►
From YouTube: 4/6/2021 - 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
B
A
Here
secretary
and
please
mark
those
who
are
right
now,
president,
once
they
arrived.
A
A
Today
we
have
hearings
on
senate
bill
senate
bills,
307
and
308,
and
we
have
a
work
session
on
senate
bills,
184
217,
229,
280,
314
and
320
a
few
housekeeping
items.
The
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
so
that
we
can
reduce
the
number
the
amount
of
spread
and
infection
rate
of
covet
19..
This
is
for
your
safety
and
for
hours,
so
all
of
our
meetings
are
being
held,
virtually
meaning
committee
members
staff
and
everyone
else
will
participate
either
through
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone,
but
you
can
still
participate.
A
You
may
register
to
participate
through
nellis,
where
you
have
the
opportunity
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
During
the
during
the
meeting
you
can
submit
written
written
testimony
to
the
committee,
email
address
or
fax
number
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
can
share
your
opinion
via
the
legislation.
Legislature's
opinion
application
on
nellis,
or
you
may
view
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
to
register
on
nellis.
A
Comment
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
time
constraints,
and
I
will
announce
the
time
frame.
That
is
how
many
minutes
each
segment
has
before
we
begin
that's
for,
for
against
and
neutral
at
least
it
will
be
helpful.
It
will
be
helpful
if
one
person
in
your
organization
wishes
to
comment
to
remember.
Ditto
is
a
good
response.
When
someone
has
already
covered
your
points,
this
allows
us
to
have
more
people
to
comment
during
that
time
frame
and
when
you're
on
the
phone
line,
please
pay
attention.
A
Please
pay
attention
to
the
bill
that
is
being
considered
and
follow.
The
verbal
prompts
to
provide
provided
by
bps
staff
so
that
you
know
which
keys
to
press
to
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself.
Staff
will
call
on
you
to
speak
by
the
last
three
digits
of
your
phone
number.
There
are
detailed
instructions
for
participating
in
committee.
Meetings
are
also
available
on
the
help
page,
which
is
linked
to
the
banner
at
the
top
of
nellis.
A
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
if
you
would
like
to
receive
an
electronic
notification,
a
committee's
agenda
and
minutes,
please
contact
our
committee
staff
at
the
email
listed
on
the
agenda.
Any
exhibits
for
the
committee
must
be
submitted
in
electronic
format
no
later
than
8
am
the
day
before
the
meeting.
A
I
will
not
entertain
any
amendments
if
the
bill's
sponsor
is
not
aware
of
the
amendment,
the
proposed
amendment
must
be
submitted
in
writing.
24
hours
prior
to
the
meeting,
please
include
bill
number
statement
of
intent
and
your
contact
information
and
when
you're
testifying,
please
remember
to
unmute
your
microphone
speak
clearly
and
project
your
voice,
so
that
those
listening
to
us
over
the
internet
can
hear
you
a
reminder
to
all
those
who
testify
pursuant
to
nevada,
revised
statutes
218e.085.
A
It
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
misrepresent
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee.
Anyone
who
does
so
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor,
the
chair
or
any
member
of
this
committee
may
request
documentation
to
support
your
testimony
to
committee
members.
During
these
virtual
meetings.
When
an
agenda
item
calls
for
a
vote,
our
committee
will
be
using
roll
call
to
do
so.
So
when
the
secretary
calls
your
name,
please
answer
with
yes
or
no,
so
that
there
is
no
confusion.
A
A
Additionally,
we
are
approaching
the
first
house
committee
passage
deadline
april
9th,
and
I
urge
all
of
those
who
are
presenting
or
who
have
presented
a
bill
and
who
are
waiting
for
an
amendment
to
please.
Please
please
make
sure
that
you
contact
our
committee
staff
to
let
them
know
where
you
are
in
the
process
after
april.
The
9th.
If
you
have
not,
if
we've
not
voted
your
bill
out
of
committee,
then
it
will
die.
A
So
today,
let's
begin
with,
let's
begin
with
our
work
session,
and
let
me
let
me
ask
this
question
before
we
do
that.
Are
there
any
senators
who
need
to
leave
early
the
senators
who
need
to
lead
early.
A
I
don't
see
anyone,
no.
I
was
going
to
do
that.
Excuse
me,
do
the
work
session
first,
if
we
needed
to
leave
early,
but
since
everybody's
going
to
be
here
for
a
while,
let's
begin
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
307,
we
have
senator
dunder
loop,
alfredo
alonso
leif,
reed
leif,
reed,
lewis
and
roca
and
jeremy
warren
and
revision
beer.
So
let
us
be
you're
ready.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you
so
much
senator
spearman.
I
know
that
alfredo
alonso
was
waiting
to
be
admitted
to
the
room,
so
I
just
make
that
announcement,
so
broadcasting
will
admit
him.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you,
chair
spearman
for
the
record.
I
am
marilyn
dondero
loop,
representing
senate
district
8
in
clark
county,
and
I
am
pleased
to
present
senate
bill
307
for
your
consideration,
which
builds
upon
our
previous
efforts
concerning
the
cell
and
distribution
of
alcoholic
beverages.
E
Almost
every
session
the
legislature
has
contemplated
and
enacted
legislation
involving
the
three-tier
system,
craft,
breweries
and
distilleries,
and
in
the
past
decade,
nevada's
brewery
and
distillery
businesses
have
grown
each
year.
According
to
the
american
distilling
institute
craft
distilling
grew
into
an
almost
a
1.8
billion
business
in
billion
dollar
business
in
2019,
directly
employing
thousands
and
indirectly
supporting
thousands
more
in
related
businesses
at
retail.
These
sales
were
reportedly
worth
3.2
billion
and
under
nevada's
three-tier
system
it
is
our
local
distributors
and
our
middle
tier
that
gets
these
craft
breweries
and
distillers.
E
E
I
introduced
this
bill
for
three
simple
reasons:
I
won
to
ensure
the
continued
independence
of
the
distributed
tier,
making
certain
that
small
brewers
and
distillers
have
access
to
market
without
distributor
independence.
Small
brewers
and
distillers
could
be
shut
down
shutout
due
to
the
constant
influence
of
large
suppliers
with
enormous
market
share,
two,
the
orderly
and
constant,
consistent
regulation
and
enforcement
of
liquor,
laws
that
protect
the
consumer
and
businesses
that
are
licensed
in
nevada
and
three.
Finally,
to
continue
to
encourage
our
vibrant
craft
beer
industry
to
continue
to
grow
and
thrive.
E
Alcoholic
beverages
are
generally
governed
by
the
21st
amendment
of
the
constitution.
However,
individual
states
control
the
sale
of
alcohol
within
the
state
distribution
of
alcohol
within
the
state
importation
of
alcohol
into
the
state
and
statutes
regarding
who
can
possess
alcohol
in
the
state.
In
turn,
state
laws
often
assign
different
roles
and
responsibilities
to
local
jurisdictions.
E
Regarding
above
issues,
according
to
senate
bill
307,
it
contains
several
provisions
addressing
each
of
the
above
issues,
making
various
changes
to
the
regulation
of
brew
probes,
craft
distilleries
supplies,
suppliers
and
wholesalers
share
spam.
At
this
time,
I
would
like
to
turn
the
presentation
over
to
alfredo
alonso
principal
and
his
partner
leaf
reed,
both
of
louis
roca,
who
will
further
discuss
the
need
for
senate
bill
307.
A
Thank
you
and
before
we
begin
for
all
those
who
will
be
asking
questions
no
need
to
go
through
me.
Please
go
direct
to
the
senator
the
committee
member
who
has
asked
the
question.
Okay,
mr
alonso
proceed
when
you're
ready.
F
Madam
chair,
alfredo
alonso
with
law
firm
of
louis
roca
today
on
behalf
of
southern
glazer
wine
and
spirits
and
the
nevada,
beer
hall
sailors,
association
and
and
we're
very
thankful
for
for
senator
john
darrell
loop's
assistance
on
this
very
important
issue.
We
had
no
real
intent
on
on
being
before
you
on
another
liquor
bill.
I
know
that
this
seems
to
be
something
that
that
this
committee
deals
with
quite
a
bit
and
historically,
it
is.
F
It
is
usually
somewhat
contentious,
but
that
is
what
you
deal
with
in
a
very
regulated
industry.
F
You're,
going
to
hear
why
you
know
why
are
we
back
and-
and
I
would
tell
you
that
in
an
industry
where
it
took
an
act
of
congress
to
ban
a
product
and
then
enact
a
congress
to
bring
it
back
and
it's
been
regulated
very
heavily
across
the
country
ever
since
every
state
has
different
issues
and-
and
I
think
nevada's
done
an
excellent
job
of
of
of
basically
dealing
with
an
issue
with
very
little
dollars
on
the
enforcement
and
and
regulatory
side.
F
I
think
our
tax
department
does
an
incredible
job,
considering
how
lean
they
are,
but
these
are
oftentimes
issues
that
that
are
national.
