Budget Bill. (HB30)

Introduced By

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Budget Bill. Appropriations of the Budget submitted by the Governor of Virginia in accordance with the provisions of 2.2-1509, Code of Virginia, and to provide a portion of revenues for the two years ending respectively on the thirtieth day of June, 2017, and the thirtieth day of June, 2018.

Status

04/20/2016: Passed the General Assembly

History

DateAction
12/17/2015Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16103286D
12/17/2015Referred to Committee on Appropriations
02/21/2016Reported from Appropriations with amendments (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/23/2016Read first time
02/23/2016Budget amendments available
02/24/2016Motion for Special and Continuing Order (98-Y 0-N)
02/24/2016VOTE: AGREE TO MOTION (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2016Passed by for the day
02/25/2016Read second time
02/25/2016Uncontested committee amendments agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 1 #1h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 33 #1h agreed to (97-Y 1-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (97-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 106 #3h agreed to (79-Y 17-N 1-A)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (79-Y 17-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 106 #4h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 120 #1h agreed to (65-Y 34-N 1-A)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (65-Y 34-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 138 #3h agreed to (71-Y 28-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (71-Y 28-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 138 #4h agreed to (79-Y 21-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (79-Y 21-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 138 #5h agreed to (99-Y 1-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (99-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 139 #15h agreed to (57-Y 41-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (57-Y 41-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 295 #1h agreed to (67-Y 31-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (67-Y 31-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #1h agreed to (66-Y 34-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (66-Y 34-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #2h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #3h agreed to (98-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #4h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #5h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #6h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 306 #11h agreed to (93-Y 7-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (93-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 315 #1h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 388 #1h agreed to (73-Y 26-N)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 393 #4h agreed to (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 398 #2h agreed to (73-Y 26-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (73-Y 26-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 424 #1h agreed to (67-Y 32-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (67-Y 32-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 426 #1h agreed to (92-Y 7-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (92-Y 7-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 453 #2h agreed to (93-Y 6-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (93-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment Item 3-6.05 #1h agreed to
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G to Item 4-5.04 #5h agreed to
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 4-5.04 #2h agreed to (64-Y 34-N 1-A)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (64-Y 34-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G. to Item 4-5.04 #6h no action taken
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 4-9.02 #1h agreed to (97-Y 2-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (97-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Contested committee amendment Item 4-14 #1h agreed to (89-Y 10-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (89-Y 10-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Kilgiore to Item 40 #1h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Bell, R. P to Item 132 #2h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Simon to Item 139 #21h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Bell, J.J. to Item 139 #22h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Campbell to Item 319 #1h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate O'Quinn to Item 369 #1h agreed to (63-Y 34-N 1-A)
02/25/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (63-Y 34-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Simon to Item 388 #2h withdrawn
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G to Item 4-1.01 #1h agreed to
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G. to Item 4-1.02 #1h agreed to
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Hugo to Item 4-2.01 #2h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Hugo to Item 4-5.03 #4h withdrawn
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G to Item 4-5.03 #2h agreed to
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G. to Item 4-5.04 #3h withdrawn
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate LaRock to Item 4-5.04 #7h withdrawn
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Simon to Item 4-6.07 #1h agreed to (64-Y 35-N 1-A)
02/25/2016VOTE: PASS BY (64-Y 35-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Motion to pass by amendment by Delegate Marshall, R.G to Item 4-14 #3h agreed to
02/25/2016Engrossed by House as amended
02/25/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (100-Y 0-N)
02/25/2016VOTE: AGREE TO (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016VOTE: PASSAGE (98-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Passed House (98-Y 2-N)
02/25/2016Amendment by Delegate Kilgore to Item 40 #1h withdrawn
02/26/2016Constitutional reading dispensed
02/26/2016Referred to Committee on Finance
03/01/2016Reported from Finance with Senate amendments substituted for House amendments (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Read third time
03/02/2016Reading of amendments waived
03/02/2016Committee amendments agreed to
03/02/2016Passed Senate with amendments (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Senate amendments rejected by House (0-Y 94-N)
03/02/2016VOTE: REJECTED (0-Y 94-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Senate insisted on amendments (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2016Senate requested conference committee
03/02/2016House acceded to request
03/02/2016Conferees appointed by House
03/02/2016Delegates: Jones, Cox, Landes, O'Bannon, Greason, Torian
03/02/2016Conferees appointed by Senate
03/02/2016Senators: Norment, Hanger, Howell, Saslaw, Newman, Ruff, Wagner
03/11/2016Conference report agreed to by House (91-Y 8-N)
03/11/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (91-Y 8-N) (see vote tally)
03/11/2016Conference report agreed to by Senate (38-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
03/25/2016Enrolled
03/25/2016Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB30ER)
03/25/2016Signed by Speaker
03/28/2016Signed by President
03/28/2016Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 3/28/16
03/28/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, April 10, 2016
04/10/2016Governor's recommendation received by House
04/20/2016Placed on Calendar
04/20/2016House concurred in Governor's recommendation #'s 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17, 24-27 (100-Y 0-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (100-Y 0-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #7 (34-Y 66-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #10 (36-Y 63-N 1-A)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (36-Y 63-N 1-A)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #12 (35-Y 64-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (35-Y 64-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #18 (34-Y 66-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #19 (34-Y 66-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (34-Y 66-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #20 (38-Y 62-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (38-Y 62-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #21 (34-Y 64-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (34-Y 64-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #22 (37-Y 63-N)
04/20/2016VOTE:REJECTED (37-Y 63-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #23 (34-Y 65-N 1-A)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #28 (31-Y 67-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (31-Y 67-N)
04/20/2016House concurred in Governor's recommendation #29 (90-Y 10-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (90-Y 10-N)
04/20/2016House rejected Governor's recommendation #30 (34-Y 65-N 1-A)
04/20/2016VOTE: REJECTED (34-Y 65-N 1-A)
04/20/2016Senate concurred in Governor's recommendations #'s 1-6, 13-17, 24-27 (35-Y 3-N)
04/20/2016Reconsideration of Governor's recommendation agreed to (38-Y 1-N)
04/20/2016Senate concurred in Governor's recommendations #'s 1-6, 13-17, 24-27 (36-Y 3-N)
04/20/2016Senate rejected Governor's recommendation #8 (18-Y 21-N)
04/20/2016Senate rejected Governor's recommendation #9 (18-Y 21-N)
04/20/2016Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation #11 (35-Y 4-N)
04/20/2016Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation #29 (39-Y 0-N)
04/20/2016G Governor's recommendation adopted in part
04/20/2016Reenrolled
04/20/2016Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/20/2016Signed by President as reenrolled
04/20/2016Communicated to Governor

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 19 clips in all, totaling 4 hours.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): FROM THE COMMITTEE. AS MANY AS OF YOU KNOW, CRAFTING THE BUDGET FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IS NO EASY TASK. THE COMMITTEE UNDERTAKES WITH GREAT INTEREST AND DOING WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL VIRGINIANS. SINCE THE BUDGET WAS INTRODUCED SOME 10 WEEKS AGO, WE HAVE CONDUCTED A SERIES OF POINT HEARINGS ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH IN ORDER TO RECEIVE INPUT FROM OUR CITIZENS INTO WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES ARE. SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING HERE 43 DAYS AGO, THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AND I GOT TOGETHER AND STARTED DISCUSSING WHAT DIRECTION THE COMMITTEE SHOULD TAKE. WE BEGAN BY FULL VET GO THE INTRODUCED BUDGET. RECOGNIZING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ADOPTING A BUDGET ULTIMATELY RESTS WITH US, WE KNEW THAT AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF THAT SUCCESS WAS TO INVOLVE ALL 100 MEMBERS OF THIS CHAMBER, FULLY ENGAGED IN OUR SMALL GROUP BRIEFINGS IN WHICH EACH AND EVERY MEMBER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT, TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE THE STAFF AND TO PARTICIPATE IN DEPTH IN WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BUCKET. WITH THAT INPUT, WE CHARTED SEVERAL GOALS AND PRINCIPLES. MR. SPEAKER, CAN I JUST PLEASE ASK THE MEMBERS, IF THEY COULD JUST WAIT UNTIL I'M DONE IF THEY WANT TO TALK. I DON'T HEAR AS WELL AS I USED TO AND BACKGROUND NOISE SOMETIMES WILL CONFUSE ME.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): WITH THE INPUT OF THE HOUSE, WE CHARTED SEVERAL GOALS AND PRINCIPLES THAT WOULD SERVE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMMITTEE'S BUDGET DELIBERATIONS. THAT FIRST PRINCIPLE, MR. SPEAKER, IS ONE THAT I KNOW IS NEAR AND DEAR TO YOUR HEART, AND THAT IS STRUCTURALLY BALANCED IN OUR APPROACH TO BUDGET. AND THIS BUDGET IS NO DIFFERENT. AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, WE INCLUDE $605.6 MILLION IN THE RAINY DAY FUND DEPOSITS, REPLENISHING THE FUND WHICH WAS USED AS INTENDED DURING THE PAST RECESSION. THIS BALANCE AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR '17 WILL INCREASE TO $843 MILLION. ON OUR STATE REVENUES HAVE GUN TO REBOUND, AND THEY ARE GROWING, THE HISTORIC RATE IS 6% AND IN FACT '16, '17 AND '18 WELL AVERAGE 3.3%, WHICH IS 17 TENTHS OF 1% LESS THAN THAT WE'VE AVERAGED THE LAST 15 YEARS. IT IS IMPERATIVE TO ENSURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE CASH RESEVERANCE RESEVERANCE -- AS WE CONTINUE TO RECOVER. WE WILL SET ASIDE $309.4 MILLION IN A RESERVE FUND TO GUARD AGAINST ANY FURTHER DOWNWARD REVISION IN THE REVENUE FORECAST. TWO PURPOSES. FIRST AS A HEDGE AGAINST DOWNTURN IN THE REVENUES. SECOND, IF OUR ECONOMY DOES PERFORM AS EXPECTED, THEN WE WILL EARMARK DOLLARS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES AND STATE SUPPORTED EMPLOYEES FOR A 3% COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT IN THE FIRST YEAR OF OUR BUDGET. IN ADDITION, WE WILL SET ASIDE $28.2 MILLION, MR. SPEAKER, TO ADDRESS RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL COME FROM YOUR SPEAKER'S WORKFORCE COMMISSION IN 2018. YOU MAY RECALL THAT FOUR YEARS AGO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTED LEGISLATION THAT PUT US ON A PATH TO FULLY FUND 100% OF THE RATES THAT WERE SET BY THE VRS THE ACTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES. BUDGET I'M VERY PROUD TO SAY, WORKING WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE MEMBERS IN THIS CHAMBER, WE WILL BE TWO YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AT 100% FUNDING OF THE RATE ESTABLISHED BY VRS FOR OUR STATE AND STATE SUPPORTED EMPLOYEES. AND NEXT YEAR, THE SECOND YEAR OF OUR BUDGET, WE WILL HAVE 100% OF THE RATE FOR THE TEACHERS. THAT IS A MONUMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENT, IN MY OPINION, AND THEN WE WEREN'T SATISFIED WITH THAT, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE THEORY OR THE THOUGHT OF STRUCTURALLY BEING BALANCED, WE SET ASIDE $189.5 MILLION TO ACCELERATE THE DEFERRAL THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 2010 AND 2011. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT AT THE TIME, WE ACTUALLY CUT FUNDING TO K THROUGH 12 THE FIRST TIME IN MEMORY THAT ANYONE COULD REMEMBER, AND WE HAVE SET UPON A PATH SINCE THEN TO FIX AND TAKE OUT THE GIMMICKS THAT WE HAD TO USE TO FURTHER THE -- NOT TO FURTHER CUT OUR SERVICES BACK IN 2010. FINALLY, BECAUSE WE WERE PRUDENT IN ESTABLISHING A COLLAR ON NONWITHHOLDING 11, LAST YEAR WE RECOGNIZED THE LARGEST SURPLUS IN STATE HISTORY BECAUSE OF THAT APPROACH. THIS YEAR WILL BE NO DIFFERENT. ANY DOLLAR ABOVE THE COLLARED AMOUNT WILL GO TOWARDS A DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR REDUCTION IN THE DEBT THAT WILL BE AUTHORIZED IN HOUSE BILL 1344. ONCE WE MAKE OUR RAINY DAY DEPOSITS AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUNDS DEPOSIT. THE BUDGET INCLUDES OTHER AREAS OF HIGH PRIORITY WHERE THE COMMITTEE DID GOOD WORK, FIRST IS THE AREA OF PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE BUDGET RECOMMENDS AN ADDITIONAL $897.7 MILLION OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD COMPARED TO THE CURRENT BUDGET. THAT AN AMOUNT, $272 MILLION WILL FLOW BACK TO SCHOOL DIVISIONS FROM THE LOTTERY YOU MAY RECALL THAT UP UNTIL PROCEEDS FUND. 2010, 40% OF THAT FUND WAS SENT BACK TO SCHOOLS BASED ON A PER PUPIL AMOUNT AND BASED ON THE COMPOSITE INDEX, BUT THERE WAS A REQUIRED LOCAL MATCH AT THAT POINT IN TIME. AND REESTABLISHING THIS POLICY, THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FELT VERY STRONG HI THAT WE SHOULD UNWIND THOSE HAS THEORY DOLLARS WITH GENERAL FUND DOLLARS AND SEND IT BACK WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED AS FAR AS A MATCH. KEEP IN MIND THAT PRIOR TO 2010, YOU COULDN'T USE 100% OF THAT MONEY FOR OPERATING EXPENSES. SO THERE IS A 50% REQUIREMENT OF NONRECURRING COSTS AND A 50% REQUIREMENT FOR ONGOING COSTS. WITHOUT HAVING A -- THIS WILL SAVE OUR GOVERNMENTS $136.5 MILLION. IN TOTAL OUR SCHOOL WILL GET MUCH NEEDED FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOCATE DOLLARS WHERE THEY THINK THEY'RE BEST SERVED AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR CITIZENS GET TAX RELIEF BY NOT HAVING TO MATCH THESE DOLLARS THAT COME FROM RICHMOND. IN ADDITION, THE COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE $83.3 MILLION FOR 2% INCENTIVE FUND TO PAY FOR LOCALLY APPROVED PAY RAISES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES. OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE PROVIDED FLEXIBILITY IN SCHOOL DIVISIONS IN MATCHING THESE FUNDS AND THIS YEAR WE WILL ALLOW SCHOOL DIVISIONS WHO ELECT TO MAKE A PAY RAISE IN THE FIRST YEAR, THEY CAN USE THOSE ACTIONS TOWARDS THE REQUIREMENT IN 2018. ANOTHER PRIORITY INVESTMENT IS A CONTINUING OUR COMMITMENT TO ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION. I AM PLEASED THAT THIS BUDGET WILL ALLOCATE $290 MILLION TO CONTINUE MAKING HIGHER HE DID A PRIORITY. INCLUDED THIS AMOUNT IS $127.4 MILLION THAT IS DECIDE TO MODERATE TUITION IN OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BY ENSURING TUITION FOR VIRGINIA STUDENTS, WERE NOT INCREASED BY MORE THAN 3% OVER THE BIENNIUM. IN ADDITION, WELL ALLOCATE $40 MILLION IN CASE, AND $20 MILLION IN BONDS TO FUND A COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH INITIATIVE PURSUANT TO HOUSE BILL 1343. I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE A GAME CHANGER IN THE WAY THAT VIRGINIA DOES RESEARCH. LAST YEAR, MR. SPEAKER, WE WERE IN COLLABORATION WITH THE SENATE AND GOVERNMENT, WE MADE SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENTS IN MENTAL HEALTH REFORM. BUILDING ON WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED LAST YEAR, ADDITIONAL FUNDING WILL BE INCLUDED TO EXPAND SERVICES UNDER THE GAP PROGRAM TO SERVE INDIVIDUALS UP TO 80% OF THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. THIS WILL PROVIDE COORDINATED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR AN ADDITIONAL 3600 INDIVIDUALS ACROSS THE COMMONWEALTH. IN ADDITION, WE'LL ADD DOLLARS FOR TWO NEW PACK TEAMS. THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS WILL FOCUS ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF VIRGINIA'S MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS. WELL PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 150DD WAIVER SLOTS OVER THE BY ENIUM. 100 OF THESE WILL BE USED IN 2017 DIRECTED TO THE TOP 100 INDIVIDUALS ON THE CHRONOLOGY DD WAIT LIST. ANOTHER HOW PRIORITY IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. ON THE HOUSE PASSED A NUMBER OF YEARS THIS SESSION TO FURTHER COMBAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. BYPASSING THIS LEGISLATION WAS NOT ENOUGH, SO WE'VE INCLUDED $2 MILLION OVER THE BIENNIUM FOR LOCAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GRANTS, ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION IN DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE SAFE, PERMANENT HOUSING SOLUTIONS. IN CLOSING, THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FOLLOW WILL FOCUS OUR RESOURCES ON KEEPING OUR PROMISES TO THE CORE OF SERVICES OF GOVERNMENT AND I BELIEVE THE WORK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS ACHIEVED THE GOALS THAT WERE SET OUT WHEN WE SAT DOWN COLLECTIVELY AS A BODY OF 100 AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MR. SPEAKER, I HOPE IT WILL BE SESSION. PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO ENDORSE THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL 30.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE OBJECTIONS TO THE

