►
From YouTube: House Health Committee- April 20, 2021
Description
House Health Committee- April 20, 2021
A
B
C
F
B
G
B
B
B
A
Thank
you,
mr
mr
chairman,
and,
very
simply,
last
week,
the
debate
in
this
committee
was:
we
believe
that
this
needed
a
kind
of
a
sunset
and
rather
than
we
talked
about
having
this
applies
to
school
children.
So,
after
two
calendar
school
years,
this
bill
will
no
longer
cease
to
have
enforcement
activity
on
the
coven
vaccine,
and
this
will
give
the
fda
time
to
study
and
gain
an
approval
of
coveted
vaccines
in
the
population,
that's
being
discussed,
which
would
be
school-aged
and
with
that
happy
to
take
questions.
Okay,.
C
C
Well
we're
getting
the
kids
back
in
school
and
I
think
the
health
and
safety
of
the
children
ought
to
be
paramount
as
well,
and
you
know
I'd
feel
more
comfortable
with
this
amendment.
If,
as
soon
as
the
fda
approval
goes
through,
that
it
would
instantaneously
take
effect
instead
of
us
having
to
come
back
in
and
and
bring
more
legislation
that
would
go
through
all
this
process.
C
C
A
I
also
know
that,
as
we
sit
here,
the
jnj
vaccine
has
been
paused
to
study
its
problems
with
clotting,
and
so,
while
I'm
I'm
willing
to
to
be
a
little
more
risk
aware
of
some
medications,
particularly
in
children
who
are
in
development
and
knowing
that
the
ad,
the
the
fastest
of
vaccine
has
been
approved
prior
to
covid,
was
four
years
typically
that
approval
time
ranges
from
four
to
eight
years
and
in
good
faith.
I
worked
with
my
colleague
or
our
colleague.
C
C
C
You
know
in
general,
there
is
a
higher
risk
of
one
in
a
million.
Someone
would
have
a
reaction
to
a
vaccine
of
all
the
vaccines
that
we've
we've
had
for
the
public
over
the
last
75
years.
So
that's
not
that's
not
any
reason
to
to
use
that
in
the
scare
tactic
to
the
johnson
johnson
vaccine.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
while
I
do
appreciate
the
comments,
I
would
just
simply
say
all
this
amendment
does
is:
it
adds
a
calendar
a
calendar
year
of
two
school
years
that
this
would
be
sunsetted
just
like
broccoli
and
spinach.
I
know
that
those
are
two
very
healthy
items.
We
don't
put
into
code
the
requirement
for
kids
to
eat
broccoli
and
spinach
to
be
allowed
into
school,
but
it
doesn't
prohibit
parents
from
feeding
children,
broccoli
and
spinach.
A
B
Thank
you
for
those
comments.
I
would
like
to
add.
You
know
doing
research
on
those
that
are
school-age
children
going
through
that
process.
Having
that
emergency
approved
at
that
age,
then
having
it
approved,
there
is
a
process
and
then
there's
a
process
by
which,
if
a
vaccine
is
added
to
the
the
school
it
still
has
to
go
through
rule
making
process
still
has
to
go
through
gov,
ops
and
and
there's
some
other
legislation
around
that.
B
I
A
J
A
And
I
appreciate
what
I
want
everyone
to
understand
is
I
sit
here.
Vaccinated
I've
given
vaccines,
I
believe
in
vaccines.
I
think
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
bridge
a
compromise
to
particularly
with
those
parents
who
have
fears,
and
some
of
these
fears
are
justified.
Some
of
them
are
not,
as
you
all
know,
if
it's
on
the
internet,
it's
true
in
some
in
the
minds
of
some
and
it's
a
difficult
position
to
be
in,
but
relative
to
government
mandates
and
things
such
as
that
we're
having
to
come
up
with
a
good
compromise.
A
Last
week
I
made
a
commitment
to
my
colleague
to
work
with
him
to
get
this
bill
in
a
better
position,
and
I
believe
I
have
kept
my
word,
but
by
no
means
does
this
prohibit
parents
from
getting
the
the
vaccines
at
all
and
so
again,
if,
if
you
don't
want
the
to
add
the
amendment
and
you're
happy
to
move
forward
with
the
the
bill,
is
submitted
happy
to
do
that
as
well,
I'm
at
the
will
of
the
committee.
Thank
you,
sir.
J
J
J
A
I
would
just
simply
say
that
again,
this
is
not
an
anti-vaccine
amendment,
it's
simply
in,
nor
does
it
frame
anything
in
the
context
of
efficacy
or
safety.
It
just
permits
a
parent
to
send
their
children
to
public
school
without
the
mandate
of
this
coveted
vaccine
until
there's
an
ample
window
of
time,
whether
it's
through
fda,
admit,
approval
or
a
window
of
time
to
show
efficacy
without
harmful
behavior.
