►
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
As
well,
that
is
here
the
second
and
then
you
go
to
page
seven.
This
was
a
my
effort
to
basically
delay
all
employer,
all
vaccine
mandates
for
another
90
days.
So
from
the
date
this
went
into
into
law,
which
is
an
effective
immediately
date.
It
would
say
nobody
can
impose
any
backseat
mandate
for
90
days.
A
Now
I
understand
this
is
not
desirable
to
a
company
that
has
a
mandate
beginning
on
november
1st,
but
my
concern
wasn't
that
my
concern
was
getting
everybody
setting
a
point
in
time
and
saying
you
can
do
this,
but
everybody
gets
90
days
notice,
so
reset
the
clock.
If
you're
going
to
do
this,
we're
resetting
the
clock
on
you
now
you
may.
If
this
bill
goes
forward,
you
may
get
someone
that
says:
hey
we.
A
It
doesn't
apply
to
someone
that
already
had
a
mandate,
it's
already
taken
effect,
because
that
would
be
x,
post
facto-
that's
not
allowed,
but
it
does
anybody
that
has
not
implemented
a
mandate.
It
would
say
you're
all
on
pause
for
90
days
till
you
complete
the
rest
of
these
guidelines,
including
the
first
one.
We
just
went
through
medical
and
religious
exemptions
and
then
the
the
third
one,
so
that's
number
romanet
double
I
and
then
the
third
one
is
roman.
Let
triple
I,
and
that
is
the
employer-
is
responsible
for
giving
the
employee
reasonable
alternatives.
A
Now
reasonable
alternatives
is,
is
defined
earlier
in
the
bill
and
I'll
just
I'll
just
flip
back
to
it
and
and
give
you
the
definition
we
shall
include,
but
not
be
limited
to
reassignment
of
work
duties,
meaning
it's
in
a
patient
care
setting.
You
can
be
in
a
non-patient
care
setting
or
etc,
or
covid
19
testing
consistent
with
cur
covid
with
current
guidelines,
so
that
would
give
to
or
and
not
limited
to
that
there
could
be
other
things
that
may
be
reasonable,
depending
on
where,
where
they,
what
the
work
environment
is
but
going.
A
A
A
A
It
seems
also
reasonable
to
me
that
the
employer
has
implemented
some
kind
of
other
alternative
for
those
folks,
some
testing
or
some
you
know-
change
of
workplace
or
etc
to
help
protect
they're
still
their
business.
So
all
we're
saying
with
this
one
is:
is
that
look
if
you
could
do
it
for
the
folks
that
got
an
exemption?
A
Why
can't
we
do
it
for
folks
that
may
not
be
eligible
for
exemption,
but
have
some
other
reason
not
to
be
not
to
want
to
receive
the
vaccine?
This
comes
to
the
personal
conviction
thing
that
we've
heard
about,
but
there's
no
definition
for
that.
So
this
is
basically
a
way
to
say
hey
if
you
can
allow,
if
you
already
are
accommodating
folks
that
have
an
exemption.
A
B
A
A
Incongruous,
they're
not
the
same
standard,
so
you
take
a
healthcare
employer
who
has
more
than
100
people
they
fall
under
osha.
They
may
fall
under
something
very
different
for
cms.
Now
I
don't
know
that
because
we're
awaiting
the
rules,
but
you
can
certainly
see
a
scenario
in
the
world
we
live
in,
where
we'd
have
two
different
standards
and
a
employer.
A
Also
a
health
care
provider
was
going
okay.
Now
we've
got
to
follow
two
different
mandates
and
they're
different,
and
how
does
that
affect
different
people
in
my
own
organization,
I.e,
a
healthcare
worker
or
an
administrator
within
the
same
organization
I
mean
so
that's
the
90-day,
hey
just
everybody
just
take
a
step
back.
Everybody
just
take
a
step
back
now
you
could
make
it
120,
you
could
make
it
60..
A
You
know
whatever,
but
90
quite
honestly
got
us
almost
to
the
next
session,
not
quite
almost
to
the
next
session,
so
that
was
where
I
picked
that
date
and
then,
of
course,
the
accommodation
etc.
So
and
then
we
get
into
and
now
I'll
go
back
to
the
beginning
of
the
bill,
and
I
apologize
mr
chairman,
I
just
thought
I
should
start
with.
You
know
if
you're
going
to
have
a
vaccine
mandate,
you
you
follow
these
particular
criteria.
A
Now,
if
you
do,
if
you
do
have
that,
then
we
go
to
page
page
two
and
if
someone
says
hey,
I'm
not
gonna
follow
this
I
don't
want
to
and
whether
they
terminate
voluntarily
or
involuntarily
what
we've
provided
here
is
basically
a
severance
pay
from
the
employer.
Now
this
is
a
little
wonky,
because
it's
not
unemployment.
It's
a
severance
pay
from
the
employer,
they're
they're,
implementing
something,
maybe
it's
being
mandated
by
a
federal
agency.
Let's
say:
maybe
it's
something
they're
doing
and
you
can.
A
A
A
You
know
in
its
half
it's
kind
of
a
strange
thing,
and
this
is
really
a.
This
is
page
page
3
lines
12
through,
I
guess
17,
it's
half
of
13
weeks
and
it's
26
weeks
is
a
standard
unemployment
time
13
weeks,
a
half
of
that.
So
it's
basically
a
quarter
of
six
months
pay.
So
it's
four
months
or
three
months
pay.
Three
months:
pay
is
their
separation.
A
Now
because
ui
is
done
in
quarters
and
in
and
in
weeks
excuse
me
in
weeks,
I
use
the
13
weeks
as
half
of
a
but
they're
still
they'd
still
be
eligible
for
ui,
and
that
goes
that's
on
page
four
unemployment
lines
16
through
20..
So
if
they
were
terminated
without
caught
well
and
made
their
case,
they
could
be
eligible
for
you,
unemployment,
so
they'd
get
both
both
both
potential.
A
A
C
A
Ram,
okay!
Well
now
we're
going
to
have
an
acronym,
so
I'm
sorry,
we've
got
to
have
an
acronym
and
this
if
they
don't
do
the
ram,
I'm
a
sheep
guy.
So
that
means
something
to
me.
I
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
you,
but
anyway,
so
that's
page,
five
page
four
lines:
five
through
nine
and
then
if
the
person
began
employment
after
they
knew
there
was
an
obligation
for
a
vaccine
requirement,
at
least
in
my
mind.
It
makes
sense
they
knew
coming
in.
A
If
they
didn't
want
to
employ
with
the
person
they
would
have
not
joined
the
employment.
That's
at
least
that
makes
sense
to
me.
So,
mr,
I
think
I'll
stop
there.
That's,
I
think,
that's
the
sum
of
the
vaccine-specific
things
and
then
there's
a
couple
other
items
that
we'll
get
into
later
in
the
bill
that
are
a
little
bit
different
and
I
I
want
to
kind
of
segregate
them
in
in
the
in
the
questioning.
If
you
want
at
your
pleasure,
mr
chairman,.
C
But
I
think
I
think
what
I've
heard
is
that
he's
opening
it
up
for
questions
from
the
committee
on
that
first
part
of
that
bill.
My
summary
of
it
is
it's
an
employer.
It's
a
penalty
for
employers
that
impose
a
vaccine
mandate
that
has
no
exceptions
and
and
no
reasonable
alternative
measures.
If
an
employer
just
says
everybody
go,
get
vaccinated,
you're
fired
they're,
going
to
have
a
problem
under
this
bill.