[Unknown]: Clerk: MR. SPEAKER, THERE ARE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. A TOTAL OF 28 OBJECTIONS TO VARIOUS COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL 30. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS. PAGE 2 OF THE AMENDMENTS, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 1, NO. 1H. PAGE 2, OBJECTION TO ITEM 1, NO. 1H. NEXT OBJECTION, IS ON PAGE 9, PAGE 9, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 33, NO. 1H. CONTINUING ON TO PAGE 33, THE NEXT OBJECTION ON PAGE 33 HAS BEEN RAISED FOR ITEM 106, NO. 3H. PAGE 33, ITEM 106, NO. 3H. ALSO ON THAT SAME PAGE, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 106, NO. 4-H. CONTINUING ON TO PAGE 37, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 120, NO. 1H. PAGE 37, ITEM 120, NO. 1H. CONTINUING FORWARD TO PAGE 47, PAGE 47. OBJECTION TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, ITEM NO. 138, NO. 3H. PAGE 47, ITEM 138, NO. 3H. ALSO OBJECTION FOR ITEM NO. 138, NO. 4-H ON THAT SAME PAGE. NEXT PAGE. PAGE 48. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 138, NO. 5H. FORWARDING ON TO PAGE 60 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 60 TO ITEM 139, NO. 15H. PAGE 60, ITEM 139, 15H. A SIGNIFICANT -- ACCORDING TO PAGE 118. PAGE 118 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AN OBJECTION ON 118 HAS BEEN RAISED FOR ITEM 295, NO. 1H. PAGE 118, ITEM 295, NO. 1H. NEXT TWO PAGES AHEAD, 120, PAGE 120. THERE ARE A SERIES OF OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THE ITEMS 300 -- ALMOST ALL ITEMS. ITEM 306, 1H, 2H, 3H, 4-H, 5H, 6H. THAT'S ON PAGES 120 TO 123. OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO ITEMS 306, 1H, 2H, 3H, 4-H, 5H, AND 6H. CONTINUING TO PAGE 126, COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 306, INCOMES 11H. ON PAGE 126, ITEM 306, 11H. NEXT PAGE, WOULD BE 141. PAGE 141, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 315, NO. 1H. PAGE 141, OBJECTION TO ITEM 315, 1H. THEN ANOTHER LARGE FORWARDING OVER TO PAGE 166. PAGE 166. AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 388, NO. 1H. PAGE 166, OBJECTION TO ITEM 388, 1H. PAGE 168, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 393, NO. 4-H. PAGE 168, ITEM 393, 4-H HAS BEEN OBJECTED TO. PAGE 170, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ITEM NO. 398, NO. 2H. PAGE 170, ITEM 398, 2H. A COUPLE PAGES AHEAD TO 175. PAGE 175, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON THAT PAGE TO TWO ITEMS. ITEM 424, NO. 1H. AND ITEM 426, 1H. PAGE 175, OBJECTIONS TO ITEM 424, 1H AND 426, 1H. FORWARDING AHEAD TO PAGE 189, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 187 TO ITEM 453, NO. 2H. 187, ITEM NO. 453, NO. 2H. THEN A SIGNIFICANT FORWARDING AGAIN TO PAGE 221, PAGE 221. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 3-6.05, NO. 1H. PAGE 221, ITEM 3-6.05, 1H HAS BEEN OBJECTED TO. ON PAGE 227, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 4-5.04, 2H. ON PAGE 227, OBJECTION TO 4-5.04, 2H. THE LAST TWO OBJECTIONS ON PAGE 229, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 4-9.02, 1H. 229, 4-9.02, 1H. THE LAST OBJECTION TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, PAGE 234, PAGE 234, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 4-14, NO. 1H. THAT'S THE 28 OBJECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE FRONT DESK.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: ARE THERE FIRST OBJECTIONS? THE GENTLEMAN FROM SUFFOLK, MR. JONES.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): I WOULD MOVE THAT THE REMAINING COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO OBJECTION BE AGREED TO EN BLANC.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE REMAINING COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO OBJECTION BE AGREED TO EN BLANC? [VOTING] THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE MOTION IS AGREED SHALL THE BILL PASS? TO. -- SHALL THE AMENDMENTS BE AGREED TO?

[Unknown]: Clerk: ARE WE READY TO GO?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: REALREADY DID THAT, THAT -- WE ALREADY DID THAT. THE CLERK WILL PROCEED TO REPORT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR WHICH THERE WAS AN OBJECTION.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURNING TO PAGE 2 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL 30, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO PAGE 2 TO ITEM NO. 1, NO. 1H. WILL THE PERSON EXPLAIN THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE, OR TAKE THE FLOOR FOR A QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM SUFFOLK, MR. JONES.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): THAT WOULD BE ME.

[Unknown]: I THINK THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS THAT I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT I MAY ULTIMATELY CAST MY VOTE FOR BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR THE BODY TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THIS IS A LANGUAGE AMENDMENT THAT APPEARS TO BE LEGISLATING THROUGH THE BUDGET. AND MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT IN HERE AND WHY WASN'T IT A BILL THAT WE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED INSTEAD?

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED, I THINK, THREE YEARS AGO, FOUR YEARS AGO, AND THAT THIS IS NOT LEGISLATING THROUGH THE BUDGET. THERE ARE MANY THINGS CONTAINED THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET IN THAT QUOTE/UNQUOTE GIVE DIRECTION. THIS IS A CONTINUING PART OF THE WORK PRODUCT FOR THAT GROUP. YOU ACTUALLY SIT ON THIS JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE, ALONG WITH CHAIRMAN WARE, WE DISCUSSED IT, AND DELEGATE MASSIE, WE DISCUSSED THIS DURING A SESSION, AND I THINK US WORKING CLOSELY TOGETHER, THE TWO COMMITTEES, FINANCE AND APPROPRIATIONS, FELT THAT THIS WOULD BE A VERY APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO GIVE TO THIS ENTITY, TO LOOK AT NAP CREDITS.

[Unknown]: FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I YIELD. I ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2012, AND I WAS WONDERING, GIVEN THAT WE HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH FROM THE COMMITTEE, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT ANYTHING CONCRETE THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT HAS LED US TO SOME POLICY CHANGE IN THE COMMONWEALTH? I COULDN'T HAVE GIVEN YOU A BETTER QUESTION TO ASK ME. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT QUESTION. WELL, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT HASN'T DONE A WHOLE LOT. THE ONLY PERSON THAT'S REALLY PUT ANYTHING IN DEALING WITH IT HAS BEEN MYSELF. WE HAD ONE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE LONG-TERM CARE TAX CREDITS, NO ONE WANTED TO TACKLE IT BUT I PUT A BILL IN TWO YEARS AGO. HAD ONE DEALING WITH THE LAND PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS, I PUT IN LAST YEAR. I HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT IN MY CHASING GOOD PUBLIC POLICY WHEN IT COMES TO HOW WE SPEND OUR TAX DOLLARS. SO I HAVE, AND WHAT WE HOPE IS THAT WITH DELEGATE PHAROAH, MASSIE, WARE AND MYSELF WE'LL GET MORE FOCUSED IN THE INTERIM IN COMING TO A CHAMBER NEAR YOU SOON, YOU WILL HAVE A GOOD PACKAGE OF ITEMS TO CONSIDER. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PACKAGE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURNING TO PAGE 9 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, PAGE 9. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 33, NO. 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM SHAWSVILLE, MR. TUSCAN ZERO. WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA --

[Unknown]: I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION RELATING TO ITEM 33, 1H. ITEM 33, 1H DIRECTS JLARC TO STUDY THE EDP AND THE REASON I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH, BUT I THOUGHT WE PASSED THIS IN-HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 7, AND I'M WONDERING WHY IT IS SHOWING UP IN THE BUDGET AS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE HERE. MR. SPEAKER, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION. THE GENTLEMAN'S CORRECT, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION SEVEN, THE GENTLELADY FROM BEDFORD PATRONED, DID PASS BOTH THE HOUSE INABILITY AND THE SENATE AS WELL. THE DIFFICULTY AROSE WHEN JLARC ACTUALLY CAME TO US, THOSE OF US ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, AND SAID THAT THEY BELIEVED THEY NEEDED TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IT GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO ACCESS RECORDS RELATED TO FACILITIES, EMPLOYEE INFORMATION AND RECORDS. BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, THEY DID BELIEVE THEY NEEDED THIS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THEY COULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE STUDY WAS RELATED TO THE EDP WAS ANTICIPATING. AND I HOPE THAT ANSWERS THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION. IT DOES ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? BARACK VOTING [. Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 97, NOS ONE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AGENT IS AGREED AGENT -- AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURNING TO PAGE 33 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS ON HOUSE BILL 30, PAGE 33, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM NO. 106, NO. 3H. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 106, 3H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 79, NOS 17.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: ON THAT SAME PAGE, MR. SPEAKER, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 106, NO. 4-H. MR. SPEAKER? I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THAT OBJECTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE OBJECTION IS REMOVED. SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURNING TO PAGE 37 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, PAGE 37, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 120, NO. 1H. PAGE 37, 120, 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO MY OBJECTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, I HAVE MADE THIS OBJECTION, WHICH ELIMINATES -- THE AMENDMENT ELIMINATES $2 MILLION IN NEW FUNDING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR ENERGY IN VIRGINIA. IT WAS EARMARKED TO KICKSTART WHAT IS AN MORIBUND SOLAR INDUSTRY AND TRY TO MAKE US A LEADER IN THAT INDUSTRY. AND IT IS MONEY THAT IS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE VIRGINIA SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND IF WE PASS THIS AMENDMENT, THAT AUTHORITY WILL HAVE NO MONEY TO OPERATE WITH. LET ME REMIND THE BODY, WE CREATED THAT AUTHORITY JUST LAST YEAR. 79 OF US IN THIS CHAMBER VOTED FOR IT. THERE WAS ONLY ONE NO VOTE IN THE SENATE. THE SPEAKER HAS MADE HIS APPOINTMENTS, THE SENATE MADE ITS APPOINTMENTS, AND THEY ARE READY TO GO. WE SAID TO THE WORLD LAST YEAR WHEN WE CREATED THIS AUTHORITY, AND TO THE MARKETPLACE, I MIGHT ADD, WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING OUR ACT TOGETHER ON SOLAR ENERGY. AND NOW, WHAT DOES THIS AMENDMENT TELL THE WORLD AND THE MARKET? IT TELLS US WE WERE JUST KIDDING. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED. LAST YEAR WE TOOK A BABY STEP FORWARD IN THE WORLD OF SOLAR ENERGY. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TWO STEPS BACK. TALK ABOUT A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A SCAN DERED RESPONSIBILITY. THIS SESSION WE HAVE TAKEN SEVERAL ACTIONS TO SUPPORT AND GROW INDUSTRIES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO US HERE, LIKE OUR WINE INDUSTRY AND OUR BEER INDUSTRY AND DATA CENTERS. BUT SOLAR, WHICH IS ONE OF THE KEYS TO OUR NATION'S FUTURE AND IT'S AN INDUSTRY THAT IS GROWING AT A FURIOUS CLIP AROUND THE COUNTRY, NOW WE'RE TELLING THE WORLD WE'RE JUST NOT INDEPENDENT, WE'RE BACKING OFF WHAT WE SAID LAST YEAR. LAST YEAR WAS JUST A HEAD FAKE. YOU KNOW WHO IS WATCHING US HERE TODAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN? THE SIERRA CLUB, SURE, LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION, SURE. BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHO IS WATCHING US. GOOGLE. AMAZON. MICROSOFT. MARS. THE WORLD'S LEADING COMPANIES WHO HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR AND VERY PUBLIC THAT THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING BUSINESS IN STATES THAT AREN'T INTERESTED IN SOLAR AND OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGIES. THEY HAVE BEEN USING THEIR CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE TO TELL STATES, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER ON SOLAR. AND WE'RE ABOUT TO POKE THOSE COMPANIES IN THE AYE AND TAKE -- EYE AND STEP BACKWARD. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT ABOUT CREATING JOBS. YOU KNOW WHO ELSE IS WATCHING US? THE GUY IN SOUTH SIDE LOOKING FOR WORK. THE COAL MINOR LOOKING FOR A JOB SINCE COAL JOBS ARE DWINDLING. THE WOMAN IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA WHO LOST HER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING POSITION. THEY ARE WATCHING AND THEY ARE WONDERING TODAY, WHY DOES MARYLAND HAVE TWICE THE NUMBER OF SOLAR JOBS AS VIRGINIA? WHY DOES NORTH CAROLINA HAVE THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF SOLAR JOBS AS VIRGINIA? IS THERE SUN ANY DIFFERENT THAN OURS? NO. IT'S BECAUSE THOSE STATES HAVE FOCUSED ON GROWING THIS INDUSTRY, AND ON CATCHING THIS SOLAR WAIVE WAIVE. THOSE STATES HAVEN'T CREATED AND THEN DeFUNDED THEIR PROGRAMS WHICH ARE SUPPOSEDLY MEANT TO MOVE THE STATES FORWARD. WE'VE HAD ENOUGH DIFFICULTY HERE IN VIRGINIA, MR. SPEAKER, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MAKING HALTING BABY STEPS FORWARD ON SOLAR ENERGY. LET'S NOT GO BACKWARD NOW. I URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT AND VOTE NO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM HEN RIGHT ZERO, MR. O'BANNON.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAT 94.

[Unknown]: I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S PASSION. HELP JUST SAY WE HAVE DONE MANY THINGS FOR SOLAR. DELEGATE MILLER HAD A BILL ON SOLAR. WE LOOKED AT THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT AND AS IT TURNS OUT, THIS WAS WITH BIG GOVERNMENT-RELATED BUILDINGS AND THE ACTUAL COST OF DOING THIS NEEDED SUPPLEMENTAL MONEY. SO THIS IS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. WE'VE GOT A GOOD BUDGET HERE THAT'S GOT MORE FOR SCHOOLS, IT'S GOT A LOT OF THINGS YOU LIKE, DOESN'T HAVE EVERYTHING YOU LIKE. I JUST HOPE THAT IF THE COST IS COMING DOWN, THE MILLION DOLLARS WILL GO FARTHER NEXT YEAR. I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM MANASSAS, MR. MILLER.

Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAT 94.

Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas): I'D LIKE TO LET THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN KNOW NOT TO WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT THOSE GREAT AWESOME HIGH-TECH COMPANIES THAT LOOK AT EACH INDIVIDUAL STATE IN THE UNION TO DECIDE WHERE TO DO BUSINESS BECAUSE THE BILL THAT WE PASSED THIS SESSION HAS SOME OF THOSE EXACT SAME BUSINESSES THAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM FALLS CHURCH MENTIONED, AND THEY'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT WHAT WE'VE JUST DONE, AND THEY'RE NOW VERY EXCITED ABOUT COMING TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. SO I WOULD URGE THIS BODY TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT -- ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. SORRY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES, 65, NOS 34.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: FROM PAGE 37, FORWARDING AHEAD TO -- FROM 37 TO 47, PAGE 47, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON ITEM NO. 138, NO. 3H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROANOKE CITY.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT? THE FLOOR.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS

[Unknown]: A LOT OF GOOD HAS BEEN DONE THIS YEAR. THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, DELEGATE ALBO SAVED US FROM THE REIGN OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE. THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD IN THIS BUDGET. BUT I HOPE WE WOULD CONSIDER POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION SUPPORTS TO PBIS,. THERE'S A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS EVIDENCE BASED PROGRAM THAT ALREADY EXISTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH IN 45 DIFFERENT SCHOOL DIVISIONS. THE FOCUS HERE IS ON CLASSROOMS, NOT COURTROOMS. IN OCTOBER OF 2014, VIRGINIA RECEIVED A FIVE-YEAR SCHOOL CLIMATE TRANSFORMATION GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. FOR $3.5 MILLION. AND THE REASON WHY WE WON THAT GRANT IS BECAUSE OF A REPORT THAT CAME OUT THAT SHOWED THAT VIRGINIA ACTUALLY LED THE NATION IN STUDENT REFERRALS, AND THAT MINORITY STUDENTS AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WERE MORE LIKELY THAN ANY OTHER STUDENTS IN THE NATION TO BE SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED. SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING CLASSROOMS, NOT COURTROOMS, BY REJECTING THIS AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM HENRICO, MR. MASSIE.

Del. Jimmie Massie (R-Richmond): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT? >>

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Jimmie Massie (R-Richmond): THIS AMENDMENT LEVEL FUNDS, THE POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION AND SUPPORT, $600,000 EACH YEAR, THE SAME AS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2016. THE PROPOSED FUNDING IN THIS -- THAT REELIMINATE WAS A 84% INCREASE AND HAS BEEN REPURPOSES, THE MONEY HAS NOT GONE AWAY, IT HAS BEEN REPURPOSES INTO THE $272 MILLION THAT WILL BE GOING TO SCHOOLS THROUGH THE LOTTERY ON A PER PUPIL AMOUNT THAT LOCAL ITS DON'T HAVE TO MATCH. IN ADDITION, MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAS DIEM THAT SIZED THIS BY REDUCING THEIR BUDGET ALMOST 50% IN CHAPTER 665 WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROGRAM. SO, MR. SPEAKER I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BODY TO ADOPT THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES, 71. NOS 28.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: ON THAT SAME PAGE, 47, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 138, NO. 4-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROANOKE CITY, MR. LAST YOU'LL.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE. FIRST YOU'D LIKE TO THANK HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND THE HOUSE OF APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE FOR INVESTING AND BELIEVING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S A SIZABLE INVESTMENT IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. PART OF YOUR EDUCATION AGENDA THAT YOU EVEN OUTLINED EARLIER THIS YEAR IN A PRESS CONFERENCE TALKED ABOUT THAT. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE DO LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. BUT THIS IS ABOUT TRAINING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY TEACH AND HELP RAISE OUR CHILDREN. TEACHERS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTERS MAKE VERY LOW WAGES, AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY SUPPORTED HERE IN THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGH CAREER AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. THE FUNDING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE WOULD HAVE ABOUT UPWARDS OF A THOUSAND NEW CREDENTIALS THAT WOULD BE OFFERED IN THIS FIELD. THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUDOUN, DELEGATE GREASON, EVEN SAID THAT THERE ARE A STUNNING LAWSUIT OF 2.5 SCHOOLS BEING BUILT EACH YEAR IN HIS LOCALITY AND 2400 ADDITIONAL STUDENTS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF WELL QUALIFIED PRE-K INSTRUCTORS. THIS MONEY WILL HELP PUT PEOPLE TO WORK AND THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE RAISING OUR CHILDREN. SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL REJECT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUD LOUDOUN, MR. GREASON.

