►
From YouTube: House Appropriations 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
Presence
of
viral
molecular
genetic
material,
antigen
tests
for
the
presence
of
viral
proteins,
and
then
the
antibody
tests
are
the
tests
of
you
know
that
determine
whether
you,
your
body,
has
detectable
antibodies.
B
C
Mr
chairman
and
dr
harris
and
representative
stith
talking
to
the
department
of
health
director
joe
hanson,
a
little
bit
earlier
when
it
talks
about
provide
covert
testing
tests
at
this
point,
that's
what
they're,
referring
to
as
the
pcr
or
antigen
tests
and
to
date
from
2020
to
date,
we've
spent
about
100
million
dollars
on
testing
on
that
type
of
testing
and
they're
about
a
hundred
dollars
a
test
depending
if
you're
high
risk
once
to
twice
a
week.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
yes,
the
the
the
higher
risk
levels.
You
are
that
diagnostic
sort
of
screening
testing,
so
regular
diagnostic
testing
is
a
recommended
strategy
to
help
prevent
infection
in
the
workplace.
To
give
you
some
idea,
you
know,
there's
a
variety
of
types
of
tests,
so
those
antigen
tests
are
usually
rapid,
point-of-care
tests.
We
we've
been
paying
about
five
dollars
each
for
those
types
of
tests
versus
then
the
laboratory-based
pcr
tests
are
we've
been
paying
about
150
for
each
of
those
tests.
So.
A
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
those
are
actually
the
ones
usually
in
a
provider's
office,
although
they
are
available
for
at
home.
Use
it's
a
shallow
nasal
swab,
you
stick
it
in
a
little
cartridge,
run
it
for
15
minutes
and
you
get
a
result.
The
the
saliva
test,
the
volt
test
or
a
pcr.
C
Okay,
and
so
then-
and
I
think
mr
chairman,
in
the
in
the
conversation,
it's
kind
of
one
of
the
point
representative,
that
you
brought
up
that
we've
been
kind
of
debating
and
it's
leading
to
a
question
for
you,
dr
harris
as
as
the
need
for
the
antibody
test,
and
you
made
a
statement
there.
You
said
if
you've
got
a
good
antibody
test.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
there
are
quite
a
few
antibody
tests
that
have
been
authorized
by
the
fda.
At
this
point.
They
do
have
limitations.
You
know
there
are
some
that
will
detect
antibodies
to
one
specific
target
of
the
virus,
but
not
to
the
other,
and
so
in
some
of
these
tests.
Vaccinated
individuals
will
test
negative
on
these
antibody
tests
and
then
there's
also
a
distinction
between
you
know.
Do
you
have
antibodies
circulating
versus
whether
you?
A
Actually
your
immune
system
is
primed
to
respond
to
the
virus,
and
so
these
types
of
antibody
tests
can't
necessarily
tell
you
that
you
could
have
circulating
antibodies,
but
the
the
rest
of
your
immune
system
might
not
be
able
to
respond
and
then
also
the
opposite.
You
might
not
have
circulating
antibodies,
but
your
you
know
the
other
types
of
your
immune
system,
like
the
cell
me
cell
mediated
immunity,
are
ready
to
respond
so
just
in
in
general,
we
don't
have
good
tests
right
now
that
can
give
us
clinical
information.
A
E
Schwartz,
you
know
I
got
you
evan.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
dr
harris.
It's
nice
to
finally
meet
you
in
person.
You
did
great
on
zoom,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
got
it
straight.
So
the
pcr
test
is
the
nasal.
Is
that
the
that's
the
antigen
is
the
nasal
swab?
A
You
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
representative
schwartz,
the
pcr.
You
can
have
different
types
of
collection
for
different
types
of
tests,
so
most
of
the
antigen
tests
are
a
nasal
swab,
but
you
can
also
do
a
pcr
test
with
a
nasal
swab.
You
can
do
a
pcr
test
with
saliva
and
so
just
the
sample
type.
It
doesn't
necessarily
tell
you
what
type
of
test
it
is,
but
right
now
the
major
types
of
diagnostic
cova
testing
are
either
through
a
nasal
swab.
E
A
A
Representative
schwartz,
it
can
vary,
our
laboratory
does
pcr
tests
and
we
we
turn
those
around.
You
know
within
24
hours
after
receipt,
but
you
know
we
do
depend
on
our
contract
laboratories
to
do
a
lot
of
our
testing
just
because
the
volumes
are
so
high,
and
so
we
can
see
you
know
anywhere
between
42
to
70
to
48
to
72
hours
and
then
certainly
as
volumes
go
up
across
the
country
that
also
impacts
our
contract
laboratories
and
so
volume.
A
You
know
the
turnaround
times
tend
to
get
longer
as
volumes
around
the
country
get
get
higher.
So
you
know
there
are.
There
are
strategies
that
you
can
use
that
combine
both
these
rapid,
like
the
antigen
tests
or
rapid
molecular
tests
and
the
pcr
tests
to
sort
of
give
you.
You
know
both
a
rapid
answer,
but
then
perhaps
a
more
sensitive
answer.
After
waiting
a
couple
of
days.
E
You
follow
up,
if
I
may
say
yeah,
because
I've
done,
I
mean
I've
done
both,
and
so
that's
my
concern
is
that
because
we
know
I
I
think
it
was
mostly
false
positives
with
the
rapid.
If
I'm
and
I
can
be
wrong
on
this-
that
that
we-
the
timing
on
it,
can
be
a
little
problematic
if
you're
waiting,
72
hours
for
the
more
accurate
test
and
do
you
have
any,
I
mean
I
don't
know
quite
how
to
finish
the
sentence.
Dr
harris.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative,
schwartz
yeah,
that
that
certainly
is
a
a
you
know:
conundrum
that
that
we've
dealt
with
those
antigen
tests
have
a
lot
of
uses
because
you
get
that
answer
in
15
minutes,
but
they
are
less
sensitive,
so
they're
going
to
miss
more
people
who
are
infected
than
than
the
pcr
tests,
but
on
the
other
hand
you
know
they
are
rapid.
They
don't
have
the
same
level
of
controls
that
you
have
in
a
you
know,
fully
developed
laboratory.
So
you
can
get
some
false
positives
too.
A
So
there
are
circumstances
where
we
recommend
confirming
those
antigens
with
a
molecular
test
and
so
different.
You
know
different
places
that
have
been
doing.
The
screening
testing
has
chosen
different
strategies.
You
know
some
of
our
long-term
care
facilities.
