►
From YouTube: 2/24/2021 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
E
F
A
Here,
thank
you,
madam
secretary.
Please
note
that
all
committee
members
are
present
and
before
we
get
started,
I
would
like
to
go
over
our
normal
housekeeping.
Please
remember
all
exhibits,
written
testimony
and
amendments
must
be
submitted
by
noon.
The
business
day
before
the
committee
meeting
people
who
wish
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
online
at
the
legislature's
website
and
the
public
is
strongly
encouraged
to
submit
written
testimony
in
advance
of
the
meeting
members.
Please
remember
to
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times.
A
This
will
help
us
ensure
we
have
a
quorum
at
all
times
unless
you
are
stepping
away
for
non-committee
related
business
members
presenters.
Those
who
are
here
to
testify,
please
remember
to
remain
muted
at
all
times.
If
you
are
speaking
unmute
yourself
and
then
please
promptly
mute
yourself
when
you
are
done.
Thank
you.
Everyone
on
today's
agenda.
We
have
two
bills
that
we
will
be
hearing.
A
I
will
be
taking
these
in
order
and
the
first
bill
on
our
agenda
is
assembly
bill
61.
So
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
61
and
I
believe
I
have
with
us
our
attorney
general
aaron
ford
and
mr
mark
krueger
to
present
attorney
general
federal
port.
Are
you
on
with
us.
G
G
We
are
separated
out
so
I'm
going
to
take
my
phone,
my
mask
off,
to
talk
for
now,
but
I
want
to
start
it
off
with
that
acknowledgement
purchase,
but
also
acknowledge,
as
you've
indicated,
that
I
have
two
of
my
other
colleagues
as
well.
Mark
kruger,
who
is
our
chief
deputy
attorney
general
and
our
consumer
advocate
ernest
figueroa,
who
will
assist
us
in
presenting
this
bill
to
you
so
again,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
consumer
protection
has
been
an
important
and
defining
arm
of
my
administration
as
nevada's
attorney
general.
G
The
first
seat
is,
in
fact,
consumer
protection
ensuring
that
we
focus
on
protecting
consumers,
but
I've
also
talked
about
four
other
seeds:
the
protection
of
constitutional
and
civil
rights,
criminal
justice
and
reform
issues,
community
engagement
and
involvement
and
client
services,
which
includes
constituent
services,
and
so
I
want
to
present
this
bill
personally
as
one
of
the
examples
of
the
five
seats
that
we
operate
in
this
instance,
specifically
in
the
consumer
protection
context.
G
What
I
intend
to
do
is
give
brief
opening
remarks
and
then
turn
it
over
to
my
colleagues
to
be
able
to
explain
the
bill
section
by
section
and
entertain
questions
with
the
chair's
indulgence.
If
I
need
to
exit
after
that,
I
would
ask
for
permission
to
do
so,
but
I'm
right
next
door
and
I'm
able
to
come
back
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have
specifically
for
me,
although
I
do
believe
you'll
be
in
great
hands
with
my
colleagues
here.
G
Thank
you
so
much
so
I
I'll
begin
now
talking
about
ab61
ab61
intends
to
give
the
attorney
general's
bureau
of
consumer
protection
the
modern
day
tools.
It
needs
to
enforce
unfair
and
deceptive
conduct
in
this
state,
through
enforcement
of
nevada's,
deceptive
trade
practice
act
and
other
consumer
protection
statutes.
G
Against
today's
modern
day,
fraudsters
ab61
seeks
to
establish
a
price
gouging
prohibition
during
the
times
of
the
governor's
declared
state
of
emergency,
as
we've
discovered
during
this
pandemic,
such
a
provision
is
necessary
to
ensure
the
price,
for
example,
of
toilet
paper
and
disinfectants
that
to
ensure
that
they
remain
reasonable
during
an
emergency
and
their
fraudsters
don't
take
advantage
of
residents
who
are
already
hardest
hit
when
they've
lost
their
jobs.
G
As
an
anecdote,
I
will
say
that
we
receive
maybe
not
hundreds
for
certainly
dozens
of
complaints
on
the
price
gouging
in
the
price
gouging
arena
from
every
community
that
you
can
consider,
but
we
got
a
lot
from
our
minority
communities
oftentimes,
where
there
are
food
deserts,
because
there
aren't
sufficient
grocery
stores
there
and
those
that
are
there,
sometimes
are
hit
by
a
supply
chain,
concern
that
has
artificially
raised
prices
beyond.
What
is
reasonable,
we
do
believe,
obviously
that
needs
and
necessities
can
operate
and
exist
at
the
exact
same
time.
G
For
example,
a
food
desert
means
that
you
don't
have
enough
grocery
stores
there,
but
we
also
have
to
ensure
that
those
who
are
there
can
afford
the
food
that
is
being
provided
at
those
grocery
stores
and,
at
the
same
time
protect
businesses
from
unscrupulous
actions
that
fall
within
the
price
gauging
arena
as
well.
In
this
arena.
G
I
know
that
we're
going
to
be
getting
some
opposition
testimony
to
the
current
iteration
of
the
bill,
and
we
welcome
that
as
an
opportunity
to
continue
talking
with
our
small
businesses
about
this,
because,
frankly,
some
of
the
same
small
businesses
and
their
consumers
reached
out
to
us
during
the
pandemic
to
likewise
complain
about
christ
scouting.
So
it's
a
real
issue
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
them
as
well
as
with
committee
members,
to
ensure
that
we
can
delay
and
assuage
any
concerns
that
you
may
have
in
this
arena.
G
8061
also
seeks
to
harmonize
criminal
penalties
with
that
of
general
fraud.
It
would
in
fact
increase
penalties
for
robocalling
as
well,
which
has
become
the
number
one
complaint
to
the
federal
trade
commission
across
the
nation,
and
here
in
nevada.
G
G
Pardon
me,
consumer
personal
identifiable
information
by
making
a
violation
of
certain
provisions
of
deceptive
of
nevada's
security
and
privacy
laws
under
nrs
chapter
6038,
a
violation
of
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act.
In
addition
to
make
it
easier
for
our
consumer
protection
division
to
ferret
out
companies
and
people
who
would
commit
these
fraudulent
acts
upon
our
residents,
ap
61
eliminates
the
limitations
for
violations
of
the
dtpa.
G
It
revises
provisions
for
the
conduct
of
administrative
hearings,
as
well
as
enforcement
of
orders
for
the
collection
of
restitution
for
those
that
have
been
harmed,
and
it
allows
our
bcp
to
retrieve
discovery
documents
and
data
from
state
agencies
in
support
of
state
litigation.
Again,
I
recognize
that
that's
going
to
raise
the
eyebrow,
at
least
in
terms
of
the
criminal
penalties
of
many
many
members
of
this
committee,
because
you
like,
I
are
associated
with
current
efforts
in
criminal
justice
reform.
G
Rest
assured,
I
remain
committed
to
criminal
justice
reform
and
ensuring
that
we
do
not
overly
criminalize
things.
That
said,
please
understand
that
with
me
presenting
this
to
you.
Hopefully
it's
with
a
little
bit
of
credibility
to
let
you
know
that
I
have
a
team
here
who
is
looking
to
do
the
best
that
it
can
to
ensure
that
our
residents
are
protected
even
within
the
confines
of
criminal
justice
reform.
G
Finally,
ap
61
makes
amendments
to
ensure
greater
punishments
for
those
who
would
harm
our
seniors
and
vulnerable
persons,
as
well
as
our
youth,
and
it
also
provides
a
general
general
cleanup
amendments
as
well.
So,
thank
you
again
for
your
consideration
of
ab61,
my
team
and
I
are
here
for
questions
and
to
go
through
the
the
bill
section
by
section.
G
I
have
with
me
again
mark
kruger,
who
is
one
of
my
chief
deputies
as
well
as
ernest
figueroa
and
as
well
as
my
second
assistant,
christine
jones
brandon,
who
I
don't
believe
will
be
speaking
unless
she
decides
to,
but
she
is
also
one
of
those
who
oversees
his
practice
and
I'm
sorry,
you
said
something
else:
okay,
very
good.
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
unless
there
are
preliminary
questions,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
kruger.
A
H
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
mark
kruger,
chief
deputy
attorney
general
of
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office.
General
ford
asked
me
to
take
you
through
the
bill,
as
presented
so
I'll
start
with
section
one,
which
is
a
provision
to
under
chapter
597,
to
increase
penalties
for
robocalling,
and
when,
when
you
have
any
questions,
we
can
go
into
more
detail.
Just
keep
it
brief.
