►
From YouTube: Senate Floor Session, Day 12, March 3, 2021-AM
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
C
A
D
Please
right
well
a
little
bit
about
myself,
I'm
married
my
wife
sheila
as
a
major
or
a
major
select
in
the
wyoming
national
guard.
My
daughter
mary
lives
in
cheyenne
as
well
works
in
town
and
my
son
caleb
is
a
freshman
at
the
university
of
wyoming
in
the
engineering
program.
So
I
love
my
family.
My
parents
live
with
me
as
well
my
church,
the
church.
D
I
pastor
calvary
chapel
here
in
cheyenne,
we've
been
around
for
just
over
20
years
now
and
we
work
our
way
just
systematically
verse
by
verse,
through
the
bible
and
so
in
the
14
years.
I've
been
there
16
years
as
a
senior
pastor,
20
years,
counting
my
time
as
youth
pastor,
but
it
took
me
about
14
years
to
teach
verse
by
verse
through
the
whole
bible.
D
So
I've
done
that
and
now
I'm
starting
again
so
working
through
that
again,
we
are
congregation
of
you
know,
typically
around
600
people
a
week
in
there
a
little
less
right
now
with
covet.
But
things
are
looking
good
anyway
with
that.
But
that's
who
I
am
so
if
you
ever
want
to
ask
me
any
questions
or
know
any
more
about
the
church
or
anything
like
that,
I'm
here
and
available
for
you.
Thank
you
pastor.
We
appreciate
you
joining
us
this
week
for
prayer.
A
I've
got
it
there,
we
go
pastor.
We
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
week
and
it's
always
better
to
know
a
person
a
little
better
and
you
just
shared
with
us
great
task.
You
have
verse
by
verse.
Okay,
all
the
best,
and
I
like
the
part
about
loving
your
family
yeah
offer
prayer.
Now,
if
you
would
please
thank
you
very
much,
let's
pray.
D
Well,
gracious
heavenly
father,
we're
so
thankful
that
we
can
approach
you
that
we
have
a
god
who
who
cares
enough
to
hear
our
prayers
and
to
respond.
Lord,
I
trust
and
believe
that
everything
that
we
ask
goes
before
your
ears.
You
hear,
and
you
find
ways
to
respond
to
us,
the
lord,
sometimes
in
your
own
timing,
in
your
own
way.
We
trust
all
the
answers
that
come,
whether
yes
or
no.
We
trust
in
you
for
your
guidance
and
your
leadership.
Lord,
we
would
pray
for
our
state.
D
Our
state
has
challenges
in
front
of
it
and
we
would
pray
that
you
would
be
giving
a
wisdom
to
the
leaders
that
we
have
the
lord
each
one
of
us
wants
to
do
our
best
to
to
represent
what
we
believe
in
this
world.
Lord,
I
would
pray
for
myself
and
for
those
who
stand
before
this
legislative
body
lord,
that
each
one
of
us
would
represent
ourselves
and
our
people
well
and
lord.
I
would
pray
for
each
of
these
legislators
again,
lord.
D
A
C
E
A
There
being
none,
the
report
is
adopted
new
business
for
the
day
university
wyoming
family
practice
is
still
available
to
assist
if
needed
at
307-214-4508
again,
pastor
sean
sells
calgary
chapel
cheyenne
is
our
chaplain.
For
the
day
today,
in
wyoming
history,
today,
in
1884,
buffalo
was
incorporated
quote
for
the
day
by
henry
david
thoreau.
A
F
F
F
F
I
in
hindsight
the
takeaway
is,
if,
if,
if
you've
got
a
bill,
that
you're
really
invested
in
just
turn
over
the
committee
of
the
hole
to
somebody
else
for
the
entirety
of
the
consideration
of
that
bill,
and
so
I
just
thought
I'd
offer
that
and
maybe
I'll
sleep
better
tonight.
Mr
president,
thank
you.
B
G
Asked
you
to
stand
where
the
camera
could
find
you
and
you're
doing
that.
You
know
what
I
apology
accepted,
but
I
would
like
to
discuss
very
quickly
that
over
the
years
I
have
enjoyed
watching
professional
sports.
I
love
high
school
sports
college
sports.
I've
watched
a
lifetime
of
really
bad
junior,
high
basketball,
and
you
know
every
now
and
then
it's
kind
of
like
the
yankees
and
the
red
sox.
G
You
know
they
have
to
clear
the
benches
to
get
a
little
steam
off
the
air
and
the
boys
get
a
little
chippy
from
time
to
time,
and
you
know
what
we're
gonna
have
issues
on
this
floor
that
are,
there
are
hard,
tough
gut
checks,
tough
votes
that
we
have
to
defend
at
home
and
that's
just
a
part
of
of
of
our
job.
You
know,
I
think,
as
a
citizen
legislature,
we
address
those
issues,
sometimes
the
senate
in
the
house.
G
We
kick
the
can
down
the
road,
but
we
always
try
and
make
the
best
and
do
the
best
that
we
can
for
our
people
and
everybody
was
defending
and
and
and
pursuing
their
interests.
Yesterday
and
so
apology
accepted,
and
I
I
enjoyed
the
issue
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
everybody
on
the
floor.
Thank
you.
H
He
says
my
job
is
to
help
you
out.
We
had
a
conversation,
he's
an
old
football
player,
I'm
an
old
football
player,
a
little
bit
about
family
and
all
that
stuff
and
as
I
was
getting
up
to
leave
and
walk
out
his
door
and
come
back
out
here,
he
said,
but
senator.
Let
me
give
you
one
piece
of
advice:
he
said
when
you
walk
out
on
that
floor
as
one
old
football
player
to
another.
H
A
A
A
A
I
H
Mr
president,
this
is
a
recommendation.
There
has
been
on
occasion
over
the
years-
maybe
a
little
bit
a
latitude
with
this.
So
we
just
want
to
reaffirm,
through
our
rules
that
this
is
going
to
be
the
standard
procedure
within
the
senate.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
ask
for
an
iva
follow-up.
Senator
perkins
chairman
perkins,
quick.
J
Question
on
on
this
it,
it's
been
my
experience
that
sometimes
I
haven't
seen
this
very
often
this
has
happened
when
it
passed
through
the
senate.
I
have
seen
it
as
a
bill
has
gone
through
the
process
that
that
has
not
been
the
case,
and
so
I
I
you
know
as
we
I
I
guess
this
is
just
this.