You
know,
use
the
rapid
tests,
but
then
use
the
molecular
tests
for
backup
but
you're
right.
It
is
problematic.
If
you
get
somebody
who's
positive,
you
know
they
test
on
tuesday.
You
don't
know
until
friday.
Well
now,
you've
had
three
days
in
which
you
know,
there's
been
potential
transmission,
ongoing.
E
The
covet
19
test
to
discover
whether
they
have
whether
they're
sick
and
the
second
one
the
antibody
test
by
and
large,
the
antibody
test
is
really.
If
I
think
I
had
coveted
several
months
ago,
I'm
going
to
take
the
antibiotic
test
to
find
out.
If
I
have
it,
because
I
didn't
ever
bother
to
go
in
that's
kind
of
a
one
time.
E
E
C
E
C
Director
joe
hanson,
said
that
department
of
health
frankly
is
kind
of
agnostic
to
where
it
goes,
because
if
it
goes
to
work
for
services,
they'll
come
to
department
of
health
and
say:
where
do
we
get
the
tests?
How
do
we
get
them?
Do
that?
So
he
didn't
see
that
as
really
being
problematic.
It's
just
who's
got
the
expertise
for
the
test
from
who
has
more
access
to
employers.
This
is
kind
of
a
line
there,
but
he
didn't
see
that
as
problematic.
D
F
Randy
go
ahead
thanks,
mr
chairman
running
mckay
governor's
office.
I
think
the
one
difference
is
is
that
what
we
don't
know
is
what
the
because
the
program
that
the
department
of
health
has
been
running
has
been
voluntary.
F
So
if
that
there
is
a
certain
standard
of
of
number
of
tests
that
came
out
from
osha
so
to
to
to
not
participate
in
a
vaccine
mandate,
but
to
use
the
testing
alternative
or
to
have
to
look
at
that,
you
know
there
will
be
some
set
number
of
tests
per
employee
per
time
period,
so
that
is
that
could
change
our
burn
rate
on
that
existing
program.
But
I
I
do
know:
we've
got
tests
available
today
that
businesses
could
grab
so
there's
you
would
be
having
two
things
come
together.
So.
D
I
presume,
but
that's
going
to
happen
whether
or
not
we
give
you
10
million
or
not
number
one
and
number
two
you're
already,
if
you,
if
it
requires
more
than
10
million,
then
you'll
just
take
it
out
of
our
dollars
and
your
discretionary
spending,
because
you
have
to
do
it
so
that
my
my
point
is
that
if
this
is
implemented.
H
D
D
Sign
to
it,
it's
not
going
to
make
any
difference,
and
so
in
that
sense
none
of
it's
really
necessary.
It's.
G
A
G
So
the
purpose
in
mr
chairman
follow-up,
the
purpose
in
this
bill
of
the
antibody
test
and
why
we
would
provide
it
is
if
you
take
the
antibody
test
and
I'm
going
to
paraphrase
the
bill
here.
If
you
take
the
antibody
test
and
document
to
your
employer
that
your
antibody
test
shows
you
have
the
antibodies,
so
you
should
be
immune.
G
Theoretically,
then,
you
would
not
be
required
to
be
vaccinated
to
continue
your
employment
with
that
employer.
That
is
the
purpose
in
in
my
read
of
this
bill
for
the
antibody
test.
But
if
I
understand
what
you're
saying
that,
having
that
antibody
test
having
it
say,
show
that
that
you
have
the
antibodies
really
does
not
protect
your
co-workers
or
anyone
else
from
catching
it
or
and
whatnot.
So
so
by
providing
that
and
doing
the
antibody
test
is
really
of
no
great
significance
other
than
you
can
say
woohoo.
I
did
it.
A
B
B
The
second
100
they've
had
covet
and
got
over
it,
and
the
third
group
are
people
who've
tested
for
antibodies,
and
let's
imagine
that
all
hundred
of
these
people
test
positive
for
antibodies
and
then,
let's
imagine
that
each
of
these
groups
is
all
equally
exposed
to
the
delta
variant
or
whatever
is
out
there
number
wise
any
way
to
know
how
many
on
this
hundred
and
that
hundred
and
that
hundred
will
actually
get
coveted.
Does
anybody
know
that.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
stith,
I
would
say
overall,
the
answer
is
unknown
there.
There
is
clearly
a
you
know.
There
is
clearly
natural
immunity
that,
after
infection,
that
you
have
some
protection
against
copin
19
for
a
certain
amount
of
time.
The
time
we
use
now
is
for
three
months.
It
could
be
longer
than
that.
Unfortunately,
the
data
with
delta
show
that
it
that
probably
shortens
the
length
of
the
time
and-
and
so
I
think,
there's
not
a
great
way
to
know
the
answer
to
that.
A
Until
we
learn
more
about
how
long
immunity
lasts,
what
are
the
impacts
of
delta
variant
on
that?
You
know,
if
you
look
at
unvaccinated
versus
a
vaccinated
population,
the
right
now
the
data
show
that
a
vaccinated
population
that's
exposed
is
about
six
times
less
likely
to
get
infection
than
than
an
unvaccinated
population.
C
Mr
chairman
and
dr
harris,
so
then
the
question
or
the
the
comment
that
we
we
see
and
and
that
we
deal
with
in
this
conversation,
is
I've
had
covet.
I
had
this
natural
immunity
that
now
I'm
invincible,
and
I
say
that
facetiously
by
the
way,
but
your
pushback
is
well
you
you
might
be
immune,
but
it's
perhaps
on
a
limited
time
and
that
even
though
you've
had
it,
we
would
recommend
vaccination
because
that
will
you
will
be
vaccinated
for
a
longer
period
over
what
your
natural
immunity
is.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
no,
I
think
that's
that's
correct.
I
think
there
are
data
that
show
that
you
know
vaccination,
you
know
protects
you
from
reinfection
better
than
you
know
a
previous
infection
at
about
a
rate
of
of
two
times.
I
think
there
are
variables
with
infection
such
as
how
you
know
what
your
immune
response
is
to
infection,
how
the
severe
that
infection
was.
That
may
impact
your
immune
response.
You
know
we
know
that.
A
We've
seen
that,
even
with
some
of
the
vaccines
we
are
starting
to
need
to
give
boosters,
because
immunity
does
not
last
forever-
or
at
least
it
wanes
over
time,
and
so
with
all
of
those
factors
you're
corrected.
Vaccination
is
going
to
provide
a
better
immunity,
protect
you
more
than
infection
alone,.
