar
and
pull
up
House
Bill
13.,
representative
Halsey,
you
are
recognized
hold
on
just
one
second
here.
B
B
B
B
B
Second,
all
right,
thank
you,
chairman
and
committee,
and
even
though
I
like
this
bill
and
its
original
form,
it's
obvious
should
be
obvious
to
the
sponsor
and
those
at
home
that
the
committee
is
not
in
favor
of
the
original
language.
I
have
worked
with
others
in
in
the
mem.
The
member
who
brought
this
and
offering
this
amendment.
B
One
of
the
major
concerns
of
the
sponsor
is
that
he
brought
forth
is
the
fear
and
concern,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
a
non-fully
approved
or
a
a
vaccine
that
is
under
emergency
use
authorization
and,
while
I
may
not
believe
that
the
state
could
require
that
type
of
vaccine.
The
amendment
makes
it
clear
that
the
state
cannot
require
any
covid-19
vaccine
that
is
not
fully
approved
or
still
operating
under
emergency
use
authorization,
and
the
amendment
also
removes
the
words
force
and
coerce
from
the
original
bill.
N
N
Well,
that's
really
worrisome
in
the
sense
that
full
approval
of
a
vaccine,
the
kind
that
we're
using
now
could
take
several
years
and
considering
the
loss
of
life
and
considering
I
mean
it
would
be
unconscionable
to
wait
for
two
years
before
approving
this
vaccine.
Considering
the
loss
of
life
that
has
already
occurred,
half
a
million
people
or
how
long
will
we
wait?
That's
I'm
really
surprised
at
that
and
I
don't
think
that
would
be
acceptable
to
most
people.
B
Would
you
like
to
respond?
Thank
you
again,
I
think
that
the
way
I
know
we
could
talk
to
legal
on
this,
but
my
understanding
is,
though,
even
though
it
is
not
fully
FDA
approved
that
would
still
it's
under
emergency
use.
Authorization
is
still
undergoing
trials
and
that
I
think
that
they
would
not
be
able
to
require
that
anyway,.
O
O
Yeah
I
just
hate
that
we're
handcuffing
ourselves,
especially
when
we're
living
in
the
fourth
most
infectious
state
in
this
country.
During
this
pandemic
already,
you
know:
I
I,
just
I
just
hate
for
us
to
handcuff
ourselves
in
a
situation
where
we've
got
to
do
something
immediately
to
save
lives
and
no
one's
going
to
force.
Anybody
to
take
this
shot
right
now,
and
you
know,
a
lot
of
people
are
glad
people
are
not
getting
in
the
way
of
them
to
get
it
for
the
folks
who
don't
want
to
take
it.
O
H
A
L
J
H
Thank
you
and
and
I
appreciate
your
patience
and
all
the
time
you're
spending
on
this
with
me.
I
really
do.
Thank
you.
The
Chairman's
amendments
got
a
time
limit
on
it.
It
expires
when,
when
FDA
approves
it
I,
don't
like
that
part
of
it,
Dr
Kumar's,
new
Amendment
I,
think
fits
with
my
original
Bill
pretty
well
and
and
and
I
view
that,
as
a
friendly
amendment,
I
I
do
view
the
the
Chairman's
amendment
is
trying
to
help
get
through
this.
It's
just
that
it.
It
does
have
an
expiration
date
on
it.
N
I
would
really
like
to
note
that
I
think
we,
as
leaders
in
our
state
as
elected
representatives
in
our
state,
need
to
be
very
careful
in
calling
this
the
coveted
vaccination,
experimental
or
unapproved,
because
it
could
sway
some
people
who
actually
will
benefit
from
it.
Who
will
need
it
and
considering
that
more
than
30
plus
million
have
been
vaccinated,
the
safety
has
been
proven.
It
could
sway
somebody
not
to
take
it
and
we
would
be
doing
harm
in
in
doing
that.
I'm
really
concerned
and
I.
Don't
think
we
should
be
doing
that.
N
These
are
difficult
times.
We
in
none
of
us
in
our
lifetime
has
ever
seen
a
pandemic,
and
we
know
the
virus
came
out
of
China
where
there
are
questions
and
doubts
about
how
it
got
out
and
what
was
done.
There
are
concerns
we
could
be
facing
during
our
lifetime.
