►
From YouTube: House Floor Session - Day 24, March 23, 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).
B
B
B
B
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
today
I'll
offer
an
amended
version
of
the
collect
actually
for
the
armed
forces
and
I've
applied
it
to
our
setting
today
and
also,
as
we
remember,
those
who
are
suffering
just
south
of
us,
of
course,
in
boulder.
Let
us
pray.
C
Almighty
god,
we
we
commend
to
your
gracious
care
and
keeping
all
of
those
throughout
this
nation
and
in
wyoming,
and
especially
in
this
house
of
representatives
on
this
day,
we
especially
remember
all
of
those
who
were
hurt
or
who
died
yesterday
in
boulder,
we
pray
for
their
grieving
families
and
their
friends
defend
us
day
by
day.
Lord,
with
your
heavenly
grace,
strengthen
us
in
our
trials.
C
A
A
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
one
judiciary
to
whom
is
referred
senate
file.
87
engrossed,
voyeurism
amendments,
respectful
report
same
back
to
the
house,
with
recommendation
of
the
due
pass
with
the
following
amendments:
eyes:
representatives
craigo
larsen
dan
oakley,
olsen,
provenza,
rodriguez
williams,
washit,
ian
zwanitzer,
representative
olson,
chairman.
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
one
judiciary
to
whom
was
referred:
senate
file,
155
engrossed,
limiting
firearms,
seizure
and
regulation
during
emergencies.
Respectfully
reports
same
back
to
the
house
with
the
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
eyes:
representatives
craigo,
larsen
dan
oakley,
olson
rodriguez
williams,
washitt
swanitzer,
knows
representative
yin,
excuse,
representative
provenza,
representative
olson,
chairman
mr
speaker.
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
seven
corporations,
elections
and
political
subdivisions
to
whom's
referred
senate
file.
62
and
gross
repealing
sunset
date
for
the
office
of
consumer
advocate
respectful
reports
same
back
to
the
house
with
a
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
eyes.
Representatives,
clausen,
clifford,
duncan
ayer,
maguire,
roscoe
zwanitzer,
knows
representatives
blackburn
hunt,
representative
zwanitzer,
chairman.
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
nine
minerals,
business
and
economic
development
to
whom
was
referred:
senate
file,
40
wyoming
money,
transmitters
act;
amendments
respectful
reports
same
back
to
the
house
with
a
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
eyes.
Representatives
bear
burkhardt
duncan
air
greer
heiner
sherwood
western
nose,
representative
gray,
representative
greer,
chairman.
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
nine
minerals,
business
and
economic
development
to
whom
is
referred
senate
file.
116
wyoming
business
council
director's
reduction.
Respectful
report
stand
back
to
the
house
with
a
recommendation.
Let
it
do
pass
eyes.
Representatives
bear
burkhart
duncan
air
gray,
greer
heiner
sherwood
western
representative
greer
chairman
mr
speaker.
Your
committee,
number
nine
minerals,
business
and
economic
development
to
whom
was
referred,
set
up
file
148
requirements
relating
to
depositors;
amendments
respectful
reports
same
back
to
the
house,
with
the
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
eyes.
B
Representatives
bear
burkhardt
duncan
air
greer,
heiner
sherwood
western
nose,
representative
gray,
representative
greer
chairman
mr
speaker,
your
committee
number,
nine
minerals
and
business
and
economic
development
to
whom
was
referred
senate
joint
resolution,
three
engrossed
federal
suspension
and
orders
on
oil
and
gas
production.
Respectful
reports
same
back
to
the
house
with
a
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
with
the
following
amendments:
eyes,
representatives
bear
burkhardt
duncan
air
gray,
greer
heiner
sherwood
western
representative
burkhardt
acting
chairman,
mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
10
labor
health
and
social
services
to
whom
is
referred
senate
file.
B
Mr
speaker,
your
committee
number
10
labor
health
and
social
services
to
whom
was
referred
senate
file
109
board
of
dental
examiners.
Amendments
respectful
reports
same
back
to
the
house
with
a
recommendation
that
it
do
pass
with
the
following
amendments:
eyes:
clifford,
connolly,
flettner,
hallinan,
ottman,
romero,
martinez,
styvar,
dwarf
wilson,
representative
wilson,
chairman.
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
members,
certainly
the
reverend
vite
mentioned
the
tragedy.
That's
occurred
with
our
neighbor
to
our
with
our
neighbors
and
families,
and
there's
probably
a
connection
here
somehow
in
this
room,
and
maybe
we
don't
know
about
it
yet,
but
I
certainly
hope
on
behalf
of
the
wyoming
legis
house
of
representatives,
I
want
to
extend
our
sympathies
and
our
prayers
to
those
to
our
neighbors
to
the
south,
tragic
tragic
day
and
the
repercussions
unimaginable,
as
we
were
here,
doing
our
work
and
civic
duty.
A
Someone
would
something
so
senseless
would
happen.
So,
as
you
contemplate
some
of
the
challenging
things
that
we
might
do
during
the
day,
let's
keep
those
folks
in
our
thoughts
and
prayers.
So
thank.
A
A
B
D
D
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
we
touched
on
this
portion
a
little
bit
yesterday,
but
as
I
was
trying
to
look
at
how
I
would
divide
the
amendment
it,
it
became
more
clear
that
it
would
be
way
more
trouble
than
it
was
worth
than
to
just
come
back
in
second
reading
and
actually
have
a
full
discussion
on
this
particular
portion.
Only
and
what
this
amendment
does
is
basically
moves
it
back
to
the
standard
status
quo.
D
With
the
committee
chair
and-
and
I
am
concerned,
you
know,
and
maybe
these
concerns
are
not
not
necessarily,
you
know
concreted
with
evidence,
but
I
can
foresee
in
the
future
where
we
might
have
some
issues
with
the
way
things
are
done.
You
when
you
think
about
management
council
we
talked
yesterday
about
well.
This
could
be
an
issue
with
the
with
this
budget
session
or
whatever.
Really
management
council
is
not
doing
a
lot
during
session.
D
What's
happening
is
behind
the
scenes
outside
of
session
and
setting
the
calendars
and
and
setting
the
the
progress
and
and
how
everything
is
going
to
occur,
with
the
way
that
we
meet
and
how
we
meet
and,
and
what
I
foresee
happening
is
if
we
put
this
into
an
automatic
guaranteed
that
it
slips
back
and
forth
every
single
year,
I
can
potentially
see
where
one
of
the
chairman
has
an
advantage
or
a
disadvantage
every
single
year
on
how
the
calendar
gets,
set
or
doesn't
get
set,
and
what
I
get
even
more
concerned
about
is
once
that's
found
out,
or
that
starts
working
its
way
into
the
the
management
council
system.
D
D
When
you
have
a
piece
of
power,
it's
going
to
be
very
hard
to
convince
that
other
party
you
shouldn't
have
that
much
power,
and
so
this
just
takes
it
back
to
the
status
quo,
keeps
everything
else
identical.
It
does
not
change
anything.
It
just
keeps
the
chairmanship
at
two
years
and
allows
that
that
re
repeats
itself
every
two
years.
So
I'd
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
Thank
you.
E
Floor
leader,
summers
first
time,
mr
speaker,
thank
you
on
and
against
the
amendment,
but
it's
really
the
you
know
the
body
will
decide
this,
but
I
I
I
like
the
idea
of
the
rotation
every
every
other
year.
You
know
every
year
they
switch.
I
just
think
it
balances
the
power
more
and
so
on
and
against.
F
Thanks,
mr
speaker-
and
it
occurs
to
me-
I'm
not
exactly
sure
what
the
chairman
of
management
council
does
in
so
far
as
much
as
any
other
chairman
of
any
other
committee.
So
in
my
interim
joint
committee
right,
we
actually
most
depends
on
my
chairman,
but
we've
done
a
lot
of
co-chairing
right.
I'll
take
the
morning
he'll
take
the
afternoon,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
is:
is
there
any
bad
reason
about
you
know,
having
co-chairs
of
the
management
council?
F
Is
there
a
specific
reason
why
we
have
to
have
a
chairman
and
can't
have
co-chairs
like
we
do
on
every
other
joint
interim
committee?
And
I
don't
see
anything
in
statute,
but
I
guess
I'm
wondering
for
those
of
you
on
management
council,
if
you
can
think
of
something
specifically
that
grants
the
chairman
more
power
than
having
joint.
A
Thank
you,
mr
majority,
floor
leader.
So
it's
it's.
It's
a
good
discussion
to
have
about
the
switching
and
back
and
forth
in
the
power,
the
only
the
and
to
the
question
that
was
just
brought
by
the
good
chairman
about
you
know
what
other
impact
this
might
have.
So
current
statute
has
the
chairman
of
management
audit
committee
being
the
opposite
of
the
chairman
of
management
council.