Del. Tag Greason (R-Potomac Falls): I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE GENTLEMAN. I WILL TELL YOU, I THINK THIS IS A PRUDENT AMENDMENT THAT I'D LIKE YOU ALL TO CONSIDER AND THEN ULTIMATELY ACCEPT. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN THIS AMENDMENT IS, IN THE INTRODUCED BUDGET, IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTRODUCED BUDGET, WE'RE PUTTING $3.35 MILLION IN THE FIRST YEAR, AND $4.05 MILLION IN THE SECOND YEAR, WE'RE USING THOSE FUNDS FOR THE EARLY CHILDHOOD FOUNDATION IN A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. ONE OF THEM IS THE CREDENTIALING PROGRAM THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND HEARD FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROANOKE CITY. THEY'RE ALSO VERY CLOSELY TIED TO HOUSE BILL 46 AND 47. THE COMMITTEE ON EARLY EDUCATION WILL BRING STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND DECIDE, WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES IN EARLY EDUCATION, AND THE SECOND INITIATIVE, HOUSE BILL 47, WHICH YOU ALL VOTED FOR, WAS THE PILOT PROGRAM TO LEARN WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE EARLY EDUCATION SYSTEM AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM A PILOT PROGRAM. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, MR. SPEAKER, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS, WE'RE REDUCING MONEY IN THAT FIRST YEAR SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GO AND STUDY THE PROBLEM THROUGH HOUSE BILL 46 AND HOUSE BILL 47, COME BACK IN THE SECOND YEAR AND USE THAT MONEY MORE EFFICIENTLY. WE THOUGHT WE WERE PUTTING THE CART A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE HORSE BY PUTTING ALL THAT MONEY IN YEAR ONE, BEFORE WE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE POSED IN HOUSE BILL 46 AND 47. MR. SPEAKER, FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD ASK THE BODY TO ADOPT THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [VOTING]

Del. Tag Greason (R-Potomac Falls): Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 79, NOS 21.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURNING THE PAGE TO PAGE 48, OBJECTION HAS BEEN MADE TO ITEM 138, NO. 5H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM SUSSEX.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, TODAY I'M GOING TO LET DELEGATE KIRK SAVE HIS LOVELY VOICE AND I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THIS OBJECTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 99, NOS ONE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: MOVING AHEAD IN THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO PAGE 60, PAGE 60, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 60 TO ITEM 139, NO. 15H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. BULOVA.

Del. David Bulova (D-Fairfax): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT. THE FLOOR.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS

Del. David Bulova (D-Fairfax): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, LET ME FIRST BEGIN BY SAYING THAT I'M PROUD OF THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE ON PUBLIC EDUCATION THIS YEAR, AND VERY PROUD TO BE A PART OF THAT LARGER DISCUSSION, AND I ALSO KNOW AND RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE HONEST DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT WHAT THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF PARENTAL CHOICE OUGHT TO BE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF I KNOW THAT ALL OF US WANT TO VIRGINIA. HAVE CHOICES FOR OUR CHILDREN, AND THE QUESTION REALLY COMES DOWN TO ENSURING THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY FOR PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT. AND THAT ALL OF OUR CHILDREN ARE WELL PREPARED FOR THE 2,117th CENTURY ECONOMY. IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE 46 INDIVIDUALS WHO VOTED AGAINST H.B. 389, WHICH CREATED THE PARENTAL CHOICE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT, I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT. IF NOT, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. FIRST, THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE MONEY CAN BE EXPENDED IS EXTREMELY BROAD. IT INCLUDES TRANSPORTATION. IT INCLUDES VARIOUS EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, VARIOUS CONSUMABLE EDUCATIONAL SUPPLIES AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER ITEMS. AND IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE SPENT ON K THROUGH 12 EDUCATION. IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SAVED FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITIES. SO BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS AMENDMENT, PLEASE ASK YOURSELF, WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO ENSURE THAT THE CHILD IS ACTUALLY RECEIVING A QUALITY K THROUGH 12 EDUCATION WITH OUR PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS? THE SECOND, THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNDER THIS AMENDMENT COULD BE CONSIDERABLE. LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR RECEIVING APPLICATION PACKAGES, DEPOSITING THE FUNDS INTO A SAVINGS ACCOUNT, AND RECEIVING, REVIEWING AND APPROVING RECEIPTS AND INVOICES FOR FUNDS SPENT ON THE ACCOUNT. THESE ARE NO MINOR TASKS. AND OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, MR. SPEAKER, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HAS MADE A VERY CONCERTED EFFORT TO AVOID UNFUNDED MANDATES IN OUR SCHOOLS. AND I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT POLICY TO TAKE. IF WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THESE MANDATES, WE OUGHT TO BE WILLING TO FUND THOSE. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN THAT WILL BE TAKEN ON BY OUR LOCALITIES THAT WILL TAKE LOCAL DOLLARS AWAY FROM OUR TEACHERS AND STAFF. IF WE GO THIS ROUTE, MR. SPEAKER, I ALSO HOPE THAT AT LEAST WE WOULD DO SO EQUITABLY. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES. AN INDIVIDUAL'S ABILITY TO PAY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LOCATE ALL THE'S ABILITY TO PAY. AND YET THE FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED TO PARENTS BASED ON THE STATE SHARE FOR THAT LOCALITY. AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ARE A STRUGGLING PARENT IN FAIRFAX, OR SURREY, YOU WILL ONLY RECEIVE IN THE RANGE OF $2,500 TO $3500 WHILE IF YOU ARE A WELL OFF PARENT IN A LOW LCI LOCALITY, YOU CAN RECEIVE UPWARDS OF $7,000. THAT'S NOT EQUITABLE. MR. SPEAKER, FINALLY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES THAT HOUSE BILL 389, ON WHICH THIS AMENDMENT IS BASED, SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS MONEY TO BE USED FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. THIS CONTRADICTS ARTICLE 8, SECTION 10 OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WHICH PROHIBITS FUNDING FOR SECRETARYIAN USES. RATHER THAN THIS AMENDMENT, I HOPE IT WILL CONTINUE THE OTHER EXCELLENT WORK IN THIS BUDGET THAT GIVES OUR SCHOOLS THE RESOURCES AND THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THEY NEED TO SUCCEED. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUDOUN, MR. GREASON.

Del. Tag Greason (R-Potomac Falls): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIR FAX, WHO IS ONE OF THE MORE THOUGHTFUL MEMBERS ON EDUCATION ISSUES, AND USUALLY COMES TO A DEBATE WELL PREPARED WITH THE RIGHT FACTS. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT A FEW THINGS, MR. SPEAKER, ON THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT. THE GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT PURPOSES OF THE MONEY AND THE ABILITY FOR A PARENT TO EDUCATE THEIR CHILD. HE TALKED ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON THE LOCALITIES. REMEMBER, THE LOCALITY IS KEEPING 100% OF THE LOCAL DOLLARS WHEN THIS ACCOUNT IS SET UP. HE DID TALK ABOUT THE LCI INEQUITIES, PROBABLY COULD AGREE ON LCI INEQUITIES ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. AND, MR. SPEAKER, LASTLY HE TALKED ABOUT RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS DOES OR DOESN'T RUN AFOUL WITH THE CONSTITUTION. I THINK THE POINT OF THIS AMENDMENT, HOWEVER, THOUGH, IS WE'VE PASSED THIS BILL, AND THIS AMENDMENT IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY PUT THE MECHANISM IN PLACE. YOU MAY DISAGREE WITH THE UNDERLYING COMPONENTS OF HOUSE BILL 389, BUT IF WE DON'T PASS THIS AMENDMENT, THE MECHANICS OF SETTING IT UP WILL DISAPPEAR AND THAT IS JUST BAD GOVERNING. SO I WOULD ASK THE BODY TO ADOPT THE ORIGINAL AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] >> Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Tag Greason (R-Potomac Falls): Clerk: AYES 57, NOS 41.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: CONTINUING FORWARD ON A NUMBER OF PAGES, ALL THE WAY UP TO PAGE 118, PAGE 118. AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 118 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS FOR ITEM 295, NO. 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] THE ROLL. Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 67, NOS 31.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: MR. SPEAKER, TURNING TWO PAGES FORWARD TO PAGE 120, BEGINNING OF A SEROUS OF OBJECTIONS IN THIS SECTION. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 120 TO ITEM 306, NO. 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM SHAWSVILLE, MR. TUSCAN ZERO.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO THE OBJECTION OR THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, THIS IS A ONE OF A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THIS TOPIC, AND I THINK IT'S -- IF YOU LISTENED YESTERDAY TO WHAT WE HAD TO SAY ON THE FLOOR AND A LOT OF WHAT'S BEEN SAID SO FAR TODAY, THERE'S NO DOUBT THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS IN THIS BUDGET. AT THE SAME TIME, THERE ARE A LOT OF MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. AND OF ALL THE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN THIS BUDGET, THIS IS THE BIGGEST ONE. AND LET ME TELL YOU WHY. SO IF YOU LOOK ON PAGE 120, AT ITEM 306, 1H, IT TELLS YOU THE STORY OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF NOT ACCEPTING MEDICAID EXPANSION. YOU CAN SEE IN FISCAL YEAR '16 TO '17, WE HAD TO PUT $38 MILLION IN THE BUDGET, AND IN '17 AND '18, $46 MILLION IN THE BUDGET, AND YOU SEE THOSE LETTERS THERE. IT SAYS, TF. ALL OF US KNOW THAT THAT MEANS GENERAL FUND. GF. THAT MEANS OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT COME INTO THE TREASURY AND GET ALLOCATED THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. IF YOU WOULD LOOK BELOW THAT, HOWEVER, AND YOU SEE THE CHANGES, YOU SEE IN THE FIRST YEAR THERE'S THE ELIMINATION OF AND IN THE SECOND YEAR, THERE'S $707 MILLION. THE ELIMINATION OF $2.297 BILLION. AND THEN IT SAYS, MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, NGF. THAT MEANS NONGENERAL FUND. SO THAT SHOWS YOU THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS BECAUSE THE NONGENERAL FUND IS MONEY, WHILE IT IS OURS, IS COMING BACK TO US VIA WASHINGTON D.C. AS OPPOSED GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND THAT'S THE GRAND MISSED OPPORTUNITY IN THIS BUDGET. WE'VE TALKED IN THE PAST ABOUT HOW THIS IS OUR MONEY AND WE WOULD LIKE IT BACK. AND WE WOULD LUKE IT BACK TO HIP PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE NOW, BETWEEN 240,000 AND 400,000 PEOPLE. WE'D LIKE IT BACK BECAUSE IT WILL BE A JOB CREATOR. 30,000 JOBS. WE'D LIKE IT BACK IN ORDER TO FREE UP MONEY IN THE BUDGET THAT IS OTHERWISE BEING SPENT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TAKING ON MEDICAID EXPANSION. THE GOVERNOR IN HIS BUDGET BOOKED $157 MILLION, $157 MILLION IN SAVINGS BECAUSE HE BUILT MEDICAID EXPANSION INTO HIS BUDGET, AND HE HAD A WAY TO FIX ANY CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAD ABOUT THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF POSSIBLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOT LIVING UP TO THEIR SIDE OF THE BARGAIN. SO THIS IS THE GRAND MISSED OPPORTUNITY, MR. SPEAKER. AND THIS IS A AN AMENDMENT WE SHOULD ALL VOTE NO ON TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO KICK THIS OPPORTUNITY AWAY. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA, MR. LANDES.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, ITEM 306, 1H IS A FIRST OF A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS YOU'LL SEE RELATED TO MEDICAID AND IMMEDIATE CAUSED EXPANSION THAT THE GOVERNOR INCLUDED IN HIS BUDGET. THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY RESTORES THE GENERAL FUND'S FOR THE MEDICAID PROGRAM, AND ELIMINATES THE FEDERAL FUNDS BASED ON WHAT THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED, UNDER EXPANSION OF MEDICAID UNDER THE ACA. THIS IS A COMPANION AMENDMENT TO ITEMS 315, 343, AND 477, WHICH UNWIND MEDICAID EXPANSION. MR. SPEAKER AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHY WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE BUDGET AND WHY WE BELIEVE, FROM THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE STANDPOINT, AS WE'VE HAD THIS DEBATE IN THE PAST, WHY WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE VIRGINIA DOWN THE ROAD THAT MANY OTHER STATES HAVE GONE. FIRST OF ALL, AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID, SOMETIMES YOU JUST GET HANDED THINGS THAT YOU JUST CAN'T HELP USE, WHEN OTHER STATES HAVE MADE THIS MISTAKE, AND ARE UNFORTUNATELY SEEING THE IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGETS AND IT'S NOT IN A POSITIVE WAY. I'VE MENTIONED ON THIS FLOOR MICHIGAN, OHIO, AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THEY'RE HAVING. AND THIS IS -- ISN'T ALWAYS A PARTISAN ISSUES. THERE'S SOME REPUBLICAN AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS WHO HAVE EXPANDED. I THINK THEY'RE JUST WRONG. AND IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN THAT'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, HIS STATE HAS SHOWN A TREMENDOUS INCREASE, ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE ESTIMATES WERE, IN A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR STATE BUDGET. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE ABOUT IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID CLEARLY AND WE'VE STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES ON THIS FLOOR, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONSERVATIVE STRUCTURALLY BALANCED AND A TARGETED BUDGET WHEN IT COMES TO HELPING THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMONWEALTH. IN KENTUCKY, THIS IS THE ARTICLE THAT WE JUST RECEIVED, KENTUCKY'S MEDICAID PROGRAM FACES A $611 MILLION SHORTFALL. THAT'S OVER HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. AND THAT'S AT 90% WHERE MEDICAID EXPANSION IS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE ACA CURRENTLY. WE'VE MADE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS, EVEN WITH MEDICAID EXPANSION, OUT OF THE BUDGET, IN THIS BUDGET AND WE DID IT IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY, HELPING PEOPLE THROUGH THE HEALTH SAFETY NET IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE AND I JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S NOT FISCALLY PRUDENT TO PUT IN AN EXPANDED PROGRAM THAT IN OTHER STATES IS SHOWING TREMENDOUS INCREASE, NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGET. AND IF WE WERE TO GO DOWN THAT SAME PATH, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO OUR CITIZENS AND ASK THEM FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, THAT MEANS TAX INCREASES, OR WE WOULD HAVE TO CUT OUR BUDGET IN OTHER ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE AREAS. ABLE TO DO IN THIS BUDGET IS EXPAND AND INCREASE WHAT THE GOVERNOR DID, OVER $70 MILLION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION. ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE AGREE IS PARAMOUNT, OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO OUR CITIZENS. IF WE EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF THING WE'D BE ABLE TO DO IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE, AS OUR MEDICAID BUDGET CURRENTLY CONTINUES TO EXPAND, IT CONSUMES MORE AND MORE OF OUR BUDGET. SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS THAT WE DO NOT NEED TO EXPAND AND WHY WE HAVE THESE AMENDMENTS IN OUR BUDGET, AND I HOPE THE HOUSE WILL SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT AND THE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WE'LL SEE RELATED TO MEDICAID EXPANSION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 66, NOS 34.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: CONTINUING ON THAT SAME PAGE, 120, OBJECTIONS HAS BEEN RAISED, COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ITEM 306, NO. 2H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THE PERSON EXPLAINING THIS AMENDMENT RISE FOR A QUESTION? YES, SIR.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM HENRICO, MR. O'BANNON.

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN IF HE COULD EXPLAIN WHAT THIS

[Unknown]: YES, SIR. AMENDMENT DOES. THE LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES GO THROUGH A REBASING PROGRAMS. DMAS CHANGED THE RULES IN MID CYCLE AND DID NOT -- RESULTED IN THIS AMOUNT NOT BEING PROVIDED TO THEM AS PART OF THE PROCESS. THIS SIMPLY SQUARES THEM UP AND SAYS THAT THEY WILL NEED TO MOVE FORWARD UNDER THE RULES THAT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEFORE MEDICAID CHANGED THE RULES.

Del. John O'Bannon (R-Richmond): I ASSUME THIS MAKES UP FOR SOME DEFICIENCY THEY'RE GETTING IN REIMBURSEMENTS UNDER MEDICAID? DEFENSIVE THAT RIDE? I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE FACILITIES HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE WITH AN INFLATION ADJUSTMENT, WHICH IS DONE EVERY THREE YEARS, AND THIS -- MEDICAID CHANGED THE RULES ON THEM IN MID CYCLE. THIS SIMPLY CORRECTS THAT.