It
does
not
prohibit
a
parent
from
making
the
decision
to
have
their
child
fully
vaccinated.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
I've
got
another
member,
but
before
we
get
to
that
other
member,
I
have
some
clarification
that
we
need
to
get
on
the
amendment
and
for
that
we're
going
to
need
to
go
out
of
session
and
have
legal
services
discuss
that.
But
it
is
my
understanding
that
the
amendment
only
impacts
section
one
and
does
not
impact
section
two
of
the
bill.
So
without
objection
we'll
go
out
of
session.
H
Matt
king
from
the
office
of
legal
services-
yes
chairman,
that
is
correct.
The
bill
as
it
comes
to
this
committee,
was
amended
in
the
house
education
administration
committee
that
amendment
added
effectively
added
a
section
two
to
the
bill.
The
amendment
that
we've
just
been
considering
adds
to
section
one
of
the
bill
that
this
section
is
repealed
on
july
1.
That
speaks
to
that
section
of
code
that
it
would
create
that
part
which
is
essentially
section
1
of
the
bill
would
be
repealed
in
2023.
H
A
H
You
recognize
that's
correct,
representative
smith,
that
the
the
bulk
of
the
bill,
which
speaks
to
schools
in
covid
that
would
be
repealed.
The
other
language
goes
into
the
section
of
code
that
speaks
to
immunization
of
school
children
generally
and
affects
the
epidemic
language.
That
part
would
not
be
affected
by
the
repeal.
A
My
colleague
knows,
I
do
believe
in
vaccines
and
I'm
not
too
far
off
from
dr
kumar
and
if
you've
got
a
religious
exemption,
there
are
already
things
that
are
in
place
for
people
not
to
vaccinate
their
children.
There
are
other
things
that
are
available,
but
I
I
do
feel
very
comfortable
leaving
the
amendment
in
place
just
for
the
cove
vaccine
and
and
we
it
did
that
intentionally,
because
it's
not
my
desire
at
all
to
see
any
vaccines
candidly
eliminated
from
the
safety
of
our
public
schools.
Thank
you.
I
And
I
I'm
confused
now
I
think
so
what
what
we're
saying
is-
and
I
would
refer
this
to
our
legal
analyst-
we're
going
to
pass
a
permanent
change
to
tennessee
code
in
section
two
and
and
essentially
all
we're
doing
with
the
amendment
is-
is
sunsetting
the
section
one
and
so
in
perpetuity.
We're
gonna
have
this
this
code
change
in
section
two
and
and
we
will
have
no
more
control
over
that.
H
F
Yeah
and-
and
I
was
going
to
ask
a
question
there-
I've
got
so
many
questions.
I
wasn't
sure
who
to
ask
it
to
so
I'll,
go
to
legal
under
current
code
today,
if
some,
if
someone
decides
not
to
get
vaccinated
for
any
reason
outside
of
covid,
let's
say
they
decide,
they
don't
want
to
get.
You
know
any
any
vaccination.
H
The
language
that's
being
impacted
by
section
2
of
the
bill,
removes
the
words
in
the
absence
of
an
epidemic
or
immediate
threat
of
an
epidemic,
leaving
only
that
this
section
does
not
apply
to
a
child
or
parent
who
thus
files
the
appropriate
written
statement
regarding
it
conflicting
with
religious
tenets.
They
have
a
religious
opt-out
to
those
vaccines
that
are
required
by
the
commissioner
of
health
for
school
children.
H
H
So
the
way
that
that
subdivision,
which
is
subdivision
b2
of
496-5001
operates,
is
that
the
general
rule
is
that
you
would
have
a
religious
exemption
or
a
right
to
a
religious
exemption.
If
you
followed
the
requirement
to
file
a
signed
written
statement,
however,
that
religious
exemption
is
overridden
during
times
of
epidemics
or
immediate
threat
of
epidemics,
that
religious
exemption
would
not
apply
and
you
could
not
get
it
in
during
those
periods.
F
H
Mike,
can
you
recognize
that
the
the
section
does
not
define
how
that
is
to
be
considered
it?
It
just
states
in
the
absence
of
an
epidemic
or
immediate
threat
of
an
epidemic,
so
it
will
be
left
to
the
the
plain
reading
of
those
words.
So
it
does
not
have
a
specific
definition
to
define
that
and
tie
it
to
anything
in
particular
such
as
a
declared
state
of
emergency,
or
something
like
that.
F
H
The
the
current
language
already
has
in
their
the
la
the
language
that
speaks
to
periods
of
epidemic
or
immediate
threat
of
epidemic.
So
under
current
law
you
have
a
religious
exemption
or
a
right
to
a
religious
exemption,
except
when
there
is
an
epidemic
or
immediate
threat
of
an
epidemic.
That's
current
law.
What
the
bill
would
do
in
its
current
form
would,
with
section
two's
operation,
remove
the
language
about
the
epidemic
or
immediate
threat
of
the
epidemic.