So
if
we're
gonna-
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
right
or
wrong,
but
I
just
you
asked
about
what
other
implications
this
has.
A
So,
if
you're,
switching
back
and
forth,
that's
happening
for
two
committees
every
year
and
it's
generally,
those
two
folks
are
are
the
chairman,
one
chairman
on
one
and
one's
a
chairman
on
the
other,
at
least
that's
how
it's
been
in
my
tenure.
It
does
it's
not
obligated
that
the
management
audit
committee
is
the
the
presiding
officer
from
the
opposite
house,
but
that's
how
it's
been
done.
A
I
would
say
just
to
go
back
to
to
a
little
bit
off
of
the
a
little
bit
off
topic,
but
just
because
you
may
be
the
chairman
or
the
chairman,
maybe
generally
the
president,
remember
that
there's
also
a
designee
issue
and
so
there's
a
designee
possibility
as
well
within
the
management
council.
So
the
only
thing
I
can
think
of
to
the
question
is
management.
Audit
alters
opposite
of
this.
That
actually
would
have
to
be
cleaned
up
in
the
statute.
A
A
E
E
D
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
you
know,
I
actually
think
I
I
agree
with
that
point.
This
is
tough
right.
This
is
a
really
good
policy
decision
about
this
bill,
but
I
I
believe
that
the
good
speakers
recommendation
about
the
fact
that
you
have
alternating
chairs
of
management
council
versus
management
audit
is
even
more
of
a
reason
to
sit
there
and
say
we
need
to
keep
that
level
across
the
two
years
that
you're
going
into
this.
D
I
feel
like
especially
that
you're
going
into
this
you
a
lot
of
these
things
that
get
done
during
the
interim
work
for
management
audit
can
span
up
to
two
years,
and
you
know
if
you've
got
that
management
audit
committee,
that
decides
that
you
know
with
the
new
chairman.
They
don't
want
to
continue
pursuing
a
second
year
on
a
particular
study
or
something
along
those
lines.
They
can
cancel
that
pretty
quickly
and
move
forward
with
something
else
again.
This
is
a
policy
decision.
I
I
felt
like
in
the
amendment
yesterday.
D
It
was
a
it
was
a
big
broad
brush
stroke
and
there
was
a
lot
of
changes
to
it.
I
felt
like
this
one
was
one
that
warranted
at
least
having
a
little
more
discussion
on
directly
so
vote,
your
conscience,
but
vote
aye.
A
E
Mr
speaker,
thank
you.
I'd
like
to
read
house
second
reading
amendment
number
two
to
house
bill
36
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
So
yesterday
I
promised
that
I
would
bring
kind
of
a
definition
for
what
is
a
majority
floor
leader.
What
is
a
minority
floor
leader?
We
probably
don't
have
to
have
this.
I
don't
know
it's.
It's
kind
of
it'll
be
belt
and
suspenders,
but
I,
but
I
thought
I
would
give
the
body
the
opportunity
to
have
the
debate
whether
it's
a
good
idea
or
not.
E
G
A
Any
other
member
first
time
remember.
First
time
I
see
people
moving
not
to
the
mic.
Remember
first
time.
Remember
second
time,
remember
second
time
before
the
sponsor
to
the
sponsor
all
right
members,
we're
voting
on
second
reading,
amendment
number
two
house
bill:
36,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No,
the
amendment
has
not
been
adopted.
House
bill,
36
haven't
been
read
two
separate
times.
The
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
hearing?
No
objection
is
so
ordered
next
bill
for
our
consideration
house
bill
51.
A
H
I
don't
believe
it's
taken
place
in
wyoming,
but
I'd
like
to
make
sure
by
passing
this
amendment,
that
it
would
not
take
place
in
wyoming
the
so,
and
I
I
would
say
that
as
to
the
authority
of
the
health
officer
to
do
such
a
thing
to
tell
a
parent
that
they
couldn't
go
in
the
room
with
a
sick
child
is
an
overreach
and
must
be
prevented.
H
A
I
Sorry,
mr
speaker,
a
little
slow
here,
but
just
wondering
if
we
need
to
do
a
clean
up
technical
correction
on
this
amendment
line
4,
it
says
I'm
looking
at
the
corrected
copy,
it
says
parent
or
guardians
write
to
the
to
the
care
and
that's
in
the
corrected
copy.
So
I
don't
know
if
there's
another
corrected
copy,
but
if
this
is
the
copy
we
have,
it
seems
like
we
need
to.
It
needs
to
read
parent
or
guardians
right
to
the
care.
A
A
Unless
there's
an
objection
to
that,
we
like
objecting
to
things
when
the
chair
so
to
that
chair
all
right
members
we're
voting
on
second
reading.
Amendment
number
one
house
bill
127
with
the
correction,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No,
the
amendment
is
adopted
house
bill,
151
or
excuse
me
127.
Having
been
running
two
separate
times.
The
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
here?
No
objection
is
so
ordered
next
bill
for
our
considerations
house,
bill
155.
A
A
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I'd
move
second
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
bill:
157
healthcare,
endowment
members
really
just
looking
kind
of
taking
a
page
out
of
the
old
hathaway
playbook
back
in
the
day
we
used
overflow
of
fmrs
and
to
fill
up
that
hathaway
account
and
proposing
to
do
the
same
thing,
mr
speaker,
with
amendment
number
one,
and
that
if
the
lsra
balance
then
reaches
1.4
billion,
we
would
move
60
million
if
it
goes
to
1.46.
A
From
this
savings
account
to
a
permanent
savings
account
to
fund
this,
this
program
to
get
our
wyoming
kids
taking
care
of
their
wyoming
parents
and
wyoming
grandparents,
and
so
really
just
taking
that
money.
That's
currently
invested
in
a
one
percent
bond
or
low
interest
savings
account
and
moving
it
to
a
five
percent
deal
to
kind
of
take
care
of
those
needs
in
the
future
that
we're
going
to
have
so
don't
know
if
the
lsra
will
hit
1.4
billion.
A
Hopefully
it
does,
but
I'm
hopeful
so
with
that
I'd
stand
for
any
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Thank
you
very
much
any
member
for
their
first
time.
First
time,
representative
gray,
for
your
first
time
thank.
K
K
This
has
over
1.4
billion
we're
going
to
have
a
draw
to
another
purpose
beyond
our
key
deficits
that
we
have-
and
I
understand
the
purpose
of
this
program-
it's
nice,
but
I
I
just
don't
think
right
now
we
can
afford
to
do
this,
so
I
urge
you
know-
and
I
also
think
this
is
really
instructive
on-
why
it's
right
for
us
to
get
these
diversions
right
into
different
accounts.
So
thank
you.
L
D
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
man,
I'm
kind
of
torn
on
this
one.
I
I
voted
no
on
this
bill
in
committee
and
we
stripped
the
appropriation
out
completely
and
I
don't
think
we
have
an
appropriation
in
there,
so
this
kind
of
sits
out
there
as
a
a
lofty
goal.
I
guess
without
this
amendment,
so
I
feel
like
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
an
opportunity
to
fund
this
this
investment
in
our
future.
D
D
So
I
I
think
this
is
a
worthy
worthy
idea
here
that
if
we
get
to
1.4
billion,
I
don't
see
any
major,
true
issues
here
that
if
we
get
to
1.4
billion,
we
can
tip
some
money
into
this.
I
I
would
entertain-
maybe
looking
at
a
third
reading
amendment
to
even
clean
it
up
a
little
more,
but
I'm
I'm
still
against
the
bill
overall
in
generalities,
but
on
this
amendment
I
think
this.
This
amendment
moves
us
closer
to
a
good
opportunity
to
fund
a
lofty
goal
so
eye
on
the
amendment.
A
M
M
M
Health
care
jobs
are
pretty
dang
good,
whether
it's
in
our
state
or
across
the
country-
and
I
think
this
is
something
this.
The
amendment
certainly
funds
it
and
the
bill
itself
helps
secure
that
and
provide
for
some
of
those
jobs,
whether
it
be
rn
scrub
techs,
and
we
got
to
fund
it
somehow.
So
I'm
certainly
open
to
a
better
idea,
but
this
is
what's
on
the
table
right
now.
So
please
vote
eye.
N
N
So
what
we're
need
to
what
we
need
to
decide
is
is
this
where
we
want
this
money
to
go
or
do
we
want
or
do
we
want
to
use
it
to
help
our
education
deficit
and,
frankly,
they're
both
good
things,
but
I
just
think
you
need
to
know
the
whole
picture
that
you
know
you
may
recall
when
we
started
this
session,
I
said:
there's
a
good
chance.
We
might
even
reach
1.5
this
year
at
the
end
of
this
biennium.
N
If
we,
if
our
current
funding
sources,
oil
and
gas
prices
remain
where
they
are
without
any
other
impacts.
So
but
it's
a
great
program,
and
so
I
support
the
program,
but
I
want
everyone
to
know
where
we
are
and
where
what
will
happen.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
just
want
to
make
a
couple
more
comments.