They
ultimately
affect
us
eventually,
in
some
fashion
and
and
we're
talking
about
again,
a
middle
tier
in
which
this
isn't
your
traditional
franchise.
You
know,
in
many
cases
a
franchise
might
assist
with
a
with
your
buildings
with
your
infrastructure.
F
These
are
nevadans
that
have
been
here
for
generations
and
every
you
know
every
inch
of
their
property,
every
truck
they
drive
and
every
employee
they
pay
is
their
own
and,
and
so
again
the
importance
of
the
independence
of
this
tier
is
is
is
paramount
to
our
system
working
properly
and,
more
importantly,
for
new
brands
to
get
to
market,
as
the
senator
indicated
we're
here
today
because
of
some
some
behavior.
F
That
has
happened
over
the
past
few
years,
in
particular
just
before
session,
that
I
think
we
felt
we
had
very
little
choice
but
to
ask
for
help
and
and
and
the
the
help
from
the
senator
and
the
help
from
this
committee,
and
what
what
you
have
before
you,
I
think,
is
a
a
a
good
bill.
It
is
regulating
some
issues
that
have
been
very
difficult
that
have
hurt
our
wholesalers
significantly
and
again.
It's
happening
during
a
pandemic,
which
is
even
more
important.
F
I'd
like
to
introduce
my
partner
leif
reed,
who
would
like
to
go
through
the
bill,
and
I
also
point
out
we're
still
willing
to
have
conversations
with
those
that
that
have
issues
with
the
bill.
I
think
that
we've
pared
down
as
you'll,
see
with
with
mr
reed's
testimony
in
an
attempt
to
basically
do
as
little
as
we
can,
whereas
we
need
to
but
still
assist
our
clients
in
being
able
to
operate
properly
as
an
independent,
wholesaler
you'll
also.
F
Meet
jeremy
warren,
who
is
a
local
brewer?
He
he
came
out
and
asked
us
to
help
with
his
ability
to
grow
and
in
the
bill
itself,
I
think
leaf
will
will
go
into
a
little
detail
on
there.
It
wasn't
quite
right,
and
so
I
think,
he'll
go
into
a
change
there
as
well.
That
hopefully
addresses
mr
warren's
concerns.
G
G
G
In
2009
there
was
a
large
merger
between
miller
and
coors,
creating
a
company
known
as
miller,
coors
or
now
known
as
mosun
cores,
and
the
legislature
enacted
a
bill
at
that
time
in
2009
to
create
a
number
of
the
protections
that
are
being
amended
here
in
sections
in
nrs,
597,
157
and
also
in
597
162..
G
It
was
also
in
response
to
a
a
mega
merger
of
a
large
brewery,
the
the
anheuser-busch
abi
merging
with
miller
coors,
and
at
that
time
the
legislature
also
passed
additional
protections
additions
to
nrs
597
162
that
encapsulated
or
codified
the
consent
decree
provisions
that
the
u.s
department
of
justice
was
imposing
on
anheuser-busch
to
make
sure
that,
even
after
the
result
of
this
mega
merger
that
that
wholesaler
independence
would
continue
that
the
craft
and
small
brewers
wouldn't
be
harmed
and
that
wholesalers
would
be
able
to
continue
to
distribute
those
brands
and
allow
them
to
grow
nationally.
G
G
A
number
of
other
states
have
followed,
and,
as
mr
alonzo
mentioned,
as
a
result
of
that
legislative
action,
that's
taken
place
here
in
nevada
four
years
ago
and
more
recently
in
other
states
like
south
carolina
and
michigan
anheuser-busch
has
taken
action
that
negatively
impacts
wholesalers
in
most
states
and
therefore
these
amendments
to
existing
law
that
I
will
describe
to
you
now
are
proposed
to
ensure
that
the
purposes
of
nrs,
597,
162
and
other
provisions
are
strengthened
to
ensure
that
wholesaler
independence
continues
to
ensure
that
the
small
breweries
and
craft
breweries
are
allowed
to
flourish.
G
Despite
the
concentration
of
monopoly
power
that
exists
with
the
large
breweries.
So
in
section
one
I'll
describe
each
of
the
seven
sections
briefly
that
are
in
sp
307,
section
1.
Existing
law
prohibits
a
supplier
from
unreasonably
withholding
or
delaying
approval
of
any
sale
or
change
of
control
of
a
wholesaler
and
section.
One
of
this
bill
adds
a
30-day
time
requirement
to
existing
law,
to
which
requires
supplier
approval
of
a
proposed
sale
transaction
if
the
supplier
to
be
substituted
meets
reasonable
standards.
G
Section
two
existing
law
prohibits
a
supplier
that
has
more
than
one
wholesale
distributor
of
its
brands
within
the
state
of
nevada,
from
discriminating
between
such
wholesalers
with
respect
to
terms
or
provisions
of
their
franchises
section.
Two
of
this
bill
provides
that
pricing
and
freight
charges
are
explicitly
among
the
terms
of
a
franchise
that
a
supplier
may
not
discriminate
between
such
wholesalers.
G
It
also
prohibits
suppliers
from
requiring
wholesalers
to
make
payments
under
terms
that
are
materially
different
from
the
payment
terms
that
the
supplier
imposes
for
its
own
payments
and
the
last
part
of
section
three
all
prohibits
suppliers
from
attempting
to
circumvent
nevada
law
by
requiring
wholesaler
to
waive
the
rights
and
remedies
that
are
available
to
them
as
part
of
the
under
nevada
law,
as
part
of
the
terms
and
conditions
of
their
franchise
or
distribution
agreements
with
suppliers
section
four
authorizes,
and
this.
This
is
something
that
that
we
intend
to
clarify
section.
G
Four
of
the
bill:
authorizes
brew,
pubs
operating
in
the
state
of
nevada
to
produce
and
sell
an
additional
20
000
barrels
above
what
is
currently
authorized
under
nevada
law
for
export
outside
of
the
state
of
nevada
and
then
sections
five
through
seven
contain
us.
What
are
essentially
technical
amendments.
G
Section
five
requires
local
jurisdictions
to
ensure
that
applicants
for
licensees
aren't
operating
within
multiple
tiers
of
the
the
three-tier
liquor
distribution
system
in
nevada,
section
six
of
the
bill
changes
the
term
vendor
of
liquors
to
supplier,
for
consistency
in
the
statute
and
also
to
help
ensure
the
licensee
or
applicants
for
licenses.
G
Similarly,
with
section
5
aren't
participating
within
multiple
tiers
of
the
liquor
distribution
system
within
the
state
and
then
finally,
section
7
revises
an
existing
exemption
that
exists.
G
Under
nevada
law
for
consumers
who
import
a
gallon
or
less
of
alcoholic
beverages
per
month
for
household
or
personal
use,
to
be
the
to
be
the
person
that
actually
imports
the
product
into
the
state.
Those
are
the
provisions
that
are
covered
by
this
bill
and,
as
mr
alonso
said,
we
we
thank
senator
don
darrow
loop
and
we
thank
the
committee
for
its
time
and
consideration
of
this
provision.
E
Thank
you
senator
spearman,
and
I
would
just
tell
you
that
both
the
proponents
and
opposition
have
had
I've
encouraged
conversations
between
both
sides
and
I
have
had
multiple
conversations
with
both
sides.
So
with
that,
I
encourage
you
to
and
urge
your
support
of
senate
bill
307.
F
Thank
you,
senator
just
a
couple
of
things
to
just
to
go
to
go
over
well,
while
we
can
yes,
senator
senator
donderelu
asked
us
to
to
sit
down
and
have
a
conversation.
We
did
that
it
was
quite
spirited,
as
you
can
imagine,
and
I
think
we
we've
been
working
very
hard
on
on
trying
to
clarify
some
of
the
the
issues
within
the
bill.
F
Mr
reed
and
and
one
of
our
other
liquor
attorneys
has
been
in
fact
worked
into
the
night
last
night
in
an
attempt
to
to
at
least
clarify
some
of
these
provisions,
and
I
just
want
to
go
through
very
quickly
in
section
one
that
does
not
require
an
approval,
it's
very
important
and
that
just
to
give
you
context,
that
was
the
bonanza
sale
that
was
basically
putting
a
a
wholesaler
in
their
family
who
had
to
sell
their
their
business
in
a
position
where
they
could
not
get
an
approval.
F
Even
though
the
statute
clearly
said
unreasonably,
you
couldn't
unreasonably
withhold,
they
couldn't
get
approval,
so
it
they.
Just
the
brewery
sat
on
it
and
sat
on
it
ultimately
costing
them
a
significant
amount
of
the
value
of
their
business,
which
again
there
is
no
nowhere
else
in
in
in
commerce
where
that
could
happen,
and
yet
it
happened
here
simply
because
you
had
a
a
large
brewer,
knowing
they
could
push
around
a
a
small
distributor.
