►
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
Over
19
vaccination
status
or
two
require
a
person
to
receive
a
copic
19
vaccination
as
a
condition
of
employment
number
two.
It
also
establishes
a
misdemeanor
penalty
for
violating
section
271
117
in
the
following
way.
A
person
who
violates
subsection
b
of
this
section
shall
be
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
punishable
by
imprisonment
for
not
more
than
six
months,
a
fine
of
750
or
both
and
last.
This
establishes
a
civil
penalty.
A
Any
person
agreed
by
a
discriminatory
practice
prohibited
by
this
section
or
subsection
b
of
this
section,
may
initiate
an
action
in
court
of
competent
jurisdiction
to
recover
damages
of
not
less
than
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
punitive
damages,
as
well
as
injunctive
or
equitable
relief
from
the
employer.
A
C
And
mr
chairman,
let
me
see
if
I
understand
the
bill
and
frankly,
I've
just
seen
it
today
and
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
it.
So
it's
the
trouble
with
doing
things
as
we
are
in.
C
Session,
but
let
me
see
if
I
understand
the
practical
effect
of
it:
if
I'm
a
private
employer.
C
And
let's
say
for
the
sake
of
argument,
I'm
running
a
hospital
and
I
use
that
because
I've
heard
that
our
hospital
is
doing
this
and
people
who
don't
like
it,
hospitals
treating
very
frail
people
that
they're
in
the
hospital
because
there's
something
wrong
with
them
and
they're
frail
mr
chairman,
and
I'm
scared
that,
if
there's
any
exposure
to
covet,
they
may
catch
a
case
and
that,
on
top
of
their
other
conditions,
may
prove
to
be
fatal.
C
And
I
would
say
just
anecdotally,
there's
evidence,
that's
true,
because
he
was
reported
in
the
public
press
that
general
colin
powell,
who
had
some
medical
conditions,
had
been
properly
caught
a
breakthrough
case
and
it
was
fatal.
C
C
Treating
people
could
well
encounter
some
of
some
of
the
very
ill
and
frail,
and
I
can
see
how
a
employer
in
that
circumstance
would
want
to
take
special
precautions,
and
I
think
the
same
would
apply
by
falsely
mr
chairman,
to
a
nursing
home
and
some
other
health
care
facilities.
A
Mr
chairman,
senator
scott
appreciate
the
question.
Yes,
yes,
the
long
question
I'll
try
to
answer
the
best
I
can.
If
I,
if
I
don't
get
at
everything
you
need,
please
get
a
follow-up
in
there.
A
The
way
I
look
at
this,
I
think
this
mirrors
what
the
state
of
montana
just
recently
passed
as
far
as
probate,
prohibit
prohibiting
vaccination
by
making
a
protected
class
in
employment
law.
So,
yes
to
answer
your
question
this,
this
would
prohibit
anybody
from
from
getting
rid
of
an
employee
based
on
their
vaccination
status.
Regarding
coca-19
to
my
knowledge,
most
of
the
health
care
workers
voluntarily
have
gotten
vaccinated.
A
Most
people
if
they
haven't
been
vaccinated,
have
already
had
the
virus,
so
there's
natural
immunity
there,
so
there's
really
no
need
to
get
the
the
vaccine
or
the
shot.
So
we
are
nearing,
in
my
estimation,
heard
immunity
as
far
as
that
goes,
if
the
that
shot
works
as
advertised
those
that
have
had
it
had,
the
shot
should
be
protected.
C
C
C
C
And
we
will
lose
the
ability
to
treat
certain
things
in
my
community
and
you
don't
get
as
good
results.
Mr
chairman,
I
think
the
evidence
is
quite
clear
with
treatments
that
are
further
away
from
home
and
family
supports
and
that
sort
of
thing
and,
mr
chairman,
you
may
drive
off
some
specialists
that
you
need
access
to
at
times
when
our
roads
are
closed
and
our
air
evacuation
people
are
not
flying,
and
that
is
a
surprising
percentage
at
the
time
in
the
winter
time.
C
E
It
does
seem
to
me
that
that
we're
changing
ourselves
from
a
business
friendly
to
a
business
owned
friendly
state
with
this
particular
law,
everybody.
A
A
In
a
time
where
we're
in
a
pandemic,
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
as
far
as
the
and
also
if
we
don't
do
anything
who's
to
say,
they're
these.
These
employers
are
not
going
to
get
sued
under
the
american
disabilities
act.
They're
not
going
to
get
sued
under
the
civil
rights
act.
A
A
C
C
For
significant
period
time,
so
we
lose
them
from
the
health
force
either
workforce.
A
A
That's
why
I
don't
like
using
the
term
vaccine,
because
I
think
people
conflate
it
with
smallpox
and
and
polio
and
other
vaccines.
Where
you
get
the
vaccine
and
you
are
prevented
from
getting
the
disease,
I
prefer
to
call
it
a
shot
like
a
flu
shot,
because
it
does
not
prevent
you
from
getting
the
covid
it.
Just
the
science
is
not
settled
on
this
shot.
So,
yes
to
answer
your
question,
unvaccinated
people
can
get
the
virus
and
so
can
vaccinated
people.
So
I
don't
think
that
should
prevent
us
from
from
acting.
G
Thank
you,
mr
sherman,
slightly
different.
I
guess
on
the
question
here
is
looking
at
requirement.
This
basically
applies
to
every
business
in
the
state
of
wyoming
and
in
my
conversations
with
my
constituents,
especially
those
who've
been
calling
me
voicing
their
support
for
making
sure
and
a
lot
of
them
are
looking
to
losing
their
jobs
if
they
work
for
a
big,
say,
uranium
company
in
commerce
county
or
they
work
for
a
healthcare
facility.
That's
a
large
out-of-state
conglomerate,
they're
really
concerned.
G
So
I
appreciate
the
bill,
but
every
time
I
get
these
questions,
I
also
ask
them:
are
you
concerned
about
having
maybe
an
exemption
for
small
businesses
say
if
we
strike
the
one
there
and
insert
25,
because
I
just
haven't
heard
that
many
concerns
about
small
businesses
mandating
this
vaccines,
largely
these
large
outstanding
corporations,
who
maybe
aren't
all
that
in
touch
with
where
their
people
are
at
here
in
wyoming?
G
That's
what's
causing
a
lot
of
conflict
and
bring
that
up,
because
you
mentioned
montana
at
least
one
of
the
lawsuits
against
the
state
is
from
a
very
small
business,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
law
is
as
tight
as
it
can
be,
make
sure
we're
hitting
the
problem
of
nothing
but
the
problem.
So
I
guess
my
question
is:
have
you
had
any
discussion
about
having
some?
G
A
H
H
A
Mr
chairman
senator
case,
the
we've
all
been
flooded
with
emails
and
phone
calls.
We've
been
hearing
from
people
that
are
that
were
refused
to
get
vaccinated,
for
whatever
reasons
religious,
religious
reasons,
philosophical
reasons,
medical
reasons,
natural
immunity,
reasons,
they're
just
not
gonna.
Do
it
so
they're
gonna,
they're,
they're
hanging
on
long
enough
to
get
fired.
A
Basically,
they're
gonna
make
the
employer
actually
fire
them
for
not
taking
the
shot,
whereas
they've
they've
been
heroes
for
the
last
year
and
a
half
during
the
pandemic,
without
this
option
of
having
the
vaccine
and
now
we're
turning
around
and
throwing
them
under
the
bus.
So
to
speak.
So
to
me
any
any
employee
in
the
healthcare
field,
for
instance.
A
H
H
I
appreciate
your
comments
on
that
and
then,
if
I
just
might
follow
up
with
so
employers,
they
probably
have
you
know
we're
an
at-will
state
for
most
parts
that
carries
a
lot
of
weight
in
wyoming
always
has,
and
employers
might
have
good
reasons
for
requiring
people
to
be
vaccinated.
I'm.
H
That
I
would
concur
with
your
assessment
that
when
we
have
a
pandemic,
we
never
we
need
all
hands
on
deck,
not
if
the
hands
on
the
deck
are
actually
spreading
the
pandemic.
I'm
not
sure
we
we
need
that.
So
I'd.
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
senator
case.
I
guess
it
depends
on
your
what
premise
you're
coming
at,
if
you
think
that
this
vaccine
prevents
the
spread
of
the
virus
like
it
was
sold
at
the
beginning
or
if
it
doesn't
so
that's
one
question.
I
guess
I
have
for
you
the
total
number.
I
don't
have
that
number
in
front
of
me.
A
Obviously
nobody
can
can
know
that
number
it
comes
down
to
where
you
come
down,
philosophically
on
civil
rights
and
people's
bodily
autonomy
and
their
ability
to
make
medical
decisions
on
their
own
without
being
coerced
into
a
vaccine
that
they
may
not
want.
So,
in
my
estimation,
one
person,
if
their,
but
if
their
rights
were
violated,
that's
cause
for
us
to
act.
It's
a
very,
very
important
issue.
It's
obvious,
a
huge
issue
for
people
in
wyoming
to
make
time
to
come
down
here
and
have
a
rally.
A
This
is
a
line
that
a
lot
of
people
will
not
cross.
This
is
the
alamo
for
a
lot
of
people,
oddly
autonomy,
if,
if
you
give
the,
if
you
seed
your
bodily
autonomy
and
your
medical
decisions
to
the
collective
and
it's
now
the
collectives
right
over
your
medical
treatment,
then
we
lose
a
lot
of
what
we
stand
for
in
this
country.
Therefore,
you're
not
entitled
to
your
own
property
you're,
not
entitled
to
your
own
income
anymore.
If,
if
you
can't
make
your
own
medical
decisions,
then
what
what
do
we
have
in
this
country?