I
think
it's
really
important
when
we
think
about
these
accounts
that
we,
when
I
try
to
approach
this,
try
to
have
be
principled
and
think
about
what
the
purpose
of
each
account
is,
and
so
I
think,
of
the
general
fund,
as
for
discretionary
expenditure,
expenditure
related
to
the
ordinary
purposes
of
government.
So
if
this
flow
were
out
of
the
general
fund,
I
I
wouldn't
have
as
much
of
an
issue
with
it.
K
But
the
reality
is
you
don't
have
the
money
in
the
general
fund,
and
so
then
we
get
these
sorts
of
amendments
out
of
lizard.
The
way
I
think
of
liz
ra.
Is
it
back
in
this
period
of
declining
revenues,
I
think
of
it
as
the
backfill
on
our
core
deficits
and,
if
we're
not
going
to
flow
existing
revenues
into
the
biggest
core
deficit,
existing
revenues
into
sfp,
which
has
been
a
little
bit
of
a
struggle
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
K
Then
I
think
that
we
need
to
think
about
this
account
as
the
backstop
and
every
time
we
do
a
flow
out
of
this
account
we're
getting
closer
and
closer
to
basically
an
armageddon
situation.
We
have
a
statute
that
that,
if
there's
not
the
money
to
pay
for
sfp,
the
the
state
superintendent
basically
distributes
the
funds,
as
as
she
likes
it
for
the
amount
that's
there
and
that
would
be
a
25
to
30
percent
decline.
K
Potentially
so
I
I
think
that
we
need
to
vote
no
on
this
amendment
and
and
just
it's
just
too
much
of
a
distribution
out
of
that
account.
Thank
you.
A
A
That's
really
good
news,
it's
good
for
wyoming
and
I
will
tell
you
we
know
through
demographics.
This
is
a
huge
issue
and
I
just
would
soon
start
investing
in
our
own
kids.
Have
them
have
them
here?
You
know
we
send
them
out
of
state
and
they
marry
somebody
from
out
of
state
and
then
we
never
see
them
again
and
all
the
while
we're
sending
26
million
every
two
years
to
out-of-state
institutions.
A
A
A
A
A
A
O
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
I
moved
second
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
bill
161
and
I
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration,
friends
what
this
amendment
does
three
distinct
things
adding
to
this
bill.
Admittedly,
I
am
confused
about
this
bill
and
how
it
could
honestly
be
implemented,
but
that
being
the
case,
the
three
things
that
it
does
is
because
this
bill
is
about
genetic
screening.
It
has
the
department
of
health
providing
genetic
screening
without
cost
for
all
pregnant
women
who
request
it
and
that
they
be
given
the
results
of
that
genetic
screening.
O
The
second
thing
it
does
is,
if
you
remember,
there's
kind
of
a
laundry
list
in
the
middle
of
the
bill.
That
says
what
would
constitute
a
discriminatory
abortion
to
have
a
more
inclusive
list
have
included
sexual
orientation
and
then
the
third
thing
that
it
does.
It
says
that
there
shall
be
a
program
to
reimburse
pregnant
women
who,
because
of
this
act,
carry
to
term
an
unwanted
pregnancy
and
that
there
is
the
coverage
of
medical
costs
for
a
child.
O
That's
born
with
a
disability
until
adulthood,
so
I
would
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration
what
this
amendment
does.
Is
it
clarifies
that
we
as
a
state
have
said
that
genetic
testing
is
important?
It
is
valuable.
We
do
not
want
the
results
of
that
genetic
testing
to
be
used
for
an
abortion,
but
if
a
woman
chooses
to
carry
is
obligated
to
carry
a
pregnancy
to
term
that
we
will
take
care
of
that
child.
That
is
our
obligation.
A
P
P
Although
prenatal,
maternal
and
fetal
genetic
testing
is
popular
nowadays,
you
can
actually
get
one
in
the
town
that
we're
in
the
reality
is
that
sex
selection
abortions
are
occurring
in
the
united
states.
Prenatal
testing
can
be
a
valuable
tool
for
diagnosing
and
treating
conditions.
However,
it
can
be
used
as
a
precursor
for
aborting
an
unborn
child.
P
P
Q
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Just
briefly,
the
previous
speaker
made
made
many
good
points
to
reiterate.
Obviously,
the
value
of
adoption
for
people
who
you
know
we're
not
mandating
that
the
woman
has
to
take
care
of
the
child
for
the
rest
of
its
life
if
she
feels
unable
to
care
for
the
child
after
it's
born.
There
are
many
good
options
for
that,
and
I
would
point
out
with
our
robust
discussion
on
medicaid
yesterday,
that
we
do
already
have
an
existing
program.
Q
Medicaid
pays
for
that's
what
the
the
dd
waiver
is
that
in
the
goodness
of
our
heart.
In
the
last
in
the
budget
discussion,
we
added
some
money
back
into
that.
We
have
a
facility
in
the
center
of
the
state
if
the
person
is
severely
handicapped.
The
state
of
wyoming
already
provides
medical
services,
education
services
for
that
person
and
I
could
go
on,
but
I
won't.
R
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
on,
and
against
the
amendment
representative
stiff
for
your
first
time.
Mr
speaker,
I
just
have
a
question
about
how
this
amendment,
if
adopted,
would
play
out.
So
the
bill
is
drafted
says
that
you
can't
perform
an
abortion
if
one
of
the
reasons
that
you
are
seeking,
it
is
because
you
are
pregnant
with
a
girl,
and
you
really
wanted
a
boy,
for
example
right.
So
if
we
adopt
the
amendment,
does
that
mean
that
someone
can
say
hey?
R
I
really
wanted
a
boy
and
I
would
have
had
an
abortion,
but
I'm
gonna
have
a
girl,
and
so
now,
because
I'm
having
a
girl,
the
state
has
to
pay
for
everything
associated
with
this
girl.
You
know
all
the
medical
costs,
all
the
all
the
in-home
care
and
out-of-home
care
until
adulthood.
Is
that
what
this
amendment
does?
That's
my
question
for
the
sponsor
of
the
amendment.
O
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
and
just
to
answer
the
last
person
at
the
mic.
The
answer
is
no,
if
you
kind
of
see
on
line
35
of
the
amendment
that
that
care
that
was
being
listed
is
for
a
child
that
was
born
with
a
disability,
not
for
the
other
elements
that
were
listed
so
on
and
in
favor
of
the
amendment
and
the
discussion
with
some
of
the
other
speakers
was
really
about
adoption,
my
goodness,
I
am
so
in
favor
of
adoption.
O
All
the
way
around
there
are
people
in
this
body
who
have
adopted
children.
There
are
people
in
this
body
who
have
been
adopted.
There
are
people
in
this
body
who
have
wanted
to
adopt.
It
is
an
incredible
heart,
heartful
heartless.
All
of
that
in
terms
of
how
we,
as
a
society,
take
care
of
children.
There
is
no
two
ways
about
that,
but
that
being
said,
there
is
nothing
nothing
like
carrying
a
child,
and
many
many
women
could
never
conceive
of
giving
away
a
child
for
adoption.
O
A
Thank
you
very
much
members.
We
are
voting
on
second
reading.
Amendment
number
one
house
bill
161.,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No.
The
amendment
has
not
been
adopted
house
bill
161.
Having
been
read
two
separate
times.
The
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
here?
No
objection
is
ordered
next
bill
for
our
consideration
house
bill
162.
A
A
A
N
We
do
have
an
amendment
chairman
nicholas.
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
would
move
second
reading
amendment
to
house
bill
219
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
N
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
you
may
recall
when
I
presented
this
bill
yesterday,
I
informed
the
body
that
I
in
meetings
with
the
our
state
treasurer
that
I
would
bring
a
second
reading
amendment
that
allowed
that
basically
and
just
just
to
go
back
a
little
that
the
bill
as
it
was
presented
in
219,
provided
that
the
ifc
will
pick
its
own
chairman
currently
in
the
existing
statute,
and
without
this
bill.
The
state
treasurer
is
the
chairman
of
the
committee
and
so
as
a
in
discussions
with
the
state
treasurer
and
with
the
ifc.
N
This
was
kind
of
a
compromise
that
we
came
up
with,
and
so
what
this
does
is
makes
the
state
treasurer
the
chairman
of
the
ifc
on
off
years,
so
alternating
years
and
then
the
years
that
he's
not
the
chairman
he's
still
a
member,
the
ifc
will
select
a
the
chairman.