F
So
if
you
read
that
there
was
some
confusion
over
what
that
meant
and
again
it,
it
may
say,
approve,
but
then
you
look
down
at
the
within
30
days
after
receiving
notice
of
the
transaction,
if
the
person
to
be
substituted
under
the
terms
of
the
franchise
meets
the
reasonable
standards.
So
we're
not
saying
you
have
to
all
we're
saying
is
at
some
point
within
that
30-day
period
you
have
to
make
a
decision
and
that's
a
very,
very
important
thing
here.
I
think
it's
it's
again
something
that
we
would
discuss
with
them
further.
F
If,
if
the
time
period
isn't
perfect,
we
can
we
can
have
that
conversation,
but
it
does
not
require
approval.
Mr
reed
has
also
worked
on.
F
On
section
two,
all
this
means
that
you
can't
discriminate
on
freight,
and
price
doesn't
mean
you
have
to
give
everyone
the
same
price,
and
I
think
we've
got
some
clarifying
language
that
that
mr
reed
has
been
working
on
that
that
that
again,
hopefully
we
can
supply
that
to
all
of
you
here
shortly.
I
I
probably
have
something
in
my
hands
by
now.
If
in
handing
it
to
you,
if
I
could,
but
unfortunately
again
we
worked
late
into
the
night
trying
to
fix
this
and
then
and
then
in.
F
In
the
the
end
of
this
section,
there
was
some
confusion
over
what
ultimately,
we
were
trying
to
do
with
with
nine
and
thirteen
and
again
nine
is
very
simple.
If
you're
requiring
inventory,
you
give
the
wholesaler
credit
for
those
days
of
inventory,
we're
not
saying
that
that
you
are
required
to
give
credit
of
any
kind.
Just
if
you
require
a
a
number
of
days
of
inventory,
if
it's
20
days
of
inventory
that
you're
requiring
that
wholesaler
to
have
it's
only
fair
that
you
provide
them
with
that
with
20
days
of
credit.
F
Just
as
an
aside
within
the
chapter,
you
already
have
a
provision
that
requires
wholesalers
to
give
their
customers
credit.
They
give
them
credit
up
to
45
days
before
they
go
to
cod.
So
here
we
are
in
a
pandemic
and
we
are
giving
our
our
customers
as
much
credit
as
possible
even
beyond
the
the
the
the
statute,
because
we
want
them
to
survive,
we'd
like
them
to
stick
around
all
of
them.
F
F
If
you,
if
you
extend
credit
terms
of
any
kind
to
us
or
requirements
with
respect
to
our,
are
paying
for
the
product-
and
you
owe
a
wholesaler
money,
whether
it's
it's
for
pro
or
not
product,
but
you
know
some
kind
of
overage
on
marketing
or
it's
it's
something
that
the
brewery
or
our
distillery
is
purchasing
for
a
a
bar
or
a
another
retail
licensee
again.
F
If
they
owe
the
wholesaler
they
ought
to
be,
they
ought
to
be
paying
them
back
in
the
same
manner
in
which
they
would
like
to
get
paid
themselves
very
simple
and
then,
and
then
just
just
to
quickly
go
into
the
the
the
the
issue
with
the
brewpubs
pubs.
F
F
It's
really
important
for
them
to
get
a
little
bit
bigger
without
you
know,
basically
affecting
those
caps,
and
so
all
this
does
is
say
you
you
can
do
an
additional
20,
000
barrels
outside
of
the
state
again
allows
them
to
grow
without
really
affecting
the
marketplace,
so
we
were
happy
to
to
assist
there
and
and
then
just
lastly,
just
so
that
that
there's
some
clarity
here
as
well
years
ago,
this
this
legislature
put
in
place
a
statute
that
allowed
someone
to
go
to
a
distillery
out
of
state
and
purchase.
F
If
you
purchase
something
you
could
bring
it
back
in
as
much
as
a
gallon
a
month,
there's
been
confusion
over
what
import
means,
and
so
we're
making
sure
that
that
is
very
clear.
That
we're
changing
import
to
entering
the
state,
so
that's
very
clear
for
for
for
us
and
for
tax
and
for
any
other
regulator
in
the
state,
and
that's
that's
I
think
when,
when
when
we
get
you
the
amendment,
hopefully
today
as
soon
as
possible,
I
think
you'll
see
that
most
of
this
is
clarified
so
that
again,
there's
there's
nothing.
F
We're
not
trying
to
do
anything
out
of
the
ordinary
here
and
asking
for
simple
fairness.
E
Thank
you
much
chair
experimenting
committee
and
with
that
we'll
stand
for
questions.
A
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
alonso,
for
the
explanation.
So
so
I'm
going
to
ask
you
this,
based
on
the
fact
that
you
have
an
amendment
coming
so
in
the
amendment
so
in
like
in
section
2
13.
H
When
I
know
you
just
gave
that
explanation,
does
the
amendment
what
kind
of
leeway
does
it
give,
because
when
I
was
looking
at
the
terms
when
it
was
saying
materially
different
terms
when
making
payments
it
didn't
seem
to
allow
like
a
price
justification
or
when
someone
acts
in
good
faith?
So
what
so?
What
is
your
amendment?
Doing
to
that.
F
Subsection,
what
what
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
it
just
perfectly
clear
that
you
you,
you
simply
can't
sit
on
money
that
is
owed
I'll.
Give
you
a
great
example.
A
brewer
or
a
or
a
supplier
comes
in
and
says
I've
got
these
coolers
I'd
like
you
to
distribute
these
to
these
customers.
F
F
We
we
we
understand
the
law
we'll
do
that,
and
three
months
goes
by
five
months
goes
by
and
and
we
we
believe
that
we're
essentially
breaking
the
law
at
that
point
because
we
haven't
been
reimbursed,
and
so
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
it
perfectly
clear
and
again,
I
think
mr
reed
can
go
into
that-
that
you
just
simply
have
to
use
the
same
terms
that
you
would
expect
from
us
in
terms
of
payments.
F
So
if
it's
cod,
then
you
got
to
pay
us
right
away
if
you're,
allowing
for
a
you
know
on
these
things
again,
what's
important
to
note
that
they
they
remove
anything,
that's
owed
right
out
of
our
bank
accounts.
So
a
wholesaler,
you
know,
doesn't
really
have
a
whole
lot
of
say
in
this
if
they're
owed,
if
they
owe
money
for
whether
it's
a
marketing
dollar
or
a
or
product
that
comes
right
out
of
their
account.
F
So
it's
almost
immediate,
but
if
that's
a
seven
day
period,
we're
simply
asking
for
the
same
with
a
w
with
respect
to
buybacks
and
perhaps
leaf
can
answer
that
further.
If,
if
you'd
like.
H
So
I
just
have
a
quick
follow-up,
because
I
get
I
get.
I
get
the
illustrations
and
I
understand
like
how
you
laid
it
out,
but
I
think
the
thing
that
gave
me
pause
was
some
of
the
terms
that
you're
mandating
through
statute.
H
Those
terms
are
typically
negotiated
between
the
parties,
and
I
guess
what
I
was
wondering
is:
why
are
we
making
sure
like
in
section
one
step?
Five,
you
know
it
said,
can
alter
terms
and
so
basically
you're
you're
you're,
establishing
set
terms
in
law.
That
would
be
terms
that
two
parties
would
then
negotiate
and
discuss
and
try
to
give
the
timelines
based
on
what
they
feel
is
fair.
What
they
feel
is
reasonable,
and
I
guess
that's
what
I
was
really
trying
to
grapple
with
and
understand
like.
G
G
G
It's
an
industry
that
has
been
involved
in
two
amendments
to
the
u.s
constitution
and
and
the
most
recent
of
those
amendments
and
the
acts
of
congress
that
followed
in
the
1930s
were
heavily
focused
on
the
concentration
of
market
monopoly
power
by
breweries,
and
so
when,
when
so,
there
have
been
statutory
protections
to
help
address
the
inequality
in
market
power
and
position
that
exists.
G
As
between
these
you
know,
mega
breweries
and
their
their
local
distrib
distributors,
because
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
flows
from
the
constitution
and
in
the
into
the
nevada
law
is
that
it
is
in
the
state's
interest
to
ensure
that
there's
a
separation
of
tiers
within
the
alcohol
distribution
system,
so
that
the
suppliers
don't
control
all
tiers,
and
so,
when
the
legislature
enacted
nrs
597
162
four
years
ago,
it
was
in
response
to
yet
another
mega.
G
Merger
of
breweries
and
nrs
597
162
has
protections
prohibitions
on
what
grew.
What
a
supplier
can't
do
with
respect
to
its
dealings
of
its
wholes
with
its
wholesalers?
Among
those
things,
was
a
new
provision.
This
is
what
we
codified
a
provision
that
the
justice
department
imposed
on
anheuser-busch,
and
that
was
that
a
that
anheuser-busch
couldn't
request
from
wholesalers,
and
it
has.
It
has
continued
to
do
so.