E
B
That
was
a
pretty
good
explanation
of
the
bill.
I
I
have
some
concerns
and
the
constitutionality
of
the
whole
issue
and
you'll
see
that
later
in
my
desire
for
an
amendment,
how
are
we
kind
of
going
along
with
a
mandate
to
have
someone
do
something
that
is
unconstitutional,
we're
making
this
law
kind
of
for
that
mandate?
B
A
Ahead,
mr
mr
chairman,
so
it's
a
very
fair
question,
but
that's
not
to
build
draft
before
you.
I
was
trying
to
find
a
place
for
the
employers
and
the
workers
to
have
some
kind
of
an
understanding
between
the
two
saying,
no,
of
course,
and
that's
a
prerogative
that
certainly
can
have,
and
if
you
flip
this
bill
drop
to
say
nothing,
no
matter
what,
then
I
don't
know
that
the
bill,
dr.
I
don't
know
that
the
bill
gets
accomplished.
Some
things
we
want
to
accomplish.
A
What
I
want
to
do
is
give
the
employer
and
the
employees
a
way
forward
to
actually
work
through
some
of
these
challenging
issues,
and
I
and
I'm
not
saying
that
saying
no
or
ram
it,
I'm
just
saying
or
no
ram.
It
is
not
another
alternative.
I'm
just
saying
that
because
in
my
view,
I
think
that
that
card
is
out
the
door
out
the
door.
We
already
have
employers
that
have
have
mandates
private
mandates.
A
A
So
it's
not.
I
understand
this
is
not
a
hell,
no
say
no
can't
do.
No,
this
is
a
is
there
a
way
we
can
actually
smooth
off
the
ride
if
this
goes
to
full,
if,
if
we're
in
full
force,
so,
mr
chairman,
that's
the
best
I
can
do,
is
I
didn't
this?
Is
this
bill
is
not
a
hell
no
bill?
This
bill
is
a.
Is
there
a
soft
landing
for
the
employer
and
an
employee
if
they
can't
come
to
some
kind
of
a
accommodation?
A
No
person
this
is
government
entity.
This
is
private
employer.
This
is
an
individual.
This
is
an
llc.
This
is
person
as
defined
in
statute,
and
I'd
have
to
look
at
or
you
have
a
good
attorney
on
your
staff,
but
it's
defined
in
statute.
It
is
basically
every
entity
including
an
individual,
to
corporations
etc,
private
or
public,
in
my
view,
and
and
we,
but
we
could
confirm
that
I
will
be
glad
to
confirm
that,
but
it
was
certainly
my
intent
that
it
was
any
person
not
any
health
care.
A
Not
any
employer
is
broader
than
employer
because
you
might
have
volunteer
organizations
where
you're
not
an
employer,
but
you
have
people
that
work.
You
know
as
volunteers
that
would
not
be
an
employee
employer
relationship,
so
this
was
meant
to
be
as
broad
as
possible.
Mr
chairman,
senator
mccown
follow
up
senator
mchugh.
G
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Mr
speaker,
all
right,
mr
speaker,
thank
you
chairman
and
to
the
good
senator's
point.
I
think
that
if
you
want
to
limit
it
to
who
is
who
cannot
require
a
vaccine
mandate
or
have
a
vaccine
requirement,
I
think
that's
fine.
I
think
there's
two
different
things
here,
though
one
is
who
is
the
overarching
authority,
and
I
think,
there's
a
conversation
to
be
had
is:
does
the
federal
government
have
that
authority,
osha
et
cetera?
I
I
don't.
A
I
don't
doubt
that,
but
then
there's
actually
the
the
independent
entity
that's
responsible
for
influencing
that
would
be
potentially
an
employer,
etc.
So
I
think
there's
two
different
things
here.
I
hope
we
can
beat
the
overarching
thing
in
court
or
elsewhere.
I
I
think
that,
if
not,
then
is
there
a
way
to
soften
the
landing
or
to
give
a
path
forward.
Obviously
you
know
because
there'll
be
there'll,
be
preemption
issues,
etcetera,
but
I
I
don't
have
any.
A
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
get
to
I'm
just
saying:
there's
got:
how
do
we
soften
the
landing
for
the
people
that
actually
have
to
implement
it
and
the
people
that
are
the
for
lack
of
a
better
term?
I'm
sorry
for
your
mother's
accident,
victim
the
victim,
I.e,
the
employee
that
either
can
or
can't
now
to
the
hipaa
issue,
and
this
does
not.
A
This
does
not
require
anybody
to
disclose
their
status.
In
fact,
if
we
go
back
to
the
to
page
two
and
three
it
both
people
that
are
voluntarily
terminated
or
involuntarily
terminated
by
from
employment
because
of
it,
they
don't
part
of
the
reason
is
they
didn't
want
to
tell
them,
and
they
don't
have
to
tell
them.
They
are
not
obligated
to
tell
their
employer
if
they're
vaccinated
now.
Is
that
a
grounds
potentially
for
termination?
A
A
I
I'm
not
claiming
that,
but
the
bill
wasn't
wasn't
really
trying
to
design
was
not
not
designed
to
do
that
goes.
That
goes
to
the
hell
no
thing,
and
I
respect
that
I
was
trying
to
get
to
the
next
level-
is:
if
it
happens,
how
do
we
have
it?
How
do
we
have
a
path
forward
for
both
employers
and
employees
and
maybe
actually
soften
not
just
the
landing
but
maybe
eliminate
the
landing?
If
we're
consistent
with
what
feds?
I
think
I
hope
the
federal
government
actually
allows
the
rams.
The
reasonable
alternative
measures.
A
A
I
mean
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
I
hope
we
can
get
to
reasonable
alternative
measures.
Is
these
people
don't
work
in
the
same
building
I
mean
so
those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
I
I
hope
we
can
get
to.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
ends.
I
know
that
doesn't
answer
the
overarching
issue
that
both
senators
are
brought
up.
I'm
just
trying
to
get
to
the
content
of
this,
of
what
this
attempt
was
not
not
what
other
things
could
be
done
with
this
attempt.
Mr.
C
G
C
If
the
person
requiring
the
vaccine
is
an
employer,
the
employer
provides
reasonable
alternative
measures,
so,
in
other
words,
the
employer
is
going
to
be
liable
unless
they
provide
these
reasonable
alternative
measures.
They
have
to
meet
these
principles.
A
an
employee
can
opt
into
reasonable
alternative
measures.
The
employee
can
opt
into
in
lieu
of
the
vaccination
requirement
or
a
requirement
to
disclose
their
status.
So
the
employee
says
not
your
damn
business,
whether
vaccinated
or
not
I'll
just
test.
Before
I
come
to
work
or
I'll
test
once
a
week,
the
employer
has
to
offer
that
option.
C
He's
gonna
have
problems
under
this
bill
or
the
employee
can
say
you
know
what,
as
as
it
goes,
otherwise
he
can
claim
an
exemption.
You
know
I
got
a.
I
got
a
religious
exemption
claim.
I've
got
a
medical
exemption
and
I
don't
know
how
much
more
inquire
you
can
make
under
that
because
of
hipaa.
I
don't
think
you
can
say
well
tell
me
what
it
is.
C
C
The
reason
that
I
think
it's
important
is
that
employers
do
have
an
interest,
some
employers,
if,
if
they're
dealing
with
the
public,
so
let's
say
we
had
another
rebound
and
so
people
are
getting
scared.