H
Section
two
adds
sections
three
and
four
section:
three
is
the
price
gouging
prohibition
that
general
ford
just
discussed
and
then
section
five
increases,
actually
creates
a
violation:
chapter
598
for
violations
of
federal
legislation
prohibiting
robocalls,
so
section
one
and
five
kind
of
work,
hand
in
hand,
section
six
actually
adds
section.
Seven
through
seventeen
section,
seven
provides
a
provision
that
covers
what
has
been
very
absent
from
our
chapter
598,
which
is
really
unfair
things
or
unconscionable
acts.
H
Basically
ensures
violation
is
that
acts
are
also
violations
of
chapter
598,
a
which
is
our
unfair
trade
practices
act.
Since
a
lot
of
times,
we
find
that
these
two
chapters
work
in
tandem,
section
9,
maintains
consistency
of
the
bill
with
established
exemptions
as
well
as
section
10
and
section
11..
H
Section
12
actually
ensures
that
the
attorney
general's
office
has
co-enforcement
authority
for
civil
administrative
actions,
both
with
consumer
affairs,
division
and
section
13
actually
increases
and
well.
It
actually
increases
penalties
against
minors,
ensuring
that
it
is
consistent
with
penalties
when
you
have
crimes
against
elders
or
persons
with
disabilities.
H
Section
14
maintains
consistency
with
the
bill
and
with
the
established
enforcement
actions
as
well
as
section
15
and
16.
section
17
is
the
part
general
ford
talked
about
that.
We
seek
to
harmonize
criminal
violations
in
chapter
598
with
those
of
general
fraud,
specifically
theft,
section
18
actually
amends
chapter
603
a
to
or
includes
chapter
6038
violations,
which
is
the
privacy
data
violations
as
a
violation
of
chapter
598..
H
Sections
19
through
20
in
in
include
sorry
section.
18
includes
19
and
20,
which,
due
to
the
privacy
piece
sections
21-24.
H
Also
maintain
consistency
of
the
bill
with
the
enforcement
provisions,
sections
25
and
26
amend
chapter
11,
which
deals
with
the
statute
of
limitations
for
chapter
598,
section
27
amends
nrs
41
to
maintain
consistency
with
the
bill
as
well.
Sections
28
through
30,
amend
chapter
171
for
consistency
of
the
bill
for
purposes
of
criminal
enforcement.
H
Again,
remember
that
harmonizes
the
criminal
penalties
in
598
with
that
of
general
fraud,
section
31
allows
the
attorney
general
in
our
litigation
cases
primarily
to
get
access
to
state
records
that
are
actually
in
the
possession
of
other
agency
boards
or
commissions.
Section
through
35
are
again
amendments
for
consistency
of
the
bill
and
section
36.
Actually
attempts
to
correct
an
error
that
that
was
created
when
prior
sessions,
the
consumer
affair
division
was
defunded
and
then,
when
it
received
funding
again
it
wasn't
this
particular
oversight.
Provision
wasn't
given
back
to
them.
H
A
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair
and
thank
you
attorney
general
for
the
presentation
and
mr
kruger
for
the
the
step-by-step.
I
This
is
it's
quite
an
extensive
bill,
so
I
have
a
couple
questions
and
I
may
just
come
back
to
more,
but
just
want
to,
let's
see
specifically
in
general,
I
just
want
to
clarify
so
when
we're
talking
about
a
state
of
emergency-
and
I
saw
in
the
amendment
that
you
didn't
narrow-
that
down
to
the
area
of
the
direct
emergency,
but
in
let's
see
section
three
subsection,
four,
that
it's
for
the
emergency
or
disaster
area,
and
I
was
just
just
kind
of
as
a
bigger
backdrop
question.
I
G
G
Thank
you
so
much
assuming,
I
think
I
understand
your
question
is
asking
whether
this
would
apply
well.
Let
me
let
me
answer
the
question
I
think
you've
asked
yes,
it
would
apply
to
wherever
the
the
emergency
has
been
declared.
So
in
the
circumstance
here
where
we
have
a
state
light
emergency
because
of
the
pandemic,
where
we
see
pride,
scouting
taking
place,
whether
it
be
in
elko
or
whether
it
be
down
in
enterprise
nevada.
G
Yes,
the
the
the
the
amendments
would
in
fact
change
there
I
mean
would
would
apply
there
to
the
extent,
for
example,
there's
an
emergency.
That's
a
lot
shorter
we've
seen
those
before
where
you
have
an
earthquake
or
you
have
a
flood
and
there's
a
three
or
four
day
emergency
that
has
been
called.
It
would
apply
there
relative
to
the
place
and
time
frame
for
which
that
emergency
has
been
declared.
I
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification
and
if
I
jump
ahead
to
section
17
down
to
subsection
three
and
that's
on
page
12,
if
you
have
the
original
bill
in
front
of
you,
I
noticed
that
we
have
for
the
an
offense
involving
a
loss
of
property
or
services
valued
at
1200
or
more
but
less
than
5
000.
It's
it
bumps
up
to
from
a
misdemeanor
to
a
category
d
felony.
I
So
I
remember
correctly
from
my
judiciary
days
we
we've
jumped
from
misdemeanor
past
gross
misdemeanor
to
cat
d
felony,
and
then
it
it
graduates
up
from
there,
based
on
the
the
value
of
the
property
loss.
One
just
clarifying
question:
what
happens
if
it's?
If
the
value
is
under
1200?
Is
that
go
away?
There's
no
misdemeanor!
G
H
Thank
you.
Some
of
the
moments
thanks
for
the
question
mark
kruger
for
the
record.
The
intent
of
the
edits
were
to
mirror
the
punishments
that
can
be
found
in
specifically
theft,
and
so
that's
where
the
categories
got
set
for
so
to
answer
your
specific
question,
the
gross
misdemeanor
would
still
be
in
place.
This
just
sets
the
price
limits
that
you
would
see
for
theft
and
harmonizes
them
with
this
particular.
I
Chapter:
okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
and.
I
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
then
thank
you
for
starting
the
conversation
their
assemblywoman
told
just
because
I
had
some
questions
about
this.
I
I
appreciate
what
you
just
indicated.
I
guess
what
I
wanted
a
clarification
on
is
you
know
I'm
thinking
of
I'm
thinking
of
those
folks
who
are
going
around
house
to
house
or
going
targeting
specific
folk
or
certain
areas
and,
let's
say
they're,
they're
they're,
cheating,
families
out,
I
don't
know
800
900
bucks,
they're,
quick
little
hustles,
and
I
see
that
happen
right.
D
So
I'm
curious
to
know
if,
if
those
individuals
now
with
this
change
in
language
are
somehow
going
to
be
flying
under
the
radar
when
we're
continuously
finding
that
same
individual
engaging
the
same
same
type
of
conduct
because
as
the
section
is
written
now,
my
understanding
is,
we
were
capturing
that
in
devote
individual
right.
We
got
a
second
time
now
we're
going
to
hit
him
with
a
harsher
punishment.
We
caught
him
for
a
third
time
we're
going
to
hit
him
with
the
harsher
punishment.
D
So
I'm
curious
to
know
if
we
implement
this
language
by
removing
that
first,
second,
third
and
increasing
the
punishment
will
an
individual
who
is
consistently
committing
the
same
crime
not
be
penalized
in
a
more
severe
manner
as
they're
caught
a
second
third
or
subsequent
time.
After
that,.
G
So
I'm
gonna
iron
point
for
the
record,
chime
in
real
quickly,
here
or
briefly,
and
allow
mr
krueger
to
speak
a
little
bit.
I
want
to
offer
a
little
of
a
little
background
on
the
purposes
of
incorporating
these
types
of
things
as
a
general
matter.
Bcp,
the
real
civil
protection
has
jurisdiction
under
598
and
oftentimes.
G
There
are
violations
of
fraud
and
theft
that
are
not
contained
within
598,
but
they
can
nonetheless
be
pursued
under
a
particular
cause
of
action,
and
so,
instead
of
having
to
rely
upon
the
generic
fraud
statutes,
we
we
intend
to
here
incorporate
those
exact
same
things
into
the
vcp
jurisdiction
under
the
exact
same
rules
and
requirements
that
currently
exist.
So
this
wouldn't
be
changing,
and
I
want
mr
kruger
to
chime
in
here.
This
wouldn't
be
changing
what
you've
already
done
relative
to
the
allocation
of
punishment
for
first
second
third
time
offenders.
G
Nor
would
it
be
changing
the
circumstances
under
which
they
can
be
charged.
It
would
just
enable
bcp
to
streamline
its
prosecutor
processes
and
abilities
by
incorporating
those
directly
within
our
jurisdiction.
So
I
don't
know
some
of
the
fluorides.
If
that
completely
answers
your
question,
but
I
think
it
addresses
it
at
some
level
so
that
you
can
understand
we're
not
attempting
to
add
new
crimes
of
penalties,
we're
simply
looking
to
align
the
statutes
so
that
bcp
can
do
its
job
a
lot
more
efficiently.