G
Even
four
years
after
we
in
nevada,
passed
this
provision
in
nrs
597
162,
they
have
continued
to
ask
for
financial
information
about
the
sales
of
of
other
competing
products
when
a
wholesaler
in
nevada
that
has
sells
budweiser
and
other
anheuser-busch
products.
G
They
sell
other
brands
too,
but
anheuser-busch
doesn't
like
that,
and
so
one
of
the
ways
that
they
try
to
exert
control
is
to
ask
for
the
financial
information
about
the
sales
of
those
other
brands,
something
they
can't
do
and
we're
before
you
now
asking
for
more
protections,
because
anheuser-busch
decided
that,
since
wholesalers
in
nevada
aren't
going
to
provide
information
about
their
sales
of
other
brands,
information
that
anheuser-busch
isn't
permitted
under
nevada
law
or
under
the
justice
department
consent
decree
to
request
that
they
are
going
to
to
cut
wholesalers
credit,
and
so,
when
a
wholesaler,
which
is
required
to
keep
15
or
20
days
of
product
on
hand.
G
G
Mr
alonso
also
mentioned
that
by
statute,
where
wholesalers
are
required
to
provide
credit
in
45
days,
credit
to
retailers
and
so
wholesalers
in
in
the
tough
economic
climate
that
exists
during
the
pandemic
are
being
required
to
pay
cod
for
the
product
they
receive
and
pay
excise
tax
when
they
receive
it.
And
then
they
don't
receive
payment
from
the
wholesaler.
Pardon
me
from
the
retailers
when
they
sell
it
until
45
days
later.
G
So
it's
created
a
a
difficult
situation
and
I
would
just
lastly
point
out
it's
a
situation
that
wouldn't
exist
for
wholesalers
in
nevada
if
they
only
sold
anheuser-busch
products,
because
if
they
weren't,
if
they
were
weren't
selling
the
small
breweries
products
or
or.
G
G
They
wouldn't
be
on
cod
terms,
and
so
that's
why
we
are
that's
why
we
are
where
we
are
and
why
we're
asking
for
the
protections,
the
increased
protections
that
we're
asking
for
because
of
the
coercive
effect
that
the
large
breweries
have
where
they
give
disincentives
through
things
like
revoking
credit
from
their
wholesalers
as
a
disincentive
to
allowing
small,
smaller
brands
to
have
a
market
in
the
state
of
nevada.
G
H
C
Thank
you
ma'am
chair,
and
thank
you
both
alfredo
and
and
leaf
for
your
your
presentations
at
first.
Actually,
I
want
to
go
to
senator
dondero
loop
and
and
thank
you
as
well
for
bringing
the
bill.
C
I
I
I
was
intrigued
by
the
the
statement
that
these
are
local
people
and
I
recognize
most
of
the
wholesalers
are
locals,
but
I
it
seems
to
me
in
my
discussion
with
mr
alonso
and
then
with
mr
hillerby,
that
we're
also
talking
about
some
billion-dollar,
if
not
multinational,
national
wholesalers
that
are
doing
business
here.
Can
you
give
me
a
sense,
a
feel,
for
you
know
how
much
market
the
the
local
wholesalers
currently
have.
F
Thank
you,
senator
pickard.
I
think
you'll
find
wholesalers
that
are
as
small
as
a
mom
and
pop
literally
carrying
one
brand.
You
know
importing
one
brand
and
and
trying
to
make
a
go
of
it
to
more
organized
shops
as
small,
as
you
know,
valley
distributing
in
fallon
that
has
a
handful
of
employees
to
the
the
the
blocks
in
in
the
rurals,
maury
and
and
new
west
up
north
and
and
then
obviously
your
larger
distributor
ships,
southern
glazers
in
45
states.
F
So
it
runs
the
gamut.
It
certainly
does
there's
no
doubt
about
that,
and
and
and
so
you
will
have
a
myriad
of
of
of
sizes
and
types
and
brands
and
and
some
of
those
brands-
frankly,
don't
don't
practice
practice
these
types
of
behaviors
and
and
and
to
senator
neal's
point
yeah.
We're
we're
we're
we're
we're
reluctantly
before
you,
because
these
folks
feel
like
they
don't
have
a
choice
again
in
comparison
in
comparison.
F
We're
talking
these
massive
companies,
international
companies
against
the
small
nevada
wholesaler
in
many
cases-
and
so
you
know,
negotiating
on
a
contract
is
not
necessarily
easy,
and
I
would
tell
you
that
many
times
these
folks
don't
have
a
choice.
Having.
C
Been
a
contractor
for
many
years
on
the
construction
side,
I
I
have
some
insight
into
how
difficult
contracts
can
be
to
negotiate
even
when
you're
small,
I
guess
the
reason
I
ask
is
because
it
feels
like
particularly
with
southern
glazers,
which
is
you
know,
as
you
mentioned,
45
states,
they're
they're,
not
unsophisticated
they're,
not
the
mom
and
pops
that
you've
described
to
me
in
the
past
that
are
jumping
in
the
truck.
C
If
they're
one
of
their
drivers
doesn't
show
up
for
work
for
whatever
reason,
but
I
feel
like
I'm,
you
know
I
I
well
I'm
a
parent,
I'm
I
have
seven
kids
in
a
blended
family
and
four
of
them
were
six
months
apart
and
when
they
were
young.
C
I
was
often
intervening
in
a
spat
that
really
you
know
they
could
have
and
should
have
in
my
view,
worked
out
for
themselves
and
I
feel
like
I'm
in
that
spot
now,
we've
got
you
know
these.
These
sophisticated
market
participants
who
are
asking
the
legislature
to
step
in
and
settle
their
spat,
and
I
just
and
and
my
penchant
towards
deregulation
generally
makes
me
want
to
just
scream
and
say
you
know
guys.
C
You
know
your
businessman
go
figure
this
out,
but
I
will
hand
you
that
we
have
interjected
ourselves
already
so
as
a
state,
we're
kind
of
stuck.
We
need
to
to
address
this,
but
I
guess
part
of
my
concern
is
that
we're
starting
to
enter
into
contract
terms,
as
vice
chair
neil
suggested,
that
really
should
be
worked
out
amongst,
in
my
view,
worked
out
amongst
you.
So
I
I
guess
where
I'm
going
with
this
is
explain
why
we
need
to
get
into
the
weeds.
C
Like
the
the
credit
you
suggested,
that
anheuser-busch,
I
think
you
said,
or
maybe
you
didn't
name
them,
but
that
just
plugged
into
my
head,
they
cut
credit
for
wholesalers,
who
didn't
give
them
financial
data
as
to
why
they're
or
or
what
their
their
sales
were
outside
and
that
ultimately
they're
forcing
product.
C
Yet
we've
capped
product
in
statute.
Can
you
explain
number
one
why
we
cap
these
things
in
statute
number?
Two?
Why
it's
important
for
the
legislature
to
get
involved
and
and
and
require
specific
credit
terms.
F
I
think
mr
pickard
again
alfredo
alonso
for
the
record.
I
I
think
what
we're
doing
here
is
not
requiring
credit
terms
per
se.
You
know,
I
think
we
could
have
very
easily
said.
Well,
let's
just
mimic
the
the
chapter
and
say
you
know
hey.
If
we
have
to
give
45
days
of
credit
to
our
customers,
we
should
have
the
same
luxury
and-
and
we
didn't
feel
that
was
appropriate.
F
So
we
simply
just
took
one
one
portion
of
that,
and
that
is
when
a
supplier
requires
a
certain
amount
of
inventory
and
in
some
cases,
suppliers
push
inventory
out
to
wholesalers
that
they've
not
ordered
they.
They
don't
want,
they
don't
need,
and
so
you
can
imagine
a
wholesaler
at
say,
earnings
time
and
I'm
not
I'm
not
saying
that
happens
every
time,
but
that
it
has
happened.
It
has
happened
often
where
inventories
pushed
out
now,
we've
cut
credit,
so
think
of
it.
F
In
those
terms
I
mean,
how
would
you
possibly
have
a
conversation
about
this
with
respect
to
any
terms
and
conditions
when
those
terms
and
conditions
change
unilaterally
on
a
regular
basis,
which
is
why
we're
before
you?
Because
there
is
no
say
so
you
you,
you
look
at
a
mr
moreto
in
valley
distributing
invalid.
F
F
We
certainly
don't
but
there's
some
basic
fairness
issues
here
that
we
have
absolutely
no
say
over
and
there's
nothing.
That's
ever
going
to
change
that
when
you
control
the
marketplace
amongst
simply
two
or
three
large
brewers
and.
C
And
I
I
get
that,
but
I
I
guess
I'll
disagree
to
some
extent
that
when
we're
talking
about,
I
mean
inserting
language
talking
about
materially
different
terms.