[Unknown]: CAN THE GENTLEMAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT IT MEANS? YES, SIR. THAT'S THE MEDICAID 50/50 MATCH THAT EXITS IN -- EXISTS IN VIRGINIA SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT. MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS AGENT. IT'S A GOOD AMENDMENT. IT DOES COST MONEY BUT WE KNOW THAT NURSING HOMES CAN -- NURSING FACILITIES CAN BENEFIT BY THAT MONEY. I HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: TURN TO PAGE 121, THE NEXT PAGE. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 306, NO. 3H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR WILL WHOEVER IS HANDLING THIS A QUESTION? YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? YOU'D BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THIS IS THE AMENDMENT RELATED TO SO-CALLED GAP FUNDING FOR THE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL, IS THAT RIGHT? MR. SPEAKER, I'D ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THAT THAT IS CORRECT. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD. AND IS THIS -- I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, IS THIS THE PROGRAM THAT GOT STARTED LAST YEAR AND WE TARGETED IT AT 60% OF THE POVERTY LINE TO TRY TO HELP SOME FOLKS WHO REALLY COULD USE SOME ASSISTANCE WITH IMMEDIATE CAUSED FUNDING? IS THAT WHERE THIS GOT STARTED LAST YEAR? MR. SPEAKER, I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, THAT IS CORRECT. FINAL QUESTION, MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

[Unknown]: I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN IS STILL GLAD.

[Unknown]: I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THIS LOOKS LIKE A ONE TO ONE MATCH WHERE THE STATE PUTS UP 1 DOLLAR AND THE FEDS PUT UP 1 DOLLAR TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL. ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT IF WE EXPANDED MEDICAID, WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN, FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE PUT UP, MAYBE $9 OR $10, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE RATIO IS? CERTAINLY A LOT MORE THAN ONE TO ONE. WOULD THAT BE TRUE? MR. SPEAKER, I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN IF HE KNOWS FOR VIRGINIA, WE DO HAVE THE 50/50 MATCH. WITH EXPANSION, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE RATIO THAT THE GENTLEMAN IS SPEAKING BUT I DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR SURE. MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT. THIS IS A WONDERFUL WAY TO PROVIDE SOME PEOPLE WITH AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL OF CARE THAT WILL REALLY HELP THEM. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR IT IN THE WRONG WAY. IF WE'D EXPANDED MEDICAID, FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE WOULD HAVE PUT IN THE PROGRAM, WE COULD HAVE EITHER GOTTEN $9 BACK OR $10 BACK, OR -- I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT QUITE THAT WAY. FOR EVERY DOLLAR WE PUT INTO THE MA'AM, WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE THAN THE 1 DOLLAR FROM THE FEDS TO FUND THE PROGRAM. SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER WAY TO DO IT IF WE HAD ACCEPTED MEDICAID. I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT, BUT I HOPE THAT YOU WILL THINK ABOUT LONG-TERM THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING IMMEDIATE CAUSED SO WE CAN DELIVER THIS SERVICE MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 98, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. Clerk: TURNING TO PAGE 122, THE NEXT PAGE, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO HUMIDITY 306, NO. 4-H. >> Speaker: GENTLEMAN FROM SHAWSVILLE.

[Unknown]: WOULD THE PERSON EXPLAIN THIS, RISE FOR A QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: MR. LANDES.

[Unknown]: I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

[Unknown]: I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THIS IS THE IDDD SUPPORT WAIVERS THAT WE'VE CONTINUED TO TRY TO GROW EVERY TIME IN THE BUDGET AND I GUESS I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE WAITING LIST NOW FOR THE IDDD WAIVERS? MR. SPEAKER, I'D ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN THAT HE IS CORRECT, THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT, AS THE TRANSITION GOES FORWARD, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL WAIVER SLOTS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE GOVERNOR INCLUDED BASED ON THE DOJ AGREEMENT AND PAST ACTIONS. I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE WAITING LIST, DEPENDING ON WHO YOU TALK TO, IS, I BELIEVE, AROUND 10,000. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

[Unknown]: I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE 150. IS THAT SOME KIND OF LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE 150 THIS YEAR OR ARE WE JUST COMING UP WITH THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE COULD AFFORD? I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN THAT THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE GOVERNOR AND WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE DODGE SETTLEMENT SO THIS IS ABOVE. WE BELIEVED IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH AND THE CHAIRMAN WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO PROVIDE THE RESOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL SLOTS. I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, AS HE KNOWS, I BELIEVE THIS IS A HIGH PRIORITY. AS THE CHAIRMAN KNOWS, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE MORE BUT IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT WE CAN AFFORD, AND WITH THE PRIORITY OF EDUCATION AND OTHER AREAS OF THE HEALTH SAFETY NET, THAT $28 MILLION I MENTIONED, THIS WAS WHAT WE COULD AFFORD AT THIS TIME. I DO THINK, THOUGH, MR. SPEAKER, THAT IN TALKING TO THE CLAIM AND OTHER MEMBERS, THIS IS ALSO BECAUSE WE BELIEVE WE ALSO NEED TO WAIT AND SEE HOW THE TRANSITION GOES TO MAKE SURE THOSE WAIVER SLOTS AND THE NEW CONFIGURATION, IF YOU WILL, WE DIDN'T WANT TO GO TOO QUICKLY, TOO FAST, SO THE 150 SHOULD HELP, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO MONITOR AND SEE HOW THAT'S I'M HOPEFUL THAT IF THE REVENUES GOING. BEAR OUT IN THE NEXT COUPLE YEARS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO EVEN MORE AND REDUCE, AS I THINK THE GENTLEMAN WOULD AGREE, THE WAITING LIST AND ESPECIALLY THE CRITICAL CARE OF THE FOLKS THAT NEED IT. SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, MR. SPEAKER, AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER AMENDMENT THAT I THINK WE SHOULD SUPPORT. IT'S BEEN A PRIORITY. I THINK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE TO INCREASE THE IDDD WAIVERS, AND EVEN IF WE TOOK MEDICAID EXPANSION, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY ON A ONE TO ONE MATCH. BUT HERE'S THE MISSED OPPORTUNITY. $157 MILLION IN SAVINGS THAT THE GOVERNOR BOOKED IN HIS BUDGET. THOSE SAVINGS WERE TAKEN AWAY WHEN YOU DON'T TAKE MEDICAID. YOU COULD HAVE HAD MORE WAIVERS HERE. BY TAKING A PORTION OF THAT $157 MILLION IN SAVINGS. SO WHILE I SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY A GOOD THING, WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO MORE, IT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY. VOTE YES AND LET'S DO MORE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT --

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER? WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: MR. COX. QUESTION?

[Unknown]: I'LL YIELD. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN EXPLAIN TO ME, IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET WHY HE DIDN'T PUT MORE WAIVER SLOTS IN HIS BUDGET? MR. SPEAKER, I'D RESPOND TO THE GENTLEMAN I WAS NOT PRIVY TO WHAT DECISIONS THE GOVERNOR -- WHAT WENT ON WHEN THE GOVERNOR MADE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS BUT I CAN TELL YOU THIS. I KNOW IT'S A PRIORITY OF YOURS. I KNOW IT'S A PRIORITY OF EVERYBODY IN THIS CHAMBER. AND IF IT'S A PRIORITY, WE SHOULD PUT MORE IN THERE, NOT JUST 150. THEN IT'S A QUESTION OF MONEY. AND BECAUSE WE KICKED OUT $157 MILLION, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. AND MAYBE IF WE HAD MORE MONEY NEXT YEAR, WE COULD -- THE GOVERNOR WILL PUT MORE MONEY IN HIS REVISED BUDGET AND WE CAN VOTE FOR MORE WAIVERS NEXT YEAR. THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE BUDGET AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE BUCKET AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: CONTINUING ON THAT SAME PAGE, 120, OBJECTION RAISED TO ITEM 306, NO. 5H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM SHAWSVILLE.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS FINE AMENDMENT BECAUSE I THINK NURSING HOMES CAN USE THAT INCREASE IN THEIR PAYMENT RATE, EVEN THOUGH THAT PAYMENT RATE IS SIMPLY A ONE TO ONE MATCH. AND IT'S A GOOD THING, I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: MR. SPEAKER, TURNING TO PAGE 123 OF THE COMMITTEE AIMS OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 306, NO. 6H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE.

[Unknown]: THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE VERY FINE AMENDMENTS I HOPE WE CAN SUPPORT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: OKAY. TURNING TO PAGE 126 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, PAGE 126. OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 306, NO. 11H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA YIELD FROM A QUESTION? Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE. Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA YIELD FOR A QUESTION? Speaker: WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD.

[Unknown]: I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN, THIS IS THE REFORM -- MEDICAID REFORM LANGUAGE THAT I THINK HAS SHOWN UP IN PREVIOUS BUDGETS. IS IT NOT? MR. SPEAKER, I'D SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THIS IS THE AMENDMENT THAT RESTORES MEDICAID REFORM LANGUAGE, AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INTRODUCED BUDGET. WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? I WOULD BE GLAD TO YIELD.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS.

[Unknown]: I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN HAS WORKED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS ON THIS MEDICAID REFORM ISSUE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO PLACE. CAN THE GENTLEMAN TELL US OR GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE REFORMS AS HE KNOWS IT? MR. SPEAKER, I CAN TELL THE GENTLEMAN THAT THAT IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE, AS HE KNOWS, ORIGINALLY WE HAD SET UP IN THE BUDGET AND THEN IT WAS CODIFIED, THE MEDICAID INNOVATION REFORM COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION MET FOR ONE YEAR. I WAS ACTUALLY VICE CHAIRMAN OF THAT. SENATOR HANGER NOW, THE CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WAS THE CHAIRMAN. WE HAD FIVE MEMBERS FROM THE HOUSE AND FIVE MEMBERS FROM THE SENATE. TWO MEMBERS THAT WERE REPRESENTING THE GOVERNOR'S CABINET, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES. AND LO AND BEHOLD, SOON AFTER WE LET MET FOR A YEAR, HIS EX-LESS THAN SUNNY DETERMINED THAT HIS EXECUTIVE BRANCH SECRETARIES AND THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES WERE NO LONGER TO COOPERATE WITH THE COMMISSION AND WE HAVE NOT MET. SO WE HAVE GOTTEN INTERMITTENT UPDATES ON REFORMS AND SOME OF THEM ARE WORKING AND HAVE SHOWN ADDITIONAL SAVINGS, AND WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY PROGRAMMED THAT BACK INTO ADDITIONAL REFORMS AND EFFORTS IN OUR IMMEDIATE CAUSED BUDGET, BUT I CANNOT GIVE HIM SPECIFICS AT THIS POINT. I'D BE GLAD, IF HE WOULD ASK THE SECRETARY AND THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICE, IF THEY COULD PROVIDE THAT, WE'D BE GLAD TO FURTHER DISCUSS THOSE. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? I'D BE GLAD TO YIELD. MR. SPEAKER, I'VE ASKED THE GENTLEMAN, IF I REMEMBER THE OLD LANGUAGE, IT HAD SOME PROVISIONS ABOUT SOME STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT, I THINK, THAT IF THE REFORMS WERE SATISFACTORY TO THE MERCK, THEN THE MERCK COULD GO AHEAD AND EMBRACE MEDICAID EXPANSION. SOME PEOPLE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT, BUT THERE WAS LANGUAGE LIKE THAT. THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN HERE ANYMORE. IS THAT RIGHT? MR. SPEAKER, I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED LATER ON IN WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO -- THIS THE BUDGET. DEALT WITH SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE REFORM LANGUAGE, BUT I'D REMIND THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE MAJORITY OF BOTH THE HOUSE MEMBERS AND THE SENATE MEMBERS HAD TO AGREE THAT THE REFORMS HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT IMMEDIATE CAUSED EXPANSION SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 93, NOS SEVEN.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.

[Unknown]: Clerk: MOVING AHEAD TO PAGE 141 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 315, NO. 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? [BELL] Speaker: THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AYES 100, NOS ZERO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. SKIPPING AHEAD TO PAGE 166,.

[Unknown]: Clerk: AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ITEM NO. 388, 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SIMON.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT -- SPEAKING TO THE OBJECTION? MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN VIRGINIA WITH MENTAL ILLNESS AND WITH OUR PRISON SYSTEM. IN VIRGINIA THERE'S A 2015 STUDY FROM THE COMPENSATION BOARD THAT FOUND THAT OVER 7,000 OF OUR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS IN VIRGINIA IN REGIONAL LOCAL JAILS WERE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS. THAT'S ONE IN FOUR PRISONERS AND OUR PRISONERS, SUFFERING FROM SOME FORM OF MENTAL ILLNESS. THIS AMENDMENT REMOVES FUNDING, $2.2 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND EACH YEAR, AND 11 POSITIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND PROCEED BECAUSE AND PAROLE OFFICERS. THE OTHER HALF OF THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT THESE FOLKS SUFFERING FROM MENTAL ILLNESS IN PRISON AND JAIL ARE NOT BEING TREATED AND THEY GET OUT, AND THEIR UNDERLYING MENTAL ILLNESS THAT GOT THEM INTO JAIL IS NOT BEING TREATED. THEY COME OUT, THEY'RE SERVED A PORTION OF A SENTENCE, THEY HAVE A SUSPENDED PORTION, AND THE PROBATION OFFICERS THAT ARE DEALING WITH THEM, AREN'T EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH THEIR UNDERLYING MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM. WHAT HAPPENS, THEY END UP REVILE 80 GO AND THEY END UP BACK IN PRISON AND WE HAVE A REVOLVING DOOR. WE IN FAIRFAX ARE ABOUT TO INTERVIEW A BUNCH OF COURT JUDGES. I HAD ONE IN MY OFFICE THIS MORNING, AN EXPERIENCED JUDGE, AND HE TOLD ME ABOUT A CASE THAT HAPPENED TO HIM LAST WEEK. HE HAD A PERSON BEFORE HIM, WHO HAD VIOLATED PROBATION, A SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF '03 HUNDRED 65 DAYS. HE HAD GONE OFF HIS MEDS, VIOLATED PROBATION, BACK IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, BACK ON HIS MEDICATIONS, BACK IN THE TREATMENT, BUT THE PROBATION OFFICER WAS RECOMMENDING THAT HE GO TO JAIL. OKAY? THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. AND THE JUDGE SAID, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. WHY IS THIS PERSON IN FRONT OF THIS PERSON ISN'T BAD. ME? THIS PERSON IS SICK. THIS PERSON NEEDS HELP. THIS PERSON NEEDS TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PROPER SERVICES SO THEY CAN BE TREATED. THEY DON'T BELONG IN PRISON. AND THIS LANGUAGE, REMOVING $4.4 MILLION OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, TO EQUIP THOSE PROBATION OFFICERS TO CATCH THOSE CASES, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE IN JAIL AND DON'T, TAKING THAT OUT IS A REAL MISSED OPPORTUNITY, MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE. I KNOW WHY THIS MONEY IS GOING AWAY BECAUSE THE NEXT OBJECTION I'VE GOT IS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO PUT MUCH MORE MONEY INTO REGULAR MEDICAL SERVICES FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HE WILL JOURNAL FOR MEDICAID BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EXPANDED IT. MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD BE THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT. (CLOSED CAPTIONING WILL CONTINUE IN A MOMENT

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Marcus Simon (D-Falls Church): AYES 73, NOS 26.

