►
From YouTube: House Health Committee- April 13, 2021
Description
House Health Committee- April 13, 2021
A
All
right,
thank
you
before
we
get
started
any
personal
orders
from
the
members.
A
Okay,
seeing
tonight
we're
going
to
just
hear
the
we
have
a
calendar
of
28
bills,
but
we're
going
to
just
take
up
the
bills
that
are
related
to
vaccines
and
on
your
calendar.
Those
are
items:
number
2,
14,
15,
16
and
28.,
and
before
we
get
started
with
that
item
number
14
house
bill,
1215
has
been
taken
off
notice.
A
That
brings
us
to
item
number
two,
which
is
house
bill.
575.,
chairman
reagan,
you're
recognized.
C
A
All
right
so
that
that's
the
one
that
came
out
of
subcommittee,
that
is
correct,
sir
okay,
okay,
I
got
a
I
made
a
motion
in
a
second
okay.
You
have
a
motion
in
a
second
okay,
go
ahead
and
tell
us
about
that.
Amendment.
C
This
amendment
makes
the
bill
sections
one
through
five
of
the
amendment
or
cleanup
language
for
a
bill
that
the
general
assembly
has
already
passed.
Essentially,
what
happens
is
this
bill
takes
the
six
metro
health
departments
and
puts
them
under
the
authority
of
the
county
mayor.
It
does
not
change
the
responsibilities
of
the
health
departments,
only
the
authority.
C
It
also
puts
the
def
definition
of
quarantine
and
tendency
code
annotated.
It
is
currently
in
rule,
but
not
in
statute.
This
corrects
that
problem,
section
six,
which
is
the
guts
of
the
bill,
basically
says
a
state
government
entity
may
not
require
a
mandate
that
private
businesses
require
proof
of
vaccination
against
covet
19
commonly
called
vaccine
passport
as
a
condition
of
entering
the
business
or
using
its
services.
C
Governor
lee
is
supporting
this
amendment
and
has,
in
fact
published
a
statement
online
about
it
for
questions
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
them.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
we're
going
to
vote
on
amendment
6710,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
okay,
you
have
another
amendment.
Is
that
correct?
I
do.
C
This
is
a
clarification
of
the
previous
amendment.
I
apologize.
A
C
This
amendment
takes
the
language
that
we,
just
in
the
amendment
we
just
passed
and
and
takes
section
a
and
breaks
it
into
subparagraphs,
one
and
two.
It
also
again
repeats
the
definition
of
private,
private
business
and
proof
of
vaccination.
My
apologies
for
overlooking
that
I.
A
D
Does
this
amendment
in
any
way
address
requirements
on
private
businesses?
I
I
didn't
hear
that
that
was
changed
from
the
original
amendment.
C
C
C
A
state
or
local
government
official
entity
department
shall
not
require
a
mandate
that
private
businesses
require
proof
of
vaccination
as
a
condition
for
entering
in
premises
of
the
business
or
utilizing
the
services
or
the
of
the
business
or
require
proof
of
vaccination
as
a
condition
of
entering
the
business
premises
of
a
state
or
local
government
entity.
Utilizing
the
services
provided
by
the
state
local
government,
the
addition
there
or
the
clarity
there
is.
It
just
says
that
governments
cannot
do
that
either
so
government
entities
it
defines
private
business,
which
is
the
same
definition.
D
Reagan
I
mean
ramsey,
yeah
and-
and
so
this
is
this
is,
as
was
described
to
us
the
passport,
we're
eliminating
the
requirement
for
a
passport
to
do
business.
I
think
that's
what
the
governor
was
trying
to
do.
D
A
All
right
any
further
questions
on
this
amendment
representative,
clemens.
A
On
amendment
7114
7114.
E
C
A
Thank
you
any
further
questions
on
the
amendment
representative
mitchell.
You
reckon.
F
If
other
states-
and
you
know
other
political
subdivisions
across
the
country
start
requiring
this
and
they
offer
reciprocity
like
we
do
in
tennessee
to
so
many
of
our
license
and
registrations
where
it's
going
to
put
our
citizens,
are
you
going
to
put
our
citizens
at
a
severe
disadvantage
on
traveling
and
other
things
if
you're
gonna,
you
know
have
this
in
this
state,
and
other
states
have
set
up
a
better
system
to
to
make
sure
sure
they're
protecting
the
health
of
their
citizens,
so
you're
going
to
put
tennesseans
at
a
disadvantage?
C
Thank
you.
I
will
have
to
disagree
with
your
assessment.
Let
me
respond
with
a
quote
from
the
governor.
I
oppose
vaccine
passports.
The
covet
19
vaccine
should
not
be
a
person
should
be
a
personal
health
choice,
not
a
government
requirement.
I
am
supporting
legislation
to
prohibit
any
government
mandated
vaccine
passports
to
protect
the
privacy
of
tennesseans
health
information
and
to
ensure
this
vaccine
remains
a
voluntary
personal
decision.
That
is
what
this
legislation
does.
F
I'm
not
sure
if
that
quote
was
supposed
to
sway
me,
because
you
quoted
someone
who
did
not
have
a
mass
mandate
didn't
hire
one
one
contact
tracer
during
the
entire
pandemic.
So
I'm
looking
to
be
concerned
about
the
health
of
tennesseans
in
the
today
and
in
the
future.
So
that
quote
did
not
do
anything
to
sway
me
and
I
hope
it
didn't
sway
anyone
else,
because
I'm
looking
for
action
to
protect
the
health
of
tennesseans.
C
At
the
expense,
excuse
me
at
the
expense
of
stating
the
obvious
six
and
a
half
million
tennesseans
are
represented
by
the
people
in
this,
this
our
chamber
and
the
senate
of
which
about
67
to
65
000
voted
for
each
of
us,
but
the
entire
state,
a
majority
of
which
voted
for
the
governor.
Therefore,
I
would
submit
to
you
that
when
the
governor
speaks,
he
speaks
with
the
authority
of
the
majority
of
the
voters
in
this
state,
whether
or
not
you're
swayed
by
it
or
not.
I
maintain
is
irrelevant,
sir.
F
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
will
point
out
that,
on
an
annual
basis,
tennessee
has
that
many
people
die
within
two
percent
anyway.