C
We
are
talking
about
the
terms
of
the
contract,
but
I
understand
your
response
and
I
guess
you
raise
a
question
that
I
want
to
ask
of
of
the
the
suppliers
assuming
they
and
I
would
be
surprised
if
they
didn't
chime
in
you
know
I
I'm
going
to
want
to
know
from
them
why
we
should
be
allowing
them
to
control
the
inventory
of
the
wholesalers
anyway,
I
I
would
think
in
the
normal
course
of
business,
the
business
gets
to
decide
what
they
take
on
what
risks
they
take
on
that
sort
of
thing.
C
C
Why
are
we
not
insisting
first,
that
we
look
at
things
like
arbitration
or
at
least
mediation
to
settle
these
disputes
before
we
start
taking
a
lot
of
legislative
time?
Why
is
it
that
the
appropriate
approach
to
this
problem
is
to
lock
something
in
for
two
years
and
then
go
at
it
again
in
the
next
session?
I
just
see
this
as
frankly,
a
waste
of
legislative
time
when
these
are
really
market
induced
questions
and
concerns
that
might
change
from
one
year
to
the
next.
C
E
Mr
alonso,
may
I
may
I
jump
in
there
before
you,
mr
reed
senator
pickard
marilyn
dondero
loop
for
the
record.
I
would
submit
that
what
comes
before
us
in
this
body
is
many
times
subjective
to
what
you
believe,
and
it
is
our
belief
that
this
was
an
important
bill
and
while
you
may
not
agree
with
that
or
agree
with
the
bill,
that
doesn't
mean
that
it's
not
important
legislation.
C
Why
take
our
time
to
do
this?
When
and-
and
we
asked
this
question
in
courts
as
well,
why
are
we
taking
the
court's
time
when
this
might
have
been
resolved
through
third
party
mediation.
E
I'll
I'll,
let
mr
reid
answer
that
I'm
not
an
attorney,
but
thank
you
very
much.
G
So,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
picker,
I
I
would
point
out
that
this
is
more
than
a
contract
dispute
between
parties.
G
The
provision
that
we
through
this
bill
are
asking
the
legislature
to
amend
codified
provisions
in
a
consent
decree
that
the
department
of
justice
anti-trust
division
after
completing
an
an
extensive
investigation
into
the
harms
to
the
market
that
that
would
occur
from
the
the
merger
of
anheuser-busch,
with
miller
coors,
that
there
were
provisions
that
needed
to
be
followed
in
order
to
prevent
market
harm
and
to
prevent
a
monopoly
situation
where
only
limited
products
could
could
be
sold
in
the
market,
and
so
in
order
to
ensure
that
there
aren't
barriers
to
small
breweries
and
other
products.
G
These
provisions
were
imposed
by
the
justice
department
and
the
legislature
here
in
nevada
four
years
ago,
considered
it
prudent
to
to
make
sure
that
those
provisions
continue
to
be
followed
by
the
supplier.
So
I
would
just
point
out
that
process
so
that
hopefully
gives
you
some
comfort
about
the
need
for
the
regulation
and
also
some
comfort
that
this
is.
This
is
different
from
parties
trying
to
negotiate
contract
terms
having
the
legislature
do
them.
G
For
it,
but
instead
we're
we
are
following
guidance
that
that
came
out
of
a
a
very
full
and
extensive
investigation
by
the
anti-trust
division
of
the
department
of
justice,
and
that's
why
those
provisions
were
enacted
four
years
ago
and
why
the
provisions
in
section
three
of
this
bill
are
proposed
now
to
ensure
that
those
ends
continue
to
be
protected.
C
All
right,
thank
you
for
that
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
I
hadn't
made
that
connection.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
So
thank
you
for
that
response,
madam
chair
I'll.
Take
the
rest
of
my
questions.
Offline
they've
been
very
good
to
respond
to
me
in
the
past
both
sides.
I
would
like
to
ask
that
question
of
the
opposition
if
we
get
them
on
the
on
the
line.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
B
Hey
man,
I'm
sure
I
appreciate
the
bill
and
respect
that
there
are
some
dispersionally
different
negotiation
abilities
between
the
parties,
and
so
I
appreciate
that
I
was
trying
to
level
the
playing
field
a
little
bit,
but
some
of
the
questions
I
had
within
the
bill
specifically
section
seven.
I
think
that
would
end
the
concept
I
mean.
Don't
we
already
have
entities
that
are
shipping
into
the
state?
You
know
whether
they
be
like
the
wine
of
the
month
club,
whiskey,
samplers.
You
know
things
that
nature
with
these
effectively
putting
into
those
type
of
programs.
F
Mr
settlemeier,
alfredo
alonzo
for
the
record
again
that
those
those
programs
under
the
under
the
current
statute
wouldn't
be
allowed.
You
can
you
can
go
to
a
distillery
and
and
purchase.
You
can
take
it
with
you,
you
can
eat.
You
know
again
the
the
the
language
that
we're
changing
is
simply
updating
the
word
import,
which
import
never
meant
direct
shipping
it.
It
simply
meant
that
you
could
bring
in
what
I
I
I
remember
when
it
was
put
in
the
statute.
F
It
was
basically
a
couple
of
small
distilleries
in
south
tahoe
that
that
wanted
the
ability
to
be
able
to
sell
to
nevadans
and
be
able
to
carry
it
across
the
line,
and
so
what
that?
What
this
does
is
basically
clarify
something
the
department
of
tax
needed,
because
it's
it's
more
clear
now,
because
there
were
some
that
felt
they
could
start
direct
shipping
into
the
state.
B
F
Mr
mr
settlemyre
currently
there's
a
statute
that
specifically
calls
out
the
wine
of
the
month
club
you
can
you
can
get
a
direct
shipment
of
of
wine
a
case
a
month
delivered
to
your
home.
So
that's
already
in
the
statute.
F
We're
just
simply
making
clear
that
the
intent
of
that
provision
was
never
to
import
in
large
numbers.
It
was
simply
to
allow
personal
use,
and
so
again
in
consultation
with
the
tax
department.
It
was.
It
was
thought
again
that
you,
by
by
including
the
words
entering
the
state
with,
is
more
reflective
of
the
original
bill.
Original
law.
B
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
one
last
follow-up
is
like
good.
Madam
chair
section:
two
am
I
reading
this
correctly
you're
gonna
create
it
so
that
freight
prices
have
to
be
uniform,
no
matter
where
the
location
is
so.
If
you're
shipping,
potentially
from
reno
to
vegas
versus
reno,
to
douglas
county,
that
the
freight
charges
are
going
to
be.
G
Equal,
so
this
is
this
is
leaf
reed.
If
I
could
respond
to
the
senator's
question,
that's
not
not
it's
not
the
intent.
The
purpose
is
to
make
sure
that
they
are
that,
if,
if
there
are
distinctions
that
they
be
reasoned
and
justified
and
not
arbitrary
or
imposed
without
a
basis
or
justification,.
B
And
that
may
need
a
little
more
clarity,
because
when
I'm
reading
it
saying
including
without
limitation,
expect,
pricing
and
freight
charges
would
mean
that
if
you
shipped,
you
know
a
bottle
of
wine
or
a
bottle
of
whiskey
or
wine
or
whatever
again
from
reno
to
somewhere
in
reno.
You
know
local
delivery
versus
potentially
all
the
way
to
vegas
that
pricing
and
freight
needs
to
be
equal,
and
that
just
seems
well.
We
know
what
that'll
do.
That'll
drive
up
liquor
prices,
so
people's
beer
wine,
whatever
will
go
up
and
that
that
perplexes
me.
G
B
G
Mentioned
that
we
were
working
on
amendment
and
and
the
amendment
does
focus
on
that
provision
that
you're
asking
about,
and
so
we
do
intend
to
clarify
that
make
sure
that
that
unintended
consequence
isn't
the
result.
A
Thank
you.
I
okay,
I
don't
see
any
additional
hands,
so
let's
go
now
to
the
phones
and
we
will
take
comments
and
support.
A
A
Let's
go
to
opposition.
B
B
I
Good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
michael
hillerby
h-I-l-l-e-r-b-y,
with
kem
for
cole
representing
hannhauser
bush
on
behalf
of
our
client,
we
must
oppose
sb
307.
Current
law
already
gives
nevada
wholesalers.
The
strongest
franchise
protections
in
the
country
at
issue
in
the
proposed
legislation
are
numerous
changes.
Further
limiting
suppliers
rights,
expanding
the
state's
involvement
in
the
terms
of
business,
relationships
between
suppliers
and
wholesalers,
and
further
tilting
the
balance
in
the
wholesaler's
favor.
I
Through
the
time
limits
on
testifying
I'd
like
to
highlight
one
major
component
of
the
bill
that
would
cause
additional
stress
on
the
state's
alcohol
supply
chain.
Section
3,
subsection
9
in
the
proposed
legislation,
adds
to
current
law
that
a
supplier
shall
not
require
a
wholesaler
to
accept
delivery
of
any
alcoholic
beverage
or
any
other
item.