The
employers
say
you
know
if
you're
working
with
the
public
and
you
don't
want
to
vaccinate,
I
need
you
to
test
once
a
week,
so
it's
a
supermarket
or
before
you
come
into
work.
Just
like
we
did
take
your
temperature,
you
know,
are
you
sick?
Do
you
have
any
symptoms?
No
okay
come
on
in.
C
If,
if
you're
not
going
to
vaccinate,
that's
fine,
then
are
you
going
to
test?
Are
you
going
to
claim
medical
exemption
whatever
it
is?
We
just
need
to
know.
So.
That's
that's
where
I'm
coming
from.
There
are
employers
that
have
a
strong
interest
in
protecting
the
public
and
a
lot
of
the
public
that
want
to
be
protected,
the
more
sensitive,
the
more
protection
they
were.
G
G
G
I
think
they
have
gone
so
far
down
the
path
that
they
should
fall
under
federal
regulations
and
I'm
kind
of
wrestling
with
that
in
the
language
and
how
you
get
there
and
I'll
keep
playing
with
it.
But
I
just
wanted
to
know
my
thoughts
on
it
and
obviously,
we've
all
been
writing
bills
and
spending
time
doing
the
research.
C
Mckeon,
so
the
this
would
imp
a
private
employer
could
darn
well
just
say
I
don't
care
what
your
vaccination
status
is.
There's
nothing
that
prevents
you
from
saying.
I
don't
care,
I
don't
know,
I'm
not
gonna
test,
I'm
not
gonna.
That's
you
can
still
do
that.
This
does
not
require
you
to
do
that,
but
follow
to
take
on.
C
G
So
if,
if
it
gets
to
operate
that
way
and
have
I
guess
where
I'm
going
is
a
lot
of
these
large
corporations
that
have
federal
government
overhead
cover
are
going
to
help
the
federal
government
out
with
vaccines.
If
that's
what
the
federal
government
wants-
and
I
don't
know
how
we
get
there,
but
if
I'm,
if
I
make
tanks
for
a
living
or
satellites
or
whatever
the
federal
government
can
flat
out,
say
you
have
to
vaccinate
or
we'll
go
to
a
different
contractor
and
they're
starting
to
do
that
from
people.
G
G
G
G
Private
companies
can't
afford
those
penalties,
they
have
a
hundred
employees
at
the
end
of
the
day,
a
government.
We
know
how
the
government
works,
we
need
money,
we
get
it.
We
find
some
more
federal
funding
or
crank
up
a
printing
press,
but
I
I
hope
I've
made
what
I'm
saying
clear,
because
I'm
I'm
really
not
trying
to
be
obtuse
yeah.
Mr,
mr
chairman,
no
senator,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
issues
running
around
in
here.
C
C
C
We
have
to
have
this
to
protect
the
employees,
to
give
them
more
rights
than
that.
If
we
pass
nothing
and
leave
cheyenne
the
employers
that
just
want
to
tell
people
vaccinate
or
leave
can
continue
to
do
it.
This
says,
if
you
cannot
do
that,
unless
you
offer
you
give
90
days
notice,
you
offer
them
a
religious
exemption,
a
medical
exemption.
C
C
C
It
just
says
a
covered
contractor
shall
vaccinate
for
covet
19.
You
may
provide
an
accommodation.
What
they've
done
is
you
can
provide
accommodation
because
of
a
disability
or
religious
practice.
You
should
review
and
consider
any
accommodations.
It
must
offer.
You
are
responsible
for
considering
dispositioning
such
requests
and
accommodations.
C
Then
they
make
it
clear
that
they
still
reserve
the
right
as
the
government
to
come
in
and
dump
your
contract,
because
they
don't
like
the
program
that
you
implemented
and
they
they
strictly
they
they
say
in
there
any
contrary
state
laws
is
not
applicable,
they
just
say
forget
the
states,
so
the
the
federal
government.
You
know
I'd,
feel
more
comfortable
on
here.
C
G
Now
I'm
going
to
play
with
a
little
too,
if
that's
okay,
because
I'd
like
to
see
if
we
could
get
not
the
whole
entity
thing,
but
let
me
kind
of
get
an
understanding
that,
if
we're
going
to
force
people
in
under
government,
employee
employment
to
do
any
of
this
we're
violating
constitutional
rights-
and
I
don't
know-
if
there's
any
good
relief
in
there-
if
it
happens
with
the
government
company
but
and
that's
it
I'll,
read
it
some
more
mm-hmm.
I
you
you
understand
my
questions,
don't
you
well!
I,
mr.
C
Chairman,
okay,
I
I
think
so,
and
I
think
part
of
it
can
be
accommodated
by
extending
the
definition
of
public
entity
as
applicable
through
here,
where
it
says
an
employer.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
that
should
be
a
simple
amendment
that
the
staff
lawyers
can
do
pretty
quickly.
That
says,
employer
includes
public
entities
and
so
and
extend
that
to
cities,
towns
conservation,
districts
whatever.
If
they
decide
they
want
to
impose
a
vaccine
mandate,
they
can't
really
nearly
fire
people
without
providing.
C
You
know
opportunity
for
religious
exemptions,
medical
exemptions
and
and
alternative
measures
like
testing-
and
you
know
we
could
beef
up
something
in
here
to
say
that
you
can't
actually
require
anybody
to
disclose
their
vaccine
status.
Anybody
doesn't
want
to
disclose
needs
to
be
offered
these
other
options,
and
so
those
could
be
fairly
straightforward
things
that
the
contractors,
the
big
big
corporations,
the
contractors.
I
you're
right,
it's
a
dilemma.
C
A
So,
mr
chairman,
there's
just
a
couple
other
things
in
the
bill
that
I
thought:
we've
kind
of
talked
touched
on
the
vaccine
and
there's
a
couple
other
things
in
the
bill.
So
if
I
could,
mr
chairman,
I'll
just
take
you
to
the
bottom
of
page
eight
and
the
top
of
page
nine,
so
the
bottom
of
page
eight
is
basically
the
public
accommodation,
and
this
is
if
you're
a
employer
or
public
accommodation
and
public
accommodation,
of
course,
has
a
federal
definition.
A
There
is
a
definition
of
it
you're,
basically
offering
people
to
come
in
to
receive
goods
services.
You
know
you
also
have
an
obligation
I.e.
This
is
the
no
passport
bill.
This
is
a
no
passport
part
of
this
bill.
Now
I
know
there's
another
bill
out
there
that
does
this.
This
does
it
in
a
little
different
manner.
A
Now,
if
you
don't
like
the
employer,
part
of
this,
you
just
want
to
stick
with
quick
accommodation,
but
certainly
you
could
strike
the
employer
part
of
this
and
just
say
hey.
You
know
you
can't
you
can't
require,
but
you
got
to
give
folks
a
reasonable
alternative
to
receive
the
services
receive
the
services.
A
A
So
if,
if
you
are
eligible
for,
let's
say
a
benefit
at
the
dfs
or
a
benefit,
you
know
the
chip
program,
whatever
the
public
entity
can
say,
hey
you
can't
come
in
here.
Unless
you
show
us
your
vaccine,
no
you're,
you're
entitled
to
a
benefit.
They
don't
get.
This
say
you,
you
know
you're
not
eligible
for
it
or
you
can't
even
you
know,
come
to
see
if
you
qualify
or
qualify
for
it.
You've
got
to
provide
them
the
benefit
that
they're
due.
That
cannot
be
a
disqualifying
factor.
A
So
those
are
two
it's
a
little
bit
outside
what
you're
considering
the
bill
mandate.