G
H
Assimilating
forward
is
mark
kruger
for
the
record
general
ford's,
absolutely
correct,
and
I
I
from
what
I
got
from
your
question.
I
would
like
to
add
that
this
would
actually
enable
us
to,
in
within
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection,
get
to
those
types
of
crimes,
exactly
what
you
were
talking
about
and
actually
help
more
people.
A
Thank
you,
assemblymember
flores,
and
I
just
have
a
quick
question
to
general
report
in
this
section,
so
why
why
are
we
aligning
it?
What
wasn't
working
about
the
way
this
this
statue
was
currently
written
as
a
misdemeanor
gross
misdemeanor
and
category
d
that
we
we
want
to
change
it
and
align
it
with
the
other
statue,
because
we're
going
to
a
category
the
category
c
and
category
b,
felony
now.
H
H
We
had
a
guitar
consignment
company
who
literally
stole
guitars
for
lack
of
a
better
way
of
saying
it,
and
we
ended
up
taking
a
civil
action
against
this
person
and
and
recovered
a
judgment
against
him
for
22
thousand
dollars
for
the
restitution
for
these
people
guitars.
It
would
have
been
an
opportunity
for
us
to
also
have
been
able
to
take
in
an
action
criminally
against
them
to
have
some
teeth
behind
it
to
actually
get
the
restitution,
especially
with
marshy's
law
now
and
having
that
restitution
paid
back.
H
You
know
a
little
aside
to
this
case.
We
learned
that
later
that
he
had
hidden
some
of
the
guitars
in
a
storage
shed
and
we
never
did
were
able
to
recover
and
we're
still
trying
to
pursue
a
judgment
to
try
a
second
judgment
to
enforce
the
first
judgment,
to
try
to
collect
this
money
and
the
individuals
absconded
to
oregon
last,
we
found
out
so
with
the
misdemeanor
being
the
only
charge
we
could
start
with.
C
Dickman,
thank
you
so
much.
Madam
chair.
I
was
just
wondering
why
this
why
you
brought
a
bill.
A
deceptive
trade
practices
bill
as
opposed
to
a
price
gouging
bill.
There's
some
difference
in
prosecution
or.
G
A
couple
of
responses,
they're
important
for
the
record-
and
I
want
I
will
allow
obviously
mr
quickly
chairman
as
well
mrs
dickman.
One
of
the
things
that
we
found
during
this
kobe
crisis
was
that
we
didn't
have
a
standalone
price
gouging
field,
and
so
we
had
to
get
somewhat
creative
in
order
to
be
able
to
protect
consumers
during
this
time
period
and
have
to
rely
upon
anti-trust
laws,
for
example,
or
a
look
at
other
general
fraud
statutes.
G
It
makes
it
more
difficult
for
us
to
be
able
to
protect
consumers
during
times
like
these.
Our
jurisdiction
in
the
bcp
is
prescribed
by
statute,
and
one
of
those
statutory
jurisdictions
is
the
deceptive
trade
practices
act.
So
that's
why
we're
bringing
a
price
gouging
bill
in
the
context
of
our
jurisdiction,
but
also
within
the
context
specifically
for
emergencies
that
have
been
declared.
C
In
section
7
2b,
it
seems
kind
of
broad
the
word
or
the
phrase
unconscionable
practice
and
it's
defined
a
little
bit.
But
could
you
maybe
give
an
example.
H
Ford,
thank
you.
Some
of
them
will
endickmen.
I
the
reason
for
the
unconscionable
language,
as
I
said
earlier,
is
that
we
have
a
deceptive
and
unfair
trade
practices
act
and
the
problem
is,
is
we
don't
have
language
in
there?
That
really
gets
to
the
heart
of
what
is
unfair
and
unconscionable
is
meant
to
do
that,
and
so
I'll
give
you
a
couple
of
examples.
H
One
of
the
areas
is
notario
fraud
and,
and
along
with
that
is
these
individuals
who
would
take
advantage
of
people
who
maybe
don't
have
english
as
a
as
a
native
language,
and
they
would
use
an
english
contract
and
then
put
in
their
terms
that
this
person
might
not
necessarily
know
it's
really
a
an
unconscionable
practice.
H
Another
example:
it
would
be
in
areas
where
people
might
want
to
profile
and
set
different
prices
based
upon
things
such
as
sex,
race,
sexuality,
gender
things
like
that.
So
the
these
are
the
types
of
things
that
we
we
know
we
see,
but
we
we
don't
know
how
to
describe
and
that's
don't
necessarily
fit
under
the
other
enforcement
provisions
of
chapter
598..
H
The
need
for
it
is
is
important
and
other
states
have
similar
statutes.
So
I
can
give
some
additional
examples
if
you
need
them,
but
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
G
Yeah
and
if
I
could,
therefore,
to
follow
up
real
quickly,
the
the
great
example
he's
provided
his
notorious
fraud
where
a
lot
of
immigrant
communities
are
taking
advantage
of
in
this
arena,
because,
as
he's
indicated,
it's
it's
a
language
barrier,
often
times
where
people
can
be
tricked
into
thinking
they're,
getting
something
that
they're
not,
and
you
know
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
they've
been
coerced
or
that
they've
operated
under
duress
or
that
they've
been
intimidated
in
a
transaction,
but
what
they
have
done
is
absolutely
unconscionable
and
by
the
way,
unconscionability
is
a
a
a
a
prevalent
term
of
art
in
the
law
such
that
it's
again
not
making
up
a
brand
new
standard.
G
You
can
always
rely
upon
how
it's
been
interpreted
in
the
law
through
case
law
and
otherwise
in
order
to
ensure
that
this
isn't
something
that's
over
broadly
overreaching.
Hopefully,
that
helps.
L
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
thank
you
attorney
general
and
mark
kruger
for
the
presentation.
My
question
has
to
do
with
again
the
section
one
creating
a
category
c
felony.
So
the
way
I
understand
this,
if
somebody
even
on
their
first
time,
were
to
make
a
robocall
for
it
could
be
for
political
reasons
it
could
be
for
selling
goods
it
could
be
for
real
estate.
There
could
be
a
lot
of
different
areas
and
to
immediately
go
to
a
category
c
seems
to
be
too
harsh.
L
I
too
am
bothered
by
robocalls.
I
don't
think
anybody
enjoys
them,
but
I
think
that
that
would
overcrowd
our
our
system.
It's
already
overcrowded.
I
think
I
think
habitual
users.
I
also
recognize
that
there
are
certain
businesses
that
will
consider
this.
Just
a
cost
of
business
and
they'll
pay.
The
penalties-
and
I
think
that's
what
you're
addressing
here,
is
that
we
have
these
people
that
just
paid
the
penalty
and
you
don't
have
any
teeth
to
stop
it.
L
I
think
it
would
make
more
sense
to
have
it
be
on
a
graduated
level
so
that
a
first-time
offender
is
not
put
in
jail
for
making
a
phone
call.
We
don't
like
it,
but
I
think
that
that
is
too
harsh,
and
so
I
think
rather
it
should
be
some
type
of
a
scale
so
that
we
don't
overcrowd
our
prison
system,
our
jails,
and
I
would
hope
that
that
would
be
something
that
could
be
perhaps
considered,
and
thank
you
for
your
time
and
for
the
comments
and
I
yield.
Thank
you,
chair.
G
Thank
you
airport
for
the
record
general
mcassam.
I
don't
think
I've
been
given
the
opportunity
to
say
congratulations
to
you
on
your
win.
So
congratulations
to
you.
I
do
want
to
allow
mr
kruger
to
chime
in
first
and
then
I'll.
Have
a
follow-up
comment.
I'm
sure
go
ahead.
Mr
kruger.
H
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
so
much
this
is
mark
trigger
for
the
record.
You
know
we're
open
to
suggestions,
and
I
think
your
suggestion
makes
a
valid
point
and
I
will
certainly
let
general
ford
speak
about
the
policies
of
it.
What
we
were
thinking
when
we
drafted
this
in
the
intent
was
to
capture
a
significant
enough
deterrence
for
robocallers.
H
Part
of
our
problem
is,
of
course,
catching
robocallers
to
begin
with,
and
we,
but
we're
making
significant
strides
and
and
you'll
see
that
in
the
in
the
other
section
that
I
related
to,
with
with
the
trace
act,
that
we've
had
the
ability
to
now
work
with
federal
partners,
other
states
to
try
to
get
and
private
industry
to
try
to
get
tools
in
place
to
be
able
to
finally
get
to
the
actual
source
of
the
robocallers.
H
So
I'm
certain
that
general
ford
is
open
to
your
suggestion
and,
and
we
can,
we
can
definitely
think
about
ways
we
can
fix
that.
