►
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
Wonderful
good
afternoon
welcome
to
the
assembly
committee
on
health
and
human
services
before
we
begin
I'll,
just
remind
members
and
our
speakers
and
guests
that
are
on
the
zoom
to
make
sure
that
you
mute
your
microphone
if
you
are
not
speaking
to
minimize
any
background
noise
and
also
if
I
can
remind
all
the
members
to
turn
on
their
cameras,
so
we
can
make
sure
we
maintain
a
quorum.
So
at
this
time,
madam
secretary,
if
I
can
have
you,
please
call
the
roll.
C
D
E
F
B
A
Here,
thank
you.
I
know
that
assemblywoman
gorlo,
we
can
mark
her
absent
excused
and
if
she
does
able,
if
she
is
able
to
make
it
to
our
hearing,
if
we
could
just
mark
that
for
the
committee
in
minutes,
that
would
be
wonderful.
A
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
joining
us
on
this
virtual
meeting
here
this
afternoon.
We
do
have
one
bill
hearing
today,
but
before
I
begin
I'd
like
to
make
several
housekeeping
announcements,
we
only
have
that
one
agenda
item.
So
it's
been
up
on
nellis
for
people
to
review
as
well
as
the
bill
language
of
that.
If
you
would
like
to
participate,
there
are
many
different
ways
you
can
do
that
you
can
participate
online
at
the
nellis
nellis
or
the
legislative
website
or
watch
us
on
our.
D
A
Channel
and
you
can
call
in-
or
you
can
submit
written
comments,
just
make
sure
that
those
comments
are
provided
within
48
hours
of
the
meeting
adjournment
to
be
included
as
a
part
of
the
record.
We
would
ask,
during
public
comments
to
be
limited
to
two
minutes
for
everyone
that
is
interested
in
speaking,
so
everyone
can
be
accommodated
and
we
can
get
through
this
agenda
in
a
timely
fashion.
A
Speakers
are
urged
to
avoid
repetition
of
comments,
and
we
would
encourage
you
to
say
ditto
same
as
a
previous
speaker.
If
you
would
like
to
do
so.
But
again,
you
always
have
the
opportunity
to
use
your
full
two
minutes
or
to
provide
written
documentation
if
it
goes
longer
and
finally
keep
in
mind
that
our
members
are
looking
at
lots
of
different
screens,
often
in
their
workspace.
A
So
please
don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
disrespect,
we
are
trying
to
read
documents
pay
attention
to
what's
going
on
the
zoom,
as
well
as
communicating
any
questions
that
we
might
have
for
the
presentations
again.
We
have
one
bill
hearing
this
afternoon
and
I've
allocated
equal
time
and
testimony
and
support
opposition
in
neutral
after
the
bill
introduction.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
susie
martinez
and
I
represent
assembly
district
12..
So
I'm
introducing
assembly
bill
138,
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
eligibility
of
certain
convicted
persons
for
public
assistance
with
me
today
is
shane
bikini
from
the
food
bank
in
northern
nevada
who's
going
to
assist
you
with
the
presentation.
A
Assembly,
dublin,
woman
martinez,
sorry
to
interrupt
you.
I
think
we're
having
some
sound
issues.
Can
you
I
don't
know,
speak
a
little
louder
or
maybe
move
closer
to
the
microphone,
if
that's
all
at
all
possible.
Thank
you.
G
Can
you
hear
me
a
little
better?
Yes,
okay,
all
right,
so
wonderful,
so
assembly
bill
138
removes
the
requirement
that
a
person
who
has
been
convicted
certain
felony
drug
offenses
complete
a
truck
a
temporary
site,
a
treatment
program
before
becoming
eligible
for
temporary
assistance
for
needy
families
and
the
supplemental
nutrition
assistance
program.
G
Finally,
I
would
like
to
add
primary
and
co-sponsors
to
the
bill
through
both
the
senate
and
assembly,
the
primary
sponsors,
our
assemblywoman
anita
thompson,
assemblyman
yeager,
senator
canizaro
and
senator
raddy.
The
co-sponsors
are
assemblywoman
anderson
from
the
woman,
volo,
senator
spearman
and
senator
harris.
G
I
would
like.
I
would
now
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
steve
pettini
from
the
food
bank
of
northern
nevada,
he's
going
to
provide
additional
information
and
background
and
answer
any
technical
answers,
questions
we
might
have
first
so
shane.
H
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
martinez
again.
My
name
for
the
record
is
shane
piccianini.
I
am
the
manager
of
government
relations
for
the
food
bank
of
northern
nevada,
and
I
do
have
just
a
quick
presentation
here
to
help
sort
of
walk
through
this,
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
them
at
the
end.
H
So,
as
the
assemblywoman
indicated,
this
prohibition
on
snap
and
tanf
benefits
dates
back
to
1996.
The
law
created
a
lifetime
ban
for
individuals
with
these
types
of
convictions,
many
of
whom
were
in
a
period
of
active
addiction
when
they
were
attained
their
their
conviction.
So
basically
the
what
what
the
congress
did
in
1996
was.
H
They
put
a
blanket
ban
on
this
for
all
50
states,
but
they
gave
the
states
an
option
to
back
to
opt
out,
and
so
this
bill
would
trigger
the
opt
out
feature
for
for
nevada
and
then
currently
in
nevada.
When
a
felon
is
looking
to
obtain
benefits,
they
have
to
provide
documentation.
H
Well,
I
mean
some
of
us
have
a
hard
time
keeping
track
of
our
library
cards.
So
anybody
with
a
conviction
after
august
22nd
1996,
would
have
to
provide
that
certificate
and
that,
as
we
have,
you
know,
had
time
and
history
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
this
bill
has
proven
to
be
a
really
unreasonable
prohibition
on
the
program.
H
And
so
let
me
let
me
just
sort
of
give
you
a
little
bit
of
an
update
here
on
why
it
matters.
First
of
all,
in
2021,
30.8
of
nevadans
are
food
insecure.
H
H
The
number
one
food
insecure
state
in
the
union
also
happens
to
be
one
of
the
states
that
implements
the
ban,
and
that
is
mississippi.
H
These
states
in
the
last
year
have
all
moved
over
to
implement
a
partial
ban,
but
the
states
that
have
got
some
sort
of
a
ban
are
definitely
one
of
the
states
with
the
highest
food
insecurity
rates.
North
carolina
is
the
only
state
left
in
the
union
with
the
full
ban.
There
are
20
five
states
that
have
completely
lifted
the
ban,
which
is
what
we're
doing
with
this
bill
here.
H
So
what
the
bill
accomplishes
is
pretty
straightforward.
