►
From YouTube: Joint Conference Committee 1 on HB1002, November 3, 2021
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
Wow,
that's
loud,
I
think
I'm
on
so.
First
of
all,
thanks
for
joining
us-
and
I
think
the
house
has
has
really
three
main
issues
with
with
your
amendments,
and
so
I'm
gonna
walk
through
those
three
things
and
then
we
can
work
on
how
we
come
to
compromise
on
them
and
so
first
of
all,
it'll
be
on
page
seven.
A
So
what
the
house
basically
did
is
that
we
said
that
a
rule
is
is
not
going
to
be
in
that
that
our
that
our
law,
that
the
rest
of
section
2
is
not
going
to
be
in
effect,
unless
there's
a
court
stay
and
that's
just
the
short
version,
and
so
if
you
read
through
it
and
start
with
b,
no
public
entity
shall
enforce
any
mandate
or
standard
of
the
federal
government,
whether
emergency
temporary
permit.
That
requires
an
employer
to
ensure
mandate
that
employees
shall
re
receive
a
covenant.
A
The
house
version
goes
on
as
except
otherwise
provided
in
the
section
to
the
extent
that
this
section
conflicts
with
federal
law,
regulation,
rules,
standard
or
subsection
b
of
this
section
shall
not
be
enforced
after
the
federal
law
regulation
rule
standard
order
takes
legal
effect
that
requires
wyoming
employers
to
comply
with
the
federal
covenant,
vaccine
requirement
or
mandate.
So
so,
basically,
it
says
this
to
the
extent
there's
conflicts
with
federal
law
regulation.
It
goes
away,
so
it
goes
away
and
then
it
goes
on
to
say
in
subsection
d,
not
sub,
not
withstanding.
A
Subsection
c
of
this
section,
subsection
b
of
this
section,
shall
be
enforceable
during
any
period
in
which
the
federal
law
regulation
rule
standard
is
subject
to
federal
judicial
stay
applicable
in
wyoming
and
and
so
we
we
feel
like.
We
have
covered
the
bases,
as
it
relates
to
our
health
care
entities
and
and
the
state
entities,
and
but
it
basically
says
we're
not
going
to
see
we're
not
going
to
cede
our
power.
The
state
is
not
going
to
cede
our
power
during
a
stay.
A
A
So
that's
kind
of
us.
We
would
really
like
to
keep
our
language.
We
think
it.
We
think
it
still
protects
public
entities
and,
but
we
think
it
it
allows
the
state
to
retain
its
authority,
its
sovereignty
a
little
longer
and
then
on
section
three
remember:
we
just
had
a
a
simple
section:
you
turned
that
simple
section
into
a
and
then
created
a
b
and
so
section
three
with
the
direction
and
consent
of
the
governor.
A
The
attorney
general's
office
may
initiate
or
participate
in
litigation
and
take
any
other
appropriate
action
to
challenge
and
resist
federal
government
action
related
to
cover
19
vaccination
mandates
that
are
contrary
to
the
law
and
the
rights
around
the
citizens.
And
then
your
your
amendment
goes
on
in
subsection
b
and
says.
Litigation
under
this
section
may
include
roman
edi
initiating
an
action
in
the
name
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
as
the
party
agreed,
and
I
want
to
reiterate
something
under
what
under
your
be
a
set
of
litigation
under
this
section
may
include.
A
Not
a
shell
may
include
romanette,
I
initiating
an
action
in
the
name
of
the
state
of
wyoming.
It's
the
party
agreed
by
the
violation
of
10
to
10th
amendment
and
it
kind
of
goes
on
and
then
romanette
ii
initiating
a
class-action
lawsuit
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
then
it
it
goes
on
and
our
our
problem
is
in
that
romanet
two
and
our
our
solution
would
be
the
following.
