►
From YouTube: 4/9/2021 - Senate 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
D
A
Here,
thank
you
and
let
the
record
show
that
all
members
are
present.
I'd
like
to
remind
everyone
that
we
are
doing
everything
virtually
right
now
to
make
sure
that
we
minimize
the
spread
and
infection
rate
of
covet
19.
we're
doing
all
things.
Virtually
committees
will
be
held
virtually
staffed
and
members
of
the
committee
and
everyone
else
will
be
participating
either
through
video
conference
telephone
or
you
can
watch
us
on
youtube
to
make
sure
that
you
are
keeping
informed
with
what's
going
on.
I
want
to
welcome
our
audience.
A
A
And
if
you
need
to
get
closer
to
your
microphone,
you
can
do
that.
I'm
pretty
sure
it's
not
going
to
bite,
but
it
will
allow
people
who
are
listening
over
the
internet
to
hear
what
you
are
saying,
reminding
everyone
that
if
you
present
false
testimony
either
the
chair
or
any
member
of
the
committee
can
ask
for
documentation
for
your
testimony.
A
And
1-866-198-260-276-282-293-2955:
that's
the
latest
count
that
we
have,
and
hopefully
we
will
not
be
here
until
2
o'clock
this
afternoon,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
give
408,
thorough
vetting
and
allow
time
for
any
questions
during
the
work
session,
reminding
everybody
the
work
session
is
not
a
time
to
represent
the
case.
It's
simply
a
time
if
members
have
questions
that
they
can
ask
those
questions
and
hopefully
get
those
questions
answered.
A
If
you
have
an
amendment-
and
I
got
several
that
were
late,
but
if
you
have
an
amendment
for
408,
if
you've
not
shown
it
to
the
sponsor,
I'm
not
going
to
entertain
it,
you
have
to
show
the
sponsor
that
you
have
an
amendment.
You
should
have
also
sent
it
via
email
and
put
in
the
in
the
email.
What
your
amendment
was
going
to
do.
Is
it
friendly
or
not?
A
A
You
can
still
participate
with
us
and
even
if
you
click
the
participate
button,
there's
really
no
guarantee
that
you
will
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
and
that's
because
just
like,
when
we
were
in
person,
they're
limited
by
time
constraints
we're
limited
by
time
constraints,
because
other
committees
will
have
to
use
some
of
the
same
equipment
that
we're
using
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
So
I'm
going
to
announce
the
time
for
every
segment,
how
many
minutes
and
how
many
minutes
per
person
and
would
hope
that
everyone
would
adhere
to
that.
A
And
please
remember
that
if
someone
has
already
said
in
essence,
what
you
want
to
say
ditto
is
a
good
response
and
that
will
allow
more
people
to
testify.
But
if
you
use
the
entire
two
minutes
to
talk
about
the
same
thing
that
the
four
people
in
front
of
you
said,
then
that
means
at
the
fourth
time.
A
You
may
not
have
an
opportunity
to
testify,
even
if
they
have
something
different
pay
attention
when
you're
on
the
phone
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
filed,
verbal
prompts
provided
by
bps
so
that
you
know
which
keys
to
press
and
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself.
Staff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
Detailed
instructions
for
participating
in
committee
meetings
are
also
available
on
the
help
page,
which
is
linked
at
the
banner
in
the
banner
at
the
top
of
every
page
on
nellis.
A
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
would
like
to
receive
electronic
notification,
please
make
sure
that
you
contact
our
committee
staff
on
the
email,
that's
listed
on
the
agenda,
and
so
now,
let's
go
to
senate
bill
4
0,
8
and
senate
bill
408,
mr
brett
kant
state
board
of
pharmacy,
richard
tommaso
nevada,
state
board
of
pharmacy.
So,
mr
kent,
are
you
ready
and
senator
bill?
408
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
state
board
of
pharmacy.
So,
mr
kent,
please
begin
when
you
are
ready.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
good
morning
for
the
record
brett
kent
general
counsel
for
the
nevada
state
board
of
pharmacy.
Thank
you,
chair
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee
for
your
consideration
of
sb
408.
As
a
preliminary
matter,
I
have
submitted
an
amendment
to
delete
sections
1
and
12
in
their
entirety
and
delete
the
proposed
language
in
section
3
at
page
4
lines,
28
and
29.
So
I
will
not
take
up
the
committee's
time
with
those
sections.
F
Thank
you,
counselor
respected
senators.
My
name
is
richard
tommaso
and
I'm
currently
the
vice
president
of
security,
surveillance
and
government
affairs
for
mesquite
gaming.
Approximately
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
I
was
honored
to
be
appointed
by
governor
siselek
as
the
public
member
to
the
board
of
pharmacy.
F
Coincidentally,
at
the
time
I
was
appointed
governor
sisilak's
division
of
internal
audit
had
just
finished
their
review
of
the
board
of
pharmacy
and
left
us
with
five
recommendations.
Four
of
these
recommendations
were
easily
complied
with
and
are
practiced
today
by
the
staff
and
the
board
of
pharmacy.
The
fifth
one,
however,
was
a
recommendation
was
that
the
board
of
pharmacy
require
applicants
for
pharmacists
and
pharmacist
technicians
to
require
background
checks,
fingerprint
background
checks.
This,
however,
would
take
a
legislative
action,
and
that's
why
bill
senate
bill
408
is
before
you.
F
They
also
noted
that
four
of
our
medical
boards
here
in
nevada,
require
background
checks,
our
medical
board,
our
dental
board,
our
therapy
board
and
our
nursing
board.
To
me,
this
is
shocking,
because
it's
the
board
of
pharmacy,
who
I
feel,
needs
it
more
than
the
others
and
here's
why
all
of
the
legal
drugs
that
come
into
the
state
of
nevada
are
given
to
the
pharmacist
and
a
pharmacist
technician
for
their
storage,
inventory,
control
and
dispensing
to
the
general
public.
F
But
just
before
I
got
into
the
gaming
industry,
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
spent
31
years
as
a
special
agent
with
the
federal
bureau
of
investigation.
In
fact,
my
last
eight
years
were
done
right
here
in
nevada,
investigating
federal
narcotics
violations.
That
was
my
specialty
and
my
expertise.
The
investigation
of
federal
narcotics
violations,
the
greatest
tool
I
had
for
vetting
the
subjects
that
I
was
investigating
were
the
background
checks.
F
Background
checks
reveal
a
person's
character,
their
flaws,
their
tendencies
to
commit
another
crime
and
their
the
ability
to
make
mistakes
as
they
move
forward.
The
bureau
of
I
mean
I'm
thinking,
fbi.
The
board
of
pharmacy
needs
this
tool
to
vet
the
men
and
women
who
have
complete
dominion
and
control
over
all
of
narcotics,
legal
narcotics
that
are
coming
into
the
state
of
nevada.
F
You
yourself,
senator
you
need
to
know
with
some
degree
of
certainty
that
the
prescription
wasn't
your
prescription
that
you
picked
up,
wasn't
changed,
diverted
substituted
or
tampered
with
the
state
of
nevada
needs
to
know
that
the
people
entrusted
as
the
repository
and
the
guardians
of
the
drugs
in
this
state
are
done
so
by
competent
people
and
senators.
You
yourselves
are
the
general
public
help
the
board
of
pharmacy
and
the
staff
protect
your
self-interests
and
your
safety
as
you
move
forward
in
this
field.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
E
E
It
implements
recent
recommendations
that
were
made
by
either
the
sunset
subcommittee
or
by
executive
branch
auditors,
and
it
allows
the
board
to
protect
the
public,
which
is
its
mission
to
the
greatest
extent
possible
and
to
ensure
that
nevadans
receive
safe,
reliable
pharmaceutical
care
so
going
through
the
bill.
Section
2
removes
a
provision
that
clearly
config
conflicts
with
the
nevada,
open
meeting
law.
The
spirit
intent
of
the
law
are
that
boards
deliberate
and
take
action
openly
and
in
public
view.
E
This
is
further
reflected
in
nrs
622.320,
subsection
2,
which
mandates
that
all
disciplinary
proceedings
of
regulatory
boards
comply
with
the
open
meeting
law,
but
currently,
subsection
3
of
nrs639050
requires
that
our
board's
deliberations
in
such
cases
be
closed
to
the
public.
Now
this
clearly
conflicts
with
the
mandate
of
openness
and
should
that
subsection
should
be
deleted
to
provide
further
clarity
in
the
law.
E
Next
section
three
clarifies
the
board's
authority
to
perform
two
essential
functions.
First,
the
board
routinely
enters
into
agreements
with
local
state
and
federal
agencies
to
coordinate
our
efforts
and
better
protect
the
public.
Second,
the
board
has
a
doe
approved
contract
with
the
apres
to
administer
the
prescription
monitoring
program
database,
that
database
tracks
all
controlled
substance,
prescriptions
to
better
coordinate
patient
care
and
prevent
diversion
abuse
and
overdoses.
E
Next
section
4
amends
nrs,
639
100,
and
it
really
simplifies
and
clarifies
in
that
statute
that
it's
unlawful
to
manufacture
wholesale
compound,
sell
or
dispense
a
prescription
drug
in
nevada
unless
properly
licensed
by
the
board.
Next
sections,
five
and
six
would
require
that
all
applicants
to
be
registered
pharmacists
or
pharmaceutical
technicians
undergo
criminal
background
checks.
This
is
the
policy
proposal
that
mr
tommaso
was
referring
to.
This
recommendation
was
made
in
an
executive
branch
audit.
E
Currently,
the
only
persons
that
undergo
background
checks
that
are
licensed
by
the
board
are
persons
that
apply
to
operate
as
wholesalers.
E
Now
there
are
compelling
policy
justifications
for
requiring
criminal
background
checks
on
pharmacists
and
pharmaceutical
technicians
to
better
protect
the
public.
Many
other
states
have
such
requirements.
Ultimately,
that's
a
policy
decision
that
rests
with
you
section
11
would
make
an
import
conforming
amendment
to
nrs6395
to
protect
the
criminal
history
of
applicants
from
unauthorized
use
for
disclosure.
E
Next
section
seven
increases
the
statutory
limits
on
the
biennial
fee
to
be
licensed
as
a
manufacturer,
or
a
wholesaler
in
nevada
would
increase
that
statutory
cap
from
500
to
a
thousand
dollars.
This
results
from
sunset
subcommittee
recommendation
that
the
board
analyze
its
fee
structure
and
revise
fees
to
the
extent
necessary
to
support
its
operations.
E
Currently,
the
board
cannot
increase
license
fees
for
manufacturers
or
wholesalers
to
cover
the
cost
of
regulating
those
activities
because
we're
at
the
statutory
limit.
This
will
remedy
that.
I
want
to
emphasize
that
just
because
you
increase
the
statutory
limit,
the
board
itself
would
still
have
to
amend
its
fee
schedule
in
the
nevada
administrative
code
before
any
fee
increase
would
take
place.
E
Next
section
8
amends
nrs,
639.243,
subsection
2
to
conform
to
the
20-day
time
period
to
file
an
answer
and
notice
of
defense
to
administrative
charges
that
is
specified
in
nrs
622,
a
.320
subsection
one.
The
board
in
its
administrative
proceedings
has
to
comply
with
nrs622a
and
currently
there's
a
conflict.
E
622A
once
again
provides
a
20-day
response
period.
This
board's
chapter
in
639
only
provides
a
15-day
response
period.
Of
course,
the
board
defaults
to
the
longer
period
to
assure
due
process.
However,
it
would
be
nice
if
we
just
reconcile
the
two
and
the
chapter
639
reflect
the
same
time
frame
of
20
days.
E
Next,
section
9
clarifies
the
board's
authority
to
place
restrictions
on
a
license
when
imposing
discipline
for
violations
of
nevada
law,
provided
those
restrictions
are
necessary
for
the
protection
of
the
public.
For
instance,
if
violations
of
law
are
related
to
a
substance
abuse
problem,
the
board
may
require
the
licensee
to
undergo
evaluation
treatment
and
maybe
place
other
restrictions
to
ensure
that
the
licensee
can
practice
in
a
safe
manner.
E
So
the
board
would
like
its
authority
to
place
such
restrictions
on
a
license
to
be
clearly
specified
in
nrs
639.255
next
section
10
amends
nrs
639.291
to
clarify
that
it
is
unlawful
to
obtain
any
license
from
the
board
under
false
pretenses
or
to
falsely
represent
oneself
as
the
holder
of
a
license.
Finally,
section
13
repeals
nrs
639.095.
E
Now
that
section
requires
that
the
board
provide
free,
copies
of
the
relevant
chapters
of
nrs
and
nac
to
pharmacists.
Now,
requirements
outdated
and
unnecessary
since
all
relevant
laws
and
the
most
current
versions
of
the
laws
are
accessible
on
the
board's
website.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
of
this
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
kent.
I
see
we
have
a
question
from
vice
chair,
neil
vice
chair
and
I'm
sure
that
senator
picker's
hand
is
out
there.
I
just
have
to
widen
the
screen
to
make
sure
that
I
see
him.
Let's
see
senator
settlemeyer.
G
Are
sure,
oh
I'm
sorry,
I
thought
you
were
calling
on
senator
settlemyre
okay,
so
I
had
a
question
on
the
on
the
background
check.
So
I
understand
why
it's
being
added,
I
get
it,
but
so
so
let's
say
you
find
out
that
you
know.
There's
somebody
a
pharmacist.
That's
been
out
there
and
10
years
ago
before
they
got
their
doctorate
in
pharmacy.
G
E
For
the
record
brett
kant,
thank
you
senator
for
your
question.
That's
a
great
question
and
once
again,
to
give
you
the
best
example
of
how
the
board
handles
that
information.
I'll
make
reference
to
the
current
background,
checks
that
are
conducted
on
persons
that
want
to
be
licensed
to
operate
as
wholesalers
in
the
state
and
in
the
instance
where
a
somebody
their
background
check
reveals
that
they
have
a
past
criminal
history,
be
it
an
arrest
or
a
conviction.
Then
simply
the
the
board
asked
them
to
explain
the
situation.
E
Let's
say
it
was
a
dui
which
is
very
common
and
it
is
provided
the
applicant's
forthcoming.
The
board
weighs
that
and
takes
that
into
account.
E
Quite
frankly,
the
honesty
and
the
forthrightness
is
the
most
important
thing
to
the
board
in
acknowledging
their
criminal
background,
and
then
the
board
can
take
that
into
consideration,
make
an
informed
decision
as
to
whether
to
issue
that
that
individual
a
license.