It
removes
the
requirement
to
provide
any
type
of
documentation
for
substance
abuse
treatment,
and
it
removes
one
of
the
last
barriers
that
anybody
in
nevada
would
need
to
get
food
assistance,
and
I
just
want
to
repeat
again
that
that
people
with
substance
abuse
convictions
are
the
only
ones
that
are
prohibited
from
reach
from
accessing
these
benefits.
No
other
class
of
criminal
conduct
is
prohibited
under
under
u.s
law
or
nevada
law.
H
One
of
the
biggest
reasons
why
we
decided
back
in
2017
when
we
first
went
down
this
journey
to
rethink
this
barrier
is
that
it's
disproportionately
discriminates
against
minorities.
So
black
men
are
six
times
as
likely
to
be
incarcerated.
As
white
men
and
hispanic
men
are
says,
white
men
and
hispanic
men
are
2.7
times
likely
as
likely
to
be
convicted
than
white.
Men
are
for
black
men
in
their
30s,
about
1
in
12,
is
in
prison
or
in
jail
on
any
given
day.
H
Women
are
now
the
fastest
growing
segment
of
the
us
population
that
are
being
convicted
for
substance
abuse,
offenses
more
than
61
percent
of
women
that
are
doing
time
in
federal
prison
right
now
are
for
non-violent
drug
offenses
women,
and
particularly
women
in
color,
are
disproportionately
affected
by
the
social
stigma
and
by
plea
bargaining
agreement
systems
that
punishes
those
who
are
unable
or
unwilling
to
inform
on
others.
H
So
yeah,
there's
that
and
then
by
regulations
that
bar
people
with
substance
abuse
convictions
from
obtaining
or
that
require
a
drug
test
for
public
assistance
and
by
a
drug
treatment
system
designed
for
men.
So
what
I'm
basically
trying
to
say
here
is
that
number
one
getting
access
to
to
the
drug
counseling
that
is
required
in
the
slot
is
incredibly
complicated
and
number
two
getting
access
to
the
appropriate
drug
tests.
H
Is
you
know,
through
the
public
defenders
system
or
through
the
the
criminal
courts,
is
incredibly
complicated
and
oftentimes
the
defendant
would
have
to
pay
for
that
themselves,
which
can
be
prohibitively
expensive
depending
upon
what
jurisdiction
that
you're
in
and
then
finally,
black
women
are
almost
as
likely
and
latinas
are
20,
more
likely
to
be
incarcerated
than
white
women,
and
that
native
american
women
are
incarcerated
at
six
times
the
rate
of
their
white
counterparts.
H
So
this
really
is
incredibly
discriminatory
and
for
people
that
have
got
an
upper
middle
class
background,
they
have
the
opportunity
to
work
with
the
criminal
justice
system
to
get
a
different
plea
arrangement
or
to
get
a
different
conviction
that
people
of
color
or
people
that
are
living
below
the
poverty
system.
The
poverty
line,
just
don't
have
so
there's
absolutely
no
parity
among
the
convictions
across
the
50
states
and
the
different
jurisdictions
that
handle
this
conviction.
So
that
really
is
a
big
motivator
for
us
on
why
we
want
to
rethink
this.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
so
much
martinez
and
thank
you
to
both
of
our
presenters
on
this
bill.
Just
a
question
clarification
then,
given
the
amendment
that
you
discussed
seems
to
me,
if
my
understanding
is
correct,
then
there
would
be
nothing
in
place,
no
requirements
in
place
for
an
individual
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
ceased
use,
possession
or
distribution
in
order
to
gain
access
to
these
programs.
No
no
requirements
whatsoever
is
that
is
that
correct.
I
So
so
hypothetically,
then
there
could
be
someone
who
had
been
convicted
and
conceivably
could
could
still
in
an
ongoing
way,
not
only
be
perhaps
using
himself
or
herself
but
actively
distributing
to
others,
perhaps
even
minors,
and
and
would
still
not
be
barred
from
participation
access
to
these
programs.
That
might
correct
about
that
as
well.
I
Okay,
thank
you
and
one
and
one
final
follow-up.
Any
any
analysis.
That's
been
done
on
the
extent
to
which
this
would
increase
eligibility
for
the
program
in
terms
of
numbers.
In
other
words,
do
we
have
any
data
on
how
many
people
are
currently
unable
to
access
these
programs
because
of
the
requirements
that
would
now
access
them
under
under
this
bill,
and
perhaps
what
the
fiscal
impact
of
that
might
be
to
the
state.
H
So
there's
two
answers
to
your
question,
which
is
actually
a
fair
question
number
one
is
that
there
is
no
impact
to
the
state
there.
The
of
the
400
000,
roughly
400
000
people
that
are
currently
enrolled
into
the
snap
program,
and
I
honestly
can't
tell
you
and
that's
my
fault
on
the
number
of
people
that
are
in
tanf,
but
it's
a
fairly
low
number
less
than
4
000
people
between
january,
I'm
sorry
july
of
2019
through
january
of
this
year,
were
denied
because
of
their
substance
abuse
conviction.
H
A
Okay,
next
up
in
the
queue
is
assemblywoman
titus.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
reach
out
to
the
food
bank
of
northern
vatican
and
all
that
you
are
doing
and
just
thank
you
in
this
day
of
the
pandemic
and
the
food
insecurity
and
throughout
the
schools
I
have
been
in
your
building.
I
have
solve
the
seeing
the
excellent
work
that
you
and
all
your
volunteers
do
to
to
help
with
that
food
and
security.
So
I
just
want
to
acknowledge.
J
This
has
been
a
tough
time
along
that
realm,
and
so
thank
you
again
for
all
your
workers
on
what
you
do.
J
I
I
need
to
ask
questions
specifically
regarding
the
bill,
and
maybe
maybe
some
of
them
martinez
can
answer
this,
and
maybe
mr
janine
can
also
do
it
chime
in,
but
I'm
looking
at
the
bill
and
under
section
one-
and
I
see
under
section
one
number
one
and
then
number
two
and
what
I'm
looking
at
is
that
the
proposal
is
to
eliminate
that
a
person
has
actually
gone
through
a
treatment
program,
and
I
certainly
understand
the
need
to
eliminate
that.
J
I
absolutely
support
removing
that,
because
I
think
that
is
a
barrier,
and
I
I
think
that
when
you're
asking
to
do
a
program
that
they
can't
possibly
do,
I
think
that
is
not
a
parody
in
any
way.
So
I'm
good
with
that.
But
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
under
the
amendment,
because
I
haven't
seen
the
amendment
is
that
you're
going
to
there
was
new
wording
that
you
were
adding
under
section.