The
ifc
has
the
option
of
of
reappointing
the
chairman,
but
what
it
does
is
it
allows
the
interplay
of
the
ifc
with
the
with
the
treasure,
and
so
I
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
A
A
A
A
B
S
S
This
amendment
clarifies
and
provides
the
proper
sideboards
to
the
bill
to
ensure
that
officers
who
leave
while
under
investigation
for
serious
misconduct,
aren't
just
assumed
to
have
engaged
in
that
serious
misconduct,
and
so
what
this
amendment
would
do
is
ensure
that
that
investigation
is
completed
and
that
the
commission
that
oversees
this
determines
that
that
misconduct
actually
did
occur.
So
there
was
some
concern
in
committee
that
we,
we
might
have
unintentionally
sent
officers
for
revocation
of
their
certification
if
they
quit
under
investigation.
S
That
certainly
wasn't
the
intent
of
the
bill,
and
so
this
amendment
clarifies
that
language
assures
that
we
protect
good
officers
and
allows
for
that
commission
to
investigate
those
concerns
of
serious
misconduct.
So
I
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration:
we'll
stand
for
questions.
If
there
aren't.
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
member
for
their
first
time.
Remember
for
their
first
time,
members.
Second
time,
members,
we
are
voting
on
second
reading.
Amendment
number
one
house
bill
247,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No,
the
amendment
is
adopted
house
bill
247.
Having
read
two
separate
times,
the
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
hearing?
No
objection
is
so
ordered
next
bill
for
our
consideration
turn
the
page
house
bill
253.
O
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
move
second
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
bill
253
and
I
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
Friends.
I
think
that
there
is
something
that
we
can
all
agree
on.
You
know,
and
it
might
not
be
abortion
all
right,
I'll
put
that
right
out
there,
but
I
hope
that
we
would
agree
on
that.
We
would
like
to
right.
Take
care
of
pregnant
women,
have
healthy
pregnancies
in
healthy
children
and
also
to
prevent
unintended
pregnant
pregnancies.
O
That's
how
you
have
right
fewer
abortions.
Is
you
don't
have
unattended
pregnancies
and
what
this
bill
does
is
it
thinks
about
honestly?
It
contemplates
young
people,
young
women
at
the
university
and
the
community
colleges,
and
where,
yesterday,
what
we
did
is
we
prevented
the
health
insurance
that
they
have
from
covering
abortion
to
actually
getting
at
the
issue
of
unintended
pregnancies.
O
A
I
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I'm
just
trying
to
I.
I
think
I'm
it
isn't
the
end.
Okay.
I
was
just
trying
to
figure
out
if,
if
this
applied
to
community
colleges
and
the
university,
that's
my
question,
but
I
guess
I
think
I
was
reading
in
that
first
lines:
13
through
19,
where
I
didn't
see
it
referenced.
K
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
so
it
was
interesting
after
the
objection.
Yesterday
is
the
person
that
filed
the
bill.
I
can
tell
you
this
is
definitely
outside
the
original
intent
of
the
bill,
and
this
is
not
what
we
want
to
be
doing
to
make
a
a
requirement
in
order
to
receive
state
funds
that
they're
they're
going
to
be
making
funds
available
for
long-acting,
reversible
contraceptives.
I
mean
that's,
not
that's
not
consistent
with
what
I
think
we
want
to
do
as
a
body,
so
I
urge
a
no
vote
on
this
amendment.
Thank
you.
A
P
You
for
the
amendment-
thank
you,
mr
speaker,
on,
and
against
the
amendment
in
favor
of
the
bill.
I
would
agree
with
the
good
representative
that
just
spoke.
The
amendment
is
outside
the
the
intent
of
the
bill
and,
according
to
multiple
sources,
the
only
way
to
really
prevent
a
pregnancy,
100
percent
is
abstinence.
T
T
U
U
H
V
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
was
just
going
to
say.
I
believe
that
the
purpose
here
was
talking
about
the
funding
for
abortions.
If
people
want
birth
control
of
any
sort,
that's
a
personal
choice-
and
you
are
certainly
free
in
this
country
to
do
that.
So
I
just
I
would
be
against
the
amendment
and
on
for
the
bill,
because
I
don't
think
that
that
it
pertains
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
Thank
you.
A
O
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
and
thank
you
for
the
conversation
and
and
the
questions.
Let
me
answer
some
of
the
questions.
First,
it
does.
It
does
apply
to
the
community
colleges
lines
14
through
19
or
uw
lines.
27
through
29
are
the
community
colleges,
and
then
there
was
a
discussion
about
the
appropriateness
of
the
amendment
and
I
would
say
what
this
bill
did
is.
It
went
in
and
it
said
that
this
is
a
limitation
on
health
insurance
for
students
at
uw
and
the
community
colleges.
O
O
That's
all
it's
not
mandatory,
we're
not
handing
out
pills,
iuds
or
condoms
right
to
students
willy-nilly.
It's
just
that
that
health
insurance
coverage
should
include
contraception
right.
That's
our
purpose!
Our
purpose
is
unintended,
pregnancy,
isn't
it
so,
let's
make
sure
if
we're
going
to
go
into
health
insurance,
let's
make
sure
that
that
health
insurance
coverage
has
that
option.
That's
what
this
amendment
does
and
with
that
I'd
ask
for
your
I
vote.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
members.
We
are
voting
on
second
reading.
Amendment
number
one
to
house
bill
253,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye.
Those
opposed.
No
amendment
has
not
been
adopted
house
bill
253.
Having
been
read
two
separate
times.
The
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
hearing?
No
objection,
it
is
so
ordered
next
bill
for
our
consideration
is
house
bill.
254.
A
N
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
would
move
house
or
second
reading
number
one
to
house
bill
263
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
coming
over
from
the
senate
is
a
bill
senate
file
118
and
it
has
two
has
multiple
components
to
it.
The
first
component
takes
the
roughly
20
million
dollars,
as
requested
by
the
chief
executive
of
the
cares
act
dollars
for
approved,
but
projects
that
were
approved
from
our
may
special
session
last
year,
but
they
weren't
either
unable
to
finish
on
time
or
the
application
was
insufficient.
N
So
that's
the
first
20
million
dollars
is,
and
so
basically
those
things
are
already
been
approved.
They
either
ran
out
of
time
or
they
ran
out
of
money,
one
or
the
other
or
they
couldn't
fit
within
the
the
time.
Qualifications
there's
another
18
million
dollars,
which
is
that
is
also
from
the
special
session
that
are
for
broadband
and
a
few
other
things
that
those
were
time
limited
and
they
couldn't
get
the
work
done
on
time.
N
So
what
this
does
is
it
incorporates
that
first
20
million
in
the
second
18
million,
as
part
of
it
authorizes
the
governor
to
go
forward
with
those
programs,
basically
reorganize
them
and
refund
those
so
that
they
can
be
completed,
and
they
can
do
that
immediately
upon
the
passage
of
of
this
bill,
so
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
would
move
second
reading.
Amendment
number
two
to
house
bill
263
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration
members
all
this
does.
Is
it
places
the
same
parameters
on
the
wyoming
life
resource
center
and
the
wyoming
state
hospital,
as
are
placed
in
the
bill
on
our
other
wyoming
health
care
providers
and
health
care
facilities?
So
I
would
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
A
Further
discussion
on
the
amendment
further
discussion,
seeing
none
members,
we
are
voting
on
second
reading.
Amendment
number
two
house
bill:
263,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No.
The
amendment
is
adopted
house
bill
263.
Having
read
two
separate
times,
the
question
is:
shall
the
bill
be
read
a
third
time
hearing?
No
objection
is
so
ordered
next
bill
for
our
consideration
is
house
joint
resolution,
13.
A
A
A
B
House
bill
92
sponsored
by
management
council,
the
revisers
bill,
an
act
relating
to
the
revision
of
statutes
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming
house
bill
142
sponsored
by
blockchain
commercial
filing
system,
update
an
act
relating
to
corporations,
partnerships
and
associations
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming
house
bill
158
sponsored
by
representative
harshman,
local
land
use,
planning
and
zoning.
An
act
relating
to
land
use,
planning
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming
house
bill
0170
sponsored
by
representative
henderson
wyoming
economic
development
zones.
B
An
act
relating
to
economic
development
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming
house
bill.
197,
sponsored
by
representative
newsome,
connect,
wyoming
program,
federal
funding,
an
act
relating
to
the
emergency
expenses
of
government
related
to
broadband
broadband
internet
access
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming
house.
Bill.
205,
sponsored
by
representative
banks,
select
committee
on
extractive
industry
transitions;
an
act
relating
to
the
legislature
being
enacted
by
the
legislature
of
the
state
of
wyoming.
A
W
W
W
W
W
W
As
for
house
bill,
170
are
there
chain
any
changes?
Gray,
I
to
know
walters,
I
to
know
oakley
I
to
know
wilson
I
to
know
bert,
I
to
know
claussen,
I
to
know
heiner,
I
to
know
wash
it
I
to
know
simpson
I
to
know
brown,
I
to
know
blackburn,
I
to
know
haroldson
I
to
know
wharf
I
to
know
nap,
I
to
know
larson
lloyd,
I
to
know
winter
I
to.