I
If
accepting
delivery
would
result
in
the
inventory
of
the
wholesaler
exceeding
the
amount
of
credit
extended
to
the
wholesaler
by
the
supplier,
this
language
is
an
impermissible
attempt
to
mandate
a
supplier
extend
credit
to
a
wholesaler
under
state
law
or
else
risk
the
wholesaler
refusing
to
accept
the
supplier's
products
in
practice.
This
means
that
supplier
must
extend
a
line
of
credit
to
the
wholesaler,
regardless
of
whether
the
wholesaler
has
demonstrated
they
have
the
ability
to
pay
back.
The
credit
extended.
I
In
fact,
current
nevada
state
law,
nrs,
597,
162,
subsection
5
states
that
a
supplier
shall
not
require
a
wholesaler
to
report
to
the
supplier,
any
of
the
wholesalers,
financial
information
associated
with
purchase,
sale
or
distribution
of
any
alcoholic
beverage
of
any
other
supplier.
Since
suppliers
are
currently
prohibited
from
requiring
complete
financial
information,
a
nevada,
wholesaler
and
because
wholesalers
don't
provide
the
complete
information,
we
cannot
fully
evaluate
their
ability
to
pay
back
the
line
of
credit,
and
thus
we
do
not
extend
credit
to
wholesalers
in
nevada.
I
If
a
wholesaler
in
nevada
or
any
other
state
pursuit
of
line
of
credit
from
a
traditional
financial
institution
like
a
bank
or
credit
union,
they
would
absolutely
provide
their
full
financial
information
in
order
to
obtain
the
credit.
This
is
to
make
sure
they
have
the
ability
to
pay
that
credit
back.
The
wholesaler
doesn't
submit
complaint
information.
The
bank
is
almost
certainly
not
going
to
provide
that
credit
further
is
drafted.
I
The
language
could
mean
that
if
a
supplier
does
not
extend
any
credit
to
a
wholesaler,
then
the
wholesaler
would
not
have
to
buy
any
beer
from
the
supplier.
Essentially,
zero
dollars
worth
of
credit
means
zero
dollars
worth
of
inventory.
The
wholesaler
has
them
inventory:
how
are
they
going
to
service
retail
accounts?
Working
nevadans
count
on
as
places
to
purchase
these
products?
The
short
answer
is,
they
won't
be
able
to.
Suppliers
will
have
no
route
to
market,
since
they
provide
exclusive
territories
to
wholesalers.
I
Retail
accounts
will
see
massive
out
of
stocks,
and
consumers
will
not
be
able
to
find
the
products
they
wish
to
purchase.
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
questions
particularly
some
hearing,
some
of
the
earlier
testimony
today
and
questions
from
members.
Should
you
allow
that
madam
chair
thanks
very
much.
A
Thank
you,
mr
hillary.
Senator
peter.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
do
really
appreciate
the
opportunity.
Mr
hillary,
I
wonder
if
you
could
speak
to
well.
First,
let
me
ask
a
question
about
what
you
just
said.
With
respect
to
offering
credit,
I
I
you
know,
I've
saw
it
in
the
past
lines
of
credit
when
I
was
working
a
large
product,
our
project
and
and
needed
to
pay
payroll
and
needed
that
line
of
credit.
To
make
sure
I
could,
but
I
never
had
the
bank,
ask
me
about
my
contracts
with
others.
C
C
So
I'd
I'd
like
you
to
explain
how
that
makes
sense,
but
then
also
tell
me
why
the
the
supplier
should
be
controlling
the
wholesalers
inventory.
You
know
it
and
it
sounds
like
the
supplier
does
add.
You
know
they
ship
product
that
wasn't
ordered
and
it
creates
a
risk
to
the
supplier
they
they're
either
taking
inventory.
They
may
not
be
able
to
sell
or
at
least
sell
quickly
or
they
may
overstock
their
their
their
warehouse.
C
I
Thank
you,
senator
pickard,
michael
hillerby,
for
the
record
first,
four
years
before
the
the
passage
of
the
2017
law
limiting
information
financial
information.
Our
wholesalers
gave
a
b
financials
for
many
years
and
they
always
represented
other
brands.
A
b
has
asked
for
full
financials,
not
brand
specific
information.
Again,
we
think
that's
a
perfectly
reasonable
request.
It's
the
same
kind
of
thing
a
wholesaler
might
ask
of
a
retailer
before
they
gave
them
product
for
which
the
wholesaler
you
know
had
already
paid.
So
again,
we
don't
think
there
was
anything
on
tour
there.
I
A
b
disagrees
with
mr
reed's
interpretation
of
the
consent
degree
or
that
that
really
needs
to
be
dealt
with
in
state
law.
There
is
a
process
with
the
department
of
justice
or
the
dc
court.
That's
overseeing
the
consent
decree
on
the
issue
of
financials
to
your
question
about
inventory,
nrs
597
162
sub
8.
In
this
case
it
is
page
5
of
the
bill,
starting
at
line.
I
10,
there's
already
limitations
on
what
suppliers
can
do
in
terms
of
inventory
with
the
wholesalers
there
are
limits
there
and
there
are
provisions
that
things
can
be
negotiated
in
the
contract.
My
understanding
is
a
b
has
different
inventory
systems
that
wholesalers
can
opt
in
or
out
of,
and
it's
really
important
to
remember:
the
wholesalers
completely
control
the
destiny,
the
suppliers
product
in
a
state
like
nevada
that
has
such
a
tight
three-tiered
system.
I
We
view
those
wholesalers
as
incredibly
important
partners
they're
the
only
way
we
can
sell
product
in
this
state,
the
only
way
to
get
it
to
a
resort
casino.
The
only
way
to
get
it
to
a
restaurant,
the
only
way
to
get
it
to
a
local
liquor
or
grocery
store,
so
our
customers
can
buy
it.
The
only
way
to
get
it
to
a
bar
them
being
healthy
them
being
adequately
stocked
with
inventory
is
critical
ab,
like
other
suppliers,
tries
to
be
very
sophisticated
to
understand.
I
Market
events,
particularly
in
a
place
like
nevada
with
major
special
events
and
we've,
certainly
seen
a
lot
of
disruption
with
that,
and
we
worked
closely
with
our
retail
and
wholesale
partners
during
the
pandemic
to
try
to
make
sure
that
they
could
move
inventory
and
find
new
ways
to
do
that,
so
that
relationship's,
incredibly
important,
anheuser-busch
or
any
supplier
doesn't
go
out
of
their
way
to
penalize
a
wholesaler
they're
trying
to
look
ahead.
Look
at
events
make
sure
that
enough
inventory
is
out.
I
There
make
sure
that
they're
having
an
opportunity
to
get
new
products
out
that
the
public
may
be
asking
for
and
again
that
is,
there
are
contractual
provisions
that
the
wholesalers
and
suppliers
can
negotiate
with
anheuser-busch
again,
my
understanding
is,
there
are
different
inventory
systems
that
they
can
opt
in
or
out
of
so
again,
we
think
that's
already
covered
state
law
already
provides
important
limitations
further.
Limiting
those
just
damages
that
relationship
and
makes
it
even
more
one-sided
for
the
wholesalers.
In
this
case.
C
All
right,
I
appreciate
that,
and
what
do
you
say
about
the
suggestion
that
much
of
this
is
the
result
of
antitrust
consent,
decree
and
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
we're
complying
with
the
existing
expectations
set
at
either
the
federal
level
or
the
contractual
level?
It
sounds
to
me,
like
the
the
the
these
major
conglomerates.
Now
these
multi-billion
dollar
multinationals
have
significant
negotiating
power
and
may
not
be
following
the
spirit,
if
not
the
letter
of
the
consent
decree.
I
Thank
you,
senator
pickard,
michael
hillerby,
again
for
the
record.
A
b
believes
that
anheuser-busch
believes
it
is
in
fact
complying
with
the
consent
decree
and
there
is
a
mechanism
should
any
party
wholesale
or
otherwise
feel
they
are
aggrieved
by
that
we
don't
believe
the
provisions
as
brought
forward
by
the
wholesalers
four
years
ago
and
again
now
accurately
reflect
the
provisions
of
the
consent
decree
or
that
this
is
the
place
to
do
that
again.
I
If
the
consent
decree
is
the
operative
question
here,
there
are
mechanisms
in
place
for
the
wholesalers
to
pursue
that
you
are
right
and
house
for
bush
and
other
suppliers
are
very
large,
as
are
some
of
the
wholesalers.
I
Mr
mr
reed
and
mr
alonso's
client,
according
to
forbes
magazine,
had
20
billion
dollars
in
sales
in
2019,
not
a
small
or
unsophisticated
company,
one
of
the
other
large
wholesalers
breakthroughs
sold
five
and
a
half
billion
dollars
in
2019
according
to
forbes.
Again,
these
are
not
unsophisticated
wholesalers
that
are
negotiating
with
the
suppliers
and
and
to
the
the
the
other
provision
of
the
bill.