[Unknown]: AYES 73, NOS 26. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. MOVING FORWARD TO PAGE 168, ITEM 393, NUMBER 4-H. THE YEAH FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SIMON. MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THIS IS AGAIN ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE REAL MISSED OPPORTUNITY WE'VE HAD NO NOT EXPANDING MEDICAID AND LET ME READ THE EXPLANATION FOR THIS AMENDMENT. THIS AMES RESTORES FUNDING FOR IN-PATIENT HOSPITAL SERVICES FOR INMATES REMOVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND THE INTRODUCED BUDGET RELATING TO THE ASSUMED SAVINGS OF MEDICAID EXPANSION. WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THIS MONEY BEING USED FOR MORE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS OVER HERE, BEING USED OVER HERE, AND I GUESS THE DOLLARS ARE FUNGIBLE, BUT TO ME IT SURE LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TAKING THE $30 MILLION THAT WE HAD TO PLOW BACK IN TO PRISON HEALTHCARE AND WE'RE GETTING SOME OF THAT MONEY FROM THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE THROUGH THE PROBATION OFFICES, WE'RE GETTING SOME OF IT FROM THE NEXT OBJECTION, WHICH IS THE MENTAL HEALTH PILOT PROGRAMS. WE TALK ABOUT HOW IN KENTUCKY, THEIR PROGRAM IS HEMORRHAGING MONEY AND WE WORRY THAT IF WE EXPAND MEDICAID HERE IN VIRGINIA, WE MIGHT ALSO HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY THAN WE EXPECTED, BUT THIS IS MONEY THAT WE KNOW. THIS IS MONEY THAT WE KNOW WE ARE SPENDING BECAUSE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EXPANDING MEDICAID. WE'RE AFRAID THERE WON'T BE A MATCH DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD. THIS IS $33 MILLION OF VIRGINIA TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON HEALTHCARE IN OUR PRISONS AND YAILS THAT PEOPLE OTHERWISE QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID. MEDICAID, YOU CAN USE IT TO FUND HEALTHCARE FOR PRISONERS IF THEY HAD OTHERWISE QUALIFY UNDER YOUR STATE'S PROGRAM. BECAUSE OUR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS ARE SO TIGHT, VERY FEW OF OUR PRISONERS ACTUALLY QUALIFY AND SO WE HAVE TO PUT 100% -- IT'S NOT A 50-50 MATCH, NOT A 90-10. WE HAVE TO USE 100% OF HEALTHCARE DOLLARS TO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE FOR PRISONERS BECAUSE WE FUSE TO EXPAND MEDICAID. I HOPE IT WOULD BE THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO REJECT -- WELL, WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IT. THE FACT IS, AS MUCH AS I WISH WE COULD REJECT THIS MONEY, AS MUCH AS I WISH WE COULD REJECT THIS AMENDMENT, THE FACT IS WE'RE STUCK HAVING TO PAY THIS MONEY BECAUSE WE MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND MEDICAID. UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK WE OUGHT TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT, BUT I WISH IT WEREN'T NECESSARY. SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. AYES 100, NOS 0. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. TURNING AHEAD TWO PAGES TO 170 OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AN OBJECTION ON PAGE 170 HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 398, NUMBER 2-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE YEAH FROM FAIRFAX, THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. MR. SIMON.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, THESE ARE THE LAST OF THESE AMENDMENTS I WANT TO GET TORQUE BUT I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT MY OBJECTION IS HERE. THIS ONE, THIS ONE IS PRETTY IMPORTANT. MR. SPEAKER, WE'VE GOT $2.5 MILLION EACH YEAR OF THE BIENNIUM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE BUDGET. THIS IS MONEY THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED TO ESTABLISH SOME MENTAL HEALTH PILOT PROGRAMS IN LOCAL REGIONAL JAILS AND SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR PILOT PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE MENTAL HEALTH INSIDE OF OUR JAILS AND PRISONS. I EXPLAINED ALREADY THAT ONE IN FOUR OF OUR INMATES ARE SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS, BUT A JAIL IS NOT THE PLACE TO SEEK TREATMENT. AS WELL AS TAKING THE MONEY AWAY, THIS AMENDMENT SAYS GO AHEAD AND DUTY STUDY, DEVELOP THE PROGRAM, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THEM YET. DEVELOP A PROGRAM AND REPORT BACK TO US BY AUGUST 15th, 2016, AND WE'LL TIED WHICH PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO WORK. WE DON'T HAVE MONEY YET, BUT WEIGH THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, WE WANT TO DEVELOP A PROGRAM AND WE'LL GET IT IMPLEMENTED SOON ENOUGH. IT'S INTERESTING THAT THE TATE WE PICKED IS ALL 15th -- DATE WE PICKED IS AUGUST 15th, 2016. I REMEMBER LAST SUMMER WHAT I WAS DOING IN AUGUST OF 2015. I WAS ON VACATION WITH MY FAMILY. I ALSO REMEMBER READING HEADLINES IN THE WASHINGTON POST ABOUT A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS IN THE HAMPTON REGIONAL JAIL WAITING FOR A BED BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN DEEMED INCOMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL. EAST BEEN ORDERED FOR A COMPETENCY HEARING. HE WAS STUCK IN PRISON, WASTING AWAY, WITHOUT ANY SERVICES FOR THE CRIME OF ALLEGEDLY -- WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE DID IT OR NOT, WE NEVER GOT FOR A TRIAL, BUT FOR ALLEGEDLY STEALING A MOUNTAIN DEW, A SNICKERS BAR AND A ZEBRA CAKE WORTH $5.05. OTHER INMATES SAID THEY SAW HIM PACING NAKED IN A CELL, OFTEN COVERED IN HIS OWN FILTH. HE WAS IN JAIL, MR. SPEAKER, IN APRIL. BY AUGUST 19th, HE WAS DEAD. HE SAT IN JAIL, A JAIL THAT WASN'T EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH HIS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, WASN'T EQUIPPED TO TAKE CARE OF HIM, RECOGNIZED THAT HE WAS IN CRISIS, GET HIM THE SERVICES HE NEEDED TO GET WELL. A 24-YEAR-OLD, ON AUGUST 19th, 2015, HE ESSENTIALLY WAS FOUND DEAD IN HIS CELL, LOST 40 POUNDS. HE HAD JUST BEEN ALLOWED TO WASTE AWAY. MR. SPEAKER, WE CAN'T AFFORD -- I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AFFORD, WHAT WE CAN'T AFFORD WITH MEDICAID EXPANSION. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET THOSE DOLLARS GO AWAY. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LET MORE PEOPLE SUFFER THAT FATE. THE LAST REPORT I GOTTINGS THERE'S STILL 35 PEOPLE AS OF OCTOBER THIS YEAR SITTING IN PRISON AWAITING A BED AND WAITING EVALUATION. WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT, MR. SPEAKER. I WOULD URGE THE BODY TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO THE BUDGET. LET'S START SPENDING IT RIGHT AWAY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. LINGAMFELTER.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge): I'D ENCOURAGE THE HOUSE TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT. LET ME JUST REMIND YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. YES, WE DID REMOVE THE 2.5 MILLION EACH YEAR FOR UP TO SIX PILOT PROGRAMS THAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET. BUT THE INTRODUCED BUDGET DID NOT IDENTIFY THE PILOT SITES. THE INTRODUCED BUDGET DID NOT SPECIFY THE CRITERIA FOR THE SITES. THE THE INTRODUCED BUDGET DID NOT IDENTIFY ACTUAL FUNDING NEEDED FOR SUCH PILOT PROGRAMS. AND WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR COMMITTEES TO ASSESS WHETHER THE FUNDING PROPOSED TO THESE PILOT SITES IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT. IT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING, SO IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE IS THE LANGUAGE IN THIS AMENDMENT, DIRECTING THE DCJS AND DBHDS TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FROM LOCAL AND REGIONAL JAILS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PILOT PROGRAMS IN LOCAL JAILS. WE'RE NOT DISPUTING THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS. IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER. AND DCJS IS ALSO IN THIS LANGUAGE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A REPORT RECOMMENDING UP TO THREE PILOT SITES, A BUDGET FOR EACH PILOT PROGRAM, AND THE MIX OF STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS TO BE USED TO FUND THAT PILOT PROGRAM. SO LOOK, I WOULD SAY TO THE FOLKS HERE LISTENING TO THIS DEBATE, THIS IS A GOOD AMENDMENT AND ON TOP OF THAT, IT'S RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING. IT DOESN'T PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, AND SO I HOPE YOU WILL ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 73, NOS 26. AYES 73, NOS 26. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTSES ARE AGREED TO. MOVING AHEAD FIVE PAGES TO PAGE 175, OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED ON PAGE 175 TO ITEM 424, NUMBER 1-A TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SULLIVAN.

Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Arlington): THANK YOU M SPEAKER. SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Arlington): MR. SPEAKER AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, THIS AMENDMENT STRIPS ABOUT $380,000 OUT OF THE BUDGET FOR POSITIONS AT THE VIRGINIA STATE POLICE, FOR THEM TO HANDLE THE PROCESS OF PROCESSING RESTORATION OF RIGHTS APPLICATIONS AND THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE IN THAT PROCESS, AND SO THEY NEED MORE MONEY IN ORDER TO DO IT. THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS YET ANOTHER MISSED OPPORTUNITY. IT'S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO BRING MORE MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY BACK INTO THE POLITICAL PROCESS, TO EXPAND PARTICIPATION IN VIRGINIA'S PUBLIC DISCOURSE. RESTORING VOTING RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY ALREADY IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. IN FACT, IT'S AN ISSUE THAT BOTH GOVERNORS McDONNELL AND McAULIFFE HAVE CORRECTLY PLAYED A PRIORITY THIS THEIR RESPECTIVE VIRGINIA IS ONE OF ONLY 11 ADMINISTRATIONS. STATES THAT EITHER BAR CITIZENS WITH PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION FRN VOTING PERMANENTLY OR REQUIRE THE STATE TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION ON AN INDIVIDUALIZED I WILL TELL YOU THE ROUGHLY 7% BASIS. OF THE TOTAL VOTING AGE POPULATION IN VIRGINIA IS DISENFRANCHISED, AND WE KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. LISTEN TO THIS NUMBER. OVER 20% OF THE VOTING AGED AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION IN VIRGINIA IS DISENFRANCHISED. 20%. THE McAULIFFE ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY MADE GREAT STRIDES IN ADDRESSING THIS. AS OF TODAY, THE ADMINISTRATION HAS RESTORED THE RIGHTS OF OVER 16,000 INDIVIDUALS, WHICH IS MORE THAN THE PAST FOUR GOVERNORS COMBINED. THE DEMAND IS HIGH. BUT SINCE THE GOVERNOR'S POLICY CHANGED LAST JUNE WHERE HE REMOVED PAYMENT OF COURT COSTS AS A REQUIREMENT AND JUST AS AN ASIGH, BY THE WAY, OF COURSE THAT CHANGE MAKES SENSE AS OUR SECRETARY OF COMMONWEALTH ONCE POINTED OUT, WHY SHOULD A PERSON WITH A $25,000 TAX LIEN BE ALLOWED TO VOTE, BUT SOMEONE WHO OWES $500 IN COURT COSTS, NOT BIBLE LOUD TO VOTE. SINCE THAT POLICY CHANGED, THE MONTHLY APPLICATIONS HAVE RISEN FROM 600 TO OVER A THOUSAND. ADDITIONALLY, ON A MONTHLY BASIS, DOC TELLS THE SECRETARY OF COMMONWEALTH'S OFFICE ABOUT PEOPLE RELEASED AND CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE AND THAT ADDED ANOTHER THOUSAND NAMES TO THE LIST, SO THE WORKLOAD HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY. DESPITE THAT PRORK THE ADMINISTRATION -- PROGRESS, THE ADMINISTRATION'S OVER 16,000 RESTORATIONS ACCOUNTS STILL FOR LESS THAN 5% OF VIRGINIANS WHO HAVE LOST THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE. THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK LEFT TO BE DONE TO LET INDIVIDUALS KNOW HOW TO ACCESS THIS PROCESS. THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT SEEKS TO SLOW THAT PROCESS, TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM VOTING. IT TAKES MONEY OUT OF THIS IMPORTANT PROGRAM. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FOR OVER A CENTURY, VIRGINIA HAS REQUIRE FELONS TO PAY THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY BEFORE THEY CAN BE REEND FRANCHISED, BUT ONCE THEY HAVE SATISFIED THAT DEBT, THE LEAST WE CAN TOO DO, THE FAIR THING TO DO IS RESTORE FUNDING THIS THERE BUDGET TO HELP THESE FOLKS GET ACCESS TO THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, THE BALLOT. I URGE THE BODY TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT AND VOTE NO. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. LINGAMFELTER.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge): THANK YOU M SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, THIS AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DENYING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO VOTE OR THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO THIS AMENDMENT IS REPURPOSING VOTE. MONEY TO OTHER PRIORITIES THAT THE VIRGINIA STATE POLICE HAVE TOLD US, FRANKLY SPEAKING, ARE HIGH PRIORITY FOR THEM AND THE TRUTH IS, THEY ALSO TOLD OUR SUBCOMMITTEE THAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT WITH THEIR CURRENT FTE. ION, THIS COMMITTEE WORKED -- YOU KNOW, THIS COMMITTEE WORKED VERY HARD TO TRAY TO PULL THE POINT -- TRY TO PULL THE MONEY TOGETHER THAT WE NEED TO DO TO ADDRESS STATE POLICE SALARIES AND PAY COMPRESSION AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE, AND FRANKLY SPEAKING, THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY, PARTICULARLY WITH A TASK THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISH WITH THEIR CURRENT MANPOWER. THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge): AYES 67, NOS 32.

[Unknown]: AYES 6, NOS 32. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. ON THAT SAME PAGE, 1735, OBJECTION RAISED TO -- PAGE 175, OBJECTION RAISED TO ITEM NUMBER 426, NUMBER 1-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): HALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 92, NOS 7. AYES 92, NOS 7. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. TURNING TO PAGE 187, 187, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT ITEM 453, NUMBER 2-H. 187, ITEM 453, NUMBER 2-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 93, NOS 6. AYES 93, NOS 6, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. MOVING AHEAD TO PAGE 221, PAGE 221, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 3-6.05, NUMBER 1-H. MR. SPEAKER. I MOVE TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE. [ AYES EXPRESSED ] THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THAT MOTION IS AGREED TO. CONTINUING WITH OBJECTIONS ON PAGE 227. IS THIS LSH [ NO AUDIO ] NA MR. SPEAKER, THERE WAS AN OBJECTION ON PAGE 227 TO ITEM 4-5.04, NUMBER 2-A. MR. SPEAKER, IN ADDITION, THERE ARE TWO FLOOR AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY THE DELEGATE -- BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, DELEGATE MARSHALL, THAT ARE IN CONFLICT. SO YOU HAVE THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, YOU ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT BY DELEGATE MARSHALL, ITEM 4-5.04 NUMBER 5-H AND NUMBER 6-H. [ NO AUDIO ]

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHALL, HAS OFFERED A FLOOR AMENDMENT WHICH IS BROADER IN SCOPE THAN THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, AND SO WE WILL TAKE UP THE FLOOR AMENDMENT FIRST.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): MR. SPEAKER.

[Unknown]: I MOVE TO PASS BY FLOOR AMENDMENT ITEM 4-5.04 NUMBER

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): MR. SPEAKER. 5-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE

[Unknown]: I'D LIKE TO CLAIM MY TWO MINUTES TO OPPOSE THAT MOTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT BACK IN THE 1950s AND '60s, NEVER COMPROMISED WITH THEIR BASIC PRINCIPLES. THERE NEVER WAS, AT LEASE PUBLICLY, AN EFFORT BY ROSA PARKS OR DR. KING OR ANYBODY WILLIAM. ELSE TO SAY THAT SOME AFRICAN AMERICANS CAN RIDE ANYWHERE ON THE BUS, BUT OTHER AFRICAN AMERICANS HAVE TO RIDE IN THE BACK OF THE BUS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT FIRM ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, THEY EVENTUALLY SUCCEEDED WITH THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND 1968 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. MR. SPEAKER, ADDITIONALLY, I'D LIKE TO REFERENCE THE SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. HE SAYS THE ALMIGHTY HAS HIS OWN PURPOSES. WOE UNTO THE WORLD BECAUSE OF OFFENSES, BUT WOE TO THAT MAN BY WHOM THE OFFENSE COMETH. NOW, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF IN FACT WE ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IN FACT ALLOWS FOR WIDE OPEN ABORTION FUNDING? THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN DOE VERSUS BOLTON, 1973, THE COMPANION CASE TO ROWE VERSUS WADE. GO HAD A STATUTE VERY -- GEORGIA HAD A STATUTE VERY SIMILAR TO VIRGINIA, WHICH ALLOWED ABORTION TO THE CONTINUATION OF A PREGNANCY THAT WOULD SERIOUSLY AND PERMANENTLY INJURE HER HEALTH OR THE FETUS WOULD VERY LIKELY BE BORN WITH A GRAFE, PERMANENT PHYSICAL DEFECT. INDEED, WH A PARTICULAR OPERATION IS NECESSARY FOR A PATIENT'S MEDICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH IS A JUDGMENT THAT PHYSICIANS ARE OBVIOUSLY CALLED UPON TO MAKE ROUTINELY. WE MAY THAT THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT MAY BE EXERCISED IN ALL FACTORS PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, A WOMAN'S AGE RELATIVE TO WELL-BEING. ALL THESE FACTORS MAY RELATE TO HEALTH. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER ISSUES A CONCURRING OPINION IN WHICH HE SAID THE WORD HEALTH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THE BROADEST SENSE AS PER A 1971 CASE. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS ISSUES A CONCURRING OPINION IN WHICH HE HELD THAT HEALTH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED VERY BROADLY. MR. SPEAKER. YES, I BELIEVE YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE ABOUT UP. TELL ME WHAT THAT HAPPENS, PLEASE. IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN. FINISH THE SENTENCE. WELL, SOME PEOPLE WANT ME TO GO BEYOND IT FOR OTHER REASONS, MR. SPEAKER. [ LAUGHTER ]

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO PASS BY THE FLOOR AMENDMENT TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION TO PASS BIT FLOOR AMENDMENT WILL SAY AYE. [ AYES EXPRESSED ]