W
W
W
W
Larson
lloyd,
I
to
know
simpson
I
to
know
wash
it
I
to
know
heiner,
I
to
know
gray,
I
to
know
burkhart,
I
to
know
ottman,
I
to
know
henderson
I
to
know
bert.
I
to
know
nicholas
I
to
know
martinez
I
to
know
walters
I
to
know
henderson
or
haroldson
I
to
know
blackburn,
I
to
know
neyman,
I
to
know,
hunt
I
to
know
claussen.
W
A
A
E
H
A
X
A
All
right
members,
so
we're
going
to
continue
with
our
third
reading
regular
list,
but
I
think
just
because
we're
going
to
be
breaking
here
in
40
minutes
and
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
through
173
in
40
minutes
just
guessing,
I'm
just
going
to
slide
173
and
174
to
the
bottom
of
the
list.
So
the
first
bill
will
be
house
bill
when
they
will
be
heard
today.
A
They
will
be
heard
today
unless
someone
else
brings
a
motion.
So
the
first
bill
for
our
consideration
on
third
reading
regular
will
be
house
bill.
A
Q
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
move
third
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
bill
187
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration
again,
and
I
I
just
I
think
it
must
be
slow
this
week
and
and
the
last
week
too.
So
my
apologies
really
should
have
been
a
second
reading
amendment
intended
to
be
a
friendly
amendment.
We
had
some
discussion
on
committee
of
the
whole
about
the
difficulty
of
recruiting
finding
some
of
these
staff
some
special
qualifications.
Q
So
what
I
thought
I
would
do
is
is
kind
of
I
don't
want
to
say,
divide
the
baby
after
the
discussions
that
we've
had
lately
but
divide
the
personnel.
Let's
call
it
that
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
have
the
actual.
I
have
the
proposed
amendment.
I
think
that's
good
enough.
Q
What
I
am
doing
is
pulling
out
four
positions
that
I
perceive
as
being
kind
of
specialty
a
little
bit
hard
to
find
that
being
clerk
of
district
court
and,
of
course,
the
district
court
is
a
broader
place,
coroner
the
district
attorney
and
the
county
and
prosecuting
occurring
pulling
them
out
so
that
they
can
continue
under
the
current
system,
leaving
in
the
other
five
which
are
county
clerk.
Commissioners
sheriff
treasurer
and
assessor,
and
my
reasoning
on
that
is.
Q
It
seems
to
me
that
these
positions
are
very
close
to
the
people
of
the
community,
in
other
words
your
county
commissioners.
You
know
the
treasurer.
Take
the
assessor
assesses
your
property.
The
treasurer
takes
your
money,
the
the
sheriff,
hopefully
arrests,
you
or
sends
you
on
your
way,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
it
there's
a
real
value
in
having
those
positions
be
from
the
county
itself,
so
those
are
left
in
and
then
the
other
thing
that
I
did
as
our
disc
trying
to
just
pin
down
the
the
our
language
about
residing.
Q
Q
A
A
Y
Thanks,
mr
speaker,
this
is
a
good
amendment.
Excuse
me
good
compromise,
so
please
vote.
F
Amendment,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
the
amendment
I'll
be
broad,
though,
for
the
amendment
still
against
the
bill,
but
I
and
everything
I
like
about
it.
The
amendment
still
exposes
the
fundamental
flaw
you
have
in
the
legislation.
F
So
what
the
bill
does
and
what
this
amendment
then
kind
of
bifurcates
depending
on
position,
is
really
under
the
law.
If
you
look
at
the
definition
of
residency
in
our
election,
it's
where
you
intend
to
live
and
if
you
could
live
somewhere
else,
but
you
intend
to
go
back.
What
you're
saying
here
is
me
as
an
individual.
I
could
probably
file
to
be
the
county
clerk
in
23
counties
and,
whichever
one
actually
elected
me,
then
I
have
to
move
there
by
january.
F
F
That
would
say
I
have
to
be
a
resident
of
the
county
when
I
filed
a
run
for
that
office,
and
so
what
the
the
bring
of
the
amendment
is
done
and
rightfully
she
has
to
bifurcate
it
with
this
new
language
for
those
four,
that,
from
the
day
of
service,
so
the
day
of
end
of
service
of
your
term,
you
have
to
reside
there,
but
it
still
doesn't
fix
a
fundamental
problem
about
being
able
to
run,
which
I
from
what
I
understand,
having
two
instances
in
this
state,
both
in
the
same
county
where
this
bill
originates
from,
and
I
know,
there's
hard
feelings
on
who
got
elected,
but
it
doesn't
mean
we
need
a
statewide
law
that
now
we're
kind
of
bifurcating,
important
positions
that
people
who
live
in
that
county
apparently
can
assume
and
things
that
are,
I
shouldn't,
say,
less
important,
but
you
don't
have
to
live
in
a
county
to
know
about
how
to
I
don't
I
guess,
be
your
a
coroner.
F
I'm
not
sure.
I
just
think
that
the
concept
continues
to
have
issues.
The
amendment
makes
it
better,
I
think,
for
the
purposes
of
the
bill.
It
might
make
it
worse
long
term
and
we're
trying
to
decide.
You
know
if
you're
running
for
offices-
and
I
think
we
all
know-
there's
some
people
in
certain
counties
who
rotate
through
offices.
They
were
county
commissioners
and
then
our
coroners
and
then
are
the
assessor.
F
It
gets
really
weird
so
in
favor
of
the
amendment
we're
still
asking
about
knowing
the
bill.
L
A
Q
Q
A
W
Andrew
baker,
banks
bear
blackburn
brown,
burkhart,
bert
claussen
clifford
connolly,
craigo,
excused
duncan
eklund
ayer
flittner
fortner
gray,
greer
hallinan
haroldson
harshman
heiner
henderson
hunt,
jennings
kenner
knapp,
larson
lloyd,
larsen
dan
mcguire
martinez,
nyman,
newsome,
nicholas
oakley,
ober
mueller,
o'hearn,
olsen,
ottman,
paxton,
provenza,
roscoe,
schwartz,
sherwood
simpson;
summers
stiff
stybar,
sweeney,
walters,
wash
it
western
wharf
williams,
wilson,
winter
yen,
zawanitzer,
mr
speaker
closing
vote.
Are
there
any
changes
closing
vote?
The
vote
is
closed.
42
I
17.
No
one
excused.
A
Having
received
the
majority
vote
of
the
member
affirmative
voter,
the
majority
members
elected
to
the
house
house
bill
187
has
passed
the
house
members.
I'm
informed
that
there's
a
amendment
still
being
drafted
on
198,
so
we're
just
going
to
move
it
down
the
list
and
proceed
with
house
bill.
249
house
bill
249.
Y
Y
Y
That's
that's.
All
this
is
doing
is
just
deleting
out
that
provision
which
didn't
conform
to
our
constitution
apologize
for
taking
up
your
time,
ask
for
an
eye
vote
on
the
amendment.
Please
vote
no
on
the
bill.
A
W
A
A
Thank
you
very
much,
just
members.
As
a
reminder,
this
is
a
proposed
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
wyoming
constitution.
Therefore,
it
takes
a
two-thirds
vote
of
this
body
and
the
body
down
the
hall
to
carry
it
forward.
So
with
that,
how
house
joint
resolution
nine
having
been
read
three
separate
times,
the
question
is:
shall
the
joint
resolution
pass
chief
clerk?
Please
call
the
role.
W
A
B
B
Z
Z
What
this
amendment
does
is
just
acknowledge
the
acknowledgement
that
the
indian
tribes
of
the
united
states
of
america
are
expressly
mentioned
in
the
united
states
constitution,
and
so
what
that
does
is
just
recognize
the
sovereignty
and
the
distinct
governments
of
the
two
tribes
that
reside
here
in
our
wonderful
state
of
wyoming,
and
I
would
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
A
Further
discussion
of
the
member
for
their
first
time,
any
other
member
for
the
first
time
members,
we
are
voting
on
third
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
joint
resolution,
11.
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
those
opposed.
No.
The
amendment
is
adopted
house
joint
resolution
11
having
been
read
three
separate
times.
The
question
is:
shall
the
bill
pass
chief
clerk?
Please
call
the
roll.
A
A
So
members,
it's
it's
been
come
to
my
attention
that
house
bill
198
is:
is
the
materials
are
out
and
ready
amendments
or
whatever
we
were
waiting
on,
so
we're
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
that?
198
everything
that's
ready,
so,
chief
clerk
either
we
start
stop
and
start
stop
early
and
start
early
or
we
just
keep
working
and
I
think
house
bill
198.
A
G
Representative
larson
dan.
Thank
you
sorry
about
that.
Mr
speaker.
Thank
you.
I
move
third
reading
amendment
number
one
to
house
bill
198
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration.