This
rules
just
dealing
with
with
scope
of
amendments
that
happen
in
the
senate,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
was
any
discussion
talking
about
any
kind
of
rule.
J
The
proposed
rule
11.6
as
it
passed
through
this
house,
goes
into
the
other
chambers
then
comes
back
on
on
either
can
either
of
concurrence
or
non-concurrence,
and
should
we
have
a
rule
that
helps
guide?
Should
there
be
a
rule
that
guides
us
with
respect
to
that
bill
through
its
entire
process,
or
is
it
just?
Is
it
should
it
be
just
limited
to
amendments
that
are
in
the
that
that
are
covered
by
this
rule
that
are
memphis
occur
only
in
this
chamber
other
questions
before
we.
H
Even
if
we
adopt
this
rule,
we
we
send
one
out
of
here.
It
goes
over
to
the
other
chamber
and
it's
so
altered.
I
think
that
you
come
back
and
contest
that
as
being
outside
of
the
purview
of
the
constitution,
so
that's
would
be
my
answer.
Having
not
given
a
lot
of
thought,
it
still
does
not
meet
that
litmus
test,
so
not
to
say
that
it
wouldn't
happen,
but
I
think
that
becomes
incumbent
upon
us
to
go
back
to
our
rules
and
our
constitution
and
say
what
you've
done
is
unconstitutional.
H
J
Senator
perkins,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
that
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
think
too.
I
think
the
other.
The
other
thing
that
I
would
would
ask
about
the
rule
and
and
as
you
think
about
you
know
in
the
rule
generally,
some
would
stand
up
and
they
would
say
you
know
I
I
you
know.
I
think
that
this
this
this
amendment
would
be
unconstitutional.
J
J
You
would
simply
reflect.
That
would
be
a
reason
that
you
would
vote
no
on
the
amendment
or
no
on
the
bill
is
because,
if
you
don't
think
it's
constitutional,
that's
a
reason
to
vote
no
on
the
bill,
and
so
it
there
there
that
we
haven't
ever
had
this.
Ultimately,
it's
up
to
the
body
as
a
whole
and
if
majority
of
you
think
it's
unconstitutional,
then
the
bill
fails
and
it
dies
as
would
or
in
this
case
what
an
amendment
so
with
this
rule.
K
Thanks,
mr
president,
I'll
I'll
respond
to
that
and
before
that
a
quick
point
of
order.
Technically,
since
this
is
not
committee
of
the
whole,
each
of
us
has
two
speeches,
and
and
theoretically
we
should
have
let
the
good
vice
president
speak
last.
I
I
don't
think
we
were
noting
that
so
I
I'd
suggest
that
we
give
the
good
vice
president,
a
third
speech
since
we've
we've
whipped
a
little
bit
on
that
protocol.
K
For
my
first
time,
mr
president,
but
responding
to
the
good
senator
from
natrona
county,
it's
a
really
interesting
point.
I
I
don't
think
that,
as
drafted,
this
necessarily
gets
us
purview
over
making
an
objection
to
the
chair
if
the
transgression
was
down
at
the
other
side
instead
of
here.
This
is
actions
that
would
be
taken
on
the
floor.
So
obviously
standing
committee
amendments.
Even
if
something
happens
in
committee,
it
can
be
challenged
as
a
a
point
of
order.
K
It
could
be
a
circumstance
where,
during
concurrence,
somebody
could
object
and
say
objection
and
find
this
is
out
of
order
pursuant
to
some
senate
rule
that
it
was
outside
of
the
chamber
amended,
but
it
specifically
says
on
its
passage
through
the
senate,
has
to
change
its
original
purpose.
So
I
guess
the
question
there
is
specific
to
does
that
mean
is
passage
to
the
senate,
incorporating
a
concurrence
vote
and
I
guess
honestly,
I'm
not
entirely
sure
it
may
or
it
may
not.
K
M
M
A
C
B
A
H
H
H
So
if
we
go
to
four
five
on
the
introduction
deadline,
it's
for
the
introduction
of
bills
during
the
general
section,
it
does
not
apply
to
the
appropriations
bill
subsection.
A
no
bill
shall
be
accepted
for
consideration
after
12
noon
or
at
noon
on
the
12th
legislative
day.
So
the
way
that
will
work
is
you
have
to
have
all
of
your
bills
into
the
lso
before
the
12th
day
of
the
legislative
session.
H
All
right
now
we
can
always
suspend
our
rules,
and
this
is
the
next
precision,
except
by
consent
of
two-thirds
of
the
elected
members
of
the
senate.
Then
we
could
suspend
that
and
still
introduce
a
bill
after
that
period
of
time
bills
that
have
been
drafted
and
signed
and
submitted
and
are
accepted
by
the
lso,
still
have
to
be
approved
by
12
noon.
On
the
day
for
consideration
within
the
cut-off
deadline.
H
H
So
you
have
to
have
men
by
the
tenth
day
they
have
to
be
signed
and
approved,
with
all
your
co-sponsors
by
the
12th
day
for
consideration
again,
even
under
that
section
due
to
masons.
If
we
for
whatever
reason
deemed
necessary
through
a
two-thirds
majority
vote,
we
could
suspend
that
rule
and
still
move
that
forward
now
that
I've
completely
confused
everybody.
Mr
president,
with
that
roundabout
discussion
on
this
call
for
the
question.
A
N
J
So
a
couple
guys
one
is
today's
the
12th
day
under
the
calendar
so
so,
and
if
we
pass
this
rule
today,
today's
the
last
day
for
bills
on
introduction,
which
I
think
is
what
the
calendar
is
anyway,
but
the
other
question
I
have
is
so
under
b.
We
said
no
bill
shall
be
considered
for
introduction
after
five
o'clock
p.m.
On
the
12th
working
12th
legislative
working
day,
except
with
the
consent,
and
then
in
a
though
you
have
no
bill,
shall
be
accepted
for
consideration
after
12
noon
of
the
10th
working
day.
J
What's
the
difference?
What's
the
what's
the
the
difference
between,
I
know
what
introduction
is,
but
how
broad
is
when
we
say
consider,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
consider
means
in
this
context
that
I
I
don't
know
if
that
I
would
seem
to
me.
Does
that
mean
we
can't
do
committed
whole?