J
One
then
number
two
down
to
number
a
looking
at
the
bill
in
front
of
me
that
currently
you're,
suggesting
on
the
copy
that
I
have
demonstrated
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
division
that
he
or
she
is
not
currently
possession
using
or
distributing
a
controlled
substance
in
a
manner
that
is
prohibited
by
law.
So
what
I'm
asking
with
that
amendment?
Are
you
striking
all
of
a
then?
Is
that
what
the
intent
is
with
the
amendment,
I
see
a
head
knob
but
I'll
hear.
J
My
concern
with
that
component
is
then,
and
I
think
I
heard
the
argument
to
remove.
That
is
because
people
couldn't
get
in
for
drug
testing
and
there's
a
cost
to
that,
and
and
that
that's
a
true
statement,
but
I
don't
see
that
that
line
requires
that
you
have
drug
testing.
I
think
it
just
says
to
me:
I'm
interpreting
this,
and
maybe
we
could
get
our
legal
to
chime
in
here
that
that
line
just
says
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction,
the
division
that
they
are
not
using,
and
so
that
would
be
up
to
the
office.
J
H
This
is
shane
pitching
me
for
the
record.
The
drug
testing
piece
of
that,
which
I
probably
sort
of
muddied
the
waters
with,
was
something
that
other
states
have
used
with
similar
language,
and
so
what
we
have
done
with
the
amendment
was
to
remove
the
language
that
that
suggests
that,
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
department,
to
say
in
the
amendment
that
anybody
with
a
substance,
abuse
conviction
could
not
be
denied
solely
because
of
that
conviction.
J
Well,
that's
not
what
and
again
just
for
clarity!
That's
not!
But
how
I
interpreted
this
right
that
that
that
line
there
was
just
required
in
good
faith
that
they
show
up
sober,
not
impaired,
and
that
the
per
that
they
can
just
it's
easy
to
demonstrate
that,
just
by
perhaps
even
showing
up
and
so
not
having
any.
We
would
only
be
one
of
five
states
that
don't
have
any
requirements
or
any.
I
use
a
term
a
carrot.
We
don't
have
anything
to
help
at
least
encourage
these
folks
to
continue
not
using.
H
H
There's
no,
it
eliminates
the
requirement
for
an
client
applying
for
food
stamps
to
address
their
prior
criminal
activity
at
all,
correct.
J
Okay,
but
keeping
in
there-
I
guess,
if
I
might
follow
through
in
this
chain
manager,
because
already
in
there
a
person
could
apply
if
they're
pregnant,
regardless
of
any
of
that
of
the
above,
but
again
because
of
the
expectant
mom
onboard
child,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
those
folks
are
taken
care
of,
and
there
was
never
a
ban
on
on
those
particular
entities
being
either.
You
know
drug-free
or
you
know
in
a
program,
so
we
had
that
part
still
pieced
in
there.
J
J
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
line
of
questioning.
Madam
chair.
I
appreciate
having
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
and
that's
all
I
have
thank
you.
A
And
you
know
we
don't
have
lcd
legal
on
this
call
they're
busy
drafting
our
build
traffic
west
right
now,
but
I
believe
miss
swearington
swearingen
from
dwss
and
dhhs
are
on
the
line
to
answer
any
other
questions.
If
you
would
like
to,
I
don't
know
if
they
have
any
further
input
on
assembly.
Women
titus's
concerns
regarding
that
interpretation.
J
H
A
Okay,
perfect,
I
think
next
I
will
go
to
vice
chair
peters,.
F
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
martinez,
for
bringing
this
important
bill.
I
am
looking
at
our
community
today
and
wondering
about
folks
who
have
a
felony
conviction
from
1997
and
have
been
employed
by
walmart
or
amazon
for
the
last
quick
math
30
years
coming
up
on
30
years.
You
know
20
years
and
they
get
laid
off
because
of
the
pandemic.
F
H
Shane
piccini
for
the
record
that
is
correct
and
in
nevada.
The
requirement,
as
I
recall-
and
I
should
probably
have
the
division
speak
to
this
directly-
would
be
a
30-day
treatment
program,
that's
accredited
by
the
state
and
there's
a
process
for
which
they
would
follow
to
make
sure
that
the
rehab
program
met
the
standard.
H
Shane
pitching
for
the
record,
that's
correct,
but
the
caveat
to
that
would
be.
They
may
not
be
allowed
into
an
additional
program
because
they're
no
longer
an
active
user
and,
as
dr
titus
pointed
out
before,
there
are
simply
not
enough
programs
in
nevada
to
meet
the
current
need.
F
H
F
All
right,
and
so
in
in
the
event
that
so
it
with
the
original
draft
of
this.
In
that
case
or
scenario,
the
pers,
what
what
kind
of
proof
or
or
demons
what
would
they
have
to
demonstrate,
what
they
have
to
provide
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
not?
What
is
it
currently
possessing
using
or
distributing?
Would
they
have
to
open
their
house
up
for
an
inspection?
Would
they
have
to
pee
in
a
cup?
Would
they
have
to
what?
F
What
kind
of
what
kind
of
process
would
they
have
to
go
through
to
demonstrate
that,
20
years
after
their
conviction,
after
three
kids,
that
they
were
not
using
drugs
or
currently
in
possession
of
drugs?
In
order
to
establish
that
benefits.
H
Shane
pitching
any
for
the
record
that
is
incredibly
subjective,
which
is
why
the
language
is
being
removed
from
the
bill,
because.
F
H
Could
be
it
could
change
from
one
director
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
to
another
if
it
was
done
through
the
regulatory
process
and
as
you
can
tell
in
the
bill
that
it
doesn't
prescribe.
What
that
looks
like
so
removing
that
language,
language
and
making
it
as
clean
as
possible
was
the
best
option.
B
Thank
you,
madam
cheer,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
martinez
and
mr
genie
burshini.
I'm
I'm
hoping
that's
correct
anyway,
close
enough.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
because
vice
chair
had
my
question,
and
I
just
want
to
have
you
reiterate
that
the
language
and
2a
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
division
will
be
removed.
K
A
Perfect,
I
think
I
have
a
question
next
from
assemblyman
haven.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
assemblywoman
martinez.
I
apologize
that
this
was
first
time
I've
seen
the
amendment
and
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
clarification
of
it
under
the
the
bill
that
was
presented
to
us
and
provided
to
us
previously.
L
G
H
Picture
for
the
record
yeah.
The
reason
why
we
wanted
to
also
include
the
distribution
part
of
that
was
because
number
one
somebody
could
have
been
a
distributor
back
in
1997
for
and
has
as
it
was.
You
know,
assemblywoman
peters
pointed
out
had
a
clean
track
record
for
a
number
of
years.