F
F
H
You
recognize
under
current
law
that
would
be
accurate
under
the
current
way
that
b2
is
written.
But
if
section
two
of
the
bill
were
to
become
law
and
remove
those
words
that
relate
to
the
epidemic,
then
they
would
be
able
to
exercise
religious
exemption
against
that
vaccine
and
also
just
to
be
clear
for
the
committee.
V2
is
not
covet
specific.
It
is
any
immunization
required
by
the
department
of
health.
B
Well,
we're
still
at
a
session
on
this.
Can
you
give
one
more
clarification
so,
in
the
event
to
his
example,
from
a
small
pox
or
something
along
those
lines,
and
this
religious
exemption
was
extended
through
that
period?
This
does
not.
The
amendment
does
not
prohibit
the
school
from
screening
those
individuals
or.
A
A
B
I
H
B
A
For
the
purpose
of
the
amendment,
this
was
to
assist
our
colleague
to
move
his
bill
and
to
protect
parents
from
a
mandate
that
was
on
a
currently
unapproved
vaccine,
but
I
will
stand
at
the
will
of
the
committee
and
no
harm
no
foul,
but
I
will
tell
you
I
do.
I
do
think
that
this
is
it's
logical.
It
does
not
require,
does
not
require
that
that
parents
are
are
prohibited
from
having
their
children
vaccinated.
A
B
B
B
G
Mr
chairman
and
sponsor
representative
grills,
I
I
thank
the
world
obvious.
You
remind
me
of
one
of
my
favorite
lieutenants
when
I
was
a
company
commander,
the
kind
of
guy
I
want
to
take
the
hill,
but
I
have
serious
problems
with
this
bill
in
regards
to
government
overreach.
This
bill
applies
to
private
schools.
G
G
There
could
be
reasons
why
I
would
not
want
somebody
who
has
not
been
immunized
in
my
home.
If
I'm
running
a
a
a
preschool,
I
might
have
someone
who
has
health
issues
and
what
this
does
is
just
sets
up
lawsuits.
It
sets
up
an
intrusion
on
people's
private
property
and
it's
just
clearly
government
overreach.
G
I
always
may
want
to
call
this
the
trial
lawyer,
full
employment
act,
it's
what
we're
doing,
and
for
that.
I
just
feel
like
that.
We
are
telling
folks
what
they
have
to
do,
and
we've
been
very
good
as
a
general
assembly
protecting
churches
and
private
property
from
telling
them
who
they
can
have
in
their
homes
and
how
many
people
now
we're
telling
them.
G
H
You,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
think
your
lieutenant
would
appreciate
that,
but
I'm
sorry
I
said
I
don't
think
your
lieutenant
would
appreciate
that
he'd
want
you
to
support
it,
but
he
was
a
good,
lieutenant
yeah
yeah
anyhow,
I
appreciate
those
comments.
The
the
build
itself
kind
of
it's
it's
in
cold.
What
the
church
related
school
are
or
is
the
the
home
schools?
It's
not
just
any
home,
it's
not
just
any
church-related
school,
it's
not
just
any
private
school.
It's
already.
It's
it's
codified
in
4950-801.
H
I
don't
know
if
you've
seen
that
or
not,
but
there
are
different.
It's
not
just
a
house
or
a
private
home
like
you
just
said
there,
so
I
I
want
you.
I
want
to
understand,
too,
that
we're
not
trying
to
mandate
anything
to
anyone.
We're
trying
to
protect
individuals,
freedom
and
my
my
goal
is
just
that
individual
liberty
is
a
is
a
is
a
pillar
of
our
society
and
I
believe
that
it's
best
for
individuals
in
consultation
with
their
doctor
to
make
the
decisions
that's
best
for
their
health.
H
B
K
Famous
chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
some
points
that
were
made
last
week.
You
know
these
vaccination
bills
that
we
continue
to
see,
and
some
of
the
discourse
today
fails
to
recognize
the
fact
that,
even
if
you
are
vaccinated
you,
we
need
to
remember
that
vaccines,
don't
just
protect
yourself,
limiting
vaccines
or
doing
anything
or
conducting
public
discourse
or
anything
to
reduce
the
taking
of
vaccines
poses
a
large
threat
to
the
to
the
general
public.
You
know
a
large
percentage
of
us
wouldn't
be
here
today.
K
K
We
won't
have
several
people
even
mention
that
they've
been
vaccinated.
This
is
this
is
a
dangerous.
This
is
a
dangerous
path
that
we're
going
down,
whether
it's
in
the
name
of
religious
freedom
or
individual
liberty
or
or
what
have
you
I
just
simply
in
the
interest
of
our
public
welfare
and
health
and
our
children
and
those
may
who
may
be
infected
with
this
disease
or
others.
I
encourage
my
colleagues
to
think
seriously
about
voting
in
favor
of
legislation
such
as
this.
K
H
Chairman
just
once
again,
this
is
not
an
anti-vaxxer
bill.