I
Expanding
caps
and
we've
had
a
number
of
these
bills
and
and
some
pretty
heated
fights
over
the
years
when
the
wholesalers
have
opposed
the
ability
of
brewers
and
distillers
to
manufacture
product
here.
That
just
shows
there
is
a
vibrant
market.
There
is
competition.
There
are
lots
of
options
for
consumers
out
there.
C
A
Thank
you
additional
questions
from
community
members.
A
Okay,
let's
go
back
to
opposition
and
I
believe
we
have
about
12
minutes
left
three
minutes
per
individual.
B
Sure
I
believe
we
were
currently
in
support
is
that
correct?
Oh
no,.
B
B
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
katie
jakoy
k-a-t-I-e-j-a-c-o-y,
I'm
western
council
for
wine
institute
a
public
policy
association
representing
over
a
thousand
california
wineries
and
associate
members.
We
are
here
this
morning
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
307
written.
We
have
submitted
testimony
to
the
committee
and
opposed
the
bill
because
it
amends
the
nevada
franchise
act
to
add
even
more
state
mandated
terms
to
the
private
contracts
between
wineries
and
wholesalers,
to
the
detriment
of
wineries
and
the
benefit
of
the
wholesaler.
B
The
law
objectively
ties
wineries
to
their
existing
wholesalers
and
makes
it
virtually
impossible
for
new
wholesalers
to
enter
the
market.
The
state
mandated
cycling
of
competition
results
in
higher
prices
and
reduced
service
harming
consumers.
Since
the
franchise
law
has
been
enacted,
there
has
been
significant
consolidation
of
the
wholesale
tier.
Now.
National
mega
wholesalers
have
substantial
control
over
the
market
due
to
lack
of
alternatives.
B
There
is
no
longer
unequal
bargaining
power
that
needs
needs
rectifying
by
state
mandated
franchise
protection.
We
do
not
see
a
public
policy
purpose
for
for
adding
even
more
restrictive
terms
that
further
entrench
the
giant
wholesalers,
section
2,
prohibits
differentials
and
freight
charges
putting
into
question
reasonable
business
practices
currently
agreed
to
by
the
party
pre-charges
depend
on
numerous
factors,
including
mileage
size
of
the
shipment,
whether
the
shipment
is
palletized
or
broken
pallet
in
the
mode
of
transportation,
the
smaller
the
market
and
the
smaller
the
order,
the
higher
the
proportional
freight
cost
to
deliver
the
same
item.
B
Freight
charges
should
remain
flexible,
not
mandated
by
the
state
section.
3
subsection
13
prohibits
material,
different
payment
terms
for
winery
payments
to
wholesalers
versus
wholesaler
payments
to
wineries.
However,
these
are
different
commercial
transactions.
Almost
all
wholesaler
payments
are
for
shipments
of
wine
standard
business
transactions.
In
contrast,
winery
payments
to
wholesalers
are
typically
for
special
promotion.
The
winery
needs
to
verify
reports
submitted
by
wholesalers.
Payment
delays
can
occur
due
to
inadequate
information
from
a
wholesaler
to
legislate
against
wineries
for
unintentional
payment
delays
is
an
unfair
intrusion
into
business
practices.
B
J
B
I
Morning,
chair
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
tom
clark,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
distilled
spirits
council
of
the
united
states,
also
known
as
discus.
We
joined
with
the
other
companies
in
our
joint
letter
to
poise,
oppose
senate
bill
307
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
The
changes
to
the
way
wholesalers
do
business
and
nevada
are
donald.
Weight
greatly
reduces
the
opportunity
for
small
businesses
to
enter
the
marketplace.
I
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
go
to
neutral.
A
Thank
you
committee
members,
additional
questions.
A
I
don't
see
any
I've
asked
mr
keane
to
to
dissect
what
the
bill
does
with
respect
to
nrs,
just
to
make
sure
that
everyone
is
clear
on
especially
the
intent
on
nrs,
but
also
what
the
issue
is
here.
So,
mr
king.
J
J
What
was
the
change
to
section
two
with
regard
to
the
freight
changes,
and
certainly
we
can
clarify
language
so
that
everybody's
on
the
same
page
with
what
it
means,
but,
as
I
read
the
language,
it
seemed
to
me
that
the
conditions
for
freight
charges
need
to
be
the
same,
such
that
if
you're
shipping
to
las
vegas
from
reno
versus
shipping
to
elko
from
reno
the
actual
dollar
amount
of
the
charges
might
be
different.
J
In
fact,
the
rates
might
be
different,
but
but
with
regard
to
discrimination
say
you
had
two
people
receiving
shipments
in
elko.
J
What
you
could,
what
the
shipper
could
not
do
is
say
the
one
person
in
alco
you
get
one
rate
and
say
to
another
person:
they'll
go
you
get
a
different
rate,
so
the
actual
dollar
amount
of
the
freight
charges
could
be
different.
The
actual
rates
could
be
different
if
there's
a
reasonable
basis
for
the
race
to
be
different.
But
certainly,
if
that's
not
clear
in
the
language,
we
can.
J
We
can
clarify
it
and
I
have
not
seen
any
of
the
incoming
amendments,
so
perhaps
that's
something
that
is
being
clarified
as
far
as
the
other
provisions.
It
is,
for
example,
in
section
three.
It's
certainly
true
that
these
are
putting
into
statute
restrictions
on
the
ability
of
the
various
parties
to
contract
and
there
are
limitations
on
the
ability
for
those
parties
to
contract
around
statute.
J
But
these
are
all
these
are
all
policy
decisions,
there's
no
legal
problem
with
any
of
the
provisions
in
the
bill,
and
certainly
for
those
who
are
concerned
that
some
of
these
restrictions
seem
more
detailed
than
we
might
see
with
other
products.
It's
because,
with
regard
to
alcoholic
beverages,
there
is
a
different
standard
under
the
us
constitution
with
regard
to
how
the
transportation
and
sales
of
alcoholic
beverages
is
handled,
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
other
questions.
If
there's
a
particular
question,
thank
you
jared.
A
Thank
you,
mr
keane.
No
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
a
clear
meaning,
because
I
think
that
was
the
issue
that
was
banted
back
and
forth
and
with
with
different
responses
from
each
side.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
especially
committee
members,
anyone
else
listening
had
a
clear
understanding
of
that.
So
thank
you,
senator
donderolu!
You
have
any
closing
remarks
you
or
mr
alonso.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
members.
I
would
like
we
have
jeremy
warren
on
the
line
and
I
would
like
jeremy
to
just
close
with
his
statement,
and
I
would
appreciate
that
time.
B
Madam
chair,
my
name
is
jeremy
warren.
I'm
the
ceo
revision
brewing
company
in
sparks
nevada,
just
want
to
go
on
the
record
and
say
we're
in
support
of
this
bill.
Sb
307.
B
B
Beer
and
sending
more
beer
outside
the
state
it's
going
to
allow
us
to
create
more
jobs.
It's
going
to
allow
us
to
bring
that
money
from
out
of
state
into
our
state.
It's
also
going
to
allow
rbc
to
be
more
competitive
with
larger
and
regional
breweries.
It's
going
to
increase
awareness
of
the
nevada
craft,
beer
industry.
G
A
E
You
and
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
thank
you.
We've
taken
a
lot
of
time
this
morning
for
a
most
important
subject
that
I
believe
that,
with
that
we
can,
we
can
be
done
with
this
particular.
A
Perhaps
okay
thank
you
and
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
the
perennial
bill
regarding
beer.
So
thank
you
all
very
much.
Let's
move
now
to
sp
sp308
sp308.
E
E
Okey
doke.
Thank
you
madam
chair.
Once
again,
thank
you,
chair
spearmen
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I
am
marilyn
don
darrell
loop
and
I'm
presenting
senate
bill
308
a
bill
that
seeks
to
establish
a
work
sharing
program
which
is
an
alternative
layoffs
for
employers.
Experience
experiencing
a
reduction
in
available
work,
covet,
19
recession,
abruptly
displaced
millions
of
workers
in
the
united
states,
threatened
with
the
loss
of
stable
housing
and
imminent
risk
of
financial
ruin
in
nevada.
E
There
have
been
more
than
878
000
new
claims
for
unemployment
benefits
between
march
14,
2020
and
march
6
2021.,
unemployment
insurance
is
the
most
important
fiscal
response.
The
state
and
the
federal
government
has
during
a
recession
because
it
sends
timely,
targeted
and
temporary
financial
assistance
to
those
directly
affected
by
the
economic
downturn.
E
However,
what
these
workers
need
most
is
to
know
that
they
will
be
able
to
return
to
their
previous
jobs
as
the
pandemic
recedes
and
business
returns.
Workers
who
believe
they
are
likely
to
be
called
back
to
a
steady
job
can
relieve
workers
anxiety,
which
can
bolster
morale
and
increase
consumer
spending.
E
Work
share
programs
benefit
businesses,
workers
and
states.