That
I
mean
what
does
consider
mean
consideration
mean
in
the
context
of
a.
K
M
Gone,
mr
president,
first
I,
if
it's
needed,
I
will
again
request
the
a's
and
mays
in
this
rule.
Thank
you.
Second,
I
will
say
that
I'm
confused
by
the
language
as
to
exactly
how
this
is
going
to
work,
and
I
did
find
the
current
system
confusing
this
this
year.
So
this
is
what
really
is
going
to
as
I
re
going
to
govern
us
going
forward,
and
I
am
unclear
as
to
exactly
what
we're
doing
here.
K
K
Difference
between
when
you
have
your
bills
submitted
and
numbered
compared
to
when
they
are
introduced
into
the
legislature,
but
we
operate
with
a
48-hour
difference
between
those
two
times
so
that
you
have
to
have
your
bills
submitted
to
lso
and
numbered
right.
The
button
needs
to
be
pushed
prior,
as
we
know
in
in
this
instance,
I
believe
that
was
monday
at
noon,
and
then
those
would
have
to
be
introduced
to
the
chamber
by
the
president.
K
By
48
hours
after
that
fact,
so
so,
in
other
words,
is
that
today
at
noon,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
yeah
today
at
noon,
that's
how
we
have
operated.
That
is
not
what
the
rules
currently
say.
They
are
ambiguous
because
they
sort
of
lump
it
all
together
and
this
rule
change
proposal
is
trying
to
clarify
that
there
are
two
different
deadlines
within
the
senate
rules.
K
The
first
deadline
is
for
the
bill:
submittal
cutoff,
in
other
words,
that's
the
filing
moment.
That's
what
happened
this
week
monday
at
noon
and
then
recognition
separately
of
consideration
for
introduction,
and
in
this
it's
the
b
paragraph.
No
bills
should
be
considered
for
introduction
after
five
o'clock
p.m.
K
The
12th
legislative
working
day
of
the
session,
except
by
consent
of
two-thirds.
So
it
is
clarifying
through
this
rule,
the
practice
that
has
already
been
in
place
where
we
have
two
separate
deadlines:
one
for
filing
of
the
bill,
the
other
for
introduction
to
the
chamber
by
the
president
as
two
separate
actions.
L
Had
it?
Thank
you,
mr
president.
Just
a,
I
don't
have
my
rule
book
in
front
of
me,
but
if
we
can
add,
maybe
definitions
to
those
terms.
That
could
be
probably
very
helpful
to
understand.
I've
even
heard
in
this
debate
this
morning
differences
in
understanding
between
introduced
to
filed,
to
submitted,
and
so
I
think,
definitions
probably
a
little
bit
more
work
and
we
can
really
get
this
honed
down
and
I
think
the
conversation
is
good.
A
O
My
question
goes
to
to
paragraph
b
and
the
need
for
that.
I
get
a.
We
have
to
have
our
bills
in
by
a
certain
time,
so
we
can
see
what's
out
there
and
see
what
we're
working
with
my
question
is
why
the
time
constraints
with
how
soon
they
get
introduced
and
read
in,
and
I
guess
it
goes
back
to
the
definition
of
what
we're
calling
considered
for
introduction-
is
that
just
the
president
reading
in
the
bill
or
is
that
debate
on
committee
of
the
whole,
and
so
that
needs
to
be
clarified.
O
But
I'd
also
like
a
question
as
to
is
this
a
scheduling
issue?
Does
this
push
thing?
Do
we
need
this
for
scheduling
purposes,
or
is
this
an
arbitrary
date
that
we're
setting
48
hours
after
when
we
number
our
bills
to
get
these
bills
introduced?
So
I
would,
I
would
appreciate
an
answer
on
that.
Thank
you,
mr
president.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
president.
I
I
stepped
out
the
director
veloso,
who
you
know
brought
to
my
attention,
and
so
just
clarifying
a
couple
things.
One
is
that
some
of
the
that
that
this
new
language
in
4.5
is
actually,
which
was
pointed
out
to
me,
is
actually
parallel
with
rule
13.2,
which
has
to
do
with
which
we
already
use
in
our
which
we
use
in
our
budget
session
for
the
budget
bill,
and
so
you
view
this
language
before
and
just
and-
and
he
clarified
to
me
additionally
so,
which
helps
me
understand.
J
So
this
is
consideration.
This
context
simply
means
the
process
of
having
to
build
numbers,
so
it
can
come
up
and
be
considered
by
the
body
it'll.
Basically,
this
will
be
a
hard
cut
off
at
the
lso.
So
that,
if
you're
trying
to
get
a
bill
submitted
and
approved-
and
you
know
your
co-sponsors
and
all
that
lined
up
this-
is
the
deadline
to
do
that.
J
So
when
we
talk
about
in
the
context
of
a
bill
accepted
for
consideration,
this
is
our
rule
and
our
instructional,
so
that
that
will
not
there'll
be
no
senate
files
that
will
be
numbered
after
this
deadline
and
therefore
they'll
not
be
considered.
Unless
you
come
back
and
suspend
the
rule
by
two-thirds
vote
in
in
11
11.
J
two,
you
know
in
the
budget
session
that
requires
unanimous
vote
to
do
that,
and
this
section
only
requires
a
two-thirds
in
a
general
session.
So
that
helps
me.
I
just
I
understand
this
now
we
talked
about
consideration
as
language
used
in
another
rule,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
it
may
not
it
may
it
helps
me
with
my
confusion.
At
least
I
understand
now
what
this
paragraph
talks
about
that,
I'm
not
so
sure
posterity
that
hasn't
had
the
advantage
of
this,
but
at
le
I
do
understand
now
and
I
I
did
understand
the
introduction.
J
This
language
consideration
was
of
some
concern.
Having
talked
with
the
director
and
now
understanding
what
it
means,
I
understand
how
to
interpret
it
now,
but
it
may
not
be
that
clear
that
people
haven't
been
involved
in
this
discussion
or
even
I
may
not
have
said
it
well.
You
still
may
be
ultimately
confused.
So
thank
you.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
president.
For
my
second
time
I
just
wanted
to
address
the
good
senator
from
sheridan's
question
about
the
b
paragraph
and
why
we
would
need
a
separate
introduction
deadline.
We've
always
had
that.
