►
From YouTube: House Judiciary Meeting, October 26, 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
C
A
D
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
I
bring
you
house
bill
1002
and
ask
for
your
favorable
consideration
house
bill.
1002
is
designed
to
push
back
against
federal
vaccination
mandates
through
the
bill's
finding
it
asserts
the
citizens
of
states
have
certain
rights
under
the
u.s
constitution,
the
wyoming
constitution
and
under
wyoming
statute.
D
The
bill
forbids
a
public
entity
from
enforcing
any
federal
covet
19
vaccine
mandate
until
all
challenges
have
been
exhausted
in
the
federal
court
system.
Bill
gives
the
attorney
general,
with
consent
of
the
governor,
the
authority
to
initiate
or
participate
in
litigation
to
resist
coba
19
vaccination
mandates.
Finally,
the
bill
appropriates
1
million
to
the
governor's
office
for
the
purpose
of
fighting
federal
copa,
19
vaccination
mandates
and,
mr
chairman
I'll,
walk
you
through
the
bill.
D
Mr
chairman,
if
you
go
to
page
one
section,
one
is
the
findings.
I'm
not
going
to
read
all
the
findings
I'll
just
hit.
My
highlights
you
go
on
to
page
three
romanette
six.
It
says
countless
wyoming
citizens
fair,
losing
their
livelihoods
because
they
object
to
receiving
a
covenant.
Teen
vaccination
for
reasons
of
personal
conscience,
religious
conviction
or
for
medical
reasons,
including
prior
recovery,
from
covet
19
on
to
page
four
romantic.
D
Seven,
the
decision
to
receive
a
vaccination
is
a
personal
decision
and
should
not
be
subject
to
government
intrusion
or
dictate
on
to
on
to
roman
net
nine.
The
tenth
amendment
the
united
states
constitution
provides
that
the
power
is
not
delegated
to
the
united
states
and
the
constitution,
nor
prohibited
by
it
to
the
states
are
reserved
to
the
states
respectively
or
to
the
people
room
net
10
article
1,
section
38
of
the
wyoming
constitution,
provides
that
each
competent
adult
has
the
right
to
make
his
or
her
own
health
care
decisions.
D
Roman
at
11,
through
various
legislative
enactments,
the
legislature
established
its
primacy
over
immunizations
in
all
immunization
laws,
and
regulations
in
wyoming
are
based
on
laws.
The
legislature
has
enacted
roman
f-13
by
imposing
a
covet-19
vaccination
mandate
on
the
people
and
the
businesses
of
wyoming.
The
federal
government's
actions
constitute
an
abridgement
of
both
the
united
states
and
the
wyoming
constitution,
and
then.
D
Thank
you.
Excuse
me,
mr
chairman,
then,
on
to
the
bottom
of
page,
five
is
section
two
and
we
go
into
914
103
and
we
create
new
statute
and
914
103
is
covered.
19
vaccine
mandate,
prohibition,
penalties
and
you'll
see,
starting
in
subsection
a
definitions,
you'll
notice
that
romanette
3
is
public
entity
under
166101a.
D
Romanet
8
and
I
I
thought
I
had
brought
that
with
me.
Let
me
see
here
just
a
second
okay,
so,
mr
chairman,
that
definition
is
public
entity
means
the
state
of
wyoming,
any
state
office
board,
council,
commission,
separate
operating
agency,
department,
institution
or
other
instrumentality
or
operating
unit
of
the
state,
including
the
university
of
wyoming,
any
political
subdivision
of
the
state,
any
county
city,
town,
school
district,
community
college
district
or
any
public
corporation
of
the
state.
So
it's
a
pretty
broad
expansive
definition
of
public
entity.
D
Mr
chairman,
we
go
on
to
subsection
b.
No
public
entity
shall
enforce
any
mandate
or
standard
of
the
federal
government,
whether
emergency,
temporary
or
permanent.
That
requires
an
employer
to
ensure
or
mandate
that
an
employee
shall
receive
a
covet.
19
vaccination
and
the
tell
the
date
that
a
federal
regulation,
rule
or
standard
takes
legal
effect
that
has
the
effect
of
requiring
wyoming
employers
to
comply
with
the
federal
covenant.
D
19
vaccination
mandate,
mandate
and
any
challenge
to
the
federal
regulation,
rule
or
standard
in
the
federal
court
system
is
exhausted
so
until
the
until
the
intel
basically
appeal
through
the
court
is
exhausted
and
then
and
then
it
says
the
governor
shall
certify
to
the
secretary
of
state
any
occurrence.
D
Subject
to
this
subsection
subsection
c,
any
person
who
knowingly
and
wilton
violates
subsection
b
of
this
section
shall
be
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor
punishable
by
imprisonment
not
to
exceed
six
months,
a
fine
not
to
exceed
750
or
both
section
3,
basically,
with
the
consent
of
the
governor,
gives
the
attorney
general
office
the
authority
to
initiate
or
participate
in
litigation
section.
Four
appropriates
million
dollars
general
fund
to
the
governor's
office.
D
For
this
legal
effort
and
section
five
is
the
enactment
immediately
upon
completion,
and
so,
mr
chairman,
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
you
know.
So
what
are
the
challenges?
The
bill?
Obviously
the
reason
I'm
bringing
the
bill.
I
think
the
one
thing
we
can
kind
of
do
here
in
this
special
session
is
push
back
on
federal
overreach,
give
kind
of
make
a
statement,
give
the
governor
some
money
to
fight
this
battle
and-
and
I
think
it's
probably
less
controversial,
but
what
this
bill
also
does.
D
If
you
go
to
page
six
and
you
start
on
the
very
line
23,
if
our,
if
they
all
line
up
with
you
and
and
it's
and
it
you
start
with
the
word
and
and
any
challenge.
D
So
what
this
basically
says
is
that
that
a
public
entity
can
enforce
a
federal
covert
vaccine
rule
until
any
challenge
is
exhausted
in
the
court
system,
so
why
it
sounds
good
and
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
with
it,
that's
great,
but
there
are.
We
always
wonder
what
are
the
unintended
consequences,
so
I'm
here
to
kind
of
reveal
that-
and
I
think,
there's
people
in
the
audience
that
can
talk
to
that.
So
if
you
wait
that
long
and
it
was
brought
up
to
me
the
idea
of
medicaid
medicare.
D
So
if
you
say
that
you
know
whoever
you
can't
implement
your
your
your
basically
your
mandate,
the
covet
you
can't
we
we're
gonna,
tell
an
entity,
you
can't
require
vaccination
and
the
federal
government
says
we
are
there's
a
court
case.
It's
not
stayed.
The
court
system
is
going
up
going
forward,
but
if
the
rule
is
not
stayed
then
then
for
example,
if
if
if
they
didn't
get
people
they
being
an
entity,
let's
say
it's
a
hospital:
let's
say
it's:
whoever,
if
it's
a
public
hospital
it'd
be
captured
in
this.
D
D
At
the
same
time
time,
the
state
is
required
to
pay
that
I
believe,
and
and
so
we
could
end
up,
perhaps
footing
the
bill
the
whole
bill
and
then
there's
you
know.
Let's
say
it's
and
and
I've
noticed
there's
people
from
the
community
colleges
in
the
back.
But
let's
pick
anybody
any
public
entity
that
has
a
federal
contract.
D
Well,
federal
contracts
are
under
this
same
thing.
If,
if
we
wait
to
a
court,
you
know
if
it's
not
stayed
if
the
rule
or
regulation
is
not
stayed
and
we
tell
people
that
they
can't
vaccinate
at
the
same
time
that
they
can't
force
vaccinations
at
the
same
time
that
then
they
could
be
subject
not
to
getting
that
money.
Now
now
that
may
be
okay,
it
may
not
put
the
coffers
of
the
state
of
wyoming
in
jeopardy,
but
it
could
too.
D
So
I
just
think
there's
things
there
you
have
to
think
about
and
then
I'm
not
a
big
penalty
guy,
and
so
I
think,
as
you
look
at
the
penalty,
you
need
to
decide
whether
that's
something
that's
worth
pursuing
or
not.
D
E
Representatives
lawrencer
thanks,
maybe.
A
E
Question
at
a
time
so
representative
summers,
county
public
hospital,
would
I
be
correct
that
if
they
defy
this,
all
they
have
to
do
is
pay
750,
because
a
person
would
therefore
be
the
entity
under
our
laws
and
it's
a
one-time
fee.
I
mean
that's
the
only
teeth
in
this
bill
to
follow,
not
following
the
federal
guidance
if
they
enforce
that
a
public
entity
being
a
community
college
or
you
know
a
city
tell
me
about
the
penalties
that
that
doesn't
seem
like
enough
and
most
municipalities,
governments
would
say:
750
okay,
majority
floor
leader.
A
Big
penalty
in
here
for
a
reason,
but
just
to
clarify
that
representative
summers
that
subsection
c
on
page
seven,
I
think
representatives
answers
what
you're
referring
to
that.
That
is.
If
the
court
assessed
the
fine
which
obviously
it
couldn't
jail,
the
hospital
is
what
you're
implying,
because
it's
the
discretion
of
the
court
to
impose
the
six
months
in
jail
for
the
hospital
or
whomever
right
or
the
750.
So
it's
not
a
civil
finance,
I'm
just
being
clear
clear
on
the
record:
it's
not
civil,
fine!
E
I
think,
mr
chairman,
you
know.
Historically,
we
don't
do
a
lot
of
legislative
finding
for
one
of
the
few
states
that
is
historically,
we
don't
put
findings
and
bills.
This
specifically
isn't
going
anywhere
in
codified
statute.
E
So-
and
I
I
guess
the
difficulty
is,
you
know
some
word
choices
in
here
I
might
not
agree
with,
but
because
it
doesn't
go
into
codified
statute,
I'm
it's
not
worth,
I
think,
being
nitpicky
about,
but
maybe
just
some
ex
explanation
on
is
this
any
kind
of
boilerplate
language
did
lso
come
up
with
these
findings,
or
how
did
we
come
up
with?
What's
that
night?
14
findings
that
you
came
up
with?
Are
they
from
any
type
of
federal
action?
Other
states
are
doing
this.
Just
more
information.
D
Majority
four
leader
summers,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
so
yeah
kind
of
tasked
lso
to
you
know,
take
a
look
at.
You
know
what
might
be
violated
by
the
federal
mandate,
and
so
what
could
we
put
in
here
that
would
kind
of
highlight
what
we
feel
might
be
violated
and
then
the
co-sponsor
on
the
other
side
had,
I
believe,
the
language
on
my
senate
cohort
the
language
on
page
5
line
14..
D
That
was
that
was
his
language
and
we
kind
of
he
had
a
let's
say
there
was
more.
There
was
some.
You
know
there
was
give
and
take.
As
you
know,
when
you
have
a
co-sponsor,
there's
give
and
take
on
on
what's
in
the
bill
and
and
that's
the
piece
that
out
of
what
he
had
that
I
agreed
with
the
rest
were
basically
yeah.
Just
we
just
asked
lso
for
a
product.
E
D
E
E
Let
me
I'm
going
to
be
careful.
A
city
municipality.
Some
public
entity
wanted
to
enforce
a
vaccine
mandate
under
this
language
as
soon
as
the
federal
government
does
so
they
would
be
criminalized
so
right
now
the
federal
government
doesn't
have
a
penalty
out
there.
So
a
private
like
a
public
hospital
or
community
college
or
city,
did
put
that
vaccination
mandate
into
effect
with
their
own
representatives.
E
That
is
okay
up
until
this
would
take
legal
effect
and
then,
after
the
fact,
we'd
be
requiring
them
to
take
a
punishment,
because
then
they
would
have
regulations
that
this
bill
would
say
are
no
longer
allowed.
I
guess
that's
my
worry.
Do
you
read
it
that
way
that,
before
the
rule
goes
into
effect
right
now,
a
city
county
hospital
could
do
a
mandate
which,
as
you
know,
there
are
some
employers
out
there
that
are
public
closet
entities
that
are
doing
this.
E
They
could
still
do
it
under
this
bill
up
until
the
federal
government
allowed
that
standardic
legal
effect,
and
do
you
see
that
as
a
problem
majority
floor
leader
summers,
mr.
D
Chairman
are
they
public
entities
one
and
because
I'm
I
might
be
mistaken
on
this,
but
I
thought-
and
I
don't
know
how
far
that
maybe
it
was
just
agencies
that
the
governor
had
his
executive
order
on.
I
think
he
did
have
an
executive
order.
One
time,
so
I
don't
know
that's
a
good
question
can't
answer
that
one.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
majority,
four
related
thanks.
So
a
couple
questions,
so
you
did.
You
outlined
the
concern
with
medicaid
and
medicare
you
allowing
the
concern
with
federal
contracts.
F
D
F
One
more
question:
so
I'm
trying
to
weigh
how
many
people
this
would
affect
if
every
state
agency,
if
every
public
entity
decided
to
enforce
this
law-
and
you
know
I'm
sure,
we'll
we'll
hear
from
a
couple
of
folks
soon.
But
do
you
have
a
sense
of
how
many
people
are
enrolled
under
medicaid
and
medicare
or
or
work
under
a
federal
contract.
A
F
Go
ahead
representative.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
forgot
about
this,
so
mr
majority
floor
leader
in
section
three,
you
give.
We
give
permission
essentially
to
the
attorney
general
to
initiate
or
participate
in
litigation.
Is
this
anything
different
than
what
we
have
in
the
status
quo
right
now,.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
summers.
You
said
you're,
not
a
fan
of
penalties,
so
under
the
subsection
c
of
section
two,
given
the
choice
between
a
civil
penalty
and
a
criminal
penalty
which
which
would
be
a
better
fit
for
this
bill,
the
criminal
penalty
that
you
currently
have.
D
Agency
so,
mr
chairman,
I
asked
that
when
this
bill
was
being
drafted
and
it
was
my
understanding
there
was
some
challenge
with
it-
maybe
not
with
a
civil
penalty,
attaching
it
to
an
entity,
but
there
was,
on
the
you
know,
attaching
a
criminal
penalty
to
a
public
entity.
So
you
guys
probably
know
that
law
better
than
I
do.
A
Because
if
there
was
a
civil
penalty
or
even
under
the
criminal
penalty,
if
the,
if
a
set
court
sentencing
court
assessed
that
penalty,
where
would
it
come
from?
Would
it
come
so?
Let's
say
it
was
applied
to
the
university
university
of
wyoming,
because.
A
Under
the
public
entity
definition
correct,
then
it
would
come
from
their
budget
or
we
would
backfill
it
from
our
general
fund.
So.
D
D
So,
mr
chairman,
or
have
we
already
allocated
all
those
funds?
Mr
chairman,
to
my
knowledge,
the
governor's
not
even
come
out
with
his
budget,
which
would
include
our
dollars
and
certainly
j
ac
has
not
act.
You
know
acted
on
anything
so
and
you'll
see
other
bills
in
this
special
session
that
do
try
to
appropriate
and
there's
some
common
language
out
there
that
lso
has
to
to
appropriate
arpa
dollars.
D
So,
okay,
of
course,
mr
chairman
yeah,
of
course
you
have
to
arpa
dollars,
can
only
be
used
for
certain
things,
so
you
have
to
decide
what
it
can
be
used
for
and
whether
it's
an
appropriate
spend
on
on
arpa
dollars.
A
The
the
any
challenge
portion
of
subsection
b-
and
I
think
you
spoke
to
this
in
your
opening
comments-
and
that's
if
I
understand
that
right-
that's
the
portion
of
subsection
b
that
could
tie
up
medicare
medicaid
dollars
because
if,
let's
say
it's
a
hospital
district,
for
example
that
chooses
it's
chooses
to
litigate
the
issue
or
the
issue
and
the
issues
being
litigated
that
could
last
years
right,
then
they
may
lose
federal,
federal
dollars
on
medicaid
and
medicare
during
that
lawsuit.
That's
your!
I
think,
that's
what
you
stated
in
the
mr.
D
Chairman
that
would
be
my
concern.
Ultimately
you're
right,
it's
a
small
fine.
So
there's
no,
but
but
also
do
you
want
to
put
a
public
entity
into
the
business
of
violating
the
law.
You
know
if
you're
just
going
to
set
up
a
law,
you
know
they're
going
to
ignore
because
it's
a
750
fine,
it's
probably
not
a
very
good
law
to
begin
with.
A
I
mean
it
doesn't
take
much
to
come
up
with
one
more
suit,
one
more
claim
one
more
whatever,
and
so
I
I
wonder
if
that
in
you
know
what
what
type
of
what
type
of
system
did
you
envision,
exhausting
all
measures
in
the
federal
court
before
the
second
part
can
happen
where
the
governor
has
to
come
in
and
officially
say,
yep
everything's
been
done.
That
could
be
done.
I
wonder
if
that's
even
possible
to
exit
to
exhaust
all
efforts
in
a.
D
A
Yeah,
especially
if
the
entity
had
I
mean
depends
on
the
connections.
I
could
be
in
multiple
courts,
potentially
even
in
wyoming,
but
yeah.
If
I've
got
substantial
connections
in
other
jurisdictions,
I
may
I
may
relitigate
it,
and
I
only
have
to
change
certain
things
in
the
lawsuit
to
entertain
a
new
suit.
That's
not
barred
under
a
previous
suit
if
it
was
ever
even
barred.
A
How
important
is
that
provision
to
making
your
bill
work?
How
important
is
it
that
it
be
exhausted.
D
Mr
chairman,
so
I've
never
been
one
to
have
a
bill
out
there
that
has
tons
of
unintended
consequences.