So
from
the
standpoint
of
losing
voters,
I
agree
that
any
death
in
an
untimely
situation
is
a
tragedy.
But
statistically
you
are
warping
statistics,
sir,
and
I
say
that
as
one
who
has
a
advanced
degree
in
it.
A
A
But
it
has
two
differences
and
there
are
two
parts
of
the
bill.
The
first
part
surrounds
definitions
and
it
defines
private
business.
A
The
same,
I
believe,
is
the
the
amendment
we
just
put
on
it
and
it
defines
proof
of
vaccination
which
the
amendment
we
just
put
on
defined
that
as
well,
but
this
also
says
that
it's
limited
to
a
sars
cov2
or
any
variant
and
is
defined
as
a
physical
proof
of
vaccinations
defined
as
a
physical
documentation
or
storage
or
protected
health
information
related
to
an
individual's
immunization
vaccination
or
injection
for
the
sars
cov2
or
any
variant.
A
The
other
part.
The
second
part
of
this
essentially
restates
the
two
parts
of
the
amendment
that
we
just
put
on
that
a
state.
A
C
D
Chairman
ramsey,
yes
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and,
and
I
apologize
to
the
sponsor
I
had.
I
had
had
several
groups
that
had
maybe
made
reference
to
the
7114
as
as
an
infringement
on
private
business,
but
apparently
that
wasn't
the
amendment
it's
7119
and
so
I'd
like
to
to
make
sure
that
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
we
can
put
restrictions
on
on
private
businesses
to
their
practices.
A
Thank
you
chairman.
I
would
say
that
government
already
puts
restrictions
on
businesses
such
as
tosha.
We
put
licenses
on
businesses
for
some
members.
We
have
a
professional
privilege
tax
that
they
have
to
go
through
and
I
would
say
that
the
biggest
mandate,
probably
that
we've
had
here,
is
that
we
close
non-essential
businesses
so
I'd
say:
that's
a
mandate.
D
Is
that
better?
Yes,
sorry,
jim
follow-up
question,
yes
and
and
chairman,
and
certainly
I
wouldn't
argue
with
those
opinions
of
course
we
didn't
close
businesses,
but
that
was
with
a
future.
D
I
guess
change
that
would
go
back
to
a
normal
situation.
I
would
like
to
ask
that
we
go
out
in
session
and
and
let
the
representative,
the
department
of
health
speak
to
us
about
this.
This
amendment.
B
B
G
Good
afternoon,
patrick
powell,
with
tennessee
department
of
health
chairman
ramsey,
my
understanding
is
that
the
governor's
office
is
generally
supportive
of
the
language.
That
is
representative
reagan's.
But
I
believe
would
be
opposed
to
the
language
offered
by
chairman
terry.
I'm
happy
to
try
and
answer
any
other
questions,
but
that
is
that
would
be
where
I
believe
the
department
and
the
governor's
office
will
be.
G
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and,
and
I
think
what
we're
getting
at
here.
I
think
the
governor's
opinion
is
maybe
reflected
in
the
opinion
of
of
several
other
organizations
that
have,
and-
and
I
must,
I
guess,
make
a
comment
that
healthcare
institutions
can
be
referred
to
private
ones
as
as
businesses.
D
So
what
we're
doing
is
asking
that
that
a
hospital
be
refused
the
right
to
pass
any
kind
of
business
practice
that
they
felt
might
be
significant
to
the
care
health
of
their
clients
and
and
patients,
and
is
that
my
understanding.
G
A
And
thank
you.
The
language
of
the
bill
does
not
speak
to
employment,
but
I
do
believe
that,
based
on
imtala,
a
patient
comes
in
you're
not
going
to
be
asking
them
whether
or
not
they've
had
a
vaccine
you're
going
to
take
care
of
them
anyway.
H
H
B
G
G
B
Follow
up?
Okay,
any
other
questions,
while
we're
out
of
session
seeing
none,
we
will
go
back
in
session
then
and
we'll
recognize
the
sponsor
of
the
amendment
again,
chairman
taylor,.
A
Thank
you
again,
this
item.
This
amendment
was
brought
to,
or
you
know
the
idea
was
brought
to
me
from
constituents
the
the
part
that
we
are
discussing
here,
although
it
has
not
passed
here,
it
has
passed
the
senate
in
alabama.
So
it's
not
language,
that's
new
to
us.
It
also
yeah
I
reached
out
to
florida
representative
in
florida
to
understand
what
they
were
doing
as
far
as
the
executive
order
there
as
well,
so
this
isn't
necessarily
groundbreaking
what
we're
doing.
A
But
again,
this
is
up
for
discussion
up
for
betting.
I
appreciate
the
the
comments
on
this
and
again.
If
this
is
something
that
the
committee
wants,
then
I'm
happy
to
move
forward.
If
it's
not,
then
you
know
it's
the
will
of
committee.
I
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I
just
don't
think
we
ought
to
be
in
the
in
the
realm
of
of
telling
private
businesses
what
they
could
should
and
shouldn't
do,
and
I
understand
about
osha
and
safety
rules
like
that.
But
if
you
run
a
say,
southwest
airlines
and
you've
got
a
lot
of
customers
that
will
not
fly
unless
they
know
the
other
customers
have
had
the
vaccine.
I
I
I
I
With
regards
to
the
vaccine,
I
find
to
be
troubling
with
regards
to
what
happens
inside
someone's
private
business,
and
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
to
as
much
as
I
respect
and
admire,
and
my
friend
I
I
can't
can't
bite
off
this
one.
So
just
just
my
two
cents.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
those
comments
and
I
just
want
to
read
here.
We
hold
these
truths
to
be
self-evident,
that
all
men
are
created.
Equal
and
first
amendment
talks
about
freedom
of
religion
and
a
lot
of
these
folks
that
refuse
the
vaccine
or
do
not
want
the
vaccine.
A
It
is
religious
based
why
they,
they
don't
do
that
and
that's
protected
in
the
first
amendment,
and
the
concern
would
be
that
we
are
creating
two
groups
of
people
and
two
classes
of
citizens
based
on
those
that
have
taken
a
vaccine
and
those
that
have
not.
So
again,
I
understand
the
private
business
I
I
really
I
mean
I
do,
and
this
is
an
issue
that's
been
brought
to
me.