In
fact,
that's
the
thing
that's
been
explicit
is
the
12th
day
of
the
legislative
session
during
a
general
session.
Is
the
introduction
cut
off
and
then
we
also
have
last
day
for
committee
of
the
whole
last
day
for
second
reading
and
third
reading,
and
it's
it's
by
tradition,
it's
by
practice.
K
Honestly,
I
don't
know
that
the
system
would
break
down
without
the
b
paragraph.
I
think
it's
just
some
guideposts
to
ensure
that
we
understand
how
the
workflow
is
proceeding.
Committees
then
know
what
they
probably
will
have
without
a
two-thirds
vote.
Everyone
will
recall
we.
We
went
through
these
rules,
those
that
were
here
last
year.
I
ran
a
bill
long
after
the
deadline
and
it
passed
both
chambers
and
we
we
just
did
what
was
necessary
to
get
it
done.
So
we
know
we
can.
K
We
can
do
that
and,
and
we
can
get
it
passed
and
and
now
we
have
it
by
two-thirds,
which
is
an
appropriate
level,
but
again
without
the
b
paragraph,
I
I
don't
think
anything
would
break
down.
You
would
just
then
be
able
to
effectively
read
in
right
up
until
a
deadline
where
the
committee
of
the
whole
took
over,
assuming
that
you
you've
maintained
that
rule.
So
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
more
signposts
of
of
when
things
are
going
to
flow
than
anything
else
as
the
justification.
K
With
regard
to
the
good
senators
questions
about
definitions
and
more
clarity,
I
think
there
is
more
clarity
when
read
in
context
and
when
read
in
association
with
rule
13
and
then
the
rest
of
rule
4,
but
reading
the
paragraph
in
its
entirety
within
context,
each
of
the
terms
tends
to
become
more
self-evident,
as,
as
you
read
through
linearly,
and
perhaps
it's
not
sufficient,
one
of
the
challenges
is
with
rules.
Obviously
we
don't
have
three
readings
typically
and
and
we're
really
calling
on
adoption
of
this
today.
K
It's
something
that
we
can
work
on
in
the
future
or
those
that
are
on
the
rules
committee.
In
the
future
can
work
to
provide
further
clarity,
but
what
I
would
ask
is
for
the
body
to
support
this,
because
it's
a
heck
of
a
lot
clearer
than
what
we're
operating
under
now.
So,
if
nothing
else,
it's
better.
A
H
Mr
president,
trust
me,
mr
president,
it's
always
nice
to
have
friends
that
you
can
throw
a
lifeline
when
you're
struggling
out
here
and
the
lifeboat's
sinking,
and
you
know
you're
going
down
with
it,
but
this
does
clarify
the
ambiguity
in
our
current
rule.
The
house
adopted
a
similar
rule
to
this,
and
it
really
does
help
out.
H
A
N
B
A
F
F
Our
default
practice
historically
has
been
that
action
by
committees
just
required
just
a
quorum
of
the
committee
and
the
more
modern
trend
is
that
you
need
to
have
the
ascent
of
a
majority
of
both
the
house
and
the
senate
for
a
joint
committee
to
take
action,
and
I
just
refer
to
mason's
in
that
regard.
Section
658,
historically,
committee
members
vote
individually,
not
by
houses
when
voting
in
joint
committees
in
a
more
modern
practice
for
voting
in
joint
committee.
F
The
members
vote
by
houses
a
quorum
being
present,
and
such
vote
carries
only
upon
favorable
vote
of
the
committee
members
of
each
house,
so
the
idea
is
sometimes.
This
is
an
issue
in
committee,
sometimes
not
that
we've
had
the
issue
in
the
past
in
appropriations
in
particular
where
there's
because
the
house
has
seven
members,
they
always
outnumber
us
on
committees,
and
so
we've
had
issues
where
it
was
a
7-5
vote.
F
F
So
we
propose
to
modify
the
joint
rule
as
follows:
subsection
b
says
we
add
a
sentence.
Adoption
of
alternative
rules
by
a
joint
interim
committee
under
this
subsection
shall
require
a
majority
vote
for
the
appointed
members
from
each
house
serving
on
the
committee.
In
other
words,
you
can't
adopt
you
have
if
you're
going
to
adopt
alternative
rules,
you
have
to
have
the
concurrence
of
both
the
house
and
the
senate.
F
F
So
this
this
eliminates
what's
come
to
be
referred
to
colloquial
as
the
cram
down,
and
so
what
this
means,
if
both
sides
were
to
adopt
both
houses
were
too
adopted.
It
means
the
first
meeting
I
ever
attended
on
appropriations.
We
proposed
that
it
require
majority
of
both
sides,
the
house
and
the
senate,
to
adopt
any
amendments.
F
They
wouldn't
concur
previously.
If
we
had
voted
for
a
default
rule
that
says
that
wouldn't
be
the
case,
it
just
took
a
quorum,
and
so
this
would
change
that
default
rule.
We
hope
that
our
colleagues
will
adopt
this
as
a
joint
rule
as
well,
and
I
don't
know
whether
that
would
be
the
case
or
not
we'll
see.
F
F
A
F
J
President,
so
this
is
so
we're,
so
what
we've
got
here
in
in
sr's?
Here's,
therefore,
is
it.
It
is,
it
says
the
the
limiter.
The
identifier
number
shows
that
jr
would
be
joint
rule.
Slash
senate
rule
zero,
zero
four,
but
I
think
that
both
of
these
are
senate
rules.
So
this
is
not
a
joint
rule.
So
mike
that's.
My
first
question
is
I
you
know
we
had
talked
about
this
before.
J
I
know
that
the
that
the
leadership
committee,
the
leadership
senate
leadership,
was
talked
with
house
leadership,
and
so
my
first
question
is:
I
take
it
from
this
that
there
has
been
no
agreement
on
on
a
joint
rule.
So
thus
we
have
two:
we
have
two
senate
rules,
and-
and
so,
if
we
don't
have,
if
we
don't
have
a
joint
rule,
we
have
a
center
rule
senate
rule
is
not
binding
on
the
house.
J
So
then,
if
I
understand
the
strategy,
the
strategy,
then,
is
that
we'll
rely
on
historical
practice
or
masons,
I'm
not
sure
which
of
those
come.