I
am
I'm
pro-vaccine
as
much
as
anyone,
but
I
just
believe
that
it
should
be
up
to
the
individual
and
their
doctor
to
make
the
best
decision
for
their
children
for
their
future.
If
there
are
adverse
effects
because
of
the
vaccine
or
whatever
it
is
whatever
procedure
they
have
it's.
I
feel
like
it's
best
for
that
parent
to
bear
the
responsibility
and
not
be
forced
upon
by
some
bureaucracy.
J
J
It
creates
a
negative
feeling
about
the
vaccine
and
let
us
remember
it
is
approved
for
emergency
use
and
in
this
pandemic,
emergency
is
what
we
had
so
in
that
sense
system
is
working,
but
we
should
not
use
the
unapproved
effect
or
calling
it
experimental
if
it
is
then
once
again,
60
million
plus
people,
maybe
80
million,
having
been
vaccinated.
That
has
been
a
successful
experiment.
J
Secondly,
I
would
like
to
say
to
my
good
friend,
admire
your
commitment
to
liberty
and
freedom,
and
I
think
that
is
true.
The
country
was
founded
on
those
values
and
it
is
the
greatest
country
in
the
world
and
as
an
immigrant.
That's
why
I'm
here
yet
the
same
religion
that
we
are
allowing
religious
exemption,
for.
J
I
think
the
same
religion
also
tells
us
to
love
thy
neighbor
and
protect
others,
and
in
that
situation
to
say
I'm
not
going
to
take
the
vaccination
and
even
if
I
get
then
effectively
covet,
I'm
still
going
to
come
to
school,
I'm
still
going
to
go
to
work
and
do
those
things.
Then
that's
not
loving
your
neighbor,
that's
not
how
it
is
interpreted.
I
find
a
conflict
in
that
and
I
think
we
should
realize
that
it's
a
matter
of
doing
the
right
thing
in
the
in
the
face
of
a
pandemic
or
a
calamity.
J
H
I
I
The
representative
or
chairman
halsey's,
but-
and
I
understand
your
passion
for
this
bill
and
and
certainly
the
passion
for
chair
lady
smith,
as
she
intends
to
give
us
a
period
of
time
to
to
see
that
the
proper
protections
are
in
place.
But
I
would
ask
that
we
amend
make
an
amendment
to
the
amendment
to
make
it
cover
both
items.
One
and
two.
I
So
I'd
make
that
in
the
form
of
emotion,
because
I
think
this
is
this
was
an
amendment.
Apparently
that
was
sent
to
us
from
the
education
and
were
that
to
be
brought
up.
I
think
it
would
have
been
excuse
me
properly
assigned
to
health
committee,
so
as
to
keep
me
from
being
confused
about
the
intent
of
this
amendment.
I
would
make
that
that.
L
M
M
M
I
don't
know
that
it
would
materially
change
the
bill
to
have
it
go
to
a
health
subcommittee
in
addition
to
this
committee.
So
I
respect
the
the
chairman's
response,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
parliamentary
rules
allow
us
to
be
able
to
verbally
amend
the
bill
unless
it's
at
the
will
of
the
chairman
and
and
to
my
knowledge
I
am
a
late,
I'm
usually
here
every
time,
but
I
hadn't
heard
this
happen
so
far
this
year.
Thank
you,
chairman.
I
And
and
I've
I've
repeatedly
done
this
in
my
committee,
which
may
make
me
ineligible
to
ever
be
a
chairman
again
but
but
and-
and
I
think
I've
done
it
for
you,
sir
and
in
past.
Yes,
I've
done
it
for
everybody
else.
I
guarantee
you,
but
anyway
the
the
the
point
is
that
this
isn't.
This
is
an
issue
and
and
the
the
situations
are
that
that
we
we
have
a
responsibility.
I
The
advocacy
of
of
our
citizens
and
the
advocacy
that
comes
from
from
the
point
of
view
of
education
and
from
health
are
totally
different,
and
so
the
the
folks
that
have
been
coming
to
me
and
talking
about
it
are
folks
that
take
care
of
our
children
and
not
in
an
education
environment
but
in
a
health
environment.
So
so
this
is
something
that's
somewhat
new
and,
and
I
myself
and
am
confused,
I
was
enamored
with
the
amendment
to
sunset,
both
portions
and
I
thought
that's
where
we
were
and,
of
course,
anytime.
I
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
All
right,
we
are
back
in
session.
Okay,
we
do
have
a
proper
motion
and
a
proper
second.
It
is
not
the
purview
of
this
committee
to
make
verbal
amendments
on
the
fly,
and
so
an
amendment
would
be
untimely
filed.
So
without
objection
we
are
going
to
roll
this
bill
to
the
heel
of
the
calendar
with
the
intent
on
hearing
it
tomorrow.