But
but
we
also
do
just
for
the
record
want
to
have
something
in
place
that
will
act
as
a
deterrent,
because
otherwise
it
will
be
difficult
to
to
make
sure
that
people
stop
these.
These
poor
attacks.
G
Yeah
and
therefore
for
the
record,
I
just
want
to
say:
you're
you're
singing
my
same
song:
assimilate
osama.
If
anybody
knows
me,
they
know
that
that
I'm
a
criminal
justice
reform
advocate
and
absolutely
understand
what
you've
talked
about
relative
to
the
prison
overcrowding.
In
fact,
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
using
that
exact
same
phraseology
on
some
goods.
I'm
gonna
have
coming
before
you
and
others
in
this
particular
arena.
That
said,
recognize
that
we've
also
put
this
in
as
a
matter
of
discussion
piece.
G
This
is
a,
I
guess,
the
second
of
the
first.
I
think
this
was
the
first
draft.
All
of
these
are
iterative
projects,
and
we
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you
on
the
best
way
to
effectuate
criminal
justice
reform
in
the
context
of
this
issue,
and
we
are
open
to
suggestions
that
you
may
have.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
this
really
is
a
question
so
attorney
general
ford.
I
think
I'd
like
you
to
just
put
on
the
record
the
difference
between
price
gouging
and
what
happens
with
supply
and
demand
knowing
full
well
what
we
experienced
over
the
pandemic
and
in
my
private
life,
trying
to
stock
a
food
pantry.
K
If
you'd
have
told
me,
I
was
paying
seven
to
eight
dollars
a
pound
for
beef.
I'd
have
said
that
was
unconscionable,
but
that
was
supply
and
demand
for
the
price
of
beef
to
be
able
to
put
it
in
the
pantry.
So
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
just
kind
of
clarify
the
difference
between
price
gouging
and
supply
and
demand.
G
Absolutely
I'm
almost
on
prep
preliminary
remarks
and
have
mr
kruger
talk
specifically
about
the
provisions
of
the
bill,
because
I
think
the
the
bill
itself
tries
to
help
outline
some
of
those
considerations.
It
is
a
question
of
whether
we
have
supply
and
demand
versus
price
golgi.
You
know
we're
not
talking
about
something
going
from
fifteen
dollars
to
twenty
dollars,
necessarily
for
toilet
tissue,
we're
talking
about
fifteen
to
fifty,
for
example,
right
and
even
if
it
is
a
and
that's
not
likely
a
supply
and
demand
issue.
G
Sometimes
it's
an
issue
of
people
trying
to
take
advantage
of
or
entities
trying
to
take
advantage
of
folks
during
tough
times,
and
so
the
statute
lays
out,
for
example,
presumptions
that
would
occur.
They'll
look
back
30
days
in
advan
before
the
pain
department
before
the
emergency
was
declared.
Do
a
comparison
to
see.
If
that
makes
sense,
it
will
inquire
into
supply
chain
issues.
G
It
will
inquire
into
facts
and
circumstances
to
make
a
determination
on
whether
price
gouging
has
occurred,
and
and
because
we
are
in
fact
sensitive
to
the
law
of
supply
and
demand
in
these
issues,
and
many
other
states
had
and
had
in
place
and
do
have
in
place
for
purposes
of
emergencies,
only
price
dodging
statutes
that
they
could
rely
upon
to
protect
consumers
during
this
time
period.
G
H
Yes,
general
ford
mark
kruger
for
the
record,
madam
vice
chair.
I
guess
that
the
best
way
to
answer
this
would
be
to
say
that
there's
a
carve
out
provision
in
this
for
supply
increases.
We
recognize
that
at
times,
even
in
times
of
an
emergency
supply,
prices
will
increase,
and
obviously
businesses
have
the
ability
to
increase
their
cost.
If
their
costs
go
up,
they
have
to
increase
what
they
sell
a
good
for
and
and
that's
that's
really,
the
supply
increase.
H
K
Thank
you
general
ford.
That's
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
that
on
the
record.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
chair,
and
it's
good
to
see
you
attorney
general
ford.
I
this
is
a
perfect
place
for
the
questions
that
I
had
in
regards
to
like
the
penalties,
as
have
been
discussed
so
the
way
I
understand
this
is,
let's
say,
you're
in
a
convenience
store
or
a
sandwich
shop,
and
you
know
they
were
charging
astronomical
prices
or
what
have
you
so
the
way
I
understand
it
is
like
anyone
from
the
clerk
to
the
manager,
the
owner,
whatever
would
be
subject
to
these
penalties
and
felonies.
M
G
I
think
the
answer
to
that
is
no,
that
is
you
you're,
that
is
no.
Those
levels
of
individuals
will
not
be
held
personally
allowable
for
that
right.
It's
the
entity
that
is
making
the
decision
for
price
dodging
purposes,
and
so
allow
me
to
again,
however,
invite
mr
krugerrand,
because,
if
I'm
mistaken
on
that,
we
absolutely
would
want
to
fix
that.
H
Yes,
general
ford,
your
and
mark
krueger
for
the
record
generally
you're
correct
the
the.
What
we
get
to
here
is
what
the
intent
is
behind
the
individual,
but
I
I
think
that
your
point
is
taken
well
taken
and
we
can
work
with
some
language
to
maybe
make
it
specific.
H
But
you
you
generally
what
general
ford
just
said
is,
generally
speaking,
you're
going
to
have
a
decision
maker,
who's
going
to
say,
yeah,
I'm
going
to
decide
that,
instead
of
selling
a
bottle
of
disinfectant
for
the
normal
supply
increase
of
four
dollars,
I'm
going
to
sell
it
for
35.
M
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
is
somehow
delineated
or
specified
in
the
legislation,
so
we're
going
after
you
know
the
right
people
not
penalizing,
especially
with
such
harsh
penalties,
those
those
other
people
and
then
just
kind
of
a
little
another
little
thought
along
these
lines.
Could
this
be?
Could
this
possibly
be
extended
to
say
you
have
a
hotel
or
motel?
You
know
rural
nevada
or
wherever
that
is
charging
again.
M
You
know
say
their
rooms
are
50
a
night
and
then
they
charge
500
a
night
or
something
like
that.
Could
this,
maybe
that's
not
the
intent,
but
could
that
possibly
be
extended
to
a
situation
like
that.
H
Well,
general
ford,
if
you
don't
mind,
mark
kruger
for
the
record
to
answer
your
question.
The
hotel
and
motel
industry
has
its
own
chapter,
so
we'd
have
to
reach
into
that
chapter
to
specifically
or
incorporate
that
chapter
into
this
provision
to
specifically
capture
that
group.
It
was
only
intended
for
the
goods
and
services
general
goods
and
services.
A
Answers
appreciate
it:
no
you're,
you're,
okay!
Thank
you!
Assemblymember
considine,
oh
thank
you,
chairwoman.
I
had
more
of
a
statement
than
a
question
and
it
was
it
was
addressed.
Thank
you,
okay,
perfect.
Thank
you.
Then.
I
am
going
to
come
back
to
assemblymember
tolls.
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair
for
the
second
indulgence
and
if
I
may,
I
just
want
to
make
a
a
quick
follow-up
comment
to
assemblywoman
hardy's
questions,
and
then
I
I
do
have
a
quick
question
as
well
to
clarify.
I
So
my
my
comment
would
just
be
that
I
I
too
would
would
want
to
see
clarification
about
who
this
would
apply
to.
I
had
that
same
question
having
gotten
my
start
in
both
retail
and
restaurants.
For
years,
you
know
would
appreciate
just
that
clarification
of
who
this
would
attach
to,
and
I
suppose
I
could
ask
this
as
a
question-
how
we
would
prove
that
they
were
knowingly
engaged
in
that
activity
of
making
those
decisions.
Do
we
have
some
sort
of
specific?
I
H
Mark
kruger
for
the
record,
some
of
the
women
told
we
would
do
it
any
in
if
it
were
under
a
criminal
context.
We
would
do
it
in
any
fashion
that
a
prosecutor
would
go
proving
either
direct
or
circumstantial
evidence
or
both
in
a
civil
context.
We
would
just
apply
the
standard
of
knowingly,
as
it's
outlined
in
nrs,
chapter,
598
and
and
case
law,
to
prove
it.
G
I'm
sorry
we
got
kicked
out,
I'm
so
sorry
we
just
got
back
on.
So
I
missed
the
question.
I'm
sure
mr
kruger
handled
it,
but
if
there
was
something
specific
for
me,
I'm
back
to
answer
sorry.
I
Thank
you
welcome
back
attorney,
general
and
and
just
as
a
side
comment
thank
you
for
in
this
and
in
all
cases
being
willing
to
work
through
these
questions
and
and
the
specifics
of
these
bills.