This
is
more
about
vaccine
or
not
vaccine,
doesn't
matter
if
you're
entitled
to
a
service
or
a
public
accommodation.
You
know,
there's
got
to
be
either
reasonable
alternative
measures
for
the
on
the
on
the
general
side.
But
if
it's
a
public
service
they've
got
a
they've
got
to
provide
it
to
you
period,
I
don't
care
if
it's
your
clerk
or
courts,
crook
or
court
or
wherever
they've
they've
got
to
provide
you
the
service
that
other
you're
otherwise
is
a
benefit.
A
So,
mr
my
colleague,
mr
chairman,
if
he
hasn't
anything
about
this,
I
mean
that's
a
little
bit
different
in
the
bill.
I
recognize
that
this
bill
was
meant
to
do
more
than
one
thing
now.
Is
it
more
than
a
single
subject
I'll
leave
that
for
other
people
that
decided,
but
I
I
believed
it
was
single
subjects
covet
19
related,
it's
you
know
whether
you're
vaccinated
or
not.
That's
the
theme
throughout
the
bill.
This
is
another
component
of
that,
mr
chairman,
so
and
I'll
just
finish
real
quickly.
A
The
other
thing
that
this
bill
does-
and
this
is
pages
9
and
10-
is
you
know
it
makes
it
makes
that
a.
Let
me
see
I
just
got
to
make
sure
here,
so
it
codifies
the
the
religious
and
medical
religious
grounds,
the
objection
or
written
evidence
of
that
on
page
10.
That
ties
back
to
that
first
page
says:
hey,
look!
If
there's
a
you
know
the
exemption.
A
The
medical
and
religious
exemption
just
codifies
that
in
another
statute
and
then
the
other
thing
it
does-
and
this
is
on
page
11.,
it
says:
look
if
you
take
a
vaccine,
because
you
were
responding
to
a
employer's
request
and
you're
injured.
That's
a
compensable
injury
under
lockman's
comp
you're
covered
under
workers
comp
now
it's
it
is.
It
is,
I
mean,
there's
a
date
certain
and
it
goes
through
a
certain
date.
It's
you
know,
october
31st,
through
march
31st,
well,
we'll
be
in
session
before
the
end
of
march
31st.
We
can
extend
that.
A
That's
what
we
actually
did
the
last
time.
In
our
last
session,
we
extended
it
for
covet
19..
We
extended
workers
comp.
Now,
interestingly,
we
didn't
actually
protect
the
employers
from
the
rate
changes,
so
we're
going
to
have
to
do
that
in
the
next
budget
session,
but
we
can
do
that
in
advance
of
their
rates.
Actually
changing
so
we'll
be
able
to
hold
the
employers
harmless
for
the
covet
19
workman's
comp
issue,
even
though
workman's
comp
is
playing
for
the
covet
19
injuries.
This
would
add
the
vaccine
injury
to
that.
A
For
for
folks
who
are
covered
under
workmen's
comp,
not
everybody
is
covered
by
workman's
comp,
but
certainly
those
that
are
it
would
be
an
eligible.
It
would
be
an
injury
if
looking
at
the
top
of
page
11.
last
thing
in
the
in
the
bill.
Mr
chairman
and
my
apologies
to
my
colleague
senator
kinsky-
is
a
million
dollars.
That's
just
a
placeholder
if
you
want
to
give
them
more
money
to
to
defend
and
deal
with
the
osha
and
the
cms
and
the
the
contract
and
other
things
to
the
attorney
general's
office.
A
The
reason
that
you
know
I
know
people
are
gonna
say:
hey
they've
already
got
200
attorneys.
Isn't
that
enough?
This
isn't
about
the
attorneys
they
have
in
their
office.
This
is
about
the
attorneys
that
you
have
in
the
in
the
sixth
sixth
circuit
or
in
dc
or
at
the
supreme
court,
that
you
actually
bring
in
folks
that
are
litigants
in
that
court
and
have
the
you
know
the
best
dogs
in
the
fight
or
the
good
dogs.
So,
and
obviously
we
have
an
attorney
I'm
sitting
at
the
table
as
an
attorney.
A
C
A
H
Buying
it
it's,
mr
chairman
and
bill
bringers,
mr
speaker,
and
you
know
I
I
want
to
start
out
with
the
I
don't
see
a
part
in
here
where
it
it.
We
exempt
people
from
the
immunity
clauses
that
we
put
in
during
the
last
special
session.
So
because
what
would
happen
here
is
they
could
try
to
say
they're
immune
from
any
arm
for
anything
that
they
do
in
here.
H
So
there
has
to
be
some
additions
to
the
exemption
from
immunity
clauses
in
the
bill.
The
other
thing
is,
the
medical
exemption
isn't
really
clear
enough,
because
we
already
have
medical
exemptions
but
they're
not
being
followed
they're,
actually
ignoring
that
at
a
lot
of
the
testimony
we've
had
in
health
committee.
H
The
90-day
thing
here
that
I
looked
at
here,
or
even
even
the
the
50
and
the
13
weeks
after
that's
not
going
to
keep
people
in
wyoming,
they're,
they're
still
going
to
have
to
get
jobs
to
pay
their
bills
and
it
all
it
comes
back
to
page
10
where
it
says
on
on
line
10
page
10.
If
an
employer
requires
vaccinations
for
coven
19
or
enforces
a
copen
19
vaccination
requirement
imposed
by
the
federal
government
or
any
other
entity,
I
mean
it's
just
almost
saying.
H
Is
this
discriminatory
action
of
of
the
nature
of
of
all
of
it?
And
it
got
us
out
of
this,
this
kind
of
language,
so
in
other
words
they
they're.
Not
they
shouldn't
ask
if
what
your
vaccination
status
is
and
then
they
can't
discriminate
against
you,
this
bill
kind
of
does
it
does
discriminate,
so
it
allows
in
a
discriminatory
nature
of
what
they're
doing
they
have
to
provide
accommodations
is
what
it
says:
we're
not
being
clear
what
those
accommodations
are,
so
they
could
actually
just
come
out
and
say:
hey
we're
going
to
do
this
to
accommodate.
H
But
anybody
who
knows
me
knows
I've
been
on
this
issue
for
a
long
time
watching
what's
happening
talking
to
people,
and
I
I
just
don't
understand
how
we've
got
to
this
point
and
we're
still
treating
the
vaccine
this
vaccination,
like
it's
a
vaccination
when
it's
not
it
doesn't.
I
mean
we
look
at
other
nations
that
are
the
most
vaccinated
right
now.
H
H
We
were
talking
about
testing
people
and,
seeing
if
you
have
the
antibody,
if
you
do,
then
you
you're
in
better
shape
than
than
the
people
who
are
getting
the
vaccinations,
so
the
vaccination
is
not
stopping
spreading
and
it
and
people
are
still
getting
it.
So
that's
the
key
issue
is
how
do
we
get
to
that
point
if
we
still
allow
people
to
ask,
and
if
it's
it's
my
it's
my
personal,
it's
all
of
our
personal
health
care.
H
A
A
Mr
chairman,
so
no
I
respect
that
people
can
have
a
different
perspective.
Bring
amendments
bring
amendments
to
the
bill.
That's
what
we
do
if
you
think,
there's
a
better
way
to
approach
it.
This
is
the
vehicle
the
vehicle
was
written.
You
know
this
way
as
far
as
the
antibody
testing,
etc.
You
know
that
could
be
a
reasonable
and
reasonable
a
ram,
reasonable
alternative
measure.