E
And
so
I
think
the
same
thing
would
take
place
with
regard
to
any
applicant
for
registration
as
a
pharmacist
or
pharmaceutical
technician,
provided
they
are
forthcoming
in
disclosing
their
criminal
past
and
that
that
matches
up
with
the
information
that
the
board
has
after
running
the
criminal
background
check
and
the
board
determines
taking
that
into
account
that
that
individual
can
practice
safely
and
not
endanger
the
public
and
will
not
be
a
danger
to
themselves
having
access
to
dangerous
drugs
and
controlled
substances.
E
G
E
Once
again,
brett
camp
for
the
record.
Thanks
for
that
question,
senator
it's
a
great
one.
It's
an
important
one,
because
currently
the
board
licenses
approximately
15
000
pharmacists
and
pharmaceutical
technicians
in
our
state,
and
the
board's
intention
was
that
this
would
be
prospective
moving
forward
that
future
applicants
for
registration
would
submit
and
undergo
background
checks.
E
He
had
not
intended
that
they
would
go
back
and
and
submit
fingerprints
to
the
repository
and
conduct
background
checks
on
all
the
current
licensees,
and
I
would
note
that,
for
any
application
for
any
license
from
the
board,
currently
the
applicant
and
on
a
renewal
is
supposed
to
disclose
any
criminal
events
and
when
they
do
disclose
that
once
again,
the
board
takes
that
into
account.
E
But
this
would
actually
give
the
board
the
information
from
running
the
background
check
as
to
whether
the
individual's
been
candid
and
disclosure.
G
G
E
For
the
record
brett
kant,
thank
you
senator
for
the
the
follow
up
on
that,
and
I
can
just
once
again
tell
you
from
the
experience
with
the
wholesale
applicants.
If
they
have
an
event
that
took
place
25
years
ago,
they
remember
it
most
often.
Once
again
it's
it's.
E
It's
a
involves,
a
dui
or
an
impaired,
driving
charge
or
conviction,
but
we've
found
that
people
remember
and
the
board
prescribes
the
application
and
approves
each
application
form
and
on
the
application,
request,
disclosure
of
any
criminal
event,
whether
it's
an
arrest,
a
conviction
or
otherwise.
G
E
E
My
apologies
brett
camp
for
the
record,
thank
you
for
the
follow-up
and
once
again,
the
board
realizes
that
people
make
mistakes.
People
can
be
rehabilitated
and
their
past
doesn't
necessarily
disqualify
them
from
the
ability
to
safely
practice
a
profession
moving
forward,
and
the
board
takes
all
that
into
account.
G
A
Hey
senator
settlemyre
and
then
senator
hardy.
H
Thank
you,
sir.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
I
was
just
trying
to.
I
just
found
the
amendment
I
apologize.
It
took
me
a
bit
so
we're
deleting
sections
one
and
twelve
in
their
entirety
and
those
are
really
the
questions,
the
major
problems
that
I
had
within
the
bill.
So
let
me
continue
to
look
at
it.
Sorry
for
taking
up
committee's
time.
I
just
finally
found
the
amendment
sorry
about.
H
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
On
section
three
k,
sub
k
or
1
sub
k,
the
salaries
of
the
employees
are
exempt.
Is
that
the
statute
that
applies
to
pinning
that
to
the
governor's
salary.
E
Once
again,
brett
camp
for
the
record,
that
is
the
statutory
provision
your
correct
center,
but
once
again,
we've
submitted
an
amendment
to
delete
that
proposed
language.
C
So
they
all
of
the
employees
that
are
listed
above
would
still
be
subject
to
the
salary
cap
vis-a-vis,
the
governor's
salary.
E
Once
again,
brett
can't
for
follow-up.
That's
correct
all
the
board's
employees
and
staff
are
and
will
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
statutory
limitation
of
nrs
281.123.
G
E
Once
again,
brett
kemp
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
and
once
again,
you
establish
in
statute
the
the
cap
on
the
amount
that
the
board
can
assess
for
a
biennial
renewal,
applica
initial
issuance
or
renewal
of
a
license.
The
board
statutorily
operates
in
licenses
on
a
biennial
basis.
It's
got
17
different
licensing
categories
and
that's
an
nr
639
170
and
for
wholesalers
currently
and
the
wholesaler
fee
for
biennial.
Renewal
is
500
and
that's
we're
up
against
the
cap.
E
The
board's
fee
schedule,
which
is
in
regulation,
is
it's
at
500.
It's
been
500
for
over
20
years.
The
sunset
subcommittee
noted
that
noted
that
the
fee
that
nevada
charges
to
license
wholesalers
is
substantially
less
than
that
and
surrounding
states,
and
I
realize
that
alone
isn't
necessarily
justification
to
increase
the
statutory
cap.
E
The
the
fee
was
never
increased
as
a
result
of
that
mandate
and
and
so
their
enforcement
costs
from
running
the
background,
checks
and
regulating
that
activity.
The
wholesaling
activity,
and
so
the
board
could
not
if
it
wanted
to
seeing
justification
for
it
to
bring
in
sufficient
revenue
to
cover
those
enforcement
costs,
increase
the
fee
because
they're
up
against
that
statutory
cap,
so
we're
proposing
to
increase
that
to
a
thousand
dollars
and
once
again
that
doesn't
mean
wholesalers
are
automatically
going
to
be
subject
to
a
thousand
dollar
licensing
fee.
That
means
the
board.
G
So
what
what
are
the
delineations
for
necessary
right
because
I
get
it,
but
is
you
know,
there's
a
point
where
you
tied
it
to
the
criminal
background,
but
it
does
a
little
bit
more
than
that,
and
so,
when
we
talk
about
deems
necessary
for
the
protection
of
the
public,
that's
preliminary
and
it's
very
broad,
and
so
how?
How
will
these
justifications
be
illustrated
where
someone's
license
is,
which
is
their
livelihood,
is
then
restricted
by
this
language?.
E
Thanks
for
the
question
senator
once
again,
brett
camp
for
the
record
and
it's
a
great
question,
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
board
already
places
routinely
certain
restrictions
in
imposing
discipline
on
a
licensee.
E
Certain
conditions
on
that
probation,
very
common
one
I
mentioned
is
that
if
the
license
holder
is
a
substance,
abuse
problem,
that's
common
with
diversion
where
that
was
the
violation
of
law
that
the
license
holder
was
diverting
drugs
from
the
workplace
and
require
them
to
undergo
evaluation
and
treatment,
or
they
were,
they
showed
up
for
work
and
they
were
impaired.
Something
of
that
nature
clearly
tied
to
a
substance.
Abuse
issue
then
require
them
to
undergo
evaluation
and
treatment-
that's
not
listed
in
there,
but
it's
something
that
commonly
the
board
requires.
E
E
Those
are
probably
the
two
most
common,
but
it
could
be
restricting,
for
instance,
a
pharmacist
from
acting
as
a
managing
pharmacist
in
a
pharmacy
for
a
certain
period
of
time,
until
they've
demonstrated
during
the
probationary
period
that
they
can
practice
safely,
because
a
pharmacy
manager
is
in
charge
of
the
pharmacy
oversees
the
activities
in
the
pharmacy
and
and
so
sometimes,
it's
appropriate
to
restrict
a
pharmacist
from
working
as
a
managing
pharmacist
for
a
period
until
they
can
demonstrate
the
board
that
they
can
do
so
safely
and
responsibly.
G
Thank
you
for
the
answer,
but
with
that
broad
language
in
the
restriction
and
just
thinking
about
you
know,
situations
where
typically,
a
due
process
can
rise
up
when
a
license
has
been
restricted
under
certain
terms
right
and
then
they
feel
that
their
when
I
said
livelihood
has
been
challenged
and
they
have
been
denied-
and
I
understand
the
framework
here,
but
because
of
the
broadness
of
the
statement,
I
wonder
how
what's
the
appeal
under
deemed
necessary
when
a
pharmacist
was
to
challenge
and
that
broad
plenary
power
is
being
stated.
E
For
the
record,
once
again,
brett
kant,
thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
It's
a
very
good
one
and
anytime
the
board
imposes
discipline
that
order
is
subject
to
judicial
review
and
the
the
licensee
that's
subject
to
that.
That
disciplinary
order
can
petition
for
judicial
review
of
it,
and
then
a
judge
looks
at
it
in
district
court
and
determines
whether
the
board
exceeded
its
authority
or,
as
you're,
alluding
to
whether
the
restrictions
they
placed
on
the
license
really
are
necessary
to
protect
the
public.
G
H
Thank
you
for
the
second
time
man,
madam
chair,
but
as
usual
senator
neil
has
covered
the
question.
I
was
also
asking
about
section
9g,
placing
any
other
restrictions
on
the
certificate
licensee
or
permit
holder,
as
the
board
deems
necessary
for
protection
of
the
public.
It
seems
extremely
broad,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
get
it
on
record
that
this
is
only
being
done
only
if
it
is
dealing
with
health
and
safety
concerns
and
again
they
have
to
draw
a
nexus
to
that
in
order
to
put
those
type
of
restrictions
on.
E
E
Once
again,
brett
kant
for
the
record,
thank
you
senator
for
the
question
and
yes
have
to
draw
a
nexus,
has
got
to
be
a
direct
relation
to
the
restriction
and
how
it's
necessary
to
protect
the
public
in
that
license.
These
activities.
A
Saying
none
broadcast.
Oh
I'm!
Sorry!
Let
me
let
me
get
mr
keem
to
comment.
Excuse
me
on
what
may
be
a
discrepancy
on
page
11,
mr
king.
E
E
E
So
this
existing
statute
says
that
for
criminal
background
checks
that
are
conducted
on
wholesalers,
that
the
boards
got
to
take
reasonable
measures
to
prevent
the
unauthorized
use
or
disclosure
of
that
criminal
history,
and
so
it
was
supposed
to
be
amended
to
reference
that
they
would
also
have
to
take
that
appropriate
measures
to
protect
any
criminal
history.
That's
submitted
in
connection
with
an
application
to
be
a
pharmacist
or
a
pharmaceutical
technician.
So
in
terms
of
the
actual
reference
I
I
don't,
I
didn't
draft
that
so.
B
Thank
you.
I
see
that
that's
what
639
127.
E
Due
well
perhaps
we
can
talk
afterward,
I
I
don't
see
what
the
paragraph
s
of
subsection
one
should
be
referring
to,
but
if
it's
okay
with
the
chair,
I
can
just
talk
to
mr
kant
afterward,
and
we
can
work
out
what
that
reference
should
be.
A
Well,
it
would
be,
except
this
is
the
last
day
that
bills
have
to
come
out
of
committee,
and
I
would
like
to
as
much
as
is
possible
make
sure
that
when
I
ask
committee
members
to
vote,
they
know
exactly
what
they're
voting
on.
Even
if
we're
talking
about
a
conceptual.
So
we
will,
when
we
can
finish
this
bill,
we
will
put
it
last
and
mr
kent
that
will
afford
you
all
an
opportunity
to
fix
whatever
incongruencies
that
are
in
the
bill
right
now.
Okay,
so.
E
Spearman,
yes,
I'm
sorry
brett
camp
for
the
record.
If
I
may,
I
don't
think
that
language
on
line
12
needs
to
be
in
there
at
all,
because
the
way
it's
been
drafted,
the
background
checks
for
the
pharmaceutical
technicians
in
the
pharmacists
that
would
that
that
authority
you're
putting
into
639-127
and
3639-1371.
E
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
king,
will
that
suffice
your
concern.
I
Thank
you,
chair
spearman,
for
the
record
will
keen
community
council
absolutely
we
can
do
that.
I
will.
G
I
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
mr
mega
rahil.
If
you
will,
mr
ken,
if
you
will
make
sure
that
mr
melanie
gets
the
information
that
we've
got
to,
we
have
to
get
to
clear
up
to
make
sure
that
when
I
ask
committee
to
vote
on
it,
they
know
exactly
what
they're
voting
on
to
include
the
conceptual
amendment,
and
I
know
that
it's
it's
a
little
tight,
but
if
we're
gonna
get
it
out
of
here
today,
that
has
to
happen.
G
Oh
sorry,
I
know
this
computer
anyway,
so
thanks
madam
chair,
but
based
on
the
questions
that
I
had
on
section
9g,
I
really
do
want
clarifications
on
the
scope
in
a
in
in
in
the
amendment
before
it
goes.
G
G
G
You
know,
if
we're
going
after
certain
things,
so
I'm
just
I'm
just
saying
it
normally.
I
wouldn't
put
something
like
this
on
the
record,
but
because
this
is
the
last
day
and
if
it
doesn't,
if
it
doesn't
get
amended
before
you
know
we,
we
adjourn
this
hearing
this
this
committee,
then
I
can't
I
can't
support
a
bill
that
is
open-ended
like
that.
A
E
Once
again,
brett
camp
for
the
record,
I
would
also
include
include
in
language
I
provide
to
your
staff
an
additional
amendment
that
will
strike
the
proposed
subsection
g
on
the
from
section
9
page
10,
at
lines
30
through
32.,
we'll
just
we'll
strike
it.
So
you
can
move
on
and
I
don't
want
any
of
you
to
have
any.
G
I
mean
I
didn't
ask
him
to
do
that,
but
you
know
I
figured
he
had
at
least
an
hour,
but
whatever
works
or
makes
sense,
but
I
that
would
be
okay.
If
that's
what
he
chooses
and
selects
to
do.
A
Thank
you.
I
don't
see
any
additional
questions
from
many
members.
So,
let's
go
to
the
phones
now
broadcast
will
go
to
the
phones,
those
in
support
we'll
go
15
minutes,
I'm
sorry,
20
minutes
and
two
minutes
per
person.
B
B
D-A-N-I-E-L-P-I-E-R-R-O-T-T
with
argentine
partners
today,
I
am
testifying
in
support
of
sb
408
on
behalf
of
our
client
family.
Express
we
don't
you
you
excuse
me.
We
utilize
the
latest
technology
and
fingerprint
background
checks,
in
addition
to
a
myriad
of
other
services,
to
ensure
the.
B
B
L
A
We
have
anyone
weighing
in
neutral.
J
A
D
B
A
You
and
with
that,
mr
kent,
you
have
any
closing
remarks.
E
I
I
don't-
I
just
want
to
thank
once
again
brett
kent,
for
the
record,
thanks
to
the
committee,
for
I
know,
you're
under
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
time
crunch.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
listening
to
our
testimony
and
considering
our
bill
today.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
cesar
mouth,
for
the
record
company
policy
analyst.
It
looks
like
you
want
to
take
some
of
the
bills
slightly
out
of
order,
so
I
believe
we
will
start
with
senate
bill
198.
K
Senate
bill
198
provides
for
the
regulation
of
an
on
of
on-demand
paid
providers.
Matt
walker
represented
daily
pay
proposes
the
following
amendments.