You
know
there
was
no
they've
done
their
their
time.
They're
clean
they're,
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
be
doing.
There's
absolutely
no
reason
to
continue
to
hold
this
over
their
head
number
two.
H
I
haven't
done
this
analysis,
but
other
people
have
that
when
you
take
a
look
at
what
was
considered
to
be
a
distribution
or
possession
charge
in
1996
is
substantially
different
than
it
is
today
and
there's
no
easy
way
for
us
to
determine
what
is
or
isn't
an
appropriate
charge.
All
of
this
is
taken
care
of
through
the
criminal
justice
system,
and
I'm
going
to
say
again
that
it
makes
no
sense
for
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
to
be
in
that
part
of
the
work.
A
Go
ahead
and,
and
just
so
we
know,
assembly,
woman
martinez,
we
have
broadcast
services
trying
to
fix
your
audio.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
just
for
clarification,
the
the
section
in
here
that
what
that's
being
stricken
by
the
amendment
that
says
demonstrates
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
division,
you're
saying
that
it's
difficult
to
make
those
determination
and-
and
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
proper
word,
but
it's
a
more
government
oversight
and
you're
trying
to
get
rid
of
some
of
that
is
that
does
that.
Can
I
understand
that
correctly.
H
Shane
pitched
any
for
the
record.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
eliminate
the
subjective
part
of
the
bill
that
you
know
it
may
not
be
applied
evenly
in
the
state
of
nevada
administration
over
administration
that
the
cleaner.
This
is
the
less
administrative
burden.
There
is
for
the
department
to
try
and
figure
out
what
that
means
and
to
spend
the
time
trying
to
track
down
20
year
old
certificates,
and
additionally,
we
want
to
bring
parity
to
the
rest
of
of
of
this
class
of
people
to
everybody
else
in
the
population.
H
I
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
questions
from
the
committee
have
sort
of
covered
the
wide
range
of
maybe
the
two
ends
of
the
the
extreme
ends
of
the
possibilities
here
right.
We
kind
of
talked
about
how
you
know
this
would
allow
you
know
those
who
are
currently
engaging
in
you
know
use
distribution
possession
to
access
the
program
vice
chair,
peters,
brought
up
sort
of
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
that
this
would
bar
participation
by
those
who
perhaps
had
their
conviction.
I
You
know
20
years
ago
and
perhaps
lost
their
records
showing
they'd
gone
through
treatment.
I'm
wondering
whether
in
crafting
this
bill,
any
thought
was
given
to
addressing
that
that
time
frame
you
know-
and
this
is
going
to
be
kind
of
an
arbitrary
suggestion.
I'm
not
saying
this
is
the
right.
This
is
the
magic
number,
but
just
the
sake
of
argument.
You
know
if
the
conviction
were
more
than
x
number.
I
You
know
five
six,
you
know
years
into
the
past
and
perhaps
the
you
know
the
requirements
that
were
in
the
pre-amended
version
might
be
waived,
whereas
it's
something
where
you
know
conviction
were
more
recent,
then
some
requirements
being
in
place.
They
make
sense.
So
I'm
just
I'm
wondering
if
any
thought
was
given
to
that
and
if
so
you
know
why
that
that
approach
was
rejected.
Thank
you.
H
Shane
piccinini
for
the
record.
Yes,
actually
some
thought
has
been
given
to
that,
and
the
research
would
also
tell
you
that
the
people
who
are
actively
going
through
recovery
right
now
are
some
of
the
most
vulnerable
populations
there
is
and
ensuring
that
they
have
got
access
to
healthy
food
ensures
a
much
greater
of
success
and
completion
in
their
recovery
than
if
that
were
not
available
to
them.
I
A
I
So
so
so
the
scenario
that
vice
chair,
peters
kind
of
introduced
as
a
hypothetical
or
as
a
potential
scenario
that
the
bill
was
kind
of
crafted
in
a
way,
not
necessarily
a
target,
though,
but
really
with
an
eye
toward
you
know.
Those
who
were
more
recently
convicted,
as
opposed
to
those
in
the
past
that
was
sort
of
the
focus
of
the
bill,
was
to
really
address
not
so
much
those
who,
whose
conviction
may
have
been
decades
in
the
past,
but
those
who
are
currently
or
for
whom
the
conviction
may
have
been
more
recent.
H
A
I
think
we
have
next
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong.
I
believe
she
has
some
follow-up
based
on
some
of
the
responses.
K
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it
just
since
we're
going
to
get
into
the
weeds
of
this.
If
a
person
is
convicted
of
dui
or
they
are
convicted
of.
K
Trafficking
or
they're
convicted
of
murder
are
they
barred
once
they've
served
their
time,
whether
they
did
the
the
short
end
or
the
long
end
of
a
conviction
and
no
matter
how
long
ago
they
got
out,
are
they
barred
from
participating
in
any
of
these
programs
is,
or
is
this
I
I
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
this
is
strictly
about
drugs
and
nothing
else.
No
other.
Am
I
wrong
in
my
mis
misunderstanding.
H
H
K
Follow
up
madam
chair
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Man
and
those
other
convictions
have
no
requirement
for
them
to
do
any
type
of
prove
up,
which
was
part
of
this
law
prove
up
that
they
are
not
trafficking.
People
anymore,
that
they're
not
drinking
that
they
had
a
dui
or
any
such
thing
or
or
not,
participating
in
other
criminal
activities,
they're
not
required
to
prove
up
anything
in
order
to
get
benefit.
Only
those
people
who
have
drug
convictions
is
that
correct.
H
Shane
pitching
for
the
record
that
is
correct.
Any
requirements
that
the
court
may
impose
on
those
individuals
would
not
prevent
them
from
having
access
to
snapper
tanf.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
thank
you
for
that.
I
believe
I
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
black.
M
Thank
you.
I
was
just
curious
in
the
program
it
says,
or
in
this
bill
from
what
I
understand
enroll
in
or
have
completed
a
drug
treatment
program
and
then
verify
or
somehow
prove
that
you're
not
using
a
control
controlled
substance.
What
is
I
I
thought
we
said
earlier
that
there
was
no
required
drug
testing,
but
how
do
people
verify
that
they're,
not
on
method.
H
M
Right,
but
what
I'm
saying
what
I'm
saying
is
ab1
or
the
bill
as
it
was
originally
written,
says
that
you
are
required
to
either
enroll
in
or
have
completed
a
drug
treatment
program
and
require
that
you
prove
you're
not
using
a
con
controlled
substance.
Maybe
I'm
not
understanding,
but
that
was
how
I
read
the
original
bill.
Is
that
wrong.