A
A
You
want
that
as
an
alternative
as
as
a
measure,
but
if
you
don't
want
anything,
that's
a
different
issue,
mr
chairman,
and,
like
I
said
this
is
the
vehicle
before
you.
If
you
don't
like
what's
before
you,
I
respect
you
vote
the
bill
down.
I've
been
doing
this
for
10
years.
I
voted
against
a
lot
of
bills
in
committee
too,
because
I
didn't
think
they
got
to
the
point.
If
that's
I
mean
I,
I
can't
make
up
something
that
isn't
there.
A
I
So,
basically,
I'm
saying,
let's
get
government
out
of
businesses,
let
the
businesses
decide
what's
best
for
them.
So
in
reading
this
bill
it
seems
to
me
you're
trying
to
come
to
a
compromise,
you're,
not
demanding
that
you
have
to
hire
unvaccinated
people,
but
if
you
are
going
to
do
that,
you've
got
to
make
some
accommodations.
A
A
So
respectfully
I
would
say
I
am
not
trying
to
say
new
hires
new
hires,
I
don't
believe
are
eligible
and
I
will
double
check
it.
But
that
was
certainly
my
intent
and
I
will
go
back,
but
it's
the
folks
that
are
in
the
relationship
right
now,
if
you're,
six
months
from
retirement
and
the
mandate
hits
you
or
your
employer
is
under
a
mandate
and
we
could
have
six
months
worth
of
reasonable
accommodations
like
it
or
not.
That
gets
you
to
your
retirement
date
and
you
get
your
full
benefits,
etc,
etc.
A
I
mean
that's
the
kind
of
that's
not
I'm
saying
that's
the
only
thing,
but
that's
one
of
the
things
or
you
get
your
severance
pay.
You
can't
work
in
the
industry,
you
had
of
your
chosen
profession,
you
take
your
severance
and
you
go
get
retooled
retrained
for
another
industry
or
another
thing,
and
you
pay
your
bills
while
you're
getting
that
that's
the
kind
of
thing
that
I
I
was
trying
part
of
what
I
was
trying
to
get
to
with
this.
So
respectfully,
I'm
not
trying
to
say
going
forward.
Nobody
can
ever
do
this.
A
And
we
and
we
will
double
clarify.
I
will
double
clarify
that
in
the
language-
and
I
and
I
understand
I
drafted
this
bill
and
when
I
drafted
it,
it
was
step
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven
when
it
comes
out
of
lso,
because
we
have
section
one
section:
two,
you
know
things
get
flipped
because
you
have
different
parts
of
the
bill
that
do
different
things:
you're
amending
current
law,
you're,
adding
new
statute
and
it
gets
it
gets
messy.
A
But
when
I,
when
I
what
I
sent
to
our
drafting
staff
and
we
have
an
excellent
drafting
staff
and
I'm
not
questioning
how
they
approached
it,
I'm
just
saying
it's
one
is
in
the
middle
of
the
build.
Two
is
up
here.
Three
is
here:
4
and
unrelated
a
b
and
c
are
over
here.
So
it
is
a
difficult
I'll
grant
you
a
little
bit
difficult
to
work
through
something.
That's
why
I
started
in
the
middle
of
the
bill,
saying
you
can't
do
it
unless
timing
same
thing.
A
C
Oh
no
senator
furfee,
I
I
believe,
you're
correct
this
bill
seems
strike
a
balance.
This
is
not
a
bill
to
impose
vaccine
mandates.
It
says
if
you
are
going
to
impose
vaccine
mandates,
you
have
to
give
employee
protections
without
a
bill
like
this,
the
employer
could.
As
you
say,
there
are
some
employers
that
say
it's
none
of
your
business.
C
If
I
want
to
start
firing
people,
because
I
want
to
be
required
to
vaccinate
that's
my
prerogative,
and
that
is
the
law
of
the
land
unless
we
pass
a
bill
something
to
this
effect,
so
we're
trying
to
strike
that
balance,
we're
trying
not
to
say
what
you
can't
even
have
any
kind
of
vaccination
in
in
a
workplace.
But
you
you,
if
you're
going
to
ask
about
vaccinations,
you
have
to
give
people
reasonable
options,
and
so
that's
what
we're
trying
to
strike
a
balance.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
gentlemen,
thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
all
you
said
and
something
was
said:
I'm
a
couple
things
I'm
gonna
deal
with
here
that
a
corporation
can
come
in
and
you
don't
have
to
obey
the
state
laws
and
it's
like
whoa
whoa
whoa.
We
have
in
our
constitution
in
article
10,
section
5
acceptance
of
our
constitution
no
corporation
organized
under
the
laws
of
the
wyoming
territory,
any
other
jurisdiction.
B
B
B
The
choice
is
up
to
the
competent
adult
parent,
guardian
or
legal
representative,
and
I
say
that
because
there
are
other
alternatives
than
the
cova
19
vaccine,
we're
acting
as
if
that
vaccine
is
going
to
prevent
the
employee
from
getting
coveted.
We've
seen
that
in
our
own
body,
or
some
of
the
members
in
our
body
have
side
effects
from
the
copa
vaccine
shots.
Some
of
our
employees
have
even
died
after
they've
had
the
vaccine
from
covid.
So
I'd
like
to
see
some
alternatives
to
just
the
cova
19
vaccination.
A
Thank
you,
madam
mr
chairman,
you
know,
I
guess
I
saw
this
language
earlier
today.
I
said
you
know
it's
your
bill
right
now.
It's
the
senate's
bills,
the
senate,
labor
health
committee's
bill.
I
I
don't
suggest
or
pretend
to
understand
what
your
individual
interests
are
or
what
the
collective
interest
would
be.
I
can
only
tell
you
where
the
bill
was
generated
from
and
the
rationale
for
that
look.
I
I
don't
know
that
you
need
all
the
section
1
article
38
stuff
and
that's
already
published.
That's
the
constitution.
A
If
you
want
to
have
other
alternatives,
I
think
you
don't
have
to
have
wipe
out
all
that
section.
You
can
just
say
reasonable.
Alternative
measures
can
include
these
things
too.
I'm
not
saying
that
you
know
that
if
that's
a
reasonable
alternative
measure-
and
you
want
to
list
out
other
possibilities-
it's
already
says
not
limited
to
so.
If
a
person
says
if
an
employee
says
look,
I
think
this
is
a
reasonable
alternative
method
and
the
employer
says
dang.
I
didn't
know
about
that.
A
Thank
you
very
much
seems
like
it
fit
pretty
well
with
your
work,
environment
or
all
business
model,
or
whatever
I
mean
I
I'm
not
suggesting
the
list
was
not
exclusive,
it
was
inclusive,
meaning
if
you
want
to
add
something
to
that,
it
doesn't
quoting
the
constitution.
The
statutes,
I
mean,
that's
that's
backwards.
To
me,
I
mean
constitution
is
the
constitution.
We
base
things
off
of
that.
So
now,
to
your
point
about,
you
know
a
choice
of
the
vaccine.
A
Emergency
use,
you
know
cetera,
so
I
mean
you
know
I
mean
I
I
I
actually.
I
don't
know
that
you
need
to
wipe
out
all
that
other
stuff.
Maybe
the
amendment
is
to
potentially
add
some
of
this
in
now
the
religious
and
medical
contraindications
and
that's
taken
up
in
other
parts
of
the
bill
as
well,
taken
up
in
title
27,
it's
taken
up
several
other
places
so
and
and
to
an
earlier
point
that
was
made
about
you,
know
they're,
not
following
the
religious
or
it's
there
and
they're
not
actually
doing
it
well.