A
Again
we
are
in
at
will
state,
but
we
also
have
civil
rights
laws
you,
you
are
not
free
to
violate
people's
civil
rights,
so
you
can't
just
fire
somebody
because
they're
black,
for
instance,
or
somebody
because
they're
a
woman,
their
marital
status,
all
that
kind
of
religion,
so
that
will
has
its
limitations.
B
H
Started
so
am
I
still
on
for
answering
questions
or
asking?
Yes?
Yes,
so
I
think
I
guess
the
question
was:
does
your
ability
to
be
employed
by
someone
rises,
the
level
of
needing
protection?
Is
that
a
right?
Is
it
a
right
for
you
to
have
a
job
or
work
for
a
particular
employer?
H
H
A
A
H
F
H
Seeing
that
this
is
sort
of
creating
our
own
opposite
mandate
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
I
don't
know
that
that
is
a
reaction
to
what
the
feds
have
done.
I'm
trying
to
get
you
thinking
as
to
why
and
exactly
how
the
feds
have
forced
us
into
needing
this
bill.
A
Mr
chairman,
mr
k,
senator
case,
I
see
it
as
when
workers,
fundamental
rights
of
health
care
decisions,
as
enshrined
in
our
constitution
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
are
being
violated.
It's
our
duty
to
to
step
up
and
act,
and
I
would
offer
to
you
that
the
federal
government
has
been
the
catalyst
to
this.
A
Obviously,
the
the
federal
government-
this
administration,
in
particular,
has
made
it
a
habit
of
subcontracting
its
dirty
work,
so
to
speak
to
the
private
sector,
whether
it's
big
tech
censorship
or
doing
ends
around
the
constitution
by
allowing
private
businesses
to
do
their
bidding.
I
see
that
as
this
case,
and
so
we
have
to
come
in
and
we
have
to
provide
this
protection
and
I'll
yield.
The
representative
gray
to
elaborate.
I
I
Mr
chairman,
the
the
position
of
this
bill
is
that
that
this
is
a
discriminatory
practice
and
just
like
in
in
our
statutes,
we
have
decided,
in
certain
cases
that
you
know
we've
involved
ourselves
in
these
situations,
we're
going
to
do
the
same
thing
on
covet
19
vaccination
status,
that
this
is
a
discriminatory
practice
and
the
thinking
on
this
bill
is
rather
than
start
with
all
the
carveouts
and
continue
to
weaken
it
that
we
start
with
the
clear
policy
position
that
that
requiring
covet
19
vaccination
is
a
discriminatory
practice
and
then,
as
we
work
our
way
through
the
process,
we
build
in
the
preemption
issue
and
the
carve-outs
and-
and
I
I
prefer
working
in
this
direction-
I
think
it
ends
up
with
a
better
better
product
rather
than
starting
with
all
these
carve
outs.
I
And
then
it
just
continues
to
sort
of
get
carved
out
as
it
moves
through
the
process.
So
I
I
that's
the
thinking
on
this
bill.
The
other
thing
that
I
think
is
important
and
and
the
position
of
this
bill,
which
I'm
not
sure
in
1001
in
the
house
and
senate,
we're
really
dealing
with,
is
what
happens
if
a
business
feels
pressured
by
the
threat
of
a
mandate
or
a
mandate
itself
a
position.
I
I
think
we're
in
right
now
and
or
what
happens
if
a
mandate
comes
into
place,
a
stay
is
a
nationwide,
stay
is
put
into
place
and
then
it's
lifted
at
some
point
and
we're
in
this
weird
limbo
period
as
we
continue
to
make
our
way
through
the
court
process,
and
so
the
thinking
is.
Is
that
that
we
have
this
strong
statement
for
us
to
fall
back
on
and
that
that's
the
hope
for
this
bill.
Thank
you.
H
So,
mr
chairman,
if
we
could
just
be
clear,
you
know
we
kind
of
have
different
employers
out
there
and
they
don't
just
respond
to
what
their
needs
are.
They
believe
me
and
a
workforce
in
a
business
is
your
most
important
aspect
like
I
would
never
think
of
requiring
my
folks
to
be
vaccinated
worked
for
me.
They
would,
they
would
string
me
up,
they
would
walk
out
the
door
and
they
would
go
somewhere
else.
H
We
try
to
work
it.
You
know,
there's
a
corporate
policy
that
the
franchise
that
we
has,
that
if
you're
not
vaccinated,
you
wear
mass.
My
folks
seem
to
be
okay
with
that
and
that's
not
my
decision.
That's
the
corporate,
our
guests
kind
of
expect
protection
and
safety.
They
do
and
we
we're
nationally
marketing
that.
H
So
you
have
some
workforces,
workplaces
that
have
a
culture.
For
example,
we've
heard
from
a
fellow
in
laramie.
I
think
we
could
say
it
in
committee.
It's
okay,
his
name
is
mr
glass.
He
has
a
workforce
and
he's
written
this
all
and
he's
explained
that
his
workforce
they'd
walk
out
the
door
if
an
unvaccinated
person
were
to
come
in
because
they
have
a
culture
that
they're
protecting
each
other.
They
believe
this
you
know,
and
so
they
want
that
protection
for
the
rest
of
the
people
in
the
workforce.
H
I
could
understand
that
actually,
I'm
kind
of
like
well
let
the
employers
and
the
workers
figure
this
out
and
have
different
plans
out
there.
You
could
have
my
plan,
which
is,
if
you're
not
vaccinated,
you
have
to
have
a
mask
which
is
really
the
corporate
plan.
You
could
have
this
gentleman's
plan
that,
if
you're
going
to
work
for
us,
you're
all
going
to
be
vaccinated
and
we're
going
to
protect
each
other,
you
could
have
a
different
plan
where
the
opposite
is
completely
true,
you're
totally
on
your
own.
H
H
Of
course
there's
a
problem
with
health
care,
and
but
I
certainly
don't
see
it's
a
mass
exodus.
Mr
chairman,
I
I
and
I
I
actually
have
a
person
that
I'm
the
guardian
for
that's
in
a
long-term
care
facility,
not
all
the
employees
there
are
vaccinated.
I
wish
they
were
if
I
had
a
choice
to
put
him
somewhere
where
everybody
was
vaccinated.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
senator
case.
I
agree
but
who's
who,
in
this
case,
in
this
case
of
covet
vaccination
terminations
that
are
happening.
There
is
no
choice
for
the
employee
that
may
have
a
religious,
medical
or
philosophical
exempt
reason
for
not
getting
or
natural
immunity,
they're
just
flat
out
getting
fired,
they're
being
told,
get
the
shot
or
lose
your
job,
no
reasonable,
accommodations!
A
No!
Hey!
We'll!
We'll
move
you
over
to
this
place
over
here,
where
you're
not
going
to
be
around
certain
people,
nothing
just
flat
out,
take
it
or
leave
it!
That's
a
problem!
Obviously
you're
you
run
your
shop,
a
lot
different.
You
make
accommodations
for
people,
you
understand
your
workforce
and
you
wouldn't
do
that
to
people,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
other
people
don't
and
if
everybody
acted
great,
we
wouldn't
need
to
be
making
laws,
and
we
wouldn't
be
sitting
here
today.
A
So,
as
representative
gray
mentioned
there,
you
know
we
started
with
a
basically
the
policy
that
we
wanted
and
we're
going
to
carve
out
from
there.
Obviously,
in
other
civil
rights
laws,
there's
bona
fide
occupational
qualifications
for
different
and
I'm
getting
the
look
from
sarah
orton
senator
nethercott
has
been
on
since
I've
been
college
but
2001..
So
maybe
I'm
wrong.
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
it
is
my
understanding
that
there
is
a
bona
fide
occupation
qualification.
A
You
can
discriminate
under
certain
circumstances
and
health
care,
for
instance,
if
it's
part
of
the
job
that
you
have
to
be
vaccinated,
that
the
courts
would
look
at
that
and
say
yes,
that
is
a
reasonable
thing
to
do
for
for
healthcare
workers
senator
another
guy.
You
want
to
explain
the
look
you
just
shot
me.
D
D
I
Mr
chairman,
could
I
respond
to
that
really
quick?
Yes,
sir.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
responding
to
senator
case's
question,
so
you
know
I
I'm
watching
this
other
bill
1001,
I'm
in
that
on
that
committee,
and
we
just
received
testimony
from
banner
health
that
they're
denying
some
religious
exemptions
now
explain
that
to
me.
How
can
you
deny
some
religious
extensions,
it's
something
held
between
you
and
god,
and
we
ask
them.
How
is
that
possible?
I
I
I
think
it
is
where
we
are
out
in
2021
with
larger
corporations
deciding
to
go
a
certain
direction
and
politically
or
for
some
reason
that
is
not
playing
out
center
case
and
as
a
libertarian
leading
person
myself
in
terms
of
economics.
I
C
There
we
got
it,
that's
where
I'm
gonna
bring
a
ranch
hammer
and
deal
with
mike
valentine's
days.
C
Mr
chairman,
two
things
impartial
answer
to
the
first
question
that
senator
case
posed.
You
know
I
talked
to
quite
a
few
people
in
my
community.
Some
of
them
have
some
knowledge
of
what's
going
on
at
my
local
hospital,
and
I
was
informed.
C
Had
been
that
the
remainder
was
divided,
that
some
of
them
had
already
quit
and
then
discovered
that
the
work
anywhere
else
they
need
to
be
vaccinated,
but
they
had
already
quit.
Some
of
them
are
waiting
to
see
and
we'll
get
vaccinated.
If
we
don't
do
something
about
the
mandate
and
the
the
institution
is
scared
that
those
people
will
simply
catch
the
disease
and
then
be
quarantined
not
available.