B
D
D
B
D
D
Okay,
that's
fine,
and-
and
so
I
just
like
to
move
forward
on
on
house
amendment,
7289
and
I'll
explain
the
best
I
can
and
if
any
of
the
members
need
copies,
I've
got
a
three-page
slide
that
shows
the
breakdown.
If
you're
a
visual
type
person
understands
things
better.
That
way
like
I
am,
then
it
may
help
so
I'll
try
to
explain
the
best.
I
can
all.
D
So
what
this
amendment
does
creates
an
opioid.
Excuse
me,
an
opioid
abatement
fund
to
dedicate
certain
funds
from
opioid,
related
settlements
and
other
resources
to
abatement,
creates
an
opioid
abatement
council
that
will
obtain
broad
input
regarding
the
best
use
of
abatement
funds
and
make
funding
decisions,
and
it
establishes
a
procedure
to
allow
the
state
to
enter
into
settlement
agreements
to
resolve
the
claims
of
all
governmental
entities
to
maximize
the
funding
available
in
those
agencies.
D
This
legislation
allows
the
state
the
attorney
general's
office
in
the
or
the
state,
the
abatement
fund,
which
is
abatement
council,
which
is
going
to
be
set
up
of
it's
going.
It's
going
to
consist
of
15
members.
Okay,
the
governor
is
going
to
be
able
to
pick
four
of
those
members.
The
senate
speaker
is
going
to
be
able
to
pick
four.
The
house
speaker
is
going
to
be
able
to
pick
four
and
the
counties
are
going
to
have
a
choice
of
two
members
and
the
cities
are
going
to
have
a
choice
of
one.
D
D
D
D
D
Okay,
so
it's
essentially
going
to
be
a
40
split,
60
state,
40
counties,
cities
and
the
most
important
part
about
this
is
that
this
this
is
by
agreement.
Okay,
we've
worked
hard
over
the
past
couple.
Weeks
worked
with
the
wilton
army
mike
mike
harrison
worked
with
beth
winstead
I
worked
with
george
strantsch.
Gerard
is
an
attorney
here
in
nashville
that
represents
the
majority
of
the
litigating
district
attorneys
cities
counties
across
the
state
okay.
D
So
this
split
started
out
where
the
cities
and
counties
were
going
to
get
15
percent
state
was
going
to
get
15
and
70
was
going
to
roll
through
this
abatement
council,
but
after
everybody
got
together,
sat
down
and
and
we've
discussed
it
over
the
past
couple
weeks.
This
is
the
split
everybody's
agreed
on,
so
I
can
come
in
from
this
committee
and
tell
you
all
that
there's
not
been
one
person
that
I've
spoken
to
that.
D
I
have
not
that
we
have
not
worked
with
meaning
the
attorney
general's
office
myself
and
those
folks
who
represents
the
counties
and
the
cities
and
the
litigating
parties
across
the
state
so
there.
So
I
couldn't
sit
here
and
tell
you
that
there's
one
person
that's
opposed
to
this,
because
I'm
not
aware
of
one
person,
that's
supposed
to
disagree.
D
So
that's
what
we've
come
up
with.
That's
just
your
10
000
foot
overview
of
what
this
amendment
that
makes
the
bill
does
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
all
may
have.
But
it's
only
regards
to
these
four
entities
that
I
had
spoke
of
the
four
distributors.
Those
monies
will
come
into
that
to
the
abatement
council.
They'll
be
split
up
in
those
those
ways
and
we'll
end
up.
You
know
split
doling
out
the
monies
that
way.
A
A
So
if,
if
we
could,
mr
chairman
have
some
assurances
as
to
how
this
money
will
be
distributed,
as
well
as
to
read
into
the
record
and
speak
into
the
record,
the
intent
of
this
council
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
creating
a
an
urban
fund
of
you
know,
entitlement
or
whatever.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
this
money
is
used
appropriately.
Thank
you,
sir.
F
D
B
B
E
Yes,
mr
chairman,
herbert
slatery
honored
to
be
the
attorney
general
of
our
great
state.
Thank
you
for
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
important
bill.
We've
actually
been
involved
with
this
since
for
about
three
and
three
and
a
half
years
trying
to
reach
this
point,
and
we
really
need
your
help
on
on
taking
it
across
the
finish
line,
but
as
to
representative
smith's
particular
question
the
the
funds
that
there
will
be
15
percent
that
will
go
to
the
counties
and
then
the
counties
and
I'll
say
counties.
E
Local
subdivisions
have
a
total
say
over
that.
There
are
no
strings
attached
to
that
15
bucket,
but
the
35
percent
that
that
is
coming
out
of
the
of
the
abatement
book.
It
has
to
be
spent
to
abate
the
problem,
and
so
those
funds
and
and
the
local
subdivisions
will
divide
that
up
in
accordance
with
certain
certain
criteria
they
might
use.