There
is
draft
language
attached
to
this
work
session
document,
add
a
new
subsection
section
12
to
prescribe
the
additional
requirements
and
information
that
must
be
submitted
to
the
commissioner
by
the
applicant
who
wishes
to
be
licensed
as
an
employer,
integrated,
on-demand
pay
provider.
K
Next
amendment
is
amend
section
17
to
further
clarify
that
an
employer,
integrated,
on-demand
pay
provider
shall
not
pursue
certain
actions
against
a
user
absent
intentional
and
willful
fraud
by
the
user.
In
addition,
a
provider
is
prohibited,
prohibited
from
debiting
a
user's
bank
account
without
such
users
affirmative
consent.
K
Amendment
number
eight
to
add
a
new
subsection
to
the
bill
to
require
an
employer-integrated,
on-demand
pay
licensee
to
provide
the
division
of
financial
institutions
with
10
business
days.
Prior
notice
of
certain
proposed
changes,
during
which
time
the
division
may
notify
the
licensee.
The
division
does
not
approve
the
change.
If
the
division
does
not
respond,
the
changes
may
take
effect
after
10
days.
The
division
may
withhold
approval
if
the
proposed
changes
are
inconsistent
with
the
requirements
of
this
bill.
A
ninth
amendment
is
to
add
a
new
section
of
the
bill
to
provide
a
license.
A
Thank
you
commitment,
committee
members,
any
questions
or
comments
vice
chair,
neil
thank.
G
Is
there
a
limitation
on
how
many
times
a
person
can
access
on
demand
in
a
month,
and
the
only
reason
why
I
thought
about
this
is
because,
since
the
hearing
right,
you
know
I
you
know,
I
have
friends
who
borrow
from
their
paycheck
and
then
they
find
themselves
without,
like
and
they're
short
on
their
bills,
because
it
becomes
a
it
becomes
something
that
they,
you
know
now
they're
missing
six
hundred
dollars
that
they
asked
for
in
advance
or
etc.
K
L
Thank
you,
chair
spearman.
This
is
the
listen.
They
were
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
daily
pay
to
you
vice
chair
neil.
There
is
not
a
current
limitation
on
the
number
of
times
that
you
may
debit
your
account.
We
have
historically
understood
that
this
is
used
only
once
a
pay
period
time
and
it
actually
keeps
people
and
folks
from
using
other
predatory
sources
of
credit.
L
L
Well
again,
vice
chair
neil
alyssa
dave
worth
on
behalf
of
daily
pay,
the
understanding
in
the
industry
and
the
experience
that
they've
had
for
multiple
times.
I
have
matthew
copco
from
daily
pay
to
go
into
more
depth
on.
This
is
that
this
is
not
a
product
that
is
historically
used
in
the
same
fashion
as
described
that
this
is
not
an
issue,
and
so
we
believe
that
there
should
be
strict
regulations.
L
We
worked
very
hard
to
incorporate
all
of
the
regulations
that
the
financial
institutions
division
would
seek
to
have,
and
then
we
also
practically
just
said
you
know.
We
do
not
believe
this
to
be
a
problem
in
our
experience
and
therefore
we
would
submit
a
report
to
the
legislature
and
address
it
if
this
problem
did
exist.
But
I
also
have
mr
kopko
from
daily
pay
on
the
line,
who
can
go
into
a
more
granular
detail
on
this
issue?.
B
I
met
matthew
copaco
from
daily
paid
for
the
record
vice
chair
neil,
your
your
follow-up
is
correct.
To
the
extent
the
recommendations
are
included
to
have
additional
restrictions
that
would
be
included
in
the
report
from
fid.
So,
yes,
the
idea
would
be
to
address,
if
appropriate,
in
2023,
to
provide
additional
restrictions.
G
Why
not
just
put
in
their
cap
now
and
say
you
know,
you
can't
use
it
over
two
times
in
a
month
or
three
times
in
a
month,
which
you
shouldn't
be
using
it
three
times
in
a
month,
if
you're
in
a
bi-weekly
pay
period,
but
if
you're
getting
paid
weekly
like
some
construction
workers,
it
could
be
more
than
that,
and
I
guess
you
know
like.
G
Overall
I
get
the
policy
overall,
I
understand,
but
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
a
person
doesn't
hurt
themselves
or
defeat
themselves,
which
is
the
whole
purpose
of
working
and
waiting
to
get
paid
and-
and
only
because
I
have
I
just
know-
you
know
I
I
I
have
specific
examples
of
people
that
I
know
who
work
weekly
and
it
and
their
money
burns
through
their
hands.
G
It
just
running
through
their
hands
because
they're,
young
and
they're
making
a
lot
of
money
and
it
just
gets
spent,
and
then
this
opportunity
to
get
in
advance
would
further
allow
them
to
waste,
and
so
I
I
think
you
know
not
two
years
from
now,
but
limiting
their
ability
to
do
it
multiple
times
in
a
month,
so
that
they
actually
learn
money
management
is
like
super
super
important
to
me.
B
B
There
was
a
request
so
that
fide
could
follow
proper
process
that
they
have
appropriate
time
to
put
together
that
report.
So
we
hope
that
it
is
on
an
acceptable
timeline,
but
there
had
been
a
discussion
of
trying
to
get
it
done
in
one
year,
but
the
the
resolution
of
the
of
the
coalition
to
try
to
reach
you
know
time
frame
that
would
work
for
everyone,
including
fid,
resulted
in
a
decision
to
put
20
23
in
there.
B
G
B
N
And
madam
vice
chair,
nicole
cannizzaro,.
B
Senate
district
six:
I
definitely
understand
your.
N
Concerns
and
obviously
we
had
worked
in
a
group
to
come
up
with
something,
as
mr
copco
said,
would
work
for
everyone,
but
certainly
happy
to
explore,
putting
in
some
limitations
and
would
be
committed
to
working
on
that
to
hopefully
answer
some
of
your
your
concerns
as
well,
if
that
is
if
that
is
acceptable
for
for
you,
madam
vice.
G
Chair,
thank
you.
I
just
you
know,
brought
it
up,
but
everything
just,
but
I
hope
that
there's
a
conversation
about
it,
so
I
just
I
just
know
that
this
is
reality,
that's
going
on
with
people,
but
I
appreciate
the
comments.
Majority
leader.
L
Vice
chair
neal,
we
really
appreciate
the
comments
as
well
and
we
will
continue
to
work
with
you
as
we
proceed
through
the
rest
of
this
session
in
the
coming
weeks,
so
we'll
circle
back
with
you
next
week.
Thank
you
again.
A
Thank
you,
senator
picker.
D
Hey,
madam
chair,
not
a
question
because
senator
neil
just
addressed
one
of
my
concerns,
as
I
understand
this,
we're
not
talking
about
payday
lenders,
so
we're
and
we're
talking
about
an
opportunity
for
employers
to
pay
their
employees
on
a
daily
basis
for
wages,
they've
already
earned
so-
and
I
recognize
to
the
extent
that,
because
of
the
timing
of
transfers
of
documents,
there
may
be
a
a
technical
line
of
credit
issued,
but
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
justification
for
kind
of
a
heavy-handed
regulatory
approach
to
an
emerging
industry.
D
I
I
don't
I
don't.
What
I
keep
hearing
is
that
we
don't
really
have
it
right.
We
know
we
need
to
make
adjustments,
because
you
know
we're
making
a
lot
of
assumptions,
and
so
I
think
that
although
the
intent
is
certainly
laudable,
I
think
that
we
have
a
situation
where
we
really
don't
know
what
we're
dealing
with.
Yet
this
will
curtail
those
that
want
to
get
into
the
market.
It'll
require
businesses
to
incur
additional
expense.
D
A
After
a
long
day,
so
I'll
accept
a
motion
motion
to
amend
it
to
pass,
I
have
a
motion
from
vice
chair
neo.
Do
I
have
a
second.
A
H
H
Thank
you
chair
in
that
respect
this
bill.
I'd.
Ask
specifically,
you
know
what
is
the
traditional
low
end,
because
there
has
to
be
a
return
on
investment
at
which
they
would
not
deal
with
a
business.
You
know:
are
we
leaving
the
small
businesses
out
in
the
lurch
and
I'd
ask
that
question.
They
would
not
give
me
an
answer
of
what
traditionally
is
the
lower
range
of
employment.
H
Obviously,
if
you're
dealing
with
someone
who
has
ten
thousand
dollars
each
month
as
payroll-
it's
probably
too
small
for
them
to
deal
with,
and
I
wanted
to
try
to
get
that
answer.
What
type
of
businesses
are
we
leaving
out,
and
that
was
never
provided
to
me,
and
I
find
that
problematic
when
a
member
asks
for
a
question
and
it's
dodged
in
that
respect,
but
also
within
this,
it
seems
that
we're
not
involving
all
the
people
that
are
within
this
realm
that
wish
to
enter
into
this
market.
H
It
looks
like
we're
kind
of
picking
and
choosing
winners
and
losers,
and
I
also
find
that
problematic
as
well,
and
that
was
stated
in
some
of
the
testimony
and
also
the
concept
of
turning
a
lot
of
this
over
to
the
fid
seemed
to
be
to
settle
to
contractual
disputes.
It
seemed
to
be
a
question
as
well,
so
for
those
reasons
I
will
be
opposing
it
today.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
was
impressed
with
the
eloquence
of
our
vice
chair
and
recognized
that
we
do
have
opportunity
to
do
something,
but
something
may
not
be
good
for
everybody.
I
will
be
voting
no,
but
reserving
my
right
to
change
on
the
floor.
Thanks.
D
A
Yes-
and
I
thought
it
could
show
that
the
motion
does
pass
and
I'll
ask
senator
canazzaro
she'll,
take
the
for
statement.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
next
bill
we
will
take
is
senate
bill
335,
senate
bill.
335
revises
provisions
relating
to
professional
occupational
licensing
and
sponsored
by
senator
hardy
senator
hardy
proposes
the
following
amendments
and
the
first
there's
two
separate
documents
attached
to
this
work
session
document.
K
Actually,
the
first
set
of
amendments
are
from
senator
hardy,
which
is
to
delete
sections
262
through
301,
which
transfer
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
state,
barbers
health
and
sanitation
board
to
division
of
occupational
licensing
and
second,
amendments
to
amend
section
314
to
remove
the
sections
of
nrs
that
propose
to
abolish
the
state,
barbers
health
and
sanitation
board,
and
the
next
set
of
amendments
are
to
are
proposed
by
the
nevada
board
of
homeopathic
medical
examiners.
K
And
I'm
sure
this
this
morning,
senator
hardy,
sent
over
an
additional
conceptual
amendment,
which
is
to
change
the
effective
date
to
january
1
2022,
as
well
as
the
division,
will
consider
input
from
licensees
in
the
ongoing
relations
investigations
and
making
recommendations
to
the
division
going
forward
from
time
of
passage.
I'm
sure.
That's
all
the
amendments.
A
Thank
you
committee
members.
Any
questions.
C
Mute
and
I'm
sure
if
terry
reynolds
is
still
on
board,
he
has
another
meeting
to
go
to
if
he
isn't
on
board.
I
would
welcome
that
opportunity
to
change
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
with
this
is
that,
if
we
do
something
immediately,
there's
a
cut
off
of
all
the
boards-
and
that
is
not
the
intention,
and
that
is
why
the
third
conceptual
amendment
that
I'm
proposing
this
morning
will
change
the
date
to
january
1,
where
it
actually
takes
effect.
C
And
that's
what
led
to
the
the
conceptual
amendment
this
morning,
which
basically
would
trump
the
amendment
that
the
homeopathic
board
made.
So
the
division
has
need
and
knows
that
it
needs
to
take
advantage
of
people
who
are
in
the
boards
and
in
the
regulations,
the
investigations
and
the
recommendations.
C
So
the
homeopathic
board's
amendment
would
not
be
needed
and
thus
would
not
be
considered
friendly,
but
the
first
amendment-
and
the
conceptual
amendment
from
this
morning
would
be-
would
solve
the
problem
that
we're
doing
now.
The
other
question
that
senator
schaible
is
asking
is:
where
does
this
leave
the
oriental
medicine
board,
and
that
is
probably
a
consideration
of
another
bdr
that
will
be
or
another
bill
that
will
be
heard
today.
C
My
goal,
quite
frankly,
is
for
the
division
of
business
and
industry
to
be
able
to
incrementally
sussum
all
of
the
boards
and
be
able
to
have
a
a
single
place
where
someone
will
apply,
and
then
it
will
be
evaluated
by
those
that
are
in
the
boards
as
they
are
now,
but
they
will
be
under
a
different
structure,
and
so
it
will
look
more
like
the
utah
department
or
division
of
professional
licensing,
and
that
will
allow
the
boards
not
to
have
to
figure
out
how
to
do
their
minutes.
C
How
to
do
all
of
the
things
that
they
haven't
been
real
good
at
doing,
and
so
that's
the
rationale
for
the
amendment
this
morning
to
make
clear
that
the
licensees
will
not
be
shut
out
of
the
process
of
regulations,
investigations
and
making
recommendations,
but
will
be
included
within
the
division
in
a
structure
that
will
be
more
clear
when
we
look
at
the
effective
date
of
january
1st
2022,
instead
of
immediately.
If,
if
that
helps,
I'm
not
sure
I've
answered
as
many
questions
as
that
caused.
B
That
that
does
help.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
spearman.
This
is
mr
reynolds
I'm
on.
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
concur
with
senator
hardy's
comments
and
we
chose
a
later
date,
so
we
would
have
time
assuming
the
bill
passes,
to
be
able
to
meet
with
the
the
occupational
boards
that
are
in
the
legislation,
as
well
as
to
work
out
budgetary
items
going
forward.
B
So
we
felt
that
january
1
would
give
us
sufficient
time
to
do
that,
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
meeting
their
needs
going
forward
and
that
we
have
an
understanding
of
of
how
things
are
going
to
work.
So
that
gives
us
the
time
to
do
that
and
that's
why
I
requested
to
move
the
the
date
to
january
1,
20
22..
Thank
you.
A
So
you
know
I
I
just
have
a
couple
of
couple
questions
and
I
will
share
with
you.
I
think,
the
first
time
I
heard
term
oriental
medicine.
A
I
was
really
shocked
and
I
was
shocked
because
every
place
I've
ever
been
oriental
now
is
considered
george
of
term
and
so
prior
to
senator
hardy
prior
to
you
getting
information
and
proposing
this
bill.
A
So
so
here's
the
thing
I
had
and
actually
will
come
in
another
bill
later
on,
to
propose
to
change
the
name,
because
I
thought
that
I
think
that
it
is
pejorative
and
one
of
the
things
that
concerns
me-
and
I
said
this
in
another
session
of
commerce
and
labor.
I
think
when
we
talked
about
oriental
oriental
medicine.