I
always
appreciate
that
about
you,
and
so
the
question
that
was
just
asked
and
answered
was
in
regards
to
you
know,
refining
how
we
who
we're
going
after
and
how
we
prove
that
they
that
they
knew
and
if
I
may
have
one
last
follow-up
question.
I
Fantastic,
so
one
other
question
that
popped
in
my
mind,
as
I
was
listening
to
assemblywoman
hardy
is
you
know
because,
for
example,
right
now
where
the
entire
state
is
in
a
declared
emergency-
and
we
might
have
you
know,
let's
say
we
have
tickets
on
sale
at
the
raiders
stadium,
we
start
to
have
just
limited
amount
socially
distance,
and
what
have
you,
but
those
tickets
are
much
higher
in
price.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
unwittingly
capture
areas
where
again
back
to,
I
think
assemblywoman.
I
Vice
chair
carlton's
questions
about
the
difference
between
price
gouging
versus
supply
and
demand.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
aren't
unknowingly
capturing
some
folks
in
in
this
statute.
G
Let
me
offer
a
thought
on
that
and
again
refer
back
to
mr
kruger
to
continue
wants
to
augment
this.
But
you
know
we
have
separate
per
last
session.
You
all
put
a
brand
new
check
box
on
our
complaint
form
that,
for
example,
specifically
addresses
ticket
prices
and
resales
and
things
of
that
sort,
and
so
we
would
have
a
separate
enforcement
mechanism
so
to
speak,
that
wouldn't
have
to
fall
under
price
gouging,
which
deals
with
goods
and
services
which,
for
example,
back
to
the
hotel
scenario.
G
We
don't
have
jurisdiction
and
real
estate
issues,
and
so
when
people
complain
to
us
as
bcp
on
mortgage
fraud
issues,
we
have
to
refer
that
to
the
right
jurisdictional
component
arena.
So
we
will
absolutely
ensure
that
the
definition
for
price
gouging
is
buttoned
up
such
that
we
don't
unwittingly
pull
within
our
jurisdiction,
things
that
aren't
there.
But
we
do
have
sexual
authority
on
some
of
the
examples
that
you're
providing
right
now
elsewhere,
and
so,
mr
kruger,
do
you
want
to
augment
change
correct
anything?
I've
said
there.
G
3D
says
that
a
price
for
good
or
for
a
good
service
may
not
be
grossly
in
excess
of
the
usual
price
for
that
good
or
service
for
the
purposes
of
subsection
one
if
that
price
is
generally
consistent
with
seasonal
fluctuation
or
fluctuations
in
applicable
commodity,
regional,
national
or
international
markets,
am
I
reading
the
question
correctly.
N
G
And
you
want
to
know
what
it
applied
to
gas
correct
and
the
answer
to
that
would
be
depending
upon
whether
it's
defined
as
a
commodity
at
some
level,
but
also
there
may
be
other
considerations
that
are
gonna
kick
in
here,
but
it
absolutely
you
know,
deals
with
national
and
international
markets
to
be
sure,
right,
opec
and
the
pricing
of
gas.
That
seems
to
me
what
would
play
into
that
that
particular
analysis.
But
mr
kruger,
do
you
want
to
chime
in
there.
H
General
ford
marketer
for
the
record.
We
didn't
have
that
specific
intent
in
our
in
our
minds
at
the
time
that
we
drafted
this,
but
I
would
have
to
work
with
lcd
legal
to
determine
exactly
whether
or
not
that
would
be
covered
or
not.
So
I
guess
in
a
classic
attorney
answer
is
right
now
it
depends.
O
Thank
you
chairman.
I
appreciate
this,
mr
attorney
general
ford.
I
appreciate
the
thought
that's
going
into
this.
I'm
still,
I
will
be
honest,
I'm
with
miss
carlton.
I
I
had
the
question
on
supply
versus
to
me
and
I
could
hear
my
economic
101
teacher
screaming
at
me,
but
can
we
on
section
25?
I
was
looking
at
this
there's
no
statute
of
limitations.
If
I
understand
correctly
on
deceptive
trade
practices,
can
you
help
me
understand
that
a
little
better?
O
G
So
a
couple
of
responses,
even
before
the
record-
and
I
forgot
to
say
congratulations
to
the
others
who
spoken
to
me.
Thank
you.
Congratulations
to
you,
mr
o'neill,
for
your
win
again,
let
me
let
me
first
reference
what
you
just
said
about
supply
and
demand.
G
I
want
to
reiterate
that
there
are
specific
cutouts
that
address
supply
and
demand
so
that
if
it
is
an
issue
of
supply
and
demand,
it
would
not
constitute
price
college
so
that
that
issue
is
specifically
addressed
in
verbiage,
and
you
know
I
want
to
go
back
to
ms.
I
forget
who
asked
the
question.
I'm
sorry
but
the
question
about
gas.
It
was
ms
marzola.
Congratulations
to
you,
ms
margul
as
well.
You
know.
G
I
firmly
think
that
again
we're
going
to
check
with
lcp
to
ensure
that
our
understanding
is
correct,
that
gas
prices
are
governed
by
national
and
international
markets
and
that's
going
to
fall
within
one
of
the
exceptions
that
we're
contemplating
here.
But
you
know
we
can
continue
talking
about
that
to
ensure,
but
to
your
question
about
the
sexual
limitations.
Let
me
say
this
mark's
gonna
be
mad
at
me,
but
I
agree
with
you.
G
We
do
not
need
to.
We
do
not
need
to
have
a
a
a
no
session
limitations
on
this
issue.
I've
thought
long
and
hard
about
it
and
I
I
am
going
to
in
my
own
position
as
if
we
can
general
ford,
but
he
has
a
reason
for
it.
So
let
me
let
you
hear
it.
H
Yeah
jennifer,
I
might
point
out
general
ford-
and
I
have
spoken
about
this
quite
a
bit
and
mark
rigger
for
the
record
and
one
thing
that
we
started
talking
about
and-
and
I
thought
why
I
interrupted
general-
is
because
the
final
thought
that
we
had
come
around
to
in
our
discussions
with
also
interested
stakeholders
is
perhaps
what
we
could
do
is
have
a
carve
out
for
the
criminal
offenses
and
any
private
right
of
action
and
leave
it
at
the
current
four-year
statute
of
limitations.
H
That
would
resolve
your
concerns
assignment
and
and
then
would
allow
us
to
have
the
attorney
general's
office
specifically
to
have
the
ability
to
go
civilly
in
our
actions
that
do
take
a
long
time
and
where
we
find
real
hidden
things
and
I'd
like
to
give
you
a
couple
examples:
volkswagen
emissions
scandal
was
one
of
those
cases
which
took
a
long
time,
many
years
to
to
really
reach
into
and
and
investigate,
and
if
you'll
remember
there
were
a
lot
of
things
that
were
hidden
from
both
federal
and
state
agencies
about
emissions
of
these
vehicles.
H
Another
thing
that
we
are
currently
pros-
litigating,
I
should
say,
is
a
certain
opioid
manufacturers
and,
if
you'll
remember,
we've
had
press
releases
that
go
out
where
you
know
some
of
these
things
started
in
2016..
This
is
a
long
time
ago
and
the
no
statute
of
limitations,
which
is
consistent
with
we
know
for
sure.
H
13
states
that
don't
have
a
statute
of
limitation
in
this
arena
allows
for
a
more
thorough
and
broader
investigation
in
an
area
of
very
complex
litigation
which
documents
that
number
in
ultimately
hundreds
of
thousands
that
need
to
be
reviewed
in
order
to
move
forward.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
think
general
ford's
idea
about
having
a
carve
out
for
to
address
your
concerns
with
some
of
them
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
we're
willing
to
work
with
the
industry
and
yourselves
to
do
that.
G
And
I
just
reiterate:
we
always
consider
these
first
drafts
and
the
truth
is
we
have
vigorous
conversation
within
this
office
on
the
appropriateness
of
the
language
that
we're
pursuing
in
sometimes
we
end
up
changing
our
minds
and
conversations
like
this
are
very
helpful
in
that
regard.
So
please
understand
that.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
it
up,
mr
o'neill,
and
we
look
forward
again
to
working
with
you
to
try
to
address
what
you've
raised.
O
A
A
O
I
am
testifying
today
as
a
private,
informed
citizen,
but
my
background
is
is
that
I
was
a
I'm
retired
from
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office,
bureau
of
conserva
consumer
protection
as
a
senior
deputy
attorney
general,
and
basically
I'm
the
one
who
enforced
these
laws
for
17
plus
years
on
behalf
of
the
state
of
nevada
and
nothing
is
more
frustrating
than
having
a
scammer
and
he's
got
he's
stealing.