So
I
appreciate
your
comments.
Thank
you.
B
A
And
it
does
not
say
that
they
could
not
once
they
screen
them,
does
it
it
does
not
prohibit
them.
Screening
somebody,
it
doesn't
doesn't
speak
to
mask.
It
doesn't
speak
to
screening.
So
if
you
have
a
policy
for
your
business
that
you're
going
to
screen
people,
do
a
temperature
check
their
temperature's
up,
it
doesn't
say
that
you
can't
prohibit
that.
It
just
says
you
don't
have
to
show
a
proof
of
vaccination.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
really
think
that
in
the
last
few
comments,
we've
gathered
the
basic
wisdom
that
we
need
to
decide
this
and
sincerely
as
much
respected.
We
all
have
for
our
chairman.
The
point
is
the
business
should
be
allowed
to
answer
to
their
boss,
that
is
the
customer
customer
walks
in
and
they
will
decide
whether
they
want
to
patronize
that
place
or
not,
and
certainly
worker
safety
and
other
things
matter,
but
I
really
think
that
the
business
should
answer
and
shall
answer
to
their
customer
and
the
results
will
be
good.
H
A
Yeah
you're
asking
me
math
from
a
long
time
ago.
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
you
know
when
you
look
at
bakeries
and
that's
something.
Obviously
that's
gone
through
the
court
system
and
I
look
at
it
from
two
different
perspectives.
If
there
is
a,
if
you
refuse
service
to
somebody
that
you
have
standard
equipment
based
on
their,
you
know
whether
they're,
gay
or
not,
and
you
turn
them
away.
That
would
be
discrimination.
A
B
A
All
right,
thank
you.
That
was
a
thought-provoking
discussion.
We
are
back
on
the
bill
as
amendment
the
sponsor
year,
chairman
reagan,
you're
recognized.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
as
a
closing
comment,
let
me
stress
that
this
bill
does
not
put
a
mandate,
as
it's
amended
right
now
on
private
businesses,
but
also,
let
me
stress
that
this
bill
does
not
relieve
those
private
businesses
of
complying
with
the
requirements
of
hipaa,
the
aca,
osha
tosha
or
any
of
the
other
requirements
that
are
currently
in
law.
This
bill
only
addresses
the
fact
that
a
government
entity
may
not
tell
a
business
to
require
a
vaccine
passport.
C
A
Any
further
questions
representative
mitchell,
you're
wearing
us.
F
With
this,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
would
this
in
any
way
prohibit
a
school
system
from
requiring
vaccines
for
kids
to
go
back
to
class.
C
A
Any
further
questions
chairman
kumar.
L
Thank
you
before
I
get
lost
so
a
private
biz.
The
state
government
cannot
tell
a
private
business
to
require
a
require
passport.
A
A
A
A
J
Mr
chairman
house,
bill
1421
simply
prohibits
school
systems
in
tennessee,
from
forcing
coercing
or
requiring
students
to
take
the
cobit
19
vaccine.
More
importantly,
this
bill
protects
our
fundamental
rights
to
decide
our
own
personal
health
decisions.
This
bill
is
neither
for
or
against
the
covered
vaccines.
A
Okay,
representative,
chairman
ramsey,.
D
You
recognize
and-
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
mr
sponsor
I
had
had
some
folks
come
to
me
and
and
asked
me.
D
Could
we
indeed
maybe
determine
a
reasonable
definition
or
maybe
an
intent
of
adverse
action,
whether
that
means
spanking
putting
out
a
school
or
even
just
something
as
simple
as
as
wearing
a
mask?
Could
that
be
determined
and
and
could
there
be
some
definition
to
to
define
that.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
are
you
talking
about
there
and
was
it
subsection
b
three.
D
I
think
that's
it.
I
don't
have
the
amendment
in
front
of
me,
but
it
it.
It
does
mention
no
adverse
action.
D
Would
that
include
requiring
a
mask
or
you
think,
representative.
J
Grill
screen,
my
intention
is
to
address
the
cobia
19
vaccine.
The
mask
is
for
the
for
the
school
system
to
work
with
and
if
you'd
consider
that
discriminatory.
A
Okay,
yeah,
then,
to
follow
up
on
that
question.
I
had
a
similar
question
of
whether
or
not
taking
adverse
action
against
a
student
who
refuses
to
receive
an
immunization
or
a
student
whose
parent
or
guardian
refuses
to
immunize.
A
F
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
we've
got
legislation
in
this
state
that
you
know
allow
some
counties
to
do
online.
Schools
we've
done
online
school.
You
know
in
many
counties
during
the
pandemic,
so
I
don't
know
I
don't
see
for
children
who
don't
get
a
vaccine
for
online
school
as
an
adverse
adverse
action,
but
you
know
to
the
contrary.
If
you're
gonna
not
require
the
covert
vaccine,
my
child
has
asthma.
So
I
don't
want
my
child
sitting
beside
a
kid
who
didn't
get
the
vaccine.
F
If
my
kid
and
99
of
the
other
kids
in
the
classroom
have
got
the
vaccine,
I
think
it's
adverse
action.
Someone
refusing
to
be
concerned
about
the
majority
of
the
or
most
everyone's
health,
except
for
their
own.
So
I
don't
see
that
would
be
an
adverse
action
asking
them
to
do
online
school,
but
vaccines
seem
to
work
for
polio.
They
seem
to
work
for
measles.
They
seem
to
work
for
smallpox.
F
What
do
we
have
to
learn
to
understand
that
a
vaccine
is
going
to
get
us
out
of
this
and
return
our
lives
back
to
normal,
but
we
seem
to
be
fighting
kicking
and
screaming
from
trying
to
return
to
normalcy
in
our
country,
but
I'll?
Let
you
respond
to
some
of
what
I've
said,
but
I
just
don't
I
don't
understand
so
would
would
online
school
be
adverse
action
in
your
mind,
representative.
A
J
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
representative
mitchell.
You
know
you
and
I
have
several
conversations
back
and
forth
on
the
floor
on
a
daily
basis
and
they're
always
interesting.
F
And
and
representative,
I
I
totally
agree
with
you,
but
as
the
old
adage
goes,
your
your
rights
end
at
the
tip
of
my
nose
or
the
germs
that
go
up
my
nose
from
someone
who
hasn't
been
vaccinated,
so
your
your
rights
in
when
you
jeopardize
the
health
and
welfare
and
well-being
of
me
and
my
family.