A
It
would
be
initiating
a
lawsuit
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
wyoming
as
lead
plaintiff
or
joining
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
wyoming
citizens
or
others
who
were
personally
injured
or
whose
livelihood
is
negatively
affected
by
federal
vaccine
mandates
pursuant
to
91603a
romanette
iv
and,
and
that
goes
back
into
the
into
the
authorities
of
the
attorney
general
and
that
that
section
that
subsection,
that
romanette
for
states,
the
the
attorney
general
shall
that's
that's
a
romanette
4
is
represent
the
state
in
suits
actions
or
claims
in
which
the
state
is
interested
in
either
the
wyoming
supreme
court
or
any
united
states
court.
A
So
it's
a
fairly
broad
authority
for
the
for
the
ag
and-
and
so
that's
that's
kind
of
us-
we're
worried
about
specifically
going
into
class
action
lawsuits.
We
I
think,
we've
tried
to
avoid
that
in
the
past
and
but
it,
but
it
goes
back
and
allows
the
attorney
general
her
current
authorities
and
and
and
basically
makes
a
point.
I
think
that
we
want.
A
We
want
the
ag
to
look
at
these
cases
and
so
that
that's
our
section
of
three
and
then
the
the
other
only
other
concern
we
have
is
section
four,
which
is
the
appropriation
and
we
think
10
million
is
a
bit
too
much.
We
have
plenty
of
time
to
appropriate
more
money
and
we
would
like
to
reduce
that
back
to
a
million.
Obviously
there's
some
negotiation
in
there.
A
That
could
happen
for
sure,
but
our
initial
proposal
on
that
would
be
a
million,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we're
adding
and
kind
of
what
our
solutions
might
be,
and
so
I
would
turn
it
over
to
my
senate
colleagues
for
discussion
or
are
the
house
colleagues
as
well.
B
Mr
co-chairman,
if
you
could
walk
me
through
on
particularly
on
subsection
on
your
second
amendment,
where
we
get,
we
brought
in
the
concept
of
class
action
suit,
and
then
you
just
did
a
a
good
job,
but
but
give
me
the
difference,
as
you
see
them
as
to
what
our
language
does
and
what
yours
doesn't.
Give
me
a
contrast
in
comparison
of
why
one
is
better
than
the
other
or
isn't
it
just
what's
the
difference
between
those
two,
because
to
me,
based
on
your
explanation,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
seeing
what
the
difference
is.
C
A
So,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
what
I
think
our
solution
does
is
cites
existing
law
on
what
we
can
do,
not
speculation
on
what
we
might
be
able
to
do.
My
worry
is
we're
going
to
set
up
a
in
this
statute.
We
may
set
up
the
belief
by
the
public
that
we're
gonna
that
we,
the
state
of
wyoming,
are
gonna,
enter
every
class
action,
lawsuit
or
lawsuit
taken
up
by
any
employer
or
employee,
and
so
what
this
does
is
just
give
really.
A
It
just
repeats
what
what
we,
what
the
attorney
general
can
do
in
an
existing
law,
and
you
know,
is
it
a
fine
line?
Yeah,
it's
a
fine
line.
I
it's
been
my
understanding
and
I'm
not
I'm
I'm
a
cowboy.
I
am
not
an
attorney,
but
it
has
been
my
understanding.
We've
kind
of
try
to
avoid
that
class
action
stuff
in
bills
so
certainly
willing
to
hear
other
amendments,
but
that's
our
concern.
B
B
We
would
maintain
the
the
roman
I
under
b,
which
is
the
senate
language
and
the
house
would
offer
up
romanette
ii
that
modifies
that,
to
a
certain
degree,
because
it
is
existing
statutory
language
and
then
would
conform
with
other
areas
within
our
laws.
Is
that
correct?
C
Mr
chairman,
that
my
question
is
in
in
the
original
intent
of
this,
and
it
sounds
like
the
word.
The
phrase
class
action
is
what
really
is
is
driving
a
lot
of
this
and
and
so
that
language
is
not
necessarily
necessary.
As
long
as
the
intent
of
the
balance
of
it
is
what
at
least
what
I
intended
originally,
and
I
think
the
body
intended
is
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
out
there
that
are
negatively
that
are
hit
by
this
mandate,
but
they
don't
have
the
resources
to
to
take
on
the
federal
government.