H
Shane
pitching
it
for
the
record,
no
you're
right,
that's
how
the
original
bill
was
written
and
that's
why
we
offered
the
amendment
because
it
didn't
offer
what
we
were
trying
to
do,
which
was
eliminate
the
need
for
the
certificate
at
all,
or
actually
that's
not
true.
What
we
were
trying
to
do
was
make
it,
so
the
conviction
was
not
relevant
at
all
towards
being
approved
for
benefits
that
they
couldn't
deny,
based
solely
on
that.
M
I'm
not
worried
about
the
conviction,
part
of
this,
I'm
I'm
just
saying,
say:
someone
comes
in
they're
actively
in
a
treatment
program
or
they
have
a
certificate
that
says
they
completed.
One
check
that
off
the
list.
Then
they
are
required
to
prove
that
they're,
not
on
a
controlled
substance.
How
do
they
prove
that.
H
Shane
piccini
for
the
record
in
states
other
than
in
some
states
other
than
nevada,
the
that
led
to
drug
testing,
nevada.
I
A
Know
what
I
I
think,
a
miss
swearingen
can
probably
answer
your
question
better
assemblywoman
black.
So
if
I
could
have
her
unmute
herself-
and
maybe
she
can
respond
to
what
the
existing
lies.
N
We
have
no
mechanism
to
monitor
track
assure
that
they
do
not
are
not
currently
using.
We
are
not.
This
agency
is
not
hipaa
compliant,
I'm
not
even
sure
we
could
request
that
information
because
we're
not.
N
M
Well,
that's
what
I
was
wondering
I
was
thinking.
Maybe
it's
just
a
statement
that
someone
gives
that
says:
I've
certified
that
I'm
not
actively
using
drugs.
I
mean,
I
guess
my
concern
here
is
which
I
don't
think
is
a
too
much
to
ask
someone
to
say:
hey,
I'm
not
using
drugs
to
get
to
get
welfare.
I
think
that's
as
somebody
who's
who's
had
someone
and
has
someone
with
an
opioid
problem
in
their
life.
M
I
think
this
is
everyone's
problem,
and
I
I'm
looking
at
this
as
I
want
every
possible
step
along
the
way
for
there
to
be
like,
like
assembly,
women
titus
said
a
carrot
that
incentivizes
these
folks
to
get
on
into
some
sort
of
treatment
program.
I
can
also
understand
the
idea,
as
assemblyman
matthew
said,
that
yeah,
if
you
had
a
charge
30
years
ago,
we
probably
shouldn't
still
be
penalizing
you,
but
I
feel
like
we're,
throwing
the
baby
out
with
the
bath
water
right.
A
So,
thank
you
and
I
think
we
have
one
last
question
and
that
would
go
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
kind
of
ask
a
question
about
this.
I
guess
when
I
look
at-
and
I
want
to,
I
appreciate
very
much
what
assemblywoman
black
and
what
assemblywoman
titus
and
assemblyman
matthews
have
put
on
the
record,
because
I
think
that
in
this
bigger
conversation
that
we're
having
about
how
opioids
affect
our
communities
and
about
how
we
jail
and
sentence
people
as
well,
we
we're
always
trying
to
find
the
right
dynamic
right.
N
I
know
that
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
sponsored
this
legislation
two
years
ago
and
why
I
still
think
it's
so
meaningful
and
important,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
appreciate
assemblywoman
martinez
bringing
it
forward
is
because
I
believe
that
allowing
this
group
of
people
access
to
temporary
assistance
to
needy
family
programs
is
exactly
what
ought
to
happen
within
that
program.
There
are
work
requirements,
there's
a
personal
responsibility
plan
that
you
have
put
to
to
put
together
your
programs
to
prevent
and
reduce
out
of
wedlock
pregnancies.
N
But
first
we're
going
to
start
you
off
with
snap.
If
you
qualify
and
I
think
it's
the
right
thing
to
do,
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
a
lot
of
logic.
I
I
guess
that
that's
more
of
a
statement
than
a
question.
If,
in
order
to
keep
with
proto,
you
know
kind
of
protocol,
I
guess
if,
if
to
make
it
into
a
question,
is
would
would
there
be
any
concerns?
N
A
Statement
well,
thank
you
for
your
question
statement,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
and
with
that
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
lines
for
testimony
and
support
opposition
and
neutral
of
assembly
bill
138.
A
O
P
First,
we
just
want
to
recognize
the
value
of
this
bill
for
nevadans.
Well,
this
bill
will
help
to
reduce
barriers
to
services
for
both
men
and
women.
I
want
to
take
special
note
of
women
in
my
statement
today.
According
to
the
aclu
between
2008
and
2018,
the
number
of
women
in
nevada
prisons
grew
by
24
percent.
60
percent
of
those
women
are
serving
time
for
non-violent
crimes
and
1
in
6
are
in
for
drug
felonies.
P
Half
of
them
also
have
documented
mental
health
issues.
The
majority
of
these
women
are
connected
to
families
and
children
that
have
to
step
up
and
survive.
Without
them
they
have
children
and
responsibilities,
and
the
transition
home
is
difficult
enough
without
continuing
to
create
barriers
for
success
and
increasing
the
chance
that
people
with
their
back
against
the
wall
will
make
a
decision
that
leads
them
back
to
prison.
If
one
in
six
women
have
a
drug
felony
effect
offense,
they
can't
get
food
stamps
if
they
need
them.
P
They're,
probably
also
struggling
to
get
a
job
with
a
living
wage
to
find
housing.
We
need
to
create
communities
that
allow
people
a
fighting
chance
to
stay,
free,
stay,
clean
and
sober
and
rebuild
their
lives
and
stop
chaining
them
to
their
past
food's
a
basic
human
necessity
and
no
one
should
be
barred
from
any
system
in
place
to
meet
that
need,
regardless
of
their
criminal
history,
especially
in
regard
to
people
who
are
battling
addiction.
We
are
not
only
punishing
them,
but
their
children,
who
quickly
become
secondarily
impacted
we're
in
support
of
ab138.
P
It
also
has
been
known
to
have
been
destructive
to
families
and
communities
and
specifically
black
brown
and
poor
communities,
and
it
was
directly
tied
to
a
system
of
incar
mass
incarceration
and
we
are
standing
today
to
say
well.
We
support
this
bill
and
will
continue
to
support
this
bill,
but
I
think
looking
at
1996
and
not
accounting
for
for
the
changes
and
the
acknowledgement,
really
even
from
the
government
that
that
was
a
bad
move.
The
war
on
drugs
was
a
bad
move.