As
you
can
see
in
this
on
page
two
line.
Three
after
university,
we
insert
for
miscellaneous
use
where
water
is
to
be
used
for
landscape
watering,
lawns,
athletic
fields,
trees,
shrubs
and
flowers.
G
This
is
exactly
what's
coming
out
of
the
permits
that
were
filed
with
the
state
engine,
with
the
with
the
agency
that
controls
water
and,
and
so
I
just
think
it
needs
to
be
in
there
just
to
clarify
it.
It
makes
me
feel
better
about
the
bill,
so
I'm
on
the
amendment
vote
for
that
and
vote
for
the
bill.
Thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
the
I'm
somewhat
ambivalent
about
this
amendment,
the
it
does
follow
the
language
of
the
well
permit
and
for
that
purpose
for
these
particular
wells,
it
doesn't
really
have
an
impact.
The
problem
that
I
have
with
this
amendment
is
it
the
way
that
this
bill
is
crafted,
for
example,
on
the
ranch
property
the
uw
owns.
That's
you
know
that
that's
a
large
track
of
property
that
goes
up
the
the
hill
go
over
to
the
top
above
laramie,
so
it's
a
large
swath
of
ground.
N
So
by
inserting
this
language,
if
uw
chooses
to
drill
a
well
on
the
top
of
the
hill
in
order
to
irrigate
in
our
and
also
to
water
livestock,
they
couldn't
do
it.
They
could
only
irrigate,
and
if
the
ag
college
over
on
the
west
side
of
laramie
chose
to
to
drill
a
well
and
do
research
on
the
water
well
or
or
if
the
college
of
engineering
did
the
such
or
in
properties
other
properties
that
are
under
the
control
of
the
university
of
wyoming.
N
So
I
would
say
I
would
say
yes,
this
amendment
really
isn't
necessary
and
it
may
have
other
issues
for
other
wells
that
the
uw
may
want
to
drill
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
issue
between
the
city
and
and
and
uw,
and
so
I
but
it
I
don't
think
it
damages
this
particular
situation.
So
on
and
again.
Q
Yes,
thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
feel
like
I'm
against
the
amendment
and
and
I'm
not
a
big
person
with
wells
of
water
on
my
little
three
and
a
half
acres,
but
I'm
I'm
just
not
clear
if
we
were,
if
we
put
into
statute
some
specificity
on
a
water
use
for
a
a
particular
operation,
I
mean
because
I
don't
think
we
want
to
look
at
just
this
particular
event
at
this
particular
well.
Q
Broadly,
doesn't
the
state
engineer's
office
have
the
right
to
change
what
they
say
of
wells
or
you
know
what
they
should
be
used
for
and
how
does
that
work?
If,
in
statute,
we
decide
to
specifically
indicate
some
outcome
about
water
use?
What
if
the
state
engineer's
office
you
know,
has
sort
of
a
control
order
next
year
or
something
other?
It
seems
to
me
that
we're
writing
into
statute
something
dealing
with
a
specific
occasion
that
probably
has
consequences
far
beyond
that,
so
that
that's
why
I
would
vote
now.
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Good
questions.
There's
no
regulations
on
groundwater
in
this
area
there
is
toward
torrington
and
such
just
because
we
have
neighboring
states
that
are
very
concerned
about
the
aquifer
there
and
and
about
future
wells.
We
could
deal
with
this
in
future
wells
if
they
have
future
wells
up,
they're
gonna,
you
know,
go
out
and
and
drill,
let's
deal
with
it,
then,
but
to
make
this
bill
suitable
to
me.
I
think
we
need
to
put
this
in
there.
G
I
I
would
be
if
you
vote
for
this
amendment,
I
I
would
encourage
that
if
it
goes
down,
I
don't
know
if
I'm
in
favor
of
the
bill.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
AA
AA
The
purpose
of
this
amendment
is
to
address
right-of-way
concerns
and
to
clarify
the
intent
of
this
well
currently
to
be
used
to
water.
The
golf
course
if
the
university
wishes
to
expand
their
independent
water
system
to
water
other
landscaped
areas
of
campus
that
are
not
adjoining
or
bordering
the
golf
course.
The
amendment
provides
a
methodology
for
the
university
to
require
right-of-way
access
from
whomever
the
entity
is
either
the
city
or
the
county
that
owns
that
right-of-way.
AA
R
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
just
a
question
for
the
bringer
of
the
amendment.
It
looks
like
this
would
give
the
city
a
veto
over
the
university's
actions,
because
it
would
require
a
use
agreement.
An
agreement
implies
consent
of
both
parties,
including
in
this
case
the
cities
is,
that
is
that
accurate.
N
Thank
you
on
and
against,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
so
this
I
would
respectfully
submit
this.
Amendment
does
not
make
sense
because,
anytime,
you
have
a
right-of-way
or
an
easement,
and
someone
else
has
to
cross
it
or
use
it
or
interfere
with
it
as
a
matter
of
state
law,
you're
required
to
have
an
agreement
and
and
obtain
that
right.
So
it's
that
this
is
the
law
and
the
idea
that
you're
gonna
we'll
put
this
in
here
that
just
restates
what
the
law
of
wyoming
is.
A
AA
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
don't
think
it
hurts
to
clarify
that
this
is
the
current
law.
I
envision
the
university
wishes
to
expand
the
water
system
beyond
the
golf
course
and
they
cross
grand
avenue
that
impacts
every
citizen
in
our
community
in
terms
of
construction
of
that
line
interrupt
and
traffic
flow,
and
I
do
think
there
should
be
a
transparent
process
so
that
our
community
knows
what
is
happening
to
our
infrastructure.
So
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
I
moved
third
reading
amendment
number
three
to
house
bill
198
and
we'll
withdraw
it
at
the
proper
time,
so
just
wanted
to
take
a
few
moments
here
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
issue,
and
I
appreciate
you,
I
I
just
handed
out
two
different
handouts
and
like
any
dispute
and
I
believe
in
truth,
it
becomes
a
little
bit
difficult
to
untangle
who
is
in
the
right
and
who
is
in
the
wrong,
and
sometimes
it
is
totally
one-sided.
K
Sometimes
it's
not
sometimes
a
combination
of
both,
but
I'm
all
about
looking
at
the
facts
to
untangle
in
disputes
who
who,
where
what
side
is
right,
what
side
is
wrong,
so
I
want
to
go
off
the
fact
sheet.
First
now
I
want
to
start
with
the
fact
that
cities
have
a
fiduciary
duty
to
protect
their
water,
their
citizens,
water
right,
their
citizens,
water
right,
not
their
water
right
and
that's
in
case
law
and
the
ordinance
passed
by
laramie
that
they
feel
is
necessary
to
do
that
is
similar
to
that
in
gillette
riverton
alpine
jackson.
K
K
But
don't
get
me
wrong,
and
this
is
one
of
the
big
big
problems
I
have
with
this
bill.
If
there
are
legal
problems
with
the
ordinance,
then
bring
that
through
the
court
system
for
everyone,
because
everyone's
subject
to
the
ordinance
in
the
city,
but
don't
build
a
carve
out
for
one
entity
which
this
body
does
a
lot,
and
I
I
think
it's
a
bad
trend.
The
ordinance
is
an
ordinance
for
everybody
and,
frankly,
other
wyoming
communities
have
this
ordinance
and
rather
than
us,
build
this
little
carve
out.
K
The
city
has
proposed
six
solutions
that
are
very
intricate
and
that's
the
other
letter
and
and
really
they've
just
been
ignored,
and
I'm
afraid
that
the
university's
intentions
are
clear
here
and
that's
to
create
this
city
within
a
city
which
even
the
bringer
of
the
bill,
has
kind
of
alluded
to
that
they're.
Somehow
this
separate
carve
out
yes
in
the
wyoming
constitution.
They
talk
about
the
university,
the
university,
but
the
idea
that
we're
gonna
create
a
city
within
a
city.
It's
in
it's
expensive.
K
K
N
Chairman
nicholas,
thank
you,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
on
and
against
the
amendment.
So,
first
of
all
the
what's
interesting
about
this
is
so
now
it's
not
about
the
money.
Of
course
there
was
a
second
reading
amendment
that
says
it
was
all
about
the
money
and
if
we
paid
him
50
000
a
year
for
five
years,
the
problem
would
go
away.
N
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
an
accurate
statement,
but
more
importantly,
now
it's
about
the
aquifer
and
so
really
uw
is
apparently
threatening
the
at
least
their
thinking
with
the
town
of
laramie
that
if
they
have
these
two
wells,
it's
going
to
deplete
the
aquifer
and
impact
their
ability
to
provide
water
to
to
city
members,
and
I
would
respectfully
submit
that
is
simply
not
accurate
and
in
point
of
fact,
uw
hired.
A
hydrologist
submitted
a
professional
report
to
the
state
engineer's
office.