C
You
know
anybody
versus
united
states,
you
better
have
pretty
deep
pockets,
and
so
our
hope
here
was
that
the
one
that
the
state
could
you
know
in
the
course
of
of
prosecuting
its
own
actions
against
the
federal
government
that
these
businesses
or
individuals
could
join
in
or
or
maybe,
there's
a
situation
where
the
state
doesn't
have
standing
or
there's
a
question
whether
it
has
standing
that
that
by
joining
these
people
in
they,
they
would
be
able
to
acquire,
standing
and
and
help
carry
a
lot
of
the
load
for
it,
because
these
small
businesses
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
afford
it.
C
D
Mr
chairman
yeah
yeah
senator
I
with
the
the
draft
language
that
was
handed
to
us.
I
would
answer
yes
and-
and
I
think
the
concern
regarding
class
action
is
just
the
burden
around.
You
know,
defining
a
class
certifying
a
class
it.
It
is
a
very
you
know
it's
I
don't
to
use
the
term
bifurcated,
but
it's
a
two-step
process
versus
if
the
state
is
able
to
step
in
where
there's
an
interest
file.
D
The
suit-
and
this
language
here
is
just
gives
the
state
the
authority
to
initiate
a
suit
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
wyoming
is
the
lead
or
other
plaintiff
for
joining
a
lawsuit.
I
think
it
gets
to
that
point
that
you're
trying
to
get
to
without
imposing
that
additional
burden
cost
and
time
delay
associated
with
with
the
true
class
action.
E
Mr
chairman,
I
still
am
struggling
with
the
language
in
romanette
2
that
was
just
circulated
in
romanet
1.
We
talk
about
initiating
a
lawsuit
and
then
two
we
say
we're
going
to
initiate
or
join
it.
So
I
just
don't
know
why
we
need
to
clarify
our
the
ag's
ability
to
initiate
it
twice.
E
I
think
the
intent
is
to
say-
and
this
is
how
I'm
trying
to
think
it
through
if
you
have
a
class
of
private
plaintiffs
who
say
that
these
orders
are
affecting
their
livelihoods,
we
want
to
make
it
clear
that
the
ag
can
encourage
her
perhaps
to
support
those
plaintiffs
in
those
suits
by
joining.
So
I
think,
adding
the
words
initiating
confuses
the
purpose
of
two,
I'm
not
understanding.
B
E
F
I'll
have
a
question
on
it.
I
I
just
now
I'm
a
little
confused
when
it
can
be
multiple
lawsuits,
and
so
now
our
ag
can
decide
when
to
support
multiple,
and
so
she
says
yes
to
one
she's
going
to
have.
If
there
are
you
know
20
out
there
I
mean.
Maybe
she
can
carbon
copy
the
same
abacus
brief,
but
it
does
seem
like
we're
stretching
the
office
then,
and
that's
not
exactly
what
I
was
anticipating
when
I
was
well.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
It
just
to
me
it
doesn't
make
sense
that
they
would
initiate
and
then
later
join
like
if
you
initiate
it
you're
in
the
case,
and
we
already
made
clear
in
romanette
one
that
they
initiated
so
they're
meeting
that
case
so
romanette
ii.
I
think
what
the
intent
we
were
trying
to
get
after
was
finding
a
way
to
support
private
litigants
who've,
been
aggrieved
by
the
federal
action
and
one
way
of
doing
that
is
to
intervene
or
join
those
cases.
E
A
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
I
my
suggestion
and
we'll
we
can
continue
to
debate
this
for
a
while,
but
then
my
suggestion
is
we
set
this
one
aside.
We
we
make
sure
we
get
senator
ellis's,
verbiage
down
and
so
representing
chairman
greer
go
ahead,
but
I
think
we'll
have
to
set
this
one
aside.
D
Chairman,
just
I
I
think,
looking
at
roman
at
two
there's,
you
know
you're
right,
it's
repeating
initiating,
but
up
above
it's
talking
about
initiating
the
action
name
of
the
state
of
wyoming
and
down
here.