C
It's
a
mixed
bag,
mr
chairman,
but
the
three
quarters
jumped
out
at
me
now
were
have
been
right
at
capacity
I
was
told
we
had
patients
in
the
hallway
in
gurnees
waiting
waiting
for
a
bed
and
we
were
putting
some
people
with
other
diseases
at
considerable
risk.
C
Mr
chairman,
the
other
question
I've
got
is,
as
I
read
page
2
lines
15.
This
goes
down
to
anybody.
That's
employing
just
one
individual,
and
so
I'd
like
to
ask
the
sponsors
just
a
hypothetical
question,
suppose
an
individual
that
has
been
vaccinated
but
is
frail
enough,
so
that
catching
the
covet
as
a
as
a
breakthrough
infection,
which
we
have
seen
it's
not
as
common
as
you
might
think,
but
it
is
particularly
the
delta
variant
it
is
occurring.
C
Their
doctor
advises
them
they're
not
to
get
exposed.
The
doctors
will
do
that.
I
had
that
advice
given
to
me.
Are
you
telling
them
with
this
bill?
As
I
read
this
bill-
and
maybe
I'm
no-
I
haven't
seen
it
very
well,
so
I
may
be
getting
it
quite
wrong.
C
But
it
looks
to
me
like
this
bill
says
the
prospective
employer
who
wants
to
needs
to
hire.
Somebody
come
in
and
assist
them
with
activities
of
daily
living
with
staying
in,
so
they
can
stay
in
their
own
homes.
They
can
receive
medical
treatment
they
need
in
their
own
home.
If
they
go
hire
somebody
they
can't
find
out
and
refuse
anybody
that
hasn't
been
vaccinated,
so
they're
you're,
forcing
them
to
put
themselves
potentially
at
risk
to
catching
a
fatal
illness.
I
Right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
That
is
an
interesting
hypothetical.
I
do
not
think
so.
I
I
I'm
not
sure
they're
an
employee
in
that
circumstance
and
if
I
think
that's
an
example
of
an
of
an
exemption
that
could
be
built
into
this,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
that
permutation
is
really
an
employee.
I
I
you
know.
I
I
don't
miss
chairman.
C
I
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
interesting
hypothetical.
I
think
the
first
circumstance
is
an
independent
contractor.
I
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it
applies
to
that
one,
but
I
could
see
where
your
hypothetical
could
happen,
but
I
think
that
applies
to
almost
every
single
one
of
these
bills
that
many
of
these
bills
that
we're
considering.
A
So,
mr
chairman,
to
go
to
the
first
part
of
that
question,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
was
a
question
or
a
statement
regarding
the
75
versus
25,
that's
good
news
that
the
75
have
been
inoculated.
A
The
question
I
have
is
why
don't
we
ever
talk
about
the
25
and
what
portion
of
that
25
has
either
already
had
the
virus
and
has
natural
immunities.
We
just
don't
talk
about
it
and
it's
never
brought
up.
I
don't
know
why
it's
taboo
to
talk
about
natural
immunity
when
it's
better
than
getting
the
shot.
C
C
To
make
sure
you
understand
that,
on
that
75
figure
that
was
given
to
me
informally,
I
suspect
I
hope
to
somebody
in
this
room
that
has
more
current
knowledge
and
more
accurate
knowledge.
So
that's
what
I
heard.
I'm
reporting
it
to
you
and
the
best
information
that
I
have,
but
I'm
hoping
there'll
be.
C
B
For
the
questions,
I've
got
a
pile.
Unfortunately,
this
is
really
is
a
kind
of
interests
me
and
I'll
just
start
to
kind
of
work
through
it
and
ask
kind
of
questions.
Is
you
know
I
go
back
to
the
one-person
deal
and
tie
it
back
to
the
half
million
dollar
minimum?
Fine?
B
And
let's,
let's
talk
a
bit
about
that,
so
you
can
sue
for
not
less
than
five
hundred
thousand.
That's
why
the
state's
not
less
than
five
hundred
thousand.
So
when
you
go
file
a
suit
and
you've
proved
your
discrimination
which,
by
the
way,
we
really
don't
have
a
very
good
definition
of
it.
So
I
hire
a
number
of
people,
and
so
someone
takes
me
to
court
and
says
ogden
and
his
wife
told
me
that
I
have
to
have
vaccinations
to
go
to
work,
for
we
deny
it
defending
that
case.
B
For
a
business
of
my
size
put
me
out
of
business.
I
literally
can't
afford
my
own
defense
over
a
couple
of
people
that
got
together
and
said
we
did
it,
and
this
is
this
potentially
he's
an
unbelievable
lawsuit
driver.
In
my
opinion
of
employees
to
come
after
employers
and
say
I'm
looking,
there,
she's
smiling.
I
B
I
guess
to
me:
you
can
can
kind
of
answer
it
to
me,
but
when
I,
when
I
look
at
it,
we
go
to
page
three
and
you
know
I
actually
start
on
page
two
and
says
you
just
it's
as
simple
as
refuse
employment
to
a
person
borrow
a
person
from
employment
discriminate
against
the
person
incompensation
or
in
a
term
or
privilege,
employment
based
on
the
cur
person's
19
vaccination
status.
B
That
can
be
a
cursory
statement
when
you're
visiting
an
interview.
Is
you
know
your
your
business?
What
do
you
think
of
it?
You
say:
well,
yeah.
I
don't
like
get
vaccinated.
All
of
a
sudden.
I
find
myself
in
the
lawyer
business
certified
letter
that
says
hey
this
guy
actually
read
the
bill
and
he
said,
violates
misdemeanor
and
I
said
well
I'll
pay,
the
750,
that's
fine.
B
I'm
a
day
as
a
player
that
scares
them
to
jesus
out
of
me.
That's,
I
guess
it
kind
of
helps
me
not
to
encourage
anybody,
but
you
know
when
you
start
getting
into
these
size
suits.
This
is
enough
money
for
somebody
to
we
got
scams
all
over,
come
out
and
say:
let's,
let's
take
on
somebody
and
by
the
way,
if
it's
one
of
your
big
companies,
they
may
settle
for
three
four
hundred
thousand
bucks,
rather
than
taking
a
chance
on
the
damage.
I
understand
your
teeth.
B
I
understand
it
well,
but
for
your
little
mon
palm
players,
this
deal
is
really
scary
and
I'm
just
going
to
let
you
run
on
and
tell
me
why
it
should
stay
there
and
and
why
it's
there
to
start
with
that?
I
don't
know
anywhere
else
in
our
statutes
that
we
allow
minimum
losses
to
get
filed
and
anything
even
close
to
this
dollar.
I
Mr
chairman,
so
it's
it's
amendable,
as,
as
we've
heard
on
bill
1001
that
I've
always
believed
in
amending
things
down,
rather
than
going
the
opposite
direction.
I
was
talking
about
that
and
that's
the
way
I
often
present
my
bills,
whereas
oftentimes
we
get
the
opposite
direction.
The
legislature,
where
it's
the
first.
The
first
thing
is
something
that
is
more
lukewarm
and
it
just
gets
more
and
more
lukewarm,
and
I
I
think
you
leave
it
up
to
the
committee
in
discussing
these
issues,
so
I
like
leaving
placeholders
that's
what
we
did
in
this
bill.
I
You
can
keep
it
in
line
with
the
discrimination
statutes
that
already
exist
and
and
my
answer
that
is
just
don't
don't
discriminate,
which
is
which
is
to
to
employers
and
as
as
a
small
employer
that
I'm
in
myself
that's
my
answer
and
we
already
have
a
whole
section
of
statutes.
You
know
with
racial
all
sorts
of
discrimination
so
and
everything
you
said
could
apply
to
those
situations
as
well,
except
the
penalty
which
is
higher
here,
but
that's
just
an
amendment,
and
I
certainly
am
not.
I
I
I
think
it's
up
to
the
committee
to
decide
that,
and
I
like
leaving
large
placeholders
that
allow
the
committee
to
have
a
vibrant
discussion
in
terms
of
penalties
so
that
that's
the
intent
there.
And
I
don't
like
like
clouding
the
discussion
on
that.
But
you
can
just
fold
it
into
the
existing
statute
in
discriminatory
statutes,
which
already
has
a
penalty
mechanism
in
place
and.
B
I
B
B
B
We
not
created
a
catch-22
that
automatically
an
employer's
place:
he's
either
going
to
get
sued
because
he
didn't
follow
state
law.
The
federal
law
dictates
that
he
do
otherwise
now
he's
in
a
place
that
he
is
really
blind
on
a
lawsuit,
because
he's
got
to
make
a
choice
whether
he
violates
federal
or
state
law.
Maybe
I'm
missing
something
to
bill,
but
I
sure
don't
read
it
in
there
from
what
I'm
I
quick
over.
I
read
it
the
other
night,
but
I
don't
see
where
that's
at
I
I
think
we
all
know,
there's
reasonable
chance.
B
I
Well,
mr
chairman,
so
a
couple
answers
to
that
question.
One
is
I
I
wanted
the
committee
to
have
a
vibrant
discussion
on
the
wording
of
and
and
the
preemption
issue
from,
30
000
feet
up,
rather
than
presupposing
that
issue,
and
I
I
thought
that
would
be
a
what
better
way
for
the
legislature
to
approach
it
in
a
special
session
where
we
have
this
extended
period.
Focusing
on
one
issue.
The
other
thing
that
I
would
say
on
that
is.
I
I
believe
that
I'm
very
worried
about
standing.
I
So
part
of
this
is
to
is,
to
give
the
state
better
grounds
to
to
stand
on
pardon
the
pun,
because
you
know
I
have
the
scars
of
the
the
standing
issue
from
a
couple
other
things,
but
to
to
provide
clear
standing
for
the
attorney
general
behalf
of
the
people
of
wyoming.