G
G
Question
this
is
just
so.
I
can
be
better,
better
educated
on
the
whole
virus
in
general.
If
art,
could
you
tell
me
other
by
other
diseases
that
you
get
vaccinated
for
that?
If
you
get
it
be
and
don't
ever
get
vaccinated
that
your
natural
immunity
is
not
as
strong
as
your
immunity
provided
by
the
vaccine?
If
that
question
makes
sense,
because
that
seems
to
be
odd,
that
your
natural
immunity
would
not
be
a
better
barrier
than
than
the
vaccine
would
provide,
and
so
what
other
diseases
out
there?
G
A
Mr
chairman
representative
walters,
it's
a
good
question
for
a
lot
for
a
lot
of
our
vaccine.
Preventable
diseases
like
measles,
varicella.
We
don't
recommend
vaccination
if
you've
already
had
infection.
You
know
I
think
coronaviruses
are
different.
A
They
you
know
like
influenza,
we
get
a
vaccine
every
single
year,
because
the
virus
changes
certainly
we're
seeing
that
coronaviruses
change
we're
seeing
that
immunity
wanes
over
time
with
coronaviruses
in
this,
unlike
some
of
our
other
vaccines
like
like
measles
and
varicella,
and
so
I
think,
with
those
factors
you
know
just
plus
data
looking
at
you
know,
infection
for
vaccinated
people
versus
you
know,
people
who
have
gotten
infected
that
we're
just
seeing
that
that
higher
level
of
protection
you
know
looking
at
the
data.
E
E
C
Mr
chairman,
first
senior
administrator
is
in
labor
and
health
engaging
on
them,
but
I
believe
director,
joe
hansen,
is
in
the
minerals
meeting
and
we'll
be
able
to
provide
similar
testimony
to
them
and-
and
we
went
down
after
we
kind
of
had
this
discussion
before
we
met.
I
went
down
and
got
with
chairman
greer
and
said
this
is
kind
of
what
we're,
particularly
on
this
paragraph,
where
this
there's
this
appropriation
kind
of
shared.
What
had
been
revealed
to
us
to
where
we
could
kind
of
be
on
parallel
paths
and
share
that
information.
E
E
Question
any
more
questions
for
dr
harris
nope.
I
have
a
question
for
you.
I'm
not
sure
if
this
is
a
question
for
dr
harris,
but
in
section
four,
where
we
get
into
the
stipends,
how
do
we
there's
20
million
dollars
for
a
stipend
that
can
max
out
at
1.5
million?
So
let's
have
14
stipends
roughly.
If
we
max
out
how
do
we
determine
what
the
stipend
would
consist
of
to
any
particular
health
care
provider.
C
D
C
D
Did
you
listen
to
the
testimony
was
going
on
this
afternoon
from
wanda,
so
I'm
curious
if
any
particular
information
that
was
testified
to
that
was
just
basically
that
you
said
you'd
like
to
explain
that,
because
it
was
inaccurate
or
you
had
something
that
would
say
this.
This
ought
to
be
corrected
just
so.
The
record
zach.
A
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
that
opportunity.
I
think
I
would
make
one
point
first,
that
that,
while
natural
immunity
certainly
provides
you
with
some
immune
protection,
the
the
risk
of
that,
however,
is
of
course,
adverse
effects
from
the
virus
itself,
and
you
know
the
the
risk
benefit
profile
of
the
vaccines
is
so
favorable
to
the
vaccines
compared
to
infection
with
covid
that
achieving
you
know,
immunity
from
the
through
the
population
through
vaccination.
A
Rather
than
not,
you
know
infection
which
is
going
to
cause
a
lot
of
morbidity
and
mortality.
You
know
that
would
certainly
be
our
my
recommendation.
I
think
another
point
that
was
made
was
about
how
these
vaccines
are
are
different
from
other
vaccines
and
that
you
can
still
get
infected.
A
No
vaccine
is
a
hundred
percent
except
for
potentially
rabies,
post-exposure
prophylaxis.
But
if
you
look
at
measles
vaccine,
for
example,
it
the
recommendation
used
to
be
one
dose
of
measles
vaccine,
that's
95
effective.
Well,
we
started
seeing
outbreaks
even
with
that
level
of
effectiveness.
So
we
so
we
boosted
it
up
to
two
doses
of
measles
vaccine
and
that's
98
effective.
A
So
no
vaccine
is
100
effective,
but
you
are
much
less
likely
to
get
infected
with
covid19
if
you're
vaccinated-
and
you
are
certainly
much
less
likely
to
require
hospitalization
and
to
die
if
you've
had
the
covet,
19
vaccines
and-
and
that's
true
for
all
three
that
we
have
available
in
the
united
states-
and
you
know,
while
infection
could
still
go
on
if
we're
all
protected
from
severe
illness.
A
Then
that's
okay.
You
know,
that's
that's
the
point,
so
I
think
I
would.
I
think
those
are
the
two
points
I'd
like
to
make.
A
Mr
chairman,
representative
schwartz,
yes,
it
has
been
shown
that
a
vaccinated
person
who
has
been
exposed
can
transmit
the
disease
to
others.
However,
the
that
vaccinated
person
is
at
a
lower
risk
to
start
with
of
getting
infected,
and
so
you
know
that
back
that
risk
of
that
vaccinated
person
to
others.
You
know
it's
just
lower
to
begin
with,
but
once
they
get
copin
19,
they
can
be
infectious
and
we
do
ask
those
people
to
stay
home.
The
same.
We
do
for
an
unvaccinated
person.
D
So
do
we
thank
you
for
confirming
my
understanding,
so
when
you
say
a
vaccinated
person
can
transfer,
the
virus
is
a
transferring
of
virus
that
originated
from
the
virus
in
his
body,
or
was
he
taking
it
in
and
then
retransfer
and
then
pushing
it
on?
You
know,
in
other
words,
he
breathed
in
an
air
molecule
and
then
passed
it
back
out.
You
know.
A
Mr
chairman
representative
nicholas,
I
think,
that's
a
good
question.
You
know
our
tests
detect
the
presence
of
viral
material
in
in
the
nasal
passage.
Does
that
mean
somebody's
really
infected
versus
just
sort
of
harboring
it
and
passing
it
on?
I,
I
think,
that's
a
good
question.
We
certainly
do
know
that
fully
vaccinated
people
can
develop
some
symptoms,
usually
mild,
which
would
suggest
that
there
is
some
level
of
actual
infection
going
on
for
at
least
some
of
them.