A
Actually,
if
you
take
a
look
at
sorry,
I
should
have
had
it
queued
up
before
I
said
it
page
10..
This
is
entitled
27
and
it's
and
it
talks
about
object
there
to
current
language
is
religious
grounds.
There
is
not
actually
a
medical
grounds
in
it,
just
religious
so,
and
maybe
I'm
flipping
that,
but
one
of
the
grounds
is
not
in
there
currently
medical,
it's
not
currently
in
title
27.
A
So
you
know
to
your
point:
yeah
there's
a
reasonable
alternative,
but
we
ought
to
actually
fill
some
holes
in
where
statute
probably
does
need
to
be.
You
know
brought
up
to
what
we'd
consider
standards,
which
would
include
exemptions
for
medical
or
now,
if
you
want
the
broader
personal
conviction
that
was
actually
how
I
labeled
it
in
my
draft.
A
But
as
staff
is
looking
at
it
saying
personal
conviction,
then
where
do
we
have
to
come
up
with
a
definition
for
that,
etc?
How
about
we
just
list
the
criteria
out
and
say
this
doesn't
qualify?
You
know
we
qualify,
so
I
don't
have
an
answer
for
you
as
far,
but
I
don't
think
what
is
already
in
there
is
precluded
by
the
current
language
without
any
addition,
without
an
addition.
A
But
if
you
want
to
specify
it,
you
know
that's
conversation
for
the
committee
and
for
the
good
chairman,
mr
and
I
should
defer
to
my
my
senate
colleague,
who
is
the
sponsor
for
this
bill,
because
it's
a
senate
file,
but
that
would
be
my
approach
to
the
resp
in
responding
to
it.
Mr
chairman,
mr
chairman,
go
ahead:
senator
kenski,
senator
hutchings.
C
So,
let's
go
to
the
paragraph
in
accordance
with
the
wyoming
constitution,
each
competent
adult-
I
I'm
I'm
not
sure
where
best
to
put
that
we
can
strike
it.
Okay
and
then
the
next
part
which
talks
about
the
exemptions,
I
think,
is
covered
under
page
six,
where
no
person-
and
we
should
add
or
public
entity
shall
require
another
person
to
receive
vaccination
unless
one
the
person
requiring
the
vaccine
has
adopted
guidelines
and
a
process
to
accept
religious
and
medical
exemptions
to
the
vaccine
requirement.
C
And
it
says
in
accordance,
so
the
person
requiring
the
vaccine
or
public
entity
has
adopted
guidelines
in
the
process
to
accept
religious
and
medical
exemptions.
The
vaccine
requirement
in
accordance
with
statute
2711
113
b,
and
that
2711
113
b
is
actually
created
by
this.
This
this
code
on
page,
which
is
it
eric
on
page
10,
which.
C
B
Thank
you,
gentlemen.
I
have
no
problem
with
that.
I
I
I
see
clearly
that
the
constitution
doesn't
need
to
be
there.
I
would
like
to
still
work
on
the
right
of
conscience
exemption,
get
that
in
the
bill
and
get
that
defined.
I
will
work
on
getting
a
definition
for
you
guys
if
we
can
get
that
in
the
bill,
but
I
would
really
like
to
go
over
and
get
in
in
your
bill
those
alternatives
to
the
covet
19
vaccine.
Those
preventative
measures,
I
think,
are
an
awesome
option
for
anybody
again.
B
We're
acting
as
if
the
covet
19
is,
is
the
only
way
to
go
when
there
are
so
many
alternatives
out
there.
I'd
like
to
see
them
added,
so
I'm
willing
to
strike
a
lot
of
this,
but
get
some
of
those
added
senator
kinski
on
the
page,
five
and
seven,
where
you
mentioned
it
and
add
that
right
of
conscience
everywhere,
where
you
have
the
religious
and
medical
exemption.
So
if
we
can
get
that
worked
here
at
the
table,
I'd
like
to
get
those
added
with
your
approval.
A
Speaker
barlow,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
I
I
do
think
that
the
alternative
measures,
I
think
not
alternative
measures,
now,
are
getting
now
we're
getting
reasonable
accommodation,
alternative
measures
and
other
options.
Other
healthcare
options,
how's
that
I
don't
know
what
term
you
used
a
different
term
and
I
apologize.
I
don't
see
it
here,
but
actually
I
think
it
fits
maybe
under
the
definition
of
reasonable
alternative
measures,
which
is
on
page
six.
I
think
it's
a
roman
net
c
capital
c
and
you
can
say.
A
You
know
you
know
options
at
the
et
cetera,
so
that
might
be
a
place
because
that
gets
it
in
the
definition
and
then
it
is
it's
more
inclusive.
It's
spread
throughout
the
statute.
Potentially
the
other
thing,
I
would
say
the
the
reasonable,
the
the
personal
conscious
I'm
getting
unconscious
here.
So
right.
A
The
personal
personal
conviction,
I
think
that's
the
word,
maybe
used
if
you
go
to
page
two,
you
know
and
this
this
can
be.
This
can
be
modified
a
little
bit.
You
know
a
person,
volunteering
at
his
employment
as
a
means
of
personal
conviction
or
a
means
of
whatever
you
could
actually
say
here.
They
just
don't
want
and
don't
want
to
divulge
and
they
and
they're
they're
making
that
choice.
A
B
Mr
chairman,
but
you're
saying
there
that
they
want
to
be
terminated,
they
don't
want
to
be
terminated.
They
still
want
to
work,
but
they
have
the
right
of
conscience
that
the
constitution
allows
them.
That's
what
I'm
saying
there?
If
we
don't
allow
that,
then
we
are
giving
the
employer
kind
of
rough
shot
over
the
citizens
and
that
article
1,
section
38
of
the
constitution
means
absolutely
nothing.
B
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
So
I
just
have
a
question:
do
you
think
osha
federal
osha
has
the
power
under
the
proposals
of
the
current
administration
in
dc,
to
impose
the
power
under
osha?
I
mean
because
we
have
our
own
state,
osha
and
we
have
a
state
legislature.
I
mean
if,
if
they
have
that
kind
of
power,
what
do
we
even
need
to
be
here
for.
C
Who
will
enjoin
that
now,
whether
it
makes
its
way
to
the
supreme
court
or
not?
I
I
don't
know
the
the
the
other
concern
that
doesn't
implicate
this
bill,
but
you've
heard
that
concern
is
we
have
our
own
state,
osha,
because
we
told
the
feds.
We
don't
want
your
ocean
inspectors
coming
from
denver
or
kansas
city
or
dallas
we'll
do
it
ourselves.
C
The
concern
is
that
so
one
idea
I
had
initially
and
it's
off
topic-
and
I
apologize
mr
chairman-
does
we
just
prohibit
our
osha
people
from
having
anything
to
do
with
it?
The
concern
is
that
the
feds
will
just
say:
that's
fine.
We
take
back
primacy
on
osha
and
now
all
your
inspections
are
going
to
come
out
of
denver
or
or
texas.
C
So
I
mean
these
are
people
that
really
know
how
to
pull
the
levers
of
power.
I
mean
it's
a
federal
osha
law.
The
other
attack,
I
think
that
would
apply
to
the
ocean
is
just
is
just
just
personal
rights
that
you're
imposing
a
vaccine
mandate.