First
masons
would
help
the
senate
position
and
but
the
but
historical
practice,
since
the
60s,
so
you've
got
you've,
got
40
60
years
of
historical
practices
been
it's
the
way
that
it
is
that
the
cram
downs
have
been
available,
particularly
in
the
joint
appropriations
committee,
and
so
I
get.
I
guess.
J
As
I
look
at
this,
you
know
it
seems
to
me
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
of
a
nuclear
option,
and
maybe
we're
to
that
point,
but
I
I
I
take
it.
Those
are
my
questions.
One
has
there
been
any
agreement
with
the
house?
Have
they
said
no,
and
two
is
is,
if
you
just
have
you
have
you've
talked
about
this,
I
mean
which
is
going,
which
is
going
to
prevail.
J
Maybe
we've
always
been
so
I
don't
know
what
voting
this
rule
gets
us
other
than
I
guess
we
can
stand
up
and
say
that's
the
way
we
feel,
but
I
don't
know
how
that
helps:
advance
the
ball
for
the
people
state
of
wyoming
and
and
and
just
you
know,
I'm
looking
at
other
ways
to
try
and
solve
this
issue,
but
I'd
just
be
interested
on
and
having
the
answers
to
those
instances
of
the
answers
to
those
two
questions.
Thank
you.
A
L
L
K
O
Thank
you,
mr
president,
on
and
for
the
rule
change
to
me.
It
corrects
what
I've
seen
since
I've
been
in
office.
As
you
know,
the
cram
down
and
the
heads
they
win,
tails
we
lose
kind
of
proposition
and
it
prevents
the
our
friends
at
the
other
end
of
the
hall
from
stacking
committees
to
you
know,
obviously
get
their
way
and
enforce
their
will.
B
O
Us
going
back
to
the
issue
of
masons
versus
historical
precedent.
I,
as
new
members,
we're
always
told
you
can't
tie
the
hands
of
future
legislatures
and
to
me
the
historical
precedence
argument
goes
against
that
and
it
does
tie
our
hands
because
it's
the
way
we've
always
done
it
here.
Therefore,
you're
stuck
with
it,
I
much
prefer
having
the
masons,
which
is
a
clear-cut
rule
book
of
what
the
rules
are
and
those
don't
change.
Historical
precedence
does
change.
So
I
think
that
would
be
my
question.
O
P
Thank
you,
mr
president,
just
kind
of
an
observation,
because
I've
served
on
committees
where
you
do
have
that
gridlock.
You
have
a
majority
of
house
members
who
want
vote
to
advance
a
bill,
a
majority
of
senators
who
don't
and
then
you
know
the
bill
gets
assigned,
and
you
know
usually
house
members
want
it.
First
they
spend
a
ton
of
time
debating
and
considering
those
bills
only
to
have
it
come
back
to
our
chamber
and
die
in
committee,
and
so
I
do
think
that
you
know
in
some
of
the
the
bills
that
I've
seen
worked.
P
That
way,
it
doesn't
seem
like
an
efficient
use
of
our
time
if
both
sides
aren't
invested
because
it
does
take
both
sides
to
to
create
the
law.
So
I
I
am
wondering
if
we've
looked
it
to
into
I'm
sure,
there's
some
information
out
there.
We
could
probably
look
at
that,
would
quantify
that
and
maybe
it
happens
a
lot,
maybe
not
very
much,
but
I
can
tell
you
on
the
committees.
P
Q
Q
It's
still
very
good
relationships,
good
folks
to
serve
with,
but
it
seems
that
we're
not
quite
on
equal
footing,
and
so
it's
important
that
when
we
come
and
we
bring
our
ideas,
they're
considered,
youthfully
and
that
we're
moving
forward
as
a
as
a
group,
but
I
just
would
like
to
see
us
have
more
teamwork
and
have
more
equal
footing
for
our
ideas
to
be
considered
and
have
a
few
less
crime
downs.
Thank
you,
mr
president.
O
Thank
you,
mr
president,
on
for
the
little
change
and
just
there's
reference
to
the
ad
committee-
and
I
guess
my
perspective
is
some
interims,
it's
appropriate
to
require
approval
of
both
chambers.
If
you're
going
into
a
general
session
where
you
know
the
committee
is
going
to
be,
the
excuse
me
going
into
a
budget
session
where
you
know
the
committee's
going
to
be
the
same,
but
obviously,
if
you're
going
into
a
general
session,
not
only
do
you
have
a
lower
standard,
you
don't
have
to
get
to
that.
O
Two-Thirds
majority
introduction
vote,
but
also
you
have
different
committee
members.
So
it
is
possible.
You
know,
so
it
is
possible
that
you
don't
necessarily
need
support
of
both
chambers,
because
you
know
that
the
committee
may
make
up
may
be
different.
So
I,
like
the
flexibility
of
this
rule,
change
and
it
still
accomplishes
a
very
important
goal
of
ensuring
that
we
on
some
companies
very
important
committees,
there's
a
tendency
to
want
to
gain
the
system
and
not
just
negotiate
in
good
faith
and
resolve
your
disputes
as
soon
as
possible.
O
What
which
is
is
still
after
being
here
for
almost
five
five,
almost
six
years.
It's
irrigating
for
me
to
see
that
happen
as
a
tactic
as
a
negotiation
tactic
that
never
happened
in
the
private
sector,
and
so
I
think
this
gets
us
to
where
we
want
to
go
where
we
just
resolve
our
differences
as
soon
as
possible.
O
In
respect
of
the
fact
that
this
is
a
citizen
legislature
and
that's
where
the
more
thoughtful
discussion
is
going
to
take
place
is
in
december
or
leading
up
to
the
session,
it's
not
going
to
happen
at
two
o'clock
in
the
morning
at
the
last
day,
and
so
I
think
that
this
is
a
good
objective.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
house
versus
senate
thing.
R
R
I
guess
my
question
would
be
on
this
front
if,
if
this
is
really
an
appropriations
issue
and
I've
lived
it,
you
and
I
served
together.
Mr
president,
on
the
appropriations
committee,
we
get
it,
but
if
it's
an
appropriations
issue,
I
wonder
if,
if
there
was
a
discussion
in
committee
about
it
being
an
appropriations
rule,
you
know
I
can
take
the
other
side
of
the
argument
with
regard
to
our
interim
committees.
R
I've
seen
bills
arrive
down
here
at
the
session,
get
worked
pretty
hard
in
in
the
other
chamber
and
come
down
here
fixed
enough
that
we're
okay
with
I.