[Unknown]: THOSE OPPOSED, NO. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION PLEASE RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND. I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH. THE FLOOR AMENDMENT FAILS. NOW WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT. WE'RE ON THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT NOW.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM RICHMOND CITY, MS. McCLELLAN.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. SPEAKERING TO THE AMOUNT. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. GENTLEWOMAN HAS THE FLOOR. IN THIS AMENDMENT PASSES, THEN TATE FUNDING WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR ABORTIONS IN THE CASE OF A GROSS FETAL ABNORMALITY. THESE ARE DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT MADE LIGHTLY. USUALLY THESE ARE PREGNANCIES THAT WERE VERY MUCH WANTED AND IN SOME CASES DESPERATELY WANTED. I WANT TO TELL YOU VERY QUICKLY ONE SUCH STORY. THERE WAS A COUPLE WHO HAD JUST LOST, HAD JUST SUFFERED A MISCARRIAGE OF THEIR SECOND CHILD -- I'M SORRY, THEIR SECOND CHILD WAS STILL BORN BECAUSE OF AN UMBILICAL CORD ACCIDENT. SHE VERY QUICKLY GOT PREGNANT AGAIN. ONE OF HER ULTRASOUNDS SHOWED THAT THE FETUS'S SPINE WAS DEFORMED, THAT IT WAS PULLING DOWN THE BACK OF THE BRAIN, CAUSING HYDRO SEVEN LA US WILL AND BRAIN DAMAGE. THE FETUS WAS NOT CAPABLE OF MOVING ITS LEGS BECAUSE THEY WERE STUCK IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION. LUNG TISSUE WAS DEFORMED AND THE DOCTORS DIDN'T THING THAT THE LUNGS WOULD FUNCTION. THE FAMILY GOT A SECOND OPINION. AND A THIRD OPINION. AND THEY LEFT WITH THE DECISION OF CONTINUING THE PREGNANCY TO TERM, HAVING A C-SECTION DELIVERY, ONLY TO HAVE THE BABY SUFFOCATE WHEN THE UMBILICAL CORD WAS CUT. THIS FAMILY, BOTH THE HUSBAND AND THE WIFE, WERE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. SO THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE WOULD COVER THE ABORTION. AT FIRST THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A BIG DEAL BECAUSE THEY HAD THE MONEY TO PAY OUT OF POCKET. WITH THIS AMENDMENT, FOR OUR POOREST CITIZENS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET BECAUSE MEDICAID WOULD NOT COVER THAT PROCEDURE. IF THEY HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE OUT OF THE EXCHANGE, THEY WOULD WOULDN'T HAVE COVERAGE FOR THAT PROCEDURE, AND THE IMPACT OF THAT IS THREE-FOLD. IF THAT FAMILY CAN'T PAY OUT OF POCKET AND THE COSTS OF THAT'S PROCEDURES RANGE FROM $5,000 TO $15,000, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU GO TO A CLINIC WITHOUT ANECESSARY THEESH THAT OR -- ANESTHESIA OR PRIVATE PRACTICE WITH. HOSPITALS ONES ACCEPT YOU TO -- ONES ACCEPT YOU TO PERFORM THIS PROCEDURE BECAUSE IF YOUR INSURANCE WON'T COVER IT, THEY CONSIDER YOU UNINSURED. IF YOU CAN'T RAISE THAT MONEY RIGHT AWAY AND YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU CAN, AND YOU HAVE THE PROCEDURE LATER IN THE PREGNANCY, YOU HAVE AN INCREASE OF ADVERSE OUTCOME FOR THE MOTHER. THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS. THAT NONE OF US WOULD EVER WANT TO FIND OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO MAKE. BUT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS A FACTOR OF WHETHER THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. THE FACTOR OF WHETHER THEY HAVE TO DO THIS OUTSIDE OF A HOSPITAL SETTING SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE DECISION. THAT FAMILY SHOULD BE LEFT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER, THEIR DOCTOR, AND THEIR GOD, TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST AND THAT'S WHY I OBJECT TO THIS AMENDMENT AND ASK YOU TO VOTE NO. MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHALL.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): ADDRESSING THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD TURN THE GENTLELADY'S ATTENTION TO THE DECISION IN DOE VERSUS BOLTON WHEN MR. JUSTICE BLACKMON SAYS THE GEORGIA LAW ALLOWED ABORTION FOR CONTINUATION OF PREGNANCY WHICH WOULD SERIOUSLY AND PERMANENTLY INJURE HER HEALTH OR THE FETUS WOULD VERY LIKELY BE BORN WITH A GRAVE, PERMANENT, AND IRREMEDY I CAN'T BELIEVE DEFECT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE SHOULD FUN ONE ABORTION, WHETHER ONE ABORTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE IN VIRGINIA BECAUSE ALL LIVES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SACRED AND LIKE LINCOLN SAID, YES, EVIL MUST HAPPEN, BUT WOE TO THOSE TO WHOM IT COMES. MR. SPEAKER, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME GROUPS IN VIRGINIA THAT ARE GIVING SOME POLITICIANS A PASS TO VOTE FOR THIS PROVISION HERE, BUT IT ONE ERASE THE FACT THAT MANY OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE PEOPLE WHO HOPE TO RESTORE RESPECT FOR LIFE AND CERTAINLY NOT USE TAX MONEY TO KILL CHILDREN BEFORE BIRTH, THESE ARE THE VERY ONES THAT PUT A NUMBER OF YOU HERE IN PUBLIC OFFICE. MR. SPEAKER, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE, THEIR CONSCIENCE. I INTEND TO VOTE PRESENT BECAUSE I ONES VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT I KNOW WILL AUTHORIZE ABORTION ON DEMAND AND WHICH I FULLY EXPECT THIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE AN OPINION TO SOME MEMBER OF THIS BODY WHO'S REQUESTING WHAT CAN BE FUNDED UNDER THIS AND FRANKLY, HE'LL BE CORRECT AND HE'LL CITE DOE VERSUS BOLTTON. I DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT HE CAN CORRECTLY CITE IT FOR WIDE OPEN ABORTION ON DEMAND. I URGE A VOTE PRESENT. THANK YOU.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- MR. LANDES.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, THIS AMENDMENT HAS BEEN IN THE HOUSE BUDGET OR PROPOSED BY THIS HOUSE SINCE 2013. IT SIMPLY PUTS BACK IN THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN THERE RELATED TO THIS ISSUE, THAT WAS DELETED BY THE GOVERNOR IN CHAPTER 665, SO I HOPE THE HOUSE WILL PASS THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO. THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 64, NOS 34. AYES 64, NOS 34. THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. TURNING -- I'M SORRY, MR. SPEAKER, THE OTHER AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL, PRINCE WILLIAM, NUMBER 6-H, IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE US BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT -- THE ADOPTION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, THAT MAKES IT MOOT. SO CONTINUING ON WITH OBJECTIONS, TURNING TO PAGE 229, 229, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED TO ITEM 4-9.02 NUMBER 1-H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE, MR. TOSCANO.

Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville): THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLONIAL HEIGHTS BE WILLING TO EXPLAIN WHAT THIS LANGUAGE IN THE BUDGET MEANS?

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Del. David Toscano (D-Charlottesville): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE GLAD TO. THIS IS A PILOT LANGUAGE THAT DEALS WITH JMU AND GEORGE MASON TO ALLOW THEM SOMEWHAT GREATER AUTONOMY. THIS IS A REQUEST OF BOTH OF THEM. NOS NOT REALLY NEW AUTHORITY IN THE CODE. BASICALLY, IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT AUTONOMY CURRENTLY THESE TWO INSTITUTIONS HAVE, THEY HAVE IT ALREADY IN THE AREA OF PROCUREMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. THEY CAN ASK NOW FOR THAT AUTHORITY IN CAPITAL OUTLAY. WHAT THIS BASICALLY ALLOWS THEM UNDER THIS PILOT TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. WHILE THE OTHER LANGUAGE IS PULLED FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET, SOME OF IT OBVIOUSLY DOES THINGS LIKE MAKE IT EASY AS FAR AS THINGS LIKE FACULTY TRAVEL. CURRENTLY THESE TWO INSTITUTION, THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION JUST TO GET FACULTY PERMISSION TO GO TO ANY KIND OF CONFERENCE.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ANOTHER QUESTION? THE I YIELD. I ASK THE GENTLEMEN, AND I SUPPORTED THE CONSENSE OF AUTONOMY FOR UNIVERSITIES AND REMEMBER I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS AGO THAT WE SPENT A FAIR BIT OF TIME DEALING WITH THE AUTONOMY ISSUE RELATED TO UVA, TECH, AND WILLIAM & MARY. [ CAPTIONING WILL RESUME SHORTLY ] IT'S FAIRLY LIMITED. IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER LANGUAGE, IT'S RESTATING THE NOU LANGUAGE . I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. SHALL THE BUDGET AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 97, NOS TWO. AYES 97, NOS TWO, THE BUDGET AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. AND MR. SPEAKER, THE LAST OBJECTION IS ON PAGE 234TH THE COMMITTEE ELVES, OBJECTION RAISED, COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, ITEM 4-14, NUMBER 1H. SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO? MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. MARSHALL.

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IT.

[Unknown]: SHOULD HAVE PUSHED YOUR BUTTON, HUH?

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas): OKAY, SORRY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH, QUOTE, LEGISLATION IN AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL, BECAUSE THIS IS THE PREMIERE INSTRUMENT BY WHICH THIS BODY CAN EFFECT PUBLIC POLICY AND THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS, THOSE ARE FROM JAMES MADISON. BUT THIS IS UNUSUAL IN ITS LENGTH, 29 PAGES. AND I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT SOME POINT WHICH I HOPE TO OFFER TO MODIFY THIS. SO JUST FOR PURPOSES OF PROCEDURE, MR. SPEAKER, WOULD THIS HAVE TO BE APPROVED SO THAT I COULD THEN OFFER MY AMENDMENT? YOUR AMENDMENT IS DRAWN TO THIS AMENDMENT. I WOULD SAY SO. SO I WON'T VOTE YES, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE TAINTED. BUT I WILL OFFER THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. SHALL THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 89, NOS 10. AYES 89, NOS 10, THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. MR. SPEAKER, HAVING COMPLETED THE UNCONTESTED BLOCK, THE OBJECTED AMENDMENTS FOR THE COMMITTEE, NOW WE HAVE FOUR AMENDMENTS WHICH WERE NOT IN DON FLICT WITH ANY OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN, SO THE FIRST FLOOR AMENDMENT IS OFFERED BY DELEGATE BELL TO ITEM 132, NUMBER 2H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. BELL.

Del. John Bell (D-Chantilly): MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD HAVE TO WITHDRAW THAT AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT AMENDMENT WILL BE WITHDRAWN.

Del. John Bell (D-Chantilly): CONTINUING WITH FLOOR AMENDMENTS, THE NEXT ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN BUT IS BEFORE THE BODY, DELEGATE CAMPBELL HAS AN AMENDMENT, ITEM 319, NUMBER 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM, MR. CAMPBELL.

Del. Jeff Campbell (R-Marion): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER, I WOULD BE MOVING TO WITHDRAW THAT AMENDMENT, BUT BEFORE I DO, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE SPEAKER AND TO THE MAJORITY LEADER FOR THEIR WARM AND ENGAGING VISIT THAT I HAD THIS MORNING.

[Unknown]: [LAUGHTER]

Del. Jeff Campbell (R-Marion): I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT MORE OFTEN!

[Unknown]: [LAUGHTER] >> I'VE TRIED IT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THEY NEVER LISTEN TO ME. DIDN'T WORK! SERIOUSLY, MR. SPEAKER, THIS ISSUE HAS THE SPEAKER CERTAINLY KNOWS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MY DISTRICT, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT OF YOU AND THE MAJORITY LEADER TO ENCOURAGE THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO TAKE A MUCH CLOSER LOOK AT THIS ISSUE IN THE COMING YEAR AND PERHAPS EVEN MAKE A VISIT TO THE AREA. THIS IS AWFULLY IN OUR DISTRICT. WE ARE DEALING WITH SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE CITIZENS OUT THERE. AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMITMENT. THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM SMITH HAS WITHDRAWN HIS AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: SO CONTINUING WITH OTHER FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO THE UNDERLYING INTRODUCED BUDGET BILL, NEXT UP IS AN AMENDMENT BY DELEGATE O'QUINN, ITEM 369, NUMBER 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON, MR. O'QUINN.

Del. Israel O'Quinn (R-Bristol): THANK YOU MS. EXPLAINING THE -- MR. SPEAKER, EXPLAINING THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Israel O'Quinn (R-Bristol): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. 3691H IS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY 9 DECISION BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND THEIR UNPRECEDENTED DECISION TO STAY THE EPA'S CLEAN POWER PLAN. ESSENTIALLY THE STAY MEANS THE EPA CANNOT MOVE FORWARD ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OR ENFORCEMENT UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT MAKES A FINAL RULING ON THIS. AND SO THE STATE, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY FEEL OR DON'T FEEL ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, HAS NO OBLIGATION TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. AND SHOULD THE CLEAN POWER PLANT BE OVERTURNED, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EFFORT AND TIME AND RESOURCES THAT WILL HAVE BEEN WASTED. AND EVEN IF THE SUPREME COURT DOES UPHOLD THE CLEAN POWER PLAN, THE DEADLINES ARE LIKELY TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDED. AND SO SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND HOPEFULLY THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS HERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A FOOL'S ERROR TO CONTINUE WASTING THE COMMONWEALTH'S RESOURCES ON DEVELOPING SOMETHING THAT MAY NEVER COME TO FRUITION. AND SO THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT HAS SUPPORT OF THE VIRGINIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AMONG OTHERS AND I HOPE IT WILL BE THE PLEASURE OF THE HOUSE TO ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARLINGTON, MR. LOPEZ.

Del. Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT,

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE MR. SPEAKER? FLOOR.

Del. Alfonso Lopez (D-Arlington): THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THE SUPREME COURT'S STAY, JUST TO BE CLEAR, DOES NOT STRIKE DOWN THE CLEAN POWER PLANT, NOR DOES IT PREVENT STATES FROM IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES TO REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS. RATHER, AS THE CASE WORKS ITS WAY THROUGH THE COURTS, IT ALLOWS FOR MORE TIME TO EVALUATE VARY -- VARIANCE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS SHOULD THE RULE STAY IN PLACE. THE PRUDENT PATH, THE PRUDENT PATH FORWARD, IS TO CONTINUE TO EVALUATE WHAT THESE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS MEAN FOR VIRGINIA, BOTH DOMINION AND APPALACHIAN POWER ARE PREPARING THE NEXT INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLANS, WHICH WILL BE FILED WITH THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ON MAY FIRST AND WHICH EVALUATE OPTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN POWER PLAN. DEQ SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE ITS COORDINATED AND THOUGHTFUL STAKEHOLDER PROCESS TO GAUGE WHAT ELEMENTS OF A POTENTIAL PLAN WOULD WORK BEST FOR VIRGINIA. THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY FURTHER DELAY COMPLIANCE, INCREASING THE RISK OF THE EPA WRITING VIRGINIA'S PLAN WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THE COMMONWEALTH. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE DEADLINES UNDER THE FINAL RULE WILL CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH THE COURT HAS PUT A STAY ON THE RULE. AS SUCH, IF THE DEADLINES DON'T CHANGE AND VIRGINIA HAS DONE NOTHING TO PLAN FOR COMPLIANCE, THE COMPLIANCE COSTS COULD POTENTIALLY BE MUCH HIGHER THAN THEY NEED TO BE. STATEMENTS FROM UTILITY EXECUTIVES FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE STAY DOES NOT MEAN UTILITIES SHOULD DELAY PLANNING. THE SUPREME COURT STAY, AS WAS STATED, DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANYTHING, SAID QUINAN SHEA, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE, THE LOBBY ASSOCIATION FOR INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES. WE ARE STILL REDUCING CO26789 IN THE GENERAL CURVE OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS. THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE STAY. YOU DON'T SIMPLY PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE WHEN IT COMES TO MAJOR STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS THAT INDUSTRY IS MAKING. ANOTHER QUOTE, I DON'T THINK THE STAY CHANGES THE PROJECTIONS THAT JOHN MCMAHONIS, AEP'S VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. THAT IS BASED ON EXISTING RULES WE KNOW ABOUT AND ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON NATURAL GAS PRICES, ELECTRICITY PRICES, MARKET PRICES, AND CUSTOMER DEMAND. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULE IS STAYED UNTIL ITS ULTIMATE RESOLUTION. THAT DOESN'T PREVENT THE STATE FROM DOING SOMETHING PROCEED ACTIVELY. MOVING FORWARD ON ITS OWN. DEQ HAS IN PLACE A ROBUST STAKEHOLDER PROCESS AND IS WELL ON THE WAY TO CREATING THE BEST COMPLIANCE PLAN FOR VIRGINIA. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ONLY CREATE SERIOUS REGULATORY UNCERTAINTY. I HOPE THAT WE PLEASE OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: SHALL THE FLOOR AMENDMENT BE AGREED TO?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 63, NOS 34. AYES 63, NOS 34, THE FLOOR AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. THE NEXT FLOOR AMENDMENT BEFORE THE BODY OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL OF PRINCE WILLIAM, ITEM 4-1.01, NUMBER 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): MR. SPEAKER? WILL THE GENTLEMAN REPORT THE AMENDMENT SO I KNOW WHICH ONE THE GENTLEMAN FROM SPOTSYLVANIA -- CAROLINE IS GOING TO OBJECT TO?

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, THIS IS THE AMENDMENT DEALING WITH REQUISITES FOR PAYMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): I MOVE TO PASS BY AMENDMENT 1.01-1H.

[Unknown]: I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS JUST --

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM.

[Unknown]: FOR MY TWO MINUTES? AND WE CAN PASS BY THE OTHER ONE THAT WE SUBMITTED THAT'S SIMILAR TO THIS, MR. SPEAKER. THE DYLAN RULE HAS BEEN PART OF THE -- NOT THE VIRGINIA STATUTES, BUT PART OF THE OPERATION OF THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION FOR MORE THAN 120 YEARS. MY LANGUAGE HERE COMES FROM AN 1896 DECISION INVOLVING THE CITY OF WINCHESTER. AND IT STATES, IN EFFECT, THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE LOCALITIES MAKING DECISIONS ON THEIR OWN AS TO WHAT TO FUND, WHAT NOT TO FUND. THIS IS NOT A HOME RULE STATE. SO IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THINGS LIKE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, WHERE THEY CAN IMPOSE, AND THEY HAVE, OR THEY DID, A LOCAL INCOME TAX. WE'VE GOT SOME VERY AGGRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS AT THE SUPERVISE ORAL LEVEL, WE'VE GOT SOME EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH STATUTES, AND I URGE THAT YOU VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION TO PASS BY, TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A MEANS OR STATUTORY -- I'M SORRY, A RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND MAKE IT A STATUTE FOR AT LEAST THE DURATION OF THIS AMENDMENT. THANK YOU -- OF THIS BUDGET. THANK YOU.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK, TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THAT MOTION IS AGREED TO.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE CLERK WILL CONTINUE.

[Unknown]: NEXT AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL, ITEM 4-1.02, NUMBER 1H, WITHHOLDING OF SPENDING AUTHORITY.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAMPBELL, MR. MARSHALL.