So
I
think,
as
you
hear
debate,
if
there's
tons
of
unintended
consequences,
then
it's
your
job
as
this
committee
to
reel
that
in
or
you
can
just
go.
You
know
it's
a
small
fine
depends
on
what
kind
of
statement
you
all
want
to
make
representatives
lancer.
E
Can
you
think
of
any
other
instance
in
our
laws
where
we
would
have
a
taxpayer-funded
entity
being
assessed
a
civil
or
criminal
fine
which
they'd
be
paying
with
taxpayer
dollars,
and
I
just
can't
think
of
any
maybe
some
of
the
other
attorneys
can
I
just
I'm
not
sure
I
know
of
any
other
place
in
our
statutes
where
we
and
we'd
have
a
civil
or
criminal
fine
on
a
taxpayer-funded
entity,
because
that
would
ultimately
hurt
ourselves
or
that
district's
taxpayers
if
some
craig
was
grabbing
the
mic.
Next
to
me,.
G
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair
majority,
floor
leader.
I
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
address
a
question
that
the
chairman
just
brought
up
saying
that
you
know
it
could
be
lengthy,
of
course,
that
we're
talking
about
too,
that
this
delays
the
mandate.
H
But
but
I
guess
my
my
question
is:
isn't
that
the
point
is
not
what
you're
kind
of
trying
to
get
at
with
this,
which
is
saying
that
our
state
public
entities
won't
enforce
the
mandate
until
it's
fully
and
finally
adjudicated
that
what
the
federal
government
is
doing
is
legal
and
until
then
this
law
says
no
state
mandate.
I
mean
isn't
that
exactly
what
you're
trying
to
do.
D
D
You
know
what
what
ultimately
would
happen
if
this
went
into
effect
and
and
then
but
yes,
you're
right,
that's
it
was
intended
that
way.
We
want
to
see
all
of.
We
want
to
see
all
the
process
exhausted
before
we
put
the
rule
in
place.
But
what
are
what?
What's
the
trade-off?
What's
going
to
happen?
D
If
we
do
that
and
will
we
force
basically
force
public
entities
to
violate
a
law,
we
wrote
to
get
the
money
that
they
or
are
they
going
to
just
comply
and
then
we
eat
we,
the
state
of
wyoming
eats
the
medicaid
and
medicare
dollars.
So
you
know
I
just
think
there's
you
know.
I
think
you
just
have
to
think
those
things
through.
I
I
think,
mr
chairman
representative
summers,
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that
the
attorney
general's
office
would
typically
is
the
defense
for
a
state
agency.
So
if
an
agency
is
sued
or
goes
through
litigation,
the
ag's
office
represents
or
helps
in
their
litigation.
D
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
So
I
guess
what
my
concern
is
is
that
if
the
ag's
office
is
def
has
to
defend
a
state
agency
in
litigation,
but
then
they
are
also
supposed
to
initiate
essentially
prosecution.
How
do
we
account
for
that
conflict
of
what
the
ag's
role
is?
Are
they
defending
or
are
they
prosecuting.
A
A
A
A
D
Mr
chairman,
I've
never
served
on
judiciary,
I'm
a
farmer.
So
what
I'm
going
to
say,
though,
is
I
know
that
the
court
system
has
figured
all
these
things
out
and
I'm
sure
that's
not
an
impediment
to
this
bill.
G
Mr
chairman
majority
floor
leader
summers
and
this
might
be
a
question
better
directed
to
the
department
of
health
when
we
get
there,
but
just
throwing
this
out
there
do.
We
know
a
timeline
on,
for
example,
and
I'm
talking
about
the
clause
at
the
bottom
of
page
six
that
starts
with
and
any
challenge
to
the
federal
regulation,
rule
or
standard
in
the
federal
court
system.
Exhausted
is
exhausted.
G
G
Would
we
have
time
to
act
upon
that
and
buy
ourselves
time,
which
is,
I
think
you
know
looting
back
to
what
representative
oakley
said
earlier,
is
rarely
what
we're
trying
to
do
here.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair
majority,
floor
leader
summers.
I
I
to
go
back
to
this
discussion
of
the
penalties,
which
I
think
is
certainly
problematic.
I
I
just
can't
wrap
my
head
around
quite
what
works
here,
but
I
did
want
to
throw
out.
Forgive
it's
really,
not
a
question.
I
guess,
or
perhaps
I
could
pose
it
as
one,
but
looking
at
page
six,
it
says
no
entity
shall
require
that
requires
an
employer
to
insure
or
mandate
that
unemployee
and
I
guess
what
I'm
getting
at
there
is
that
singular.
H
H
Again,
that's
just
a
thought
I
mean.
Is
that
what
you
would
understand?
I
guess
representative
summers.
D
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
like
the
penalty
piece
that
was
a
that
was
an
agreement
with
my
co-sponsor.
A
If
we
take
away
the
penalty
majority
of
florida
summers,
then
what
induces
the
agency
you
follow.
The
statute
I
mean
we,
so
this
is
a.
This
is
a
interesting
topic
of
agencies
following
statutes
for
the
judiciary
committee,
because
we
just
held
a
committee
meeting
where
an
agency
testified
before
us
that
for
two
decades
they
have
purposefully
not
followed
one
of
our
statutes,
we're
going
to
fix
that
statute,
but
there's
no
teeth
in
that
statue.
So
there
was
nothing
that
there
was
nothing
that
automatically
occurred
over
those
two
decades.
So
it's
kind
of
a
little
it's.
D
Mr
chairman,
and
I'm
a
naive
guy,
but
I
try
to
follow
the
law.
I
would
hope
our
agencies
would
try
to
follow
the
law.
You
know.
Ultimately,
you
can
come
back
and
hammer
them.
If
you
don't
like
the
way,
they've
done
it,
and
I
would
you
know
I
would
assume
if
you
went
back
and
looked
it'd,
be
interesting
in
the
instance
that
you
provided.
D
A
We
appreciate
you-
and
I
I'm
sure,
we've
got
folks
in
the
who
want
to
testify
on
this
bill
that
will
probably
provide
greater
insight
to
some
of
the
questions.
We've
had
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
go
straight
to
the
department
of
health,
because
you
can
certainly
jump
in
with
anything.
You're
gonna
want
to
talk
about
stefan,
but
I
know
the
primary
question
on
why
I
asked
you
to
come
over
in
consultation
with
the
majority
floor
leader
and
some
of
the
conversation
we've
had
on
that
subsection
b.
A
K
K
Just
by
way
of
background,
I
think
we're
all
talking
about
two
things
here
and-
and
I
know
you
all
know
this-
but
just
to
reiterate
with
the
vaccine
mandates
that
we
all
know
are
are
coming
or
impending
from
the
federal
government
kind
of
two
tracks
there,
one
on
the
large
or
employers
with
over
100
employees,
on
the
osha
side,
where
we
anticipate
rules
coming
out
there
and
one
on
the
centers
for
medicare
and
medicaid
services,
which
we
call
cms,
that
regulates
any
healthcare
provider
that
that
treats
medicare
or
medicaid
clients
and
receives
reimbursement
from
the
federal
government
in
the
medicare
sense
and
from
the
state
and
federal
government
on
the
medicaid
side,
which
is
a
joint
program.
K
I'll
be
talking
about
this.
These
impending
cms
rules
for
the
covet
19
vaccine
mandate
that
we
anticipate
is
coming.
We
don't
know
to
representatives
wanted
or
chairman
olson's
point.
I
can't
remember
who
made
it.
We
are
awaiting
those
rules,
so
there's
a
lot
of
details
with
how
it
will
be
enforced.
What
the
penalties
will
be,
what
the
timelines
will
be
that,
unfortunately,
I
can't
answer
today.
K
What
we
anticipate,
though,
is
that
for
certain
types
of
medicaid
and
medicare
providers,
for
example,
hospitals,
nursing
homes,
other
types
of
congregate
care
providers,
potentially
those
that
serve
the
developmentally
disabled,
could
be
included
here,
that
there
will
likely
be
some
sort
of
covid19
vaccine
mandate
again,
don't
know
all
of
the
rules,
yet
that
will
have
to
be
abided
by
at
some
point
in
time
for
that
provider
to
receive
those
federal
funds
either
through
medicare
or
medicaid.
K
The
the
issue
of
how
that
would
be
enforced
is,
I
think,
very
important
in
the
context
of
house
bill
1002
here
with
regards
to
public
entities.
Obviously
publicly
owned
hospitals
or
nursing
homes
would
potentially
be
impacted
by
this
bill
and,
as
you've
been
discussing,
would
have
a
choice.
Do
we
follow
the
state
law
if
this
were
to
pass
or
do
we
follow
a
federal
law
or
federal
rule
and
regulation
for
a
vaccine
mandate
if,
when
that
comes
out?
K
In
addition,
the
way
that
would
likely
be
enforced
from
the
federal
government
is
really
through
the
department
of
health,
which
would
be
a
public
entity
as
defined
under
under
this
bill.
The
way
that
that
works,
members
of
the
committee
is
essentially
through
the
certification
process,
where
we,
as
the
department
of
health
in
one
of
our
programs,
called
the
office
of
healthcare
licensing
and
survey.
K
What
I
anticipate
is
that
this
copic
19
vaccine
mandate
from
cms
will
be
considered
a
condition
of
participation
in
both
of
those
programs
medicare
and
medicaid,
typically
enforced
again
by
our
office
of
healthcare,
licensing
and
survey.
We
enforce
and
do
surveys
on
health
care
facilities
to
assess
those
conditions
of
participation
and
if
they
are
met,
there
are
a
lot
of
different
conditions,
conditions
of
participation
in
these
programs
and
we
on
behalf
of
cms
review
survey
and
enforce
those.
K
That's
how
I
anticipate
this
will
be
enforced
through
the
federal
government
and
again
as
a
public
entity
defined
here.
Our
office
of
healthcare,
licensing
and
survey
would
have
a
choice.
Do
we
abide
by
this
state
statute
if
this
were
to
pass
and
do
that
certification
or
decertification
work,
or
do
we
not?
K
That's
the
real
rub
here.
Members
of
the
committee
is
as
a
majority
floor
leader
was
speaking
out.
Speaking
of
earlier
that
facilities
really
face
a
challenge
of
could
they
continue
to
receive
medicare
and
medicaid
funds
if
they
chose
to
follow
this
state
statute,
if
it
were
to
pass?
Even
if
we
weren't
doing
that
certification
work
to
say
to
the
feds
nursing
home,
a
and
nursing
home
b
are
not
complying
with
the
vaccine
mandate,
we
decertify
them
as
a
provider.
K
K
Mr
chairman,
on
the
medicaid
side,
which
the
department
of
health
oversees,
we
really
don't
have
involvement
on
medicare,
but
I
wanted
to
address
a
few
questions
earlier
and
and
just
in
general
make
it
known
that
providers
across
the
state
of
wyoming,
including
hospitals,
nursing
homes
and
other
other
types
of
providers,
often
depend
very,
very
heavily
on
medicare,
reimbursements
and
medicaid
reimbursements.
K
Sometimes
the
majority
of
the
business
are
subsumed
within
those
two
categories
of
reimbursement:
happy
to
provide
the
committee,
a
breakdown
of
the
number
of
facilities
that
we
anticipate
would
be
subject
to
a
mandate
like
this.
I
don't
have
those
numbers
in
front
of
me,
and
certainly
the
number
of
people
served
just
for
your
reference.
Wyoming
medicaid
serves
approximately
65
to
70
000
individuals
on
a
yearly
on
a
yearly
basis
in
some
in
some
form
or
fashion.
So
that
would
be
the
essentially
the
number
of
people
that
could
in
some
way
be
impacted.
K
In
conclusion,
I
think
this
bill
and
the
dynamic
with
what
we
anticipate
to
be
federal
rules
coming
on
the
cms
vaccine
mandate
would
primarily
be
the
impacts,
would
be
directed
primarily
at
our
facilities
and
in
this
bill,
probably
especially
the
publicly
owned
facilities
or
public
entities
and
then
our
enforcement
as
a
public
entity
to
do
that
certification
or
de-certification
work.
Mr
chairman,
I
know
that
was
a
lot
members
of
the
committee
happy
to
stand
for
any
additional
questions.
L
K
Total,
mr
chairman
representative
washit,
it
varies
from
year
to
year,
but
in
ballpark
figures
it's
in
the
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
on
a
yearly
basis
from
the
federal
government.
Our
biennial
budget
in
the
medicaid
program,
writ
large
for
all
of
our
medicaid
programs
and
services,
is
about
1.3
1.4
billion
on
a
two-year
budget
cycle.
Typically,
our
federal
match
and
state
matches
a
50-50
split
on
services.
L
K
K
I
think
if
the
state
made
a
policy
decision
to
make
providers
whole
who
complied
with
a
state
law
like
this,
as
opposed
to
a
federal
mandate,
that
the
real
question
would
be,
how
long
would
that
period
be
and
to
chairman
olson
olson's
point
earlier?
Those
legal
timelines
are
difficult
for
me
to
estimate
for,
for
this
committee
or
others
of
how
long
of
a
challenge
would
take.
But
the
the
costs
of
on
the
medicaid
side
are
the
numbers.
K
I
gave
you
on
the
medicare
side
and
that
grows
even
larger
for
some
types
of
facilities
like
hospitals
and
nursing
homes.
So
it
would
be
a
significant
in
investment
and
then
that
timeline
would
be
certainly
in
question.
Third,
would
the
federal
government
if
facilities
ultimately
came
into
compliance
after
the
courts,
decided
the
issue?
Would
they
be
allowed
to
retroactively
bill?
It's
it's
difficult
to
say
at
this
time.
A
Stefan,
I'm
thinking
about
the
the
question
of
the
state
backfilling
that
or
rather
taking
on
that
expensive
of
medicaid.
In
that
event,
and
I'm
remembering
back
to
the
last
session
when
we
had
a
bill
on
medicaid
expansion,
maybe
maybe
you'll
recall
we
when
we
were
paying
for
our
match,
do
you
recall
if
we
were
paying
for
marpa
dollars?
Is
that
that's
or
were
we
paying
for
our
own
general
fund.
K
Mr
chairman,
in
terms
of
medicaid
expansion,
wyoming
has
not
elected
to
move
forward
with
that
we
do
have
various
match
rates
depending
on
the
service.
For
example,
technology
investments
are
matched
generally
at
90
percent
or
75
for
maintenance.
Most
services
for
medicaid
clients
in
wyoming
are
a
50
50
split
between
the
state
and
the
federal
government
right,
but.
K
Back
to
the
draft
bill,
we
had,
I
feel
like
we
found
a
way
to
cover
our
match
through
arpa
dollars.
Mr
chairman
you're
right
right
now
through
the
arpa
legislation.
If
states
elect
to
expand
medicaid
per
the
affordable
care
act,
there
is
an
incentive
through
arpa
to
increase
the
state's
match
until
wyoming
elects
to
do
that,
we
obviously
don't
don't
receive
that.
A
K
K
K
On
the
medicaid
side,
it
would
be
again
a
significant
investment
of
of
state
dollars
to
provide
what
was
federal
match,
but
I
want
to
be
clear
to
the
to
the
committee,
if
I
may,
mr
chairman,
that
sure,
through
you
know
again,
there's
no
trigger
if
this
were
to
go
forward
that
this,
that
the
medicaid
program
would
in
essence
be
on
the
hook
for
those
dollars
that
are
no
longer
coming
in
and
subs
and
reimbursing
providers.
K
K
We
have
the
technology
and
the
claims
processing
to
do
it,
but
it
would
be
something
that
standing
up
in
in
short
order,
would
be
a
challenge,
something
that
we
could
certainly
talk
through,
but
it
would
be
a
different
way
of
of
conducting
business,
largely
in
medicaid
right
there's
a
lot
that.
A
Has
to
happen
there,
that's
right!
Your
point
is
very
critical
here,
there's
no
automatic
trigger
all
the
politics
of
dc
would
have
to
come
into
play
right
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
whether
basically
dc
chooses
to
decertify
a
facility
in
wyoming
is
a
pretty
big
decision
to
decide
that
that
community
doesn't
have
services
anymore.
That's
both
policy
decision
and,
frankly,
a
political
decision
that
that
I
don't
know
if,
if
that's
an
automatic
given
depending
on
the
population,
that
loses
services-
and
this
big
question,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
in.
K
Addition
to
that
again,
the
application
or
the
implementation
of
the
financial
penalties
remains
to
be
seen.
What
that
looks
like,
for
example,
in
in
nursing
homes
and
certain
types
of
facilities
it
could
be
levied
as
a
civil
monetary
penalty
from
cms
or
the
federal
government.
You
know,
maybe
not
the
full
amount
of
funding,
but
maybe
in
hospitals
is
a
de-certified
provider.
You
know
no
longer
able
to
bill
for
medicare
services.
K
E
Oh
a
couple
so
just
generally
any
further
guidance
from
the
federal
government
anything
you've
heard
about
when
rules
might
be
published
and
maybe
some
follow-up
if
they
are
even
under
emergency
rules,
I'm
assuming
we
get
30
days
like
every
other
payment
at
minimum.
I
can't
imagine
they'd
be
violating
too
many
current
federal
laws,
but
overall,
like
1.2
billion
of
biennium.
E
If
the
feds
took
it,
you
know
and
eliminated
that
funding
wyoming
would
be
on
the
hook
to
make
up
for
potentially
or
everyone
who
gets
cms
money,
quits
taking
medicaid
and
medicare
patients,
either
of
which
would
be,
I
mean
devastating
beyond.
I
think
anything
we
can
imagine,
but
that
sounds
right.
I
mean
we're
risking
1.2
billion
of
biennium.