To
say
that
that
that
we
have
scanning
in
against
the
federal
mandate
and
to
ensure
that
that
a
federal
court
would
say
we
do,
and
this
statute
puts
that
in
place
because
there's
a
clear
point
of
conflict.
Otherwise,
there's
not.
B
How
many
of
our
businesses
get
sued
in
the
meantime,
while
we're
waiting
on
this?
I
I
guess
me
as
an
employer
the
minute
the
feds
come
in
well,
the
minute
they
come
in
because
I
get
them
right
now.
Epa
sends
you
notice,
it
comes
certified
mail
and
it
says
you
will
you'll
do
it,
and
now
we
have
a
statute.
That's
now
law.
B
It
says
you
won't
do
it.
I,
as
an
employer,
I'm
going
to
tell
you
unless
something
seriously
changes.
I've
got
to
vote
no,
because
I
can't
be
put
into
place
as
an
employer
that
you've
made
it
where
my
own
employees
sue
me
or
something
they're
in
agreement
with
me
on
they're
grieved
as
well
as
I
am,
but
I
I
I
find
myself
in
a
really
a
tough
spot
and
I
maybe
I'm
in
the
wrong
place
on
this
bill.
B
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
and-
and
I
I
don't
interpret
it
that
way.
You
know.
One
of
the
things
I
talked
about
with
director
obrecht
is
that
osha
rules
and
regulations
actually
protected
in
federal
law
that
that
there
needs
to
be
a
60-day
period
before
any
osha
regulation
goes
into
place,
so
it
would
be
60
days
before
anything
would
go
into
a
place,
and
the
aeg
would
have
now
have
a
cause
of
action
to
begin
that
litigation,
and
so
it
would
be
adjudicated
before
that
60-day
period
and
so.
I
I
Mr
chairman,
that's
become
routine
for
for
federal
courts
to
issue
injunctions
and
the
other
thing
is
they
could
issue
an
injunction
on
this
statute
very
easily
or
state
court.
Could
even
do
that,
so
it
I.
I
think
that
considering
the
60-day
protected
period
for
osha
mandates
in
in
federal
statute,
I
I
think
I
think
we'd
be
we'd,
be
okay
in
that
situation,
but
we
could
also
build
you,
know
language
around
that
and
make
it
clear
that
that
it's
until
all
legal
legal
remedies
are
exhausted,
like
one
thousand
one.
B
But
I
just
I
am
having
a
very
hard
time
with
it.
It's
I'm
not
going
to
be
combative
with
you
about
it,
but
I
think
it's.
This
is
really
really
scary.
Young
players.
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
think
it's.
It
does
some
admirable
things,
but
as
an
employer,
when
I
read
this
thing,
it
is
flat
scary
and
there's
no
provision
in
there
for
backup.
Is
you
say,
60
day
on
osha,
what
happens
with
the
mandate
comes
something
different
than
osha,
because
they've
got
a
lot
of
different
avenues
other
than
ocean.
B
I
can
tell
you
right
now
is,
as
an
example,
plm
has
and
the
feds
are
in
the
process.
This
will
be
news
for
everybody
out
there,
for
this
public
are
about
to
end
violate,
invalidate
our
firefighting
agreement
with
federal
government
because
they're
requiring
every
firefighter
on
a
federal
fire
to
be
vaccinated.
This
is
exactly
what
we're
dealing
with
this
session.
B
I
can
tell
you
my
local
firefighters,
where
I
live.
They
won't
be
on
a
federal
fire.
We've
got
a
lot
of
more
vaccinate,
they
won't
go.
B
We'll
do
it
so
they're
looking
at
every
avenue
they
can
to
come
afterwards.
We
all
understand
that
what
I
don't
want
to
do
as
legislator
is
put
us
in
a
place
that
we've
endangered
either
our
employers
or
employees
or
citizens
inadvertently
by
a
bill
that
we
passed,
that
we
don't
have
time
to
undo
it.
We
found
out
this
special
session
one
it's
very
hard
to
meet
quickly.
B
B
Bill,
I
would
love
to
visit
over
an
interval,
but
to
sit
here
on
a
on
a
one
day
notice
for
me
or
actually
a
little
more.
You
simply
go
ahead
of
time.
Still
is
not
enough
time
to
really
have
the
true
consequences.
Ironed
out
I'll
give.
I
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
I
think
many
of
the
issues
you
raise
could
apply
to
the
other
discriminatory
practices
and
statute,
and
and-
and
so
I
I-
the
position
of
this
bill
is
that
this
is
a
discriminatory
practice.
You
can
build
language
around
the
issue
if,
if
the
federal
government
issues
a
mandate
and
what
I
wanted
to
do
is
put
make
a
clear
statement
that
this
is
a
discriminatory
practice
which
I
don't
think
1001
quite
gets
at
and
we
can
build
the
different
gradations
around
it.
I
B
B
L
Mr
chairman,
we
do
have
one
person
online
who'd
like
to
testify
as
well.
B
We'll
get
to
them.
Welcome,
yes,
you
both,
probably
know
it
standard
procedure,
name
whatever
identifying.
You
want
to
go
with
it.
M
M
Mr
chairman,
if
I
could
make
a
couple
of
general
comments,
then
I'll,
let
mr
connell
take
over
with
with
this
bill
specifically
and
a
number
of
the
other
bills
as
hospitals.
We
have
a
a
few
concerns,
and
so
one
of
the
things
I'd
like
to
say
is
that
hospitals,
whether
they
create
mandates
for
any
kind
of
vaccinations
covet
or
flu
shots
or
anything
like
that,
these
decisions
to
create
safe
environments
are
made
thoughtfully.
M
They're
made
with
the
best
evidence
available,
they're
made
in
consultation
with
physicians
and
staff,
members
and
leaders,
and,
and
some
of
you
on
labor
health
have
heard
us
talk
about
that.
That
we'd
like
to
be
able
to
maintain
the
ability
to
create
those
environments
in
the
best
ways
that
we
know
how,
like
I
said,
patient
safety,
employee
safety
are
number
one
considerations
when
when
making
these
moves
now,
one
of
the
issues
with
with
this
particular
draft
is
that
it
creates
criminal
penalties
for
making
these
decisions
and
chairman
driscoll.
M
As
it
pertains
to
hospitals,
we
have
this
other
issue
as
it
relates
to
cms,
and
so,
if
there's
a
federal
mandate
that
does
come
down,
there's
certainly
going
to
be
processes
for
exemptions
and
and
and
proving
that
your
your
employees
are
vaccinated
or
not,
and
those
those
might
be
conditions
of
participation
for
the
medicare
program
so
for
in
violation
of
the
conditions
of
participation,
one
we
wouldn't
be
reimbursed
for
those
patients
that
we
see,
we
might
not
be
able
to
admit
more
patients,
so
there
becomes
a
concern
about
access
to
care
and
communities
and
where
those
patients
go,
and
then
it
also
puts
us
at
risk
for
not
just
the
criminal
penalties,
but
opens
us
up
for
civil
litigation
as
well.
N
N
I
have
a
good
friend
who's.
The
ceo
of
a
hospital
in
western
montana,
our
neighbors
to
the
north,
came
out
with
a
house
house
bill
702,
you
may
be
familiar
with
it.
They
took
action
on
this
a
number
of
months
ago,
hoping
to
get
the
attention
of
the
feds
and
make
to
preempt
these
vaccine
mandates
and
the
reactions
that
would
come
so
they
they
were
proactive
about
this
we're
now
finding
that
it
hasn't
been
effective.
N
For
my
my
friend
who's
trying
to
manage
the
kobe
pandemic,
just
like
we
are
here
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
it's
it's
not
helping
it's
not
helping
them
get
to
to
immunity
and
helping
them
get
to
people
getting
back
to
their
normal
lives
where
they,
where
they
want
to
be.
So
that's
just
just
a
point.
N
North
bighorn
hospital
is
the
largest
employer
in
in
our
county.
We
employ
over
250
people.
We
are
not
excited
about
a
vaccine
mandate,
it
is
scary
also.
It
is
scary
to
think
about
the
ramifications
of
this
bill
and
other
bills
that
would
anti-up
ratchet
up
the
the
tension
between
state
and
federal
government
over
vaccine
mandates.
If
you
wanna,
as
chairman
driscoll,
you
mentioned
the
the
catch
22
for
employers.
N
That
is
100
a
reality
that
that
I
face
that
we
will
face
in
our
community,
so
just
just
to
highlight
what
that
would
look
like
for
me.
So
if,
if
we
obey
the
federal
government
on
these
mandates
and
the
state
takes
no
action
in
this
in
this
special
session,
we
will
be
forced
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
we
would
like
to
continue
participating
in
medicare's
program.
N
So
the
vaccine
mandate
is
a
condition
of
participation.
In
other
words,
if
we
would
like
to
receive
payments
from
cms,
then
we
would
be
required
to
follow
those
mandates.
Again.
We
don't
know
we
don't
know
what
the
exemptions
look
like
the
medical
exemption,
the
religious
exemptions.
We
haven't
seen
the
comment
period,
so
I
feel
like
this
is
a
bit
premature,
but
we
would
potentially
choose
to
abide
that.
N
N
Just
to
put
that
into
perspective.
Our
salary
expense.
The
given
year
is
about
12
million
dollars,
so
we
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
option
on
this
if,
if
it
goes
through
and
then
we
lose
good
people,
we
lose
our
ability
to
care
for
patients
nationally.
One
to
three
percent
is
what
what
is
being
banted
about
for
those
organizations
that
have
gone
through
these
mandates.
N
N
We
obey
whatever
comes
down
from
the
state
and
we
lose
12
million
dollars
a
year
or
more
for
a
small
rural
hospital,
and
that
means
we
can
care
for
half
the
residents
in
our
care
center,
half
the
patients
and
we're
we're
one
of
16
critical
access.
