Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Assistance Reorganization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas House approves reorganization of public‑assistance statutes after debate over two amendments
Summary
House Bill 20‑27, a reorganization of Kansas public‑assistance statutes, passed 88‑35 after lawmakers rejected an amendment to restore food assistance eligibility for people with drug‑felony convictions and a separate amendment to loosen a legislative restriction on Medicaid expansion.
The Kansas House of Representatives passed House Bill 20‑27, a reorganization of state public‑assistance statutes, by a vote of 88 in favor and 35 opposed.
Supporters said the bill simply rearranges existing law to make rules for programs such as TANF, SNAP and child‑care subsidies easier for agencies and recipients to find and use. Representative Bauercamp, the bill’s carrier, told the House: "there is no policy changes in this bill, it is simply a reorganization of the statute." The bill separates general eligibility rules from program‑specific provisions and groups topics such as fraud investigations, drug screening, support rights, limited power of attorney and electronic benefit card details into clearer sections.
Lawmakers debated two proposed amendments during floor consideration. Representative Carr offered an amendment to allow individuals with felony drug convictions to receive food assistance; the House clerk read the amendment, which would have added language that "a person shall not be denied food assistance solely because such person has been convicted of a drug related felony." The rules chair ruled the amendment not germane to the bill’s stated subject of statutory reorganization, explaining that germane practice requires an amendment be related to the subject of the proposal: "The principal test, according to our house rules of germane is the relationship to the subject of what the bill is about. Every amendment proposed must be germane to the subject of the proposal or to the paragraphs to be amended." Because the amendment would have made a substantive policy change rather than a reorganization, the ruling removed it from consideration.
Representative Weichel offered a second amendment that would have struck language limiting Medicaid expansion to the Legislature and thereby allowed either the governor or the Legislature to effect expansion. Supporters argued the strike would restore flexibility and help close the state’s coverage gap. Representative Weichel described the gap and who it affects: "This is the coverage gap that Medicaid expansion has left behind." Opponents said the amendment would alter decision‑making authority and urged a no vote. A roll call on the amendment resulted in 37 in favor and 84 opposed, and the amendment failed.
After debate and the failed amendment attempts, the House adopted the committee report and voted to pass HB 20‑27, 88 to 35. The bill's proponents said the reorganization is intended to help state agencies and beneficiaries navigate a statute that has been amended many times over the years and to make the law easier to read without changing program eligibility.
The House record shows the committee report was adopted earlier in the day and the bill was advanced to final action before passage. The bill will proceed through the standard enrollment process for transmission to the governor.