Potentially
by
making
our
largest
providers,
hospitals
primarily
decide
whether
or
not
to
comply
with
the
federal
government
or
our
state
law.
K
Mr
chairman,
I
representative,
to
to
clarify
our
full
budget
for
medicaid
on
a
two-year
cycle
is
about
1.4
billion
dollars
out
of
the
department
of
health,
so
on
an
annual
basis.
If
you
take
that
as
roughly
a
50-50
match,
you
know
two
years
that
would
be
700
million
state
funds.
A
Is
I
know
you
don't
have
a
crystal
ball,
but
you're
obviously
tracking
this
much
in
terms
of
the
track
two
as
I'll
put
it,
the
cms
rules,
you're
tracking
them
heavily.
Obviously,
if
would
it
you
know
just
if
if
these
regulations
were
to
come
out,
I
mean
I
feel
like
you'd
have
a
pretty
good
idea
if
they,
if
we
thought
they
were
coming
out
next
week,
they're,
probably
30
60
90
days
away.
K
Right,
mr
chairman,
again,
don't
have
the
crystal
ball.
We
anticipated
the
rules
or
have
been
anticipating
the
rules
for
cms
to
come
out
this
month.
Now
that
we're
in
the
last
week
of
october.
I
think
that
might
not
happen.
So.
I've
been
telling
folks
for
the
past
month
end
of
october
early
november.
I
think
we're
now
in
the
hopefully
in
the
early
november
stage,
so
that
we
can
at
least
see
the
rules.
K
I
don't
know
what
the
public
comment
period,
if
any
that
that
will
be
allowed.
Typically
on
some
items
that
cms
does
in
rule
making
process.
It
is
a
30-day
public
comment
period,
sometimes
45,
sometimes
60..
I've
heard-
and
I
think
folks
in
the
audience
here
could
probably
testify
to
their
conversations
and
their
associations.
K
I've
heard
both
that
there
will
not
be
a
public
comment
period
and
I've
heard
that
there
will
be
so
it
again.
Policy
by
press
release
is
is
tough
to
deal
with
sometimes
from
the
federal
government.
But
that's
where
we've
been
since
september.
A
So
then,
I
feel,
like
you
know,
there's
obviously
two
sides
to
this
approach
and
we've
been
debating
it
all
day,
but
we
could
sit
idle,
wait
for
a
regulation.
Officially
come
out.
Public
comment
period
passes,
it
goes
into
effect
and
we're
in
session
in
february,
and
then
we
respond
to
it.
Conversely,
we
could
pass.
A
You
know,
house
bill,
1002
chief
executive
signs,
it
into
law
regulation
comes
out
a
month
from
now
comment.
Period
goes
into
effect,
we're
back
in
session
in
february,
where
we
can
assess
what
that
regulation
impact
is
on
the
law
that
we
just
passed
and
on
our
facilities.
So
I
mean
I
I
I
guess
my
question
would
be
if
we
were
to
pass
this
bill
in
the
law
and
facilities
were
to
to
decide
and
actually
yeah,
okay,
there's
not
an
effective
date.
It's
just
going
to
go.
A
K
Mr
chairman
difficult
question
to
answer,
and
I
want
to
be
conservative
here
and
say
that
yes,
there
potentially
could
be
a
short-term
impact
depending
on
that
timing.
If,
if
we
see
the
federal
rules
come
out
and
there's
a
limited
or
short
public
comment
period,
and
let's
say
for
the
sake
of
discussion,
the
rule
goes
into
effect
on
december
1st,
and
this
statute
is
also
on
on
the
books.
K
K
Do
I
face
a
fine
or
imprisonment
by
doing
our
work,
that
we
normally
do
to
certify
or
decertify
providers
based
on
many
conditions
of
participation
or
not,
and
then
we
would
make
that
decision
as
the
department
of
health
likely,
because
we,
like
our
state
legislature
better
than
our
federal
overlords,
that
we
we
would
comply
with
the
state
law.
But
cms
would
likely
come
in
on
our
behalf
and
do
that
certification
and
decertification
work
for
wyoming
facilities
with
respect
to
the
vaccine
mandate
again
those
facilities
subject
to
these
that
receive
these
medicare
and
medicaid
dollars.
K
I
think,
in
the
short
term,
mr
chairman
could
face
more
more
grave,
short-term
consequences.
I
also
don't
want
to
be
hyperbolic
and
oversell
that,
because
I
think
there's
also
a
chance
that
this
rule
making
process
could
be
lengthier
and
and
potentially
this
committee
and
the
legislature
could
have
a
chance
to
re-review
the
legislation,
but
that
is
a
risk.
I
I
think
that
would
that
you'd
be
undertaking
there.
A
K
Mr
chairman,
when
providers
submit
claims
to
us
and
wyoming
medicaid,
I
won't
speak
on
the
medicare
side.
Again,
we
don't
have
involvement
there,
that's
a
strictly
a
federal
program,
but
a
significant
one
for
our
providers.
On
the
medicaid
side,
we
on
average
pay
claims
when
we
receive
them
within
one
to
three
days.
So
it's
it's
relatively
fast
different
provider
types
bill
at
different
frequencies,
so
you
know,
depending
on
their
cost
structure
and
their
balance
sheets.
K
Hospitals
generally,
you
know
submit
claims
more
in
on
monthly
basis,
whereas
you
know
waiver
providers
for
the
developmentally
disabled
they're,
not,
as
you
know,
significant
in
their
daily
cash
flow.
So
they
they
submit
claims
more
often
and
I
think
don't
have
as
much
of
an
ability
to
float.
Essentially,
if
I'm
understanding
kind
of
the
intensity
question.
K
Mr
chairman,
within
variation,
but
yes,
I
think
there's
there's
providers
that
would
be
subject
to
both
the
federal
mandate
and
this
law
that
I
would
fall
in
more
of
a
short-term
billing
cycle
where,
if
they
were
decertified
as
a
medicare,
medicaid
provider
could
face
significant
short-term
financial
challenges.
Okay,.
H
I
better
get
all
my
questions
in.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
guess
my
question
is
just
a
couple
questions
about
certification.
Decertification.
H
K
Mr
chairman,
representative,
oakley
I'll,
add
to
the
layers
of
frustration
that
I'm
putting
on
this
committee.
It
depends
with
conditions
of
participation,
there's
various
ways
that
that
can
work
from
cms
review
and
survey
providers.
If
there's,
if
they
consider
it
an
immediate
jeopardy,
what
we
call
an
ij
tag
for
various
types
of
facilities.
Funding
can
be
withheld
very
quickly.
K
Essentially,
they
can
shut
it
off
the
next
week
and
you
know
a
lot
of
facilities
face
that
when
you
have
serious
life
safety
issues
that
need
to
be
corrected,
or
at
least
they
were
alleged
other
types
of
conditions
of
participation,
you're
right.
There
are
times
where
cms
will
say
on
on
condition
x.
You
have
so
many
days
to
come
into
compliance
or
face
a
financial
penalty
or
face
decertification
and
loss
of
all
of
your
funding.
K
It
really
really
depends
right
now
on
what's
written
to
the
rules,
and
it
also
depends
on
the
provider
type
with
how
any
financial
penalty
or
withholding
of
funds
will
be
assessed.
I
really
truly
wish
I
had
a
better
answer
for
you,
but
until
we
see
it,
I
struggle
to
give
you
my
guess
of
how
that
will
work.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
so
speaking
of
frustration,
probably
you're,
going
to
be
frustrated
with
us
asking
questions
that
you
keep
saying.
I
can't
answer
that,
but,
okay,
I
and-
and
I
know
this
is
naive
sounding,
but
do
you
think
that
there's
any
chance
that
it
would
make
it
more
likely
that
they
wouldn't
decertify
or
take
away
funds
in
recognition
of
of
a
of
a
difficult
situation
like
let's
say
we
passed?
This
didn't
do
a
penalty
for
example,
but
so
they
are
looking
at
competing
laws.
H
Is
there
any
chance
of
them
wanting
these
facilities
to
to
receive
the
needed
funds?
In
essence,
you
know:
could
this
be
helpful
to
them?
As
my
is
my
thought.
K
Mr
chairman
representative,
oakley,
again
all
struggled
to
answer
that
in
terms
of
the
the
game
of
chicken
between
state
law
and
federal
law-
that's
that's
tough!
I
I
will
say,
and
and
it's
clear
that
on
the
federal
side
within
medicare
or
medicaid,
I
think
the
agencies
that
operate
those
programs
want
and
have
an
interest
in
services
being
provided
to
those
clients.
So,
yes,
there
will
be
discussions
again
depending
on
the
provider
type
depending
on
the
population.
Depending
on
the
geographic
region.
K
We
are
required
as
a
medicaid
program
to
provide
access
and
guarantee
certain
levels
of
access
for
our
medicaid
members.
So
if
providers
were
de-certified,
we
would
have
a
lot
of
work
to
do
in
a
rural
frontier
state
like
this
to
find
provision
of
service
for
them
so
that
we
can
guarantee
access,
whether
that
is
on
the
hospital
or
nursing
home
side.
K
Looking
out
of
state
for
providers,
you
know
we
would
have
to
look
at
all
of
those
potentialities
if,
if
something
like
this
were
to
pass
and
if
the
federal
rules
come
out
and
are
something
similar
to
what
we're
talking
about
with
that
type
of
decertification,
again,
timing
and
and
financial
penalties
and
those
timelines
for
those
penalties
will
be
crucial,
and
I
wish
I
had
those
rules
sitting
in
front
of
me.
So
we
could
better
plan.
Just
we
just
don't
at
this
time.
A
Do
you
have
a
recollection
of
the
knowledge
of
the
last
time
a
facility
in
the
state
of
wyoming
was
decertified.
K
Mr
chairman,
in
terms
of
conditions
of
participation
that
lead
to
complete
decertification
I'd
have
to
double
check
that,
especially
in
the
provider
types
we're
talking
about
the
last
time
that
happened,
but
it's
it's
more
frequent
for
you
know
various
tags
to
be
assessed
when,
when
our
folks
or
when
cms
does
different
surveys
and
facilities
for
conditions
of
participation,
but
often
there's
to
represent
oakley's
point.
There's
periods
of
time
to
correct
those
I'd
have
to
get
back
to
you
in
the
committee
on
the
most
recent
provider.
K
K
Hard
time
believing
that
would
happen-
and,
mr
chairman
again,
I
think,
you're
largely
right,
I
hate
to
speculate
with
my
gut
with
federal
law
and
state
law
that
has
these
types
of
consequences.
But
again,
if,
if
if
the
feds
were
to
put
this
in,
you
know
the
immediate
jeopardy
category,
then
those
timelines
do
shrink
when
it
comes
to
either
financial
penalties
or
certification
status,
but
a
broken
record
here.
We
need
to
see
those
rules.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
my
question
kind
of
goes
along
with
this,
but
from
the
other
perspective
of
do,
does
our
state
statute
have
an
ability
to
kind
of
pick
up?
The
slack
say
if
there
is
a
decertification,
do
we
allow
in
statute
or
in
our
procedures,
through
the
department
of
health,
to
say?
Okay,
now
we're
gonna
fund
the
uncompensated
care,
or
is
that
something
that
we
would
have
to
go
back
into
statute
and
create
an
entity
basically
create
our
own
medicaid?
In
order
to
be
able
to
to
do
that.
K
Mr
chairman,
representative,
provenza,
at
the
very
least
my
understanding
is
that
would
need
to
be
done
through
the
appropriations
process.
Whether
a
statute
would
need
to
be
changed
if
it
was
truly
a
short-term
measure.
There
have
been,
you
know,
general
funds
that
are
allocated
to
our
budget
through
budget
footnotes
or
actions
like
that.
K
But
there
isn't
a
mechanism
right
now
where,
if
the
federal
government
cuts
off
a
stream
of
funds
and
medicaid
that
automatically
the
state
picks
it
up,
so
I
think
that
would
have
to
be
worked
through
again
through
what
we
would
be
looking
for,
because
we're
selfish
in
the
department
of
health
is
the
money
and
then,
if
it
were
longer
term,
we
would
certainly
need.
I
think
we
would
all
agree.
We
would
want
some
statutory
structure
that
allows
for
that.
K
K
I
would
have
to
get
back
to
you
on
the
medicare
side
that
information
is
publicly
available,
for
you
know
wyoming
residents
on
on
medicare,
but
it's
easy
to
think
about
it
in
really
two
buckets
those
who
are
over
the
age
of
65.,
typically
most
folks
enroll
in
medicare
at
that
point,
and
then
there's
other
individuals
with
certain
qualifying
conditions:
disabilities
that
are
able
to
be
on
the
medicare
program
earlier,
but
happy
to
get
you.
Those
figures.
A
F
Representative
yen,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Maybe
you
know
I.
I
was
kind
of
interested
in
what
the
process
would
look
like
right
for
if
it
happened
to
a
public
facility
like
a
nursing
home
where
we
had
that
public
facility
just
decertified-
and
you
know
I
think
some
of
that
and
certain
goal-
there's
a
possibility
of
a
cure
cure
period.
I
think
that
help
so
I'll
try
a
different
text.
K
Mr
chairman,
representative
yen,
I
don't
have
those
figures
in
front
of
me.
I
do
not
believe
we
have
them
broken
out
by
public
or
privately
owned
facility
could
certainly
do
some
work,
an
analysis
to
look
at
coveted
infection
rates
in
our
long-term
care
facilities,
which
are
large
consumers
of
medicaid
and
medicare
funding.
But
I.
N
K
Mr
chairman
of
representative
rodriguez
williams,
to
to
my
knowledge,
most
states
have
a
similar
structure
to
wyoming,
with
a
with
a
licensing
and
survey
arm
that
typically
do
health
and
life
safety
surveys
per
state
law.
We
have
a
lot
of
state
statutes
that
for
life,
safety
code
and
facility
construction,
things
of
that
nature
and
the
other
side
of
that
office
is
kind
of
the
working
as
cms
to
do
medicare
and
medicaid,
certifications
and
surveys.
I
think
most
models
are
similar.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
did
think
of
a
question
based
on
the
director's
comments,
so
the
certification
process
we
handle
that
cms
certification
through
the
state.
If,
for
instance,
a
facility
has
a
bunch
of
nurses
workers
that
said
they
say
we're
not
getting
vaccinated,
we're
quitting
we're.
Leaving.
Does
that
also
jeopardize
our
certification
for
that
particular
facility.
K
Mr
chairman
representative,
craig
it's
a
good
question.
I
think
it
would
be
kind
of
an
indirect
effect
there.
If
I
understand
the
question
correctly
that
where,
if
you
have
a
essentially
a
staffing
exodus
out
of
a
facility
that
you
would
now
be
subject
to
an
additional,
you
know
condition
of
participation
or
immediate
jeopardy
where
you
can't
provide
adequate
care
and
I
think
that's
a
potential
we
haven't.
K
Luckily,
we
have
not
seen
that
we've
been
able
to
work
in
partnership
around
the
state
of
wyoming
to
try
to
do
some
staffing
stabilization
and
provide
resources
there.
That's
not
to
say
it's
not
bad
out
there
we're
having
some
some
significant
issues
related
to
staffing,
not
necessarily
because
of
coveted
vaccines,
but
because
of
exhaustion
other
markets,
you
know
picking
up
staff,
you
know
salary,
competition,
etc.
K
So
I'm
not
sure.
If
that
answers
your
question,
it
really
again
will
depend
on
the
the
detail
of
these
rules
and
and
facilities
and
their
particular
challenges.
If
they
see
staff
leave,
maybe
that
would
trigger
additional
types
of
survey.
But
it's
hard
to
say.
A
You
should
have
used
your
lifeline.
Mr
boley
was
shaking
and
said
he
had
a
direct
answer
to
that
question,
which
I
know
we're
going
to
get
now.
Retrospective
sure
brought
you
both
up
here.
At
the
same
time,
some
of
these
questions
I
mean
we're
really
asking
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
providers
right.
K
Oh
sorry
go
ahead
chairman
if
I
may,
just
in
closing
before
you
hear
additional
testimony
and
I'll
probably
be
summoned
up
to
committee
too,
I
do
not
to
be
overly
facetious,
but
let
the
committee
know
medicaid
is
a
voluntary
program
for
the
state.
I
know
that
that's
being
thrown
around
a
lot.
There
is
not
a
federal
requirement
to
participate
in
medicaid.
K
It's
a
it's
a
voluntary
program
that
we
joined,
I
believe
in
the
late
60s.
So
that
certainly
not
an
option.
We
would
recommend
if
in
this
type
of
discussion-
but
it's
it's
worth
mentioning
that
this
is
something
the
state
has
elected
to
provide
services
for
these
members
over
time.
Those
services
and
eligibility
have
obviously
changed.
Additional
populations
have
have
the
state
has
elected
to
serve
whether
it's
folks
in
nursing
homes,
primary
care,
folks
with
developmental
disabilities,
community
waiver
services.
K
K
A
So
just
to
be
clear,
then,
when
we're
talking
about
this
subsection
c
on
the
criminal
penalty
possible,
civil
fine
really
doesn't
involve
the
department
of
health
at
all.
We're
talking
about
the
agencies
that
are
going
to
be
whether
in
compliance
or
not
are
the
hospital
are
basically
hospital
districts.
K
Department,
mr
chairman,
that's
right
if
we
chose
to
continue
business
as
usual
in
our
office
of
healthcare,
licensing
and
survey,
I
think
we
would
be
subject
to
the
penalty
or
you
know
sending
sending
me
to
jail,
which
I
could
use
a
break
so
consider
that
for
for
doing
that,
if
we
were
to
decertify
a
provider
for
not
comply
or
for
not
complying
with
the
federal
vaccine
mandate,
then
we
would
be
subject
to
that.