Hospitals
funded
this
exact
same
way
out
of
the
28
hospitals
in
the
state.
So
then,
so
our
neighbors
powell,
three
rivers,
health
down
in
basin.
They
all
face
a
similar
situation
by
obeying
the
state
and
where
do
all
those
patients
go?
N
So
I'm
sensitive
to
the
truth
that
there's
a
pandemic
going
on,
and
I'm
also
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
this
is
being
used
for
political
purposes.
We
don't
represent
a
corporate
hospital
in
in
level.
We
have
board
members
that
feel
strongly
on
both
sides
of
this
staff
that
feel
strongly
on
both
sides
of
this.
So,
if
anything,
I
would
urge
the
the
committee
to
show
a
little
bit
of
patience
and
see
how
this
plays
out.
We've
been
waiting
on
cms
to
give
the
rules
that
related
to
this
mandate.
N
We
were
expecting
those
over
six
weeks
ago,
so
maybe
by
having
this
meeting
today
and
other
states
having
those
discussions,
that's
getting
the
attention
that
is
needed
without
putting
us
in
a
very
difficult
situation
where
we're
where
we
just
where
it's,
where
there's
there's,
not
any
good
solution.
So
thank
you.
M
And
does
it
apply
to
other
hospitals
in
the
state?
Mr
chairman,
senator
scott,
so
if
you're
referring
to
banner,
I
think
the
number
I
heard
this
morning
was
closer
to
80
percent
is
made
across
the
state.
It
varies.
I
think
some
are
as
low
as
and
don't
quote
me
on
this
exact
number
summer
as
low
as
between
40
and
50
percent.
Others
are
closer
to
that
80
percent
number
and
and
a
bunch
in
the
middle.
B
M
Mr
chairman,
so
there
is
a
public
comment
period
on
rules
once
they're
published,
so
there'll
be
opportunity
to
respond
to
them,
and
then,
if
there's
a,
if
they
come
in
and
are
doing
an
audit,
you
have
an
opportunity
to
come
back
into
compliance.
M
I
think
the
number
of
days
varies
depending
on
the
finding
and
how
long
you
have
to
come
into
compliance
and
then
a
a
tiered
structure
of
call.
It
discipline
right
or
penalties
for
that.
But
but
ultimately
I
mean
what
can
happen
is
if
you're
out
of
compliance
with
medicare,
you
don't
get
the
pet
reimbursement
and
you're
not
allowed
to
to
admit
patience.
So
you
know
what
you
might
see
right
worst
case
scenario.
Is
patients
would
come
into
the
emergency
room
where
you'd
have
to
triage
and
then
send
them
somewhere
else?
L
B
F
Welcome,
mr
glass,
can
you
hear
us?
Yes,
I
can
hear
you
chairman
drissell.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak.
I've
appeared
before
this
committee
before,
but
this
may
be
the
most
important
testimony
I've
ever
rendered
before
the
legislature
or
ever
would
render
I'm
a
wyoming
employer,
and
I
have
two
wyoming
small
businesses.
F
Both
of
them
are
run
out
of
my
home,
one
is
an
internet
provider,
the
other
is
a
provider
of
rental
housing,
and
the
proponents
of
this
bill
are
decrying,
a
proposed
federal
mandate,
which
does
not
apply
to
me
and
doesn't
apply
to
most
native
wyoming
businesses
as
government
overreach.
But
what
are
they
doing?
They're
threatening
to
impose
an
overreaching
mandate
that
does
apply
to
us?
F
In
what
way
would
this
fight
government
overreach
it
it?
Wouldn't
it
would
be
imposed
on
all
small
business
wyoming
businesses,
but
not
on
the
large
out-of-state
businesses,
be
that
would
be
exempted
by
the
supreme
supremacy
cause
of
the
clause
of
the
us
constitution
and
so
we'd,
be
it
in
order
just
to
make
a
political
gesture,
we
would
be
hurting
all
of
the
small
businesses
in
our
state,
which
again
would
be
most
of
them.
F
I
gave
them
time
paid
time
off
both
to
get
their
shots
and
to
recover
from
any
side
effects
if
they
needed
them
had
have
immunocompromised
family
members,
they
would
literally
walk
out
of
the
office
as
as
senator
case
mentioned,
if
I
allowed
an
unvaccinated
one
in
and
that
would
basically
shut
us
down.
F
It
would
also
mean
that
if
I
went
and
sought
health
care,
I
would
have
to
risk
being
made
sick
or
even
killed
by
an
irresponsible
health
care
provider
who
was
willingly
not
getting
vaccinated
and
possibly
carrying
the
disease
with
some
of
these
bills,
depending
on
which
one
it
is.
I
might
not
even
be
able
to
ask
so
that
I
could
choose
a
provider
who
was
vaccinated.
F
Now
I
am
my
employees.
We
welcome
the
vaccine
and
I
require
that
all
employees
be
vaccinated
because
every
day,
in
the
course
of
our
work,
we
have
to
enter
customers
homes
in
our
internet
business.
We
have
to
do
it
in
order
to
install
the
internet
equipment
and
in
our
rental
property
business.
We
need
to
do
it
to
clean
the
apartments.
We
don't
want
to
spread
the
disease
from
home
to
home
and
endanger
the
public
or
bring
it
back
to
the
office
or
to
into
our
homes
or
to
our
families,
and
so
well.
F
If
this
bill
passes
or
anyone
like
it,
is
an
act
and
is
passed
and
enacted
into
law.
I
can't
afford,
as
a
small
business,
to
be
the
test
case
for
it.
Just
as
you
said,
mr
chairman,
I
I
certainly
don't
have
the
money
to
do
that.
I'd
be
forced
to
stop
all
hiring
for
fear
of
being
accused
of
turning
away
someone
who
was
an
anti-vaxxer
and
possibly
yeah.
I
could
not
possibly
face
ridiculous
civil
or
even
criminal
penalties
for
protecting
myself
and
my
family
and
my
staff.
So
what
would
I
have
to
do?
F
I'd
have
to
hire
the
work
out
to
a
vaccinated,
independent
contractor,
possibly
from
out
of
state
or,
if
I
couldn't
do
that,
I'd
have
to
sell
or
fold
my
business.
So
please
don't
burden
us
with
irresponsible
endangered,
dangerous
regulations.
Just
to
make
a
political
gesture.
I
mean
the
vaccine
is
proven
to
be
safe
and
effective.
It's
so
good
that
it's
recommended
even
for
people
who
have
had
covet,
because
research
in
israel
has
shown
that
it
protects
against
long-haul
symptoms,
and
it's
and
my
business
is
science
based.
F
F
Now
it
was
mentioned
before
people
talked
before
about
a
potential
mass
exodus
as
a
result
of
these
requirements.
Well,
the
experience
in
other
states
has
been
that
the
attrition,
the
actual
attrition
when
these
requirements
has
gone,
it
have
gone
into
effect.
An
employer
has
been
at
most
a
few
percent,
and
so
I
really
think
that
those
those
claims
were
overblown
and
we
shouldn't
be
worried
about
them.
I
also
think
that
religious
liberty
should
not
be
an
issue
here
for
two
reasons.
F
F
What's
more,
the
leaders
of
all
major
religions,
including
not
only
the
pope
but
christian
science,
are
exhorting
their
followers
to
get
shots.
There's
no
rel,
there's
no
legitimate
religious
objection
to
this
so
well.
In
summary,
I
know
you're
going
to
be
considering
a
number
of
bills,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
ask
in
general
that
you
don't
prohibit
or
criminalize
employee
vaccinate
employer
vaccination
requirements,
don't
call
it
blackmail,
don't
prohibit
masking
requirements
or
allow
them
to
be
waived.
F
Just
for
the
asking
do
incent
state
employees
to
get
vaccinated
do
advocate
the
expansion
of
medicaid
because
it
would
help
to
fund
the
our
hospitals,
which
are
which
are
right
now
overburdened
by
the
covid
surge,
do
provide
over
unemployment
benefits
to
people
who
quit
because
their
employers
fail
to
follow
the
federal
regulations.
F
And
finally,
if
this
motivation,
if
this,
if
the
politically
motivated
legislation
does
pass,
please
target
it
only
at
businesses
that
are
affected
by
the
federal
mandate.
Mandates
exempt
any
business
to
which
the
federal
mandates
do
not
apply
from
from
all
of
this,
because
we
don't
need
to
be
caught
in
the
crossfire,
the
political
crossfire
and
that's
really
all.
I
have
to
say
I'll
stand
for
questions
if
there
are
any,
but
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Questions
for
mr
glass.
B
K
K
So
that's
number
one
myth
number
two
one
thing
I
would
like
to
point
out:
the
death
rate
for
this
disease
in
the
u.s
is
point
zero.
Two
percent
point
zero.
Two.
This
is
not
as
deadly
a
disease
as
something
such
as
ebola
virus.
That
is
not
something
that
we
are
trying
to
fight
against.
We
are
trying
to
fight
against
something
that
has
a
low
death
rate
and,
unfortunately,
in
our
media
it
is
being
told
and
blown
out
of
proportion
that
everyone
who
gets
the
disease
dies
and
that
absolutely
is
not
the
case.
K
F
O
An
ob
gyn,
I'm
fairly
new
to
wyoming
I've
lived
here
for
five
years.
I
absolutely
love
this
state,
I'm
an
ob
hospitalist.
So
that
means
that
I
am
in
charge
of
labor
and
delivery
during
my
shift.
Just
like
dina
here
is
in
charge
of
the
icu.
During
her
shift,
I
happen
to
work
in
two
states.
I
work
for
two
health,
large
health
care
systems.
I
work
for
banner,
I'm
here
at
great
risk
to
even
show
up
and
talk
when
they're
gonna
review
this
okay.