It's
really,
I
guess
maybe
east
asian
medicine
would
probably
be
a
better
term
for
it,
but
to
provide
an
alternative
to
some
people
who
don't
necessarily
want
to
do
the
traditional
western
medicine.
A
They
were
here
in
nevada.
They
opportunity
to
legalize
acupuncture
in
1973..
That
was
groundbreaking
then,
but
the
military
is
using
it
now
and
not
the
military.
Well,
the
military
and
the
va
are
using
it
now
as
part
of
the
process
to
make
sure
that
people
who
need
treatment
aren't
necessarily
given
drugs
at
first
first
blush,
so
I've
I've
got
I've
got
I've
got
an
issue
and
we
talked
about
it
center
heart.
I've
got
an
issue
about
taking
them
out
because
it
in
my
mind
it.
A
It
still
suggests
that
there's
only
one
type
of
medicine
I'm
willing
to
talk
about
it,
and
if
I
got
something
wrong,
then
I'm
willing
to
listen
or
whatever,
but
I
just
I'm
I'm
concerned
that
taking
out
what
we
call
oriental,
which
is
pejorative
not
another
name
for
that
type
of
medicine,
so
I've
got
some
concerns
with
that.
C
Madam
chair,
if
I
may,
I
I
I
understand-
not
only
do
I
understand,
but
I
think
335
will
actually
solve
that
problem,
because
there
will
not
be
a
separate
board
called
oriental
medicine.
There
will
not
be
a
separate
board
called
board
of
medical
examiners
they're
eventually.
C
So
we
won't
have
to
worry
about
what
a
board
is
called
as
much
as
what
the
licensees
do,
and
that
is,
I
guess,
one
of
the
reasons
why
it's
appealing
to
have
the
big
umbrella
under
the
division
of
industry,
because
we
won't
have
to
worry
about
what
boards
are
called
they'll
all
be
under
the
division
of
professional
licensing
as
it
were.
So
that
is
the
ultimate
goal
and
this
this
opportunity
to
do
something.
C
We
will
do
something
now
and
be
able
to
look
at
what
the
process
is,
so
that
we
can
get
the
kinks
out
as
we
move
forward.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
explanation.
I
hear
that
and
I
see
that
in
what
you're
trying
to
do.
I
guess
an
overarching
concern
for
me
is
that
whenever
you
have
a
you
have
an
entity
that
is
different
from
whatever
the
majority
is
used
to,
and
there
is
a
process
to
assume
that
smaller
entity
into
the
larger
entity,
I'm
concerned
not
just
about
their
autonomy,
but
I'm
concerned
about
equity
and
fairness
in
the
in
the
process.
A
We
can
have
one
board
that
just
says
medical
or
medical
examiners
or
board
of
medicine.
We
could
have
one,
but
I
am
concerned
that
if
it
is
not
done
in
a
way
that
acknowledges
diversity
and
that
acknowledges
the
value
of
that
this
brand
of
medicine
eastern
medicine
brings
to
the
table
and
if,
if
in
the
process,
what
they
do
in
terms
of
their
craft
and
what
they
know
how
to
do.
A
If
that
is
whittled
away,
then
in
essence,
the
the
board
has
gone
away
too,
not
just
the
board,
not
just
the
name,
but
everything
that
they
do
and
so,
and
I
just
I'll
just
say
that
people
are
probably
trying
of
hearing
me
say
that
this
session,
but
I
I
intend
to
keep
saying
it
until
we
get
it
and
until
we
start
talking
about
it
in
realistic
terms,
racism
is
a
public
health
crisis
and
it's
not
just
racism
from
the
standpoint
of
ethnicity.
A
How
how
people
have
treated
members
of
the
asian
community
with
respect
to
covet
19..
It's
ignorant
and
there's
no
basis
in
reality,
whatever
whatsoever
for
them
to
accuse
someone
who
is
of
asian
descent
of
bringing
covet
into
the
country.
But
the
fact
remains.
We
have
people
who
do
not
fully
process
in
a
reasonable
way
and
and
and
whatever
they
come
up
with
their
conclusion
is
completely
untethered
to
reality
and
completely
untethered
to
any
type
of
scientific
fact.
A
So
my
concern
is
if
this
happens,
what
happens
to
the
identity
and
indeed
the
mission
and
what
they
know,
how
to
do?
What
what
what
happens
to
that
and
that?
That's
that's
a
concern
of
mine.
It's
it's!
You
know
it's
kind
of
like
this.
You
know
somebody
can
say
well,
we'll
have,
let's
have
bacon
and
eggs,
and
that's
that
sounds
good.
If
you
ask
the
chicken
yeah,
I'm
I'm
cool
chicken
says
yeah
I'll,
give
you
some
eggs
pig
they're
like
uh-uh.
The
chicken
just
makes
a
contribution,
but
I
got
to
be
fully
committed.
A
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
if
this
is
a
process
that
we're
going
to
move
forward
in-
and
this
has
nothing
whatsoever
with
whether
or
not
business
and
industry
you
know-
is
a
good
place
for
it.
But
I'm
more
concerned
about
what
this
means
for
this
brand
of
medicine
and
the
options
that
people
are
moving
away
from
a
lot
of
the
me,
the
western
methods
and
moving
over
into
eastern
medicine
that
that's
just
a
long
way
around
saying
I've
still
most
of
the
bill
98
of
bill.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
allay
all
of
your
concerns,
but
I
can
say
that
utah
has
probably
been
more
accepting
of
alternative
medicine
than
many
other
people.
When
I
talked
with
the
board
of
medical
or
the
board
of
eastern
medicine,
and
that's
what
I'll
call
it
it.
C
It
was
a
conversation
that
was
assuring
that
I
would
be
involved
with
making
sure
that
the
practitioners
were
not
left
aside
and
that's
what
led
to
the
conceptual
amendment
this
morning
that
those
people
would
be
involved
with
evaluating
the
prowess
and
the
ability
and
the
opportunities
to
do
something
that
would
be.
Who
else
can
evaluate
them,
but
other
people
who
practice
that
way.
C
So
the
board,
the
doppel,
the
division
of
professional
licensing
utah,
for
instance,
involves
the
people
who
know
what
they're
doing
to
evaluate
other
people
who
are
applying
for
and
licensed
or
for
renewing.
And
so
this
is
not
to
get
rid
of
people
as
much
as
it
is
to
include
them
in
the
big
tent.
And
I
think
we
have
to
have
a
big
tent
philosophy
in
the
state
of
nevada.
In
order
to
be
able
to
count
everybody
and
enjoy
everybody's
talents,
and
that's
where
this
is
going,
if
it's
passed,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you
and
senator
hardy.
I
appreciate
that.
I
just
want
to
make
one
more
statement
and
probably
question
two
utah
has
had
some
success.
I
don't
know
that
the
state
of
utah
has
the
amount
of
diversity
that
we
do
in
nevada,
and
so
again
my
concern
happens.
A
It
must
happen
through
the
lens
of
diversity,
recognizing
that
there
is
more
than
one
way
for
people
to
get
well
and
making
sure
that
eastern
medicine
is
not
put
in
a
subordinate
place
to
western
medicine,
but
the
value
is
accepted
on
par.
A
I
don't
know,
and
and-
and
I
have
every
faith
and
confidence
in
in
mr
reynolds
and
and
what
they
do.
I've
got
every
faith
and
confidence
in
a
lot
of
things.
A
I
just
know
that
when
it
comes
to
systemic
racism,
if
we
don't
call
it
out
and
if
we
don't
get
a
commitment
from
everyone,
who's
going
to
be
involved
in
whatever
the
changes
are,
we
must
get
a
commitment
that
when
you
talk
about
something
different,
especially
especially
in
light
of
what
people
of
asian
descent
in
this
country
have
gone
through
in
the
last
I
mean
all
you
have
to
do
is
just
look
at
atlanta
just
in
the
in
the
last
month,
specifically,
but
in
the
last
year,
especially
so.
A
I've
got
some
concerns
with
that.
I
haven't
really
made
it
my
mind,
which
way
I'm
going
to
to
vote,
but
whichever
way
I
vote,
I
will
probably
reserve
my
right
to
to
change
my
mind
because
I
want
us.
I
want
us
to
continue
this.
I
need
to
make
sure
that,
however,
this
happens
that
there
is
diversity
in
terms
of
diversity,
of
thought,
diversity
of
people
who
are
are
going
to
look
at
this
and
to
make
sure
that
there
is
no
subordination
of
eastern
medicine
to
western
medicine.
Does
that
make
sense
to
you.
C
Oh,
it's
absolutely
makes
sense
and
I
I
maintain
that
the
big
umbrella
is
more
inclusive
than
little
umbrellas,
and
I
I
agree
with
you
that
we
need
everybody.
I
need
everybody.
I
need
eastern.
I
need
western,
I
need
chiropractors,
I
need
physicians
of
every
kind
and
ilk,
and
so
I
need
nurses,
I
need
them.
All
nevada
needs
everybody
and
if
we
can
be
invited
inviting
more
than
turning
away,
I
think
that
is
the
mode
that
we
have
to
be
in.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
and
I'll
see.
If
there
are
any
other
questions.
I
know
we've
had
this
discussion
before,
and
I
know
that
former
senator
parks
and
now
commissioners
sega
bloom
were
big
advocates
for
for
this
board
and
some
of
the
many
of
the
things
that
they
said
I
ascribed
to
as
well
in
terms
of
my
philosophical
philosophical
outlook
on
medicine,
so
committee
members,
additional
questions.
A
Have
an
amend
motion
from
senator
settlemeier.
I
have
a
second.
A
A
H
I'm
sure
yes,
this
is
senator,
I'm
concerned
with
the
concept
of
taking
five
percent
from
all
boards
to
go
to
administration,
but
I'm
more
concerned
with
the
fact
that
I
did
a
lot
of
work
last
session
on
the
homeopathic
board
and
having
them
go
away.
Troubles
me
when
the
reality
is
their
problems
been.
We
thought
we
had
gotten
corrected,
but
we
really
have
no
idea,
since,
unfortunately,
the
governor's
office
hasn't
appointed
individuals
to
that
board.
H
D
B
A
Spearman
yes,
and
reserved
my
right
to
change
my
mind,
because
I
still
have
concerns
about
the
the
diversity
piece,
so
I'm
gonna
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry
and
senator
hardy
you'd
like
to
take
the
floor
statement
on
this.
A
Thank
you,
and
so
now,
let's
move
to
senate
bill.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
senate
bill
381
revises
provisions
relating
to
certain
businesses
and
and
sponsored
by
this
committee.
It
was
heard
yesterday
we
there
is
a
an
amendment
attached
to
this
document
that
was
submitted
by
john
sandy
from
argentine
partners.
K
In
addition
to
these
amendments,
there
is
another
proposed
amendment
not
included
here.
I
would
note
that
the
amendment
submitted
by
mr
mr
sandy
is
to
delete
section
1,
which
revises
exemptions
from
licensure
and
regulation
as
they
defer
deposit
high
interest
or
payday
lender
or
as
installment
lender.
However,
there
is
an
additional
proposed
language
that
mr
irv
nelson
may
review.
K
If
the
chair
wishes
to
to
hear
that
amendment,
the
the
following
amendments,
I'll
begin
with
number
two,
is
to
amend
subsection
4x,
one
of
section
two
to
increase
the
initial
fee
for
a
provider
of
service
contracts
to
two
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
Number
three
is
to
add
a
new
section
of
the
bill
to
define
emergency
service
contract
number
four
is
the
men's
subsection
two
of
section
five
to
require
a
home
service
contract
provider
to
respond
to
certain
claims
with
24
hours
and
to
provide
the
consumers
within
72
hours.
K
K
Number
six
is
to
amend
subsection
three
of
section
seven
to
include
that
a
home
service
provider
may
also
deduct
any
claims
paid
by
the
provider
during
the
current
contract
year.
Number
seven
is
to
delete
subsection
4
section
7,
which
permits
a
service
contract
provider
to
refund
a
lender
that
has
financed
the
purchase
of
a
service
contract
number
raised
to
delete
section
a
of
the
bill
which
authorizes
the
insurance
commissioner
to
make
certain
inquiries
into
the
conduct
of
her
home
service
contract
provider.
K
As
the
commissioner
deems
necessary
number
nine
is
to
amend
subsection
one
of
section
12
to
clarify
the
definition
of
a
service
contract.
Number
10
is
to
amend
subsection
2
of
section
13
to
include
that
the
sale
of
a
service
contract
to
a
third
party
does
not
constitute
the
business
of
insurance.
For
the
purpose
of
federal
law.
K
Number
11
is
to
delete
subsection
5
of
section
16,
which
permits
that
a
service
contract
provider
to
refund
a
lender
that
has
been
financed
by
the
purchase
of
a
service
contract
number
12
is
to
amend
subsection
1
queue
of
section
17
to
require
a
service
contract
to
providers
to
disclose
that
the
home
service
contract
is
not
an
emergency
service.
Contract
and
number
13
is
to
add
a
new
section
of
the
bill
to
require
that
advertisement.
K
Sales
and
marketing
materials
for
a
home
service
contract
that
is
not
an
emergency
service
contract
must
include
a
statement
acknowledging
that
it
is
not
a
a
home
service
contract
and
madam
chair,
those
were
all
the
amendments,
except
for
the
proposed
amendment
by
mr
nelson.
G
So,
madam
chair,
yes,
please,
the
proposed
proposed
amendment
happens
to
be.
Where
is
this?
Is
this
verbal.
I
If,
if
I
may,
the
the
vast
majority
of
that
amendment
was
actually
what
I
presented
yesterday,
the
only
the
only
things
that
have
changed
from
that
amendment
was
after
discussions
with
the
division
of
insurance.
I
I
Senator
pickard
had
mentioned
that
we
removed
that
you
could
the
the
word
telephone,
but
that
the
exemption
for
that
was
swallowed
by
subsequent
language.
So
we
clarified
that
that
any
denial
has
to
be
in
any
written
and
reproducible
form,
and
there
was
just
one
other.
That
was
the
addition.
I
So
if
you
may
recall
from
the
we
wanted
to
put
a
term
in
the
contract
that
stated
that
it
was
not
an
emergency
service
contract,
the
commissioner
of
insurance
wanted
to
go
a
little
bit
further
than
that,
and
so
that
was
the
section
that
said
that
any
marketing
material
sales
material
also
had
to
include
that
term,
and
so
we
were
agreeable
to
that
as
well,
and
so
those
from
what
was
presented
yesterday,
those
were-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
believe
those
were
the
the
only
changes
that
that
were
made
from
the
the
amendment
that
was
proposed
yesterday.
K
Madam
chair,
this
is
cesar
montgore
hill
community
policy,
analyst
just
to
clarify.