P
O
O
Q
Q
We
also
know
that
having
access
to
social
services
has
been
shown
to
be
an
effective
tool
in
reducing
risk
factors
for
future
violence,
as
with
any
community
victim,
survivors
of
violence
can
have
convictions
of
drug
violence
and
they
are
just
as
deserving
of
social
support.
We
are
so
appreciative
of
this
measure
to
reduce
barriers
and
accessing
snap
and
tanf
benefits.
Q
O
E
Hello,
thank
you
chairwinn
and
committee
members.
My
name
is
nick
chipak
n-I-c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k.
I
am
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
This
bill
with
the
proposed
amendment,
seeks
to
remedy
failed
war
on
drug
policy.
Withholding
access
to
food
from
people
who
have
behavioral
health
issues
is
as
bad
and
ineffective
at
addressing
the
issue
of
substance
abuse
as
it
is
morally
bankrupt.
As
a
policy,
this
law
was
created
during
the
tough
on
crime
period
of
the
90s
that
has
led
to
the
mass
incarceration.
We
now
struggle
with.
E
Let's
be
clear,
these
laws
were
an
attempt
to
punish
communities
of
color
for
experiencing
behavioral
health
crisis
by
taking
away
their
food.
I
want
to
touch
on
the
difficulty
of
actually
getting
somebody
in
the
tree
when
I
was
a
social
work
intern
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office.
Part
of
my
responsibility
was
getting
people
into
treatment
programs
the
facilities
more
often
than
that
not
had
no
available
beds.
E
While
we
searched
for
a
placement,
we
attempted
to
try
different
technologies,
such
as
one
called
open
beds,
which
would
show
us
which
facilities
had
space
available
due
to
the
long
wait
list
and
lack
of
availability.
It
almost
always
led
that
nothing
was
available.
Getting
into
treatment
is
not
easy,
as
you
may
think.
It
is
hard
if
you
don't
have
any
money
and
or
insurance.
It
is
harder.
If
you
have
a
criminal
record,
it
is
harder
if
you
live
in
rural
areas,
and
it
can
feel
impossible.
E
E
What
you
should
not
do
is
continue
to
starve
people
whose
behavioral
health
issues
the
state
has
decided
to
criminalize
a
felony
drug
record
makes
getting
housing
harder.
It
makes
getting
a
job
harder
and
it
currently
makes
getting
a
meal
harder.
You
can
change
this.
It
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
It
is
the
moral
thing
to
do.
It
is
good
smart
policy.
Thank
you
very
much.
O
Q
Q
I
do
not
speak
to
you
today
as
the
wife
of
an
incarcerated
person
like
I
normally
do
on
these
matters,
but
as
an
eligibility
worker
for
public
assistance
benefits
in
the
state
of
california
and
a
resident
of
nevada.
I
have
seen
firsthand
the
difference.
This
makes
in
the
lives
of
individuals
and
families
when
california
lifted
this
restriction.
Families
were
suddenly
able
to
receive
the
amount
allotted
for
their
household
size
and
income
levels
without
having
to
exclude
the
person
with
the
previous
conviction.
Q
Five
people
still
need
to
eat
in
that
home.
That
is
only
being
aided
for
four
people.
People
who
had
just
finished
serving
their
sentence
did
not
have
to
face
food
insecurity.
On
top
of
the
other
hurdles
that
people
face
post-release,
it
seems
like
a
small
thing.
However,
it
makes
it
already
hard
situation
even
harder
by
sanctioning
the
person
with
the
conviction.
Q
These
individuals
that
are
currently
excluded
from
receiving
benefits
have
already
served
the
sentence
for
their
crime,
so
why
do
they
continue
to
pay
for
it
along
with
their
children
and
spouses,
and
why
is
it
my
place
as
an
eligibility
worker
to
deny
them
these
benefits
based
on
a
drug
conviction?
It
seems
to
me
that
if
individuals
reoffend
it's
up
to
the
criminal
justice
system
to
hold
them
accountable,
successful
re-entry
is
the
best
way
to
reduce
recidivism
and
eliminating.
This
restriction
is
a
huge
theft
in
making
re-entry
successful.
Q
O
F
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-N-E-S-A-U-N-D-E-R-S
and
I'm
the
policy
director
with
the
progressive
leadership
alliance
of
nevada
here
in
support
of
ab-138
as
amended.
Ultimately,
the
current
modified
ban
creates
three
specific
challenges
that
negatively
impact
public
health
in
our
community.
It
promotes
food
insecurity
and
malnutrition
for
a
person
with
a
felony
drug
conviction
and
their
families.
F
According
to
the
drug
policy
alliance,
nearly
80
percent
of
the
people
in
federal
prison
and
almost
60
percent
of
people
in
state
prison
are
there
for
drug
offenses
are
black
or
latino,
and
limiting
access
to
food
for
someone
and
their
family
is
a
cruel
way
to
encourage
treatment.
A
recent
study
by
clemson
university
found
that
food
insecurity
instead
actually
leads
to
an
increase
in
crime
rates.
O
R
R
The
snap
and
cannas
programs
provide
a
critical
safety
net
to
low-income
individuals.
Individuals
with
felony
convictions
already
face
significant
barriers
as
they
re-enter
society.
These
barriers
are
particularly
steep
for
people
of
color
who
are
convicted
of
drug
offenses
at
much
higher
rates
than
white
people.
Although
studies
have
shown
that
actual
drug
usage
is
roughly
the
pain,
the
current
law
is
a
roadblock
for
people
leaving
the
criminal
justice
system.
It
promotes
food
insecurity
and
negatively
affects
the
health
and
economic
security
of
people
with
a
drug-related
felony
conviction
and
their
family.
R
The
ability
to
apply
for
nutrition
and
safety
net
benefits
helps
people
get
back
on
their
seats
by
helping
individuals
to
lead
more
stable
lives.
The
snap
and
candidate
programs
improve
re-entry
outcomes
and
have
a
positive
effect
on
the
lives
of
people
with
drug-related
felony
conviction
in
their
families.
For
these
reasons,
the
nevada
coalition
of
legal
service
providers
supports
ab138.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
O
S
Yes,
good
afternoon,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ashanti
lewis,
a-s-h-a-n-t-I
last
name
l-e-w-I-s,
and
I
am
the
advocacy
manager
at
three
square
food
bank
located
in
las
vegas
nevada.
Our
service
area
encompasses
clark,
lincoln
ny
and
esmerelda
counties
where
we
distribute
food
to
agency
partners
commonly
known
as
food
pantries.
We
have
had
the
opportunity
to
work
alongside
the
food
bank
of
northern
nevada,
our
counterpart
in
the
feeding
america
network
on
ab138,
as
amended,
and
greatly
support
this
bill.