O
I
just
want
you
all
to
know
that
each
other-
and
so
here
I
am-
I
have
been
on
the
front
line
for
a
very
long
time
for
the
entire
18
months.
I
think
I
delivered
one
of
the
very
first
babies
in
wyoming
to
a
copic
positive
person.
O
At
that
moment,
I
dropped
my
fear
of
catching
the
disease
and
dying
from
it
because
we
have
all
been
terrified.
We
were
going
to
die
from
this
thing
and
when
I
knew
somebody
was
like
38
weeks
pregnant
gonna
come
in,
I
I
really
got
hysterical
in
my
I
called
my
husband
and
my
son
called
me.
He's
26
and
he
said
mom.
Why
are
you
so
afraid,
and
I
said
I
could
die
and
he
looks
at
me.
He
says
on
the
phone.
O
O
O
We
have
forgotten
something
in
this
country
through
all
of
our
fear
and
all
the
media
coming
down.
I
want
to
say
we
have
a
total
myth
about
the
fact
that
those
that
are
vaccinated
are
safe
in
wyoming
medical
center.
In
the
last
month
we
have
had
four
physicians
that
I
personally
know
about
who
have
been
coveted.
O
Okay,
now
they're
not
going
to
be
required
to
be
tested
to
see
if
they're
spreading
the
disease,
but
I'm
going
to
be
required
to
be
tested.
Apparently
they
haven't
told
me
what
the
you
know.
The
things
are
that
I'm
going
to
be
required
to
do
except
wear
masks
which
we're
already
obviously
doing
and
I'm
and
I'm
very
compliant
with
that
and
if
they
require
me
to
be
tested,
I
think
that
that's
you
know
I'm
going
to
comply
because
that's
what
I'm?
O
I
don't
want
to
give
up
my
job,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
at
my
other
hospital
in
florida
I
did
not
get.
They
didn't
give
one
single
religious
exemption.
It
was
terrifying.
We
have
12
nurses
on
that
labor
and
delivery
unit
who
are
walking
out
at
banner.
We
have
two
nurses
who
are
depending
upon
you
guys
in
the
state
legislature
this
week,
where
they're
not
gonna,
be
there
on
monday.
O
It's
just
that
simple!
Okay,
these
are
seasoned
nurses.
I
understand
now
I
don't
have
this.
I
wish
that
now
that
I'm
here
and
talking,
I
wasn't
going
to
talk,
but
now
that
I'm
here
I'm
wishing
that
I
had
the
actual
numbers,
but
I
think
I
was
told
that
we've
hired
200
traveler
nurses
in
casper
wyoming
medical
center,
that's
a
little
frightening.
O
D
O
Okay
to
travel
and
I've
been
at
wyoming
medical
center.
They
make
about
42.,
so
I
mean
we're
not
having
our
skilled
labor,
who
understand
our
nurses.
Don't
have
another
place
to
go.
Actually
they
do
they
can
both
of
the
nurses
who
are
going
to
walk
on
monday
are
going
to
go
to
wbi
all
right,
which
is
the
behavioral.
O
Because
they
both
work
there
part
time
already.
You
know
they're
we're
a
really
small
community
and
I
would
just
beg
you
to
like.
Let
people
choose
both
of
us
sitting
before
you
right
now
have
read
the
science.
The
cdc
says
that
if
you
are
vaccinated,
you
can
carry
this
disease
as
much
as
the
unvaccinated.
So
the
only
person,
the
only
person
that's
being
protected.
If
I'm
vaccinated
is
me,
that's
the
only
person
that
is
proven
in
all
the
data.
O
O
You're
100
and
for
a
disease
that
really
is
not
that
deadly.
I
I
don't
want
to
take
that
risk
and
I
would
beg
you
to
take
and
stop
is
really
discrimination.
I
was
I
trained
in.
I
went
through
medical
school
in
the
when
aids
was
just
starting,
and
let
me
tell
you
you
didn't,
dare
ask
any
of
these
kind
of
questions
you
I
mean
it
was
considered
total
discrimination
if
we
asked
about
aid
status.
O
K
K
K
K
B
K
O
Mr
chairman,
I
I
would
like
to
echo
that
we
we
have
to
one
of
the
things
I
love
about
wyoming,
I'm
from
tennessee,
okay
and
was
practice
private
practice
there
for
many
many
years,
and
I
love
the
frontier,
the
the
the
resilience,
the
the
fact
that
it's
been
a
few
months
in
in
alaska
and
it's
supposed
to
be
the
frontier.
But
then
I
moved
to
wyoming
and
wow.
O
This
is
way
more
of
the
frontier
than
alaska
ever
thought
about
being,
and
yet
I
was
so
shocked
that
we
didn't
we
weren't
on
the
front
of
like
coming
out
and
saying:
okay,
no
you're
not
doing
this
to
us
just
because
you're
not
going
to
do
it
to
us.
You
know,
forget
the
you
know
just
like
I
want
to
choose.
B
P
Mr
winney,
mr
chairman,
bill
winney
sublet
county.
I
hear
the
phrase
follow
the
science
bandied
about
frequently
my
physician
out
at
st
john's
medical
center
in
jackson,
internal
medicine,
specialist
specifically
recommended.
I
not
get
a
vaccine
for
a
number
of
months
and
his
comment
was
I
don't
like
the
numbers.
I
don't
like
the
statistics.
P
P
I'd
be
saying
the
same
thing,
but
you've
now
crossed
into
that
age
bracket
where
it
actually
might
make
a
difference
in
you
personally
surviving
if
you
got
infected
and
they
did
a
test
on
me
and
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
I
never
had
covid,
but
at
any
rate
I
just
find
his
medical
skills
and
analysis
of
stuff
useful
to
you
all
subject
to
your
questions.
Thank
you.
Q
Battery's
not
cooperating
so
sorry,
I
gotta
plug
myself
in
here,
but
my
name,
mr
chairman,
is
cindy
delancey.
I'm
the
president
of
the
wyoming
business
alliance
and
the
business
alliance
stands
in
opposition
to
senate
file.
One
zero
zero
four,
before
I
kind
of
walk
into
the
analysis
of
why
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
highlight
some
things
that
caused
some
some
grave
concern
for
us
as
a
business
community
in
on
page
three
line.
Q
Seven,
where
we
make
you
know
a
criminal
penalty
for
our
business
leaders
to
be
subject
to
very
concerning,
in
addition
to
that,
to
have
line
12
essentially
encourage
employees
to
sue
their
employer
and
not
only
you
know,
set
a
a
floor
of
500
000,
but
authorize
punitive
damages
as
well
as
other
equitable
relief
from
the
employer
is
a
death
nail
for
small
business
in
this
state.
These
are
not
going
to
be
claims
that
are
going
to
be
covered
by
insurance
companies.
Q
This
is
going
to
be
on
our
business
owners
backs,
and
I
can
assure
you
that
many
of
my
members
don't
have
five
six
hundred
dollars
an
hour
to
go,
hire
a
lawyer
to
defend
themselves.
For
ten
years
of
litigation
on
exercising
their
rights,
we've
heard
a
lot
about
rights
tonight,
the
business
owners,
the
private
property.
You
know
what
about
our
private
property
rights
our
right
to
contract.
Q
I
you
know,
I
I
think
that
we
need
to,
as
we
heard
start
somewhere
if
we
start
somewhere
we're
going
to
lose
our
osha
primacy
and
that's
going
to
have
a
detrimental
impact
to
the
business
community
in
the
state.
Q
We
need
to
cal
carefully
calculate
those
risks
versus
the
rewards
of
essentially
passing
legislation
that
is
going
to
be
preempted
under
article
7,
section
2
of
the
united
states
constitution.
So,
with
your
permission,
mr
chairman,
I'll
just
do
a
little
re-rewind
to
seventh
grade
civics
class,
but
I
think
this
needs
to
be
said.
I
think
this
does
under
the
supreme
supremacy
clause
article
seven
of
the
united
states
constitution.
Federal
law
is
the
supreme
law
of
the
land,
whether
we
like
it
or
not.
Q
Q
So
as
a
result,
federal
law
can
preempt
or
nullify
state
laws
in
a
variety
of
circumstances.
For
example,
state
law
may
be
preempted
to
the
extent
that
it
actually
conflicts
with
federal
law.
Such
a
conflict
occurs
either
because
compliance
will
both
physically
was
physically
impossible,
because
state
law
stands
as
an
obstacle
to
the
accomplishment
of
the
full
objectives
of
congress.
Preemption
can
also
be
based
on
regulations
of
federal
agency
when
acting
within
the
agency's
authority
granted
by
congress.
Q
There's
been
no
discussion
that
osha
is
out
acting
outside
of
their
regulation,
a
regulatory
authority
granted
by
congress-
and
you
know
right
now-
wyoming-
is
in
a
place
where
we
have
the
the
privilege,
not
the
right
to
administer
our
own
osha
regulations,
and
I
can
assure
you
that
my
members
would
much
rather
deal
with
a
friend
and
neighbor
in
wyoming
as
their
regulator
as
a
washington
bureaucrat,
and
so
you
know
kind
of
how
the
standard
works
and
just
kind
of
laying
this
out
there.
Q
You
know
state
legislation
that
forbids
employers
from
obtaining
information
about
vaccination
status
or
requiring
employees
to
be
vaccinated
will
likely
be
preempted
by
a
contrary,
standard
oppo
adopted
by
federal
osha,
because
the
state
law
would
actually
conflict
with
the
federal
law.
So
when
you
have
what
this
bill
and
others
are
attempting
to
do,
a
collision
between
state
law
and
federal
law,
it
will
be
the
federal
law
that
will
prevail
again.
I'm
not
saying
that
I
love
that
concept.
I
know
you
don't
either,
but
it
is
what
it
is.