All
of
the
amendments
submitted
by
mr
sandy
are
summarized
on
the
work
session
document.
J
G
I
I
guess
I
don't
know
if
my
nellis
is
not
functioning
the
way
that
it's
supposed
to,
but
I
only
see
the
one
exhibit
which
is
not
your
work
session
document,
and
so
I
think
that's
why
I'm
thrown
off
and
I've
checked
and
I've
closed
nellis
and
then
I've
gotten
back
on.
But
in
my
exhibits
I
have,
I
don't
see
your
work
session
document.
K
Madam
vice
chair,
cesar
margaret,
you
may
need
to
refresh
your
page
at
this
point.
I
just
refresh
mine
and
I
can
see
it,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
would
fix
your.
K
G
I
yeah,
I
just
closed
out
nellis
and
then-
and
I
see
it
now
because
I
was
literally
like
I'm
operating
blind
and
bill
was
gonna
die
a
fiery
death.
G
A
Thank
you,
mr
sandy
or
mr
nelson,
I'm
not
who
can
answer
this,
but
we
spoke
a
little
about
a
little
bit
about
section
one.
Yesterday
I
had
some
concerns
and
I
don't
I
see
that
it
has
been.
It
has
been
changed
and
been
modified,
but
I
still
have
some
some
issues
about.
A
I
mean
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
someone
small
business
would
wind
up
with
a
a
small
loan
that
and
if
the
apr
is
40,
what
was
a
small
loan
to
save
their
business
could
be
the
loan
that
destroys
their
business.
So
I
I'm
I'm
still
not
comfortable
that
that
section
one
is
still
in.
K
D
Madam
sarah
I've
been
resisting
as
much
as
I
can,
but
my
understanding
of
section
one
was-
and
maybe
mr
nelson
can
speak
to
this,
but
my
understanding
was
section.
One
was
needed
in
order
for
commercial
lenders
to
actually
properly
and
legally
land
in
nevada
and
because
the
the
the
the
way
that
the
I
mean,
the
language,
the
existing
language,
is
awkward
and
has
created
some
unintended
interpretations,
and
I
think
mr
nelson
can
speak
to
that.
O
Last
last
night,
I
I
spoke
with
bailey
bartolin
and
the
attorney
who
is
working
with
her
peter.
I
didn't
catch
his
last
name
and
we
discussed
this
issue
and
they
talked
about
the
fact
that
their
main
concern
is,
as
you
know,
small
businesses
which
and
their
owners,
and
so
we
discuss
the
possibility
of
making
these
roam
these
loans,
or
these
extensions
of
credit
go
out
of
the
realm
of
what
everybody
would
call.
O
I
guess
a
small
loan
and
I
proposed
a
number
and
ms
bartolin
or
bortlin
proposed
another
number,
and-
and
I
actually
accepted
that
on
behalf
of
my
client,
and
that
would
be
to
add
just
a
couple
words
saying
that,
where
it
says,
extend
credit
just
insert
in
the
amount
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
or
more-
and
she
said
that
if
we
did
that
that
she
would
go
from
opposed
to
neutral
and
that
would
that
would
affect.
O
Effective
bills
so
that
nevada
borrowers
are
not
in
a
worse
position
than
out-of-state
borrowers.
If
you
know,
if,
if
the,
if
section
one
is
not
included
in
the
amendment,
then
the
statute
will
obviously
remain
the
way
it
is
and
what
it
will
mean.
O
A
G
O
Yes,
madam
vice
chair,
I
will
be
happy
to
work
with
any
interest
holders
any
stakeholders
and
get
something
that
everybody
can
live
with.
Thank
you,
irv,
nelson,
for
the
record.
A
A
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
some
type
of
consumer
protections
in
place,
especially
coming
out
of
this
pandemic,
and
there
have
been
so
many
people
who
have
been
hurt,
and
so
many
small
businesses
that
are
still
struggling.
But
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
to
the
extent
possible.
We
have
the
right
type
of
consumer
protections
in
place
and
I
trust
that
we
can
continue
this
discussion
until
it
comes
up
four
floor
vote.
O
G
D
Adam
chair,
if
I
may,
I
was
going
to
jump
in
and
make
a
motion,
and
so
I
think
maybe
I
can
clarify
that
in
the
motion.
D
A
And
let
me
just
interject
because
he
mentioned
that
he
had
a
conversation
with
miss
portland
and
there
was
the
number
that
they
agreed
on.
So
whatever
that
conversation
was
and
whatever
that
was
that
they
agreed
on.
I
think
that
should
be
in
the
amendment
and
it
should
be
explicit.
O
A
Not
necessarily
the
conversation,
I
just
need
to
know
what
the
agreement
was.
That
takes
care
of
some
of
my
concerns
and
I
guess
some
other
committee
members
concerned.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
need
the
full
context
of
everything
that
you
said.
I
just
need
to
know.
You
said
you
all.
You
talked
to
her
and
you
all
came
to
an
agreement
on
something
and
I
think
whatever
that
something
is
that
you
all
came
to
an
agreement
on
should
be
present
in
the
and
the
amendment
and
maybe
I'm
overlooking
it.
Okay.
A
We
got
a
lot
of
amendments
in
here
the
last
minute
and
was
trying
to
get
through
them
before
the
meeting
started,
but
I
didn't
so.
I've
been
kind
of
cheating
going
back
and
forth.
O
You
you
are
honorable
and
I
and
I
have
joined
enjoyed
watching
you
the
last
two
days,
seeing
you
again,
I'm
used
to
appearing
before
judges,
but
anyway,
madam
chair,
what
we
agreed
on
was
that
this
exemption
would
only
apply
to
loans
of
fifty
thousand
dollars
or
more
to
hopefully
get
it
out
of
the
realm
of
you
know
smaller
businesses
and
and
their
owners,
and
we
talked
about
the
fact
that
there
are
so
many
people
who
you
know
fall
into
that
category.
O
In
fact,
I
do
you
know
I
left
a
hundred
man
law
firm
and
I'm
a
sole
practitioner
now,
so
I'm
a
small
business
person
and
I
have
those
same
concerns
and
this
board
ms
borderland
and
I
went
back
and
forth
on
numbers
and
she
stood
firm
on
fifty
thousand
dollars,
and
so
I
said,
fine
we'll
go
to
50
000,
so
any
loan
under
that
is
not
protected
by
the
exemption.
O
O
So
it
would
re
a
person
who
exclusively
extends
credit
to
any
person
and
then
add
this
language
in
an
amount
of
50
000
or
more,
and
then
we
pick
up
with
what's
left
in
this
statute
for
any
business,
comma,
commercial
or
agricultural
purpose,
and
then
another
few
words
I
had
proposed
a
few
days
ago
would
be
at
the
end
of
that
comment,
regardless
of
personal
guarantees
or
collateral
period,
and
we
discussed
yesterday
the
fact
that
and
I'd
say
99
of
the
commercial
loans
I've
ever
seen.
There
are
personal
guarantees.
C
A
That's
senator
hardy
further
discussion,
madam
vice
chair,
does
that
suffice
or
allay
your
concerns.
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
there
was.
We
were
clear
on
what
changing
what
we're
voting
on
so
that
we
could
have
a
clear
record,
and
I
think,
I'm
in
a
weird
space
right
now,
because
I'm
like,
if
it's
unclear,
I'm
not
voting
on
it
right
and-
and
so
I
needed
that
if
anybody
wants
me
to
vote
on
anything.
D
H
B
A
And
let
the
motion
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry,
does
pass
and
senator
picker.
Do
you
want
to
take
this
statement.
O
Thank
you.
I
feel
the
same
way
and
I
I
really
enjoyed
your
your
words
yesterday
if
it's
not
inappropriate
to
say
it.
Madam
chair
about
the
the
spouses
of
veterans,
and
I
I
really
appreciate
your
passion
and
if
I
were
there,
I'd
vote
with
you
on
that.
Thank
you.
I
wish
I
were
with
you,
but
the
voters
did
something
else,
so
I
enjoy
watching
everybody
again.
Thank
you.
A
A
Miss
douglas
is
going
to
have
to
go
at
about
at
10,
so
why
don't
we
take
another
small
bill?
I
think
402
may
be
one
of
those
ones
that
we
banter
about
for
a
little
while.
So
let's
take
a
smaller
bill,
one
that
won't
be
as.
K
For
the
record,
I
will
take
senate
bill
276
next,
which
is
which
imposes
a
technology
fee
for
the
issuance
of
or
renewal
of
certain
licenses,
certificates
permits
and
registrations
issued
by
the
real
estate
division
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry.
And
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
D
Thank
you.
I
certainly
agree
with
my
colleagues
in
the
industry
that
we
need
the
division
to
get
up
to
date
in
their
technology.
I
think,
given
the
amount
of
money
that's
flowing
to
the
state
that
could
be
used
in
one
shots,
I
think
that
the
desire,
when
we
heard
the
testimony
from
the
realtors
that
they
bought
the
fee,
I
think
the
way
I
interpreted
that
was
they
want
the
improvements,
but
I
don't
think
the
fee
is
necessary,
so
I'll
be
a
no
on
this.
A
I
I
think
I
think,
we've
seen
what
happens
when
we
don't
invest
the
money
in
technology
before
it's
needed,
which
is
why
we
got
ourselves
in
such
a
deep
hole
with
people
not
being
able
to
where
deter
was
not
able
to
really
process
all
the
claims
because
of
the
antiquated
system.
And
that
is
a
direct
consequence
of
the
fact
that
we
did
not
appropriate
the
money
to
bring
it
up
to
date.
A
So
I
think
in
in
times
like
this
there's
nothing
else
that
we've
learned
and
that
is
to
make
sure
that
we
are
prepared
technologically
for
the
worst
so
and
and
hope
for
the
best
so
that
if
the
worst
happens,
we
are
there
and
this
time
we
weren't
prepared-
and
there
were
several
thousand
people,
because
they
didn't
have
the
technology
who
were
unable
to
get
their
unemployment
checks
on
time.
D
Not
sure
I
could
not
agree
more
with
you,
I
completely
agree
with
that,
and
my
concern
is
if
we
rely
strictly
on
the
technology
fee,
then
according
to
director
chandra
it'll
take
four
years
or
so
for
them
to
have
enough
money
in
the
account
to
do
the
technology
upgrades,
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
far
more
appropriate
to
do
a
one-shot
appropriation
with
the
money
that's
coming
in
and
then
get
them
up
to
speed
quickly,
rather
than
wait
four
years
and
wait
for
the
licensees
themselves
to
fully
fund
that.
D
I
agree
that
it's
the
example
of
theater
and
how
we
didn't
appropriate
enough
money
and
given
that
this
is
an
account
that
isn't
that
they
can
continue
to
dip
into
it
will
probably
take
longer
than
four
years
and
who
knows
what
the
next
crisis
will
bring,
and
so
you
pinpointed
exactly
why.
I
think
the
technology
fee
is
the
the
it's
a
great
intention.
D
We
need
the
technology
upgrades,
but
we
need
to
do
it
now.
We
we
shouldn't
be
waiting.
So
I
appreciate
your
comment.
Thank
you.
C
Hi
senator
hardy
here
I
I
concur
with
both
of
you.
I
think
we
need
to
do
an
investment
now,
but
likewise
it's
been
my
impression
that
four
years
from
now
three
years
from
now
two
years
from
now,
there's
going
to
be
a
new
software,
there's
going
to
be
a
new
gizmo
or
gadget
that
we're
going
to
need-
and
I
would
agree
that
we
need
to
invest
now
as
well
as
have
an
ongoing
investment
in
the
upgrading,
that's
going
to
happen
invariably
and
for
sure,
so
I
will
be
voting
yes
for
this.
Thank.
A
Thank
you.
It
is
my
hope
that
senate
bill
110
will
help
address
some
of
this
too,
and
that's
the
one
with
the
task
force
to
look
at
emerging
technology,
and
so
perhaps
once
that's
once
that
passes
and
it
is
implemented,
we
can
look
at
ways
that
we
can
make
sure
that
it's
funded.
A
There
are
no
more
questions
or
comments.
Madam
secretary,
please
do
a
roll
call.
I
have
a
motion
by
senator
picker
and
a
second
is
that
senator
lying.
A
A
C
A
Yes,
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry
and
just
before
we
get
into
the
next
one.
I
just
want
to
say
a
real
big,
thank
you
to
our
staff,
who
were
here
as
late,
and
I
think
terry
might
have
been
later
than
I
last
night
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
got
all
of
the
amendments
and
all
the
changes
done.
So
a
big
shout
out
to
you
all,
above
and
above
beyond
call
of
duty.
So
with
that,
thank
you
rejo.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll.
Just
move
up
to
the
top
of
the
list
of
bills
to
senate
bill
260.
K
K
K
K
K
Number
five
is
to
add
a
new
section
to
the
bill
to
exempt
the
following
organizations
and
information
from
the
provisions
of
this
bill,
which
are
the
fair
credit,
reporting
and
fraud
prevention
organizations
publicly
available
data
and
information
and
data
process
pursuant
to
federal
driver's
privacy
and
prevention
act.
Madam
chair
of
this,
for
all
the
amendments.
A
Thank
you,
committee
questions
or
comments.
H
B
A
Have
a
motion
from
senator
scheible
and
a
second
from
is
that
senator
sotomayor.
B
C
A
And
with
that,
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry,
and
I
will
ask
majority
leader
canazarro
to
take
the
floor
statement
on
that,
I'm
looking
at
the
time
now
and
so
that
we
have
enough
time
to
vet
402
while
miss
douglas
is
here.
Mr
malarejo,
will
you
please
bring
up
402
and
we
will
do
that
next
on
our
agenda.
K
Senator
spearman
proposes
the
following
conceptual
amendments,
which
to
add
a
new
section
of
the
bill
to
revise
to
authorize
the
state
board
of
oriental
medicine,
to
examine
whether
and
how
to
change
the
name
of
the
board
and
submit
recommendations
for
the
next
legislative
session.
Number
two
is
to
amend
subsection
one
of
section
two
to
remove
the
state
board
of
nursing
from
the
requirement
to
enter
into
reciprocal
licensing
agreements
and
number
three
is
to
amend
subsection,
two
of
section
245,
to
clarify
that,
rather
than
actually
using
the
licenses,
the
commission
issuing
the
licenses.
K
C
G
So
I
had
a
question
on
the
the
nursing
amendment
and
them
not
doing
the
reciprocal
licenses,
but
that's
not
applying
to
any
other
group.
Why
why
why
nurse
carve
out.
A
We
were
trying
to
get
some
this
industry
before
the
record,
trying
to
get
some
agreement
as
to
some
of
the
protections
and
we
were
not
able
to
arrive
at
a
good
compromise
in
time.