Now
this
is
you
know
if
everybody
points
this
1907
jacobson
case
he
refused
to
get
the
vaccine,
but
it's
a
five
dollar
fine
didn't
make
him,
they
didn't
fire
him.
They
didn't
bankrupt
his
business.
It
was
a
five
dollar
fine.
C
So
I
mean
the
argument
that
I
would
make
to
the
supreme
court
is.
How
can
you
say
that
a
woman
can
has
the
right
a
choice
to
go,
get
an
abortion,
but
an
employee
doesn't
have
a
right
of
choice
and
whether
I
get
a
vaccine
or
not
doesn't
compute,
but
so
I'm
getting
a
little
bit
far
afield.
But
I
think
they've
stretched
the
osha
beyond
all
credibility.
H
Senator
sharp
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
and
that's
where
I'm
kind
of
coming
back
to
where
it
says.
If
any
employer
requires
vaccination
for
covenant
19
or
enforces
a
covet
19
vaccination
requirement
imposed
by
the
federal
government
between
paid
line,
10
and
12
on
page
10,
we're
just
saying:
well,
the
intent
of
this
bill
wasn't
just
stopping
except
for
now
you
got
to
jump
through
some
other
hoops.
H
And
so
I,
what
I'm
saying
here
is
that
the
state
does
have
power
and
I've
used
this
time
and
time
again
and
people
don't
like
it.
But
we
see
other
states
saying
no
to
federal
drug
laws
and
imposing
marijuana
laws
in
their
own
states
and
they
don't
and
the
state
and
the
feds
don't
come
marching
in
and
say,
hey
we're
going
to
come.
Take
over
your
state.
H
But
but
we're
not
looking
at
this
for
what
it
really
is
and
by
the
way
and
when
you
look
at
court
cases,
the
courts
have
been
very
liberal
in
the
decision
to
say
that
a
state
can
have
afford
stronger
protections
than
that
of
the
u.s
constitution.
And
we
do
that
here.
Many
of
you.
Maybe
you
don't
know
this,
but
back
in
2010
I
mean
I
can
show
you
pictures
where
I
was
sitting
at
the
table
where
we
were
meeting
with
the
legislators
that
were
pushing
article
1
section
38..
H
I
was
there
on
that
ground
helped
run
an
election
stuck
that
bill
in
someone's
hand,
and
it
was
all
because
we
knew
obamacare
was
coming
from
the
top
for
a
top-down
medical
direction
or
laws,
and
now
we're
seeing
all
of
it.
Now
now,
all
of
a
sudden
somebody
says
we
got
to
do
something
and
everybody
does.
H
I
think
that's
where
we're
at
here,
and
I
think
I
think
we're
just
I
mean
look,
I'm
not
going
to
vote
against
the
bill.
So
that's
not
the
thing
here,
I'm
going
to
keep
a
bill
moving,
so
we
can
make
it
make
something
happen,
but
I
I
just
think
that
we've
got
too
much
in
here.
That
says:
well,
okay,
if
you
do
this
to
us
federal
government,
we're
gonna
come
and
take
you
to
court
and
we're
going
to
try
it.
I
mean:
where
is
that
going
to
go
every
time
we
go
to
the
courts?
H
C
Comments,
gentlemen,
nope
senator
bouchard
with
respect
to
page
10
lines
10
through
13.
I
I
don't
know
that
it's
showing
deference
to
the
feds.
What
it
says
is:
if
any
employer
requires
vaccination
for
covenant
19
or
enforces
a
coven
19
vaccination
requirement
imposed
by
the
federal
government
or
the
other
entity,
the
employer
shall
grant
an
exemption,
as
provided
in
this
subsection,
in
other
words,
medical
or
religious
or
right
of
conscience.
C
So
we're
saying
to
the
fed
to
these
employers
the
fed
makes
you
do
it
you're
still
going
to
grant
these
exemptions
now
how
far
we
would
get
in
the
federal
court?
With
that,
I
I
don't
know,
but
I
don't
know
that
it's
showing
deference
to
the
feds,
I
think
it's
showing
defiance
to
them
by
saying
you
can
pass
what
you
want
feds,
but
you
employers,
you
better,
grant
these
exemptions.
H
One
final
thought
senator
bashar
and
then
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
more
testimony.
Simplicity.
Here,
mr
chairman,
is
that
if
we
just
got
rid
of
the
language
it
says
if
any
employer
goes
along
with
the
feds,
it's
right
there
and
said
exemption
shall
be
granted
by
the
employer
would
be
much
what
I
mean.
Why
are
we?
Why
are
we
giving
in
to
this
language
up
here
this
saying?
Well,
if
somebody
says
what
the
federal
government
does,
then
they
got
to
do
it
this
way.
H
J
H
A
A
A
It's
a
pretty
straightforward
ad
additional
language.
If
you
don't
like
the
don't
like
the
federal
government
thing,
just
say
you
know
any
any
I
mean
you
can
stick
with
you.
Can
you
can
just
keep
a
but
b
makes
it
specific
to
covet.
19.
makes
a
very
specific
demand
regarding
covet
19..
Maybe
you
don't
need
b?
Maybe
you
don't
need
b,
but
the
intent
was
to
make
covet
19
specific,
that
they
have
to
grant
these
medical
or
religious
grounds
exemptions.
Mr
chairman,
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about.
A
H
G
G
So
it
takes
me
back
to
the
10th
amendment
of
the
constitution
and
state
sovereignty.
And
my
question
is:
are
we
really
afraid
of
federal
entities
taking
stuff
away
from
us,
or
is
it
a
federal
funding
issue?
We
let
them
do
it,
so
we
can
get
federal
funds.
I
don't
see
why
we
wouldn't
tell
osha
sorry
he
can't
play
here
anymore.
G
C
Help
us
out
senator
mr
chairman,
my
heart
is
with
you:
the
courts
aren't
that's
the
problem.
I
mean,
I
think,
between
my
camera.
We
learned
in
law
school
somewhere
between
1930s
and
1980,
something
there
had
never
been
a
challenge
to
a
federal
law.
On
the
basis
of
the
10th
amendment
that
was
held
up
by
the
supreme
court.
C
I
think
it
was
the
late
70s
or
early
80s.
There
was
like
national
league
of
cities,
abuses
usury.
I
think
something
like
that
where
they
actually
struck
something
down.
On
the
basis
of
the
10th
amendment
saying
you
went
too
far,
then
I
think
there
was
the
the
firearms
case
where
they
basically
ordered
local
sheriffs.
C
So
the
reason
that
the
state
took
on
osha
primacy
was
to
protect
ourselves
from
the
same
reason
we
took
on
deq
primacy.
We
we
didn't
want
somebody
coming
in
from
dallas
or
washington
or
san
francisco
and
forcing
the
environmental
laws.
Now
they,
the
feds,
have
sideboards
on
us,
but
still
you
know
they're
and
they're
still
issues
but
still
they're,
wyoming
people
enforcing
wyoming
statutes,
subject
to
you,
know
federal
minimum
standards,
but
I
think
we
get
a
better
outcome,
a
better
result
than
than
relying
on
it.
C
I'm
I'm
anti-big
government,
but
I'll
tell
you
my
first
session,
I
sponsored
the
behest
of
the
realtors
association,
the
creation
of
a
wyoming
state
housing
discrimination
board,
and
I
asked
them.
Why
would
I
do
this?
They
said
because,
right
now
those
complaints
all
go
to
denver
and
they
take
three
years
to
resolve.