It's
it's
resetting
that
I
agree,
but
it's
on
behalf
of
wyoming
as
the
lead
or
another
plaintiff
for
joining
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
wyoming
residents.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
believe
lso
handed
out
a
draft
piece
of
paper
to
you
and
if
you
read
romanette
2,
it
says
initiating
a
lawsuit
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
wyoming
as
the
lead
or
other
plaintiff
or
joining
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
wyoming
residents
who
are
personally
injured
or
whose
livelihood
is
negatively
affected
by
federal
vaccine
mandates.
Pursuant
to
91603a
romanette
4..
A
Okay,
so,
mr
chairman,
what
I
would
suggest
is
we
set
this
aside?
Probably
the
house
will
go
out
and
caucus
on
that
issue
and
come
back
and
depending
on
what
the
rest
of
the
senate
wants
to
do
as
well.
I
mean,
if
that
becomes
a
senate
position,
then
we'll
probably
go
caucus
on
that.
So
would
you
like
to
move
on
to
the
other
ones
yeah?
Let's
do
let's.
A
One
which
might
be
section
four,
would
be
appropriation
so
where
would
you
guys.
B
Like
to
land,
maybe
on
that,
mr
chairman,
I
I
think
we've
already
stated
where
we'd
like
to
learn:
that's
10
million
dollars
for
the
very
reason
that
we
just
discussed,
and
so
if,
in
fact
we
were
so
inclined
the
ag
on
behalf
of
the
state
joining
lawsuits
now
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
adequate
funding
it
could
require
the
contracting
with
outside
counsel.
B
A
Chairman
we
want
to
stick
with
the
our
original
million
and
then
it
got
reduced
in
it
got
reduced
on
the
floor
of
the
house,
so
we
decided
we'd
go
up
from
the
250
to
a
million.
So
what
million
and
a
half?
Where
can
we
come
to
some
agreement
here?
Mr.
C
C
Representatives
wanted
was
concerned
about
whether
we'd
overload
the
ags.
I
think
the
intent
is,
as
senator
hicks
said,
as
they
go
out
and
get
the
best
legal
guns
they
can
and
can
get
something
going
if
they're
so
inclined.
So
I
hate
to
spare
the
horses,
because
I
I
think
the
10
million
well,
it
sounds
like
a
big
number
compared
to
the
impact
on
lives
and
businesses.
It's
it's
dwarfed
by
by
that.
So
the
intention
was
to
give
the
ag
the
resources
to
get
something
ginned
up
and
roaring
right
away.
A
A
Obviously,
if
we
are
short,
if
we're
light
on,
if
we
put
in
a
million,
let's
say
million
and
a
half
and
we're
light
on
that,
based
upon
the
law
we
passed,
certainly
and
remember,
this
is
over
a
10-year
period
that
we're
parking
this.
So
you
know
we
can't
change
that
10-year
period,
but
certainly
you
all
will
have
in
the
appropriations
committee
the
ability
to
come
in
get
testimony
from
the
ag
on
how
much
money
will
likely
be
needed
in
the
next
biennium
to
handle
this
and
then
you'll
be
able
to
appropriate
above.
A
What's
in
this
what's
in
this
bill,
so
I
don't
think
we're
comfortable
with
that
figure
at
10
million,
and
especially
in
light
of
the
fact
that
appropriations
will
be
meeting
soon.
B
B
We
would
consider
5
million,
which
is
close
to
splitting
the
differential,
but
I
also
think
there's
utility
to
to
not
only
are
we
going
to
pass
the
law,
but
we're
all
still
going
to
say
that
we're
pretty
serious
about
this,
the
state
of
wyoming,
is
committed
to
making
sure
that
we
have
adequate
financial
resources
right
now
to
instigate
any
of
the
actions
that
may
that
are
unforeseen
today.
That
may
present
themselves
tomorrow.
A
C
C
D
I
mean
I
honestly
don't
care
if
it's,
if
it's
10
million
we
just
need
to
have
it
revert
in
2024,
we
go
back
and
we've
got
it
for
it.
You
know,
shall
revert
on.
2030
just
needs
to
go
back
in
front
of
appropriations
and
not
have
that
money
tied
up.