S
This
is
a
tremendous
mountain
to
overcome
as
a
food
bank,
as
it
is
three
squares
mission
to
feed
hungry
people.
Snap
helps
to
alleviate
some
of
the
need
and
dependency
on
our
food
bank,
ultimately
allowing
us
to
serve
more
people
from
a
public
health
perspective.
Three
square
is
concerned
about
any
and
all
barriers
to
access
to
food.
We
are
well
aware
that
individuals
and
families
experiencing
food
insecurity
face
many
issues
such
as
securing
affordable
housing
and
employment.
S
Food
should
not
be
one
of
these
barriers
as
adequate
nutrition
is
vital
in
order
to
lead
and
sustain
a
healthy
and
productive
life.
Lastly,
federal
nutrition
programs
such
as
snap
are
the
first
line
of
defense
against
ending
hunger.
We
strongly
believe
nevada
must
have
every
option
available
to
improve
food
security
and
bring
tools
to
the
state
that
ensure
all
nevadans
have
equal
access
to
federal
nutrition
programs
to
help
them
become
food
secure
in
a
sustainable
way.
Thank
you
so
much
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
O
D
I
agree
with
some
of
the
previous
callers
again
the
food
and
security
rate
astronomical
along
with
the
education
and
incarceration
in
the
state
of
nevada.
However,
we're
here
about
felonies,
drug
offense
and
their
eligibility,
and
also
you
know,
I'm
in
agreement,
because
housing
and
employment
are
already
hard
enough
challenges
for
these
people.
Getting
food
shouldn't
be
the
more
restrictions
implicated.
D
It
elevates
people's
desperation.
You
know
it's
insensitive
to
be
categorizing
convicted
persons
with
drug
offenses.
I
am
a
witness
to
police
activity
when
this
prwa
was
implicated
in
the
90s.
If
you
were
within
five
feet
of
someone
that
had
drugs,
you
went
to
jail
before
the
possession
was
nine
tenths
of
the
law.
D
If
someone
threw
their
drugs
while
running
all
ten
people
went
to
jail,
how
do
a
system
validate
someone
who
was
charged
and
had
to
go
through
the
court
system
and
is
not
aware
or
educated
on
how
to
fill
their
record
or
have
the
charges
removed
to
have
to
carry
that
stigma
of
being
arrested?
But
yet
later
on?
In
the
court
system
it
was
dismissed.
D
There
are
more
people,
corrupt
that
are
not
convicted.
Persons
who
easily
without
question,
take
advantage
and
abuse
these
very
same
benefits
so
to
target
one
specific
group
when
everyone's
summit
growl
it's
unethical
and
it's
unhumane
when
other
countries
withhold
food.
America
goes
right
in
and
challenge
and
rise
up
against
it
and
demand
it.
But
yet
here
we
are
in
the
state
of
nevada
withholding
food.
D
There
are
people
who
who
who
does
things
for
drugs
and
has
never
been
arrested,
and
yet
they
qualify
there's
no
way
of
knowing
who's
abusing,
but
the
percentage
of
abusers
are
higher
of
non-convicted
people
than
those
are
that
of
the
that
are
convicted.
What
are
the
what's?
The
data
on
the
food
rate
of
being
stolen
out
of
walmarts
and
smith's
and
albert
sentence?
S
D
O
K
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
ashley
a-s-h-l-e-y,
w-h-I-t-e
white,
and
I'm
here
in
support
of
ab-138.
I
believe
that
this
would
be
a
good
bill
to
pass,
because
it
would
help
many
families
in
numerous
ways.
One
of
the
biggest
struggles
in
this
state
and
worldwide
is
a
lack
of
food
and
access
to
it.
Yes,
some
people
make
bad
decisions,
but
they
shouldn't
have
to
suffer
and
keep
struggling.
K
Parents
come
home,
are
getting
their
children
back
and
are
working
on
restarting
their
homes
back.
They
are
trying
to
keep
a
stable
and
safe
home
for
their
children.
This
bill
would
allow
them
to
help
feed
their
family.
Many
individuals
are
struggling,
especially
in
times
like
what
we
are
dealing
with
currently
with
cobia
19
and
getting
a
job
with
no
job
or
other
income
to
purchase
food
to
feed
their
families
they
starve
and
struggle.
They
can
possibly
cause
mental
issues
to
restart
and
send
them
back
down
the
same
path.
K
They
are
working
the
correct
instead
of
continuing
the
vicious
cycle.
Let
us
make
the
change
to
support
them
and
help
one
less
stress
and
worry
and
keep
them
from
starving.
I
know
personally,
if
I
do
not
have
the
benefit
month,
the
benefit
monthly
of
snap,
my
family
would
be
starving,
so
I
understand
the
importance
of
those
benefits.
I
have
seen
this
happen
with
numerous
people
that
weren't
incarcerated
and
had
this
problem.
If
they
had
this
help
and
security,
their
success
would
have
been
much
easier
for
them
and
their
family.
K
My
uncle
ran
into
this
problem
after
his
drug
conviction
and
was
rehabilitated
during
his
incarceration
and
didn't
have
records.
So
god
he
got
the
night
snap
and
didn't
have
access
to
food
and
ended
up
in
the
hospital
as
a
diabetic
almost
in
a
coma,
and
we
almost
lost
him
if
he
had
that
access
available.
That
would
have
never
happened.
O
L
Thank
you,
chair
gwen,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
benjamin
chalinor
d-e-n-j-a-m-I-n
c-h-a-l-l-I-n-o-r.
I
am
the
policy
director
for
faith
in
action,
nevada,
a
statewide,
nonpartisan,
multi-faith
organization
that
organizes
and
advocates
for
racial,
social
and
economic
justice,
as
well
as
an
inclusive
democracy.
L
We
are
here
today
in
100
support
of
ab-138
with
the
proposed
amendment.
We
really
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
martinez
for
bringing
this
bill
to
the
committee.
We
echo
the
sentiments
of
the
previous
speakers.
We
must
always
strive
to
help.
Those
who
are
in
need
nevada
has
never
fully
recovered
from
the
2008
recession
due
to
the
continual
high
number
of
nevadans
who
are
experiencing
food
insecurity,
as
we
contin
as
we
are
currently
in
another
economic
crisis
due
to
clovid,
we
are
seeing
more
and
more
nevadans
needing
public
assistance.
L
O
C
My
name
is
edward
coleman,
e-d-w-a-r-d
c-o-l-e-m-a-n
and
I'm
chair
of
the
newly
formed
nevada,
democratic
black
caucus
and
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
ab138.
The
process
of
re-entry
is
a
significant
issue
facing
our
correctional
system.