God
forbid,
we
don't,
we
could
be
facing
about
terrorism
act
during
those
times.
We
pray
for
good
leaders
and
we
would
want
our
leaders
to
have
the
tools
that
they
need
and
I
think.
N
By
being
doing
this,
we
are
creating
a
negative
field
between
the
government
and
us.
We
are
creating
a
negative
field
towards
vaccination,
and
let
us
let
us
gentlemen.
Ladies:
let's
be
careful
it's,
we
really
need
to
worry
about
things
that
are
happening
and
what
the
future
of
our
nation
is
and,
as
I
said
during
bioterrorism.
Something
like
that.
We
don't
need
that
feeling
I
mean
I,
pray
that
we
will
all
bind
together
and
hold
hands
together
and
get
through
difficult
times.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman.
M
B
Thank
you,
I'm,
not
sure,
I
understand
the
as
unless,
until
it
is
fully
approved,
they
cannot
require
it
and
it
does
not
prohibit
them
afterwards.
Again.
I
like
the
original
bill,
as
it's
written
without
any
amendments.
But
again
the
one
of
the
concerns
was
the
fear.
That's
out
there
that
people
are
going
to
have
require
a
bill.
I
mean
a
vaccine
that
has
not
gone
through
full
approval
and
is
still
under
emergency
use
authorization,
and
that's
simply
what
the
amendment
does.
B
F
I'm
going
to
use
the
same
term,
everybody
it's
late,
the
day
we've
been
in
committees,
I'm
I'm,
not
totally
sure
what
posture
this
is
in
what
so
we
passed
an
amendment
in
the
committee
right
and
that
com
that
amendment
has
now
been
taken
off.
So
the
first
amendment
that
passed
that
excluded
hospitals
is
still
on
the
the
bill,
and
this
is
a
new
amendment
to
the
other.
Thank
you.
B
F
L
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Vice
chairman
and
thank
you
chairman
for
your
work
on
this
legislation
and
attempt
to
find
a
compromise
and
thank
you
to
the
sponsor
of
the
original
bill.
I,
don't
think
you
should
apologize
for
for
taking
up
time
of
the
committee
on
this.
You
know
this
is
a
serious
matter
that
affects
the
public
welfare
and
General
well-being
of
every
Tennessean.
I
I
think
this
is
precisely
why
we're
here
and
and
I
think
the
individual
rights
and
Liberties
of
tennesseans
are
important
to
every
one
of
us
and
so
we're
here
we're
looking
at
an
issue
where
we're
weighing
that
you
know
weighing
these
issues
with
the
public
welfare
and
it's
a
it's
a
good
debate.
It
is
a
an
academic
exercise
that
I
think
is
worthwhile
and
both
are
equally
important,
and
so
people
are
going
to
have
a
tough
decision
to
make
and
that's
why
I
appreciate
the
amendment
and
the
work.
I
A
L
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Boss,
chair,
sponsor,
I,
appreciate
you
bringing
the
bill.
I
I
like
it
in
this
original
form.
You
know,
I've
always
thought
that
amendments
are
a
way
to
hijack
your
bill
to
water,
it
down
to
whittle
it
away
to
where
it
loses
this
form
where
it's
never
in
this,
it
doesn't
end
up
in
the
same
place
that
it
started,
but
for
those
that
are
are
lost
in
the
translation.
H
Let
me
just
say
this:
it's
it's
and
I'm
not
trying
to
oversimplify
it,
but
it's
basically,
this
simple
you've
got
a
small
group
of
people
that
want
to
impose
their
will
on
the
masses
or
a
large
group
of
people,
and
basically
these
masses
want
to
be
left
alone.
It's
sad
that
we
have
to
draft
legislation
to
be
left
alone.
I
don't
know.
H
Normally,
when
you
impose
your
will
on
someone
that
wants
to
be
left
alone,
you
can
get
arrested
and
if
we
was
talking
about
anything
other
than
vaccine,
that
would
be
what
would
be
taking
place
today.
Now
we
opened
this
session
up,
we're
saying
the
phrase
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all,
and
that
would
apply
to
those
that
doesn't
want
the
vaccine.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I,
really
I'm
confused
I.
Don't
think
we
have
the
correct
interpretation
of
amendment
4574
in
the
sense
it
clearly
says,
an
individual
will
not
be
required
to
receive
an
immunization
or
vaccination
because
for
covet
15
against
the
Avail
if
the
treatment
has
not
received
final
approval.