But
again
I
want
to
reiterate
the
real
impact
here,
in
our
estimation,
is
at
the
facility
level.
F
E
Chairman,
doesn't
the
department
of
health,
I
mean
you
oversee
programs,
like
public
health,
I
mean
just
the
number
of
employees
you
have
employed
for
you
that
are
on
federal,
medicaid
or
medicare.
Funds
are
those
in
jeopardy
that
you
would
lose
positions
or
you
do
have
some
components.
I
think
outside
of
licensing
and
surveying
public
health,
just
keep
coming
to
mind
where
you
could
be,
including
these
type
of
vaccinations,
any
worried
there
in
terms
of
the
department.
K
Mr
chairman,
representative,
swanster,
two
things
there
one
is
like
you
mentioned
our
office
of
healthcare
licensing
and
survey.
What
the
feds
would
call
an
essay
or
a
survey
agency.
K
That
would
be,
I
think,
directly
impacted
by
this,
based
on
our
decision
to
either
do
that
work
or
to
comply
with
the
state
law,
and
that
involves
surveyors,
and
it's
really,
I
should
clarify
it's
a
partnership
with
the
federal
government.
They
they
use
our
staff,
our
engineers,
our
surveyors
our
nurses,
to
do
that
work
out
in
the
field,
but
there's
also
region
8,
cms,
federal
cms.
K
That
will
often
come
out
as
well
for
various
types
of
surveys,
so
that
would
certainly
be
at
you
know,
impacted
here
the
other
area
that
I
failed
to
mention
because
I've
been
saying
it's
it's,
the
onus
is
on
the
facility
side.
Here,
it's
important
to
remind
the
committee.
We
have
department
of
health
owned
and
operated
facilities
that
also
receive
medicaid
and
and
some
medicare
dollars,
including
the
state
hospital.
K
The
wyoming
life
resource
center
is
heavily
federally
funded
as
well
for
those
clients
in
lander
and
the
wyoming
retirement
center
in
basin.
Also
is
it's:
a
revenue
neutral
facility
doesn't
cost
the
state
any
general
fund,
but
that's
also
heavily
medicaid
and
medicare
subsidized.
So
we
would
be
if
those
facilities
that
we
operate
would
be
in
similar
situation
to
the
facilities
that
we're
all
talking
about
in
our
communities.
A
And
then
just
to
follow
up
on
that
from
representatives
monsters,
question
then,
for
the
facilities,
those
state
facilities
you
mentioned
that
are
funded
by
or
have
some
funding
of,
medicaid
dollars
and
the
employees
in
the
department
of
health
that
are
funded
by
medicaid
dollars.
Those
are
all
funded
under
the
existing
budget
authorizations
through
this
budget
through
this
biennium.
So
any
there
will.
There
couldn't
be
an
impact
that
funding
is
already
obligated.
K
Right,
mr
chairman,
on
the
staffing
side,
I
don't
have
as
many
concerns
with
our
medicaid
program
and
the
staff
that
we
have
the
100
series,
which
are
state
and
federal
funds.
With
the
exception
of
that
survey
agents,
the
licensing
and
survey
that
we
have,
depending
on
the
timing
of
when
things
come
out
and
what
the
timelines
are
there.
K
There
could
be
some
funding
implication
for
the
staff
that
we
have
in
licensing
and
survey
if
we
chose
not
to
follow
the
federal
rules
and
do
that
survey
and
certification
work
for
the
covet
19
vaccine
mandates.
But
again
I
really
struggle
to
get
into
the
details
there,
because
we
just
don't
know
but.
K
The
budget,
mr
chairman,
it
varies,
for
example,
I
have
federal
match
in
part
of
my
salary
for
the
work.
Since
you
know,
half
of
our
budget,
more
than
half
of
our
budget,
is
medicaid
and
a
big
part
of
our
programming,
so
that
I
don't
think
that
would
be
at
risk
in
in
this
scenario,
but
it
really
does
vary.
A
What
I'm
trying
to
envision
is,
at
least
this
is
what
the
way
I
at
least
I
thought
it
would
play
out,
which
was
that
we're
under
the
current
budget
that
we're
operating
under
we,
those
federal
dollars,
were
already
authorized
for
those
positions
so
they're
already,
I
would
assume
we
would.
We
would
put
that
I
would
that
transfer
would
have
already
taken
place.
I
guess
would
be
my
assumption
and
then
what
we
would
be
looking
at
is
when
we
come
back
in
february,
we
would
be
looking
at
now.
A
We
know
those
positions,
don't
have
those
federal
dollars
that
they
had
under
the
2020-2021
budget.
They
that's
how
I
would
at
least
assume
that
it
would
be
it
wouldn't
be
next
month.
We
would
learn
that
the
federal
government
had
defunded
xyz
positions
in
the
department
of
health.
It
would
be
through
the
budget
cycle,
at
least
that's
what.
K
I
would
think,
mr
chairman,
I
can
follow
up
on
on
this,
but
just
in
general
I
think
the
the
federal
spending
authority
that
we
have
through
our
budget
and
how
that
gets
appropriated,
there's
a
difference
between
the
spending
authority
we
have
and
the
feds
allowing
us
to
have
that
that
money
on
a
regular
basis-
I'm
not
sure
again.
I
don't
want
to
overstate
I'm
not
sure
how
much
of
an
impact
on
the
position
side
we
have
here.
It
would
take
a
little
bit
of
investigation.
Well,
we
don't
want
to
cut.
K
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
director,
I'm
trying
to
remember
my
question
offhand
for
for
the
public
facilities
they.
So
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
follow
what
the
chairman
said
for
the
public
facilities
that
the
department
of
health
owns.
K
Essentially
immediately,
mr
chairman
representative
yen,
if
those
if
the
facilities
I
mentioned,
that
the
department
of
health
operates,
including
the
life
resource
center,
the
retirement
center
in
basin,
if,
if
those
were
decertified
and
the
rules
specified
at
the
federal
level,
that
funding
were
to
stop,
there
would
be
a
significant
financial
impact
there.
A
significant
loss
of
funds,
for
example
representative
at
the
life
resource
center
in
lander,
it's
approximately
70
percent,
federally
funded
for
all
of
the
operations
and
services.
F
Would
it,
mr
chairman,
follow
up?
Would
it
get
to
the
point
where,
without
an
additional
appropriation
in
the
budget
session,
would
it
be
possible
to
get
to
the
point
without
an
additional
appropriation
in
the
budget
session
that
the
facility
wouldn't
be
able
to
stay
running
like
it
wouldn't
have
enough
of
a
base
load
revenue
to
keep
it
running
with
our
current
level
of
appropriation.
K
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
representative
yen,
I'm
gonna
decline
to
answer
that.
I
think
it
does
lead
to
a
little
too
much
hyperbole.
If
you
know
I
just
don't
know
what
that
timing
would
look
like,
but
again
hypothetically.
If,
if
a
condition
of
participation
resulted
in
immediate
decertification
and
loss
of
funding,
we
would
have
significant
challenges
at
several
of
our
facilities.
F
Mr
chairman,
second
question
director,
so
I
did
remember
what
my
other
question
was,
which
is
the
certification
by
the
state.
What
is
the
benefit
of
the
state
doing
it?
Because
I
assume
the
reason
that
we
do
it
is
because
there
is
some
benefit
to
us
or
our
providers.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
K
There's
there's
benefits
benefits
there,
but,
like
I
said
it,
it
certainly
is
a
partnership
with
the
survey
work
and
not
to
go
too
far
into
the
weeds
here
that
it's
not
you
know,
we
have
a
program
in
the
department
of
health
that
just
does
the
bidding
of
the
federal
government.
It
really
is,
as
many
programs
are
in
the
department
of
health
that
rely
on
state
and
federal
funds,
a
partnership
between
the
two
entities.
C
I
represent
all
the
hospitals
in
the
state
and
about
two-thirds
of
the
nursing
homes
in
the
state
and
obviously
we
have
some
concerns
with
this
bill.
I
have
the
utmost
respect
for
majority
floor
leader
summers,
but
I
do
think
there
may
be
some
unintended
consequences
and
some
real
issues
with
this,
and
I
think
the
the
thousand
pound
gorilla
obviously
is
the
the
penalties
and
some
of
the
definitions
that
go
here.
I
I'll
tell
you,
I
don't
think
the
magnitude
or
the
the
reach,
the
authority
that
cms
really
has
has
been
adequately
communicated
here.
C
All
of
healthcare
is
tied
to
cms.
All
of
our
rules
are
tied
to
cms
and
I
think
director
johansen,
which
I
never
want
to
see
me,
go
to
jail,
he's
doing
a
great
job
he's
fantastic,
although
he
probably
does
need
a
break
after
the
last
couple
years.
C
It's
looked
over
not
overlooked.
I
wish
it
was
overlooked,
looked
over
and
then
they
can
either
justify
and
approve
the
citations
that
the
state
comes
up
with
or
they
can
override
that
they
also
sometimes
will
send
a
federal
surveyor
with
our
state
survey
team
to
oversee
and
make
sure
they're
doing
it
right
and
there's
a
large
percentage
of
those.
When,
after
we've
gone
through
the
state
survey,
a
federal
team
will
come
in
afterwards
and
do
a
second
survey,
and
so
the
the
feds
are
very
very
involved
in
what
we're
doing.
C
I
have
copious
notes
here
to
address
a
lot
of
the
different
things
that
we
talked
about.
I
don't
want
to
belabor
the
point.
C
The
one
thing
I
will
tell
you
nursing
homes
in
our
state,
70
of
their
clientele,
are
on
medicaid
and
then
a
large
percentage
of
those
that
don't
have
medicaid
have
medicare,
so
it's
probably
close
to
85
of
their
payer
mix
in
in
long-term
care
facilities
in
hospitals.
C
As
we
look
at
this
bill,
I
believe,
based
on
some
quick,
math
15
of
our
hospitals.
Our
critical
access
hospitals
would
be
subject
to
this.
Four
of
our
larger
hospitals
that
are
memorial,
hospitals
would
be
subject
to
this
20,
I
believe
close
to
20
of
our
nursing
homes
will
be
public
entities
and
we'll
be
subject
to
this.
C
I
really
have
some
serious
issues
with
that,
and
I
I
can't
express
that
strongly
enough.
I
don't
think
it
matters
whether
it's
criminal
or
civil.
Both
of
them
are
problematic
for
our
folks.
C
The
other
thing
is
that
cms
has
the
ability
to
stop
emissions
almost
immediately
and
there
have
not
been
decertifications
to
my
knowledge,
but
there
have
been
situations,
especially
in
long-term
care,
which
our
hospitals
are
normally
surveyed
every
three
years,
especially
for
critical
access
hospitals.
They
go
through
an
initial
survey
process
to
certify
them
as
a
critical
access
hospital
and
then
every
three
years
they
have
to
have
a
follow-up
one.
C
Our
other
facilities
go
through
a
three
year
three
to
five
year
survey
process,
but
they
also
have
joint
commission
that
comes
in
and
other
regulatory
agencies
that
would
more
than
likely
report
back
to
the
feds,
because
it's
just
how
it
works,
but
our
nursing
homes
are
surveyed
every
year
and
cms
has
the
ability
to
extract
their
pound
of
flesh
almost
immediately.
They
can
once
the
survey
results
go
from
our
state
back
to
the
feds
and
they've
been
determined
to
be
appropriate.
C
We
have
a
period
of
time
to
get
our
plan
of
correction
put
back
together
and
get
back
in
compliance
a
lot
of
times.
They
will
do
some
retro
payment,
but
the
lost
revenue
from
even
admitting
those
patients
is
difficult,
but
their
reach
is
long
and
strong.
The
other
thing
that
kind
of
goes
along
with
so
the
other
thing
is.
C
They
can
also
impose
civil
monetary
penalties
and
what
they
do
there
and
they
do
it
all
the
time
in
nursing
homes
is
they
just
you
either
have
to
pay
or
they
stop
paying
you
until
you've
made
up
that
civil
monetary
penalty.
It
goes
into
a
pool
of
money
that
the
state
kind
of
oversees
a
lot
of
it,
goes
back
to
the
feds.
A
portion
of
it
can
be
used
for
improvements
in
facilities,
not
sure
they
would
use
that
remedy.
C
C
What
they're
doing
right
now-
and
this
is
how
federal
government
works
they're,
allowing
certain
people
to
come
in
and
provide
comments
on
what
has
been
said,
but
they're
not
allowed
to
even
see
what
the
proposed
rules
are
and
then
they'll
take
those
comments
and
they
may
or
may
not
work
them
into
the
rules,
and
then
we
hope
that
at
some
point
will
actually
be
great
if
they
never
do
it.
But
we
hope
at
some
point
there
will
be
rules
that
will
be
promulgated.
C
I'm
hearing
the
same
as
director
johansen
there's
a
really
strong
chance,
because
this
is
connected
to
conditions
of
participation.
There
will
be
no
public
comment,
I'm
also
hearing
that
they
may
follow
the
normal
one,
which
is
45
to
60
days
of
public
public
comment.
But
we
don't
know-
and
I
think
that's
where
we
kind
of
got
the
card
ahead
of
the
horse
right
here
is.
It
would
be
nice
to
know
what
we're
dealing
with
before
we
start
passing
legislation
to
combat
something
we
don't
even
understand.
C
Let's
see,
the
one
thing
that
I
also
say
is:
every
state's
the
same
cms
tries
to
be
uniform
in
the
way
that
they
implement.
Now
they
oversee
survey.
They
spend
a
lot
of
time,
training
the
state
surveyors
and
working
with
the
director
of
that
department
and
they're.
They
try
to
have
uniformity.
We
have
seen
some
inconsistencies
based
on
regions,
but
in
our
region
it's
there's,
there's
uniformity,
the
other
thing
that
I
would
also
mention
to
you
I
heard
it
talked
about.
C
C
But
right
now
we
have
state
primacy
laws,
but
other
states
that
have
opposed
the
federal
government
have
had
those
stripped
and
it's
pretty
important
for
us
to
be
able
to
have
our
state
osha
operate
independent
of
the
federal
government,
but
again
they
have
the
hammer,
and
so
if,
if
we
do
something
that
they're
not
happy
with,
they
could
strip
that
and
then
it
would
all
be
federal.
So
I
think
that's
one
of
the
considerations
that
this
committee
needs
to
take
into
account.
A
There's
a
lot
of
what-ifs
yeah
that
we're
talking
about,
but
the
what-ifs
aren't
one-sided
right,
you're
here
telling
us
that
there's
a
what,
if
on
the
rules,
we
don't
know
what
the
rules
all
are
going
to
be
so
it's
hard
to
enact
legislation,
but
at
the
same
time,
you're
saying
what,
if,
with
70
and
50,
to
60
of
hospitals,
70
of
nursing
homes,
what
if
they
choose
to
follow
our
mandate,
they
what
they
may
lose
their
medicaid
dollars.
I
mean
that
is
a
huge.
A
A
I
get
that
their
reach
is
big,
but
if
the
purpose
of
the
mandate
is
for
the
health
and
safety
of
the
citizens
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
why
would
the
federal
government
shut
down
70
of
nursing
homes
and
jeopardize
the
health
of
all
those
patients
immediately
for
non-compliance
with
the
mandate?
To
me,
that's
a
bigger!
What,
if
I
just
don't
think
I
I'm
not
a
gambling
man,
but
if
I
was,
I
would
say,
the
federal
government
has
the
bigger
gamble
than
this
committee
here
today
to
shut
down
70
of
facilities.
C
C
Scary
part
is
nursing,
homes
may
not
be
able
to
take
them,
so
where
are
they
going
to
end
up,
maybe
in
the
emergency
rooms
and
hospitals
that
are
already
full,
because
patients
we're
not
able
to
transfer
out
of
state?
So
I
agree
that
the
federal
government
could
potentially
create
worse
chaos
than
we
already
have,
and-
and
I
also
tell
you,
I'm
not
for
the
mandate-
I
I'm
really
mad
at
the
biden
administration.
C
I
was
really
mad
when
they
did
the
nursing
home
one
stand
alone,
and
I
thought
that
it
would
at
least
be
fair
if
they
did
it
across
the
spectrum,
but
it's
the
wrong
way
to
go,
and
so
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
us
pushing
back
against
that.
C
A
Think
you
guessed
at
this
and
I
guess
it
would
probably
still
be
a
guess,
but
you
said
if
you're
provide,
if
your
members,
your
the
facilities
in
wyoming,
were
faced
with
the
choice
of
a
750,
fine
or
whatever
or
losing
the
dollars
that
that
reimburses
their
services
they're
going
to
choose
the
fine,
I
mean
we
can't.
We
can't
know
that
for
certainty,
but
it's
a
basic
economic
calculation
give
up
seven
hundred
and
fifty
dollars
or
give
up.
I
don't.
C
C
H
H
Is
there,
do
you
think,
there's
value
possibly
in
creating
a
law
like
this
that
could
act
as
a
shield
for
facilities
that
do
want
to
comply?
They
want
to
have
something
that
says
they
don't
have
to
do
the
mandate
in
state
law.
I
mean
it,
you
know
so
so
I
mean
it
takes
a
lot
of
teeth
away,
we're
talking
about
a
much
smaller,
but
do
you
think
there
could
be
value
created
in
in
wyoming,
taking
a
stand,
having
a
law
like
this?
C
Mr
chairman,
representative
oakley,
I
mean,
I
think,
we're
we're
behind
telling
the
federal
government
to
get
out
of
the
way
we
want
less
government
involved
because
we're
already
regulated
to
the
nth
degree.