Forty
five
thousand
fifty
thousand
dollars-
and
all
I
could
do-
is
charge
them
with
the
misdemeanor
under
nevada,
deceptive
trade
laws.
O
It
made
no
sense,
so
I'm
absolutely
in
favor
of
all
these
changes
that
are
in
there,
but
I
want
to
jump
over
to
oh.
I
didn't
want
to
say
that
I
do
lecturing
for
seminars
for
both
aarp
and
the
the
learning
institute
at
the
university
of
nevada,
so
I'm
still
involved
in
deceptive
trade
practice
issues
I
want
to
at
the
criminal
part.
I
want
to
go
to
the
issue
of
the
felony.
This
is
a
right
herring.
O
It's
clear
and
simple
judges
do
not
put
people
convicted
for
deceptive
trade
laws
theft.
Securities
violations
put
them
in
jail;
they
just
don't.
If
you
know
they'll
do
it
all
over.
I
only
had
one
only
had
one
judge
put
somebody
in
jail
and
that's
the
person
that
had
the
money
to
pay
a
restitution
and
refuse
to
do
so
over
a
period
of
six
months.
O
They
don't
put
people
in
jail,
but
the
felony
is
something
that
is
significant.
It
goes
on
their
record,
there's
a
lot
of
other
things
that
go
into
into
practice.
Not
only
that,
but
almost
these
people
scammers
that's
as
a
psychological
issue.
They
are
psychology.
They.
A
A
Thank
you.
If
you
would
like
to
provide
your
written
testimony
to
the
committee,
we
will
make
sure
to
circulate
it
to
the
committee
members
and
also,
I
will
remind
everyone
testimony
and
support
means.
You
are
in
support
of
the
bill
as
written
with
no
changes,
I'm
gonna
go
and
move
to.
It
looks
like
I
was
too
quick
to
jump
to
the
next
person
to
testify.
It
looks
like
we
do.
Have
miss
bailey
borderland
on
the
line
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
61..
A
B
You
chair
apologies
for
my
technical
difficulties,
bailey
bordelin
for
the
record
representing
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers.
We
just
want
to
offer
support
for
this
bill
and
say
thank
you
to
the
attorney
general
and
his
consumer
protection
office.
That
has
been
doing
some
really
important
work
during
this
pandemic
to
make
sure
that
consumers
are
protected
at
this
really
important
time,
and
we
see
a
need
and
understand
the
reasoning
behind
strengthening
these
laws
and
providing
them
stronger
statutes
to
enforce
the
important
work
that
they're
doing
so
we
stand
in
support.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you.
Okay.
We
will
move
to
testimony
in
opposition
of
assembly
bill
61.
I
do
have
a
few
people
signed
up
to
give
testimony
on
video,
so
I
will
start
with
peter
guzman
with
the
latin
chamber
of
commerce.
Mr
guzman,
are
you
on.
E
I
am
thank
you
so
much,
madam
chairwoman,
for
allowing
me
to
give
testimony.
I
want
to
compliment
everyone.
Who's
asked
all
the
electors.
Who've
asked
incredible
questions
that
have
led
me
to
even
more
questions.
I
know
I
won't
have
time
for
them.
The
latin
chamber
supports
the
general
spirit
and
concept
of
punishing
bad
actors
and
certainly
would
never
question
attorney.
E
General
ford's
good
intentions
he's
always
fighting
for
the
minorities,
but
at
this
time
we
cannot
support
this
bill
as
currently
written
yesterday,
our
government
relations
team
had
a
very
productive
call
with
the
attorney
general's
office
and
we
are
committed
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
ag's
office
to
address
our
concerns.
Our
current
concerns
with
the
bill
include
the
following:
it
potentially
creates
a
business
trap
for
small
businesses,
a
trap
which
could
provide
for
endless
litigation
with
no
reasonable
parameters
on
the
statute
of
limitation,
which
in
turn
could
stifle
business
growth
and
job
creation.
E
I
think
that's
excessive.
I
also
wanted
to
say
in
closing
I'm
really
now
concerned
with.
We
must
I
clearly
identify
what
businesses
can
and
cannot
be
prosecuted
on
this.
We
all
know
that
hospitality
service
industry
raises
their
room
rates
during
big
conventions
and
they
raise
them
high,
and
so
would
they
be
penalized.
Could
they
be
felons,
no
and
and
and
the
gas
and
the
beef?
So
I
think
we
clearly
need
to
do
a
little
more
identifying,
specifically
so
that
we
don't
have
unintended
consequences.
B
Good
afternoon,
thank
you
so
much
for
allowing
me
to
testify
today.
First,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
their
intentions.
With
this
bill
to
protect
our
citizens,
we
were
able
to
speak
with
chief
deputy
attorney
general
kruger
yesterday
to
express
some
of
our
concerns
with
this
bill.
We
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
him
in
order
to
address
our
concerns.
B
I
want
to
start
by
again
thanking
attorney
general
ford
for
his
efforts
and
advocacy
with
the
criminal
justice
reform
system
last
session,
as
well
as
his
continued
efforts.
This
session,
we
do
have
concerns
with
raising
the
criminal
penalty
on
robocalls
from
a
misdemeanor
to
a
category
c
felony
increasing,
as
well
as
creating
new
crimes.
B
I
would
just
note
that
restitution
can
be
requested
and
ordered
in
misdemeanor
cases,
and
we
do
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
attorney
general's
office
to
strike
the
balancing
between
protecting
consumers
and
deterring
criminal
conduct.
The
u.s
department
of
justice
has
issued
a
published
scientific
evidence
what
they
found
that
the
certainty
of
being
caught
is
vastly
more
powerful
deterrent
than
punishment.
Increasing
the
severity
of
punishment
is
ineffective
in
deterring
crime.
B
We
also
noted-
and
I
believe
that
assemblywoman
tolls
discussed
some
of
our
concerns
regarding
over
broad
language,
which
we
believe
may
capture
individuals
that
this
bill
doesn't
intend
to
capture,
and
with
that
I
know
that
mr
pearl
will
provide
remarks
and
we
agree
with
his
remarks
as
well.
J
A
good
afternoon
chair
how
diggy
for
the
record
paul
moratkin
with
the
vegas
chamber.
I
would
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
their
time,
as
we
were
working
through
some
of
our
issues
yesterday
and
appreciate
their
engagement
with
the
business
community
as
we
work
to
address
our
some
of
our
tactical
concerns
with
the
bill
as
you've
heard.
There's
some
concerns
with
sections
three
four
5
and
19
are
just
a
few
of
those
and
are
concerned
about
unintended
consequences.
J
It
is
our
hope,
of
course,
that
we'll
be
able
to
come
to
a
resolution
on
this
bill
and
remove
our
opposition,
as,
of
course,
the
chamber
does
not
support
fraud
or
related
activities.
So
thank
you,
chair
for
your
time
today
appreciate
it.
J
J
Deleting
the
statue
of
limitations
seems
like
a
small
change,
but
it's
actually
a
huge
change.
Long
delays
impair
the
ability
of
an
accused
to
defend
themselves.
For
example,
a
long
delay
will
affect
an
accused
ability
to
confer
with
potential
witnesses,
keep
track
of
witness
whereabouts
and
will
impair
the
accused
ability
to
prepare
a
defense
and
investigate
allegations,
because
the
passage
of
time
erodes
memories,
witnesses
disappear
and
events
lose
context
over
time.
The
bill,
as
written,
would
remove
the
statute
of
limitations
for
deceptive
trade
practices.
J
So
at
this
point
we
are
in
opposition,
but
would
like
to
thank
the
attorney
general's
office
for
speaking
with
us
about
our
concerns
and
mr
kruger
for
talking
with
us
and
being
open
to
keep
working
on
this
bill.
We
hope
to
move
out
of
opposition.
We
do
not
want
to
stop
the
ag's
office
from
going
after
bad
actors,
but
we
do
need
to
narrowly
tear
tailor
some
portions
of
this
bill
so
that
we
capture
the
right
people
for
the
right
reasons
and
keep
integrity
in
the
criminal
justice
system.
Thank
you.
Thank.
P
And
for
that
reason
we
must
oppose
assembly
bill
61
in
its
current
written
form.
But
it
must
be
noted
that
we
did
speak
to
the
attorney
general's
office
and
we
do
appreciate
that
conversation
with.
That
being
said,
we
did
commit
to
work
with
the
attorney
general's
office,
but,
as
written
must
impose,
we
look
forward
to
further
conversations
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
brian
walker,
with
retail
association
of
nevada.
We
too
have
had
conversations
with
the
attorney
general's
office
yesterday,
mr
kruger,
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
them
as
this
bill
moves
through
the
process.