N
The
town
of
laramie
also
hired
a
hydrologist
and
submitted
those
informations
to
the
state
engineer.
So
there
were
two
different
studies,
plus
the
qualified
experts
at
the
state
engineers
office,
who
made
the
determination
that
these
water
wells
would
not
interfere
with
with
the
aquifer
for
the
town
of
larry.
N
N
Well,
because
the
the
city
decides
it
might
interfere
with
their
aquifer,
so
they're
not
going
to
let
you
use
your
well
and
if
you
have
an
existing
well
in
the
town
of
laramie,
now
it
has
to
be
permitted
and
you
have
to
provide
a
meter
on
it
and
and
let
them
know
how
much
water
you're
using
to
make
sure
that
you
can
only
use
the
water
that
they
think
you
should
have
that
doesn't
interfere
with
the
aquifer.
N
That's
what
we're
talking
about
here.
So
if
this
was
your
ranch,
how
would
you
feel
about
it?
I
would
respectfully
submit
that
you'd
feel
just
like
the
university
of
wyoming
does
and
you
would.
You
would
stand
up
and
say
you
don't
have
the
right
to
dictate
how
I
can
use
this
water.
Well,
that
has
been
specifically
appropriated
for
a
certain
amount
of
production
to
be
used
for
irrigation
purposes,
and
that's
all
this
is
about
and
it's
about
money
and
it's
about
the
laramie
deciding
they
want
to
control
the
aquifer
instead
of
the
state
engineer's
office.
Y
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
for
the
amendment
against
the
bill.
You
know
it
said
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that
really
all
politics
is
local
and
I
think
that's
especially
true
in
wyoming,
where
we
are
such
a
small
population
that
to
one
degree
or
another,
you
know
we
all
kind
of
know
each
other,
and
so
wherever
we
are
in
the
state,
and
so
this
issue
I
to
me,
really
brings
that
home
and
I
guess
my
question
is:
is
so
with
this
being
the
issue?
Y
Y
It's
just
been
in
the
last
several
days
that
this
recent
issue
has
been
brought
to
my
attention
and
now
most
of
us
in
here
we
get
it
for
the
last
several
years
we've
dealt
with
that
certain
golf
course
in
one
way
or
another,
we've
appropriated
money,
they
drilled
a
well.
It
was
dry,
we've
we've
been
down
that
road
all
right,
so,
but
it's
if
this
were
a
squabble
in
my
community.
Y
Y
Well,
that's
there's
an
avenue
for
doing
that,
but
I'm
just
that's
what
it
boiled
down
to
for
me:
it's
not
picking
sides,
one
way
or
the
other
on
the
issue
in
and
of
itself
it's
the
fact
that
it
is
a
local
issue.
It
is
a
local
dispute
and
I
don't
think
that
we,
as
the
state
legislature
of
the
state
house,
should
be
interjecting
our
frankly
uneducated
assessment
into
that
fight.
So
on
against
the
bill
for
the
amendment.
Thank
you.
AA
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
just
as
a
friendly
reminder.
The
district
I
represent
includes
both
the
university
and
the
city.
So,
regardless
of
the
direction
this
conversation
goes,
it
impacts
those
that
I
serve.
AA
I
just
wanted
to
share
with
the
body
that
in
a
recent
story
in
our
local
paper,
this
highlighted
this
issue
and
these
concerns
and
a
lot
of
our
residents
were
completely
caught
off
guard,
and
so
since
then,
since
the
weekend,
I've
received
quite
a
few
calls
and
emails
of
concerns
from
my
constituents
in
regards
to
specifically
the
potential
for
rate
increases.
If
this
bill
goes
through
and
this
overall
feeling
of
it
being
unfair
or
unethical
that
the
citizens
of
the
gem
city
would
pay
the
price
for
this
local
conflict
in
this
power
struggle.
AA
AA
Money
and
heartache
would
save
the
university
money
and
prevent
a
rate
increase
that
will
impact
faculty
staff
and
students
living
in
the
community
and
when
we
get
down
to
this
conversation
about
rights
and
water
rights,
certainly
I'm
not
a
lawyer
on
this
issue,
but
my
question
to
the
body
would
be:
do
we
want
to
limit
local
government's
control
and
jurisdiction
to
protect
the
quality
of
our
drinking
water
that
impacts
our
constituents
and
us
as
individuals?
AA
I
would
ask
for
for
you
to
vote
no
on
this.
Thank
you.
AB
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Ladies
and
gentlemen,
just
a
couple
couple
thoughts
here.
Frankly,
we're
not
injecting
ourselves
into
a
local
issue.
University
is
a
state
institution.
The
land
on
the
university
belongs
to
the
state
and
that
the
water
in
the
state
belongs
to
the
state,
read
the
constitution.
It
says
so
it
doesn't
belong
to
a
community
or
a
county
or
a
person.
It
belongs
to
the
state
and
there's
a
process
to
allocate
that
water
and
to
use
it.
AB
I
want
to
give
you
some
of
the
history
of
what's
happened:
kind
of
relative
to
water
with
the
community.
Some
of
you
in
here,
probably
not
many
remember.
When
the
community
came
to
the
legislature
and
said
we
can't
afford
the
costs
of
water
at
the
territorial
park,
help
us
that
occurred
a
number
of
years
ago.
AB
Jurisdiction
that
they
wanted,
in
fact
they
wanted
to
control
what
you
could
do
in
your
own
driveway
within
that
five
miles,
whether
you
could
wash
your
automobile,
your
truck
or
not,
whether
you
could
engage
in
a
hobby
that
generated
maybe
wood
dust
and
that
we
have
already
been
involved
in
these
with
this
community
constantly,
and
it
seems
like
it's
one
of
those
communities
that
keeps
coming
up
all
the
time
into
this
body
that
we
have
to
fix
some
issue
that
they've
raised.
So
this
isn't
unusual,
it's
not
something
we
don't
deal
with
almost
constantly.
AB
As
for
the
golf
course
years
ago,
that
golf
course
the
grass
was
dying.
It
was
going
dead
and
with
no
grass
there's
no
golf
course,
and
thus
the
land
becomes
worthless
almost
other
than
if
you
want
to
develop
it
and
then
becomes
worth
a
lot
of
money,
and
I
would
tell
you
that
I
think
the
value
of
that
golf
course
for
development
is
considerable,
although
the
golf
course
does
belong
to
the
state.
AB
AB
Well,
there
went
over
a
million
dollars,
they
came
back
and
said
we
want
to
drill
another
well,
and
some
of
you
will
remember
probably
one
of
the
most
unique
amendments
anybody's
tried
to
put
in
the
budget,
which
was
mine,
which
said
if
it
comes
back
as
a
dry
hole.
You
have
to
sell
the
golf
course.
AB
AB
The
community
in
which
I
live
has
a
golf
course.
A
donor
donated
the
land
and
pretty
much
built
a
golf
course
for
the
community.
The
community
is
using
non-potable
water
to
water.
That
golf
course,
so
they
don't
have
to
use
treated
water
good
call.
I
don't
want
treated
water
going
to
a
golf
course.
AB
AB
AB
This
way
the
university
uses
non-potable
water
directly
on
the
on
that
land.
They
can
use
it
for
other
things.
Flowers,
if
you
wish-
and
it
makes
that
water
usable
the
water,
belongs
to
the
state.
And
if
you
look
at
what
this
community
is
doing,
this
community
is
trying
to
tie
up
all
of
that
land
sitting
between
east
of
the
community,
and
here
they
don't
want
any
development
on
that
land.
They
don't
want
people
using
it.
It's
a
land
grab
as
far
as
I'm
concerned,
and
they
can
use
water
or
any
number
of
excuses
they
want.
AB
But
that's
what
it
is.
It's
the
attempt
of
the
city
to
exercise
jurisdiction
over
state
property
over
state
water
over
the
individuals
that
live
there.
They
want
to
control
what
the
people
out
in
the
county
do
and
that
and
this
body
said
no
before
and
changed
the
extra
territorial
jurisdiction
laws
and
said
you
have
to
work
with
the
county.
If
you
want
to
do
something,
this
is
just
another
thing,
it's
just
constant!
AB
So
I
don't
have
any
problem
saying
I'm
against
the
amendment
for
the
bill.
We
need
to
exercise
our
rights
as
a
state
and
not
give
those
rights
over
to
a
community,
because
it's
just
going
to
be
another
community,
another
community
and
pretty
soon
all
of
them
are
going
to
want
their
own
actions
their
own
wells.
AB
You
can't
have
state
property
in
our
community
without
doing
a
whole
bunch
of
things
so
on
and
for
the
bill
against
the
amendment
and
I'd.
Ask
you
to
really
think
about
this,
because
if
you
vote
against
the
bill,
you're
actually
giving
up
state
sovereignty
to
a
community
to
a
city
council
over
and
above
this
body,
five
people
over
and
above
the
90
that
set
here
so
on
against
the
amendment
for
the
bill.
