►
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
All
right
I'd
like
to
call
this
meeting
back
to
order,
and
so
the
house
met
and-
and
I
guess
what
we
would
like
to
propose-
is
on
the
definition
page,
seven
definition
of
public
entity
that
we
retain
the
house
position.
The
original
the
house
position
that
we
came
out
of
the
house
with
which
includes
the
accept
that
public
entity
does
not
include
an
entity
receiving
federal
funding
that,
by
complying
with
subsection
b
of
this
section,
would
lose
that
federal
funding
we'd
go
on
down
and
we
would
like
to
keep
the
house
position
on
c.
A
Moving
on
down.
Keep
the
house
position
on
d
as
it
flips
over
to
page
eight,
so
house
position
on
that,
and
then
on
house
e.
We
would
delete,
we
would
receive
the
house
e
and
we
would
ask
that
the
senate
received
from
sin
at
e,
and
so
that
would
be
kind
of
our
proposal
on
subs.
On
section
two,
mr
chairman,.
B
Please,
might
I
ask
on
page
seven
line
four:
is
it
necessary
to
to
insert
the
word
or
applying
for
in
there
or
is
that
putting
too
fine
a
point
on
it.
A
I'm
I'm
not
one
is
it.
I
don't
care
if
it's
as
long
as
it's
between
the.
A
And
then,
obviously
all
the
rest
of
you
know
section
one
which
was
the
findings
we're
receding
to
whatever
amendments
you
had
there.
We
went
over
that
earlier
and
that
would
include
the
resolution.
B
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
don't
want
to
gum
this
up
too
much,
but
one
concern
I
had
was
in
b.
We
talk
about
so
we
have
we're
having
some
conversations
about
paragraph
c,
and
I
don't
like
how
wordy
it
is.
It
says,
to
the
extent
this
section
conflicts
with
a
federal
law,
regulation,
rule
standard
or
order,
so
I
asked
lso
can't
we
just
say
mandate
and
they
said
well:
we'd
need
to
define
it
somewhere.
D
I
said
okay,
but
then,
if
you
go
back
up
to
paragraph
b
on
line
eight,
what
we're
prohibiting
is
no
public
entity
shall
enforce
any
mandate
or
standard
okay.
So
that's
the
narrow
scope
of
what
we're
fighting.
If
congress
were
to
come
in
and
say
you
have
to
do
covet
vaccine
we're
limited
right,
that's
not
that's
outside
the
scope
of
what
we
approved
in
eight
or
excuse
me
in
b,
so
with
c,
that's
where
it
gets
a
little
gummed
up
for
me
of
how
that
works.
D
So
something
to
consider
as
an
amendment
to
your
amendment
perhaps
but
I
want
some
discussion
at
first-
is
that
language
law
regulation,
rule
standard
or
order
and
just
have,
for
consistency's
sake,
keep
it
mandate
or
standard
to
be
consistent
with
the
language
used
in
paragraph
b
and
then
along
those
lines.
In
paragraph
d,
going
on
to
page
eight
you'll
see
on
line
one
that
same
federal
law,
regulation,
rule
standard
or
order,
for
consistency's
sake,
maybe
consider
mandate
or
standard
standard
I'd.
Like
some
discussion
on
that.
Mr
chairman.
A
D
A
All
right,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion-
and
I
will
repeat
the
motion,
and
so
we
are
retaining
all
of
the
house
position
on
page
seven
on
page
eight
we're
retaining
the
house
position
on
lines,
one
through
five
and
we
are,
we
are
receiving
the
house
position
on
our
e
and
the
senate
is
receiving
their
position
on
e,
their
e
so
and
mr
chairman,
just
to
be
clear
in
the
house,
but
also
accept
all
other
senate
amendments
correct.
A
We
still
haven't
crunched
out
the
number
in
the
you
know
we're
still
at
that.
What
what
number
we're
at
so
it's
basically
section
one
through
two
will
be
completed.
We've
agreed
on
section
three
what
we
have
not
agreed
up
yet
upon.
Well,
I'm
going
to
finish
the
most
okay,
so
yeah,
the
demotion
is,
I'm
not
going
to
restate
it
again.
A
All
those
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
opposed
motion
carries
so
now
we
agreed
on
section
three
already
the
the
the
senator
ellis
language,
and
now
we
are
back
on
section
four,
where
we're
at
on
the
money,
and
I
believe
the
last
we
did
not
vote
on.
I
don't
believe
we
voted
on
the
appropriation
yet.
Is
that
correct.
C
B
So,
mr
senator
kinski,
so
this
language
that
we
finally
came
up
with
between
staff
and
and
senator
ellis
on
that
on
that
romanet
double
little
eye,
I
saw
some
representatives
governor's
office
were
there
concerns
assuaged
on
that
as
well.
A
I
you
know,
I
think
you
know
one
thing:
is
we
look
at
the
language
that
we
created
in?
Let
me
find
it
here:
the
authorities
that
we
gave
the
ag.
We
give
her
some
fairly
broad
authorities,
and
I
think
the
one
question
was
there
is
a
program
in
the
acts.
The
access
for
justice
program.
A
Isn't
that
what
it's
called
in
the
ages
office-
and
you
know
perhaps
where
I
think
we're
hoping
that
the
language
that
was
broad
enough-
that
maybe
would
allow
her
to
to
be
11
some
money
into
that
program
to
help
citizens,
because
that
program
does
help
citizens.
So
I
think
I
think
that's
some
of
what
we're
hoping.
D
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
we'll
just
take
a
roll
call
on
the
jccc,
as
you
agreed
to
it,
heather
all
right,
all
those
how
about
this,
let's
yeah
well.
Does
somebody
make
the
motion
as
to
agree
to
the
joint
conference
committee
report
as
memorialized
in
the
prior
motions
and
then
lso
will
draft
those
for
for
your
signatures.