So
I
don't
think
there
would
be
any
problem
with
that
at
all.
As
long
as
there's
no
penalty
and
just
let
everyone
know,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
hospitals
other
than
the
the
system
that
has
every
right,
because
they're
private
to
to
do
a
vaccine
mandate,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
nursing
homes
or
hospitals
that
are
considering
a
mandate.
C
I
know
some
of
them
are
looking
at
changing
their
policies
over
vaccines
and
providing
reasonable
accommodation.
So
from
a
state
perspective,
I'm
not
seeing
anybody.
That's
really
chomping
at
the
bit
to
mandate
it,
but
we
do
believe
strongly
that
vaccines
are
the
way
for
us
to
get
out
of
the
situation
that
we're
in,
but
I
don't
think
he'd
have
any
pushback
from
it.
I
just
don't
know
what
yeah,
what
good
it's
going
to
do.
C
A
So
to
representative
oakley's
point:
does
this
bill
then
provide
cover
because
it
it
it
it?
It
goes
back
to
the
initial
conversation
we
had
with
majority
floor
leader,
summers
about
exhaust,
exhausting
all
court
efforts.
Obviously
a
chief
executive
is
engaging
his
branch
of
government
and
exhausting
those
court
efforts.
This
bill
really
does
call
for
more
of
that.
A
It
funds
it
one
adds
an
additional
appropriation
of
a
million
dollars
to
the
governor
for
those
legal
actions
and
essentially
says
that's
what
we
have
to
push
forward
is
we
have
to
exhaust
all
efforts
in
the
court
system
before
we
before
we
worry
about
the
state
mandate,
so
I
mean
isn't:
isn't
that
is.
Does
that
not
provide
more
cover
for
those.
C
I
I
think
that's
great
we'd
like
to
see
every
opportunity
exhausted
and
it's
going
to
be
a
long
process
and
that's
the
problem
is
our
our
reimbursement.
Is
that
jeopardy
meet
could
be
immediately
like
we
don't
we
don't
know,
but
but
we
don't
have
time
to
wait.
I
mean
if
you're
talking
about
50
60
70
of
your
income
being
tied
to
those
reimbursements
and
the
mandate
comes
out
before
every
opportunity
or
every
every
argument
is
exhausted.
C
Through
the
court
system
we
we
could
be
without
funding
for
a
long
period
of
time
and
re
and
face
decertification.
That's
that's.
The
problem
is
timing.
Not
this
bill.
This
bill
requires
that
the
public
entity
exhaust
all
legal
challenges
before
we
before
we
mandate-
that's
true
yeah,
but
the
federal
government
may
require
us
to
mandate
immediately.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
boley,
quick
question,
and
this
is
goes
along
with
all
these
questions
that
the
chairman
was
asking
and
representative
oakley
was
asking
as
far
as
like
cover.
What
and
along
the
lines
of
one
of
my
earlier
questions
about
the
timeline,
so
you
get
a
notice
from
cms
or
from
the
state
that
you're
out
of
compliance
a
what
what's
kind
of
the
timeline.
Do
you
have
to
respond
to
that
and
b
I
mean,
as
a
general
rule,
I
know,
there's
probably
different
violations
that
have
different
ramifications,
but
a
that
and
then
b.
G
C
Chairman
representative
craigo,
so
the
survey
team
comes
in
you're,
usually
there
two
three
four
days:
there's
different
components:
life,
safety
and
then
patient
care
areas.
So
there's
two
different
teams
that
come
in
then
they
huddle
at
the
end
do
an
exit
interview
with
administration.
C
C
But
if
it's
an
immediate
jeopardy
which
director
johansson
talked
about
and
who
knows
what
they're
going
to
deem
this
it's
immediate,
they
may
send
in
a
team
and
shut
us
down
immediately
if
the
patients
are
at
jeopardy.
No,
this
doesn't
really
seem
to
be
to
that
level.
But
we
don't
know
what
what
they're
going
to
exercise.
So
then
you
have
45
days
if
there
is
a
immediate
jeopardy.
C
Normally,
in
that
10
10
day
time
period,
we'll
get
a
notification
that
our
admissions
has
been
stopped,
we'll
no
longer
receive
any
reimbursement
until
we're
back
in
compliance,
and
we
have
that
45
day
period
or
shorter
to
get
it
done.
Then
the
team
has
to
come
back
out
and
do
a
follow-up
survey
or
they
can
do
it
sometimes
virtually
if
we
can
send
photos
or
whatever
it
might
be,
to
show
that
we're
in
compliance
or
or
documentation.
C
So
it's
usually
a
long
process,
except
when
they
use
immediate
jeopardy,
which
should
be
only
if
patients
are
in
immediate
jeopardy
of
definite
harm.
But
but
again
we
see
all
who
knows
what
they're
going
to
do
with
this?
That's
that's
again.
The
problem
that
we
have
is
it's
all
speculation
at
this
point.
F
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
bully.
You
know
I
I
understand
that
the
chairman
is
basically
saying
it's
a
gamble
and
I
think
we
could
call
the
federal
government's
bluff.
However,
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
figure
out
how
many
chips
we're
betting
in
this
gamble.
For
me,
that's,
I
think
the
medicare
and
medicaid
enrollees
and
the
providers
themselves.
C
Mr
chairman,
representing
I
can't
give
you
total
numbers
of
covered
lives.
It's
significant
based
off
their
parent
mix,
but,
as
I
stated,
I
think
we've
got
about
20
of
our
hospitals
that
are
at
jeopardy
and
close
to
20
nursing
homes,
the
others.
You
know
the
state
agent,
the
state
facilities,
which
are
five
we're
also
at
jeopardy.
Our
federally
qualified
health
centers,
I
believe,
would
also
be
a
jeopardy.
C
Even
in
the
majority
floor
leader's
neck
of
the
woods
there,
I
think
that
the
rural
healthcare
or
rural
health
clinics
are
also
at
jeopardy.
They
don't
have
100
employees,
but
I
do
believe
this
is
going
to
stretch
because
there's
federal
funding
that's
attached
to
rural
health
clinics.
L
Vice
chairman
washington,
thank
you,
mr
mr
bowley.
On
on
the
other
side,
the
the
concern
that
a
lot
of
people
have
expressed
is
a
nursing
home
hospital,
whatever
announces
a
mandate,
how
many
of
their
employees
walk
or
get
fired,
and
what's
that
impact?
Look
like
statewide
on
terms
of
our
ability
to
provide
service.
C
Mr
chairman
representative,
washington,
I
think
it's
a
great
question.
I
mean
I
think
we
can
take
a
look
at
the
one
system
in
our
state
that's
already
mandated,
and
they
have
had
a
very
small
turnover
rate.
There
are
a
few
that
are
waiting
it
out
to
see
how
how
it
plays
out
had
a
lot
of
exemptions
that
have
been
offered,
both
through
their
corporate
structure
and
also
here
within
our
state
close
to
10.
I
believe
of
those
that
are
required
to
get
vaccines
that
received
exemptions.
C
We're
already
seeing
a
migration,
though
just
because
people
are
so
burned
out,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
really
difficult
to
gauge
whether
it's
the
mandate
or
whether
people
are
just
fed
up.
C
But
I
do
believe
that
this
mandate
is
going
to
exacerbate
the
problem
and,
like
I
said,
I
don't
see
any
of
our
facilities
really
looking
to
enact
it.
We've
got
some
facilities
in
our
state
have
done
a
great
job
on
their
own.
We've
got
some
that
are
70
80
percent,
without
mandates,
they've
done
incentive
programs
and
other
things
our
nursing
homes.
Some
some
are
good.
Some
are
bad,
45
percent.
C
All
the
way
up
to
80
percent
of
their
employees
and
95
percent
of
the
residents,
I
think
we've
we've
made
it
a
long
way
and-
and
I
hope
we
continue
to
see
that
and
I
from
my
side
of
things.
I
also
believe
that
the
threat
of
this
mandate
has
increased
some
uptake
in
the
in
the
vaccine
rates
in
our
state,
and
I
think
that
might
be
one
of
the
ploys
that
the
federal
government
is
using
right
now
is
to
see
how
much
juice
they
can
get
out
of
the
squeeze
before
they
actually
enact
something.
O
Representative
larson,
mr
chairman,
thank
you.
Is
there
any
discussion
in
the
rules
at
the
federal
level
of
testing
twice
a
week
or
anything?
Has
there
been
anything
like
that.
C
Mr
chairman,
representative,
larson,
I've
heard
scuttlebutt,
we
don't
know
anything
they're,
not
sharing
anything
about.
We
were
on
a
call
with
cms
through
our
state
agency
and
we
queried
them
probably
three
weeks
ago
and
they
they
just
basically
said
we
refuse
to
answer
we're
not
allowed
to
talk
about
rules
under
the
federal
statute,
while
they're
in
rule
making
process.
C
You
know
testing
is
a
good
option
and
I
think,
as
you
look
at
facilities
around
the
state
that
are
looking
at
vaccine
policy,
that's
going
to
be
one
of
them.
The
the
thing
to
realize.
There's
tremendous
expense!
That's
attached
to
that,
especially
if
you're
testing
a
large
number
of
your
employees,
but
it
might
be
a
reasonable
accommodation.
C
The
other
thing
is,
you
have
to
change
your
staffing
levels,
because
you
have
to
have
people
that
are
able
to
draw
the
drum
and
get
the
test
done,
but
I
think,
as
we
look
at
what
we're
doing
from
organization
organization,
that
might
be
one
of
those
things
in
the
in
the
vaccine.
Policies
that
they're
going
to
put
in
place.
O
On
the
testing,
is
it
always
by
blo,
by
taking
your
sample
of
blood
or
is
there
a
saliva
test?
That
is?
Is
that
works.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
bully,
not
to
belabor
this,
but
it
was
something
I've
said
earlier,
but
there's
significant
federal
requirements
and
federal
laws
currently
in
place
that
do
require
a
certain
level
of
rural
health
care
and
for
this
maintenance
of
you
know
of,
what's
currently
being
provided.
Isn't
that
correct?
And
can
you
talk
about
that
a
little
bit
because
it
seems
to
me
they
would
know
they
like
just
yanking?
All
this
funding
would
significantly
put
them
against
their
own
requirements.
Is
that
fair,
accurate.
C
C
There
aren't
specific
requirements,
I
mean
we've
got
an
area
of
our
state
that
doesn't
have
a
hospital
that
I
hope
soon
does,
but
feds
don't
step
in
and
say:
yeah
you've
got
to
have
one
in
there
and
and
vice
versa.
They
don't.
If
a
hospital
closes,
they
don't
really
get
involved
in
that
or
do
anything
to
bail
them
out,
and
so
I
think
it's
just
part
of
what
happens.
I
mean
it's,
it's
supply
and
demand.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
keep
hearing
about
a
shield
or
the
possibility
that
having
this
would
provide
cover
for
not
following
the
federal
mandate,
but
as
it
stands,
it's
not.
It's,
probably
not
constitutional.
I
If
you
are
given
a
shield
that
is
likely
to
end
up
in,
say,
litigation
or
is
going
to
later
be
found
to
not
be
good
enough.
Are
you
would
you
want
to
use
that
shield
temporarily,
knowing
that
the
consequences
are
going
to
come
later
or
what
decision
do
you
make?
I
mean
specifically
in
this
case,
if
you
think
the
courts
are
going
to
come
down
on
you,
even
though
the
state
of
wyoming
says
it's
okay
and
you're
forced
to
choose
federal
or
state,
I
mean,
what's
your
choice,.
C
Mr
chairman,
representative
provenza,
I
I
I'm
not
sure
how
the
state
can
shield
us
from
this.
To
be
honest,
that
that's
the
concern
I
I've
heard
a
lot
of
legislators
talk
about
the
fact
that
I
think
they're
talking
about
chapter
10
or
section
10
of
the
constitution,
that
that
we
can
our
state
law
can
trump
the
federal
law.
I
don't
think
that's
the
case,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
shield
we
can
build.
C
I
think
one
of
the
thoughts
we
had
is
we
would
love
to
see
a
strong
resolution
from
the
entire
body
condemning
or
talking
about
the
the
mandate
itself
and
and
push
back
against
federal
government,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
shield
there
is.
The
iron
dome
doesn't
exist
for
this
one
that
I'm
aware
of.
E
Representing
sponsor
thanks
a
hot
seat,
question
mr
boley,
so
if
you
think
of
all
of
your
members,
your
hospitals
and
your
nursing
homes
and
think
of
maybe
the
smallest,
if
it's
750
fine,
it
is
not
going
to
be
the
make
or
break
give
me
a
number
on
when
it
hurts
on.
When
a
a
provider
that
gets
cms
money
is
going
to
say.
Do
I
comply
with
the
federal
government
or
the
state
of
wyoming
mandate
if
this
bill
passes?
What
is
that
threshold
number
that
I
can
put
in
this
bill?
E
C
O
C
C
A
Majority
floor
leader
summers
in
house
bill
1,
I'm
trying
to
find
it,
but
I
feel
like
we
have
a
provision
in
house
bill
1
that
says
that
if
there
is
a
federal
mandate
and
if
that
mandate
is
in
direct
contradiction
to
anything
in
that
we've
mandated
in
house
bill
1,
then
your
the
employers
are
free
to
not
follow
the
contradiction.
A
Could
we
put
the
same
type
of
language
because
we're
talking
about
two
tracks,
the
the
cms
track
and
the
osha
track
here?
Could
we
put
the
same
language
in
this
bill
regarding
the
cms
issue
that
if
we
found
that
a
facility
would
would
have
an
issue
with
its
medicaid
medicare
dollars
that
we
would
exempt
them
out.
D
Mr
chairman,
you
could
I
I
oops.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
chairman,
you
could
I
think,
when
I
went
through
the
bill,
I
suggested
deleting
a
place
okay
and
it
does
the
basically
the
same
effect
as
putting
that
other
section
in.
But
the
way
you
could
do
it
is
an
entire
section
that
says
this.
That
section
two
shall
go
away
upon
any
federal
rule
that
is
puts
in
place.
D
That
is
in
contradiction
to
your
so
there's
multiple
ways
to
do
it,
and
you
know,
while
I'm
visiting
here
one
thing
that
director
bully
brought
up
it's
contemplated
in
that
other
bill
as
well,
but
it's
not
contemplated
here
that
you
may
consider
it,
because
that
bill
is
more
or
less
about
private
entities.
This
bill's
about
public
entities
is,
you
could
put
together
a
pot
of
money
that
would
help
with
accommodations.
D
So
so,
if
any
of
the
federal
government
did
come
out
with
accommodations
and
their
rules
for
these
public
entities,
then
perhaps
you
would
have
a
pot
of
money
available
to
help
pay,
for
you
know,
representative
larson,
in
in
engineering
testing.
So
maybe
we
could
use
some
of
that
harpa
money.
For
these
public
entities
to
to
to
be
able
to
comply
with
the
accommodation
section
or
to
provide
accommodations.
A
So,
representative
summers,
you're
referencing,
the
1.5
million
dollar
maximum
stipend
out
of
the
governor's
office.
We
allocate
we
appropriate
a
set
pool
of
money
to
him,
20
million
dollars
to
the
chief
executive
and
he
can
allocate
1.5
million
out
of
that
to
an
employer
out
of
arpa
funds,
you're
suggesting
we
could.
We
could
set
up
the
same
pool
here
for
those
public
entities.
I
think
for
things
like
testing
or
whatever
it
may
be.
D
D
If
I
mean
that
that
gets
really
involved
language,
I
think
you
can
do
it
much
simpler
than
that
frankly,
but
that
was
the
way
that
that
panned
out
and
and
mr
chairman,
you
know,
while
while
I
have
the
you
know
it's
funny
we
talk
about,
we
don't
want
to
put
this
in
place
because
it's
going
to
hurt
these
people.
I
agree
right.
D
A
Mr
bully,
do
you
have
thoughts
on
either
of
those
two
considerations,
the
the
pool
of
money
to
subsidize
some
of
those
expenses
or
the
mirroring
the
track
in
one
where
we
ex
we
exempt
out,
and
I
don't
know
that
it
exempts
out
the
the
entity
what
it
does
is
it
says
you
basically
take
the
two.
You
take
the
state
requirements,
you
take
the
federal
requirements
and
where
you
know
you
may
still
end
up
with
parts
of
the
state
requirement
that
are
enforceable
in
parts
of
the
because
they
contradict
the
federal
regulation.
A
C
Mr
chairman,
I
we
we're
interested
in
in
bill.
One
I've
split
the
baby.
I've
got
my
vp
over
there
right
now.
We
we
do
like
the
provisions
in
there
that
provides
money
to
create
those
reasonable
accommodations
that
we
talked
about.
C
We've
actually
been
really
successful
so
far,
working
with
the
department
of
health
and
the
governor's
office,
with
some
of
the
art
of
funding
to
help
with
a
lot
of
these
different
things,
and
so
I
think
that
would
be
great,
but
my
understanding
of
bill,
one
is
once
the
federal
mandate
is
enacted
that
that
bill
goes
away.
Yeah,
it's
done,
except,
I
think,
for
maybe
the
funding
afterwards.
D
Q
D
R
R
Most
of
our
members
are
republican,
90,
85
90,
most
of
them
don't
like
the
mandate,
but
many
of
them
do
and
I
just
want
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
voice
there
in
what
I've
been
hearing
today
here
in
this
committee
meeting
and
in
some
other
conversations
on
the
floor,
that
there
are
people
out
there
who
are
unaffected
by
the
mandate,
we
did
what
we
should
do
and
we
got
vaccinated
or
we're
going
to
do
what
we
should
do
and
get
vaccinated.
