Norman K. Thurston

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this bill formally defines Utah State Protection Advocacy Agency and clarifies the legislature's intent regarding its responsibility to represent advocate for all disabilities disabled, individual statewide. It also will in intends or attempts to improve transparency and legislative oversight by requesting that the agency provides certain information to legislative committees about meetings held, services provided, population served, et cetera, et cetera, throughout the year. So this will enga strengthen public engagement and accountability and also, um, be the first time that the legislature actually has some type of a formal relationship with the State's Protection Advocacy Agency.

Yeah. So federal law requires the state to have a state protection advocacy agency. Federal law allows the governor to just designate that, whoever that is. So we need to have one. The governor designates one. Uh, so we've had one, I it's been over 40 years that the state has done this. The legislature has never really expressed an interest in this at all. It's just been something that the federal law requires and the governor does. So this now puts a marker in state statute recognizing that this thing does in fact exist.

Yeah, in fact, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it just requests that they report to the legislature. We we're not actually requiring them to do anything different than they're currently doing. We're just asking nicely.

Thank you. We'll sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative, will you yield? Yes. Yes. Representative.

Could you describe to us the difference between a tobacco specialty retailer and a general tobacco re retailer in the bill?

And so this, the amendment made in the Senate clarifies that there are those separate categories and tiers of tobacco retailers. Is that correct?

You Madam Speaker ProAm, I would like to reserve the right to make two motions.

So colleagues, there's gonna be a motion to substitute and a motion to amend in just a second, but I wanna explain what the bill does because the, if I describe the substitute, it wouldn't make any sense. So what this bill does, the Office of the Inspector General has been around since 2011, and it's actually technically called the Office of the Inspector General of Medicaid Services. This was established to have better controls over fraud, waste, and abuse within the Medicaid program. It's had a rocky history. Uh, we've had some difficult challenges because it was established as a completely independent entity with no real oversight by anyone. So they were completely free to choose what they wanted, …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Tom Peterson, will you yield to a series of questions?

So I am very passionate about certain animals, and in our backyard in the spring, the snakes come out to do what snakes do in the spring in our grass. And you can't see them in the grass until you're mowing the lawn. And we have tried electric mowers, we've tried battery mowers, we've tried gas powered motors, mowers. But when you find one of those snakes, or when your mower finds one of those snakes, it's not a pretty site. And I'm very passionate about the life and friendliness of those snakes. And so I would like to ask the sponsor if he thinks that electric powered lawnmowers would give those snakes more warning or less warning that we're …

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, there's been a lot of polite dancing around and I'm about to say the quiet part out loud. So there we go. All the eyes are over here now. Uh, they're over my time here. And I've, I've dealt with these bills as well that we have had a continual series of these bills, their animal shelters across the state. A new best practice becomes available, which makes sense. And the vast majority of them adopt that best practice because they say, that makes sense. We'll do it. We have two animal shelters that are being, can I say buts? Is that decorum all right? That, that are being buts and just resist adopting …

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have concerns with this bill on the policy of this bill itself. Um, the deferral program. I've asked my elderly residents and I've tried to explain them. I actually think the deferral program is probably the right policy, but it's extremely unpopular. The, uh, residents in my area that are complaining about, you know, fixed income people and I tell 'em about the deferral program and they're like, yeah, that's not gonna do it for me. That's not what we just like, why can't we just keep the circuit breaker program? So what I worry about this bill is we're gonna get rid of the state circuit breaker program. We're gonna allow the counties …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have never had that happen before. I apologize to my colleagues for losing my cool. Um, so we're putting this onto the counties. The counties have to decide to design a program. They have to figure out how to pay for the program. They have to figure out how to recover the, the re revenue from somewhere else. And what ends up happening is, is when they don't do it, the only option for those seniors is the deferral program. Now, like I said, the deferral program is probably the right policy. I can't argue with that. But what I worry about is that this is not the policy that my voters and my constituents …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative? Uh, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes. Yes, sir. Representative Thurston, could You give me an example of non-curricular clubs that would be allowed at all levels? Elementary, junior high, high school, Non non-curricular. Yeah, sorry, Mr. Speaker, non-curricular clubs. Yes.

Well, I'd like to ask you then, the amendment that you just adopted said, um, non-curricular clubs that do not relate to religious issues. Oh, I apologize. Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. Yes. Non-religious, non-political or public policy or social justice. I apologize. Yes. So, um, this is my concern, and I probably should have mentioned it when we're discussing the amendment, but it's still relevant. First Amendment is a pretty important thing, and courts have held that religious speech is one of the most highly protected along with political speech. So we're saying if you want to get together and talk about chess, no problem. You want to get together and talk about the 10 Commandments. You want to …