I
honestly
think
that
setting
up
an
adversarial
situation
before
you
even
get
to
an
interim
committee,
I
just
would
caution
that,
so
my
question
is
regarding
appropriations
and
why
the
rest
of
the
committees.
Thank
you.
M
M
There
wasn't
a
systematic
difference
between
the
two
houses
and
that
it's
it's
easier
when
there
isn't
a
systematic
difference
to
to
do
it
by
simple
majority
of
the
members
that
are
present,
where
there
is
a
systematic
difference
between
two
houses,
then
requiring
both
houses,
I
think
is,
is
necessary
and
miss.
Mr
president,
I'll
go
back
to
a
little
bit
of
history.
M
M
S
Mr
president,
thank
you
very
much.
Mr
president.
I've
been
around
a
couple
years
too,
and
we've
had
ins
and
outs
of
this
rule,
occasionally
kind
of
manifests
itself
in
the
chairmanship
of
a
committee.
In
the
interim,
the
we've
there
have
been
a
couple
occasions
in
our
history
when
we
actually
haven't
had
co-chairs,
we've
actually
had
just
a
chairperson
of
a
committee
because
that's
the
way
the
votes.
The
committee
actually
voted
to
assert
on
that.
S
But
I'd
like
to
speak
against
this
rule,
mr
mr
president,
and
I
guess
the
reason
is
and
and
I've
I've
had
committee
members
a
good
colleagues
that
I
respect
very
much
on
this
floor-
be
upset
about
this
rule.
In
terms
of
operating
of
a
committee.
I
cherish
and
really
be
upset
that
perhaps
tax
measures
might
move
in
the
house
committee
or
might
move
in
the
house,
but
they
wouldn't
move
here
and
we're
not
going
to
let
it
move
forward.
S
Well,
I
speak
to
keeping
things
alive
for
a
while.
I
actually
believe
that
letting
things
percolate
in
our
process
is
a
desirable
thing.
It's
not
pretty,
and
it
does
sometimes
make
for
pizza
at
11
o'clock
at
night
on
the
second
last
day,
but
it
is
thoughtful,
it
is
deliberate
and
it
brings
people
along
because
we
all
have
to
be
brought
along
as
an
example.
Mr
president,
I
don't
think
that
we've
all
come
along
to
the
need
for
new
revenue
measures
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
I'm
pretty
sure
we're
eventually
going
to
get
there.
S
I
don't
think
it
will
be
during
this
session,
but
if
you
kill
all
those
members
all
those
things
outright
at
the
beginning,
we
will
never
begin
a
thoughtful
walk
and
you
pick
the
issue
doesn't
have
to
be
taxes.
That
just
happens
to
be
the
one
that
I've
been
involved
in
lately
on
this
appropriations
is
a
different
animal.
I've
been
there
a
couple
times
through
that
committee.
I
understand
this
issue
and
I
would
be
more
supportive
if
I
felt
that
this
was
entirely
limited
to
the
appropriations
committee.
S
S
I
hope
we
remain
on
a
road
where
we're
going
to
wander
we're
going
to
respect
each
other
and
we're
going
to
be
thoughtful
and
let
our
friends
down
the
hall
down
the
side
and
in
the
case
of
revenue
they're
charged
with
introducing
the
revenue
bills
by
the
constitution,
and
I
think
that
if
we
shut
their
power
to
do
that
down
from
the
get-go
that's
kind
of
a
constitutional
twist.
Mr
president,
not
fair,
so
I
I
hope
we
can
be
open-minded.
Thank
you.
Mr
president,
good
discussion
today,
chairman.
L
You,
mr
president,
one
one
challenge
that
I
experienced
under
these
rules
in
practice
was
when
I
had
one
member
of
the
senate
missing,
and
so
you
know,
as
as
what
happens,
they're
they're
gone
unable
to
make
a
meeting,
and
so
just
discussion
for
the
body.
When
there's
only
five,
it
makes
a
pretty
delicate
balance,
and
so
can
anyone
speak
to
what
happens
when
there's
only
four
how
that
majority
works?
If
it's
a
2-2
vote.
K
Thank
you,
mr
president.
Mr
president,
I
just
wanted
to
go
through
some
of
the
questions
and
discussion
and
point
out
a
few
things
that
that
might
help
illuminate
the
debate,
and
I
appreciate
the
debate.
I
think
really
both
sides.
All
the
discussion
is
is
relevant,
and
this
is
something
we
should
give
some
thought
to,
but
I
I
wanted
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
additional
clarification
on
how
this
is
constructed.
K
One
thing
I'll
point
out,
mr
president,
is
that
the
the
joint
interim
committee
amendments,
which
you
see
on
sort
of
the
back
side,
17
joint
interim
rules
and
then
the
appendix
that
is
an
attempt
to
amend
the
joint
rule,
but
they're
there
to
our
knowledge,
is
not
any
mirrored
proposal
over.
On
the
other
side,
it
would
be
unlikely
that
this
would
be
mirrored,
so
it
would
be
standalone.
K
So
getting
to
the
question
of
what
happens,
then
it's
our
understanding
that
it
would
rely
on
historical
practice
and
masons,
but
that
that
translated
largely
to
nothing
would
change
is
the
most
likely
outcome
that
that
the
default
position
would
be
the
default
position.
We're
in
right
now,
which
is
that
a
majority
of
of
all
members
of
the
joint
committee
would
would
pass
a
motion
as
the
default
rule
set.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
That's
the
likely
outcome.
K
K
If
we
just
passed,
the
joint
interim
committee
changes
and
did
not
pass
the
senate
changes.
Nothing
would
really
happen.
It
would
just
be
a
signal
of
hey.
We
like
this
better,
but
nothing
would
change
so
so
long
as
everybody
understands
that
that
they
could
be
voted
upon
separately.
It
is
a
clean
division.
They
stand
alone,
getting
back
to
the
changes
to
the
senate
rules
to
address
some
of
the
the
questions
raised
and
I'm
grouping
some
of
the
the
questions.
But
I
think
this
will
help
to
address
in
17-1.
K
But
there
is
a
little
bit
in
the
b
provision
where,
if
a
bill
is
passed
through,
the
committee
process,
the
interim
committee
process,
in
a
way
that
doesn't
comport
with
paragraph
a
the
presiding
officer,
immediately
refers
it
to
the
rules.