D
Okay,
ronnie
help
us
out
with
this.
H
D
Okay
on
stipends,
so
yeah,
let's
just
start
with
section
four.
What
we
need
to
what
we'd
like
to
know
is
how
much
money
of
cares
in
covid
and
other
have
been
made
available
to
health
care
providers
to
to
address
work,
force,
incentives
and
healthcare,
workforce
shortages
and
mr.
C
D
F
Mr
chairman,
as
we
discussed,
was
that
only
yesterday
this
actually
is
the
same
amount.
Oh,
there
was
30
million
dollars
total
to
help
with
the
current
shortages
for
this
spike
that
we're,
in
so
say,.
F
So
the
the
30
million
dollars
that
the
governor
moved
to-
and
that
was
the
combination
of
23
arpa
and
seven
cares
to
was
to
deal
with
short
healthcare
worker
shortages
in
hospitals
and
long-term
care
facilities,
and
20
million
of
that
was
meant
to
to
do
retention
of
existing
workers
there,
and
ten
of
that
was
for
travelers.
F
Million
30
million
and
again
that
was
because
of
the
the
the
spike
we're
in
right
now.
So
if
you'll
recall
at
the
end
of
2020,
we
actually
did
something
similar
where
we
put
out
money
only
for
travelers,
so
because
there
was
again
a
sure
such
a
shortage
there
in
that
moment
and
the
strain
there.
The
other
resources
that
are
going
as
the
national
guard
is
going
into
the
hospitals,
there's
a
hundred
guards
just
just
shy
of
100
guards,
members
in
hospitals
around
the
state
right
now,
that's
being
paid
elsewhere.
F
So
those
are
all
the
things
we're
doing
in
this
moment.
For
for
the
shortage,
I
think
I
was
trying
to
explain
that
the
traveler's
contract
is
for
about
13
weeks
is
what
that
10
million
would
cover.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
mr
mckay
just
backing
up
just
because
I
couldn't
write
as
fast
as
you
were
speaking
10
million
for
traveling
nurses,
20
million
was
for
and
that's
my
blank
retention
retention
of
base
employees.
F
Mr
chairman,
that
was
for
for
essentially
nurses
down,
so
we
did
recognize
and
we
did
allow
the
hospital
or
the
long-term
care
facility
some
flexibility
to
to
especially
address
what
might
be
their
most
critical
area
for
retention.
So
say
some
of
them
if
they're,
if
it
was
all
our
ends,
that's
where
they
needed
to
focus
but
but
correct,
not
in
the
administration.
F
We
really
wanted
this
to
go
to
people
who
are
providing
the
care,
or
you
know
we're
also
talking
about
the
janitorial
staff
you're
talking
about
other
people
who
who
work
in
that
space,
but
not
not
advent
and
not.
Doctors.
D
D
So,
in
addition
to
the
funds,
you
just
talked
about
the
30
million,
what
other
funds
have
they
received
from
through
your
office
since
the
the
outset,
whether
it's
out
care
down
pairs
or
some
other
a
lot
of
dollars
to
assist
these
healthcare
providers?
I
mean
it'd,
be
nice
to
have
a
good
idea
of
the
total
amounts.
F
Mr
chairman,
I
will
pull
that
document
that
we
have
that
was
reported
to
us
that
outlines
all
the
program
of
all
the
different
dollars
that
have
come
to
wyoming
from
the
six
different
federal
covered
relief
ones,
because
that
does
help
us
get
at
that
a
little
bit
better,
because
there
are
right
at
the
outset
of
of
the
cares
act.
I
believe
it
was
a
provision
in
the
cares
that
could
have
been
one
of
the
other
bills
very
early
on.
F
There
was
a
direct
payment
to
providers,
so
we
didn't
even
touch
it,
but
through
the
governor's
office
and
through
the
legislation
that
passed
during
the
special
session.
That
was
where
we
put
that
roughly
65
million
dollars
into
the
health
care
system,
and
that
was
some
hospitals
were
doing
that
for
the
negative
pressure
rooms,
and
some
of
them
were
doing
it
for
staffing.
So
there
was
a
variation
depending
on
what
the
of
the
facility
requested
via
slip
and
and
the
office
of
state
lands
so
directly
through
us.
F
That
could
have
been
used
through
staffing
retention.
It
would
be
part
of
that
60
million
and
we
did
20
million
for
travelers
at
the
end
of
2020
and
then
we've
done
this
other
30
million.
Do
you.
D
F
F
Mr
chairman,
that's
we
certainly
have
a
process
on
that
and
the
hospital
association
has
been
willing
to
help
us
on
that.
So
in
terms
of
administration
of
this-
because
this
does
include
not
just
the
the
funds
come
to
the
governor's
office-
it
specifically
says
the
governor's
office
administers
it.
So
in
that
instance,
we
could
need
some
help
on
administering
it,
because
we
couldn't
just
pass
on
the
administration
of
the
hospital
association,
but
that
would
be
certainly
my
preference
would
be
to
to
just
mirror
what
we
have
done.
D
D
G
F
F
That
exactly
so,
we
have
the
authority,
but
we
think
if
this
hospital
crisis
and
the
staffing
shortage
continues
on
even
on
the
path
it's
on
right
now
we
would
we
would.
We
would
have
the
authority
that
you
granted
through
118
through
arpa.
We
think
we
we
would
address
this.
It
is.
G
D
G
We're
we're
double
dipping,
but
we're
also
for
this
money
we
put
hindrance
on
on
the
governor's
office,
but
the
governor's
office
can
still
go
do
all
of
this
with
or
without
this
bill.
So
we
may
just.
We
may
just
leave
this
money
sitting
in
the
pot
because
it's
too
restrictive,
while
the
governor's
office
takes
care
of
things
in
his
existing
formats.
E
F
Mr
chairman,
we
were
working
to
try
to
address
a
quick
crisis,
so
we
put
together
a
formula
working
with
folks
from
the
long-term
care
community,
the
hospital
association
and
the
department
of
health,
and
we
came
up
with
a
formula
related
to
beds
and
because
there's
a
connection
between
number
of
beds
and
patients,
so
that
that
should
give
you
kind
of
an
indication
of
how
many
staff
there
are,
so
that
it
would
be
to
measure
it
and
then
because
long-term
care
facilities
have
a
different
staffing
ratio
per
beds.
C
C
D
E
D
B
And,
mr
chairman,
I
guess
more
of
it
more
of
a
comment.