So
the
conversation
will
continue.
D
I'm
sure
I
would
just
point
out
that
the
board
of
nursing
already
has
portability
within
their
licensure
they're
doing
the
military
spouse
accelerated
reviews
already.
So
I
too
am
supportive.
The
bill
is
amended.
A
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
raised,
madam
secretary,
please
do
a
roll
call.
D
A
Oh,
thank
you
with
all
due
respect
to
my
my
colleague.
That's
probably
not
a
flashback,
that's
probably
my
worst
nightmare.
Oh.
K
A
Okay,
all
righty,
so
I
will
take
this
statement
on
402.
A
K
Yes,
madam
chair
for
the
records
these
are
mcgregor
committee
policy.
Analyst.
I
will
move
on
to
senate
bill
293
next
senate
bill
293
revises
provisions
relating
to
employment
was
sponsored
by
senator
canozzaro
senator
canezado
proposes
the
following
conceptual
amendments
is
to
add
a
new
section
to
the
bill:
modeled
on
nevada,
revised
statutes,
613.412
to
authorize
a
person
who
believes
that
he
or
she
has
been
discriminated
against
an
employer's
inquiry
into
his
or
her
wage
or
salary
history
to
request
a
right
to
sue
notice
from
the
labor.
K
Commissioner,
second
amendment
is
to
delete
section
two
of
the
bill,
which
indicates
the
employer's
effect.
Employers
affected
by
this
bill.
Instead
add
a
new
provision
to
section
one
of
the
bill
to
define
an
employer
for
the
purposes
of
section.
One
and
number
three
is
to
delete
sections
six
and
seven
of
the
bill,
so
that
it
is
clear
that
the
labor
commissioner,
not
the
nevada,
equal
rights
commission,
enforces
section
one,
as
provided
in
subsection
five
of
section.
K
One
number
four
is
to
amend
sections
one
and
nine
through
twelve,
to
require
the
employer
to
disclose
the
salary
range
or
wage
rate
to
an
applicant
under
certain
circumstances,
and
the
last
amendment
is
to
delete
subsection
2
of
sections
1
and
9
through
12,
which
provides
that
an
applicant
is
not
prohibited
from
voluntarily
voluntarily
disclosing
their
wage
or
salary.
An
employer
is
not
prohibited
from
using
the
voluntary
disclosed
information
to
determine
the
rate
of
pay
of
the
applicant
and,
madam
sure,
that's
all
the
amendments.
A
Thank
you,
committee
questions
or
comments.
A
C
D
H
A
Yes
and
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
pass
and
I'll
give
this
again
to
our
senate
majority
leader
and
she's
got
a
lot
of
these
coming
up,
so
she
very
well
may
delegate
to
someone
else.
A
So,
let's
make
sure
that
we
know
who's
going
to
take
the
floor
statement,
but
for
right
now,
we'll
I'll
ask
senator
canozzaro
she'll,
take
it
and
with
that
mr
megalejo.
H
B
A
Thank
you,
so
the
motion
passes
and
we'll
ask
the
majority
leader
to
take
the
for
statement
on
that.
Okay,
mr
varejo.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
cesar
montgorejo
for
the
record.
Our
next
bill
is
senate
bill
295,
which
revises
this
provisions
relating
to
industrial
insurance,
and
it
was
again
sponsored
by
senator
canozzaro,
and
it
was
heard
on
april,
2nd.
K
Mr
todd
inglesby,
a
president
of
professional
firefighters
of
nevada,
proposes
the
following
amendment.
The
amendment
is
to
amend
subsection
4
of
section
2
of
the
bill
to
limit
the
application
of
the
bill
only
to
compensation
paid
to
certain
professionals,
primarily
firefighters,
police
officers
and
arson,
investigators,
for
a
disability
related
to
lung
disease,
heart
disease
and
hepatitis,
and
those
are
all
the
amendments.
B
Madam
chair
and
then
you
asked.
A
That's
senator
lang.
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
lange.
A
C
D
H
A
Thank
you
and
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
does
carry
and
again
I
will
assign
this
to
senator
canizaro
or
her
designee.
So
mr
malarejo
we're
on
we're
up
next
on.
Was
it
307.
K
Senate
bill
307
revises
provisions
related
related
to
the
sale
of
alcoholic
beverages
is
sponsored
by
senator
donder
loop,
who
was
heard
on
april
6
2021.
to
the
members
and
to
the
chair.
There
is
a
new
amendment
that
was
submitted
just
a
couple
of
minutes
ago.
It
is
uploaded
to
nellis.
You
may
have
to
refresh
your
page
to
be
able
to
see
it,
but
it's
labeled,
as
sb
307
proposed
amendment
from
nevada
wholesalers
and
mr
alfredo
alonso
submitted
the
amendment
as
well
as
the
the
initial
amendment
attached
to
this
work
session
document.
K
K
The
next
amendment,
which
is
still
remains
the
same
as
what's
included
in
the
work
session
document,
is
to
amend
a
subsection
nine
of
section
three
to
prohibit
a
supplier
from
requiring
a
wholesaler
to
keep
a
minimum
recovery,
minimum
inventory
of
the
suppliers,
alcoholic
beverages
or
other
items
that
exceeds
the
number
of
days.
H
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair.
I
appreciate
the
discussion
and
the
deletion
so
we're
getting
rid
of
the
language
intersection
too,
that
it
was
changed
to
unjustified
distinction,
so
that
just
goes
away
so
that
way,
we're
not
trying
to
figure
out
freak
charges
in
that
respect
from
the
bill
anymore.
I
just
want
to
get
that
clear
on
the
record
that
section
two
is
now
not
being
changed.
J
Marilyn
dondero
loop
for
the
record.
We
have
deleted
in
the
actual
bill
if
you
look
at
lines
section
two
page,
four
lines:
eight
and
nine,
including
without
limitation
with
respect
to
price
or
freight
charges.
After
some
discussion
late
last
night
and
early
this
morning
that
was
amended.
H
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
senator.
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
The
the
reason
I'm
having
time
following
it
is
we're
looking
at
an
amendment
we
just
got
minutes
ago,
and
of
course
it
doesn't
have
the
same
page
numbers
and
the
same
line
numbers
as
you,
because
there
are
no
line
numbers
on
the
one
we're
looking
at.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
was
on
the
record.
The
last
thing
I
had
to
do
that
would
give
me
comfort
and
allow
me
to
vote
for
the
bill
is
changing
section.
H
Why
don't
we
just
change
section,
seven
to
state
that
individuals
have
the
right,
nevada
businesses,
small
businesses
in
the
state
of
nevada
have
the
right
to
ship
up
to
a
gallon
within
the
state,
because
as
you're
leaving
the
bill
as
it
is
now
you're
allowing
one
of
the
month
club
to
ship
into
this
state.
So
why
not
give
the
same
rights
to
nevadans.
J
J
As
I
mentioned,
we
had
some
late
night
and
very
early
morning
discussions,
and
I
know
that
you
had
some
angst
about
the
freight
and
in
pricing,
and
so
that's
why
that
was
deleted
along
with
a
couple
of
their
members.
I
had
not
heard
your
entire
bill
hearing
yesterday,
but
I
am
happy
to
take
that
back
to
the
parties
that
I'm
working
with.
H
G
J
Marilyn
dondero
luke
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
neil.
I
would
refer
that
question
to
either
mr
alonso
or
mr
reed,
who
are
both
on
the
line
with
me.
Thank
you.
M
Madam
chair
I'd
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
I
I
believe
mr
reed
is
on
the
line
as
well.
He'd
probably
be
better
versed
on
this
than
I,
but
I
can
give
it
a
shot.
M
M
G
So
these
changes-
because
this
was
the
this-
was
the
latest
amendment
that
got
worked
on
by
the
parties
is
this?
Is
this
now?
What
did
this?
Because
there
was
opposition
so
where?
Where
are
you
guys
at
in
this
process
of
agreement
with
this
latest
monday
morning?
Well,
it's
not
even
monday.
It's
friday.
J
Marilyn
gondarloop
for
the
record,
senator
neil
I'll,
just
jump
in
there.
After
hearing
that
there
was
some
angst
last
night
late,
I
got
up
this
morning
and
I
called
both
parties
and
I
asked
if
taking
they
told
me
that
taking
2.1
or
3.9
out
is
what
they
wanted.
I
said:
I'm
happy
to
delete
2.1
that
was
half
of
what
they
asked.
J
There
has
been
a
lot
of
discussion.
I
have
listened
to
both
sides,
and
so,
unless
mr
alonso
has
something
else
to
ask,
I
can
or
and
add.
I
can
only
tell
you
from
my
standpoint.
I
have
had
discussions
and
I
have
had
several
discussions
this
morning
with
the
opposing
party.
M
And
senator,
I
would
only
add
that
that
senator
dondero
had
contacted
me.
I
would,
I
would
tell
you
that
not
not
all
of
the
folks
in
my
camp
are
happy.
Clearly.
This
is
an
important
piece
of
of
of
the
bill
for
us,
but
as
she
indicated
that
you
don't
always
get
everything
you
want
and-
and
I've
advised
them
to
accept.
A
Thank
you,
senator
pickert.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I'm
in
the
same
boat.
We
we've
not
had
time
to
really
digest
this,
let
alone
hear
from
the
two
sides
and,
as
I
said
in
the
original
hearing,
I
feel
like
a
parent
trying
to
referee
two
squabbling,
kids,
but
it
interestingly
enough.
Last
night
I
spoke
to
the
third
child
that
wasn't
heard
from.
I
was
talking
to
one
of
the
local
retailers
who
expressed
and
it
I
was
surprised
at
his
knowledge
of
the
discussion.
D
People
are
paying
attention
to
this
and
they
suggested
that
if
the
the
suppliers
who
are
not
going
to
just
absorb,
he
didn't
believe
that
they're
just
going
to
absorb
freight
costs-
and
we
heard
in
the
testimony
that
part
of
the
problem
is
you
know,
logistics.
The
the
suppliers
will
ship
a
truckload,
not
multiple
truckloads,
and
so
there
will
be
increased
costs.
D
D
Now
I
don't
know
how
much
of
that
is
accurate.
I
just
don't
know
enough
about
this
industry
because
I
don't
purchase
the
stuff.
I
don't
deal
with
this
on
a
legal
basis,
but
you
know
I
was
really
persuaded
by
the
retailer
who
said
you
know.
D
D
So
you
know
I,
but
to
the
extent
that
you
know
the
the
the
the
suppliers
are,
the
big
gorillas
in
the
room
and
can
kind
of
throw
their
weight
around,
and
it's
the
local
wholesalers
and
the
retailers
that
end
up
taking
the
the
brunt
of
that,
or
at
least
that's
the
argument-
that's
been
made,
I'm
sensitive
to
that
too,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
don't
see
how
this
amendment
really
addresses
the
the
spat.
D
That's
at
the
core
of
this
in
a
way
that
has
gotten
both
sides
on
board,
I
don't
see
them
as
diametrically
opposed
in
their
positions.
So
as
a
mediator,
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
there's
a
resolution
to
be
found-
I
just
don't
know
that
changing
the
law
to
get
there
without
a
healthy
debate
is
really
the
way
to
do
it,
and
we
just
got
the
amendment
literally
minutes
ago.
D
C
Madam
chair,
yes,
I
I've
heard
arguments
both
ways.
C
I
don't
think
this
is
yet
soup,
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
vote
no
with
the
reserve
the
right
to
change
my
vote
and
I
would
even
change
my
vote
in
committee
if
it.
If
my
no
vote
prevented
this
from
going
forward,
I
think
we
need
to
have
the
discussions
in
a
way
that
clarifies
so
that
we
come
together.
So
I'm
going
to
vote
no
with
the
reserve
the
right
to
change
my
vote,
even
within
the
committee,
if
it
doesn't
move
it
forward.
G
Madam,
madam
chair,
yes
ma'am,
I
know
that
senator
don
darrell
loop
has
worked
hard
and
this
has
been
a
stress
for
her.
G
I'm
going
to
vote.
Yes
with
the
reservation
to
change
my
vote,
I
think
that
the
parties
are
in
a
very
unique
position
and-
and
I
think
that
you
know
it's-
it's
been
a
short
time
window-
to
try
to
find
consensus,
but
this
is
the
best
that
it's
gonna
happen
at
this
moment
today.
B
B
B
I
know
it's
been
a
long
road
for
everyone
involved
and
but
I
too
agree
with
senator
neal
vice
chair
neal
that
we're
at
the
best
place
we
can
be
for
today
that
we
should
get
this
out
of
committee
and
I
reserve
my
right,
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
and
I
reserve
my
right
to
change
my
mind,
but
I
think
those
conversations
need
to
happen
before
this
comes
to
the
floor
and
it
would
be
better
for
all
of
us
sitting
here
today
for
the
parties
to
come
with
a
resolution
that
everyone
could
agree
with,
because
I
think
that
you
know,
I
think
everyone
had
their
idea,
maybe
about
what
should
happen.
B
But
I
I
I
trust
and
believe
in
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
and
the
parties
that
they
will
be
able
to
come
up
with
some
kind
of
resolution.
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
would
make
a
motion
that
we
amend
and
you
pass.
K
Madam
vice
chair,
this
is
cesar
mega
hill
community
policy
analyst
looks
like
the
chair
got,
kicked
out
of
zoom
she's,
trying
to
log
back
on
now.
A
I
get
something
happened,
the
internet
went
out,
and
so,
when
I
started
talking
and
just
as
I
started
talking,
the
internet
went
out.
So
let
me
finish
my
point.
Yeah.
Let
me
let
me
finish
my
point.
My
point
was
that
we
have.
There
were
two
two
sides
that
had
very
persuasive
arguments
or
positions.
A
Okay,
here
we
go
this
one
that
one
okay,
which
camera
am
I
looking
at
camera
two
okay,
so
both
both
sides
had
had
very
compelling
points
to
consider
and
I
had
an
opportunity
to
talk
with
a
couple
of
folks
from
both
sides,
so
I
could
kind
of
chew
this
around
and
I
think
I
will
support
this
because
I
think
this
is
probably
at
least
for
right
now,
the
best
that
we
can
do
and
if
we
can
do
better,
then
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
try
that
once
he
gets
out
of
committee-
and
you
all
can
continue
to
talk,
but
I
think
I
think
the
late
night
and
early
morning,
efforts
by
senator
john
darrell
loop
have
been
laudable,
and
so
with
that
I
don't
know
if
vice
chair
had
you
already
started,
taking
doing
a
motion.
A
Okay,
so
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
lang.
Do
I
have
a
second.
G
A
Okay,
second,
from
vice
chair,
neal,
additional
discussion.