Committee
doesn't
kill
the
bill,
but
it's
referred
to
the
rules
committee
for
further
consideration
and
the
rules
committee
could
just
say
we're
fine
with
it.
Kick
it
back
to
the
floor.
It
could
be
referred
to
a
standing
committee.
K
K
The
key
concept
change
here
is
the
idea
that
if
there
is
no
rule
that
provides
this
predisposition
for
each
chamber
voting
separately
in
place,
then
the
presiding
officer
may
appoint
a
like
number
of
members.
So
this
is
specifically
the
provision
that
goes
to
the
appropriations
committee,
where,
if,
if
there
is
a
crammed
down
circumstance,
it
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
presiding
officer
to
take
the
number
to
seven
on
a
regular
standing
committee.
It
would
allow
the
senate
to
go
to
nine
senator.
K
Absolutely
thank
you,
mr
president,
so
that
provision
is
really
the
teeth
that
we
have
here
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
an
outlet
to
give
some
flexibility
to
the
presiding
officer
to
match
those
numbers
if
desired,
it
doesn't
have
to
take
place.
So
that's
a
little
bit
of
background
that
hopefully
provides
additional
clarity.
Mr
president,
and
I
I
do
have
one
more
time
but
I'll
wait
for
some
more
questions.
A
P
You,
mr
president,
just
a
thought
that
I
want
to
reflect
on
you
know
not
every
bill
is
contentious,
but
certainly
there
are
bills
that
I've
seen
in
committees.
I've
worked
on
where
you
know
an
idea
is
brought
out
and
I
think
there's
a
sentiment
among
house
members
that
why
do
we
even
need
to
worry
about
the?
P
I
think
that
wyoming,
you
know,
unlike
our
our
federal
counterparts,
we
still
work
together
in
a
very
functional
way
and
a
big
part
of
that
is
compromising
and
working
language.
So
I
want
to
preserve
that
mr
chair,
mr
president,
and
so
I
I
do
think
that
this
provides
that
balance
so
that
we
are
encouraging
both
chambers
to
work
together
to
find
compromise.
Thank
you.
J
J
A
K
K
A
K
J
Do
you
feel
about
that
good
senator
from
medtronic?
I'm
fine
with
that
division?
At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
make
any
difference
so
that
we'll
make
that
division.
Division.
One
is
the
front
of
the
page
and
division.
Two
is
the
back
page
on
division,
one
I'm
division
one,
and
actually
that
makes
this
for
me
a
lot
easier
I
just
on
and
against
division
one
at
the
end
of
the
day.
J
I
think
you,
regardless
of
whether
this
rule
is
adopted
or
not.
Two
things
are
good.
Two
things,
I
think,
are
clear
now
one
is
the
other
chamber
is
not
agreed
to
a
joint
rule,
and
I
think
the
most
I
agree
with
the
comments
before
I
think
the
most
likely
outcome
is
is
reverting
to
historical
precedent,
and
so
what
what
that
means
is
we'll
we'll
do
this
and
we'll
still
be
right
where
we
were
and
it
and
even
even
even
with
this
rule,
all
it
does
is
it
it
maybe
makes
the
pain.
J
You
stand
up
and
my
experience
is
that
if,
if,
if
the
the
the
senator
this,
this
body's
always
been
very
supportive,
if,
if
they
were,
if
there
was
an
amendment
or
something
happened
in
the
bill,
that
was
simply
you
thought
was
a
particularly
bad
idea.
You
just
go
over
run
by
their
side.
It
happened,
then
it
happens.
The
other
it
happens
that
they're
in
the
building
as
well.
So
I
don't
know
that
you
know
it'd
be
nice.
J
J
Our
sister
state
of
alaska
here
goes,
I
think,
four
or
five
special
sessions,
because
they
couldn't
agree
on
a
budget
bill.
So
the
fact
that
it
comes
down
the
11th
hour
on
the
second
last
day
or
even
the
last
day,
if
it
really
is
violating
our
principles,
to
vote
or
to
compromise
with
the
house
in
some
degree
that
and
when
we
do-
and
we
quote
cave
that's
on
us
because
we
didn't
have
to-
but
we
did
and
the
same
goes
down
at
the
other
end.
J
J
K
Senator
kinski
go
ahead.
Senator.
Thank
you.
Mr
president.
The
point
of
order
I
wanted
to
make
was
just
that
now
that
we
have
divided.
This
is
for
for
new
senators.
Now
that
we
have
divided
the
the
clock
so
to
speak,
resets,
everyone
is
back
to
a
fresh
count
on
discussion,
so
feel
free.
If
you've
already
spoken
for
your
first
time
or
even
your
second
time,
you
now
have
two
times
you
don't
have
to
use
them.
K
F
So
I'm
gonna
push
back
just
a
little
bit
on.
I
heard
the
word
bluster
used
and
I
heard
somebody
in
a
stage
voice
say:
well,
you
know
it's
just
gonna
get
worse
before
it
gets
better.
I
don't
think
that's
the
case
is
this
for
all
committees
at
all
times
on
all
bills.
No
it
waxes
and
wanes
has
gotten
better
on
appropriations.
F
It
has,
but
these
discussions-
I
I'm
not
leadership,
so
I'm
on
the
periphery,
but
I've
had
conversations
with
leadership
about
how
it's
going
our
president
doc
stetter
is
not
the
kind
of
guy
that's
going
to
go
into
chest
bumping
on
these
discussions.
It's
been
very
collegial
and
they've
been
receptive
to
some
aspects
of
it.
F
They're,
just
not
quite
ready
to
agree
on
a
permanent
rule
for
the
next
two
years,
because
that's
what
we're
voting
on
a
rule
for
the
next
two
years
that
will
be
permanent,
and
so
we've
seen
some
prior
experience
and
again
inappropriations
that
we
tried
to
get
a
a
rule
up
to
get
rid
of
the
cram
down
and
and
couldn't
agree.
And
so
then
the
default
was
the
cram
down
went
on,
and
that
was
the
rule
for
two
years,
because
we
as
a
senate
had
adopted
that
rule,
and
so
where
does
this
get?
F
Us
is
the
question
it
just
gets
us
of
record.
It
gets
us.
It
gets
the
conversation
ongoing
with
our
colleagues.