So
I
mean
we
did
five
mil.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
five
million
if
they
need
more
they'll
have
to
come
back
for
it.
D
A
And
representative
greer:
that's
why
we
can't
change
the
reversion
date.
So
that's
why
I
would
just
suggest
we
go
to
two
and
a
half
and
and
then
appropriate,
more
money
if
it's
needed.
E
Think
the
reason
that
we
said
it
a
larger
amount
isn't
just
for
the
recognition
that
will
be
back
in
february.
If
we're
trying
to
have
a
long-term
litigation
strategy,
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
attorney
general's
office
to
have
some
kind
of
budget,
knowing
that
what
they're
going
to
work
for
work
on
with
the
next
couple
of
years,
and
so
I
do
think
we
set
up
a
dangerous
precedent
by
saying:
well,
we
can
they
can
come
back
and
ask
us
next
year
for
a
hundred
thousand
more.
E
F
Representative
zwanitzer,
and
to
take
the
inverse
of
that
view,
we're
saying
we
could
represent
anyone
in
the
ag's
office
could
jump
on
any
number
of
lawsuits
and
there's
10
million
dollars,
and
so,
if
I'm
a
member
of
the
public-
and
I
feel
aggrieved,
why
would
I
not
go
to
the
ag
and
say
hey?
You
have
10
million
dollars
represent
me
too.
B
Mr
chairman,
I
I
think
we've
conceded
that
that
may
be
an
appropriate
number,
so
we're
really
discussing
5
million
now
and
back
to
that,
it's
permissive
of
the
state
or
the
attorney
general.
So
it's
not
like
she
has
to
just
because
there's
money
there
join
every
lawsuit
or
allow
somebody
to
join
them.
So
you
know,
I
think.
B
Certainly
5
million
is
something
that
we
consider.
Let
us
discuss
it.
Maybe
we
can
go
back.
I
wish
we
could
modify
the
effective
date
of
that,
but
I
would
remind
people
that
at
any
point
in
time
the
appropriations
committee
can
go
back
and
grab
that
money
any
year
when
we're
back
in
session
either
through
the
supplemental
or
the
regular
budget,
so
that,
while
it's
parked
in
that
account
that
it
can
be
re-appropriated
by
the
appropriation
committee
for
other
purposes,
should
it
become
at
a
point
where
this
is
struck
down
and
it's
no
longer
needed.
B
We
could
recapture
that
money.
But,
mr
chairman,
I
do
think
that
there's
room
for
compromise
there
and
we
should
continue
that
discussion,
but.
B
A
Okay,
four
million
okay.
That
was
the
easy
one.
Now,
let's
go
back,
we
said
we
were
gonna
set
the
section
three
aside.
So
now,
let's
go
to
section
two.
D
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
romanette
2
says:
initiate
a
lawsuit
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
wyoming
as
the
lead
or
other
plaintiff.
I'm
just
curious
how
we
initiate
a
lawsuit
with
the
or
other
plaintiff
to
me
that
language
doesn't
make
sense,
but
I
think
the
crux
of
what
we're
trying
to
get
after
is
allowing
and
encouraging
the
attorney
general
to
consider
joining
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
wyoming
residents.
E
E
What
you
might
see
are
some
trade
associations
and
large
corporations
sue
some
of
those
federal
mandates,
and
so
I
think,
by
having
romanet
to
simply
say,
joining
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
wyoming
residents
who
were
personally
injured
or
whose
livelihood
is
negatively
affected,
would
maybe
be
some
compromise
language
to
achieve
what
we're
trying
to
get
after
in
those
private
lawsuits.
When
the
state
of
wyoming
intervenes
it
does
lend
weight,
I
believe
to
the
arguments
that
they
present
they're
able
to
present
a
different
point
of
view
than
just
the
citizens.