F
I
I
say
we
offer
you
know
it's
like
anything
else
for
you
and
I
to
go
to
go
to
school.
We
had
to
get
all
our
vaccinations
to
walk
in
that
door
and
we
ended
polio
in
this
country.
We've
ended
smallpox,
we've
ended
measles.
F
F
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
grills
we've
had
debates
about
liberty
related
to
vaccination
in
this
committee,
and
they
have
been
very
informative
to
repeat
this.
You
were
not
here
at
that
time,
but
to
repeat
the
same
things.
An
analogy
was
given
by
our
chairman
that
he
can
be
shadow
boxing,
but
if
he
gets
too
close
to
you
and
hurts
you,
his
liberty
is
in,
he
can
shadowbox
all
he
wants
to
that's
his
liberty.
L
Similarly,
and
I
had
a
discussion
with
you
yesterday,
one
of
our
other
chairperson,
chairperson
here
gave
the
analogy
of.
L
L
It's
again,
coming
back
to
another
analogy
that
we
used
was
that
at
the
end
of
each
bill
we
pass.
We
say
this
thing
that
public
welfare
requiring
it
public
welfare-
it
does
not
say
my
individual
liberty
requiring
it.
So
this
is
old
stuff.
In
this
committee,
we've
gone
back
and
forth.
Kindly
consider
that
and
tell
me:
how
can
we-
and
you
know
that
we
had
a
discussion?
How
can
we
protect
a
person
whose
needs
protection
because
of
their
medical
condition
and,
of
course,
support
liberty?
There
needs
to
be
a
balance.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
J
And
we
did,
we
had
somewhat
of
a
good
conversation
yesterday,
chairman
kumar,
it
was.
It
was
good,
but
you
said
while
ago-
and
I
agree
with
you-
that
the
customer
is
the
one
who
should
decide
what's
best,
and
in
this
case
our
customer
are
the
kids
and
their
families
need
to
be
the
ones
who
decide
what's
best
for
them,
and
that's
where
that's
that's.
I
want
to
be
consistent
with
that
that
the
individual
should
have
the
liberty
to
decide
what's
best
for
them.
J
We
saw
today
that
they
had
to
put
a
pause
on
the
johnson
and
johnson,
because
there
were
some
blood
clotting
issues,
I'm
not
against
these
vaccines.
I
don't
believe
anyone
up
here
that's
presented
today
is
against
a
vaccine.
I
think
they're
great,
but
I
think
you
should
be
the
one
who
decides
to
take
it
and
if
we
have
adverse
effects
from
something
I
would
hate
to
have
on
my
conscience
that
I
had
I
forced
someone
to
do
something
that
was
against
their
will.
L
Well,
I
don't
know,
I
completely
understood
the
analogy,
but
you're
right,
you
don't
want
it
on
your
conscience.
If
susie
gets
an
infection
or
gets
hurt,
so
what
I'm
asking
you
is,
how
would
we
protect
it
and
susie
is
not
our
customer
she's,
a
child
that
we
need
to
protect
and
we
have
an
obligation
to
I'm
a
bit
lost?
How
are
we
going
to
protect
somebody's
health
and
yet
secure
our
liberty?
Kindly
balance
it
for
me.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
don't
believe
that
you
have
to
sacrifice
health
for
liberty,
I'm
just
saying
doctor
if
you
would,
if
you
choose
to
take
it,
take
it
if
you
choose
not
to
that,
should
be
your
decision
and
that's
all
I'm
wanting
to
do.
I'm
not
encouraging
the
the
family
to
or
not
to
I'm
just
saying
they
simply
should
have
the
opportunity
to
discuss
with
their
own
physician
what's
best
for
them
and
their
family
you're
a
doctor.
J
You
talk
to
many
a
person
in
your
life
that
have
different
opinions
and
different
ways
of
thinking,
and
they
have
different
approaches
that
doesn't
make
them
wrong
because
they
may
differ
from
you
or
someone
else.
They
just
see
things
from
a
different
point
of
view
in
their
world.
You
may
be
different
than
mine,
but
they
still
have
the
right
as
an
american
to
think
and
have
that
freedom
to
express
the
way
they
think-
and
this
just
so
happens
we're
talking
about
cohen
19
vaccines.
In
this
particular
context,.
L
A
Thank
you.
We've
got
several
other
members
on
here.
I
just
want
to,
hopefully
maybe
kill
two
birds
with
one
stone
and
get
a
clarification
from
legal
services
on
this
talking
about
taking
adverse
action,
and
also,
as
far
as
protecting
other
students
in
the
classroom
from
someone
who
does
not.
A
A
If
they
singled
out
that
one
student
who
did
not
have
the
vaccine,
that
would
be
potentially
an
adverse
action,
so
it
would
still
allow
for
screening
if
you
screened
all
students.
But
if
you
just
screened
the
one
that
didn't
get
the
vaccine,
it
would
be
an
adverse
action,
and
I
just
want
to
go
out
a
session.
Real,
quick
and
have
legal
services
clarify
that.
M
Matt,
king
from
the
office
of
legal
services,
chairman
and
again,
as
has
been
discussed,
that
the
term
is
not
defined
for
this
particular
bill.
There
are
some
definitions
of
the
term
adverse
action
elsewhere
in
the
code,
but
those
are
not
binding
upon
the
area
of
code
where
this
is
going
to
be
placed
those
other
definitions,
some
of
which
deal
with
licensing
some
deal
with
insurance
and
some
other
things.
M
There
is
an
element
of
discriminatory
action
in
most
of
those
definitions
and
again,
while
those
definitions
are
not
binding,
they
could
be
informative
into
how
a
court
might
interpret
the
use
of
adverse
action
in
this
context
again,
because
it's
not
defined
the
plain
meaning
would
apply,
and
thus
it
would
be
as
broad
as
is
reasonable
in
the
context
and
based
upon
the
facts,
because
adverse
action
generally
in
its
plain
meaning
indicates
some
sort
of
discriminatory
action.