It
seems
like
this
bill,
as
draft
at
least
doesn't
really
have
any
sideboards
on
how
that
gets
funded
right.
So
if
I
am
an
optometrist,
I
can
submit
an
application
and
say
I
want
seven.
So
they
say
I
want
750
000
under
the
stipend
amount
to
relieve
a
shortage,
because
I've
got
workers,
I'd
like
to
hire
in
my
office
and
that
would
presumably
be
eligible
expenditure
under
this
bill
is
drafted.
J
E
E
F
No,
we,
you
know,
we
ran
audits
on
the
business
council
grants,
but
on
the
on
these
hospital
ones,
no,
and
certainly
on
on
the
audits,
there
was
no
five
percent
penalty.
So
I
I
do
as
you
continue
to
talk
about
these.
I
guess
the
two
things
that
keep
jumping
out
at
me.
As
we
talked
about
yesterday,
20
million
dollars
in
retention
for
only
hospitals
and
long-term
care
facilities
only
translated
to
about
a
thousand
dollars.
This
is
still
roughly
but
to
any
individual
person.
We
were
targeting
in
that,
especially
that
nursing
space.
F
So
if
you
open
it
up
that
much
more,
that's
how
much
more
dilute
this
becomes,
and
so
just
that
that's
a
factor
that
we
certainly
addressed
and
as
representative
larson
brought
up.
That
was
something
we've
been
talking
about
since
and
and
that
and
the
the
the
folks
we've
been
talking
about
trying
to
add
to
that
retention.
Space
are
much
smaller
than
this
definition
and
then
because
of
things
like
that,
and
that
the
governor's
office
is
the
one
that
has
to
administer
this.
F
This
is
why
we
did
ask
if
there
could
be
some
sort
of
fiscal.
What
that
we
did
submit
a
fiscal
note
to
say
if
the
governor's
office
is
administering
this
and
there's
requirements
like
that,
you
almost
need
rules
and
a
full
program
for
what
you
brought
up
representative
stiff.
That
is
why
we
asked
for
for
some
money
to
administer
this
program.
G
F
Mr
chairman,
yes,
we
view
that
this
would
be
different
than
what
we're
doing
now
in
what
way,
mr
chairman,
first
of
all,
we'd,
be
administering
it,
which
is
different,
so
we
were
able
to
do
a
kind
of
a
pass
through
to
the
hospital
association
to
help
them,
so
that
was
it.
F
If
it
was
just
said
the
governor
shall
establish
this
temporary
program,
then
we
could
we
we
could
run
it.
Then
we
would
view
that
we
could
work
with
somebody
else
to
administer
it
so
and
beyond
that.
Yes,
I
think
it
would
go
much
wider
than
what
we're
doing,
and
there
are
definitely
some
other
caveats
in
here
that
we
did
not
have
in
here.
So
this
isn't,
I
don't
think
tied
the
1.5
million
as
a
maximum
isn't
tied
to
a
certain
number
of
staff
at
any
one
facility.
D
G
F
The
the
just.
What
I
think
want
to
make
the
biggest
point
is
is
that
the
attorney's
general's
office
is
very
active
right
now
in
preparing
the
litigation
against
the
federal
overreach.
So
with
or
without
this,
the
attorney
general
will
be
moving
ahead.
Could
there
be
some
additional
costs
that
come
up,
but
you
know
we
certainly
don't
want
to
create
the
impression
that
it's
free
to
do
that.
F
It
is
extra
work,
but
it
is
a
priority
to
the
governor
and
the
attorney
general
so
that
that
work
is
underway
and
we
are
very
prepared
because
we
do
anticipate
those.
The
osha
rules,
for
example,
of
the
ets
from
osha,
could
come
very
quickly
and
we're
prepared,
as
we
look
ahead
to
the
next
couple
of
months.
F
I
think
the
factors
that
could
incur
costs
for
us
would
be,
though,
probably
the
most
expensive
thing
would
be
expertise
if,
if
that
was
needed
for
us
to
hire
expertise
to
help
on
those
cases-
and
you
don't
really
know
exactly
where
they're
going
to
go,
because
we
still
don't
know
what
the
osha
ets
is
or
the
cms
rule,
so
those
could
add
costs
for
us,
and
then
there
could
be
costs
related
to
getting
staff
at
the
attorney's
general
attorney
general's
office
licensed
to
practice
in
other
states.
F
If
that's
what's
necessary
for
the
legal
strategy,
these
aren't
huge
costs.
But
so
I
I
would
say
that
to
help
clarify
that
that
this
work
isn't
free
and
if
there's
willing
to
support
it,
something
like
250
000
would
be
a
a
great
number
to
move
ahead
and
then,
by
the
time
you
all
are
here
for
your
budget
session.
If
that
appears
to
be.
F
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
then
we'll
move
on
to
one
zero,
zero,
nine!
Really
the
same
question
just
so
that
everyone
on
the
committee
understands
what's
going
on
in
nine
one:
zero:
zero!
Nine!
If
that
appropriation
appears
on
page
11,
section,
3
and
it'll
be
line
18
towards
the
bottom
of
the
page,
on
page
11
of
1009,
and
if
you'd
like
a
hard
copy
ryan,
can
bring
you
a
hard
copy
if
it
makes
it
easier.
G
This
appropriation
is
from
the
effective
date,
which
is
effective
immediately
through
june
of
2024,
which
is
the
end
of
the
next
biennium,
and
I
think
that's
how
those
dates
chose
so
just
same
kind
of
comments
that
you
had
on
the
last
bill.
Anything
you'd
like
to
expand
on
just
to
provide
you
the
opportunity.
Sorry.
F
Mr
chairman,
a
slight
difference
on
this
one
is
that
term
defending
so
by
adding
that
in
that
would
allow
the
some
funding
for
defense
again.
You
know
it
is
the
governor
and
the
attorney's
attorney
general's
position
that
they
want
to
handle
these
in-house.
F
So
we
would
defend
the
state,
as
we
always
have
through
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
not
having.
D
J
D
D
F
Exactly
the
point,
if
someone
is
just
sues,
the
state
of
wyoming
for
a
lot
that
exists
now
past
one
of
the
last
couple
of
sessions
or
passes
during
this
special
session
and
and
the
attorney
general
defends
the
state,
the
the
risk
is
in
federal
court
and
that's
the
venue
they
would
like
to
use
because
then
they
could
recoup
their
own
legal
fees.