E
E
Now
I
may
say
one
other
thing:
what
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
is
creating
a
structure
everybody's
been
focusing
on
the
the
settlement
with
the
three
distributors
and
one
manufacturer,
johnson
and
johnson
as
they
should
it.
That's
that's
an
important
settlement,
but
there
are
going
to
be
other
settlements,
one
of
which
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
receive
some
money
in
the
probably
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
but
those
monies
will
flow.
That's
a
states
only
deal,
so
those
money
would
flow
into
this.
E
This
same
abatement
fund
that
will
be
managed
by
the
treasurer
and
it
will
be
dispersed
by
the
abatement
council
along
the
lines
that
representative
smith
is
is
referring
to
to
to
solve.
The
problem
purdue
pharma
is,
is
has
been
in
chapter
11
bankruptcy
for
a
number
of
months
and
they
have
filed
a
reorganization
plan
that
will
be
voted
on
and
we
think
there
will
be
a
somewhat
of
a
distribute
distribution
from
purdue
pharma
by
the
end
of
the
year.
E
That's
our
best
guess
those
funds
will
be
those
funds
dedicated
to
abatement
will
come
in
into
this
structure.
So
it's
a
structure
designed
to
address
not
only
this
one
settlement
but
but
but
a
lot
of
the
other
settlements
so
that
we
have
a
a
good
structure
in
place
and
we
know
that
those
funds
will
be
used
to
solve
the
problem.
A
E
E
Thank
you.
He
did
a
very
good
job.
It's
complicated
and
I
apologize
for
that.
But
it's
the
most
complicated
thing
we've
worked
on,
probably
anywhere
in
the
country.
To
be
honest
with
you,
if
you
ask
attorneys
general
but
okay
there,
as
as
chairman
farmer
said,
there
are
three
buckets,
there's
a
15
bucket
and
then
there's
a
70
bucket.
E
A
So
let
let
me
recite
this
back
to
you
for
the
purpose
of
us
understanding
this,
so
15
is
local,
but
15
of
the
total
is
local,
no
strings
attached.
15
percent
of
state
no
strings
attached,
70
percent
is
for
abatement.
35
of
that
70
goes
to
locals.
That's
earmarked
for
abatement
and
65
goes
to
the
state
for
abatement.
A
B
Right,
thank
you
and
yeah
just
to
follow
up
on
that.
That
was
the
a
couple
of
questions
that
I
had
from
my
my
county
as
well
on
that
it's
the
35
percent
of
the
70
percent,
which
gets
into
39.5
that's
used
on
the
abatement.
My
question
to
you
is
that
15
that
goes
back
to
the
locals.
They
could
use
that
funds
towards
their
own
attorney's
fees.
That
they've
had
is
that
correct.
B
E
Of
the
same,
it
has
to
be
used
for
abatement
it'll
flow
through
the
through
the
council,
who
who
will
decide
what
particular
programs
or
projects
or
treatments
or
etc
actually
work
to
solve
the
problem.
And
then
they
will
allocate
those
funds
proportionately
to
to
solve
the
problem.
And
we
all
know
that
there
are
certain
areas
that
have
really
have
a
deep,
deep
problem
in
certain
areas
that
don't
but
they'll
take
all
that
into
consideration.
M
E
E
M
I
guess
the
confusion
that
I
have
is.
First
of
all,
there
are
two
things
that
are
important
to
me
in
my
district.
One
was
my
general
was
one
of
the
district
attorneys
much
like
the
other
two
that,
before
the
attorney
general
wanted
to
be
and
your
office
wanted
to
be
involved
in
opioid
lawsuits,
they
settled
laws,
they
they
filed
suit
on
behalf
of
counties,
and
so
it's
my
understanding
that
all
those
lawsuits
that
are
out
there
as
it
relates
to
one
pharmaceutical
company
endo
all
those
lawsuits
are
not
a
part
of
this
settlement.
E
Well,
if
I
did
say
that
I
was,
I
wasn't
accurate,
I
was
saying
that
the
settlement
funds
that
the
state
gets
from
other
settlements
will
go
into
this
fund.
We
have
settled
one
against
a
consulting
firm.
For
instance,
that's
a
states
only
deal
that
will
go
into
this
go
into
this
fund
purdue
pharma,
a
portion
of
that
will
go
into
this
fund
and
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
there
are
a
number
of
settlements
that
probably
will
go
into
this
fund,
not
just
that
one
distributor,
j
and
j
deal.
M
Okay,
so
when
you
were
commenting
that
that
money-
those
monies
for
these
when
you
said
additional,
suits
or
additional
things
outside
the
four,
the
three
distributors
and
one
manufacturer
in
this
agreement-
I
I
misunderstood
you
to
think
that
those
other
ones
that
were
carved
out
for
those
three
would
also
go
to
the
abatement
but
you're
talking
about
the
another
or
a
third
pool
of
of
entities
outside
the
original
district
attorney's
filings,
and
this
federal
filing
as
it
relates
to
the
the
three
to
three
distributors.