M
I
would
agree
that
an
action
by
an
entity
such
as
a
school
that
puts
in
place
a
procedure
that
applies
to
everyone
would
not,
in
its
nature,
be
discriminatory,
but
then,
if
it
were
applied
only
to
those
students
who
did
not
show
this
proof,
then
that
would
be
could
be
considered
discriminatory
and
thus
may
fall
within
the
definition
of
adverse
action
or
the
plain
meaning
of
adverse
action.
Excuse
me
and
to
your
other
point
chairman,
the
the
bill
does
not
prohibit
screenings,
something
like
a
screening.
A
K
K
J
And
not
off
the
cut,
not
off
the
top
of
my
head.
You
know
I
mean
I
haven't
sit
and
thought
about
it,
though.
From
your
perspective,
that
was
not
the
end.
That's
not
the
intent
of
this
legislation
to
be.
You
know
in
conflict
with
any
other
position
that
I've
ever
held
or
ever
voted
to
support.
J
The
definition
is
defined
here
in
496
305,
a
305-0
and
the
different
definitions.
So
they
there
there's
a
little
bit
of
discrepancy
in
what
you
just
said,
between
churches
and
church,
schools
and
homes
and
home
schools
can't
give
you
those
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
don't
know
you
may
have
those
there.
No.
K
J
A
Thank
you,
chairman
vaughn.
You
recognize.
I
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
because
our
polio
plus
program
has
immunized
children
all
over
the
world,
where
now
there's
only
two
countries,
very
remote
regions
of
afghanistan,
and
I
believe,
pakistan
to
where
polio
virus
still
exists,
and
it's
because
of
a
rigorous
vaccination
program,
one
that
has
actually
read
it,
read
our
population
of
it
and
from
what
I
understand
it
was
predated
me,
but
it
was
a
very
insidious
disease
that
affected
many
people.
I
And
so
when
I
I
look
at
your
legislation,
I
think
back
to
the
days
when
I'd
line
up
in
the
school,
hallway
and
I'd
go,
take
a
shot,
and
some
may
say
it
affected
me
adversely.
I
don't
know,
maybe
that's
the
root
of
all
these
problems.
I've
got
but
the
so.
If
I,
if
I
look
at
your
bill
from
that
perspective,
I'm
saying
what's
different.
I
Why
would
I
be
against
that?
Because
I
believe-
and
I
understand
people
have
differences
of
opinions
and
but
but
I
believe
that
that
vaccinations
are
a
tool
and
the
use
that
are
useful
to
public
health.
I
Call
out
that
a
vaccination
that
is
different
than
in
a
different
stage
than
all
of
these
proven
proven
vaccinations
before
it.
Now
then,
since
the
governor
has
taken
off
the
executive
order,
I've
had
to
give
up
my
epidemiology
degree,
but
I,
as
a
phd
that
I
carried
around
with
me
for
at
least
three
or
four
months
there
being
an
expert
on
all
this
stuff.
I
But
as
I
look
at
this,
I
unders
the
fact
that
you
have
tempered
it
by
only
addressing
the
covet
19
vaccination,
I'm
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with,
but
due
to
the
nature
of
the
disease
itself.
And
so
I
I
can
kind
of
understand
that.
But
I'm
really
like
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
your
house.
Amendment
number
one
55-51.
I
And
and
find
out
a
little
bit
more
about
about
that,
because
I
think
this
also
touches
on
what
my
good
friend,
the
chairman
from
williamson
county
was
touching
on
and
the
fact
that
on
one
hand
we're
saying
we're
forcing
things
on
church
schools,
but
yet
we're
talking
about
religion,
and
it
seems
like
we're
playing
we're
dealing
off
of
both
sides
of
the
deck.
If
you
could
help
me
understand
that
I
understand
I
have
a
little
bit
more
paul.
I
A
J
Ultimately,
what
the
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
can
you
hear
me
the
the
amendment
just
harmonizes
in
the
times
of
an
epidemic
with
the
other
parts
of
the
cold,
when
it's
every
any
other
good
sunny
day
that
you
have
that
religious
exemption?
I
Thank
you,
sir,
and
I'll
have
to
I'm.
Gonna
have
to
use
this
device.
They
gave
me
and
read
them
words
a
little
bit
cleaner
from
for
me
to
understand
how
that
that
is
accomplished,
because
it
does
seem
like
there's
a
little
bit
of
conflict
within
there,
but
but
the
only
reason
I
know
that
I'm
not
firmly
against
this
bill
is
because
of
the
experimental
nature
of
the
vaccine.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
since
we're
targeting
schools
here,
you
know,
and
I
appreciate
the
spirit
of
the
legislation.
I
understand
your
position.
I
I
just
I'd,
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
point
out.
You
know
looking
back
in
history
when
you
talk
about
polio
or
some
of
these
other
diseases
that
really
hit
it
was
vaccinating
school
children
that
really
saved
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
lives.
E
So
it's
a
little
distinguishable
from
polio,
but
I
mean
a
significant
percentage
of
thus
us
sitting
in
this
room.
Right
now
wouldn't
be
here.
E
Had
our
grandparents
or
our
parents
not
been
vaccinated
in
school,
and
so
you
know
again,
I
I
appreciate
your
your
your
intent
and
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from.
I
just
have
a
real
concern
about
limiting
our
ability
to
fight
this
pandemic
by
limited
in
in
this
way
just
based
on
history
and
what
is
likely
to
come
in
the
future.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
appreciate
it.
J
Thank
you
for
the
comments
everybody
on
the
committee.
I
appreciate
I
feel.
A
Okay,
there
is
objection,
would
you
would
withdraw
the
motion.
A
Thank
you.
Motion's
been
withdrawn,
representative
smith,
you
are
recognized.
H
Thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
I
just
want
to.
I
share
the
the
opinion
of
chairman
bond
that,
because
it
is
very
specific,
would
you
be
willing
to
accept
an
amendment
to
this
bill
that
distinguishes
that
once
this
becomes
fda
approved
that
that
might
change?
And
I
ask
this,
mr
chairman,
only
because
you
know
there
is
already
an
established
pathway
within
our
department
of
health
of
public,
a
public
hearing,
a
time
of
public
comment
on
adding
to
the
you
know
the
menu
of
vaccines
that
are
given
to
children.
H
And
while
I
do
agree
with
you,
I
don't
think
this
should
be
mandated
period
because
of
you
know
religious
exemptions.