I
would
anticipate
fully,
I
can't
say
for
sure,
but
I
anticipate
fully
that
before
we
adjourn
we're
going
to
be
back
here
talking
about
this
rule
again,
because
I
believe
some
sort
of
accord
will
be
reached
by
pres
our
president
with
our
house.
Colleagues,
that
everybody
recognizes
it's
in
our
best
interest
to
come
to
some
kind
of
accord.
F
That's
not
been
possible
before
this
deadline
for
adoption
of
permanent
rules
that
will
be
in
place
for
the
next
two
years.
There's
no
bluster,
it's
it's
all
very
collegial,
and-
and
so
I
think
we
can
count
on
that.
Continuing
this
way
plan
b
is
that
we
simply
adopt
the
rules
we've
got
now,
which
leaves
us
nowhere
as
well.
F
A
H
So
if,
if
we
don't
do
this,
we
will
continue
that
trip,
but
you
don't
know
where
you're
going
folks,
you
haven't
established
a
destination
point
as
to
what
we
where
we
want
to
get
to
and
that's
what
this
does.
It
provides
us
number
one,
a
destination
point
that
we
can
have
a
conversation
about
is.
This
is
where
we
would
like
to
get
to
with
our
colleagues
in
the
house.
H
Is
this
the
conversations
it
was?
It
was
brought
up
earlier.
So
what
are
the
conversations
that
we've
had
with
our
colleagues?
Obviously,
we've
had
these.
We
started
back
in
in
december
and
we
had
them
in
january
and
we're
continuing
to
have
them
and
what
we
see
is
we're
having
a
conversation,
we
give
a
little
bit,
they
give
a
little
bit
where
have
they
given.
So
if
you
go
down
to
senate
joint
rule
number
c
on
2,
7,
section
c
and
what
they've
said
is
is
we're
okay,
if
you
guys
adopt
that
I'm
going.
H
To
paraphrase
this:
if
you
adopt
it,
we'll
probably
adopt
it,
but
the
conversation
is,
is
you
know
we
really
are
not
interested
in
and
arming
up
a
bunch
of
committees
doing
that?
Neither
what
they
said
is.
Is
we
get
it
on
appropriations?
Folks,
we
get
it
and
we're
willing
to
have
that
conversation
with
you
and
if
we
want
to
just
do
that
through
adding
a
couple
of
more
members
on
the
senate
side
or
some
other
alternative
that
we
adopt,
but
without
that
vehicle
and
this
discussion
we'd
have
never
got
there.
H
H
H
This
starts
down
the
road
of
establishing
what
the
senate
would
like
to
see
and
precedent.
Does
it
get
us
there?
Probably
not,
but
it's
the
vehicle
to
continue
to
have
the
conversations
with
our
colleagues
in
the
house?
We
don't
do
this.
Is
anybody
going
to
remember
this
next
two
years
when
we
come
back?
H
Is
anybody
going
to
remember
this
conversation?
Well,
if
I'm
pretty
sure,
if
this
is
our
rules,
we'll
probably
remember
this
conversation
because
we'll
start
it
all
over
again,
it
starts
to
set
the
precedent
in
the
senate
to
say
we
want
to
continue
to
have
this
conversation
with
our
colleagues
in
the
house.
H
M
Mr
president,
first
I
want
to
clarify
that
my
request
for
yeas
nays
applies
to
both
divisions
of
this
and
then,
mr
president,
I'm
going
to
urge
the
senate
to
vote
for,
for
both
divisions
really
to
support
our
leadership.
The
situation
with
the
house,
particularly
with
the
appropriations,
has
not
been
satisfactory.
M
I
think
maybe
we're
going
to
have
to
solve
our
ultimate
problem
by
just
being
very
insistent
and
that'll
probably
mean
a
special
session
at
some
point,
maybe
well
this
year,
but
we'll
see
we
we
have
to
make
progress
in
the
leadership
thinks
that
this
is
the
vehicle
to
to
make
progress.
I
would
urge
the
senate
to
support
them.
A
A
M
B
B
A
C
B
N
A
B
A
E
O
A
Could
I
just
have
your
attention
for
just
a
moment
please,
as
you
move
into
the
lunchroom
the
lunch
crew,
the
wonderful
people
that
work
back
there
will
serve
you
the
so
don't
go
past
that
table.
If
you
would
please
they'll
serve
you
your
lunch
as
you
move
into
the
into
the
main
dining
room
area,
mr
majority
floor
leader,
did
you
want
to
have
any
discussion
with
the.
I
A
L
Thank
you.
Mr
president,
committee
number
one
will
be
meeting
at
noon
to
do:
senate
confirmation,
hearings
for
the
three
individuals.
So
that's
where
your
senate
judiciary
committee
will
be
we'll
be
doing
three
interviews,
one
for
the
office
of
the
guardian
ad
litem,
one
for
the
office
of
administrative
hearings
and
one
for
the
department
of
corrections.
You
are
welcome
to
attend,
we'll
be
down
in
the
extension
in
room
two
over
the
lunch
hour,
starting
at
noon.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
N
Ahead,
I
don't
know
how
you
do
it.
Mr
chairman,
your
favorite
committee,
minerals,
economic
development
and
banking
will
meet
today
at
noon.
In,
let's
see
here,
w004
and
online
we'll
hear
bill
numbers,
senate
file,
99
senate
file,
111
senate
file,
113
senate
joint
resolution,
2
senate
joint
resolution.
Three.
Thank
you.
R
H
S
We
will
also
hear
if
it
is
assigned
and
referred
to
our
committee
senate
file,
150
death
penalty
repeal-
and
I
promise
I
just
don't-
have
the
paperwork
here.
I
will
do
a
better
notice
before
the
end
of
the
day,
but
we
will
hear
all
the
bills
that
have
been
assigned
to
the
committee,
starting
it
on
the
noon
recess
and
continuing
to
adjournment.
Appreciate
it.
Mr
president,
I'll
do
better.
P
Thank
you,
mr
president.
I
apologize
I
didn't
realize
we
were
doing
announcements
for
tomorrow
during
this
recess,
but
your
travel,
recreation
wildlife
committee
committee,
number
six-
will
continue
its
work
on
senate
file.
I
believe
103
dealing
with
hunting
license
allocations
tomorrow
morning,
starting
at
8
am
thank
you
thank.