[Unknown]: WOULD THE GENTLEMAN JUST IDENTIFY THE NATURE OF THE AMENDMENT? I DON'T HAVE IT ON MY DESK HERE. MR. SPEAKER, IT'S THE WITHHOLDING OF SPENDING AUTHORITY PROHIBITING THE FUNDING, FUNDS BY AN AGENCY FOR A SUBDIVISION, THE COMMONWEALTH -- >> THAT'S THE SAME, SIMILAR AMENDMENT, SO WE CAN DISPENSE WITH THAT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM WITHDRAWS THAT AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: NICEST THING YOU'VE DONE TODAY! THE CLERK WILL CONTINUE. MR. SPEAKER, NEXT FLOOR AMENDMENT TO UNDERLYING BUDGET BILL OFFERED BY DELEGATE HUGO, ITEM 4-5.01,

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, NUMBER 4H. MR. HUGO.

Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville): AND MR. SPEAKER? I ALWAYS TRY TO WORK WITH THIS SYSTEM. I INTEND TO WITHDRAW THIS IN A MINUTE OF THE BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT I APPRECIATE MEETING WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF APPROPRIATIONS THIS MORNING, THE MAJORITY LEADER, TO TALK ABOUT LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE IN THE OFF SEASON, AND MR. SPEAKER, MEETING WITH YOU AND HAVING THE JOINT COMMITTEE LOOK AT THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM. AS I SAID, WHEN WE HAVE $60 MILLION, GOING TO OUT OF STATE STUDENTS, AND 50 MILLION OF THAT IS COMING FROM FIVE SCHOOLS, AND I'VE BEEN INTRIGUED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS SINCE I'VE GIVEN THAT SPEECH TO LISTEN TO THE MEMBERS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE WHO ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THAT AND SYMPATHETIC. SOME OF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT SCHOOL DEBT, COLLEGE DEBT, SOME OF YOU WORRY ABOUT ACCESS, WHETHER YOU ARE FROM SUBURBAN AREAS, NORTHERN VIRGINIA. I HAD FOLKS FROM THE RURAL AREAS TALK TO ME ABOUT THE ACCESS AND WHAT THIS $60 MILLION, HOW MANY MORE SLOTS IT COULD BUY FROM A KID IN SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA OR SOUTH SIDE, HOW MUCH MONEY IT COULD REDUCE THE TUITION, OR CONVERSELY, HOW MANY BUILDINGS WE COULD BUILD WITH $60 MILLION A YEAR, HUNDREDS OF MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. BUT AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND CHAIRMAN, MAJORITY, AND SPEAKER IN THE OFF SEASON, SO I ASK THIS AMENDMENT BE WITHDRAWN.

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN WITHDRAWS HIS AMENDMENT.

Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville): NEXT FLOOR AMENDMENT, OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL OF PRINCE WILLIAM, ITEM 4-5.03, NUMBER 2H, DEALING WITH SERVICES.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): I MOVE TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: CLAIMING MY TWO MINUTES?

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS HIS TIME.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THIS STATES THAT INSTEAD OF THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HANDLING ALL THIS LOOT THAT'S GOING TO COME FROM THESE TOLLS INSIDE THE BELTWAY, THAT IT'S ANOTHER ORGANIZATION, THE NORTHERN VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. NOW, I'VE SUED THEM AND WON. I SUED THEM A SECOND TIME, BECAUSE I MISSED A FILING DEADLINE, AND WAS UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH IT. BUT THE VOTING STRUCTURE OF THE MVTC IS AS FOLLOWS: FALLS CHURCH, WHICH HAS 12,300 PEOPLE, HAS ONE VOTE ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. LOUDOUN, WITH 312,000 PEOPLE, HAS ONE VOTE ON THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. FAIRFAX CITY, WITH 22,600 PEOPLE, HAS ONE VOTE, LOUDOUN AGAIN WITH 312,000 PEOPLE, HAS ONE VOTE. THIS IS STRIKINGLY OUT OF BALANCE, MR. SPEAKER. AND MR. SPEAKER, THE 450,000 PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PRINCE WILLIAM, MANASSAS AND MANASSAS PARK, HAVE NO VOTE, YET THIS MONEY, IN THE EIGHTH PLANNING DISTRICT, WILL BE USED WITHOUT ANY SINGLE ELECTED OFFICIAL HAVING ANY INPUT INTO THIS. NOW, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. I MEAN, REALLY. THIS BODY IS DOING A SEVERE DISSERVICE TO THOSE IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA. AT LEAST LET A BODY THAT IS SOMEWHAT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA ADMINISTRATOR THESE FUNDS. THAT'S ALL THIS DOES. SO I URGE -- AND PLEASE, GO ON RECORD HERE. LET'S NOT HIDE BEHIND THE VOICE VOTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK, HAS MOVED THAT WE PASS THE AMENDMENT BY. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO. AS MANY AS FAVOR THE MOTION WILL RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH. THE CLERK WILL CONTINUE.

[Unknown]: CONTINUING WITH THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO THE UNDERLYING INTRODUCED BUDGET, NEXT UP IS AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL OF PRINCE WILLIAM, ITEM 4-5.04, NUMBER 3H, DEALING WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON EXPENDITURES.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE GENTLEMAN --

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM --

[Unknown]: I DID NOT -- IS THIS THE ONE WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON GUNS? I DON'T THINK YOU -- YOU WROTE THAT, DIDN'T YOU? NO, I'M JUST -- [LAUGHTER] IT IS YOUR AMENDMENT, ISN'T IT? NO. I ASKED THAT THIS ONE BE PASSED BY, AND MISTAKENLY, AMENDMENT, ITEM NUMBER 4-1.02 1H WAS PASSED BY. I DID NOT ASK FOR THAT TO BE PASSED BY. I THINK WE DID. MR. SPEAKER? I ASKED FOR A SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO BE PASSED BY, AND THAT SIMILAR AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE TO DO WITH THE DYLAN RULE, NOT WITH WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS OR AGREE TO USE FEDERAL FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT MR. OBAMA'S REGULATION. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE DYLAN RULE AND THIS. OKAY . >>

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER, MEMBERS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER, DELEGATE MARSHALL OF PRINCE WILLIAM'S FLOOR AMENDMENT ITEM 4-5.4 NUMBER 3H HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. MISTAKENLY, I MISREPORTED -- YES. AMENDMENT NUMBER ITEM 4-1.02, NUMBER 1H IS NOW BEFORE THE BODY, DEALING WITH ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER? I WOULD MOVE TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER? CLAIMING MY TWO MINUTES AFTER THAT NICE MOTION?

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS HIS TWO MINUTES.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU. TWO MINUTES IN THE SUNLIGHT, OKAY. MR. SPEAKER, THIS ACTUALLY ORIGINATED IN A MEASURE THAT THE COURTS OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE PASSED IN 2014. THE SIMILAR PROPOSAL TO STATE THAT VIRGINIA WOULD NOT ENFORCE REGULATIONS OPPOSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR BILLS PASSED AFTER A CERTAIN TIME. I THINK IT WAS DECEMBER 1ST, 2013. THAT MADE IT TO THE FLOOR, AND IT WAS SENT TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WHERE IT NEVER WAS HEARD FROM AGAIN. THIS WAS THE SUBSTANCE OF A BILL THAT I INTRODUCED THIS SESSION WHICH WAS SENT TO MILITIA AND POLICE, AND BEFORE THERE WAS A HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT WAS SENT BY VOICE VOTE UP TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. MR. SPEAKER, I WAITED PATIENTLY, AND LOOKED AT MY E-MAILS DAILY. I NEVER SAW A MESSAGE FROM THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALLING ME UP THERE TO HOLD A HEARING ON THIS. SO MR. SPEAKER, WHAT THIS SAYS IS THAT BECAUSE MR. OBAMA HAS NOT ISSUED ALL HIS REGULATIONS, AND IN FACT, THE VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION IS TURNING OVER THE NAMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE HAD PEOPLE TO ASSIST VETERANS WITH THEIR FINANCES, MUCH LIKE MEMBERS HERE, WHO HAVE SOMEBODY FILL OUT THEIR TAXES, BUT THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY NOT COMPETENT, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR ONE YEAR WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS. LOOK AT THEM WHEN THEY COME BACK. IF THEY ARE REASONABLE, WE CAN DO THAT. THIS PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION FOR ENFORCING A REGULATION THAT THE VIRGINIA STATE POLICE HAVE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS AND MR. SPEAKER, I HOPE WE DO A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK, TO PASS THE AMENDMENT BY. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THOSE OPPOSED, NO.

[Unknown]: THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): AS MANY AS FAVOR THE MOTION WILL RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND.

[Unknown]: THAT'S ENOUGH. THE MOTION TO PASS BY IS AGREED TO. CONTINUING WITH FLOOR AMENDMENTS, TWO MORE LEFT, NEXT UP -- CAN WE DO THEM IN A BLOCK? FLOOR AMENDMENT OFFERED BY DELEGATE SIMON, ITEM 4-6.07, NUMBER 1H.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM --

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER? YES.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: THE --

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): SPEAKING TO THE MOTION?

[Unknown]: BEG YOUR PARDON? SPEAKING TO THE SNOATION. THE GENTLEMAN HAS TWO MINUTES. I HAVE TWO MINUTES, THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER. THIS COULD TAKE TWO MINUTES, I HOPE IT DOESN'T. I'M SURPRISED I DIDN'T GET A VISIT FROM YOU OR THE MAJORITY LEADER ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. MR. SPEAKER, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE, THIS IS A SERIOUS SUBJECT AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. VIRGINIA STATE EMPLOYEES, EVERYBODY WHO WORKS WITH AND AROUND VIRGINIA GOVERNMENT, DESERVES TO BE JUDGED ON THEIR MERIT, ON THE JOB THEY DO, NOT ON THEIR RACE, THEIR RELIGION, THEIR GENDER, THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A DO-OVER. WE HEARD ABOUT A DO-OVER MOTION EARLIER IN THE DAY. OUR REPUTATION IN THE STATE, AS A GREAT PLACE TO DO BUSINESS TOOK A HIT A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN THIS BODY PASSED OUT LEGISLATION THAT MANY CHARACTERIZE AS A RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE BILL. SOCIAL MEDIA BLEW UP ABOUT THAT, WHAT IS VIRGINIA DOING. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY, MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE, TO SEND A SIGNAL TO VIRGINIA UNDERSTANDS THESE ISSUES, WELCOMING TO ALL KINDS OF PEOPLE, A PLACE WHERE EVERYONE IS JUDGED ON MERIT, NOT RACE, RELIGION OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. I HOPE IT BE THE PLEASURE OF THE BODY TO PASS BY SO WE CAN ADOPT THE AMENDMENT.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BODY IS ON THE MOTION FROM THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK, TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THAT WAS SUFFICIENT. SHALL THE MOTION BE AGREED TO?

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER? JUST A PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY. IT SOUNDS LIKE -- THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER.

[Unknown]: I'M READY.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 64, NOS 35. AYES 64, NOS 35, THE MOTION TO PASS BY IS AGREED TO. FINALLY, MR. SPEAKER, THE LAST FLOOR AMENDMENT TO THE UNDERLYING BUDGET BILL OFFERED BY DELEGATE MARSHALL OF PRINCE WILLIAM, ITEM 4-14-3H. MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): I MOVE TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM.

[Unknown]: I MOVE TO ADDRESS THE AMENDMENT FOR TWO MINUTES.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU. MR. SPEAKER, LAST FALL, I THINK YOU SPENT -- I MEAN, QUITE A LOT OF MONEY, ABOUT TELLING PEOPLE THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE TOLLS INSIDE THE BELTWAY. WELL NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TOLLS OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY, AND ONE OF THE EFFECTS, WHICH VDOT DOESN'T WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT, BECAUSE I'VE GIVEN THEM A NUMBER OF FOIAS, AND THEY'VE GIVEN ME A DEER IN THE HEAD LIGHTS RESPONSE BACK, HOW MANY LANES WILL BE THERE? FINALLY AT ONE PUBLIC MEETING, SECRETARY LANE, NO RELATION TO THE OTHER LANES -- THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE, NOW -- >> -- IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT THE SHOULDER LANE WILL BE GOING BYE BYE, WHICH MEANS INSTEAD OF FOUR LANES THAT PEOPLE HAVE RIGHT NOW TO TRAVEL FROM HEY MARKET OR CENTERVILLE OR, YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE IN PRINCE WILLIAM, TO THE BELTWAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THREE LANES. THREE LANES. YOU WILL BE COMPACTING FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC ON TO THREE LANES. THIS IS NOT TRANSPORTATION PROGRESS. THIS IS A TRANSPORTATION REGRESS. MR. SPEAKER, AT LEAST TELL ALL THE PEOPLE IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, GO ON RECORD THAT YOU WANT TO COMPACT THEM IN FOUR LANES AND DON'T HIDE BEHIND A VERBAL MOTION TO PASS BY, SO THAT FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE -- I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE ON THIS. I HOPE YOU PUT YOUR HANDS UP TO DEMAND A RECORD VOTE. MR. SPEAKER, I URGE A NO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PASS BY AND ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM CAROLINE, MR. ORROCK, TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL SAY AYE, THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): MR. SPEAKER?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM PRINCE WILLIAM.

Del. Bobby Orrock (R-Thornburg): I'LL ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE.

[Unknown]: ASK FOR A RECORD VOTE? YEA OR NAY VOTE, ONE OF THOSE. AS MANY AS FAVOR THE MOTION WILL RAISE THEIR RIGHT HAND. MR. SPEAKER? THIS IS ON THE MOTION TO PASS BY THE AMENDMENT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT, RIGHT? THIS IS ON SEEKING A RECORDED VOTE ON THE MOTION TO PASS BY. HE'S ASKING YOU FOR THE AYES AND -- YOU CAN'T DO IT BY YOURSELF. IT'S OVER. I'M ASKING FOR YOU TO COUNT THE OTHER 20 PEOPLE HERE FOR A RECORD VOTE. I CAN TELL. I DIDN'T -- I THOUGHT I SAW MORE THAN 20 HANDS UP. THE CLERK WILL CONTINUE. MR. SPEAKER, THAT COMPLETES THE FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGET BILL THAT ARE BEFORE THE BODY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM SUFFOLK, MR. JONES.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE THAT THE MOTION --

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READING AND PLACE THE BILL ON PASSAGE.

[Unknown]: SHALL THE THIRD CONSTITUTIONAL READ FOG HOUSE BILL 30 BE DISPENSED? >>O READING FOR HOUSE BILL 30 BE DISPENSED?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 100, NOS, ZERO. AYES 100, NOS, ZERO, THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. SHALL THE BILL PASS? MR. SPEAKER? I'M SORRY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEWOMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MS. WATTS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU MR. SPEAKER, IF I COULD SPEAK TO THE MOTION. BEG YOUR PARDON? SPEAKING TO THE MOTION? THE MOTION? OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE LAST BENEDICTION, IF I MAY. THERE ARE TWO MAJOR ELEMENTS THAT ARE NOT IN THE HOUSE BUDGET THAT WERE IN THE GOVERNOR'S. WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT MEDICAID, BUT WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER ELEMENT, TAXES PAID BY VIRGINIANS. WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS ALL ABOUT THE TAXES PAID BY VIRGINIA, BUT IS ABSOLUTELY INTERTWINED WITH REFUSING TO EXPAND MEDICAID. THE HOUSE BUDGET CONTAINS A LOT OF CHOICES. IT CHOOSES NOT TO GET BACK $2 MILLION A YEAR, PAID BY VIRGINIANS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT CHOOSES NOT TO PROVIDE BASIC HEALTH SERVICES FOR 350,000 LOW INCOME ADULTS. HOWEVER, IT DOES CHOOSE TO USE 400 PERCENT MORE IN TAX DOLLARS TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO JUST A FEW OF THOSE ADULTS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE WILL SPEND $5.4 MILLION IN STATE TAXES TO COVER JUST 1 PERCENT OF THAT 350,000 WHO ARE SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL, BUT WE WILL DO IT UNDER THE TRADITIONAL 50-50 MEDICAID FUNDING. WE COULD HAVE CHOSEN TO SPEND JUST 1.1 MILLION FOR THE SAME COVERAGE UNDER 9010 FUNDING OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. CHOICES LIKE THIS FORCED THE OTHER MAJOR CHOICE IN THIS BUDGET. NOT ONLY TO NOT GET BACK THE FEDERAL TAXES THAT VIRGINIANS HAVE PAID, BUT TO NOT GIVE VIRGINIA TAXPAYERS THE TAX BREAKS THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED WHICH WERE A PERSONAL EXEMPTION FOR EACH TAXPAYER AND EACH FAMILY, WHILE IT CONTINUE TO BE $930, JUST $930. BACK IN THE 1970S, THEY WERE THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION IS NOW PERSONAL EXEMPTION. $4000. AGAIN, OUR VIRGINIA TAXPAYERS ONLY GET $930 FOR EVERY FAMILY MEMBER AS A PERSONAL EXEMPTION. THE GOVERNOR ALSO PROPOSED VIRGINIA'S CORPORATE TAX DECREASE, BUT NOW IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE 6 PERCENT, WHILE NORTH CAROLINA JUST DROPPED THEIRS FROM 7 PERCENT TO 5 PERCENT. AND MAY TAKE IT LOWER. BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT TAX LAW CHANGES A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO, THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX IS NOW MOSTLY PAID BY JUST MAJOR EMPLOYERS. THE CURRENT -- DEPENDS ON JOBS, TRUE MIDDLE CLASS WHAT CHOICE WILL THESE MAJOR FAMILIES. EMPLOYERS MAKE WHEN THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO LOCATE 50 MILES EITHER SIDE OF VIRGINIA'S SOUTHERN BORDER? THAT WHOLE WIDE SWATH OF VIRGINIA WHERE CITIZENS ARE SUFFERING THE HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT, WHERE JOBS ARE NEEDED MOST, AND WHERE WE NEED TO GROW AND DIVERSIFY OUR ECONOMY. REFUSING TO DISPASSIONATELY LOOK AT THE ECONOMICS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AS SO MANY STATES HAVE REMAINS A MAJOR MISSED OPPORTUNITY, NOT ONLY FOR THE 350,000 LOW INCOME, WITHOUT HEALTH COVERAGE, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR VIRGINIA TAXPAYERS. [APPLAUSE] SHALL THE BILL PASS?
1, PAGE 2 OF THE PRINTED VERSION, NEXT UP, HOUSE BILL 30, A BILL FOR ALL A PREPARATIONS AND BUDGET SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA ACCORDING TO PROVISIONS OF 2.2, 15709, CODE OF VIRGINIA AND TO PROVIDE A PORTION OF THE REVENUES FOR THE TWO YEARS ENDING RESPECTIVELY ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017 AND 30TH OF JUNE 2018. SENATE AMENDMENTS AGREED TO, AND THEY ARE BEFORE THE BODY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM SUFFOLK, MR. JONES.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): I WOULD ASK THAT WE REJECT, THAT WOULD BE RED. SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE BILL 30.