Those
exist
in
code,
there's
a
process
that
people
can
register
their
their
religious
exemptions.
Currently,
I
think
that
all
of
these
things
should
be
protected,
but
I
I
I
am
very
much
more
interested
if
you're
would
accept
an
amendment
that
would
put
a
distinction
until
this
becomes
fda
approved
because
we
are
operating
throughout
all
three
of
these
vaccines
that
are
currently
being
administered
in
an
emergency
use
authorization
period,
and
none
of
these
are
fda
approved.
H
But,
mr
chairman
happy
to
accommodate.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you,
my
friend,
I'm
willing
to
work
with
anyone.
That's
willing
to
work
with
me
and
everyone
on
this
committee
I
feel
like,
is
willing
to
work
with
me.
Would
a
three-year
sunset
be
more
accommodating
I
would
be
willing
to
if
that
would
be,
if
the,
if
the
obviously,
however,
that
works.
A
Okay,
that's
a
that's
a
substantive
amendment
and
it
would
be
a
verbal
amendment.
The
question
be
whether
or
not
we'd
be
willing
to
accept
something
along
those
lines.
So
what
I
would
recommend
that
we
do
is
roll
this
to
the
heel
and
see
if
we
can
accommodate
that
language
get
something
written
down
and
then
vote
on
that
amendment.
At
that
point
in
time,.
K
Thank
you
chairman.
The
purpose
of
rolling
to
the
heel
would
be
because
you're
trying
to
finish
this
calendar
or
if
because
it
sounds
like
there
are
some
members
that
want
to
help
the
representative.
K
A
That
would
be.
Would
that
be
something
from
the
sponsor
standpoint
and
that'd
be
amenable
to
me.
A
Okay,
without
objection,
we
will
roll
this
to
last
calendar.
J
A
All
right
that
brings
us
to.
I
have
without
objection
I'm
going
to
bring
up
item
number
28
on
the
calendar
since
chairman
halsey's
been
patiently
waiting
for
us,
so
without
objection
we
will
bring
up
house
bill,
13,
chairman
halsey
and
motion
cycle.
Thank
you.
N
A
All
right,
thank
you
so,
where
we
left
off
and
I'm
going
to
get
the
clarification
here,
we
have
placed
an
amendment
item
number
amendment
number
4462
on
the
bill,
and
we
have
two
other
amendments
to
consider
on
this.
If
you
would
like
to
take
a
few
moments
to
remind
us
of
where
we
are
and
then
we'll
go
to
those
amendments,.
N
Okay,
the
only
one
that
I'm
aware
of
that
was
on
the
one
is
the
one
that
doc
ramsey
put
on
there
at
the
very
beginning
that
exempted
45
hospitals.
I'm
aware
of
that
one,
the
amendment
when
it
went
through
the
senate,
the
amendment
that
they
put
on
kept
that
portion
of
it-
and
I
submitted
that
amendment
to
you
and
I
guess
what
I'm
asking,
because
I'm
confused
about
all
the
others.
N
I'm
asking
that
you
hold
on
to
this
amendment
that
I've
just
brought
you
because
it
agrees
with
the
senate
side
and
and
do
away
with
all
the
rest
of
them.
Okay,.
A
So,
let's
get
to
the
second
amendment
that
we
have
on
our
pack
is
amendment
4534
by
chairman
kumar.
So
chairman
kumar,
you
are
recognized.
L
L
So
our
change
force
required
in
course,
two
a
matter
of
accommodation
and
respect
where
again,
the
rights
of
the
person
exercising
their
right
to
liberty
are
respected,
but
the
person
who,
because
of
that
liberty
person
coming
to
work
without
a
protection
or
without
vaccination,
it
does
not
expose
somebody
else,
who's,
vulnerable
and
chairman
hulsey,
and
I
had
agreed
that
this
would
be
a
friendly
amendment.
L
We
had
shaken
on
it.
We
had
almost
well
semi
hugged
on
it
considering
these
are
kovy
times,
and
I
would
still
think
that
that
amendment
actually
covers
the
bases
it
honors.
Liberty,
respects
liberty
and
it
accommodates
the
person
who
is
vulnerable.
So,
for
with
that
explanation,
I
would
move
for
attachment
or
acceptance
of
that
amendment
and
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
N
N
For
example,
a
school
system
could
say
to
their
teachers
we're
going
to
require
that
you
have
this
vaccine
and
we've
we've
tried
to
find
a
place
to
place
you,
but
we
can't
find
one
so
you're
going
to
have
to
take
it
or
lose
your
job,
so
it
there
there's
no
safety
net
for
folks,
all
all
an
institution
has
to
say
is
we
tried
and
so
at
the
beginning,
you're
exactly
right.
I
thought
this
was,
would
be
a
good
add-on
to
add
a
layer
of
protection,
but
but
I
don't
view
it
that
way.
Now.
A
I
think
I'd
like
to
have
got
a
legal
or
go
out
of
session
here
in
just
a
second.
I
just
want
to
get
a
clarification
from
legal
on
this.
The
bill,
as
it
is
currently
amendment
section
1,
a
says
that
law,
enforcement
agency
or
governmental
entity
of
the
state
cannot
force
require
a
coerce,
a
person
to
receive
an
immunization
or
vaccination
for
covenanting
against
a
person's
will
subsection
or
section
one
part
b
says
that
subsection
a
does
not
apply
to
a
hospital
license
under
this
title,
and
so
we
exempted
some
hospitals.
A
A
They
don't
have
to
make
that
reasonable
expectation
or
accommodation,
because
they're
excluded
based
on
part
two-
and
I
just
want
to
go
out
a
session
here
and
have
matt
king
say
if
that
is
the
correct
interpretation
interpretation.
M
That's
correct
chairman,
terry,
because
amendment
4462,
which
was
dr
ramsey's
amendment,
makes
the
bill
and
creates
a
section
one
with
an
a
and
a
b
subsections.
This
new
amendment
by
dr
kumar
only
affects
subsection
a
and
so
subsection
b,
which
deals
with
the
hospital
carve
out,
would
remain.
A
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
question.
I
think
it's
a
very
reasonable
and
sensible
way
of
protecting
people
and
securing
people's
liberties.