D
D
E
D
D
So
if
we
strike
the
language
that
she
said
to
strike,
you
know
where
we're
at
that
joining
so
join
a
lawsuit,
because
we-
and
I'm
just
throwing
this
out
so
we
can
move
on
and
get
done
is,
is
joining
as
a
lead
or
other
other
plane
trip
or
yeah
or
other
plaintiff
a
lawsuit
initiated
by
a
wyoming
resident,
giving
giving
the
state
of
wyoming
to
be
to
be
the
lead
if
they
felt
the
need
to.
E
E
So
if
a
private
individual
initiates
the
lawsuit
they're,
the
lead,
plaintiff
and
wyoming,
does
this
all
the
time
on
federal
natural
resource
cases
when
we
join
to
defend
the
blm
on
a
decision
or
fight
with
them,
we
are
we
file
a
motion.
Intervene,
we're
never
the
lead
plainer
for
the
lead,
defendant.
D
Okay,
no
I'm
fine!
Just
having
a
discussion.
We
didn't
strike
that
that
that
clause,
it
just
narrows
us
down
to
what
the
state
can
do
for
for
citizens
and,
if
that's
a
sense
position,
I'm
fine
with
that.
F
F
I
mean
this
opens
up
to
any
wyoming
resident
who's
agreed
private
business
any
entity.
It
no
longer
deals
with
those
agreed
by
a
public
entity
complying
with
a
mandate.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
seems
a
little
more
expansive
than
the
rest
of
the
bill,
and
I
know
we
had
two
bills
and
the
other
one's
gone.
So
maybe
this
is
the
catch-all.
I
just
does
that
present.
Any
concerns
that
this
is
much
wider
than
the
legal
changes
we're
making
to
build
a
statute.
A
So
representatives
walnuts,
are
you
know.
I've
been
looking
at
this
title
for
a
couple
of
days
now
and
this
title
is
huge
right:
an
act
relating
to
the
protection
of
individual
rights,
providing
legislative
findings
prohibiting
the
enforcement
of
federal,
cova,
19
vaccine
mandates
as
specified
providing
definitions
of
authorizing
litigation
to
protect
the
rights
of
wyoming
and
the
state
of
wyoming
citizens
and
the
state
of
wyoming.
So
clearly
it
clearly
it's
in
there.
So
I
think
it's
perfectly
a
perfectly
good
debate.
A
C
Mr
chairman,
I
just
I
just
want
to
verify
just
clarify
for
everybody
where
we
are
it.
The
proposal
from
senator
ellis
is
that
we
on
romanette
2.
We
strike
the
first
line
and
we
strike
the
second
line
clear
down
to
or
then
you
just
capitalize
joining
and
carry
everything
else
forward
from
there.
Is
that
what
it
is
senator
ellis.
A
D
A
Chairman,
if
the
senate
wants
to
make
that
motion,
that's
up
to
you
guys
if
you,
if
you
like
chairman
greer's
proposal,
then
we'll
make
that
motion.
But
I'm
I'm
curious
where
you
you
guys,
live
we're
fine
with
the
sentence,
we're
fine
with
senator
ellis's,
depending
on
what
you
all
so
so
it's
well.
It's.
B
It's
now
it's
it's
our
motion,
so,
mr
chairman,
what
I
would
do
is
would
be
to
go
in
and
on
romanette
to
strike
all
of
line,
one
okay,
all
of
line
two
through
the
second
or
gotcha
and
then
starting
with
joining
capitalize
that
and
put
joins
a
lawsuit
initiated.
So
that
would
be
the
motion.
Mr
chairman,.
A
So
now
we're
back
on
page
seven
and
the
house
position
is
as
it
was
before
you
all
amended
it,
and,
and
basically
the
the
long,
and
the
short
of
that
is,
we
want
our
state
law.
We
want
the
state's
position
to
stay
in
place
during
a
stay.
Your
position
is,
it
goes
away.
The
state's
position
goes
away
at
the
beginning
of
litigation,
so
we
want
to
keep
our
sovereignty
as
long
as
we
can.
A
We
believe
it
still
protects
all
of
the
entities
and
and
that's
and
it
and
it
is,
it
is
like
a
light
switch.
It
could
turn
on
and
off.
Mr
chairman,
senator
kinski.