F
So
example
that
would
bring
up,
for
you
is,
is
that
the
data
trespass
bill
from
a
few
years
ago
lost
in
court
on
that
and
the
state
had
to
pay
a
total
of
six
hundred
and
three
thousand
dollars,
so
a
million
dollars
in
nine
around
defense.
F
That
would
be
what
would
really
be
the
costs
again.
There
can
sometimes
be
a
small
amount
of
travel
required
to
do
defense,
but
that
I
believe,
in
that
instance,
in
inside
the
603
000,
was
20
000
of
travel
costs.
For
so
that's
what
the
attorney
general's
office
paid,
the
rest
was
to
pay
their
legal
fees
and
since
they
won,
so
that
would
be
the
situation.
I
think
that
we
just
want
to
be
cognizant
of.
It
gets
better.
C
Okay,
so
my
question
then,
mr
chairman,
is
we:
we
have
two
bills
doing
similar
actions.
Is
it?
Is
it
reasonable,
then,
committee
to
say
that
we
appropriate,
maybe
250
000
irregardle,
regardless
of
if
two
bills
are
passed
or
if
one
bill
is
passed,
just
putting
some
money
in
there
for
them,
but
they're
trying
to
do
the
same
thing.
G
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
on
one
zero
zero,
two
page,
seven
section:
four
in
line
number
20.,
really
it's
like
19
and
20.,
but
reduced
a
million
dollars
to
250
000..
Second,.
D
Move
in
the
second
on
any
further
discussion,
seeing
that
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
those
opposed
emotion,
carries
and
it's
so
it's
a
recommendation
do
pass
correct
with
wanna
calling
you
got
that
okay
next
one
roll
column,
I
don't
think
we
do.
What
do
we
need
to
have
on
that?
Real,
quick,
although.
K
Chairman
larson,
I
think
that
the
voice
vote
to
adopt
amendment
is
in
order
and
then
typically.
K
G
D
K
E
Can
I
share
a
couple
statistics
with
you
that
I
think
has
a
bearing
on
this
bill.
I
gathered
some
information
from
my
local
medical
center
star
valley,
health.
They
have
425
employees,
roughly
half
of
those
employees
are
vaccinated.
E
E
C
Mr
chairman,
my
question
that
I
meant
to
ask
for
any:
we,
the
rules
aren't
out
so
so,
let's
say
just
say
tomorrow
they
said
you
had
to
implement
it
or
until
november.
First,
if
that
comes
out,
it's
going
to
come
out,
then
with
rules
right
and
if
the
rules
come
out
that
says
and
and
the
rules
there
then
can
the
state,
mr
attorney,
mr
attorney,
can
the
state
then
there's
impose
some
sort
of
action
that
says
not
entail
or
or
file
a
motion
that
says
until
this
is
resolved
or
not
required
to
implement.
B
C
D
C
Not
no,
no,
I
I
get
that,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
give
to
help
representative
stimpson
and
the
rest
of
simpson
and
the
rest
of
us
is
because
they're
all
asking
that
question
is
okay,
lander
sage,
west,
you
know
you're
worried
that
you're
going
to
have
to
comply
with
this
mandate
that
we
perhaps
may
feel
is
overreach
and
that's
going
to
take
effect
on
november.
1St
could
impact
us
adversely
if,
on
november
1st,
we
have
to
do
that
november
1st,
we
still
don't
have
rules,
non-compliance,
isn't
an
issue
right.
C
C
L
L
E
E
E
So
this
pill
says
notwithstanding
any
wyoming
law
to
the
contrary,
no
employer
in
the
state
of
wyoming
shall
require
or
mandate
an
employee
to
receive
a
covet,
19
vaccine
as
a
condition
of
employment.
Unless
we
have
the
list
here
so
you're
you're
suggesting
to
me
that
we
cannot
do
what
this
paragraph
says.
E
D
Yeah,
I
would
say
that
if
that
paragraph
is
contrary
to
federal
law,
then
it
is
it's
void
on
its
face
in
terms
of
application
at
the
government
enforcing
their
mandates
on
us,
so
that
we're
passing-
and
you
know-
we've
done
this
before
we've
done
it
on
our
on
gun
bills,
we
passed
laws
that
violate
federal
law,
and
so
that
puts
us
at
risk
of
losing
our
medicaid
and
medicare
dollars.
By
doing
that,.
E
E
I've
been
told,
so
my
legal
counsel
coached
me
on
this,
where
it's
a
mandate
by
the
president:
it's
not
a
congressional
law
that
wyoming
has
the
authority
to
override
that
and
supersede
it
where
it's
a
mandate.
D
B
B
D
B
D
Yeah
so
tell
us
what
that
means
again,
please
well
he's
saying
that
we
should
be
able
to
have
state
law,
in
effect
until
all
the
appellate
steps
haven't
been
gone
through.
That
can
take
four
years
or
five
years.
E
In
your
humble
opinion,
then,
this
bill
has
a
lot
of
fun
things
in
it,
but
if
the
feds
drop
the
hammer,
this
pill
is
going
to
be
not
worth
the
paper
it's
written
on.
Basically.
H
L
L
L
L
E
H
C
Well,
and
so
that
even
becomes
a
bigger
deal,
because
we
have
that
in
in
afton
and
kimmer
and
several
other
places,
and
so
that's
that
medicaid
medicare
reimbursement
that
comes
into
jeopardy
is
also
going
because
we've
got
that
upper
payment
level,
reimbursement
that
those
guys
get
through
medicaid
and
medicare,
and
so
it's
not
just
going
to
be
the
hospital
patients.
It's
going
to
be
their
long-term
care
patients.
It's
going
to
be
a
big
deal.
D
And
I've
got,
I
mean:
did
you
go
into
more
depth
with
your
discussions
with
your
administrator,
for
example,
if
there's
a
vaccine
mandate,
but
with
reasonable
testing,
are
they
still
gonna
lose
people?
I
mean
how
detailed
did
they
go
into
this.
E
E
I'm
sure
they're
gonna
put
that
on
the
table
a
lot
of
our
population,
so
I
think,
with
a
large
percentage
of
the
employees
or
members
of
the
church
of
jesus
christ,
of
latter-day
saints
and
the
leader
of
our
church
has
come
out
and
endorsed
the
vaccine
and
said
we
should
all
get
vaccinated
and
please
don't
use
the
church
as
an
excuse
not
to
be
vaccinated.
So
I
don't
think
the
religious
clause
is
going
to
be
very
effective.