H
H
Correct
chair,
I
appreciate
the
work
that's
been
done.
I
hope
to
continue
to
work
with
the
idea
of
trying
to
actually
help
the
smaller
nevada
businesses
that
exist,
that
are,
the
distillers
the
craft
brewers
and
the
wineries
are
in
the
state
of
nevada
by
looking
at
the
gallon
limitation
and
changing
that.
But
the
other
reality
is
this.
Bill
will
only
increase
price
as
it
is
done
in
other
states,
and
at
this
time
I
don't
want
to
increase
price
on
my
consumers.
Thank
you,
I'll
be
voting
now.
B
C
Yes,
so
the
the
thing
that
I
realize
is
that,
because
of
all
of
the
differences
that
are
coming
up
and
have
come
up
and
have
been
discussed
and
have
been
vetted
and
some
not
vetted
totally,
I
think
this
isn't
yet
soup.
I
will
be
voting
no,
but
if
it
requires
my
yes
vote
to
get
it
out
of
committee,
I
will
switch
my
vote
and
no
matter
which
vote
I
do.
I
reserve
the
right
to
change
it
on
the
floor.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
G
G
I
don't
think
it's.
This
is
one
of
these
impossible
bills
to
share,
so
we
just
need
to
roll
with
this
and
let
senator
don
darrell
loop
keep.
A
Working
okay,
and
so
with
that,
madam
secretary,
let's
do
a
roll
call
vote.
A
I'll
be
a
yes
for
now,
but
I'll
reserve.
The
right,
I
think,
there's
some
more
things
to
that
they
can
accomplish,
but
I'll
be
a
yes
for
now.
A
So
with
that
the
motion
passes
and
senator
john
darrell
loop,
can
we
give
you
the
floor
statement.
A
Chair,
okay,
thank
you.
Let's
take
a
let's
take
a
10
minute
recess
and
let's
figure
out
what's
going
on
with
the
internet
over
here
in
the
office,
so
I
don't
look
like
I'm
in
the
witness
protection
program.
So
we'll
come
back
we'll
come
back
in
about
10
minutes,
okay,
so
we're
in
recess.
A
Thank
you
hi
there
and
we're
back
from
recess.
I
think
we
got
all
the
gremlins
out
and
we
are
ready
to
proceed.
The
last
bill
we
did
was
307
and
I
think
we
gave
it
to
senator
the
four
statement:
senator
don
darrell
loop.
So
let's
now
move
to
senate
bill
308
and
mr
monreal
before
we
move
there.
A
One
of
the
things
I
was
saying
when,
when
the
system
went
down,
is,
I
think
everybody
who's
who's
worked
with
me
since
I've
been
in
the
senate,
knows
that
I
don't
like
winners
and
losers.
I
always
like
people
to
come
together
and
see
where
they
can
find
a
compromise,
and
so
it's
going
to
be
really
important
to
it's
going
to
be
really
important
to
continue
working
with
senator
donderol
luke.
A
Let's
see
what
we
can
come
up
with,
and
that
was
a
purpose
for
my
reservation-
see
what
else
they
can
come
up
with
to
get
to
go.
So
with
that,
mr
mcgregor,
let's
go
on
to
senebiel
308.
K
A
308,
okay
did.
Does
mr
maguire
need
to
read
it
again.
D
Sorry,
madam
chair,
no
I've
read
the
the
work
session
document.
I
I'm
not
convinced
I
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
we
should
not
allow
the
expansion
of
services
until
they
get
their
core
mission
fixed.
This
doesn't
resolve
the
problems
that,
in
fact,
it
has
a
potential
to
make
it
a
little
more
difficult
to
resolve
some
of
the
problems,
so
I'll
be
a
no
on
this.
Thank.
A
Anyone
else
I
think
deeta's
on
the
line,
but
le
I'll
just
say
this
is
how
I
understand
it.
This
is
the
one
where,
instead
of
laying
off
three
people,
if
you
can
do
some
work,
sharing
that
that
happens
is
that
correct,
senator.
J
Dandelu,
yes
ma'am,
it
is
yes,
madam
chair,
it
is,
and
you
are
correct.
Dieter
is
on
the
line
for
questions.
A
Okay,
so
here's
here's
my
question
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
make
it
very
simple
person
a
gets
and
I
want
to
think
I
think
the
amount
that
they
said
was
270
a
week
and
more
than
that
cities
they
get
270
a
week
if
they
were
unemployed
fully
unemployed,
but
through
this
work
sharing,
if
they
only
if
they
are
only
their
hours,
are
cut
for
one
day,
then
that's
depending
on
how
many
it
is
that's
what
like
10,
so
you
wouldn't
get
the
full
270,
but
you
would
get
10
of
what
you
would
normally
get
if
you
were
fully
unemployed.
A
That
may
seem
a
little
complicated.
So
if
there's
a
quote
more
better
way
to
say
that
deity,
can
you
help
me
out.
B
Jeff
hershman
for
the
record.
That
would
be
twenty.
A
E
B
B
A
There
we
go
so
their
pay
per
week
is
300
as
an
example
and
that's
working
five
days.
I
hope
I
got
this
math
simple
enough
for
me
to
finish
this
five
days
and
I
get
three
hundred
dollars
a
week.
I
was
a
polysome
major,
not
math,
okay,
and
so,
if
they
they
don't
work
one
day
they
can't
work
one
day.
B
I
didn't
hear
the
very
end
of
that
jeff
hershman
for
the
record.
I
didn't
hear
the
very
end
of
your
question.
I'm
sorry!
Okay,.
A
Okay,
so
let's
put
that
54
to
the
side
and
now
they've
got
four
days
of
wages,
because
they're
actually
able
to
work
four
days
and
so
that
four
days
they
get
that
salary
is
that
correct.
B
A
A
So
so
that
that's
where
I'm
going,
I'm
just
trying
I'm
trying
to
see
if
this
benefits
the
four
people
who
who
have
taken
off
that
one
day
somebody
takes
off
friday.
Somebody
takes
off
monday.
Somebody
takes
off
wednesday,
whatever
how,
whatever
the
schematic
is,
they're
going
to
get
what
they
would
have
gotten
a
percentage
of
that
what
they
would
have
gotten
for
unemployment,
they're
going
to
get
that
because
their
their
wages
have
been
cut.
Their
hours
have
been
cut
whatever,
whatever
the
qualifications
are
they're
going
to
get
that
them
getting.
A
A
So
my
math
ain't
good,
so
let
me
come
up
with
a
new,
a
new
number.
So
so,
if
the
remaining
amount
minus
that
one
day
is
240
for
that
week,
they
will
get
that
plus
the
54
and
the
unemployment
benefits
the
percentage
that
they
would
be
entitled
to
for
unemployment
benefits.
Do
I
have
that
right.
A
So
240
plus
254,
that's
what
290
294.
A
Okay,
so
so
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
get.
They
won't
get
everything
that
they
would
have
gotten,
but
they
will
get
something
so
they're
not
losing
any
pay
by
participating
in
this-
and-
I
guess
that's
my
point-
they
don't-
they
don't
lose
any
of
their
their
regular
pay,
that's
separate
from
unemployment.
They
keep
their
regular
pay,
but
because
their
hours
or
their
days
whatever
has
been
reduced.
They
are
now
eligible
for
a
percentage
of
what
they
would
get
for.
Unemployment.
C
A
J
Questions
senator
spearman,
if
I
could
jump
in
there
really
quick,
I
think
the
important
part
is
is
that
we're
trying
to
prevent
people
from
being
totally
laid
off
by
this
work
sharing
program
and
the
other
important
piece
to
this
is
in
the
amendment
to
respond
to
senator
pickard's
concern
upon
passion,
passage
and
approval.
They
will
adopt
regulations
and
do
some
other
preparatory
administrative
work,
and
this
will
not
take
place
until
july
1st
of
2022,
which
is,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
a
good
solid
year
or
more
away.
A
Yeah
and,
and
that
I
guess,
that's
really
what
I
was
getting
at
if
they're
laid
off,
they
don't
get
any
of
their
regular
salary,
they
get
whatever
the
amount
is
for
unemployment.
So
again
I
say
twenty
percent
of
something
is
better
than
a
hundred
percent
of
nothing
senator
pickard.
Is
that
your
hand
still
up
or
were
you
satisfied
with.
D
Yes,
your
honor
or
yes,
madam
chair.
A
D
I
D
My
concern
is
that
the
testimony
we
saw
in
the
hearing
was
things
like
you
know.
This
is
a
new
program
within
their
system,
so
they've
got
to
adopt
the
regulations
for
it.
Then
they
have
to
reprogram
their
services,
which,
if
you
remember
from
the
testimony
on
sb
75
part
of
the
reason
they
had
to
stand
up.
A
separate
system
for
the
pua
program
was
because
they
couldn't
get
programmers
on
the
30-year-old,
cobalt
system
that
ui
is
currently
under,
and
so
it
sounds
to
me
like
we're.
D
We're
just
exacerbating
the
existing
problem
and
theater
hasn't
even
asked
that
we
don't
have
one
bill.
That's
been
introduced
to
actually
fix
the
problems
that
exist,
people
aren't
getting
paid
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
we
did
get
the
response
from
dieter
as
to
their
backlog.
They,
it
looks
like
they've
essentially
worked
through
it
and
that's
wonderful,
but
the
we
haven't
fixed.
D
We
haven't
even
addressed
the
underlying
problems,
and
so
all
this
bill
is
going
to
do
is
pile
more
on
to
a
system
that
can't
do
it
and
nobody's
asked
for
the
money
to
to
rebuild
the
system.
So
we
end
up
expanding
services
when
we
haven't
even
addressed
the
core
mission
of
dieter
and
their
ability,
the
resources
and
the
ability
to
do
it.
D
J
Marilyn
donderolu
for
the
record,
senator
pickard.
I
feel
your
passion,
but
I
have
worked
very
closely
with
dieter
and
I
do
believe.
Dieter
has
worked
very
hard
and
I
do
believe
that,
as
with
furloughs
by
the
way
we
give
people
a
day
off
and
we
don't
pay
them.
J
D
D
No
question
about
that,
but
I'd
be
really
interested
to
hear
from
dieter
how
they're
going
to
reprogram
a
system
for
this
when
they
couldn't
reprogram
the
system
for
a
basic
for
the
pua
program.
It
sounds
like
we
haven't
addressed
the
underlying
issues.
That
will
be
an
impediment
to
doing
this
within
this
year's
time
frame.
I
just
I
don't
see
how
it's
even
possible,
and
I
think
it's
inappropriate
to
be
expanding
their
mission
when
we
can't
even
adequately
get
our
way
through
their
existing
mission.
A
Yeah
hold
on:
let's
see
if
I
think
the
question
was
asked
for
details.
So
let's
see
if
they
will
answer
first
and
then
senator
hardy
I'll,
come
back
to
you.
N
Thank
you,
chair
spearman.
This
is
elisa
cappareta
with
dieter.
I
I
would
respond
with
a
couple
of
updates.
One
is
a
dis.
N
This
is
vastly
different.
We
have
a
year
to
develop
the
business
requirements
and
and
put
the
changes
in
place.
I
believe
our
team
is
fully
capable
of
doing
that
in
a
year.
So,
just
as
we
have
been
able
to
in
very
short
time
frames
implement
the
additional
programs
that
congress
has
given
us,
including
lost
wages
and
and
the
pandemic
extended
unemployment
compensation.
So
that
is
one
aspect.
N
The
other
aspect
is
senator
pickard
keeps
asking
about.
You
know:
where
is
the
money
to
solve
the
problems?
Now
I
would
you
are?
You
are
not
a
money
committee,
but
I
would
share
with
you
that
there
is
1.5
million
dollars
in
each
of
the
next
two
years
of
the
biennium
to
do
some
of
the
immediate
stabilization
and
capacity
building
within
the
system.
D
Well,
I
appreciate
that
I
remember
the
testimony
in
sb
75
being
you
needed,
40
million,
so
I
think
that'll
probably
fall
short,
but
if
your
testimony
is
that
you
can
fix
the
problem,
get
the
pieces
to
talk
to
each
other,
then
I
don't
understand
why
the
testimony
in
sb
75
even
occurred.
In
any
event,
I
still
think
it's
a
mistake
to
anyway.
I
don't
need
to
repeat
it.
Thank
you.
Ma'am
chair.
N
Madam
here,
if
I,
if
I
might
just
clarify
the
40
million
dollars,
is
the
middle
of
the
range
for
a
completely
new
modernized
system,
which
is
certainly
something
that
is
on
our
radar.
That
would
be
a
separate
conversation
where
that
we
are
having
with
the
governor's
office
just
what
the
appropriate
vehicle
is.
N
This
this
proposal
would
not
require
an
integration
between
the
pua
and
the
ui
systems.
This
would
only
be
in
the
regular
ui
system,
because
you're
talking
about
employers,
so
the
the
stabilization
funding-
that's
there
immediately
to
address
our
ui
system
specifically,
would
be
what
would
be
needed
to
implement,
stabilize
improve
the
capacity
and
speed
of
the
regular
ui
system.
D
All
right-
and
I
thought
your
testimony
or
mr
fishburn's
testimony
during
the
sb-75
hearing-
was
that
the
ui
system
was
based
in
cobalt,
it's
hard
to
find
programmers
that
can
even
work
in
that
environment
anymore
and
that
it
takes
months
to
get
them
under
contract,
let
alone
get
the
work
done.
So
unless
that
testimony
wasn't
accurate,
then
I
still
don't
see
how
we
can
resolve
this
in
a
timely
fashion.
N
Efficient
all
right,
elisa
caferetta
for
the
record,
our
that
testimony
is
accurate.
There
is
a
core
part
of
the
program
that
does
rely
oval,
but
we
are
in
the
process
of
bringing
in
contractors
who
can
make
those
updates
and
with
a
year
to
implement
the
program.
We
certainly
would
have
enough
time
to
do
the
stabilization
and
make
the
changes
that
are
needed.
A
Okay,
senator
sotomayor
and
I
think
there's
a
this.
This
is
not
a
money
company,
so
if
there
is
to
be
any
money
involved,
then
I'm
pretty
sure
that
senator
brooks
will
pull
it
off
whatever
reading
it's
on
and
pull
it
into
finance,
so
I
think
we
can
figure
that
out.
So,
let's,
let's
ask:
let's
get
down
to
the
policy
issues
here.
H
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure.
I
appreciate
that.
I'm
sorry
that
earlier
I
wasn't
logged
on
right
away.
I
also
I'm
having
some
internet
problems.
I
sincerely
suggest
and
request
that
if
anybody
gets
kicked
off
the
internet
anymore,
we
actually
think
about
going
old
school
and
all
of
us
that
are
in
the
building
actually
going
to
the
committee
room
and
thus
alleviating
this
internet
debuggle.