C
They
said
this
won't
cost
you
anything
we'll
appoint
local
representatives,
they've
served
without
without
pay
and
and
and
and
we'd
like
to
be
able
to
get
these
things
done
in
three
weeks
or
three
months,
not
three
years.
So
it's
it's
done
purely
as
a
defensive
measure.
Taking
on
the
primacy
of
those
things
is
to
protect
ourselves
from
worse
enforcement
by
the
fence.
G
C
And
thank
you
for
your
time,
mr
chairman,
mr
chairman.
If
I
may
go
ahead,
senator
I'm
not
letting
any
of
those
things
happen,
I'm
just
acknowledging
the
reality
of
our
situation.
You
know
there
are
groups
that
are
continuously
pushing
back
against
the
feds.
I
don't
want
anybody.
The
impression
I
like
this
situation,
like
I
said
my
heart,
is
with
you.
The
courts
aren't
so
as
to
fed
osha,
it's
not
a
matter
of
federal
funding
or
not
getting
federal
funding.
C
A
A
F
F
F
Do
we
have
anybody
online?
Nobody
online
committee.
Do
we
have
a
motion
bill
is
moved
and
seconded
moved
by
senator
furphy's
seconded
by
senator
hutchings.
I
can
barely
talk
today.
Let's
look
through
some
amendments
and
I
believe
one
of
the
amendments
you
brought
to
us
is
that
correct.
If
you'd
like
to
come
up
to
the
table,
senator
just
walk
us
through
that
one,
real,
quick
and.
C
B
B
F
B
Mr
chair,
go
ahead.
Senator
thank
you.
Well
senator
bouchard.
I
did
have
in
the
amendment
alternative
covet,
19
preventative
measures
I.e
and
I
listed
them
out
if
you
would
like
them
to
be
listed
out.
If
that
helps
you
out
a
little
bit,
you
could
go
with
the
injected.
Vaccination
there's
also
oral
homeopathic
medicines
that
are
available
available.
There
are
alternative
medicines
that
are
available
and
the
religious
communities
say
like
the
natives
may
have
remedies
that
they
choose
comma,
etc.
B
B
F
Become
too
specific,
then
next
year
or
the
year
after
and
something
new
is
out
there
or
10
new
things
are
out
there,
then
we
have
to
go
back
and
revise
and
revise
and
revise.
They
use
the
example
of
marijuana
and
synthetic
marijuana.
We've
had
to
revise
that
at
least
four
times
since
I've
been
in
the
senate
or
in
the
in
the
legislature.
I
I
think
we
need
to
be
cautious.
I
think
we
need
to
leave
it
a
little
bit
open,
but
just
just
my
thoughts.
H
H
H
I'm
doing
this
and
this
and
this
I
I
want
them
to
be
able
to
say,
look,
I
have
a
doctor,
that's
treating
it
and,
and
he
here's
what
he's
in
and
he
should
they
shouldn't
have
to
open
that
up
to
everybody
to
see
and
say
well,
I'm
taking
these
things
or
I'm
taking
that,
but
if
they
were
being
treated
by
a
doctor
as
that
doctor
deems
fit
so
that's
kind
of
where
I'm
thinking
just
to
hope.
Hopefully
I'm
trying
I'm
trying
to
be
more
help.
B
Chairman,
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
I
do
agree
with
the
chairman
that
just
saying
alternative
covet
preventative
measures
works
best,
because
if
you
I'm
on
homeopathy,
I'm
not
under
a
doctor's
care
homeopathy
is
kept
me
coveted
free.
My
husband
had
coveted.
I
didn't
get
covet,
so
my
homeopathy
worked.
I
wasn't
under
a
doctor's
care.
I've
taken
the
homeopathic
classes
and
friends
work
with
their
homeopathic
protocols,
so
you
may
not
be
in
a
doctor's
care
but
you're
taking
something.
Let's
say
we
have
a
country
doctor
here.
B
He's
good
with
the
oral
homeopathic
medicine,
so
he
may
he
may
prescribe
it
or
give
it
to
you
or
you
can
purchase
it
from
him,
but
you're,
not
necessarily
under
his
care.
So
by
adding
a
physician's
care
with
some
of
these
alternatives.
Let's
say
religious
alternatives,
the
natives,
what
if
they
have
some
concoction
that
they
brought
up?
Do
we
have
to
list
that
you
now
are
under
the
religious
care
of
in
the
native
community?
B
G
B
G
F
B
F
Yeah,
okay,
very
good-
I
I
think
that's
reasonable
and
I
think,
if
there's
any
suggestions
by
either
senator
kinsey
or
someone
else
on
the
floor,
that
perhaps
you
can
discuss
that
bring
them
back
to
change
the
wording.
But
I
think
that
word
and
we
have
that
wording
down
so
question
on
the
amendment
committee.
All
in
favor
raise
hand.
Please
all
opposed
same
time.
One
that
amendment
passes.
B
B
B
F
B
Mr
chair,
I
think
I
have
one
more
and
this
was
something
I
think
that
senator
bouchard
brought
up,
I'm
hoping
I'm
not
overstepping
on
page
six
line:
fifteen
no
person,
speaker
barlow,
mentioned
entering
or
public
entity
right
after
the
word
person.
I
don't
know
if
that
was
senator
bouchard
or
senator
mckeon's
suggestion.
F
C
B
C
C
C
F
I
think
that's
it
I
think
so
now.
What
I
would
suggest
is
that
we,
if
we
enter
if
we
go
ahead
and
pass
that
between
now
and
when
this
comes
to
florida,
we
look
and
get
the
definition
of
person,
maybe
a
little
bit
better
because
it
may
not
be
needed.
I
don't
know
that
it
hurts
it,
but
go
ahead.
Senator
chuck.
H
C
F
Good
plan
further
amendments
to
me:
I
have
one
on
page
four,
where
we're
talking
about
taking
effect
before
october
31st,
and
I
only
make
this
suggestion
with
any
time.
The
legislature
does
something
that's
retroactive.
Sometimes
it
gets
us
in
trouble
that
we
move
that
date
to
be
at
least
sufficient
to
cover
after
we
get
out
of
session
whatever
day
that
might
be.
F
My
suggestion
would
be
november
10th,
but
that's
subject
to
anything
anybody
else
on
the
committee,
but
I
I
think
that
when
we
do
something
retroactively,
we
can
sometimes
get
into
trouble
and
ends
up
in
trouble
down
the
road.
So
that's
my
suggestion
november
10th,
and
that
would
be
the
amendment
I
would
suggest:
go
ahead.
Senator
bashar.
H
Mr
chairman,
could
we
not
just
use
the
language
that
says
as
soon
as
everything
has
been
done?
You
know
to
meet
the
constitutional
requirements
or
how
we
use
that
general
language
that
basically
says
immediately
and
and
as
soon
as
everything
has
been
you
know
all
the
hoops
have
been
jumped
into
jumped
through
we've
used
language
like
that
for
other
bills.
So
put
that
into
words.
For
me
sure
oops
doesn't
work.
H
B
F
On
on
page
four,
where
the
employer
we're
talking
about
when
the
employer
established
a
covered
19
vaccine,
so
this
has
to
do
with
when
this
employer,
when
this
one,
this
person
that
owns
that
business
actually
puts
the
requirement
into
effect,
and
we
just
looking
for
a
date
of
what
that
is.
If
we
leave
october
31st
in
there,
then
we
run
in
perhaps
a
little
bit
of
trouble
with
somebody
saying.
Well,
you
know
you
passed
a
law,
it's
about
something
that
already
happened.
Go
ahead,
senator
for
sure.