R
I
hadn't
looked
at
the
numbers
for
a
couple
of
weeks,
but
yesterday
the
cdc
released
that
wyoming's
44
vaccinated
now,
which
is,
I
thought
we
were
still
34,
and
I
was
really
happy
to
see
that.
So
I'm
not
going
to
say
that
the
mandate
is
quote
unquote
working,
but
I
think
that
we're
moving
in
a
positive
direction
to
eliminate
covid.
R
I
had
several
family
members
who
had
covid
early
on
and
it
wasn't
fun
and
it
wasn't
pleasant
and
it
was
scary
and
I'm
glad
that
they're
okay
and
I
hope
that
all
your
family
members
are
too
on
a
more
technical
sense
with
the
bill.
Osha
is
very
much
very
much
in
danger
with
this
bill.
R
Wyoming
leads
the
nation
and
on
the
job
death
rate,
and
that
was
before
we
had
kovit.
That
was
before,
for
five
years
running,
we
had
the
highest
death
rate
in
the
u.s
on
the
job.
So
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
think
about
those
things
we
have
many.
There
are
many
members
in
my
organization
who
are
threatening
to
leave
their
jobs
if
they
have
to
get
vaccinated
and
some
of
those
are
federal
employees
under
the
railroad
system.
R
They're
not
subject
to
state
law,
they're
subject
to
federal
law,
and
that
scares
me
because
they
don't
understand
they're,
giving
up
lifetime
pensions,
they're,
giving
up
seniority
in
careers
they're,
giving
up
dedication
to
a
job
in
a
career
that
they
may
have
been
in
for
generations
and
their
family,
because
they
think
that
this
is
a
hill
to
die
on
and
it
may
be,
the
hell
they
literally
die
on
if
they
don't
get
vaccinated.
But
at
the
same
time
I
think
we
need
to
show
a
level
of
leadership
in
our
state.
R
That
says,
let's
not
throw
everything
out
over
an
issue,
and
I
worry
that
we
may
be
sending
that
message
to
people
that
this
is
worth
giving
up
your
career,
your
life,
earnings,
your
pension,
everything
and
what
happens
to
employees
when
they
don't
have
that
pension.
What
happens
to
them?
They're
in
these
nursing
homes
that
you're
talking
about
they're
in
they're,
relying
on
medicare
and
medicaid
for
the
rest
of
their
lives
and
we're
ready
to
throw
that
out
too
now.
So
I
I
don't.
R
R
I
hope
that
we
can
come
to
a
level
of
reasonableness
that
says
you
know
I
don't
like
the
feds
pushing
me
around.
I
don't
like
that.
You
have
to
wear
hunter
orange
when
you
go
hunting.
Isn't
that
a
mask
mandate,
I
mean,
if
I
want
to
get
shot,
I
can
get
shot
right,
but
we're
pretty
serious
about
that
in
wyoming.
R
So
where
do
we
draw
the
line?
And
I
think
we
draw
it
with
people
being
being
responsible
and
being
being
self-aware
and
understanding
that
we're
all
in
this
germ
pool
together,
I
used
to
teach
at
a
high
school
and
boy-
oh
boy,
you're,
stepping
in
the
gym
pool
every
day-
and
I'm
not
here
to
advocate
for
education,
but
those
teachers
are
wholly
unprotected.
They
don't
have
workers
comp,
they
don't
have
health
insurance
coverage.
R
If
they
get
sick
at
school
and
they
don't
have,
they
have
to
go
work
in
a
place
where,
where
they're
not
protected,
so
I
think
we
need
to
think
about
all
those
things
as
we
move
forward
in
this
case
this
bill,
the
osha
standard,
is
going
to
hurt
the
state
and
hurt
it
mightily.
So
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
about
that.
So
I'm
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
If
I
can.
A
Thank
you
appreciate
your
comments.
Okay,
we
eyes
the
there's,
no
pool
bigger
filled
with
different
types
of
infections
and
bacteria
and
etc
in
the
wyoming
legislature.
So
we
know
that
all
well.
That's.
A
But
sure
which
others,
but
I
do
I
do
want
to
respond
to
one
thing
you
said
which
is
I
want
to
drive
home,
especially
for
the
public,
how
important
this
issue
you
you
reference.
How
important
this
issue
is
to
employees
the
consequences
of
what
we
do
are
significant
to
employees,
employers
etc
all
across
wyoming,
and
I
think
we
all.
We
all
agree
with
that.
Obviously,
because
we
called
ourselves
into
special
session
gave
up
our
our
lively
put
our
livelihoods.
A
Aside,
put
our
families
aside,
put
our
entire
lives
on
hold
came
down
here
and
all
you
know,
you
could
look
at
the
spectrum
of
this
diocese
and
there's
different
opinions
on
the
outcome
of
all
of
these
bills
and
the
outcome
of
all
of
this
process,
but
everyone
did
the
same
thing,
which
is
we're
going
to
deliberate
over
these
issues
because
they
are
so
important.
I
think
that's
that's
why
we're
here,
because
it
is
so
insanely
important
to
the
people
of
wyoming
that
we
we
deliberate
over
these
issues.
A
The
fact
that
we're
here
to
deliberate
over
the
issue,
I
think,
tells
the
state
of
wyoming
that
it's
important
that
we
should
be
having
this
conversation
that
we
should
be
discussing
discussing
the
primacy
of
osha-
and
you
know
ms
laguerski
laguerski's
gonna-
come
up
in
a
minute
and
talk
to
us
about
that
as
well.
I'm
sure
and
the
reality
is,
I
mean
that's
a
policy
question
too
right
and
one
that
we
probably
can't
that
judiciary's
not
even
equipped
to
sort
out
right.
A
Maybe
that's
a
better
question
for
a
different
committee,
but
it's
a
policy
question
on
primacy
and
it's
a
guess
right,
because
we
don't
know
what
the
osha
regulation
is.
So
we
can't
say
that
by
enacting
h
b,
one
zero
zero
two
that
we
put
primacy
at
risk.
Theoretically,
we
do,
we
don't
know
what
does
we
don't
know
what
the
regulations
are.
If
there
will
be
an
actual
mandate,
we
don't
even
know
if
there
will
be
a
mandate.
There
isn't
one
we're
assuming
it's
gonna.
It's
gonna
go
through
regulation
process
right
sure.
A
R
Exactly
mr
chairman
and
and
I
guess
that
that
balance
of
one-sidedness
I
just
wanted
to
bring
the
people
who
I
run
with
like
the
notion
that
we
get
people
in
our
state
vaccinated
and
that
people
don't
leave
their
jobs
because
of
a
of
a
principle,
because
that
has
devastating
consequences.
R
We
already
struggle
with
the
workforce
in
this
state
and
we're
working
very
hard
to
build
that
workforce
policies
that
that
emulate
from
the
legislature
have
a
play,
a
large
role
in
us,
our
ability
to
build
a
workforce,
and
this
is
one
of
them.
So
I.
A
Guess
that
does
give
me
a
question
then,
and
we
asked
you
know-
we
asked
mr
bully
this
and
it's
hard
to
put
your
thumb
on
it.
But
do
you
have
your
thumb
on
the
idea
of
how
many
of
your
members
would
find
themselves
unemployed
because
of
a
choice
that
they
that
they
maybe
maybe
either
way
right?
They
chose
okay,
if
there's
not
gonna,
if
we're
not
gonna
have
mandated
vaccines
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
to
work
or
if
you're
going
to
mandate
vaccines
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
to
work
either
way.
R
I
I
don't,
mr
chairman,
I
apologize.
I
can't
guess
at
that
I
know
two
industries,
I've
heard
from
our
electrical
workers
and
the
railroad
and
I'm
in
pretty
steady
conversation
with
with
the
ibw
about
this,
and
each
one
of
our
unions
has
national
level
policies.
We
have
56
unions
in
our
membership,
so
it's
hard
for
me
to
keep
track
of
their
positions
at
the
federal
at
the
national
level
in
the
international
level.
So
I
couldn't
speak
to
those.
I
would
be
able
to
get
that,
but
I.
R
The
bigger
point
is
that
this
is
difficult
for
everyone
you
guys,
especially,
but
I
do
want
you
to
know.
When
we
had
our
convention.
We
had
about
60
people
there
and
I
I
was
nervous
we're
meeting
in
hotel
room.
You
know
and
aflcio
national
doesn't
even
want
us
to
do
that,
but
we
did
do
what
we
want
here
and
we
asked
how
many
of
you
are
are
vaccinated
if
you
voluntarily
85
of
the
people
attending
were
vaccinated.
R
So
I
felt
hopeful
about
that
that
our
membership
is
is
concerned
enough
that
they're
going
to
do
what
what
will
help
stem
the
tide
on
that
on
the
on
the
pandemic.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
an
indication
of
our
membership,
it's
just
the
amount,
the
leaders
and
our
membership
right.
R
So
I
do
worry
that
that
people
will
give
up
long
term
things
like
their
careers
over
this
issue
and
if,
if,
if
I
were
queen
for
a
day-
and
we
said
okay,
everybody,
it's
okay
to
go,
get
vaccinated,
it's
okay,
to
comply
with
a
mandate
and
we
all
went
and
got
vaccinated.
Then
we
won
on
down
our
lives.
R
This
whole
thing
would
go
away
and
they
wouldn't
lose
their
jobs
and
they
wouldn't
lose
their
pensions
and
20
years
from
now,
we'd
be
boy,
we're
sure
glad
we
did
that,
but
20
years
from
now
we
may
be
saying
man
you,
you
don't
have
a
retirement
account
your
your
family's
in
poverty.
L
Thank
you,
mr
just
a
comment
and
response,
something
you
said,
I'm
not
aware
that
the
state
of
wyoming
has
encouraged
anybody
to
give
up
their
pensions
and
quit
and
die
on
the
hill,
as
you
said,
but
rather
I
think
that
that's
an
individual
decision
that
your
union
members
are
making
on
their
own
and
probably
the
union
is
in
a
better
position
to
dissuade
them
of
that
option
than
is
the
state
legislature.
That's
my
comment.
R
Mr
chairman
representative,
washington,
thank
you
for
that
comment.
I
agree
with
you.
I
hope
that
those
decisions
that
the
union
does
step
in
and
help
them
with
those
decisions
but,
as
you
know,
many
people
claim
that
it's
an
individual
sort
of
decision
and
even
though
it's
a
public
health
issue,
it's
an
individual
approach,
and
I
I
I'm
just
here
to
share
with
you
some
unanticipated
consequences
that
that
are
very
painful
and
difficult
for
this
state
to
deal
with
in
the
long
term.
I
You,
mr
chairman,
miss
johnson:
do
you
know
how
approximately
any
number
of
people
within
your
membership
would
be
leaving
their
pensions
or
who
work
under
federal
guidance
right,
because
maybe
there's
a
possibility
that
the
legislature
in
trying
to
support
people
who
don't
want
to
follow
those
mandates,
support
those
folks
by
paying
for
pensions
unemployment?
R
Representative
olson
representative,
I'm
sorry
chairman,
olson,
representative
provenza.
I
don't,
but
I
do
want
to
remind
the
committee
of
one
thing
before
congress.
Right
now
is
the
infrastructure
bill,
which
means
a
lot
of
money
in
jobs
for
wyoming
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
improved
infrastructure,
roads,
electric
vehicle,
tran
charging
stations,
broadband
there's
about
seven
categories
of
improvements
that
will
be
coming
to
this
state
and
those
are
going
to
be
federal
dollars.
And
so
how
are
those
going
to
be
impacted?
R
We're
trying
very
hard
to
build
that
workforce
that
we're
going
to
need
we're
going
to
have
a
small-scale
nuclear
reactor?
That's
going
to
be
under
the
federal
government,
we're
going
to
have
a
government
contractors
here,
building
missile
silos
here
in
southeast
wyoming.
That's
all
going
to
be
connected
to
federal
money
and
federal
guidelines.
So
I
think
the
exponential
experience
of
this
is
going
to
be
much
bigger
even
than
what
it
is
right
now.
R
If,
if
the
way
the
federal
law
plays
out
that
we
don't
get
any
federal
money,
if
we
don't
well,
you
know
follow
the
follow
the
rules.
So
I
I
couldn't
give
you
specifics
on
my
organization,
but
I
can
tell
you
the
future
is
bright
for
wyoming,
with
jobs
that
are
coming
that
are
going
to
be
federally
funded,
but
we
might
not
get
those
and
we
might
not
get
that
money.
R
S
Good
afternoon,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
katie
legerski
with
the
associated
general
contractors
of
wyoming.
This
is
a
very
difficult
position
that
wyoming
contractors
are
faced
with
right
now
we
do
fall
under
the
federal
executive
order
for
federal
contracts.
We
do
have
a
number
of
contractors
currently
working
on
federal
contracts.
It's
our
understanding
that,
within
a
couple
weeks,
the
federal
government
is
going
to
come
in
and
do
change,
orders
and
mandates
that
all
federal
contractors
follow
the
maxine
band-aid.
S
Not
only
is
it
the
contractors,
but
the
contractor
is
also
going
to
be
responsible
to
ensure
that
all
their
sub
contractors,
not
just
tier
one
tier
two
tier
three.
Anybody
who
touches
that
contract,
whether
it's
the
person
in
the
office
working
on
payroll
word,
somebody
working
in
hr,
every
single
one
of
those
are
going
to
have
to
be
vaccinated
in
order
to
continue
working
on
the
federal
contract.
We've
already
signed
the
federal
contract,
so
we
would
face
liquidated
damages
strict
timelines.
S
So
we're
already
under
that
in
fact,
there's
a
project
that's
going
out
to
bid
in
natona
county.
I
believe
on
thursday
that
just
got
an
addendum
added
to
it
from
the
federal
government
that
says
the
mandate
is
in
effect,
we
have
a
number
of
wyoming
contractors
right
now
trying
to
determine
if
the
six
to
eight
million
dollar
project
is
worth
it.
There
are
some
contractors
that
will
go
ahead
and
mandate
the
vaccine
in
order
to
bid
on
that
contract
and
there's
some
contractors
who
won't.
S
S
As
we
all
know,
we
haven't
seen
the
final
rules.
We
don't
know
when
they're
coming
out.
There
is
a
rumor
mill
out
there.
That
said,
it
could
be
as
a
matter
within
a
couple
of
days
to
a
couple
of
weeks.
So
we
really
don't
know
we
do
believe
it
will
include
the
mandatory
vaccination
or
the
weekly
testing.
S
We
know
that
for
sure.
We
also
know
that,
on
october
19th
of
this
month,
osha
notified
utah,
arizona
and
south
carolina
that
it
was
initiating
reconsideration
proceedings
to
revoke
those
state
plans.
Those
osha
run
state
plans
because
they
did
not
adopt
the
osha
health
care
emergency,
temporary
standards
that
were
issued
on
june
10
2021.
S
We
know
that
in
several
states
right
now
they
stand
to
lose
their
state
osha
plan
because
they're
not
following
the
federal
guidelines
that
could
happen
in
wyoming
and
that's
what
concerns
us
if
we
were
to
lose
the
primacy
over
our
state,
osha.
Obviously,
we
would
like
to
continue
working
with
the
state
agencies,
rather
than
have
the
federal
government
to
come
in.
So
that's
where
we
have.
Our
concerns
is
on
the
policy
level.
S
S
A
State
plans
to
osha
20,
so
20
so
22
does
that
include
the
states
that
you
just
referenced
correct.
I
would
lose
their
correct
primacy
correct.
A
Osha
correct
so
we
would
operate
like
the
majority
of
states.
Do.
That
would
be
my
understanding,
mr
chavin,
and
what's
what
were
the
states?
You
said
utah
south
dakota.
It
was
utah
south
carolina
and
arizona.
N
S
Mr
chairman
and
representative,
when
it
comes
to
the
federal
contracts,
my
understanding
is,
there
isn't
any
exemptions.
A
A
Because
I
think
earlier
you
referenced
executive
order,
14042,
which
is
the
the
basic
the
basis
that
just
simply
says:
okay,
there's
a
mandate
on
any
any
entity
that
has
a
federal
contract
or
federal
employees
and
then
what
we're
just
so
everyone's
clear.
What
we're
waiting
on
right
now
is
the
the
literally.
F
S
So,
mr
chairman,
my
understanding
is
that
on
federal
contracts,
when
a
federal
government
agency
is
the
contracting
agency,
it's
a
hundred
percent
vaccination,
that's
already
under
the
executive
order.
Then
the
osha
order
will
go
to
the
federally
assisted
contracts
such
as
the
y-dot
contracts,
they're
federally
assisted,
because
the
federal
government
is
not
the
contracting
agency.
Those
are
the
rules
and
regulations
that
we're
currently
waiting
to
find
out.
What
there's
going
to
look
like
going
through
the
rule-making
process?
Is
there
going
to
be
a
rule?
S
Making
process
will
wyoming
have
the
six
months
to
implement
that
where
the
federal
government
or
the
rules
include
that
it
has
to
be
immediately.
There
are
two
separate
ones.
The
federal
contracting
entity
already
has
the
mandated
on
it
for
the
vaccine,
we're
waiting
on
the
federally
assisted
contracts
that
osha
would
have
jurisdiction
over.
A
Right
so
on
the
executive
order
track
we're
dealing
specifically
with
that
specific
federal
that
we're
obviously
not
touching
at
all.
In
our
conversation,
we
are
dealing
with
the
entities
that
may
be
subject
to
the
osha
regulation,
which
we
don't
know
exactly
what
it
says.
Yet
that
is
correct,
mr
chairman,.
A
A
I,
I
suppose,
there's
more
there's
multiple.