C
So
just
top
line,
if,
if
our
language
does
not
preserve
the
state's
sovereignty,
I
I
certainly
want
to
hear
about
that.
So
our
amendment
did
a
number
of
things
and
if
we
could
just
start
at
the
top
of
page
seven,
I
want
to
make
sure
what
it
is
that
the
the
house
did
not
agree
to
at
the
top
of
page
seven
from
lines
three
to
six.
The
senate
struck
language,
beginning
after
romanette
eight.
That
was
the
first
part
of
that
that
amendment
next
on
lines.
C
C
So
that
was
number
the
second
that
was
the
second
senate
change
was
that
the
third
senate
change
the
fourth
senate
change
was
lying
on
page
eight
line,
seven
to
eleven
was
struck
in
its
entirety
and
a
new
section
e
inserted,
so
there's
four
there
which
which
of
those
four
are
of
concern
at
all
or
or
some.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
what
we're
talking
about.
C
D
D
We
have
a
very
strong
group
of
individuals,
majority
who
just
flat
want
to
just
say
no
to
the
federal
mandates
and
consequences
to
be
damned
quite
frankly.
What
what
what
what
this
language
does,
though,
is
if
a
federal
order
or
mandate
comes
down
it?
It
means
that
the
state
law
is
not
going
to
be
enforced
clear
until
the
end
of
all
of
the
litigation
or
resolution
of
that
particular
mandate,
or
order
the
senate's
version
correct
in
the
house.
D
What
we
did
was
provide
the
opportunity
if
an
order
comes
down,
that
order
goes
to
litigation
and
a
state
issues
staying
the
enforceability
of
that
federal
order,
then
our
state
law
would
still
be
in
effect,
and
that's
all
we
were
doing
was
just
finding
that
which
again
was
a
compromise,
even
in
the
house,
to
get
to
that
part.
So,
just
so
you're
aware
of
how
we
got
there
and
why
we
had
the
language
we
had.
E
You
when
you
use
the
word
stay.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
because
there
are
terms
of
art.
You
know
you
could
have
a
plaintiff-seeking
preliminary
injunction
injunction
restraining
order,
tro
whatever
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
I'm
understanding
are
you
intending?
The
word
stay
to
be
interpreted
broadly
because
we
list
out
everything
in
prior
pages
about
law
regulation
order,
whatever
whatever
here.
E
D
Representative
grier,
I
mean
that
helps
us
get
home
to
add
those
other
things
in
there.
That's
that's
fine
with
me.
I
think
if
the
order
is
stayed
through,
whatever
mechanism,
what
is
brought?
Is
it
stayed,
but
if,
if
you
feel
that
it
needs
to
be
clear,
it's
fine
with
me
senator.
E
A
A
It's
been
moved
in
second,
that
we
strike
egregious
on
page
eight
and
romanette.
I
be
roman
eddie,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
all
those
opposed
motion.
C
Carries
mr
chairman
senator
kansky,
so
I
I
hear
what
representative
grier
is
saying
and
representative
grier's
attention
were
directed
to
the
senate
amendments
in
paragraphs
c
and
d
as
being
the
objectionable
ones
in
the
house.
A
So
senator
kinski,
you
know
there's
going
to
be
people
in
the
house
that
object
to
any
of
this
right.
I
I
think
what
I'm
what
I'm
suggesting
is.
We
would
you
know
we
would
cede
back
to
the
original
language
in
the
bill,
which
was
public
entity
under
166101a8,
and
we
would
go
with
the
senate
striking
the
rest
of
that
that
language
and
then
we
would
also
concede
to
the
removal
of
the
house
e
and
the
addition
of
the
senate
so
basically
other
than
these
three
things
we're
good
with
everything
else.
You
did.
C
A
We
talked
about
that
we're
dealing
with
we're
good
with
all
the
senate
changes,
so
the
senate
changed
section,
basically
public
in
the
definition
of
public
entity.
They
struck
out
the
the
language
that
was
added
in
the
house
on
an
amendment.
The
senate
goes
back
to
our
de
the
original
definition
that
was
under
16
6101a
eight.