D
G
D
E
E
So
we're
roughly
I've
estimated
that
around
20
dollars
for
lodging
costs,
so
the
actual
company
is
paid
about
75
dollars
per
hour
and
then
they'd
cream,
their
profit
off
and
so
for
what
it's
worth
a
traveling
nurse
that
appears
makes
about
double
of
what
they
could
it
in
a
regular.
But
that's
not!
The
hundreds
of
dollars
has
been
suggested.
G
G
B
G
B
G
D
D
D
There's
a
little
difference
in
the
only
difference
is
that
broader
definition
right.
G
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
because
the
governor's
office
is
already
doing
this
and
we
only
have
until
and
if
this
money
comes
from
the
arpa,
and
we
only
have
until
2024
to
spend
this
because
the
requirements
of
this
bill
are
more
stringent
than
what
the
governor's
program
existing
program
is.
I'm
afraid
that
we
will
end
up
leaving
a
pot
of
of
money
sitting
out
there
unavailable
or
more
difficult
to
utilize,
and
so
having
less
in
this
account
that's
tied
to
these
restrictions
of
this
bill.
It
makes
sense.
G
I
would
rather
have
the
governor
with
full
flexibility,
to
address
the
same
concerns
as
he
is
already
addressing.
So
that's
why
I
lower
that
amount
to
just
five
million
that
would
be
available,
while
also
recognizing
it
does
increase
the
number
of
folks
that
it
could
go
out
to.
I
think
the
governor
could
also
expand
that
available
the
folks
available
as
well
in
his
program.
So
that's
the
theory
behind
the
amendment
we'll
see
if
I
can
start
out.
E
D
Stefan
just
show
up
so
we'll
get
into
this
in
a
little
more
detail,
because
he
can
give
us
better
numbers
than
what
renny
had.
But
the
problem.
D
Yeah,
that's
what
I
mean.
So,
let's
go
to
page
13.
E
D
Let
stephen
come
in
and
tell
us
what
he's
doing
on
this
and
the
differences,
because
this
is
also
probably
going
to
be
another
amendment.
We
have
to
do
to
take
out
the
antigen
thing
or
the
antibody
concept
come
on.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
apologize
for
my
tardiness,
we're
juggling
four
or
five
different
rooms
to
be
in
today
in
terms
of
the
covet
19
testing.
As
several
of
you
might
know,
since
2020
we've
stood
up
a
program
for
employers
that
can
receive
free,
pcr-based
saliva
based
covid19
testing
through
the
department.
G
M
Health,
a
contract
that
we
have
with
the
vendor
that
gives
that
supply
out
this
bill
specifically
refers
to
covid19
testing
as
and
also
antibody
testing.
I
want
to
clarify
for
the
committee-
and
I
you
may
have
spoken
with
dr
harris
earlier-
there's
a
wide
variety
of
different
types
of
antibody
testing
out
there,
varying
both
in
terms
of
cost
and
in
terms
of
efficacy
or
quality.
M
We
have
not
provided
that
in
either
our
individual
at-home
testing
or
our
employer
or
large
organization
program
that
we've
had
stood
up
for
the
the
past
year,
14
months
or
so
the
cost
on
the
testing
that
we
that
we
send
out
and
that
employers
can
enroll
in
still
today
for
for
free
and
receive
their
quantity
of
of
kova
19
tests
it's
around
120
per
kit.
That
is,
I
think,
a
lot
of
reasons
for
that.
M
Mr
chairman,
infectious
disease,
test
kits
of
this
kind
were
for
the
pandemic
much
cheaper,
but
with
the
supply
chain
issues
that
we
saw
in
2020.
Those
costs
went
up
as
well
as
the
demands
that
the
country
saw
where
testing
companies
across
the
board
really
started,
increasing
their
emergency.
D
M
Making
things
cheaper
well,
mr
chairman,
hopefully
that
will
stabilize
at
some
point
if
we
still
have
to
do
this.
But
I
want
to
clarify
for
the
committee
that
that
price,
that
we
pay
with
our
federal
funds
as
the
department
of
health
to
purchase
those
kits
for
employers
right
now.
M
That's
an
all-in
price
that
encompasses
the
kit,
as
well
as
all
of
the
service,
so
overnight,
shipping
both
ways
to
the
lab
that
it's
processed
at
as
well
as
results
reporting
to
the
person's
email
or
to
the
person's
phone
all
of
the
customer
service
and
all
the
logistics
that
that
go
into
tying
a
specific
kit
and
a
bar
code
to
a
person
comply
with
hipaa.
That's
some
of
the
reason
for
those
costs,
but
as
I've
discussed
with
some
of
you
over
the
short
term
here
the
past
couple
of
days.
M
After
seeing
this
bill
draft,
we
have
had
discussions
with
the
department
of
workforce
services
where
this
money
would
be
appropriated
if
it
were
passed,
and
I
envisioned
that
we
would
work
pretty
closely
together
that
if
they
had
this
duty
to
spend
x
amount
of
dollars
on
testing,
we
would
want
them
to
leverage
what
we
have
available
first,
because
we
have
the
employer
testing
program.
If
that
would
be
suitable
here,
we
would
use
that
stefan
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
switch
over
to
df
department,
workforce
services
because
you're
already
doing
mr
chairman,
it's
a
good
question.
F
M
All
set
up,
I
anticipate
mr
chairman,
what
workforce
services
would
do
is
we
would
be
the
first
entity
they
would
reach
out
to
and
in
fact
we've
we
have
worked
with
them
over
the
past
year
to
make
employers
aware
of
this
program,
and
so
I
think,
if
they
wanted
to
add
to
one
of
our
contracts
with
this,
that
would
certainly
be
doable,
but,
mr
chairman,
within
limitations,
within
reason,
I
think,
in
the
short
term.
If
this
were
to
pass,
we
would
the
department.
M
Mr
chairman,
that's
a
an
excellent
question.
It
really
depends
on
the
scale.
What
I'm
unclear
about
in
this
bill,
obviously,
is:
what
would
the
what
would
the
demand
and
volume
look
like
right
now,
since
2020
early
on,
we
had
an
incredible
demand
from
our
employers
and
large
organizations
that,
when
we
launched
our
test
kits
were
flying
off
the
shelf,
we
were
able
to
staff
it
in
the
department
of
health.
Do
customer
service
get
folks
enrolled,
and
the
folks
in
our
agency
did
a
really
good
job.
M
D
G
Stephen,
just
rough
number
certainly
doesn't
need
to
be
precise.
You
said
that
your
program
has
been
up
and
going
about
14
months
and
in
that
14
months
approximately.