Do
you
have
a
better
guess
at
what
you
think
that
the
osha
regulation
might
say
to
so
to
be,
and
I
I
say
that,
but
I
say
it
purposefully,
because
if
we're
going
to
say
that
we're
going
to
jeopardize
osha
primacy,
then
we
would
have
to
know
what
the
regulation
says
to
know
that
if
we
don't
know
what
the
regulation
says,
how
can
we
say
that
we
will
jeopardize
osha
primacy?
S
Mr
chairman,
our
concerns
is,
is
that,
depending
upon
what
it
comes
out
in
the
rules,
if
it's
implemented
immediately,
as
we
have
seen
in
the
other
states
when
they
didn't
implement
it,
pretty
much
right
off
the
bat
that
osha
notified
those
states
that
they're
looking
at
revoking
their
state
primacy
over
the
osha?
That's
mainly
our
concerns
is
that
that
could
be
a
possibility
here.
S
S
It's
going
to
be
mandatory
vaccine
for
those
with
100
employees
or
more
you
know
we
have
concerns-
is
that
at
the
height
of
the
construction
season,
what
time
period
is
that
because
contractors
in
the
state
of
wyoming
they
very
well
may
have
75
employees
for
three
months
out
of
the
year?
For
the
other
nine
months,
they
may
have
200
300
400
employees
depending
upon
the
workload,
so
we're
not
sure
how
the
rules
and
regulations
are
going
to
look.
S
We're
just
concerned
about,
if
anything
happens,
on
the
state
level
that
may
prevent
wyoming
from
implementing
the
federal
rules
where
the
federal
government
come
in
to
try
to
revoke
our
privacy
on
wyoming,
osha,
that's
where
our
concern
lies.
You
know,
unfortunately,
there's
no
easy
answer,
because
we
don't
know
what
those
rules
are
going
to
look
like.
We
don't
know
what
legislation
may
come
down
at
the
state
level.
S
We're
just
wanted
to
share
and
express
our
concerns
that,
because
we
have
seen
it
in
three
other
states
where
federation
came
in
and
said
you
guys
did
not
do
what
we
suggested.
So
we're
going
to
start
the
process
to
to
revoke
your
primacy
we're
just.
We
would
prefer
not
to
see
that
in
the
state
of
wyoming
right.
A
So
I
guess
those
states
it
sounds
like
they
have
a
right
to
cure
process.
They
can
essentially
comply.
I
mean
just
worst
case
scenario.
Obviously
worst
case
scenario.
Is
we
pass
hb1002
chief
executive
signs
into
law,
some
employers,
public
entities,
decide
they're
going
to
follow
the
state
directed
here
and
not
enforce
of
the
federal
mandate.
A
Then
we
receive
a
letter
from
osha
and
then
worst
case
scenario.
We
come
back
in
in
february
and
we
say:
okay,
okay,
now,
let's
now,
let's
have
the
a
huge
discussion
about
primacy
and
whether
we
want
to
be
like
whether
we
want
to
be
like
the
majority
of
states
that
fall
under
federal,
osha
or
we
want
to
continue
to
be
the
path
that
we've
been
on
right,
which
is
we
have
primacy
over
our
own
osha
and
I'm.
F
A
All
suggesting
that
we
want
to
be
under
federal,
osha,
I'm
just
trying
to
map
out
if,
if
those
consequences
come
to
fruition
in
our
worst
case
scenario,
to
because
I
am-
and
I
think
this
committee's
very
receptive
to
your
concerns
and
your
association's
concerns
our
worst
case
scenario.
We
would
have
our
own
right
to
cure
through
those
agencies
potentially.
A
S
S
F
Representation,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I'm
trying
to
get
a
little
clarity
on
what
happened
in
those
other
states,
utah
and
so
they're
they're
over
june
2021
covid
rules.
So
is
it
that
their
state
didn't
enforce
the
federal
osha
rules
or
they
didn't
promulgate
rules
themselves
that
are
supposed
to
match
up
with
the
federal
rules?
S
Mr
chairman,
I
do
not
know
the
exact
details
of
what
has
taken
place
in
each
of
those
individual
states,
but
obviously
there
is
enough
concern
from
the
federal
government
that
they
did
not
enforce
osha's
health
care,
emergency
temporary
standards
by
the
date
that
it
was
suggested
that
they're
coming
in
to
to
look
at
revoking
their
state,
osha,
but
the
particular
details
of
what
took
place
in
each
of
their.
If
there
was
anything
at
the
legislative
level
was
they're.
S
F
Mr
chairman,
if
I
can
follow
up
so
so
I
really
do
wish
department
of
workforce
services
were
here,
so
we
could
question
them,
because
I
think
that
is
an
important
detail,
because
this
bill
says
that
a
public
entity
can't
enforce
any
mandate
or
standard
of
the
federal
government,
whether
emergency
et
cetera,
that
for
a
coven-19
vaccination.
So
if
an
osha
rule
came
down
that
said
all
employers,
which
is
basically
what
the
press
release
said,
all
employers
that
have
over
100
employees
are
required
to
vaccinate
manda
vaccinate
all
of
their
employees.
F
If
the
reason
that
the
utah
folks
were
reprimanded
was
because
they
didn't
promulgate
rules
on
their
own,
I
mean,
basically,
this
law
would
prevent
department
of
workforce
services
for
promulgating
a
rule
to
match
the
federal
osha
rule
right.
So
then,
my
my
concern
and
maybe
and
I'm
just
wondering
what
your
thoughts
on
this
is.
If
we
pass
this
bill
and
the
idea
that
the
federal
osha
would
slap
us
down,
if
we
didn't
promulgate
a
rule
at
all,
then
I
think
that
is
a
concern
where
we
might
lose
privacy
before
february
comes
around.
Do
you
think?
S
No
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
appreciate
your
time
just
to
hear
that
what
our
concerns
over
the
privacy
of
osha
are
so
we
appreciate
you
guys
coming.
We
appreciate
you
guys
getting
together
and
talking
about
some
very
difficult
decisions
and
some
very
difficult
issues
that
are
that
our
citizens
are
facing
here
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
especially
our
private
businesses.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
What
did
we,
we?
We
have
one
individual
signed
up
on
virtual.
T
Hello,
mr
chairman,
hello,
I
would
like
to
thank
you
all
for
allowing
me
the
opportunity
to
to
pitch
a
little
proposal
on
behalf
of
the
wyoming
press
association.
I'm
bob
bonner.
T
I
am
a
past
president
of
the
press
association
and
I'm
the
owner
and
publisher
of
the
newsletter
journal
in
newcastle
wyoming,
and
we
looked
at
the
bills
for
this
legislative
session
and
and
after
looking,
this
one
in
particular
seemed
interesting
to
us,
because
it
seemed
like
a
perfect
place
to
implement
a
proposal
that
we
have,
and
that
is
that
you
use
an
old
tool
of
democracy,
namely
newspaper
public
notices
to
buy
some
additional
time,
flexibility
and
maneuverability
for
the
state
of
wyoming
and
its
citizens
and
businesses.
T
I
did
email
all
of
you
language
of
a
brief
proposed
amendment,
mr
chairman,
zip,
all
right.
If
I
proceed
I'll
I'll,
read
it
out
loud.
If,
if
you
would.
A
T
The
committee
this
afternoon,
we've
got
it,
go
ahead.
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
language
would
be
in
section
two
and
what
I
would
propose
and
in
what
we
propose
is
a
new
letter
c
that
would
bump
down
the
existing
letter
c
would
bump
down
to
letter
d,
and
it
would
simply
say,
upon
certification
from
the
governor.
The
secretary
of
state
shall
order
three
publications
of
the
federal
government
mandate
or
standard
in
each
newspaper
of
general
circulation,
published
in
any
county
in
which
employers
will
be
required
to
comply
with
the
mandator
standard.
T
We
offer
this
as
an
effort
that
newspaper
public
know
it's
the
old.
What
is
old
has
become
new
again
newspaper
public
notices
were
identified
specifically
by
the
founders
as
a
mean
to
protects
the
population
to
ensure
well-informed
citizenry
was
capable
of
self-government
and
to
ensure
that
government
is
accountable
to
those
citizens
by
shining
the
light
of
transparency
on
actions.
Our
representative
government
feels
it
needs
to
take
on
our
behalf.
T
T
T
This
would
seem
to
be
something
that
would
give
the
legislature
give
the
people
give
businesses
a
little
extra
time,
if,
indeed,
something
is
certified
and
is
going
to
come
down
the
pipe
that
affects
all
of
us
and
if
osha
or
the
feds
are
going
to
suggest
skipping
a
public
comment
period.
I
would
suggest
a
language
like
this
in
one
of
the
bills
that
the
legislature
passes
would
perhaps
give
us
an
extra
legal
leg
to
stand
on
to
oppose
the
federal
government
moving
forward
without
a
comment
period.
T
They
really
are
standard
and
and
and
and
customary,
and
I
think
it
would
behoove
the
legislature
to
consider
including
this
language
in
in
any
legislation
you're
looking
to
pass.
We
thought
this
one
it
fit
particularly
well
with.
A
What
what
what's
an
idea
of
the
cost.
T
T
So
in
that
respect,
I
think
they're
a
really
effective,
pushback
against
federal
overreach
and,
as
I
said,
they're
a
pushback
that
was
specifically
embraced
historically
and
customarily
by
the
federal
government
themselves,
so
I
think
they
would
be
hard-pressed
to
this
particular.
T
You
know
standard
if
the
state
of
wyoming
put
this
in
legislation
as
an
expectation
that
we
would
have
before
we
would
enforce
compliance
with
any
mandate
and-
and
I
would
expect
I
I
apologize
mr
chairman
I'll-
continue-
that
that
as
far
as
paying
for
it
goes,
I
would
imagine
that
that
this
would
be
more
than
eligible
for
for
arpa
funds.
T
Again,
I
would
think
the
burden
of
paying
for
it
could
reasonably
and
should
reasonably
be
placed
on
the
federal
government.
It's
their
mandate.
You,
as
the
state
legislature,
are
simply
taking
a
step
to
ensure
that
your
citizens
are
appropriately
informed
and
given
an
appropriate
length
of
time
to
appeal
that
mandate.
It's
not
your
mandate,
it's
federal
government
mandates,
so
they
would
be
responsible
for
paying
for.
A
I
suppose
the
notice
kind
of
depends
on
how
prescriptive
the
language
is
here.
I
suppose
the
noted
this
the
notice
could
simply
require
a
citation
to
a
website
or
some
other
source,
where
the
full
language
of
the
mandate
could
be
found,
as
opposed
to
publishing
the
full
length
of
the
mandate.
Or
do
you
envision
the
full
length
of
the
mandate
being
published
in
the
notice
verbatim.
T
Mr
chairman,
for
the
purpose
of
encouraging
brevity
and
clarity,
which
I
think
there
has
been,
if
you
read
some
of
the
the
emails
I
did
send
to
the
members
this
afternoon-
and
I
understand
we
were
all
rushed,
so
you
probably
haven't
had
a
chance
to
yet
probably
one
of
the
primary
failures
and
the
reason
we
find
ourselves
in
this
position
with
a
special
session
staring
down
mandates
is,
is
because
really
the
whole
covet
thing,
especially
at
the
federal
level
is,
is
amounted
to
a
massive
failure
of
communication.
T
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
the
state
legislature
again
in
pushing
back
against
the
federal
government
to
suggest
that,
first
and
foremost,
they
need
to
to
communicate
with
people
with
more
clarity,
with
more
brevity
and
and
with
a
lot
less
confusion,
and
I
would,
I
would
suggest
you
put
it
to
people
in
writing.
Even
a
year
ago
when,
when
mandates
were
coming
out
in
in
states,
I
I
think
they
would
have
been
a
lot
more
palatable
to
people
had
they
seen
them.
T
Where
they're,
where
they're
used
to
seeing
things
like
like
directives
from
government
or
emergency,
I
mean
people
expect
to
see
things
posted.
They
expect
to
to
be
able
to
sit
and
read
and
consume
them,
and-
and
we
now
have
a
lot
of
other
sources
with
the
internet
and
things
where
we
do
that.
But
if
anything
else
covered
in
the
past
years
has
taught
us
that
that
sometimes
too
many
sources
can
can
create
even
greater
confusion.
So
no,
I
would
to
to
sorry
to
shorten
things
up.
T
A
Well,
perfect,
we
appreciate
you
giving
us
your
insight.
We
appreciate
you
sending
this
to
us
in
writing
in
advance
too
and
you're
right,
our
day's
been
a
little
chaotic
and
busy,
so
we
haven't
been
able
to
digest
all
of
our
emails
yet,
but
it's
always
nice
to
have
that
in
writing.
So
appreciate
that.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
what
I
am
going
did
you
have
more
you
wanted
to?
Are
you
just
coming
up
while
we
work
the
bill,
because
what
I
was
going
to
do
majority
florida
leader
summers
is,
I
was
actually
if
I
have
no
more
public
testimony,
I'm
thinking
I'm
going
to
close
bulk
testimony,
I'm
going
to
take
a
15
minute
break,
let
my
committee
members
stretch
and
get
some
water
and
coffee
and
then
we'll
come
back
and
work
the
bill
that
sound
good.
Okay,
then
we'll
go
to
a
15-minute
recess.
Please.
Q
P
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Do
you
know
where
it
is?
Is
there
one
on
this
hall,
yes
down
here,
yes,
okay,.
Q
D
A
Let
me
first
ask
if
we
have
a
motion
on
the
bill:
bill's
removed
and
moved
by
vice
chairman
washington
seconded
by
representative
larson,
bringing
majority
four
leader
summers
into
our
committee
discussion
you
you
might
have
some
based
on
the
discussion
we've
been
having
with
the
public.
You
might
have
some
different
suggestions.
Well,
mr
chairman,
I
just
think.
D
Broadly,
what
are
your
options?
One?
You
can
kill
a
bill.
That's
one
option,
not
my
preferred,
but
you
can
do
that.
Certainly
two,
you
can
you
can
strip
out
section
two
and
it
becomes
strictly
a
findings
bill
and
a
funding
bill
and
then
three
is
you
can
keep
in
section
two
leave
it
as
it
is
or
modify
it,
and
so
you
know
you-
and
I
talked
a
little
bit
about
house
bill
1001
and
the
fact
that
in
a
separate
section
it
had
a
it
had
a
thing.
Well,
it's
almost
the
exact
same
language.
D
It
says
the
data
federal
law,
regulation,
rule
or
standard
takes
legal
effect
that
has
the
effect
of
requiring
wyoming
employers
to
comply
with
a
federal
covet,
19
vaccine
mandate
and
any
challenge
to
the
federal
law,
regulation,
rule
or
standard
in
the
federal
courts
system
is
exhausted,
so
it
it
uses
similar
language
and
so
I'll
read
that
again
and
let
me
read,
let
me
read
how
that
starts.
So
you
understand
how
the
provisions
of
section
2
of
this
act
shall
be
repealed
upon
the
earlier
of
of
sunset
date
or
the
date
majority.
A
D
Starts
on
page
14
and
goes
on
15.,
okay
go
ahead,
and
so
so
let
me
start
over.
So
basically
the
provisions
of
section
two
of
this
act
shall
be
repealed
upon
the
earlier
of
a
sunset
date,
which
is
romanette
2
and
romanette
1,
which
is
the
date.
D
A
federal
law
of
regulation,
rule
or
standard
takes
legal
effect
that
has
the
effect
of
requiring
wyoming
employers
to
comply
with
a
federal
covet,
19
vaccine
mandate
and
any
challenge
to
the
federal
law,
regulation,
rule
or
standard
in
a
federal
court
system
is
exhausted,
so
it
uses
that
same
thorough
language
and-
and
so,
mr
chairman,
just
to
bounce
back
to
you,
know
to
further
confuse
you
and
bounce
back
to
my
bill.
D
One
thing
that
you
guys
noticed
right
off
the
bat
is
that
that,
in
my
b,
no
public
entity
shall
enforce
any
mandate
or
standard
of
the
federal
government.
It
doesn't
say
anything
about
imposing
their
own
mandate
prior
prior
to
a
federal
mandate.
So
that's
one
decision
you
could
make
if,
depending
on
what
you
want
to
do,
you
could
put
something
in
prior
to
a
federal
regulation
being
imposed.
D
If
you
wanted
to
and
then
remember
the
the
suggestion
I
had
was,
if
you,
if
you're
worried
about
the
challenge
through
the
courts
and
what
effect
that'll
have
on
the
various
things
you
heard,
then
really.
I
think
you
need
to
go
in
on
page
six
line
23
starting
at
and
and
you
strike
the
rest
of
that
line
and
on
page
seven
you
strike
all
of
line
one
and
you
strike
line
two
through
exhausted.
D
That's
if
you
wanna,
that's,
if
you
wanna
be
sure
you're
not
gonna,
be
pitting
one
against
the
other
in
law
and
then
I
think
the
law,
you
know
you
guys
are
the
judiciary
committee.
You
know
whether
you
want
a
penalty,
you
know.
If
you
have
no
teeth
in
a
law,
you
know.
Do
you
really
want
to
pass
law
that
you
know
is
going
to
get
violated
because
people
have
to
violate
that's
the
question
we,
as
the
legislature
have
to
ask
and
answer
so,
mr
chairman,
those
are
some
of
the
options.
A
E
I'm
gonna
go
for
the
the
big
one
first
and
if
that
doesn't
work,
I'll
have
some
small
ones
later,
but
I
would
my
first
motion
and
just
conceptually
it
takes
out
all
the
findings
and
takes
out
everything
besides
the
money
and
the
ag
power.