[Unknown]: SHALL THE SENATE AMENDMENTS BE AGREED TO.

Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.


Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): SUBSTITUTE. ALL IN FAVOR RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. OPPOSED NO. VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY OF THE SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): AYES 32; NO'S 7.

[Unknown]: AYES 32; NO'S 7. THE SUBSTITUTE IS CONQUERED WITH. THE SENATE WILL STAND AT EASE.


Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk): REPRESENTS THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, BUT IT BEGAN WITH THE GOVERNOR INTRODUCING HIS BUDGETS TO US -- OR HIS BUDGET TO US BACK IN DECEMBER. THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAS BEEN ONE OF TRYING TO INCLUDE MEMBERS, INCLUDE THE PUBLIC, AND INCLUDE OUR COLLEAGUES DOWN THE HALL. I WANT TO WELCOME TO THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SHORT-LIVED WHEN HE WAS VOTING NO A FEW MINUTES AGO, HE WAS A VERY NICE ADDITION TO THE CONFERENCE. AND BEFORE WE VOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. THIS YEAR WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN THE FACT THAT WE HAD TWO -- THREE LONG-STANDING MEMBERS OF OUR SISTER BODY AT THE END OF THE HALL, THE SENATE, WITH RETIREMENTS OF COLGAN, WATKINS, AND SUBSTANTIATE. THERE WERE THREE NEW CONFEREES WITH TWO NEW CO-CHAIRS. I'M PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE CONFERENCE WAS VERY SMOOTH. SENATORS NORMENT AND HANGER WERE GREAT TO WORK WITH, AND I TRIBUTE OUR SUCCESS IN ENDING THE DAY EARLY TO THEM AND THE SEVEN CONFEREES IN THE SENATE. I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION BETSY ACTUALLY I AND HER CAPABLE AND ABLE STAFF, AND OUR OWN ROBERT VAUGHN AND HIS STAFF. LET'S GIVE THEM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE, PLEASE. [ APPLAUSE ]

[Unknown]: THEY SPENT THE ENTIRE NIGHT GETTING EVERYTHING RIGHT AND READY TO BE PRINTED AND TO GET IT ONLINE 48 HOURS AGO. AND I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE PRODUCT THAT'S BEFORE US. THE GOVERNOR GAVE US A LOT OF RUNWAY IN THE BUDGET WHEN HE WE TOOK THAT. INTRODUCED US. AND WE MODIFIED ESPECIALLY IN HIGHER EDUCATION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION. WE WERE ABLE TO UNWRAP THE DEFERRAL FROM SIX YEARS AGO, WE WERE ABLE TO PAY DOWN AND GET RID OF THE 100% -- TO THE HUNDRED%, I SHOULD SAY, VRS RATES THIS YEAR OR THE FIRST YEAR FOR THE STATE EMPLOYEES AND A SECOND YEAR FOR TEACHERS. THE WORK WITH THIS BODY IS SO THAN BEFORE, AND I'M JUST REFLECTED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MORE VERY PROUD TO HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE TEAM. I WANT TO THANK THE VICE CHAIRMAN, MR. LANDES, MAJORITY LEADER COX, DELEGATES O'BANNON AND GREASON AND DELEGATE TORIAN. THEY DID ALL THE WORK I JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE CHAIRMAN. I'M PROUD OF THE HOURS THEY PUT IN PUTTING THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE THIS BODY THIS EVENING AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE BILL 30.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): Speaker: SHALL THE CONFERENCE


[Unknown]: ALL, I'D LIKE TO BELIEVE THAT AS A WOMAN, I KNOW MORE ABOUT MY HEALTH CARE NEEDS THAN THE STATE LEGISLATURE DOES AS A BLANKET STATEMENT. SPEAKING OF BLANKET STATEMENTS, WE HAD A LONG DEBATE A SHORT TIME AGO, AND WE KNOW THAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT AN ISSUE OF ABORTION. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT'S ON THE PAGE, AS IN THE BILL, THERE WERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE BILL. IT DIDN'T MATTER, BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT ABORTION, NOT ABOUT THE BILL. I BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT THE GOVERNOR WISHES TO STRIKE, THE LANGUAGE READS NO EXPENDITURE FROM GENERAL OR NONGENERAL FUND SOURCES MAY BE MADE OUT OF ANY APPROPRIATION BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR PROVIDING ABORTION SERVICES EXCEPT OTHERWISE AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW OR STATE STATUTE. THERE IS NO APPROPRIATION FOR FUNDING ABORTION. SO WHY IS IT NECESSARY? WE KNOW FROM THE DISCUSSION OF THE BILL THAT WE DISCUSSED, 1090, THAT AS IT WENT THROUGH, THERE WERE MAJOR QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE OUGHT TO BE FUNDING HOSPITALS UNDER THE BILL AND THEY HAD TO BE SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED OUT, WHEREAS IN THIS LANGUAGE, ONE COULD ARGUE THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE IN. SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS IS AT BEST UNNECESSARY AND AT WORST, VERY CONFUSING. IT ALSO SENDS THE SYMBOLIC MESSAGE OF CONTROLLING THE HEALTH DECISIONS OF WOMEN WHICH IS NOT THE MESSAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE SENT AS WE LOOK AT THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMONWEALTH AND ITS ECONOMY. I URGE YOU TO ACCEPT THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THIS UNNECESSARY, CONFUSING LANGUAGE.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM AUGUSTA, MR. LANDES.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Steve Landes (R-Weyers Cave): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, AMENDMENT 30, ITEM 4-5.04, IS NOT A NEW AMENDMENT. THIS HOUSE HAS CONSIDERED THIS AMENDMENT AND ACTUALLY IT'S BEEN ADOPTED SINCE 2010. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT WE NEED TO KNOW, AND I THINK THE GENTLELADY ALLUDED TO THIS, FEDERAL LAW ALREADY TRACKS WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THIS AMENDMENT. IT'S KNOWN AS THE HYDE AMENDMENT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WHEN CONGRESSMAN HYDE, WHO WAS I THINK THEN CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE GOT THAT THROUGH BOTH THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE U.S. SENATE. PLRKS I'M GOING TO ASK THE HOUSE TO REJECT THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE POLICY THAT THIS HOUSE HAS ALREADY ADOPTED AND IT'S ALSO CONTRARY TO WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW IS.

[Unknown]: SHALL THE HOUSE AGREE TO THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION? >>

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 34, NOS 65. AYES 34, NOS 65, THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT


Sen. Steve Newman (R-Forest): AYES 38, NOS 1.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): AYES 38, NOS 1. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO. RETURNING TO THE VOTE ON THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF AMENDMENT 8, 9, 11, AND 29, THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CH ANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 36, NOS 3. AYES 36, NOS 3. THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AGREED TO. RETURNING TO PAGE 28. AMENDMENT 8. THE SENATOR FROM AUGUSTA, SENATOR HANGER.

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon): THE SENATOR FROM MECKLENBURG, SENATOR RUPP.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. ITEM NUMBER 115 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND WAS REJECTED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET AND I WOULD -- I WOULD SO MOVE THAT THAT NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM WESTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR MARSDEN.

Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke): SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

[Unknown]: THIS AMENDMENT PROVIDES $184,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO ALLOW DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY TO FILL TWO VACANT POSITIONS AND ADDRESS TWO ISSUES. INCREASED WORK LOAD ASSOCIATED WITH YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INSPECTIONS WHICH PROVIDE SAFETY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE OFOUT EMPLOYEES. THEY ARE EXPOSED TO HARM AND UNTIMELY IN PECS PAY PLACE THEM IN THE POSITION OF PERFORMING HAZARDOUS WORK. AND INVESTIGATION INTO PAYMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS WHICH THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR HAS SEEN THE NUMBER OF PAYMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS SIGNED FOR INVESTIGATION UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGE ACT INCREASED MORE THAN % WITH -- MORE THAN 50% WITH OVER 20% REQUIRING LONGER MORE COMPLEX INVESTIGATIONS. THEY ARE NOT ENOLOGY AT THINGS BOO HE LOW $15,000 THEY ARE SO STRESSED OUT. DELAYS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF PAYMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS MAKE THE CASES MORE DIFFICULT TO INVESTIGATE DUE TO THE NATURE OF WAGE PAYMENTS AND CAN HINDER THE RESOLUTION OF THE CLAIMS. ADDITIONAL STAFF IS NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THESE IMPORTANT PROGRAMS, AND I WOULD URGE THAT WE LOOK AFTER OUR KIDS WE MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE ARE GETTING PAID FAIRLY AND NOT BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. WE ARE ALREADY WAY SHORT ON THESE POSITIONS. WE ARE ONLY ASKING FOR TWO HERE AND I WOULD URGE US TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT.

Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke): THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA BEACH, SENATOR WAGNER.

Sen. Frank Wagner (R-Virginia Beach): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT. WE SAT ON THAT SUB COMMITTEE AND ASKED QUESTIONS REPEATEDLY ABOUT WHY THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET ITEM WAS IN THE BUDGET AND NO ONE CAME TO US WITH ANY OF THE -- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EVERYTHING THAT THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN FAIRFAX SAID, AT NO TIME DID WE HEAR ANY TIME OF TESTIMONY IN THERE AND IT WAS CLEAR WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE AS ONES WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO CUT ALL OF THE EXPENSES OUT OF THE BUDGET AND PAIR BACK FROM $100 BILLION BUDGET IT WAS AN AREA THAT WE DIDN'T HEAR COMPLAINTS AND WE DIDN'T HAAR FROM CONSTITUENTS THERE WERE AN ISSUE AND WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE AGENCY LIKE WE DID, SAY, VDOT FOR THE NEED FOR SOME 300 NEW EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE TO FORCE TO MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS AND THIS WAS ONE WHERE WE DIDN'T SEE THE COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR THE TWO POSITIONS SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD REJECT THIS AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: THE NO ARE FROM ROCK -- THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): A BUSINESS OWNER IN MY PART OF THE STATE HAD AN EMPLOYEE WHO SAID HE HAD A 16-YEAR-OLD NEPHEW WHO WAS LOOKING FOR SUMMER WORK. AND I WONDERED IF HE MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING HE COULD DO. AND HE HIRED HIM TO COME IN AND SWEEP UP AND EMPTY TRASH CANS FOR THE SUMMER. AND ABOUT THREE WEEKS AFTER HE HIRED HIM, HE DIDN'T GET A CALL, BUT HE GOT A VISIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR INVESTIGATOR WHO ACTUALLY DROVE UP TO THE SHENANDOAH VALLEY TO SPEND BASICALLY A FULL DAY MAKING AN INVESTIGATION OF THIS ONE SITUATION AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO WORK IN THIS FACILITY. RATHER THAN PICKING UP THE PHONE AND CALLING THE BUSINESS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS 16-YEAR-OLD CHILD, KID, WAS DOING AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER HE IS ALLOWED TO DO IT, THEY ARE SENDING PEOPLE ON THE ROAD ALL OVER THE STATE IN THESE WILD GOOSE CHASES. AND FOR ME, YOU KNOW, IT IS A PRACTICAL MATTER, PLUS A LOCK OF DEMONSTRATION OF THE NEED. WE NEED TO WORK SMART. THIS IS GOVERNMENT BUT THIS IS OUR MONEY AND IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR CAN DO ITS JOB MORE EFFICIENTLY, BY GOLLY, LET'S ASK THEM TO DO IT.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT. SPEAK TOGETHER MOTION. I ASSOCIATE -- SPEAKING TO THE MOTION. I ASSOCIATE WITH THE COMMENTS FROM THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA BEACH AND THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM AND I WOULD REMIND THAT THIS WAS A CONSIDERATION THAT WE HAD DURING THE BUDGETARY PROCESS AND THE SENATE OF VIRGINIA CONSCIOUSLY MADE A DECISION NOT TO INCLUDE THIS PROVISION OR AMENDMENT NUMBER 9 IN OUR BUDGET. THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE WITH US. AND WE HAVE PASSED JUDGMENT ON IT BEFORE. I APPRECIATE THAT PEOPLE CAN CHANGE THEIR MINDS BUT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE REJECT THIS AMENDMENT. [PLEASE STAND BY] >>. COMPARABLE STATES. AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE A VERY SAFE STATE. AND BASED ON THAT, TRYING TO KEEP THE BUDGET AS TIGHT AS WE COULD. WE CHOSE NOT TO FUND THESE AND HOPE THE SENATE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT POSITION. THANK YOU. SENATOR NORMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH ONCE AGAIN DURING THE BUDGETARY PROCESS, THE SENATE CONSIDER THIS AND I ASK WE DO IT AGAIN.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU. WITH THE RECOMMENDATION AMENDMENT 9 BE REJECTED. SHALL THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR WILL RECORD AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NO. HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 18, NOs 21. THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION IS REJECTED. AMENDMENT 11 ON PAGE 29. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AMENDMENT NUMBER 11 DEALS WITH THE REVERSION OF THE CHAMBERLAIN HOTEL. PREVIOUS ACTS TO REVERSE THE HOTEL PARCEL AT FORT MONROE TO THE COMMONWEALTH. THIS LANGUAGE JEOPARDIZES MONTHS OF GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE ARMY AND REPRESENTATIVES ON A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON CONVENIENCE PROCESS FOR THE ARMY'S INTEREST IN THAT PARCEL. ADDITIONALLY, THE BUDGET LANGUAGE ADOPTED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE ARMY OF THE COMMONWEALTH HAVE BEEN WORKING TO DETERMINE A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON PROCESS FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE ARMY'S INTEREST IN THE PARCEL. THE BUDGET LANGUAGE CIRCUMVENTS THE APPROACH AND JEOPARDIZES THE INTEREST AND THE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE ARMY. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE AGREE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE GOVERNOR'S RECOMMENDATION BE AGREED TO ON AMENDMENT NUMBER 11? ALL IN FAVOR WILL RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? ANY SENATOR DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTES. AYES 35. NOs 4. THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO. MOVING TO PAGE 36 IF. AMENDMENT 29. SENATOR LUCAS. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT NUMBER 29. WHEN LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WRITES A TICKET AGAINST LOCAL ORDINANCE AND THE DRIVER IS FOUND GUILTY OR PLEADS NO CONTEST, RETAINED BY THE LOCALITY WHERE THE OFFENSE OCCURRED. LANGUAGE REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN LOCALITIES MUST REMIT A PORTION OF THOSE EXCESS FINES TO THE STATE. GOES FURTHER TO EXEMPT TWO LOCALITIES FROM REMITTANCE. TO REQUIRE SOME LOCALITIES OF A PORTION OF THESE FINES JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF COLLECTION AND TO EXEMPT TWO ENTIRELY SEEMS ARBITRARY AND UNFAIR. THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT REMOVES LANGUAGE IN SECTION 3-6.05 CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH LOCAL FINES TO THE STATE THUS ALLOWING LOCALITIES TO RETAIN ALL FINES COLLECTED FROM TICKETS WRITTEN AGAINST LOCAL ORDINANCE. AND THIS COMES AT THE RECOMMENDATION ALSO OF THE 11 SHERIFFS THAT I REPRESENT IN THE 11 LOCALITIES. SO AGAIN, I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT TO 29. THANK YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR HANGER. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD RISE TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR'S AMENDMENT IN THIS CASE. WE'VE HAD THIS SITUATION BEFORE WHERE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN LOBBIED BY OUR LOCAL SHERIFFS. IT'S TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE LOCALITIES WHICH OTHERWISE WE'D BE PUTTING THE LITERARY FUND. THAT WAS THE INTENT SO THAT -- AS MANY OF YOU HAVE OBSERVED, THERE ARE CERTAIN PLACES WHERE YOU MIGHT BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO A LOCAL DEPUTY SITTING OUT THERE AND PICKING YOU OFF AND CREATING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THERE IS CONCERN ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE THE SHERIFFS WON ON THIS ONE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN TOUCH. I WOULD SAY WE PROBABLY SHOULD SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. WE MAY NEED TO REVISIT THIS TO MAKE SURE IT'S EQUITABLE. THE LARGER PROBLEM THAT WE'RE CONFRONTED WITH IS INADEQUATE REVENUE RESOURCES FOR LOCAL I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE GOVERNMENTS. FUTURE. RIGHT NOW, WE'LL LET THEM HAVE A WIN. SENATOR CARRICO. TO RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE AMENDMENT. IF I CAN BRING EVERYBODY BACK TO THE SESSION HOUSE BILL 537 CAME FROM THE HOUSE PASSED UNANIMOUS AND INTO THIS BODY PASSING