From the transcript of the Connecticut House of Representatives - June 23, 2007
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, through you. I'm actually looking for something that isn't there, and
through you, because actually, the Chair of the Human Services Committee and I
have had a conversation on this matter.
There is a
program to prevent the deaths of infants, which is funded by the Department of
Public Health, and last year the Commissioner of Health used his discretion to
seize half the money from some of the towns to get those dollars.
It was, we
decided, I filed a bill, which went through the Public Health Committee to
create a separate line item so that the Public Health Commissioner would not
seize the money from the towns who were trying to save the babies.
It was my
understanding that the language that created that separate line item would be
in this implementer, and I don't see it.
And with all due
respect to you, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why it isn't
here. Through you.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Villano.
REP. VILLANO:
(91st)
Yes, Mr.
Speaker. I recall Representative Dillon coming to my office and presenting me
with a copy of the bill.
I did bring it
up at the DSS implementer meeting, and was informed by one of the staff members
that the language would be in the budget, and what I was presenting to them was
not needed, and so the discussion ended there. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Dillon.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I understand that that core public health may not be an issue that has
lobbyists up in this building. This is basically looking at some of the
statistics that affect what happens to health. It goes to our health
departments.
There are four
towns that still have FIMR programs. It's
I can tell you,
as far as I know,
And half of our
money was seized last year by the Commissioner of Health and given to a
researcher at the
I understand,
through you, Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was no new money involved. In
fact, if there had been, we would have had even less, well, it could have less
success.
I was told that
if it required new money we couldn't get it in, but now I hear that since the
money was there, we couldn't get it in.
The point was
that the money was in the budget, but we needed narrative language to create a
separate line item because we wanted to prevent the Commissioner from seizing
the money from the towns with high rates of infant mortality.
I wonder,
through you, Mr. Speaker, if the language is not there statutorily, what remedy
are you proposing? Through you.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Villano.
REP. VILLANO:
(91st)
Thank you again,
Mr. Speaker. I'll repeat for the Chamber what I told Representative Dillon when
she was over here a moment ago. That language that she's interested in will be
spelled out in the OFA budget notes when it's presented.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Dillon.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. The hour is either late or early, depending on how you calculate it,
and I'm sorry. Maybe it was the conversation in the Chamber, but I'm afraid
that I have to ask the Representative to restate his response because I
couldn't hear it all. Through you.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Hold on one
moment, Madam.
(GAVEL)
Representative
Dillon is having trouble hearing the response from Representative Villano. If
you could just keep the noise level down a tad, we'd appreciate it.
Representative
Villano, please again answer the question that Representative Dillon asked you,
please, Sir.
REP. VILLANO:
(91st)
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. To repeat, my information is that that language will be spelled out in
the OFA budget narrative when it's ready. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Dillon.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. The Executive Branch has been absolutely clear. They cut those four
towns by 50% even though we put the money in the budget last year, and they
have been absolutely clear that they are going to clear out 100% and give it to
a researcher at the
Now, I have no
objection to training public health students. I, myself, have a degree in
epidemiology, and I think it's a very worthy pursuit. But it is no substitute
for core public health in the towns that have high rates of infant mortality.
I don't know why
the babies in New Haven are dying, but I don't trust the Executive Branch if we
don't have statutory language, and I'm very, very troubled that this is not in
this implementer because we have been told that that money will be taken away
from our towns.
I don't like to
vote against implementers, but I'm asking, through you, to the Chair of the
Appropriations Committee, if you would.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Merrill, did you hear the question, Madam? Did you hear the question,
Representative?
REP. MERRILL:
(54th)
Yes.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, and I'm sorry. I don't mean any discourtesy to the Chair of the Public
Health Committee, because I know [inaudible] but everyone's referring.
I would simply
ask you as a matter of legislative intent, if you would be willing to work with
the New Haven delegations and the delegations of the other towns that are
affected by this line item, to try to work out some kind of a respectful
relationship with the Executive Branch so that we can make sure that we can do
community-based public health to protect the infants in New Haven, New Britain,
Manchester and Hartford. Through you.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Merrill.
REP. MERRILL:
(54th)
Through you, Mr.
Speaker, I'd be happy to work with you on that. It sounds like, that the sense
of the group was the statutory language wasn't needed if it was spelled out
right in the OFA narrative, the exact purpose.
It doesn't have
quite the same heft, I suppose, as legislative language. However, I think it,
we'll have to see if it will be adequate to meet your concerns. I hadn't heard
of it until now. Thank you.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative
Dillon.
Thank you very
much, and I thank the Lady for her response. I was very surprised, so I didn't
certainly want to put anyone on the spot, but I was very, very surprised to see
that that was missing.
The budget
narrative that we would be doing this year is exactly the same as what we did
last year, and the money was taken, so I have no reason to trust that.
And frankly, if
we have respectful relationships, we don't need to change the law. The only
reason to change the law was that the respectful relationship didn't exist, and
so I take the Lady at her word, and I assume that we will be able to work with
the Executive Branch and make sure that our towns will be able to protect those
infants. Thank you.