Q
Q
The
test
that
we
must
make
adhere
to.
This
is
the
litmus
test
and
any
action
that
the
legislature
would
contemplate
to
not
risk
jeopardizing
that
osha
primacy
is
that
congress
required
that
state
plans
create
standards
for
employee
health
and
safety
that
are.
This
is
the
buzzwords
at
least
as
effective
in
providing
safe
and
healthful
healthful
employment
as
a
federal
standard,
so
that
we
can
go
beyond
if
we
chose
to
which
I
don't
think
any
of
us
would
want
to.
Q
But
the
federal
osha
you
know
like
the
federal
regulations
is
what
sets
the
floor,
not
the
ceiling
in
wyoming.
So
if
the
10th
amendment
also
does
you
know,
does
not
contradict
or
limits
osha
power
to
create
or
enforce
workplace
safety
and
require
states
with
state
plans
to
do
so.
Also,
the
supreme
court
has
held
that
if
power
is
delegated
to
congress
in
the
constitution,
states
amendment
expressly
disclaims
any
reservations
to
the
power
of
that
state.
Q
We
all
know
that
when
congress
created
osha
and
and
the
act,
it
did
so
through
the
exercise
of
constitutional
powers
to
regulate
interstate
commerce,
to
provide
for
general
welfare,
the
stated
purposes
and
to
assure
so
far
as
possible
that
every
working
man
and
woman
in
the
nation
has
as
working
conditions
to
preserve
human
resources.
No
court
has
held
that
congress
exceeded
its
constitutional
powers
when
it
passed
the
act
and
a
10th
amendment
challenged
the
osha's
authority
to
adopt
a
vaccine
mandate
would
be
unprecedented.
Q
No
one
wants
to
make
decisions
in
the
business
community
that
I
know
that
would
be
contrary
to
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
their
employees,
but
to
to
those
are
decisions
that
that
need
to
be
made
by
employers,
not
the
government,
and
so
in
light
of
knowing
that
we
have,
you
know,
supremacy
in
our
federalist
system
and
employee
business,
property
rights
and-
and
you
know
that
are
grounded
in
in
a
free
market
economy.
This.
Q
D
C
Mr
chairman,
I've
got
a
question
on
the
osha
law
and
and
mr
chairman,
as
written
this
bill,
does
not
reach.
The
osha
regulation
has
hasn't
been
promulgated.
Yet
this
strictly
speaks
to
to
businesses
in
wyoming,
whether
they're
covered
by
the
federal,
osha
or
or
not.
F
C
I
can
see
that
osha,
as
a
regulation
of
interstate
commerce,
could
constitutionally
preempt
us
in
this
area.
They
have
in
some
other
safety
areas.
You
know
they
mandate
hard
hats,
they
mandate
steel-toed
boots,
there's
a
bunch
of
things.
They
mandate.
C
Q
Mr
chairman,
senator
scott,
what
I
think
the
question
is
is,
does
you
know,
does
in
federal
law
create
that
if
that
is
the
question,
senator
scott
we've
seen
it
in
other
areas
of
the
law?
As
far
as
flu
vaccines
like
this
has
already
sort
of
been
an
established
precedent
that
has
that
has
been
litigated.
Q
So
the
the
challenge
that
I
think
we're
all
facing
right
now
is
without
the
the
you
know,
understanding
of
really
what
is
coming
down
the
pike
as
far
as
a
mandate
on
vaccination,
we
know
some
material
pieces,
but
not
the
full
rule,
obviously
that
that
will
take
time
to
go
through
the
rule
making
process,
but
knowing
the
pieces
that
are
at
play,
any
kind
of
clash
with
that
federal
regulation
could
risk
wyoming's
ability
to
carry
out
and
administer
its
own
osha
state
plan.
C
All
up
so
you're
telling
me
that
you
do
think
the
existing
osha
law
has
a
good
basis
in
law
for
a
regulation
that
would
impose
covet
vaccination
and
is.
Is
that
a
correct
understanding
of
your
testimony?.
Q
Q
Last
time
we
were
together
and
providing
some
limits
on
liability
to
disincentivize
litigation
as
opposed
to
promote
it,
but
without
knowing
the
full
scope
of
what
we're
dealing
with
a
pro
amend
and
a
mandate
to
respond
to
a
mandate
is
certainly
not
what
the
business
community
thinks
is.
The
answer
is
what
my
testimony
is.
H
It
just
seems
that
if,
if
osha
were
in
play
and
the
federal
government
were
looking
for
a
state
where
they
could
easily
take
over
osha,
wouldn't
it
be
fair
to
think
that
wyoming
might
be
the
easiest
state,
because,
really
what
would
it
take?
You
know
we
have
a
limited
number
of
businesses
that
fit
that.
So
maybe
a
couple
of
inspectors
could
come
and
begin,
and
it
would
be
that
simple.
Q
Mr
chairman,
if
I
may
respond
to
senator
case's
question,
that
is
a
concern,
and
this
is
real
and
on
october
19
2021
osha
notified
the
state
of
utah,
arizona
and
south
carolina
that
it
was
initiating
reconsideration
proceedings
to
revoke
those
states
plans,
because
those
states
did
not
adopt
standards
to
enforce
osha's
health
care,
emergency
temporary
standard,
the
agency
issued
on
june
10th
of
2021.
Q
A
A
couple
of
points
that
were
made
throughout
the
testimony
specifically
the
supremacy
clause.
A
A
The
executive
branch
does
not
write
laws,
congress,
writes
laws
and
will
employers
assume
liability
for
adverse
reactions
to
this
vaccine
if
they
are
so
eager
to
force
their
employees
to
get
this
vaccine?
Are
they
going
to
voluntarily
assume
liability?
I
guarantee
you.
The
answer
is
no
so
they're
protected
from
liability,
they're
protected
from
everything
the
people
that
lose
at
the
end
of
the
day
are
employees
in
the
state
of
wyoming
and
that's
what
we
have
to
grapple
with
this
week.
A
D
C
This
constitution
and
the
laws
of
the
united
states,
which
shall
be
made
in
pursuance
thereof
and
all
treaties
made
or
which
shall
be
made
under
the
authority.
United
states,
shall
be
the
supreme
law
of
the
land
and
the
judges
in
every
state
shall
be
bound
by
thereby
anything
in
the
constitution
or
laws
of
any
state.
To
the
contrary.
Notwithstanding,
mr
chairman,
that's
why
I
was
representing
mrs
delancey
as
to
the
underlying
osha
law.
C
If
that
law
is
is
a
firm
basis
and
apparently
the
suppressants,
it
is
for
a
vaccine
mandate,
then
that
that
law
would
fall
under
this
supremacy
clause
and,
mr
chairman,
so
would
a
regulation
that
enforces
that
so
that's,
but
I
think
I
think
we've
got
to
understand
that
with
this
bill,
that's
a
hypothetical
situation.
The
bill
may
get
us
into
the
real
question,
mr
chairman:
what's
it
going
to
do
with
our
existing
employers,
including
the
ones
that
are
not
subject
to
the
respective
interstate
commerce
based
ocean
regulations,.
A
And
I
appreciate
that
I
just
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
conflict
of
law,
regardless,
whether
it's
osha,
if,
if
you
do
take
that
track
and
say
oh,
she
does
have
the
authority
based
on
congress,
given
them
that
authority,
it
butts
up
against
if
we
were
to
pass
something
like
this
to
protect
our
employees
in
a
labor
law,
civil
rights
type
of
case
you're,
going
to
have
us
it's
going
to
have
to
be
tested
in
the
courts
to
see
whose
rights
prevail.
A
B
I'll
make
a
quick
one
on
what
you
just
said:
they're
putting
employers
in
between
on
the
losses,
putting
them
in
the
middle
they're
the
ones
to
take
it.
They
still
have
recourse
anybody,
that's
affected
by
the
vaccine.
So
I'll.
Take
your
other
arguments
at
face
value,
but
anyone
affected
by
the
vaccine
has
the
full
weight
and
power
of
our
entire
judicial
system
to
go
after
vaccine
companies.
B
Anybody
that
administers
it
then
and
you're
transferring
part
of
that
liability
onto
an
employer.
Now
an
employer,
that's
been
told
that
they
have
to
do
it
and
that's
a
difference.
That's
a
that's
a
big
big
difference.
You
know
you!
You
have
every
right
in
the
world
if
you've
got
any
kind
of
bad
care
given
to
you
to
sue
who
gave
you
that
care
and
who
caused
it.
A
A
A
We
gotta
do
something
doing.
Nothing
is
not
gonna
solve
the
problem.
We
just
bow
down
to
the
federal
government.
Let
them
take
this
power
that
they
don't
have
we're
just
gonna
roll
over
and
take
it.
We
gotta
do
something.
This
is
one
vehicle,
let's
work
it.
Thank
you
further
questions
committee.
Thank
you.
B
Oh
I'm
loath
to
go
through
this.
We
aren't
going
to
go
back
into
a
back
and
forth
this
plan.
So
sorry
where
public
testimony
is
closed,
we're
back
to
the
committee
committee.
What's
your
pleasure,
senator.
H
Case,
mr
chairman,
just
in
generalities
first,
I
don't
think
there's
support
for
this
bill
on
the
committee.
I
might
be
wrong,
but
I
would
be
willing
to
make
a
positive
motion
and
then
vote
no
against
the
bill
itself.
So
if
that's
cleaner,
that
we
could
report
it
out
with
it
with
a
no
and-
and
I
just
look-
I
think
it's
cleaner.
I
think
it's
more
definitive,
but
it's
up
to
the
committee.
Let's
accept
okay,
if
it's
okay,
then
I
will
make
a
motion
to
pass
the
bill.
G
Mr
chairman,
mr
boner,
I
just
said
I
think
we
did
have
a
good
discussion.