But
for
the
motion
effect,
I
would
move
that
we
delete
pages
one
through
five
and
then
we
would,
in
other
words,
just
delete
section
one
delete
section,
one:
okay
and
then
on
page
six.
E
We
would
leave
in
lines
one
through
twelve
to
still
define
what
covet
19
is
and
a
vaccination
and
then
delete
the
rest
of
the
bill
up
into
page
seven
with
section
three,
you
want
one.
You
want
a
global
motion,
it's
a
global
motion
to
really
delete
everything.
Besides
leaving
section
three
and
four
with
the
definition
of
covet
19
vaccination,
so
we
would
still
give
the
ag
and
the
governor's
office
a
million
dollars,
tell
them
to
go.
E
Take
any
and
all
legal
action
to
resist
federal
government
interference,
but
save
our
public
entities
from
being
in
interest
in
controversial
positions.
For
a
second
on
the
motion.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
you
know,
I
think
it
makes
the
statement
that
the
legislature
wanted
said
that
they
wanted
to
make,
which
is
we
want
to
fight
the
federal
government
mandate,
we're
going
to
we're
willing
to
put
our
money
behind
where
our
words
are
without
the
necessary
risking
of
a
whole
bunch
of
people,
their
jobs
and
their
and
their
health
care,
their
access
to
health
care
right.
F
So
that's
why
I'm
in
favor
of
it
keep
that
statement
that
that
legislature
seems
to
want
to
make
without
putting
pitting
pitting
our
providers
and
our
workers
and
our
contractors
at
risk
in
the
middle.
Thank
you,
mr.
A
E
E
Four
line:
two:
okay
after
the
word,
please
insert
covet
19.,
and
so
this
is
in
the
findings.
It
talks
about
the
covet,
19
vaccination
everywhere
else
and
I'd
just
like
to
add
coven
19
here.
As
you
know,
school
districts
already
require
a
host
of
vaccinations
etc,
and
I
don't
want
there
to
be
any
unintended
consequences
with
this
bill.
So
I'd
make
that
motion
that
covet
19
on
line
two.
A
A
E
Like
another,
as
many
as
you
like,
tempting
so
committee
would
be
at
the
bottom
of
page
six
after
on
line
23,
and
this
is
what
we
just
alluded
to
after
the
word
mandate,
put
a
period
and
delete
starting
with
and
any
challenge
to
the
and
then
all
of
lines,
one
through
four
on
page,
seven,
one
through
four
or
one
through
two
one
through
four,
because
I
don't
believe
the
governor
needs
to
certify
anything
that
all
legal
revenues
were
exhausted.
E
And
so
this
still
says
when
it
takes
legal
effect.
It's
good
to
go,
but
I
mean
we've
been
challenging
some
court
cases
for
30
years
federally.
So
this
just
takes
out
the
the
interesting
standard
that
everything
has
to
be
exhausted
from
the
legal
realm.
It
just
says
when
it
takes
legal
effect,
and
I
would
if
I
get
a
second,
I
can
further
explain.
E
Of
the
government,
certification
and-
and
so
yes,
mr
chairman,
I
I
believe
in
how
I
read
it.
The
certification
part
of
the
governor
shall
certify
the
occurrences
really
is
based
on
how
many
challenges
are
left
out
there.
It's
not
based
on
when
the
legal
effect
takes
place,
but
certainly
an
attorney
can
argue
with
me
on
that,
but
I
believe
the
certification
is
that
all
legal
avenues
have
been
exhausted,
not
that
the
legal
effect
date
when
it
takes
place.
I
think
that's
pretty
clear
when
the
federal
government
says
by
this
date.
I
D
D
So
then
you've
got
to
go
back
right
and
read
all
the
occurrences
and
the
occurrences
would
include
what
entities
do
or
do
not
enforce
the
regulations.
Be
my
guess
so
I
just
want
to
make
you
understand.
I
I
guess
you
need
to
be
sure
of
what
you're
doing
representative
swansea
and
that
that's
your
intent.
That's
fine,
but
just
understand
the
plain
language
yeah.
A
I
would
I
I
read
it
as
the
chief
executive
is
certifying
more
than
just
that,
the
co
that
the
action
in
the
court
has
been
exhausted.
So
I
would
ask
I
would
move
to
amend
this
representative
or
maybe
take
it
piece
by
piece.
I
think
I
think,
there's
a
consensus
to
delete
line
23
after
mandate
through
line
two
to
the
period.
I
think
there's
a
consensus
to
do
that.
E
Sorry
I'll
wait
till
I
apologize.
I
would
mr
truman,
if
let
me
amend
my
motion
at
this
time
if
it's
okay
with
a
second
just
include
the
first
two
lines,
then,
through
the
word
exhausted
period.
G
On
this
amendment,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
guess
a
question
for
the
the
bringer
of
the
amendment.
What
is
the
point
of
that
particular
subsection?
If
we
take
that
language
out,
so
we're
saying
you're
not
going
to
enforce
the
mandate
until
the
mandate
goes
into
effect,
so
we're
just
saying:
what
exactly
are
we
saying
with
that
provision?
G
Then,
if
we
don't
leave
the
challenge,
I
mean
my
thought
of
this
bill
was
we
were
buying
ourselves
time
and
I
actually
believe
that
the
provision
that
you're
proposing
to
strike
is
the
most
important
provision
in
the
entire
bill
from
my
perspective,
because
it
buys
this
time
right
or
wrong.
I
don't
I'm
not
saying
it's
a
good
idea,
a
bad
idea.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea,
but
it's
that's
probably
something
we
should
let
the
body
decide.
G
I
guess
is
where
I'm
going
with
that
and
because
once
we
take
that
out,
all
we're
saying
is
you're
not
going
to
enforce
the
mandate
until
the
mandate
goes
into
effect.
Well,
I
I
guess
I
don't
know
the
point
of
that,
because
the
mandate's
coming
soon
so
it
would
buy
us
maybe
a
week
or
two
of
public
entities
could
not,
but
we
don't
even
know
what,
if
what
the
mandate's
gonna
say,
whether
they're
enforcing
it
not
enforcing
it.
So
I
guess
I
just
throwing
that
out
there.
E
Thanks,
mr
chairman,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
coming
soon,
I
keep
hearing
that
it's
going
to
for
six
weeks
now,
and
maybe
it's
the
question
on
takes
legal
effect,
and
so
in
my
mind
how
this
would
work,
how
it's
going
to
work.
If
this
keeps
going
the
way
it's
going,
is
federal
rules
come
out.
Maybe
there's
no
comment
period.
E
Some
entity
or
state
runs
to
a
federal
court
somewhere
in
the
country
and
you
get
an
injunction
and
I
think
that's
the
most
likely
that
that's
going
to
happen
and
they
stop
it
from
ever.
Taking
legal
effect
for,
however,
long
that
judicial
process
takes,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
if
there
there
needs
to
be
that
element
of
time.
Maybe
there
does,
but
when
I
think
it
in
my
mind
and
I'm
not
the
attorney
right.
F
L
G
G
Then
you
run
to
run
to
the
courthouse
file,
your
action
that
particular
day,
because
otherwise,
if
they
could
withdraw
it
at
any
particular
point
in
time,
the
administration
so
until
it's
actually
promulgated
and
is
enforced
against
the
country,
we
can't
challenge
it,
and
so
I
think
it's
this
weird
little
nuance
in
the
law,
which
was
why
I
tend
to
like
the
language
that
the
amendment
would
take
out,
and
maybe
we
need
to
flesh
this
out
a
little
bit
more
talk
about
it.
A
little
bit
more.
G
But
essentially
what
representative
zwanitzer
is
saying
is
an
injunction
falls
under
the
challenge
to
the
law,
and
so
that's
why
I
thought
the
language
I
agree
with
you.
That's
what's
going
to
ultimately
hold
up,
the
enforcement
of
the
mandate
is
an
injunction
somewhere
along
the
line
and
maybe
the
injunction
gets
struck
down
right
away.
There
is
no
injunction,
and
you
know
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
where
we
what
will
happen.
We
can't
foresee
the
future,
but
that's
why
I
like
to
leave
the
language
and
it
gives
us
a
little
flexibility,
because.
E
I,
I
think,
that's
one
more
level
of
safety,
but
I
I
I
it
bothered
me
any
challenge
to
exhaustion,
and
that
leaves
a
lot
of
people
in
other
murky
waters
of
one
goes
down.
Court
case
gets
decided.
Somebody
else
runs
to
another
circuit
puts
one
right
back
in
and
files
one
the
same
day
and
it's
so
difficult
when
we
don't
have
clarity
on
what
the
rules
are
and
when
they're
coming
into
effect.
Is
the
problem
we're
going
to
keep
going
back
to
so
vote
your
conscience
on
the
amendment?
E
A
M
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
moved
to
strike
lines
six
through
ten
on
page
seven.
A
A
M
N
A
D
P
D
Guy
right,
and
so
when
I
give
a
vaccine,
I
give
a
variety,
a
level
different
levels
of
immunity
and
it
may
not
be
in
a
full
immunity,
and
so
I
think
it
was
just
rather
than
get
into
the
biological
science
of
what
immunity
is.
I
think
it
was
decided
in
this
verbiage
to
use
prior
recovery,
then
we're
not
making
a
science-based
decision.
D
H
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
don't
believe
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
that
it
is
defined,
in
which
case
the
law
says
that
the
the
ordinary
and.
I
Representative
provenza,
so
my
follow-up
to
that
would
be
then
what
is
the
like?
Oh
the
consensus
on
the
meaning.
So
what's
the
general
meaning,
if
you
were
gonna,
define
natural
immunity?
What
is
it.
O
I
I
I
like
the
amendment
the
way
it
sits,
because
I
you
may
not
know
that
you
had
it,
it
might
have
been
so
mild
or
something
and-
and
you
could
be
tested
for
this.
L
A
P
F
A
A
Okay,
oh
he's
getting
green
books.
Okay,
representative
ian
is
also
our
resident
technologist,
so
this
server
used
to
go
down
a
lot
on
us
during
session
and
representative
yin
knew
how
to
go
into
that
room
and
get
us
rebooted.
So
that's
what
I
was
nervous
about.
A
E
Representatives
wanted,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
know
this
is
an
important
bill.
The
majority
floor
later
and
a
lot
of
people,
and
I
actually
voted
for
the
amendment
that
took
out
c
with
the
penalties.
E
I
don't
believe
I
can
vote
for
the
bill
now
in
general,
because
what
we've
actually
done
is
allowed
a
very
any
competent
and
smart
attorney.
Now
that
it's
the
law
right
can
sue
for
any
amount
of
damages
as
a
civil
penalty,
for
violation
of
the
law
for
any
public
entity.
So
our
community
colleges,
our
hospitals
and
I
just
think
you're
opening
the
door
to
a
massive
amount
of
litigation
that
that's
already
the
most
passionate
controversial
issue.
E
You
know
we'll
be
dealing
with
in
the
state
for
the
next
couple
of
years,
and
so
it
just
really
worries
me
that
we're
putting
all
of
our
public
institutions
at
risk
of
lawsuits
that
you
know
probably
won't,
go
all
the
way
through,
but
they'll
settle
and
it's
still
going
to
be
a
burden
and
cost
of
the
taxpayer.
E
L
Much
like
a
rebellious
teenager,
who
you
know
lashes
out
at
the
parents
is
only
so
far
you
can
go
because
your
parents
got
the
checkbook
and
I
think,
that's
kind
of
where
we're
at.
In
this
situation,
we've
heard
from
our
hospitals
we've
heard
from
contractors,
we've
heard
from
nursing
homes,
education
and
all
sorts
of
other
folks,
who've
at
least
suggested
that
you
know
there's
only
so
much.
L
We
can
do
in
this
circumstance
with
the
federal
government
threatening
these
mandates,
and
lots
of
it
comes
back
down
to
the
fact
that
we
are
so
dependent
upon
the
federal
dollar.
So
stating
the
obvious
my
two
cents
worth
I'll
be
in.
I
vote.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
mean,
I
think,
based
on
the
audience
that
I
see
in
this
room,
this
bill
wasn't
the
bill
that
the
public
was
actually
asking
for.
It
wasn't
necessarily
to
fight
federal
mandates,
even
though
this
is
the
the
what
the
specific
bill
that
that
does
that,
and
so
I'm
I'm
a
little
unsure
why
we
should
pass
this.
If
all
the
public
comment
that
we've
been
given
is
wholly
negative
and
the
possible
effects
that
it'll
have
on
each
of
our
communities
and
their
healthcare
providers,
I
think
that
ultimately.
F
Even
if
it
was
a
bill
that
we
wanted
to
do
and
that
we
should
be
doing
it's
still
premature,
so
I
think
we
could
know
better
on
how
to
target
federal
mandates
if
we
knew
what
the
federal
mandates
were.
Unfortunately,
we
we
don't
have
that
ability.
We
will
have
it
in
february.
I'm
pretty
sure
that
we'll
have
that
ability
and
the
question
is
what
is
the
reason
to
do
it
now,
rather
than
to
do
it
in
february?
F
I
think
the
gamble.
That,
though,
is
that
you
you
have
the
possibility
of
harming
a
lot
of
people
by
doing
it
now,
while
in
february,
you
will
actually
have
something
that
we
can
actually
respond
to
and
and
construct
actual
language
around
right
now
we're
guessing
we're
guessing
and
with
the
idea
and
thought
that
we
can
fix
it
in
february
if
we
do
screw
up
and
I
think
that's
a
terrible
way
to
create
law,
so
I
will
be
voting
now.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
briefly.
I
guess
possibly
in
response
or
just
in
discussion,
but
from
what
we
just
heard
saying
that
this
isn't
what
the
public
you
know
wants
from
us,
but
but
I
think
overwhelmingly
what
we
have
heard
from
wyoming
people
in
our
constituents.
The
most
reiterated
concern
is
about
federal
overreach.
H
I
am
concerned,
and
I
don't
want
to
put
wyoming
people
and
our
medical
facilities
in
you
know
in
a
bad
position,
but
we've
come
here
to
have
discussion
to
have
debate,
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
see.
If
there
is
a
way
we
can
push
back
against
the
federal
government
and
what
they're
proposing
I
don't
know
if
this
is
perfect,
I
have
concerns
about.
H
You
know
obviously
saying
don't
do
the
federal
mandate
and
then
we
wait
for
the
federal
mandate
to
come
out.
Of
course
that's
concerning,
but
I
guess
at
this
point
I
feel
like
that's.
What
we've
come
here
to
do
is
to
have
that
discussion.
This
is
one
vehicle
and
I
think
it
should
go
to
the
floor
for
further
vetting
and
debate
so
I'll,
be
in
my
vote.
I
I
I
think
that
the
unfortunate
reality
is
that,
due
to
the
consequences
of
trying
to
help
those
people
to
stop
the
federal
overreach,
we're
creating
state
overreach
and
which
is
resulting
in
an
unconstitutional
overreach,
it's
confusing
it's
not
going
to
be
helpful.
It's
also
not
going
to
be
a
shield
at
least
not
an
effective
one,
and,
like
you
know,
we
keep
talking
about
risks
of
well.
I
Let's
call
the
bluff
call
the
bluff
of
the
federal
government
see
if
they're
going
to
shut
down
this
hospital
or
that
hospital,
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
here
has
played
texas
hold'em,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
what
we're
holding
is
a
pair
of
twos
and
we've
got
no
business,
calling
a
bluff
when
the
other
party
might
be
holding
aces.
So
I'm
a
no
on
this.
A
Well,
before
we
vote,
I
just
want
to
make
a
few
comments
I
want
to.
I
just
really
appreciate
the
public
weighing
in
on
this
bill.
Definitely
appreciate
the
agencies,
appreciate
the
association
weighing
in
on
this
bill
and
to
that
is
a
significant
point,
because
just
have
to
you
know
respond
to
some
of
the
comments
that
are
made.
I
I
wholly
disagree
that
this
wasn't
the
bill
that
the
public
wanted
to
hear.
A
The
the
director
of
the
department
of
health
was
here,
the
the
we
had
the
hospital
association
here,
where
the
vice
was
sent
down,
the
room
to
the
other
bill
and
bills
are
being
held
simultaneously,
I
mean
I
just
I
wholly
reject
that
idea.
I
think
that
you
know
the
room
could
be
filled
or
not,
but
you
know
what
I
heard
from
the
hospital
association.
A
A
I
heard
when
we
take
in
taking
out
the
penalty
I
heard
from
the
department
of
health
that
they
they
don't
need.
A
penalty
in
a
bill
to
follow
state
directive
and
state
law,
because
they
want
to
do
that
and
I
think
that's
true.
I
don't
think
that
the
penalty
is
the
only
way
that
you
can
guide
agencies.
A
I
understand
deeply
the
you
know
the
dynamic
that
we
have
with
the
federal
government
and
what
we
are
trying
to
accomplish
with
this.
I
think
that
I'm
going
to
vote
in
favor
of
this,
because
I'm
going
to
send
it
to
the
floor
because
we're
here
we're
here
to
continue
to
deliberate
over
these
issues
in
a
perfect
world.
Yes,
I
would
have
preferred
this
bill
over
an
interim.
I
would
have
preferred
to
have
more
public
testimony,
I
think,
to
the
point
of
the
good
minority
caucus
leader.
A
I
I
always
feel
more
confident
when
I
come
back
into
a
session,
and
I
have
a
committee
bill
because
it's
been
vetted
through
months
and
months
of
time,
but
we're
not
operating
in
a
perfect
world
right
now
we're
operating
in
completely
unprecedented
times
and
in
my
perfect
world
the
federal
government
wouldn't
have
mandated
such
a
thing
on
the
people
of
the
united
states.