Thank
you.
J
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand
if
we
accept
the
amendment.
B
A
Sorry,
the
the
third
amendment
that
would
be
considered
would
rewrite
the
entire
bill.
Okay,.
B
A
Any
further
questions
on
the
amendment
representative,
alexander.
L
B
A
N
Thank
you.
You
want
to
explain
to
a
minute
absolutely
this
is
the
amendment
that
came
out
of
this
is
a
minute
that
came
out
of
the
senate
with
one
exception,
when,
when
legal
looked
at
it
and
ut
had
talked
about
what
they
wanted,
they
didn't
want
medical
students
who
were
going
to
have
to
do
practicum
work
in
another
institution
that
might
require
a
force
vaccine.
They
didn't
want
that
issue,
so
they
wanted
medical
students,
dental
students,
pharmacy
students,
nursing
students
to
be
exempted
out
of
this.
N
It
keeps
dr
ramsey's
45
hospitals
in
there
and
again
I
I
I'm
asking
you
to
pass
this
amendment
because
then
I
don't
have
to
fight
with
the
senate
and
you
pretty
much
got
what
you
want.
L
This
is
a
very
extensive
amendment
with
eighth
sections
and
I
had
asked
legal
to
kindly
explain
it
to
me
because
the
various
parts
are
mentioned
as
sections
and
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
go.
Look
up
what
each
of
those
sections
means
and,
in
summary,
section
1.
L
Says
that
the
governor
and
state
entities
will
not
require
anybody
to
receive
kobe
vaccine
section
2
says
they
would
not
require
school
immunizations.
That's
a
big
section.
3
says
that
the
health
commissioner
will
also
not
require
any
cobia
vaccination
in
schools.
Section
4
says
that
none
of
these
entities
will
override
the
religious
objections.
L
Section
5
says
that
the
county
health
department
shall
not
do
so
either.
Section
6
says
that
the
class
c
dis
misdemeanor
for
refusing
to
take
vaccine
is
removed.
I'm
good
with
that
section.
Seven
says
the
gov
no
government
agency
will
require
medical
treatment
would
not
require
anybody
to
take
medical
treatment
for
covid.
L
So
it's
a
very
extensive
thing
where
really
it
is
anti-vaccine
on
steroids,
so
to
speak.
It
really
goes
around
school
and
everything
else,
and
I
think
it's
it's
really.
We
talk
about
overreach.
This
is
an
overreach
on
the
other
side
of
things,
and
that's
how
I
read
it.
I
I
it's
and
it's
not
just
because
the
senate
did.
It
does
not
mean
that
we
have
to
follow
in
that
thing.
Actually,
that
is
usually
reason
not
to
follow.
L
A
N
M
Chairman
halsey,
yes,
it's
it's
accurate.
It's
in
line
with
the
amendment
that
came
out
of
the
senate,
and
so
your
most
recent
version
here
does
exclude
section
eight,
which
is
dealt
with
the
jacob
nunley
act,
and
then
it
makes
that
change
with
regard
to
public
institutions
of
higher
education,
which
was
in
the
senate
version,
your
version
speaks
to
the
students
who
are
completing
medical
programs.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
we'll
go
back
in
session.
Speaker,
marshall,
recognized.
I
A
A
Any
further
questions
speaker
chairman
ramsey.
D
I
think
it
was
chairman
and
we're
we're
back
in
session.
I
think
yes
and
I
would
like
to
say
to
my
good
friend
the
sponsor.
D
I
appreciate
you
very
much
you're
so
kind
in
taking
the
original
amendment
and
the
only
thing
about
this
bill
that
that
some
of
the
agencies
and
and
professional
organizations
have
come
forward
with,
is
in
this
amendment
from
the
senate,
you
had
transposed
a
an
image
from
the
tennessee
constitution,
called
the
right
of
conscience,
and
so
that
is
not
described
or
noted
anywhere
in
the
code,
which
apparently
the
code
going
to
philosophical
definitions.
D
The
code
is
a
description
of
the
constitution,
and
so
we
don't
have
the
anywhere
in
the
code
right
of
conscience
for
definition
or
explanation,
and
their
interpretation
is
that
this
is.
This
is
a
wide
open
phrase
that
that
can
you
can
drive
a
truck
through
on
interpretation.
D
So,
yes,.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question
and
that
and
that
phrase
is
found
in
article
1,
section
3
of
the
tennessee
constitution.
But
what
what
I
didn't
tell
you
before
and
I'll
admit
now
it
is
housed
in
article
3,
because
article
3
deals
with
religious
liberty
and
a
religious
conscience.
N
D
And
and-
and
I
I
and
my
infantile
wisdom
of
all
things,
legal
would
probably
agree
with
you,
but
the
folks
that
have
to
interpret
this
for
their
agencies
and
their
professional
organizations
disagree
with
us,
and
so
it
is,
it's
found
mentions
two
places.
D
The
all
have
a
right
to
worship,
almighty
god,
according
to
their
own
conscience,
and
no
man
can
of
right
be
compelled
to
attend,
support,
any
place
of
worship
against
consent.
No
human
can
in
any
case
whatever
control
or
interfere
with
the
rights
of
conscience,
and
so
that
that
is
is
very
basic
religious
rights.
D
However,
there
is
no
definition
for
it
in
the
code,
so
the
interpretation
is
very
wide
and-
and
I
that
that
is
a
very
great
philosophy,
but
I'm
sure
when,
when
you
stop
somebody
that
was
driving
without
a
license
or
speeding
or
dui
when
they
rolled
the
window
down
and
said
it's
my
right
of
conscience
to
do
this,
you
disagreed
with
them.
So
I
I
think
that
that
that's
something
that's
up
and-
and
I
think
it
should
be
cherished
no
question
about
that
and
an
enshrined
in
the
constitution.
D
But
but
our
agencies
seem
to
have
an
issue
with
it
and
we
don't
want
to
get
into
a
situation
where
down
the
road.
We
have
10
judges
opining
on
exactly
what
the
definition
is,
and
so
I
would
ask
that
we
go
out
of
session
and
and
allow
the
department
of
health
representative
to
address
that
at
some
point,
but
that
that
was
the
concern
of
the
folks.
That
came
to
see
me
today.