So
that
means,
if
final
approval
has
been
granted,
then
they
will
be
required.
I
would
like
legal
clarification
about
it.
N
N
N
A
Just
to
clarify
a
little
bit
further
chairman
Kumar
that
the
interpretation
I
understood
you
to
have
was
that
if
the
vaccine
for
covid-19
were
to
receive
final
approval,
state
or
local
government
could
then
require
the
vaccine.
However,
if
it
got
final
approval,
it's
not
automatically
required.
We
would
just
be
back
in
the
posture
that
we
were
in
today
with
their
with
state
and
local
governments
authority
to
take
such
an
action.
O
Yeah,
thank
you
Mr
Vice
chairman.
You
know
and
I
appreciate
what
the
previous
representative
said
about
everyone's
Liberty
and
their
rights
and
but
your
rights
kind
of
end
when
you're
endangering
other
people.
You
know
when,
when
a
small
group
of
people
can
endanger
the
rest
of
us
in
society,
you
have
to
act
sometimes
and
again
we're
doing
all
sorts
of
gymnastics
with
amendments
trying
to
get
figure
out
something
we
don't
need
to
fix,
because
currently
no
one's
being
asked
or
forced
to
take
this
vaccination.
O
O
L
H
L
L
B
Thank
you
what
it
would
do
currently,
as
the
bill
is
written,
we
have
an
amendment
on
the
bill.
It
would
rewrite
the
bill,
so
it
would
strip
that
Amendment
off
and
it
would
put
in
place
that
the
state
or
local
governments
they
could
not
require
a
Copa
19
vaccine
that
has
not
gone
through
full
approval
or
still
under
emergency
use
authorization
at
the
moment
that
it
does
become
fully
approved.
It's
no
longer
emergency
use
authorization.
It
no
longer
prohibits
that.
I
L
And
so
without
objection,
question
on
the
bill.
Amendment
I
will
get
that
right.
All
right.
All
those
in
favor
of
amendment
45-74
drafting
code
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye.
All
those
opposed
indicate
by
saying
no,
no,
the
nose
have
it.
Okay.
That
Amendment
fails,
which
I
guess
at
this
point
turn
it
back
over
foreign.
B
M
Would
we
need
to
reconsider
our
actions
to
fix
the
the
hospital
portion
of
it
with
chairman,
Ramsey's
Amendment
prior
to
adoption,
to
kumars
or
if
we
took
kumars,
or
do
we
need
to
take
Kumar's
first?
If
so,
I'd
like
to
make
a
a
motion
to
reconsider
our
actions
on
move
for
withdrawal
of
chairman
Ramsey's
Amendment.
B
B
G
This
originally
in
the
subcommittee,
when
we
were
considering
the
original
bill
by
chairman
Hulsey,
we
were
notified
that
this
bill
mentions
in
in
state
institutions
under
titles,
the
hospitals,
essentially
under
title
68
and
33.
That's
about
45
hospitals
across
the
state
which
one
is
in
my
district
I
had
a
request
from
the
Tennessee
Hospital
Association,
as
well
as
as
my
Hospital
government
Hospital
in
the
district
to
exclude
these
hospitals.
G
So
this
this
amendment
is
stated
in
in
the
number
4462
does
that
eliminates
those
hospitals,
government,
hospitals
under
68
and
33
and
we'd
originally
put
this
on.
Then
the
subcommittee.
But
my
understanding
was
that
your
the
chairman,
Terry's
Amendment,
were
it
to
pass,
would
would
satisfy
the
need
to
exclude
those
hospitals
and
it
did
not
pass
so
I'm
still
under
obligation
to
my
hospital
and
the
other
45
to
exclude
them.
B
Any
questions
on
the
amendment
seeing
none,
we
are
voting
on
Amendment
4462,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye
opposed
eyes
have
it.
We
are
on
House
Bill
13
as
amended.
Unfortunately,
we
are
at
the
end
of
our
time,
so
without
objection,
I
hate
to
do
this
to
you,
but
we're
going
to
roll
you
in
this
posture
to
next
week
and
you
will
be
first
on
the
calendar.
Thank
you
without
without
objection
rolled
next
week,
see
no
further
business
before
us.
We
are
adjourned
foreign.