But
that's
just
my
opinion.
H
That
being
said
on
the
actual
bill
that
is
in
front
of
us
308,
I'm
curious.
Does
this
apply
to
just
all
union
shops
all
those
that
decide
to
participate
in
the
workshare
program,
because
that
wasn't
made
real
clear
within
my
notes,
I
wrote
down
it
really
didn't,
come
out
really
well
during
the
training,
or
is
this
applied
to
all
employers
or
there's
an
exemption
if
you're,
smaller,
no
offense
agriculture?
H
Employers
are
not
as
sophisticated
to
be
able
to
deal
with
this,
because
to
me
this
seems
like
something
that
probably
you
need
to
have
a
pretty
good
amount
of
employees
to
make
this
apply
to,
but
I
mean
you're
not
actually
suggesting,
though
that
dieter
has
the
authority
over
agricultural
workers
on
a
family
farm.
I
mean
I
to
my
knowledge.
Federal
law
is
pretty
clear
that
I
am
outside
of
the
scope
of
peter.
Are
you
saying
that
I'm
now
inside
the
scope
of
detroit.
B
Jeffrey
for
the
record,
as
we
previously
said,
quarterback.
B
H
Okay,
what
happens
if
somebody
opts
in
that
isn't
part
of
the
deed
or
system?
You
know
smaller
family
businesses
and
things
that
nature.
How
does
that
work?
I
mean
we
actually
during
this
pandemic,
ended
up
giving
dieter
resources
to
individuals
that
have
never
paid
into
dieter,
and
that
was
a
decision
that
was
made
to
help
individuals
out,
and
it
was
made
also
by
the
federal
government
to
make
them
eligible
for
the
person.
You
know
the
six
hundred
dollars
and
the
three
hundred
dollar
increase.
H
B
H
Greatly
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
the
clarification
getting
that
on
the
record,
I'm
so
concerned,
because
I
don't
think
that
smaller
employers
you're
asking
them
to
come
away
from
a
mom-and-pop
operation,
potentially
to
think
about
doing
this
type
of
work
and
if
they
have
three
employees
and
those
three
employees
are
constantly
saying
they
want
this
program.
I
don't
know
I
I
think
it
can
be
very
problematic
for
the
smaller
employers
I
wish
we
could
have.
I
don't
know
it's
difficult
to
try
to
figure
out,
but
I
appreciate
the
answers
and
the
time.
Thank
you,
chair.
J
Madam
chair
marilyn
donderolu
for
the
record.
I
just
want
to
confirm
with
senator
spearman
I
mean
senator
settlemeyer.
Excuse
me
this
is,
I
will
repeat
an
opt-in
program,
so
if
I
want
to
do
this
and
I'm
at
a
store
and
you're
in
a
store
right
next
to
me-
and
I
decided
to
do
it-
you
don't
have
to
do
that,
and
I
would
also
tell
you
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
and
companies
that
pay
into
unemployment
that
have
never
used
it.
So
it
kind
of
goes
both
ways.
J
H
I
appreciate
the
concept
of
that
senator
very
much,
and
the
larger
agricultural
operations
do
have
to
pay
into
deter,
and
so,
as
indicated
they
would
be
considered
a
covered
employee
would
be
allowed
to
opt
into
that
could
create
a
situation,
though,
where
you
then
started
having
which
maybe
that's
a
good
thing
for
employees
to
sit
there
and
say.
H
J
B
G
Thank
you,
chair
spearmint.
I
I
I
respect
this
dialogue
that's
happening,
but
I
would
like
to
call
the
question,
so
we
can
vote
on
this
measure
to
try
to
move
it
out
of
committee.
Please.
A
A
Okay,
there
we
go.
Thank
you
thanks
for
keeping
those.
So,
madam
secretary,
please
do
a
roll
call
vote.
C
D
B
H
A
A
Thank
you.
I
think
we
still
have
what
is
it
three
more
bills,
mr
medvedev.
A
Okay,
three
more
bills.
So
let's
go
to
282.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
montgomery
hill
committee
policy,
analyst
senate
bill
282
revises
provisions
relating
to
real
estate
and
sponsored
by
senator
dennis
rocky
finceth.
Carrera
nevada
proposes
a
following
amendment,
which
is
attached
to
this
work
session
document,
amend
sections,
1,
5,
9,
11
and
19
to
delete
the
respective
chapters
of
nrs
regarding
the
newly
proposed
administrative
administration
accounts.
K
C
K
Money
collected
from
the
technology
technology
fee
be
separately,
accounted
for
and
used
for
acquiring
and
maintaining
technology
used
by
by
the
division.
Remember
number
three
adds
a
new
section
to
the
bill
to
amend
nrs
645.842
to
reduce
from
300
000
to
100
000,
the
minimum
balance
maintained
in
the
real
estate,
education,
research
and
recovery
fund.
In
addition,
the
amendment
removes
the
provisions
that
any
funds
over
the
minimum
remaining
in
the
fund
be
set
aside
and
use
for
real
estate,
education
and
research
or
for
any
purpose
authorized
by
the
legislature.
K
Madam
chair
sponsors
of
the
bill
and
the
director
administrator
of
real
estate
division
are
available
on
zoom
to
clarify
whether
there
are
any
additional
amendments
than
those
proposed
here
in
the
in
the
work
session
document.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
megane
hope,
and
I
just
I
don't.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
something
it's
a
little
bit
after
11
and
I
know
everybody.
That's
in
this
committee
is
probably
on
another
committee
and
I'm
trying
to
be
respectful
of
the
fact
that
the
other
committees
may
want
to
meet
not
late
but
maybe
want
to
meet
early,
so
we're
not
here
again
until
midnight
tonight.
A
So
that's
why
I'm
I'm
asking
if
we've
covered
the
subject
then
and
there's
anything
new
that
we
need
to
find
out,
then
let's
do
that,
but
let's
be
respectful
that
they're
going
to
be
some
other
committees
that
have
to
meet
this
afternoon,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they
have
ample
time
to
do
that.
So
are
there
any
questions,
additional
questions
that
have
not
been
asked
or
answered.
C
In
keeping
that
in
mind,
I
would
just
recognize
that
I
can
be
positive
and
reserve
the
right
to
change
my
vote
and
move
this
along.
A
D
Of
chair,
if
I
might
just
I
again
think
it's
a
mistake
to
charge
for
something
that
the
division
can
already
pay
for
themselves.
So.
K
Madam
chair,
this
is
cesar
mercurio
community
policy
analyst
for
the
record.
Before
the
work
session,
there
was
a
couple
of
conversations
back
and
forth
whether
there
would
be
additional
amendments.
Could
we
it
would
be
possible
to
get
the
sponsors
to
clarify
that
these
are
all
the
amendments.
B
Madam
chair,
this
senator
dennis
we,
and
we
also
have
mr
finseth
on.
F
The
line,
I
believe,
the
only
other
amendment
that
needs
to
be
done
and
we
are
still
trying
to
work
this.
B
B
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you,
sir.
So
with
that
you
have
a
motion.
It's
been
seconded,
madam
secretary.
Please
do
a
roll
call
vote.
N
D
A
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Let's
move
on
now
to
sb
186,
I
think
that's
what's
next
correct
and
then
408,
yes,
okay,
yeah,
we
I
put
408
last.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
everything
that
needs
to
be
worked
out
has
been
worked
out
to
the
best
of
your
ability
and
whatever's
not
been
worked
out.
Then
it's
really
just
a
matter
of
trying
to
do
some
amendments
to
either
make
it
work
or
not.
So
mr
madrejo.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
murray
hill
committee
policy,
analyst
senate
bill
186
revises
provisions
relating
to
collection
agencies
and
sponsored
by
this
committee
and
was
heard
yesterday.
Senator
spearman
proposes
the
following
conceptual
amendments,
which
is
to
delete
sub-section
4
of
section
1,
which
would
have
required
a
collection
agency
to
include
in
the
report
to
the
commissioner.
K
A
Thank
you,
and
just
one
correction,
if
I
remember
correctly,
the
fourth
word
in
on
that
line
was
without
and
that
came
before
any
of
the
demographics.
So
we
changed
the
wording
so
that
people
would
understand
that
without
means,
you
don't
include
it
and
we
just
went
to
zip
code,
so
it
the
bill,
never
asked
them
to
collect
demographics.
It
said
if
available,
but
without
and
so
last
I
checked
without
means
you
ain't
got
nothing
so,
and
the
amendments
are
there
to
clarify
the
clarify
the
language,
additional
questions.
A
H
A
H
Thank
you,
man.
I'm
sure
this
is
senator
sotomayor,
I'm
still
very
concerned
with
the
bill.
It
changes
how
hoas
work
and
I'm
a
little
bit
worried
about
how
that
will
play
out
in
that
respect,
I'm
going
to
vote
no,
but
I'll
reserve
my
right
and
see
if
I
can
try
to
find
a
place
for
it.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
was
actually
thinking
the
same
along
the
same
lines.
I
think
it's
kind
of
sad
that
it's
where
it
started.
I
like
where
it's
ended
up,
but
this
would
cause
a
wholesale
change
to
how
community
management
companies
do
their
jobs,
and
I
think,
while
it's
well
intended,
I
think
we
need
to
avoid
doing
damage
to
that
industry.
Thank
you.
B
C
A
Thank
you
and
with
that,
let's
I'm
secretary,
let's
do
a
roll
call
vote.
We
may
even
be
able
to
get
lunch.
Senator
hardy.
D
H
A
A
Mr
kent,
were
you
all
able
to
get
to
a
place
of
go
with
those
who
were
at
questions
and
able
to
do
something
with
section
one,
and
I
think
we
concluded
that
that
would
be
okay.
The
changes
that
had
been
made
would
indeed
protect
small
businesses.
Is
that
correct.
A
K
Madam
chair,
just
this
is
our
microwave
for
record,
so
just
to
notify
the
the
members
of
the
committee.
The
work
session
document
for
sb
408
is
included
up
on
nellis
or
it's
uploaded
up
on
nellis
again,
you
might
have
to
refresh
your
page,
but
we
have
included
the
work
session
document
which
reflects
the
original
amendment
submitted
by
mr
kent,
and
mr
cam
was
also
able
to
submit
a
second
document.
That's
also
attached
to
this
work
session
document,
which
addresses
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
brought
up
during
this
morning's
hearing.
A
H
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair.
I
appreciate
the
amendments
that
were
done
to
section
one.
That's
why
I
had
the
most
a
lot
of
my
concern
and
angst
with
some
of
those
issues.
In
that
respect,
I
think
the
document
does
a
good
job
of
reflecting
those
changes
and,
if
you're
reminible
I'd
say
men
do
pass
based
on
the
most
recent
document,
whenever
you're
willing
to
entertain
set
of
motion.
A
Okay,
I
need
to
make
sure
that
the
question
is
because
this
is.
This
is
a
bill
that
we
had
not
discussed
two
or
three
times.
Someone
was
getting
ready
to
say
something
when
senator
settlemeyer
was
talking.
A
Okay,
so
let's
hold
that
in
advance
any
other
questions
clarifications.
A
K
Madam
chair,
just
as
senator
meyer
indicated,
the
amendment
does
delete
the
sections
1
and
12
in
their
entirety
and
the
amendment.
The
initial
proposed
amendment
also
deletes
proposed
language
in
subsection
1k
of
section
3,
and
the
the
secondary
document
submitted
by
mr
kant
does
delete
proposed
language
in
line
12
of
section
11.
And
finally,
it
deletes
subsection
1g
of
section
9,
which
I
believe
senator
neil
had
concerns.
C
D
O
B
A
Thank
you,
okay,
so
I
believe
we
have
completed
our
work.
Is
that
correct?
Mr
maguirejo?
We
have
all
the
bills
that
that
we
could
hear
and
could
pass
out.
The
408
was
the
last
one
on
work
session,
correct.
C
A
Well,
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
your
hard
work
and
for
your
patience.
A
The
one
thing
that
I
can't
I
can't
lay
claim
to,
and
that
is
that
I'm
perfect,
but
I
hope
that
I've
done
the
job
so
well
that
you
know
that
my
heart
meant
to
be
perfect
again.
Thank
our
staff
for
going
above
and
beyond.
A
That
includes
the
staff,
that's
here
in
the
office
as
well
as
our
broadcast
staff.
When
I
said
7
30
this
morning
when
I
said
that
yesterday,
I
thought
to
myself-
oh
my
god.
Bps
would
have
to
get
here
at
four
o'clock
in
the
morning.
So
I
thank
you
all
for
going
the
extra
mile
as
well
and
thank
you
all
committee
members
for
assuming
working
through
this
as
best
we
can,
and
so
with
that
broadcast
open
up
the
phones
for
public
comment.
Please.
B
A
Thank
you
so
much.
We've
done
two
straight
weeks
of
every
day,
so
on
monday
the
meeting
will
be
canceled
and
we
will
pick
it
up
again
on
our
regular
meeting
day
wednesday
and
I
hope
and
pray
that
everyone
has
a
very
safe
and
happy
weekend
have.
I
left
anything.
Undone.
A
A
H
That
respect,
as
you
said
earlier,
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
bizarre
in
this
virtual
environment.
I
mean
this
is,
after
all,
the
very
first
time
we
have
ever
had
community
house
first
passage
in
a
completely
virtual
realm,
and
traditionally,
in
the
past,
you
as
chair
and
other
chairs,
have
always
kind
of
given
a
clap
to
our
staff
for
well,
in
my
opinion,
putting
up
with
us
because
it's
not
always
easy.
So
in
that
respect,
I
don't
know
if
anybody
can
on
you,
but
thank
you
to
the
staff
and
everybody
for
helping
us
out.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you
so
much
and
I
hope
that
they
they
know
how
much
we
appreciate
them.
The
good
part
about
doing
this
in
a
virtual
environment
is
that
there
were
a
couple
of
days.
I
had
like
four
different
places
to
be,
and
it
would
have
been
almost
impossible
to
skate
up
and
down
the
halls
to
get
from
one
committee
room
to
another.
So
this
is.
This
has
been
good.
A
All
I
had
to
do
was
just
you
know,
press
a
couple
buttons
out
of
one
meeting
and
log
into
the
other
to
the
next,
and
I
could
get
there
on
time
so
there
there
are
some
good
aspects
of
this,
and
I
thank
god
for
that.
So
with
that
any
additional
comments,
all
righty,
then
I
will
see
you
all
on
wednesday
april.
Somebody
give
me
the
date
april.
K
A
April
14th
april
14th
see
you
on
april,
the
14th
take
monday
to
make
sure
that
you
got
everything
you
need
get
your
taxes
in
and
with
that
we
are
now
adjourned.
Thank
you.