Q
I
wish
I
had
more
time
to
outline
and
explain
to
you
the
amount
of
changes
and
the
drastic
issues
that
the
supply
chain
has
gone
through,
and
we
really
appreciate
vice
chair
carlton,
mentioning
that
the
supply
chain
really
went
through
a
lot
of
challenges.
In
the
last
11
months.
We
can
recall
how
empty
our
grocery
store
shelves
were,
especially
at
the
beginning
of
the
pandemic,
and
I
think
that
gives
further
credibility
to
the
fact
that
price
gouging
was
not
rampant
or
widespread,
and
if
that
were
the
case,
there
would
have
been
products
on
the
shelves.
Q
I
think
also
another
case
that
gives
validity
to
the
fact
that
this
wasn't
a
widespread
problem
is
that
the
attorney
general
mentioned
that
they
had
received
dozens
of
complaints
over
the
last
11
months
and
we've
got
3
million
residents
and
we
have
many
million
more
visitors
that
visit
us
every
year.
I
think
it
doesn't.
It's
certainly
worth
exploring
and
we'd
be
interested
to
know
how
many
of
those
were
actually
found
to
be
valid
cases
of
of
price
gouging.
Q
The
attorney
general
also
mentioned
that
this
wasn't
designed
to
prevent
price
increases
that
go
from
fifteen
dollars
to
twenty
dollars,
but
the
bill
would
actually
put
a
limit
on
a
fifteen
dollar
item
can
only
go
up
to
sixteen
dollars
and
fifty
cents.
The
way
the
bill
is
currently
written
before
you
start
getting
into
the
period
of
having
a
deceptive
trade
practice.
So
we
would
agree
in
general
that
it
is
very
overly
broad.
We
would
draw
your
attention
to
sections
3-1-a.
Q
We
think
this
section
is
very
broad
and
would
actually
be
covered
in
31d.
We
have
concerns
with
section
three
sub
four.
We
also
have
concerns
about
section
three
sub
five
b
and
really
outlining
who
this
would
apply
to
and
who
would
be
subject
to
those
actions
section
four.
We
really
question
whether
this
would
be
a
deterrent,
it's
already
illegal,
under
federal
law,
and
so
we
question
the
need
to
make
it
a
and
define
it
as
a
deceptive
trade
practice,
even
though
it's
already
illegal
under
federal
law.
A
We
appreciate
you
joining
us
today
and
giving
your
testimony
in
opposition,
and
mr
walker,
if
you
do,
have
your
testimony
and
for
all
of
those
who
were
I'm
testifying.
If
you
do
have
anything
on
your
id
I
would
incur
in
writing.
I
would
encourage
you
to
provide
it
to
our
committee
manager
or
secretary
so
that
they
could
share
it
with
the
committee
members.
I'm
broadcasting,
can
we
please
turn
to
the
telephone
line
to
see
if
there
is
anyone
signed
up
to
testify
in
opposition.
C
D
Hi,
jim
hoffman
for
the
record
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice.
I
would
echo
what
miss
burchie
mr
pirro
and
mr
chipak
said.
D
The
additional
point
I
would
make
is
that
we
have
this
problem
with
mass
incarceration
in
both
nevada
and
the
country,
and
one
of
the
main
causes
for
that
is
that
people
pass
criminal
laws
that
make
sense
at
the
time
they
respond
to
a
real
social
problem
at
the
time.
But
then
they
stay
on
the
books
forever.
D
They
mutate
they're,
extended
to
new
things
that
the
drafters
of
the
law
didn't
consider,
and
we
think
this
is
a
situation
where
that
might
happen.
Mr
ford
said
that
he
has
credibility
with
criminal
justice
advocates
and
it's
true.
He
does
but
he's
not
going
to
be
attorney
general
forever,
and
I
think
the
committee
should
consider
how
this
this
broad
delegation
of
power
might
be
misused.
You
know
decades
down
the
line.
A
C
C
C
F
F
F
This
office
works
to
advance
systematic
improvement
throughout
the
aging
and
disability
services
networks
through
legal
advocacy
and
policy
advocacy
so
that
all
nevadans
can
live,
independent,
meaningful
and
dignified
lives.
In
addition,
the
office
acts
as
the
designated
legal
assistance
developer
under
the
older
americans
act.
F
The
clovid19
pandemic
has
disproportionately
affected
older
adults
and
persons
with
disabilities
as
the
legal
assistance
developer
for
the
state
of
nevada.
I
can
report
anecdotally
that
our
legal
aid
grantees
have
experienced
a
significant
increase
in
consumer
protection
cases
across
the
state
which
we
have
been
referring
to
the
nevada
attorney
general's
office.
F
In
addition,
the
federal
trade
commission
is
currently
reporting
that
upwards
of
340
million
dollars
in
total
fraud
loss
has
occurred
due
to
the
global
pandemic.
The
fcc
reports
that
persons
over
60
experience
these
losses
at
higher
rates
than
other
ages,
specifically
persons
over
70
experience
a
higher
loss
than
all
other
ages.
F
A
Thank
you
caller,
and
if
you
have
testimony
that
you'd
like
to
submit
and
for
everyone
who
was
listening,
you
can
provide
it
to
our
committee
manager
at
asmcl
at
asm.state.nv.us
broadcasting.
Do
we
have
anyone
else
on
the
line
for
to
testify
in
neutral.
G
Would
thank
you
so
much
and
again
we
look
forward
to
working
with
those
who
called
in
as
they
all
testified.
Most
of
them
talked
to
us
yesterday
about
the
concerns
they
have
with
the
bill.
G
So
clearly
we
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
digest
or
interact
with
them
in
detail,
but
we
look
forward
to
having
those
conversations
and
some
of
the
concerns
raised-
we've
already
acquiesced
to,
for
example,
the
criminal
concern
we
absolutely
will
be
addressing
that
so
fred
and
I,
mr
piero
and
others
on
that
particular
issue,
and
let
me
be
clear,
I
said
dozens
of
complaints
and
I
may
have
been
maybe
underestimating.
Let's
be
clear
about
this.
My
office
received.
G
We
were
overrun
with
complaints
during
the
coping
season,
some
related
to
praise
god
and
some
related
to
evictions,
and
I
I
can't
even
count-
and
I
didn't
want
to
offer
a
number
because
I
didn't
want
to
be
wrong
on
it.
Let's
be
clear,
we
got
several
many
a
whole
bunch
more
than
just
12s
price
guardian
complaints
and
you
didn't
have
to
look
at.
You
have
to
look
at
my
phone
records
to
see
the
complaints.
Look
on
facebook.
Look
on
twitter
look
elsewhere.
G
You
saw
this
going
on
in
our
communities
and
those
who
reach
out
to
us
we
tried
to
address
our
statutes,
were
woefully
insufficient
to
prosecute
to
to
directly
address
what
mr
walker
has
indicated
a
lot
of
these
instances
and
unfortunately
we
were
able
to
have
conversations
with
some
to
convince
them
to
back
off
of
what
we
saw
was
clearly
an
opportunity
in
intent
to
take
advantage
of
the
purchasing
public.
So
don't
let
the
number
that
I'm
saying
allow
fool
you.
G
We
have
a
problem
here
in
price
gouging
when
it
comes
to
emergency
circumstances,
I
think
all
everybody
saw
it
and
we
intend
to
try
to
continue
working
on
it.
Mark
krueger
is
great
he's
fantastic.
He's
gonna,
be
my
point
person
on
the
negotiation
for
the
rest
of
this
particular
bill.
Again
we
look
forward
to
receiving
whatever
concerns
that
people
have
and
we
will
endeavor
to
accommodate
them.
We
will
compromise
what
we
can
and
disagree
what
we
must,
but
we
look
forward
to
working
with
those
who
have
an
interest
in
this
bill.
A
Thank
you
general
for
ford.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
The
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
assembly.
Bill
155
and
I
believe
we
have
assembly
member
michelle
gorlo
here
to
present
along
with
jennifer
pierce
assemblymember
gorlo.
Are
you
with
us?
Yes,
I'm
here
welcome
to
the
committee
on
commerce
and
labor.
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
155
and
you
can
proceed
when
you're
ready.
R
R
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
ab155,
which
increases
maximum
fee
caps
for
licensing
and
other
service
services
provided
by
the
speech,
language,
pathology,
audiology
and
hearing
aid
dispensing
board.
It
is
a
mouthful
so
we'll
be
referring
to
it.
As
a
speech
and
hearing
board
from
here
on
out,
I'm
joined
today
by
the
board's
executive
director,
jennifer
pierce
who'll
be
co-presenting
with
me
on
today's
bill.
R
During
this
time
of
great
financial
difficulty
for
many
nevadans,
it
does
seem
a
little
counter
intuitive
to
pursue
higher
licensing
and
renewal
fees.