What
have
you.
M
Spent
mr
chairman
representative,
walters,
across
all
of
our
testing
resources
that
have
been
procured.
So
that's
not
just
our
employer
program.
We
also
offer
covet
19
testing
for
free
to
any
individual
who
wants
to
order
it
receive
it
overnight,
send
it
back
off
and
we
also
support
through
another
program,
healthcare
facilities,
all
of
the
correctional
facilities
with
a
similar
test.
M
It
runs
on
a
different
platform,
but
it's
it's
similar
and
it's
in
its
scope
between
when
we
started
these
programs
in
2020,
and
now
it's
over
100
million
dollars
in
federal,
covet
funds
that
we
have
spent
on
testing.
M
In
particular,
I
could
get
you
that
exact
number
based
on
the
most
recent
data,
but
it's
it's
over
a
hundred
million
dollars,
our
entire
covet
19
response
budget
from
the
cares
act
that
that
we
received
from
from
the
governor
totaled
about
160
million
dollars
since
the
pandemic
started,
and
obviously
we've
done
some
work
to
offset
some
of
that
with
fema
reimbursement.
Fema
has
reimbursed
us
for
a
lot
of
these.
M
G
M
Roughly,
mr
chairman,
representative,
walters,
that's
accurate.
I
do
want
to
mention
to
the
to
the
committee.
We
we
evolved
in
2020,
where
that
kit
price,
that
I
mentioned,
that
is
kind
of
typical
of
what
you
see
hundred
dollars,
120
dollars,
some
150,
depending
on
the
test
and
and
the
service.
G
M
We
can
scale
up
with
a
partnership
we
have
with
a
vendor,
but
also
the
work
that
we
do
in-house
at
our
public
health
lab
to
process
these
tests
and
what
we've
scaled
up
there
we've
dramatically
reduced
our
per
test
kit
price
to
around
40,
so
that
and
essentially
have
a
vendor
that
does
all
of
the
supply
chain.
Logistics,
the
third
party
logistics,
the
the
actual
box,
the
tracking
all
of
that-
and
we
do
the
processing
so
that
cost
is
much
lower
now,
so
that
burn
rate
representative
walters.
M
G
G
Are
we
requesting
50
000
tests
a
month
and
do
you
think
there
would
be
an
uptick
in
requests
if
it
was
to
subvert
or
to
not
be
to
be
able
to
avoid
a
mandate
that
there
would
be
more
people
wanting
the.
M
Tests,
mr
chairman
representative
walters,
it's
a
tough
question
to
answer,
obviously
not
knowing
the
details
of
the
federal
mandate
right
now
and
what
that
timeline
will
look
like.
I
think,
in
terms
of
the
volume
that
we
have,
even
if
and
if
it
were
supplemented
by
funding
that
would
come
through
a
bill
like
this.
I
think
we
could
largely
support
testing
volume
that
would
be
demanded
that
comes
at
the
expense
of
the
long-term
sustainability
of
that
program,
and
obviously
we.
G
M
Intended
to
be
or
wanted
to
be
doing,
19
testing
in
2021-
god
forbid
in
2022,
but
here
we
are
so
we're
we're
trying
to
spend
those
resources
wisely.
I
think
where
we
see
the
impacts
of
covid
most
in
terms
of
facilities
is
obviously
in
long-term
care.
M
The
the
our
state
facilities
like
the
life
resource
center
congregate
care
settings.
We
want
to
make
sure
we
have
enough
volume
for
those
facilities
for
corrections,
because
that's
where
we
see
really,
you
know
some
dangerous
outbreaks,
but
I
think
on
the
employer
side
through
this
calendar
year,
I
would
struggle
to
say
we
would
be
in
trouble
to
not
be
able
to
support
that
demand.
D
M
Mr
chairman,
my
understanding
is
that
this
appropriation
comes
out
of
those
funding
sources
anyways,
I
might
be
mistaken
there,
but
yes,
you're
right
if
we
were
mandated
to
do
something
and
we
depleted
our
resources
on
our
employer
testing
program
and
the
decision
policy
decision
was
to
get
more
then
yes,
those
discussions
would
happen.
Just
like
that
of
how
we
spent
cares,
act
funds
how
we've
spent
our
funds
on
provider
relief
it
would.
It
would
undoubtedly
unfold
that
way.
D
Are
there
are
there
other
funds,
besides
federal
funds
out
there,
that
you
can
apply
for
fema,
whatever
it
is
to
who
would
have
paid
for
testing.
M
Mr
chairman,
we
do
have
direct
received
arpa
funds
that
didn't
that.
Don't
come
to
the
governor
that
our
agency
has
received
at
our
lab
at
our
public
health
division,
some
of
which
can
support
testing,
there's
different
strings
attached
to
all
of
those
different
grant
sources.
So
some
can
be
spent
on
testing
supplies
at
the
public
health
lab,
while
others
could
supplement
contracts
for
purchasing.
You
know
tests
from
other
lab.
It
really.
D
M
Mr
chairman,
I'm
probably
the
only
executive
branch
director
that
would
say
this,
but
I
I
don't
see
the
benefit
of
having
an
appropriation
for
this
particular
issue
here,
and
I
know
I
think,
that's
anathema
for
executive
branch
folks
to
say
that,
but
with
what
we
have
internally
with
what
we
still
have
of
tests
that
we've
purchased
that
are
sitting
on
shelves
right
now.
That
could
support
a
program
like
this
and
then,
in
addition
to
what
we
would
do
if
this
were
required,
is
essentially
go,
get
the
same
funding
source
from
from
my
boss.
M
G
M
B
B
B
D
So
you're
right,
if
this
language
stays
in,
then
we
can
leave
a
million
or
two
for
antibodies,
but
actually
he
could
still
do
the
exact
same
thing.
They
just
order.
Antibody
tests
instead
of
copenhagen.
C
Mr
chairman,
do
my
read
on
this,
though,
is?
Is
we
say
you
develop
in
here?
We
say
you
develop
the
program
if
we
left
the
language
the
way
it
is,
we
tell
them
that
we
direct
the
program,
and
these
are
the
tissue,
provide
they're
saying
that
they've
got
the
funding
to
do
that.
It
doesn't
restrict
them.
B
J
G
Second,
so,
mr
chairman,
the
reason
I
leave
a
little
money
in
there
is
just
to
make
sure
that
there
is
an
indication
that
this
is
a
worthy
program.
Knowing
that
there's
other
funds
available.