One
manufacturer.
M
E
E
So
I
think
it
was
just
a
a
question
of
negotiating
and
discussing
who
had
the
better
claims
and
and
reaching
some
sort
of
an
agreement.
Now
a
lot
of
those
conversations.
Frankly-
and
you
know
we
were
not
not
a
party
too,
because
those
are
those
are
decisions
for
you
all
to
make.
We
thought
it's
how
you
wanted
the
money
to
flow
and
who
had
control
over
it
and
that
kind
of
oversight.
M
Thank
you
for
the
record.
This
is
the
first
discussion
I've
had
and
the
42nd
district
has
had
about
the
distribution
of
those
monies,
and
I
was
not
involved
in
the
discussions.
I'm
just
hearing
them
second
hand.
I
suppose
it
concerns
me
a
little
bit
that
you
weren't
involved
with
those
general.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
being
here
general
and
thank
your
hard
work
on
this,
and
I've
heard
too
it's
a
moving
target
all
over
the
place,
but
after
talking
with
some
of
the
folks
with
the
county,
mayor's
association,
I
think
they're
all
pretty
well
satisfied
the
way
this
has
worked
out
in
the
way.
I
understand
it.
The
the
first
15
percent
that
goes
to
the
cities
and
counties
can
be
used
in
any
way.
I
think
the
way
mike
harrison
says
you
could
plant
flowers
around
the
courthouse
with
that.
E
J
E
Mr
chairman,
with
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
introduce
michael
leftwich
who's,
an
executive
council
in
our
office,
who
has
worked
on
that
there's
a
there
actually
is
a
13-page
set
of
projects
and
programs
that
have
been
worked
on
nationally
that
the
council
could
select
from.
But
he
could
probably
speak
that
a
little
more
specifically.
L
It
has
been
important
to
have
dedicated
funds
to
abatement
for
the
companies
we're
dealing
with
and
in
in
talking
to
the
subdivisions
and
working
out
these
agreements
and
that
list
that
we're
working
off
of
nationally,
as
what
is
abatement
includes
everything.
Obviously
it
has
treatment,
it
has
educational
programs,
it
has
drug
courts
and,
as
the
general
mentioned,
it
is
a
13
page
list.
The
council
doesn't
need
to
adopt
that
full
list,
but
we
have
identified
dozens
and
dozens
of
types
of
programs,
evidence-based
programs
that
would
qualify
as
abatement.
F
E
Well
it
there
are
a
lot
of
lawsuits.
We
agree.
Some
of
those,
the
ones
that
you're
talking
about
are
also
the
ones
that
representative
williams
raised.
That
involves
the
the
da's
that
they
have
a
lawsuit
several
lawsuits
against
endo,
one
manufacturer.
Those
would
continue.
The
lawsuits
against
purdue
pharma
are
there
in
bankruptcy.
So
all
those
claims
are
now
in
the
bankruptcy
court.
They'll
decide
how
those
go,
but
those
lawsuits
will
be
eventually
dismissed.
E
There'll
be
a
number
of
states
and
a
number
of
counties
that
would
sign
on
at
that
level
and
then
there'll
be
a
then
there'll
be
a
second
step
where
the
local
subdivisions
are
asked
to
sign
on
in
order,
and
then
the
third
step
is
whether
the
companies
have
to
decide.
Are
there
enough
states-
and
are
there
enough
local
subdivisions
to
sign
on
in
order
for
us
to
agree
to
this
global
settlement
and
they're
trying
to
get,
as
michael
said,
they're
trying
to
get
global
peace?
E
One
particular
release
provision,
but
in
or
but
if
we
do,
then
the
settlement
and
this
gets
complicated.
I'm
sorry,
but
but
there
that
settlement
has
certain
bonus
provisions
and
certain
what
we
call
moratorium
each
of
those.
If
we
don't,
if
we
don't
have
a
sufficient
number
or
if
lawsuits
are
filed
later
the
number
the
amount
of
money
coming
to
the
state
goes
down.
E
With
that
particular
release,
we
get
all
the
money
we
get
a
hundred
percent
of
it
as
I
the
way
it's
structured
right
now,
which
means
that
the
local
subdivisions
will
get
100
of
the
money
and
we
won't
be
subject
to
it,
declining
or
being
reduced
or
held
up.
I'm
sorry
for
the
complexity,
but
I
hope
that
addresses
your
question.
K
K
K
L
Yes,
the
issue
is
the
the
settlement.
Agreements
are
not
finalized
at
this
stage,
and
one
of
the
remaining
issues
to
be
put
into
the
final
agreements
with
these
three
distributors
in
johnson
johnson
is
how
what's
called
the
subdivision
bucket,
would
work
generally
the
expectation
and
is,
and
I'm
almost
certain
it
would
work
out.
This
way
is
that
metrics
would
be
used
based
on
the
opioid
crisis.