You
know
these
are
some
of
the
nuances
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out.
So,
even
though
I
think
I
know
where
the
bill
is
going,
and
so
if
it's
okay,
I'd
like
to
work
at
least
one
amendment
and
if
that's
okay,
say
on
page
2
line,
16
extract
the
words
1
and
insert
25.
G
G
You
know
having
to
make
these
tough
decisions
and
that
I'm
just
saying
that,
as
I
asked
we
sent
sponsor
a
spell
yeah,
we
heard
any
challenges
any
issues
with
a
local
or
small
business
requiring
a
vaccine,
and
I
think
we've
heard
some
testimony
that
that
stuff
has
a
way
of
working
itself
out
the
challenges
we
see
in
the
challenge.
Why
we're
here
is
because
these
large
corporations,
which
are
disassociated
with
the
people
whose
livelihoods
are
effectively
working,
that
for
them
that's
the
issue.
G
I
think
that
this
bill
could
be
tightened
up
a
little
bit
when
we,
you
know,
I'm
not
an
attorney,
but
I
don't
want
to
give
every
last.
You
know
employer
necessarily
a
chance
to
have
cause
for
the
lawsuit,
so
we
know
we're
coming
based
off
this
legislation.
So
so
that's
the
motion
to
make
that
amendment.
G
I
just
think
it's
important
that
we
distinguish
between
small
businesses
and
these
larger
corporations
and
as
we
move
forward
with
these
discussions
in
general,
that
it
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
maybe
have
a
little
bit
of
humility
as
legislators.
Understanding
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
anticipate
every
last
situation
and
we
don't
want
to.
We
want
to
hit
what
we're
aiming
at
and
nothing
more,
and
so
that's
that's
the
reason
for
the
amendment.
I
think
it's
important
for
our
discussion.
That's
true.
H
I
think
that
I
think
that
is
a
good
amendment.
I
would
like
to
encourage,
maybe
a
friendly
amendment
to
raise
that
number
higher,
because
lots
of
employers
have
25
people
and
that's
sort
of
a
competitive
market
employee.
You
know,
I
would
bet
that
overall,
it's
not
quite
as
specialized
like
this
company.
We're
talking
about
probably
has
maybe
a
thousand
people.
I
don't.
I
don't
know
the
one
that's
been
used
as
an
example.
Well,
you
don't
have
quite
as
many
alternatives
in
that
point,
but
there
are
lots
of
employees,
employers
that
have
25
people.
You
know.
H
B
I'll
have
a
comment
back
to
the
100.
I
think
100
is
an
absolutely
perfect
number
if
you're
gonna
amend
it
because
that's
where
the
federal
mandate
kicked
in
it
was
a
hundred.
So
that
alliance
is
where
at
least,
if
we're
gonna
do
it.
It
puts
us
in
line
with
what
the
federal
mandate
said.
His
players
100
more
fell
under
this
rule,
so
I'm
in
center
another
cut
okay.
D
L
B
J
Thank
you,
senator
driscoll
and
no
worries.
I
am
didn't
hear
the
time
right,
so
my
apologies
for
not
being
here
promptly
before
you
have
sent
it
filed.
10
19.
You
heard
the
description
on
the
floor
for
your
reference.
J
I
decided
to
provide
you
a
copy
of
house
bill
171,
and
so
just
if
you
wanted
to
flip
through
house
bill,
171
you'll
see
on
page
one,
two,
three
four
and
then
half
of
page
five,
those
parts
of
what
was
in
the
bill
as
section
one
were
incorporated
into
senate
file
56,
but
then
you'll
see
sections
two,
which
is
what
the
legislature
passed
and
amended
in
171.
That
was
inadvertently
repealed,
and
so
what
this
scrivener's
error
would
seek
to
correct
are
those
the
over
repeal
of
these
critical
provisions.
J
So
if
you
start
looking
on
page
five
you'll
see
that-
and
this
is
going
on
to
page
six
six
excuse
me.
The
definition
of
a
peace
officer
was
added
in
sub
paragraph
r,
and
it
said
any
person
qualified
pursuant
to
wyoming
statute
through
9-1-701-706
and
employed
by
the
wyoming
gaming
commission
when
engaged
in
performance
of
that
person's
duties
or
when
responding
to
a
request
to
assist
other
peace
officers
acting
within
the
scope
of
their
official
duties
in
their
jurisdiction.
J
So
this
is
what
allowed
the
wyoming
gaming
commission
to
hire
and
utilize
law
enforcement,
but
because
we
over
repealed
this
part
of
it,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
impacts
that's
had
for
law
enforcement
on
two
fronts.
First,
is
the
retirement
benefits
and
second,
is
their
ability
to
do
their
job
entirely.
J
So,
while
there
are
some
other
errors
that
you'll
see
were
impacted,
you
know
the
number
of
commissioners
their
voting
duties,
whether
or
not
there
are
liaisons.
What
have
you
you
know,
or
certainly
of
much
less
significance
and
could
be
addressed
in
the
future
at
a
future
point
in
time.
But
this
piece
about
the
law
enforcement
is
a
bit
of
a
problem,
and
so
since
we
are
here
meeting
as
a
legislature,
I
thought
it
would
be
good
to
bring
this
bill.
J
A
few
of
my
colleagues
have
asked
well,
this
is
not
covered
related
and
I
just
remind
folks
that
I
am
not
leadership
and
I
didn't
call
the
special
session
saying
that
I
was
going
to
limit
a
session
to
only
covert
related
bills.
So
I
think
this
is
important
and
that's
why
I'm
bringing
it
to
your
attention
and
looking
at
senate
file
1019
you'll
see
that
it's
a
narrowly
crafted
bill.
Titled
wyoming
gaming,
commission,
scrivener's,
error
correction
and
there
are
some
findings
and
this
will
be
important.
J
I
know
we
don't
normally
do
findings,
but
we
want
to
be
clear
and
at
least
have
in
some
referenced
area
what
our
intent
was
in
passing
this
legislation
section
two
you'll
see
that
the
bill
will
be
amended
to
say
that
in
the
repealer
that
we
did
in
senate
file
56
that
we
only
intended
to
repeal
section
one
and
that
the
rest
remains
intact.
J
So
the
reason
we're
bringing
this
to
you
so
you're
aware
committee
members
is
we
as
a
travel,
recreation,
wildlife
and
cultural
resources
committee
we
met.
Yesterday
we
discussed
the
scrivener's
error.
It
did
have
unanimous
support
in
our
committee.
J
Our
goal
is
for
it
to
move
quickly
and
not
be
used
as
a
vehicle
for
any
substantive
policy
changes
in
the
gaming
world
and
again
the
reason
we're
bringing
it
to
you
in
the
special
session
is
because
we
do
see
it
as
being
an
urgent
issue
in
order
to
protect
our
law
enforcement
personnel
that
work
with
the
commission.
So
with
that,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
We
passed
this
then
section,
one
is
repealed
and
I
don't
see
anything
about
peace
officers
in
section
one.
It's
we're
getting
rid
of
a
a
provision
that
the
amusement
game
show
a
game.
They
have
not
more
than
three
dollars
that
sort
of
thing
and
that's
that's.
The
intent
is
to
get
rid
of
those,
and
I
I
don't
see
the
law
enforcement
implication.
Maybe
I'm
missing
something
totally
here.
Thank.
J
J
as
we
started
collecting
that
information
and
understanding
who
the
operators
were,
who
the
establishment
owners
were
all
of
that
information.
We
did
get
a
request
from
industry
wanting
to
make
the
gaming
commission
permanent
and
also
allowing
for
permanent
authorization
for
these
games
to
exist
in
the
state
of
wyoming
and
so
senate
file,
56,
codified,
section
1
of
house
bill
171.
J
all
of
the
provisions
that
you'll
see
on
page
one
page,
two
page,
three
page,
four
and
half
of
page
five
were
contained
in
senate
file,
56,
which
we
passed
this
last
session.
Those
provisions
were
subject
to
some
additional
amendments,
but
by
and
large
those
concepts
are
codified
now
in
the
green
books.
J
So
in
working
on
senate
file
56,
we
intended
to
repeal
section
1,
because
we
are
already
codifying
that
language,
but
the
repealer,
instead
of
only
repealing
section,
one
repealed
everything.
So
that's
where
you'll
see
section
two
beginning
on
page
five
and
then
moving
on
to
page
six.
That's
where
you'll
see
the
definition
of
peace
officer
and
law
enforcement,
and
that's
been-
probably,
I
guess
my
opinion,
the
most
significant
part
of
the
error,
and
it
really
was
a
drafting
error
and
you
know.
J
C
Mr
chairman,
so
this
enrolled
act,
95
is
in
fact
chapter
114
section
one
correct.
C
J
Mr,
mr
chairman,
one
more
comment:
one
of
the
other
provisions
that
would
be
important
for
senator
senator
case's
knowledge
is
the
house
bill,
171
added
two
positions
to
the
wyoming
gaming
commission:
a
law
enforcement
rep
as
well
as
someone
from
one
of
the
tribes,
a
tribal
member
rep
and
because
of
the
scrivener's
error.
Those
two
members
are
now
no
longer
technically
members
of
the
commission.
J
The
governor
has
invited
them
to
participate
as
advisors
on
that
commission,
but
they
no
longer
have
voting
rights,
and
so
we've
got
a
number
of
issues.
I
think
that
the
commit
the
gaming
commission
anticipates
on
its
horizon.
I
think
the
intent
was
to
allow
that
tribal
rep
to
have
a
vote
and
so
again
we're
just
trying
to
clean
up
this
error
and
allow
those
people
to
have
the
vote
that
they
were
intended
to
have.
B
L
B
Boy,
thank
you.
We're
adjourned,
see
everyone.