I
think
this
conference
committee
is
good.
There'll,
be
people
that
won't
agree
with
that
in
the
house,
but
but
we're
going
to
agree
with
it.
A
Creed
of
that,
but
you
know
I
think
that
and
then
on
e
e
was
a
completely
different
piece
and
we
realized
that
the
senate
debated
that
in
an
entire
bill
and
failed
that
bill
and
obviously
then
you
struck
the
the
language
that
would
have
brought
that
back
in
in
this
bill.
So
why
fight
that
die
on
that
hill?
So
we
would
agree
to
replacing
that
our
e
with
your
e.
C
So
then,
mr
chairman,
for
me,
so
please
so
then
going
turning
our
attention
then,
to
c
and
d,
which
is
where
the
rub
is
at
the
outset.
You
said
something
your
language
makes
the
law
go
away,
and
so
I
I
wonder
if
you
can
walk
me
through
that.
Do
you
remember
that?
That's
what
caught
my
ear
representative
summers
said
that
just
at
the
beginning.
A
B
So
and
I'll
have
to
confirm
with
my
my
colleagues,
but
so
I
would
say
so
we
go
to
page
seven.
B
The
house
has
indicated
that
on
lines
three
through
six,
that
you
would
receive
to
the
sentence
position
and
we
would
accept
that
then
we
get
down
to
lines
on
subsection
c
line
14
through
20
you've
asked
the
senate
to
recede
from
our
position
on
that
and
adopt
the
house's
position
further
on
that.
So
we
would
then
have
to
do
that.
Then
we
would
have
to
recede
from
our
new
language
that
we
brought
in
under
subsection
c.
That
would
be
part
of
the
motion.
B
B
D
But
I
and
representative.
B
D
And
I
were
looking
at
that-
I'm
sorry,
mr
chairman,
but
but
it
actually,
coincidentally,
does
work.
It
does
yeah.
I
was
concerned
it
didn't,
but
what
we're
talking
about
b,
which
is
the
no
public
entity
shall
enforce,
becomes
and
then
the
term
enforceable
becomes
enforceable
under
subsection
c
all
right.
So
you
would
accept
the
senate's
position
on
that
yeah.
I
think
we
we
we
should
ask
lso
to
just
right
make.
C
B
B
B
D
B
B
So
here's
what
I
would
recommend
so
I
want
to.
I
want
to
run
back
through
well,
I
don't
want
to
make
a
motion,
but
I
want
to
understand
that
we
this
this
would
be
under
consideration
and
what
I'd
like
to
do-
mr
chairman
is
visit
with
my
colleagues
so
okay
on
page
seven
line
three
through
six,
the
house
would
recede
to
the
senate's
position
on
page
seven
line.
Fourteen
through
twenty,
the
senate
would
recede
to
the
house's
position
right.
B
B
That's
well,
that's
a
continuation.
We
would
proceed
for
that
and
then,
when
we
get
on
page
eight
line,
eight,
the
house
would
recede
to
the
senate
position
and
we're
waiting
for
some
clarification
on
senate
e,
correct.
Okay,
if
we
could
do
a
caucus,
I
want
to
run
that
class.
Okay,
so
that
we're
completely.
D
Clear
on
what
what
the
proposition
is
so,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
just
for
your
consideration,
while
you
go
into
that
on
the
senate,
subsection
e
is
so
we'd
go
nothing
in
this
section.
Should
we
have
it
the
public
entity
from
applying
for
a
federal
grant
or
federal
reimbursement
and
verifying
compliance
with
a
federal
covet
vaccine
mandate.
This
is
just
just
for
discussion,
while
it's
in
until
that
we
strike
until
while
subsection
b
is
enforceable
period.
B
Okay,
all
right,
we
need
to
go
visit
and
you
want
to
set
a
time
to
try
to
be
back
sure.
A
Mr
chairman,
you
got
any
sugar
beets,
it's
4
37!
How?
How
long
does
the
senate
want?
Give
us
10
minutes?
Okay
at
750,
all
right
450
will
return
see
you,
gentlemen,
at
4,
50.