K
L
What
we
would
hope
happens
is
between
now
and
and
everything
being
finalized
or
implementation
is
that
within
tennessee
the
state
and
the
local
subdivisions
would
come
to
an
agreement
about
a
number
of
remaining
things
that
would
then
replace
the
default
provisions.
That's
what
we're
anticipating
will
happen,
that's
what
we
hope
would
happen,
and
in
that
case
we
would
have
very
much
have
a
tennessee
specific
plan
for
how
the
subdivision
15
is
allocated
among
the
subdivisions.
L
So
that's
what
we
want
where
we
are
right
now
is
we
don't
yet
have
that
agreement,
and
we
also
don't
have
a
final
agreement
with
the
national
settlement,
so
the
priority
would
be
you're
going
to
start
with
default
provisions
in
the
national
settlement
and
the
subdivisions
will
determine
what
that
breakout
is.
We
would
like
to
pretend
to
be
very
tennessee
specific,
have
a
an
agreement
with
the
state
and
the
subdivisions
to
be
specific
about
allocation
for
the
subdivisions.
L
That's
what
we
would
hope
would
happen
and
that's
what
would
control
that
subdivision
bucket
either
way
we're
talking
about
subdivisions
not
only
being
involved
but
really
driving
how
that
allocation
split
is
done.
We
have
worked
a
lot
at
the
state
level,
how
that's
done,
but
we
don't
want
to
dictate
about
the
subdivisions
on
that
part
of
it.
We
want
to
work
things
out,
and
hopefully
we
will
have
a
specific
tennessee
agreement.
K
N
This
bill.
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about.
It
seems
like
to
me
you
know,
being
from
northeast
tennessee.
I
know
that
tennessee,
the
opioid
epidemic
hit
all
the
way
across
the
state.
There's
no
question
about
that,
but
being
from
northeast
tennessee,
it
hit
us
extremely
hard
and
it
seems
like
so
far.
You
know
the
the
cure
that
the
state
has
come
up
with
is
more
opioids,
and
so
this
bill
concerns
me.
It
not
only
the
bill,
but
just
there's
a
lot
of
unanswered
questions
here.
I
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
more.
N
N
You
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
ways:
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
money
and
there's
a
lot
of
ways
that
this
money
can
get
wasted,
and
you
know
we
hear
all
the
time
you
know
going
through
the
state
and
just
just
it
can
really
create
a
big
problem.
So
I'm
very
very
concerned
I'd
like
to
have
more
time
to
to
sort
of
see
you
know
how
this
money
will
be
distributed
on
the
council.
I
I
think,
there's
you
know
there
needs
to
be
accountability.
N
E
If
I
could
respond
just
to
one
issue
that
you
brought
up,
the
legislators
in
all
likelihood
could
not
serve
on
the
council,
because
it
would
be
a
second
position
of
trust
under
the
constitution
which
you're
not
allowed
to
do
so.
We
thought
about
that,
but
but
actually
were
advised
by
legislative
legal,
that
that
was
not
something
that
they
wanted
to
do,
because
there
would
be
a
second
appropriation
of
money
in
that
instance,
and
there's
a
second.
So
that's
something
that
we
couldn't
do,
but
I
just
wanted
to
address
that.
B
Thank
you.
We
have
multiple
people
still
left
on
the
list.
Would
you
be
able
to
come
back
tomorrow
to
answer
more
questions
or
go?
Go
through
other
meet
some
other
members
and
and
get
some
of
their
concerns
taken
care
of.
I
appreciate
that.
Okay,
so
without
objection,
we're
gonna
go
back
into
session.
M
I
don't
want
to
get
out
ahead
of
the
committee,
but
I
don't
think
the
the
amendment
language
is
going
to
change,
but
it'll
be
in
the
dashboard
and
the
public
can
see
it
if
we
adopt
the
amendment
probably
and
then
roll
it.
I
didn't
know
if
the
chairman
might
want
to
do
that,
since
it's
timely
filed
and
the
members
and
our
colleagues
could
be
able
to
see
that
amendment
language
on
the
bill.
M
B
D
And
I-
and
I
found
this
out
the
the
slide-
show
that
I
had
mentioned.
We
can't
have
these
props
behind
us.
Evidently
new
house
rule,
but,
as
I
understand
it's
been
emailed
to
every
member,
if
you
all
just
take
a
look
at
that,
it
may
help
you
kind
of
digest
and
understand
how
these
monies
flow
and
when
we
come
back
tomorrow,
we
may
be
on
the
same
page
and
I
won't
make
it
as
clear
as
mud.
So
all.
B
B
L
L
E
B
All
right
any
questions
on
the
amendment:
okay,
seeing
none,
we
are
voting
on
all
those
favor
say:
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
we're
back
on
the
bill's
amendment
amended
any
questions
on
the
bill,
seeing
none.
We
are
voting
on
house
bill
370
as
amended.
All
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
bill
goes
on
to
government
operations?