Committee debates how to handle Health and Welfare amendment, moves to report bill "as introduced"

Members of the legislative committee debated how to handle a Health and Welfare Committee amendment to a pending bill that would add an appropriation, and moved to report the bill "as introduced" rather than adopt the competing amendment.

The discussion centered on procedure: whether the committee should strike the Health and Welfare Committee's report or instead recommend a vote against that report after both committees speak. A staff member identified in the record as Committee counsel explained the usual order for handling competing committee reports: "the rule is that you take the committee that was first referred to is the first question," and that if one committee adds funds and another removes them, a later victory would return the bill to its original form.

Committee members debated practical options: one option was to keep both committee reports on the record, have a Health and Welfare member explain why their amendment sought to add funding, and then have this committee recommend voting against the Health and Welfare report. A Senate secretary's office staff member pointed out the office's practice on small appropriations: "in the senate secretary's office, we have no de minimis. We see this either spend money or raise a revenue, whether it's a nickel or $10,000,000. We don't make a value judgment on DeMenus." The size of the appropriation mentioned in the discussion was $25,000 as an example of the funding Health and Welfare had proposed to include.

At one point a motion was made "not to amend the bill, but to move it as introduced favorable," according to the transcript. Several members indicated support with the phrase "Yes, with explanation," but the transcript does not include a roll-call tally or a named mover and seconder for the motion.

Why it matters: how the committee resolves competing committee reports will determine whether the appropriation language remains in the bill or is left to a subsequent budget action. Committee members explicitly discussed leaving the funding to the budget process rather than inserting competing appropriations into the bill itself.

The committee then moved on to hear a witness on humanities funding.

Ending: The transcript records the committee's procedural discussion and the motion to report the bill favorably as introduced, but does not include a definitive final vote tally or a clearly recorded mover/second; those details were not specified in the provided transcript excerpt.