However,
the
proposed
cap
increases
are
necessary
to
alleviate
solvency
concerns
by
replenishing
the
board's
reserve
fund
since
2018,
the
speech
and
hearing
board
has
invested
in
several
technology
updates
for
their
licensing
database
to
fully
integrate
with
their
website
and
online
application
process.
R
R
The
speech
and
hearing
boards
reserve
fund
have
been
vital
in
covering
these
operational
and
modernization
costs,
but
the
cumulative
deficit
over
the
last
few
years
puts
the
adequacy
of
the
fund
in
jeopardy.
The
fee
cap
increases
before
you
today
will
allow
the
board
to
undertake
a
public
process
to
implement
a
modest
fee
increase
that
is
necessary
to
solve
the
budgetary
concerns
of
the
board,
which,
as
an
independent
entity,
is
funded
solely
through
licensing
and
service
fees.
R
We
would
not
pursue
this
course
of
action
if
the
bill's
financial
impact
were
overly
burdensome
on
practitioners
in
the
field,
as
ms
pierce
can
articulate
the
current
structure
of
the
board
fees
relative
to
medium
wages
in
the
field
show
the
board's
fees
are
modest
and
affordable
when
compared
to
similar
professions,
for
example,
the
median
salary
of
speech.
Hearing
practitioners
is
ranked
sixth
among
highest
among
professionals
in
18
board
comparisons,
while
the
fee
cap
for
new
licensees
rank
14
among
the
same
group,
any
fee
increase
implemented
would
only
marginally
impact
professionals
in
the
field.
R
I
will
now
turn
it
over
to
executive,
ms
jennifer
pierce,
who
will
further
discuss
the
board's
intent
and
new
fee
schedule
and
financial
impact
of
ab155.
N
Thank
you
assemblywoman
gorlow.
This
is
for
the
record.
My
name
is
jennifer
pierce
j-e-n-n-I-f-e-r-p-I-e-r-c-e,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
speech-language,
pathology,
audiology
and
hearing
aid
dispensing
board,
and
I
had
a
brief,
powerpoint
slideshow
that
I
wanted
to
share.
As
I
make
my
remarks
today,
if
that's
all
right
good
afternoon,
shareholding
and
members
of
the
commerce
and
labor
committee,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
present
on
av-155.
N
As
assemblywoman
gorlo
explained
our
practice
law
nrs637b
prescribes
the
maximum
fees
the
board
may
charge
for
licensing
and
other
services
by
setting
fee
caps.
This
bill
would
increase
five
of
our
eight
fee
caps
in
the
nrs,
and
the
board's
intent
in
pursuing
this
bill
is
to
support
its
continued
work
on
behalf
of
licensees,
the
public
and
the
state.
N
We
recognize
that
this
is
not
an
ideal
time
to
raise
fee
caps.
This
initiative
was
approved
by
the
board
in
january
2020
and
quickly
and
thoughtfully
revised
in
the
wake
of
the
pandemic.
All
of
the
fee
cap
increases
proposed
in
the
bill
are
lower
than
originally
planned
and
some
were
eliminated
altogether.
N
N
Finally,
our
work
relies
heavily
on
investments
in
technology
and
efficiency.
As
such,
we
have
made
several
investments
since
2017
in
a
licensing
database
and
integrated
website
to
improve
licensing
access
to
applications
and
renewals.
Online
renewal
and
payments
have
been
available
to
our
licensees
since
2017
and
online
applications
went
live
in
october
2020..
N
N
The
board
shares
office
space
with
the
occupational
therapy
and
environmental
health
specialist
boards
to
reduce
costs,
and
we
have
relinquished
unneeded
office
space
to
lower
those
costs
going
forward
in
early
2020.
The
board
integrated
our
website
with
our
licensing
database
vendor,
and
this
revision
has
already
reached
significant
benefits
and
maintenance
cost
savings,
reducing
the
need
to
pay
hourly
it
support
costs.
N
We
have
made
every
effort
to
keep
licensees
and
the
nevada
speech
hearing
association
apprised
of
this
initiative
through
regular
email,
communication
and
website
updates,
both
of
which
have
included
the
resource
materials
submitted
for
today's
meeting.
We
are
grateful
for
this
partnership
with
the
association
and
look
forward
to
future
work
together
on
behalf
of
our
licensees.
N
This
final
slide
illustrates
the
requested
increases
to
the
fee
caps.
The
board
declined
to
request
a
raise
on
fee
caps
for
hearing
aid,
dispensing
examinations
and
the
conversion
and
endorsement
fees
that
a
licensee
pays
in
addition
to
a
regular
license
or
renewal
fee
again,
the
board
does
not
intend
to
utilize
the
entire
fee
cap
increase
when
considering
an
increase
to
actual
fees
and
is
committed
to
being
a
responsible
steward
of
the
fees
it
collects.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
I
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
and
I
really
appreciate
your
presentation
thanks
for
addressing
certainly
our
concerns
about
raising
fees.
In
the
midst
of
this
current
situation
that
we're
in
and
also
explaining
this,
this
isn't
unnecessary.
I
This
isn't
necessarily
an
automatic
raise
of
fees,
it's
just
a
raising
of
the
caps
so
that
you
could
work
through
that
process
and-
and
I
and
I
do
appreciate
that
you've
solicited
an
input
from
your
your
members
or
let
them
know
that
you
would
solicit
that
from
them
through
the
process.
I
guess
my
question
is:
have
you
before
today's
proposal
surveyed
your
members
and
do
you
have
any
kind
of
survey
results
as
of
today
about
whether
or
not
they
are
in
favor
of
this
request?.
N
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
record.
This
is
jennifer
pierce.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
tools.
We
did.
We
conducted
a
licensing
survey
in
june
of
2020..
We
got
a
sort
of
moderate
response,
so
there
were
quite
a
few
neutral,
but
I
would
say
about
half
of
the
responses
were
either
opposed
or
strongly
opposed,
which
which
we
expected.
N
I
N
Would,
oh
gosh,
that's
of
course
one
thing
I
don't
know
that
I
had
in
front
of
me.
There
were
comments
that
I
can
recall
where
there
was
at
least
one
comment.
I
remember
somebody
making
the
comment.
You
know
the
board
needs
to
do
what
the
board
needs
to
do
for
its
budget.
I
cannot
recall
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
can
look
while
we're
speaking
to
see
if
I
can
pull
up
the
surveys.
I
A
N
Yes,
for
the
record,
jennifer
pierce
nevada
speech,
hearing
board
assemblyman
o'neil.
Our
fee
caps
were
last
raised
in
2015.
our
board.
Our
current
board
is
a
merger
of
the
formerly
separate
speech
and
language,
pathology
and
audiology,
and
then
hearing
aid
dispensers
boards.
So
those
two
boards
were
merged
in
the
2015
session
and
the
fee
caps
were
raised
then,
and
then
I
believe
there
was
a
change
to
the
actual
fees
in
that
following
interim.
A
A
L
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
simply
want
to
follow
up
to
assemblywoman
tolls
question
and
let
her
know
repeated
notifications
through
email
have
been
sent
to
all
of
the
licensees
since
the
bdr
language
was
published
and
the
bill
number
was
published
and
we
let
them
know
of
the
hearing
today,
that
was
on
friday
and
miss
pierce
only
received
one
email
back
and
that
was
you've
been
doing
a
good
job
and
good
luck
so
a
lot
of
outreach,
and
that
was
our
most
recent
response.
L
In
addition,
we
held
a
meeting
with
the
speech
hearing
association
on
monday
night,
an
impromptu
meeting,
because
this
was
a
quickly
scheduled
hearing,
which
we
very
much
appreciate,
and
we
had
very
positive
dialogue
with
the
association.
So
thank
you
I'd
like
to
share
that
information.
A
A
C
R
Thank
you
chairhattagee.
I
just
want
to
mention
just
real
quick
that
there
is
an
exhibit
on
nellis.
That
is
a
letter
in
support.
R
A
You
thank
you
assembly
member.
I
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
155,
and
this
brings
us
to
our
last
agenda
item,
which
is
public
comment.
Well,
I
give
callers
or
those
watching
over
the
internet
time
to
call
in.
I
am
going
to
read
some
quick
housekeeping
when
it
comes
to
public
comment.
A
A
We
open
and
close
hearings
on
bills
so
that
we
establish
a
record
of
the
public
testimony
on
a
bill.
Therefore,
public
comment
is
not
intended
to
be
a
continuation
of
a
bill
hearing
we
take
30
minutes
of
public
comment
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
caller
broadcasting.
Can
we
check
the
telephone
line
to
see
if
anybody
has
joined
us
or
is
waiting
to
get
public
comments.