A
They
are
on
the
list,
so
unless
there's
any
objection
without
objection,
we
will
go
out
of
session
as
department
health
would
like
to
come
up
and
for
the
record
name
and
who
you're
with.
G
G
While
write
of
conscience
is
listed
in
the
constitution
and
as
chairman
hulsey
said,
if
it's
the
same
thing,
I
don't
know
that
we
need
the
additional
language.
We
have
religious
exemptions.
Those
are
clear,
so
right
of
conscience,
being
added
from
a
legal
perspective
means
something
has
to
be
different.
Usually
the
courts
will
interpret
language
that
is
different
and
try
to
find
meaning
because
of
the
change.
G
So
if
we
had
a
religious
objection-
and
we
add
right
of
conscience,
it
is
inherently
adding
something
in
the
legal
world,
so
if
it
means
the
same
thing
and
we
are
just
trying
to
protect
religious
freedom,
I
would
implore
the
sponsor
and
the
committee
to
remove
that
language
and
keep
it
clear.
But
if
the
intention
is
to
add
something
well,
then
it
is
broadening
the
exceptions
to
the
vaccine,
which
cause
us
a
great
deal
of
concern.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
N
So
right
of
conscience
is
a
phrase:
that's
in
the
constitution
state
of
tennessee,
but
we
haven't
defined
it
in
law
by
the
legislature.
So
we
can't
use
it
if,
if
you
want
to
change
and
since
it's
in
housed
in
religious
liberty-
and
that
was
the
intent
of
the
men
who
wrote
it,
then
where
it
says
right
of
conscience,
it
says
on
religious
grounds
or
by
right
of
conscience,
just
say,
and
I
write
a
conscience,
that's
a
small
amendment
you
could
make
and
it
means
the
same
thing
because
it's
bound
up
in
the
same
article.
D
M
Jeremy
ramsey,
I
think
I
would
go
back
to
what
our
previous
witness
relayed,
which
is
that
the
addition
of
that
term
still
might
impart
some
additional
meaning,
regardless
of
the
conjunction
that's
used,
I
think,
and
not
to
speak
for
him.
But
what
I
understood
for
him
to
say
was
that,
because
those
terms
are
used
both
within
the
freedom
of
worship
of
article
1,
section
3,
a
reference
just
to
the
religious.
K
The
member
has
communicated
what
his
intent
was.
If
the
courts
cared
as
to
intent,
they
could
come
back.
Watch
this
video
and
understand
the
intent.
The
sponsor
stated
that
in
the
constitution,
his
intent
and
his
interpretation
is
different.
It
could
be
admissible
in
the
court
if
this
ever
came
to
court,
but
in
that
instance,
it's
our
job
to
make
the
law
and
to
and
to
spell
out
intent.
If
that's
the
intent,
then
let
the
courts
decide
and
use
this
commit
this
committee,
as
as
part
of
the
testimony,
I
don't
know
it's
just
to
me.
K
It
just
seems
like
it's:
we've
become
so
wise
in
our
own
eyes,
we're
useless.
So
I'm
I
might.
I
don't
know
if
that's
actually
a
question,
but
we're
you're
turning
us
into
attorneys
based
upon
adjudication
in
a
committee
and
not
in
the
courtroom,
and
that's
not
what
we're
here
for
we're
here
to
make
a
loss.
A
Thank
you
any
further
questions
on
what
we're
on
session
here
representative
mitchell,
mitchell,.
F
F
I
only
play
a
doctor
once
a
week,
but
I've
got
a
doctor
in
here
who
told
me
you
know
that
what
what
this
amendment
does
and
that
kind
of
scares
me
but
representative
halsey,
you've,
you've
done
yeoman's
work
on
this,
but
you've
had
so
many
co-writers
on
this
bill
that
if
it
was
a
song,
you
wouldn't
get
royalties,
so
so
so
with
that
being
said,
I'm
gonna
listen
to
the
doctor.
Okay,.
A
We're
still
out
of
session
president
of
clemens
is
this
while
we're
out
of
session
or
back
in
session.
Okay.
Okay,
all
right!
Thank
you
all
right,
any
further,
any
further
questions.
While
we
are
out
of
session
okay,
seeing
none
we're
back
in
session
chairman
williams,
you're
recognized.
A
The
question
has
been
called
on
the
amendment.
Without
objection,
we
are
voting
on
amendment
7065,
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
opposed.
G
Boyd
clements
freeman.
B
B
B
A
A
Here
that
amendment
no
longer
works
on
this.
A
M
Chairman,
the
question
is
whether
amendment
4534
will
work
with
the
amendment
that
was
just
adopted
and
which
then
makes
the
bill.
706.5
makes
the
bill
the
language
of
four
five.
Three
four
amends
subsection
a
and
section
one.
There
is
no
longer
a
subsection,
a
in
section
one,
and
so
it
would
only
work
off
of
the
previously
considered
amendments.
It
would
not
work
off
of
the
amendment
that
we
just
adopted
made.
A
N
A
job-
and
I
agree-
I
agree
with
my
good
friend
from
from
nashville-
more
convoluted-
it
gets
the
worse
it
gets
so
I
agree
with
you
strip
all
of
them
off
and
let's
take
it
as
it
was
in
the
beginning.
B
N
A
D
A
Item
number
16
house
bill,
1403,
representative,
paul
you're
recognized.
You
have
a
motion.
A
second
thank.
I
I
This
bill
is
about
a
state
statute,
that's
already
in
place,
but
has
suffered
from
informat
from
information
suppression
house
bill.
1403
simply
says
that
when
a
school
communicates
about
vaccines
and
immunization
that
they
must
also
disclose
that
religious
exemptions
are
available
and
I'll
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Okay,
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
of
the
bill.
A
B
A
Any
further
questions
for
the
sponsor
question
has
been
called
all
those
in
favor
of
house
bill,
1403,
say
aye
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
bill
goes
on
to
calendar
and
rules.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
In
committee,
all
right,
I
appreciate
the
indulgence.
I
appreciate
the
discussion
and
lively
debate
that
we
have
had
today.
It's
been
a
mental
exercise
and
I
would
say
a
physical
exercise
on
the
everybody
here
in
committee
in
the
audience
and
those
watching
at
home,
but
without
objection
we
are
going
to
recess
until
two
o'clock.