AC
Time,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
know
it's
lunchtime
and
I'm
not
going
to
take
long.
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
my
local
control
speech
again.
This
is
a
local
issue.
A
local
dispute
and
the
legislature
should
not
be
legislating
this
and
further.
We
should
not
be
adjudicating
a
water
dispute,
we're
not
equipped
to
handle
that
and
we
shouldn't
be
involved
in
that,
so
I'm
in
favor
of
the
amendment
against
the
bill.
Thank
you.
Thank.
AD
I
I
guess
I
would
argue
that
the
opposite.
This
is
about
water
law,
and
it's
established.
We've
got
some
of
the
best
water
law
in
the
country,
and
because
we
have
that
people's
allocation
rights
are
protected,
it
has
been
permitted
by
the
state
engineer
where
it
should
be,
and
then
it
has
been
permitted
for
the
beneficial
use,
as
stated
and-
and
we
can't
have
local
governments
interfering
with
that,
they
do
they.
They
are
contradicting
state
law
and-
and
that
needs
to
probably
be
the
focus
on
this
whole
thing,
regardless
of
the
squabbles.
AD
Regardless
of
the
use,
I'm
ready
to
put
a
different
use
to
this
golf
course
too,
but
we
do
have
state
law
that
is
already
taking
care
of
this,
and
that
is
the
water
right
that
the
state
has
issued
to
the
university.
G
Mr
speaker,
thank
you
against
the
amendment
for
the
bill.
I
I
think
this
is
a
property
right
issue.
The
universities
paid
a
lot
of
money
to
get
some
wells
drilled.
They
need
to
keep
their
golf
course.
You
know
green
and
such,
and
I
just
don't
think
the
city
should
be
able
to
control
that
so
vote
against
the
amendment
for
the
bill.
F
F
You
know
breaking
down
and
all
of
these
talks,
but
it
does
seem
really
weird
to
me
all
of
a
sudden
that
I'm
just
guessing
one
side
has
known
that
this
bill
has
been
out
there
for
nine
months,
and
that
would
prevent
me
from
coming
to
the
table,
and
I
guess
I
just
want
some
more
explanation,
and
I
know
it's
well.
It's
not
his
amendment.
So
sometime
in
the
course
discussion,
I
guess
I'd
like
a
little
more
information.
F
You
know
really
for
nine
months
now.
Knowing
this
bill
was
coming
the
session
or
being
drafted
for
the
potential
of
use,
let's
say:
maybe
they
thought
we
didn't
need
it,
but
that
doesn't
at
least
on
face
value
indicate.
We've
had
a
good
will
negotiation
for
the
last
nine
months.
If
this
has
kind
of
been
in
the
back
pocket
of
one
side
for
a
while.
A
A
X
Representative
hearn,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Somebody
mentioned
dog
in
a
fight
earlier.
We
have
2.9
million
dollars
in
this
dog
fight.
X
S
Thank
you,
mr
speaker,
on,
and
for
the
amendment
against
the
bill.
You
know
we
keep
talking
about
ranchers
and
their
access
to
water,
and
so,
if
this
was
your
ranch
and
and
you
couldn't
get
your
your
water
on
your
land,
you
would
stand
up
and
ask
your
legislator.
S
N
This
year
is
not
working.
So,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
what's
interesting
is:
is
this
this
concept
or
the
the
assertion,
particularly
in
the
documents
that
were
drafted
up
by
the
good
folks
from
from
laramie
about?
We
can
resolve
this
thing.
We
want
to
act
in
good
faith
and
we
want
to
resolve
us,
so
these
issues
have
been
going
on
since
before
2017
and
they've
been
trying
to
resolve
it.
N
Since
then,
and
as
I
explained
earlier,
the
attorney
general
was
the
mediator
and
with
the
with
our
good
chief
executive
involved,
and
they
were
conducting
mediation
between
the
two
parties
last
year.
So
what
happened
right
in
the
middle
of
all
these
mediation
discussions
when
they're
talking
about
whether
or
not
who
would
get
the
water
where
and
what
accommodation
the
city
would
make
to
to
to
the
uw?
What
did
they
do,
despite
being
in
the
middle
of
the
mediations
they
go
out
and
on
august
I
think
it's
august
4th
they
passed
this
ordinance.
N
So
basically
they
said
even
during
mediations
we're
going
to
pass
a
law
and
we're
going
to
do
what
we
want,
because
that's
what
we
want,
we
don't
care
about.
The
mediation,
so
it
was
an
absolute
act
of
bad
faith
during
the
process
of
those
mediations
and
since
then
they've
been
on
a
media
campaign
to
paint
themselves
into
the
right
corner
and
I've.
Just
it's
just
not
the
facts.
It
really
isn't
so
this
bill
may
have
been
drafted
back
in
in
last
year.
N
And
we
do
this,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
every
day
there's
at
least
five
or
ten
bills,
this
session,
that
we've
passed
out
that
address
this
type
of
issue
where
someone
is
overreaching
and
we
say,
wait
a
minute.
Let's
step
back,
we
want
you
to
act
lawfully
and
we
want
you
to
follow
the
laws
of
the
state
of
wyoming.
N
This
ordinance
violates
the
laws
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
this
is
the
easiest
most
efficient
way
to
address
it.
In
addition
to
that,
we've
just
cut
40
million
dollars
from
the
university's
budget.
Through
our
budget
cuts,
they've
been
trying
to
save
money
by
drilling
water
wells,
so
they
can
irrigate
their
their
golf
course.
They'll
be
they'll,
stay
anywhere
between
200
to
250
000
a
year
by
having
these
operable
so
they're,
trying
to
be
good.
N
Stewards
of
the
land
use
the
water
and
save
money,
despite
even
after
this
happens,
uw
will
still
be
paying
over
1.5
million
dollars
annually
to
the
city
of
laramie
for
the
for
their
potable
water
and
so
they're
still
acting
good
neighbors
on
on
that
staff.
They
just
want
to
use
the
water
that
they
drilled
for
and
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
they
spent
in
the
well
and
that
they'll
have
to
spend
in
their
infrastructure
to
get
their
well
water
across
their
land
to
use
on
their
property.
A
A
K
K
K
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
private
property
rights
line
that
was
used.
I
am
very
pro-private
property
rights,
but
I
also
believe
that
when
we
use
language
it
should
be
appropriate
to
the
situation
at
hand
we're
talking
about
within
city
limits.
This
is
not
a
ranch
situation.
This
is
within
city
limits,
where
you
have
a
wyoming
supreme
court
precedent
saying
that
the
city
has
a
fiduciary
duty
to
protect
its
citizens,
water,
their
supply,
a
fiduciary
duty
and
that's
a
supreme
court
decision.
K
So
it's
a
different
situation
and
I
would
pose
to
you
that
there
are
four
municipalities,
at
least
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
that
already
have
this
ordinance.
If
this
ordinance
is
a
violation
of
the
wyoming
state
constitution,
well,
then,
let's
get
it
off
the
books
through
the
court
process,
not
intervene
for
one
entity
to
prevent
it
from
going
to
court,
because
you
know
they
have
the
money
to
do
it.
K
But
if
this,
if
this
ordinance
is
indeed
unconstitutional,
then
it
should
go
through
a
court
system
and
I'd
pose
to
you.
There
are
multiple
communities
that
have
it.
I
guess
the
citizenry
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
go
to
court.
Maybe
maybe
uw
has
the
ability
to
do
this
and
we
can
resolve
this
issue,
but
it
hasn't
been
resolved.
There
are
multiple
communities
with
this
ordinance
already
because
of
that
precedent
that
the
city
has
the
fiduciary
duty
to
protect
its
water
wells.
I
mean
it's:
it's
water,
the
citizens,
water.
K
K
I
want
to
bring
your
attention
now
to
this
to
this
letter
dated
november
5th
2020.
K
And
here
they
provide
six
options
and
they
say
over
and
over
again
that
they
are
willing
to
provide
free,
non-potable
water,
which,
frankly,
I
think
is.
This
is
why
sometimes
the
municipalities
frustrate
me.
This
is
way
too
generous
option
two
sentence:
two:
no
ongoing
payments
to
the
water
utility
for
consumption
of
irrigation
at
jacoby
option;
three;
no
ongoing
payments
to
the
water
utility
for
consumption
of
irrigation
at
jacoby.
K
And
yet
the
university
still
doesn't
want
to
even
go
into
a
mediation,
because
that
was
not
what
occurred
folks.
This
is
this
is
a
stubbornness.
Okay
and,
and
we
cannot
allow
it
to
continue.
We
can't
build
a
carve
out
every
single
time.
They've
been
offered
free,
non-potable
water.
Why
on
earth?
Would
they
not
move
forward
with
that.
K
A
W
A
So,
thank
you,
mr
major
committee
announcements,
committee,
announcements.