According
to
research,
lacrosse
at
all
noted
and
the
u.s,
approximately
600
000
individuals
are
released
from
prison
each
year
and
within
three
years
of
their
release,
approximately
two-thirds
are
rearrested
and
within
three
years
and
three-fourths
are
re-arrested
within
five.
This
research
indicated
the
first
year
after
release
is
critical,
where
50
are
re-arrested
due
to
lack
of
support.
C
C
Instead
of
providing
routes
to
rehabilitation
and
her
research,
niela
esperanza
flores
noted
there
are
socio-economic
factors
which
affect
recidivism
specifically,
she
linked
a
lack
of
socio-economic
support
and
access
to
opportunities
to
improve
their
lives
outside
of
prison
as
factors
affecting
recidivism
gloria
stated,
many
are
released
to
only
find
that
they
do
not
have
the
necessary
support,
resources
or
financial
means
to
be
able
to
survive
out
in
the
real
world.
A
lack
of
access
to
waste
to
support
themselves
after
prison
makes
an
individual
more
likely
to
resort
to
crime,
but
have
their
needs
met.
C
C
Some
may
argue
that
prison
itself
is
enough
to
deter
recidivism.
Jennifer
e
kopp
explored
this
in
her
research
and
stated
that
the
deterrence
effect
of
a
prison-only
system
does
not
account
for
the
socio-economic
realities
that
people
face
when
released.
Put
another
way.
Prison
alone
cannot
reduce
recidivism
rate
and
to
be
effective,
there
must
be
strong
socioeconomic
support
for
individuals
who
are
released,
while
some
may
argue
that
an
individual's
behavior
or
characteristics
dictate
recidivism.
C
According
to
the
nevada
department
of
corrections,
the
three-year
recidivism
rate
for
nevada
is
28.63
due
to
injustices
in
the
justice
and
social
systems
of
this
state.
Black
people
are
approximately
eight
percent
of
the
state's
population,
but
account
for
29
percent
of
those
incarcerated
our
constitution.
Can
I
get
you
to
wrap
up.
B
C
O
T
Hi,
jim
hoffman
nevada
attorneys
for
criminal
justice,
we're
here
in
support
of
this
bill,
because
it's
positive
for
our
clients
for
all
of
the
reasons
that
you've
already
heard
so,
rather
than
repeat
what
they
said,
I'm
going
to
share
a
personal
anecdote.
T
T
T
O
O
B
R
My
name
is
nicole
williams
and
I
c
o
l
e
w.
I
l
l,
I
a
m
s.
I
am
in
full
support
of
ab138
all
humans
on
nevadans,
with
or
without
felony
convictions
should
have
access
to
food.
It's
basic
human
decency
to
ensure
nobody
goes
hungry,
convicted
felons
already
struggle
with
re-entry
to
society
and
not
having
to
worry
about
food
is
one
less
obstacle.
Thank
you.
A
Okay-
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
record-
we
are
at
27
minutes
in
total
support,
so
I
will
open
the
lines
for
27
minutes,
probably
round
that
up
to
28,
because
it's
two
minutes
a
piece
to
testimony
in
opposition
so
broadcast
services.
If
we
can
go
to
opposition.
Let's
do
this.
O
A
O
A
And
I
see
I
have
a
hand,
I
believe
it
was
from
miss
swearingen
and
I
think
she
was
going
to
testify
in
neutral.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct?
Thank
you.
Okay.
I
will
go
ahead
and
start
your
two
minutes
now.
N
For
the
record,
this
is
lisa
swearingen,
I'm
the
chief
of
eligibility
and
payments
with
the
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services.
The
division
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman,
martinez
and
shane
caccini
for
bringing
this
bill
recommended
language
forward.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
bill
sponsors
and
addressing
any
additional
questions
or
concerns
that
might
arise.
Thank
you.
A
G
Wonderfully
now
well,
just
I
want
to
reiterate
that
assembly
bill
138
will
allow
people,
regardless
of
past
drug
convictions,
to
apply
for
these
critical
public
assistance
programs.
You
know
we
are
currently
living
in
unprecedented
times
with
coven
19.
right
now.
This
this
bill
will
help
so
many
nevadans,
and
that's
that's
what
we're
here
for
to
help
families.
So
I
urge
I
urge
you
to
support
assembly
bill
138,
and
I
would
like
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
consideration
of
this
bill
and
shane.
G
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
martinez.
I
appreciate
that
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
138..
That
was
the
only
bill
that
we
had
on
deck
today.
So
I
will
begin
with
public
comment
as
a
reminder
to
provide
public
comment.
You
must
register
on
the
legislative
website.
Registrants
will
receive
the
phone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
for
joining
the
meeting.
Please
remember
to
clearly
state
your
name
and
spell
your
name
and
limit
your
comments
to
two
minutes.
Again.
We
will
be
hate
to
do
it,
but
we
will
to
ensure
fairness.
O
P
Hello,
I
actually
am
just
trying
to
let
you
guys
know
that
there
is
somebody
who
has
been
trying
to
she
registered
and
has
been
trying
to
give
testimony
since
the
support
side.
For
the
last
three
digits
of
her
number,
our
zero
nine
nine-
and
she
says
it
says
she's
in
the
waiting
room,
but
she
has
not
been
called
she
and
she
keeps
trying
to
get
in.
A
O
B
O
O
A
Well,
I
will
encourage
that
person
that
is
on
the
call
to
you
know,
put
their
comments
in
writing.
It
sounds
like
it
would
be
supportive
testimony
and
you
can
submit
that
support
testimony
within
48
hours
of
the
close
of
the
meeting.
Additionally,
I
know
that
there
are
some
tutorials.
A
I
I
work
through
the
tutorials
like
a
lot
of
the
assembly
people
to
see
how
it
worked
to
get
on
those
calls,
and
if
there
are
some
additional
questions,
I
would
encourage
that
caller
to
reach
out
to
my
office
directly,
and
maybe
we
can
troubleshoot
some
of
the
problems
of
why
they
are
not
able
to
be
heard
today,
at
least
over
the
phone.
So
with
that
bps
is
there
anyone
else?
That's
on
the
line
for
public
comment,
chair.
A
We
will
work
on
that.
I
know
that
sometimes
it's
user
error.
Sometimes
it's
error
on
our
side,
I'm
sure,
but
I
would
be
happy
like
I
said.
If
anyone
is
having
problems
in
the
public
getting
onto
that
line
or
navigating
the
system,
there
is
a
great
tutorial
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
take
any
of
those
calls
and
help
you
troubleshoot
them
as
well
and
with
that.
That
concludes
our
meeting
for
today.
Do
we
have
any
comments
from
the
committee
members?