Businesses
retain
their
trained
workforce
for
easy
recall
to
full-time
work
when
economic
conditions
improve
workers,
keep
their
jobs
instead
of
being
laid
off
and
collect
reduced
unemployment
benefits
to
partially
replace
their
lost
wages.
States
save
money
by
saving
by
paying
only
partial
unemployment
claims,
instead
of
paying
full
benefits
to
laid
off
workers
under
approved
work
share
programs.
Employees
qualify
for
a
percentage
of
unemployment
benefits
equal
to
the
percentage
by
which
their
hours
have
been
reduced.
E
E
This
bill
is
quite
long,
but
if
the
chair
would
like,
I
can
provide
a
committee
an
overview
of
the
substantive
sections.
We
also
have
on
the
line
ms
parvin
and
others
from
our
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation.
E
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
would
you
like
me
to
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill,
or
would
you
like
to
go
right
to
our
specialists
or
questions
from
the
committee.
A
I
think
why
don't
we
do
a
high
level
overview
and
then
we'll
go
to
questions
and
by
sharing,
I
see
your
hand.
So,
let's
just
a
high
level
overview.
E
Okay,
perfect,
I
will
do
that
section.
11
requires
the
administrator
of
the
employment
security
division
of
the
department
of
employing
training
and
rehabilitation,
to
establish
a
work
sharing
program
to
authorize
payments
for
work,
sharing,
benefits
to
eligible
employees
whose
usually
work
weekly
hours
have
been
reduced
by
a
work
sharing.
Employer
section
12
requires
an
employer
who
wishes
to
participate
in
the
work
sharing
program
to
submit
a
work,
sharing
plan
to
the
administrator
for
approval.
That
must
include
certain
information.
E
Section
13
requires
a
work
sharing
employer
that
provides
health
and
retirement
benefits
to
an
employee
under
a
defined
plan
to
credit.
The
hours
that
are
reduced
under
the
work,
sharing
plan
for
purposes
of
participation,
vesting
and
actual
accrual
of
benefits,
as
the
usual
hours
have
not
been
reduced.
E
Section
14
requires
the
administrator
to
approve
or
disapprove
a
work
sharing
plan
submitted
by
an
employer
within
15
days
of
receipt
and
promptly
give
written
notice
of
approval
or
disapproval.
Section
15
requires
the
notice
to
include
an
agreed
upon
effective
date
and
the
expiration
date
section.
14
also
provides
for
certain
circumstances
when
the
administrator
must
not
approve
the
plan.
E
E
Section
18
provides
that
the
person
is
eligible
to
receive
work,
sharing,
work,
sharing
benefits
with
respect
to
any
week
only
if
the
person
is
monetarily
eligible
for
unemployment
compensation
and
is
employed
as
a
member
of
an
infected
unit
under
an
improved
plan,
section
18
also
provides
the
person
be
deemed
unemployed
in
any
week
during
the
duration
of
any
work
sharing
plan.
If
his
or
her
compensation
is
reduced
based
on
a
reduction
of
usual
weekly
hours
and
section
19
prescribes
the
manner
which
the
weekly
benefit
amount
for
work.
E
E
A
Okay,
so
I
see
vice
chair
neil
and
then
senator
pickard
and
then
senator
hardy.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
guess
I
don't
know
who
I
should.
I
guess.
Is
it
part
to
miss
parvin
on
section
13,
I
had
a
question
on
the
accrual
rate.
What
is
it,
how
will
it
accrue
because
I'm
not
clear
on
that
and
then
I
have
a
question
on
16
and
19.
L
Chair
spearman,
this
is
alisa
cafaretta
with
dieter
and
we
are
looking
up
section
13
and
the
accrual
rate
we
don't.
I
don't
see
linda,
find
it.
H
H
I'm
sorry,
let
me
clarify
so
in
section
13.
This
is
the
section
where
you
guys
are
basically
saying
they
have
their
if
the
employer
is
providing
health
and
retirement
benefits,
and
then
they
their
hours
that
are
reduced
under
the
work.
H
Sharing
plan
must
be
credited
for
purposes
of
participation,
vesting
and
accrual
of
benefits,
and-
and
I
guess
the
what
jumped
into
my
quest
my
mind-
was
how
how
is
because
typically
the
accrual
is
based
on
a
certain
length
of
time,
or
you
know
it's
it's
very
complicated,
so
I
was
wondering
how
that's
going
to
work,
because
their
hours
are
they're
different
and
the
contribution
is
going
to
be
different
under
this
work.
Sharing
is
that
that
help
it.
E
A
It's
done
on
a
pro-rata
basis,
but
that
is
put
out
in
regulation.
E
Bill
passes
is
promulgate
regulations
that
will
spell
out
all
the
different
steps
that
are
in
these
different
sections
and.
K
Jeff
hershman
for
the
record,
as
I
understand
that
the
accrual
rate
would
be
equal
to
those
who
are
not
participating
in
the
program,
meaning
those
the
same
workers
who
would
continue
full-time
that
it
would
be
at
the
same
rate
that
they
are
receiving
it,
that
they
would
receive
it
for
those
whose
hours
have
been
reduced.
H
Okay
and
so,
and
so
we'll,
and
so
my
next
question
is
on
I'm
going
to
skip
section
16,
I'm
just
going
to
jump
to
section
19..
So
if
you
go
to
section
19,
step
3
lines,
pretty
much
starts
at
25
through
28,
where
this
is
the
deduction.
H
The
work
sharing
benefits
because
there's
a
whole
there's
a
whole
lot
in
in
section
19
like
a
lot,
and
so
when
it
says
the
work,
sharing,
benefits
paid
to
a
person
shall
be
deducted
from
the
maximum
and
title
amount
of
the
regular
unemployment
compensation
established
for
that
benefit
year,
like
I'm
trying
to
give
me
give
me
the
the
real
example
of
how
this
works,
because
you're
in
a
work
sharing,
because
your
hours
have
been
reduced
right,
and
so,
if
you,
if
you're
gonna,
give
me
the
real
example
before
I
get
any
deeper
into
that
one,
because
the
thing.
K
K
K
H
Got
it
okay,
thank
you
for
that,
so
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
just
skip
to
section
20,
because
and
then,
if,
if
time
allows
I'll
get
back
into
the
other
questions,
I
had
on
19,
because
I
had
questions
in
step,
5
and
sub
7.,
but
in
section
20
the
way
that
the
work
sharing
program
is
defined
and
the
employer
benefit
that
is
being
defined
there.
H
You
know
I
wanted
to
know
what
are
the
tax
implications,
because
it
said
that
the
work
sharing
benefits
must
be
charged
to
the
employers
experience
rating
account
in
the
same
manner
as
unemployment
compensation
is
charged
pursuant
to
the
chapter
and
employers
liable
for
payments
of
weight
and
reimbursement
in
lieu
of
right.
So
so
a
couple
of
things
stuck
out
right:
tax
implications
to
the
to
the
person
who
is
in
the
work
sharing
program
and
when
they
and
then
the
tax
implication
to
the
actual
employer
in
that
defined
scenario.
K
Jefferson
for
the
record:
yes,
the
experience
rating
the
charges
or
the.
K
Those
benefits,
just
like
in
regular
ui
would
be
charged
against
the
employer's
experience
rating,
so
that
doesn't
change.
The
only
difference
would
be
that,
instead
of
say
having
two
full-time
employees
and
the
employer
paying
the
in
the
example,
I
read
the
270
dollars,
they
would
be
paying
for
five
employees,
the
54,
so
it's
kind
of
a
wash
for
the
employer
the
charge
to
their
benefit.
Experience
rating
is
going
to
remain
relatively
the
same.
K
As
far
as
the
implications,
the
tax
implications
to
the
employee.
They
would
be
responsible
for
federal
income
tax
and
that's,
of
course,
with
the
irs,
and
they
would
be
responsible
for.
In
the
example
that
I
read
the
54
dollars,
they
would
be
responsible
for
any
federal
income
tax
due
on
that
54
dollars.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
I
had
similar
questions,
but
before
I
do
that,
I
want
to
kind
of
understand
the
broader
context.
C
As
I
understand
this,
we're
talking
about
large
employer
organizations
that
are
able
to
put
these
plans
together
in
advance,
get
them
approved,
and
then
they
will
essentially
allow
the
state
to
ameliorate
any
reduction
in
force
or
or
cost
to
the
employees
or
or
the
organization.
C
So
as
I,
and
as
I
see
this,
this
bill
doesn't
fix
the
immediate
problem,
because
I
I
agree
completely
with
the
sponsor
here
that
our
first
responsibility
to
employees
should
be
paying
the
benefits
right,
making
sure
that
these
people
aren't
out
on
the
street
with
no
resources,
particularly
when
they've
paid
for
this
insurance-
and
I
don't
see
anything
here.
In
fact,
this
is
going
to
take
regulatory
work
first,
so
I'm
wondering
number
one:
how
does
this
affect
the
current
backlog?
C
Will
this
slow
down
the
work
being
done
to
try
to
catch
up
with
the
200
000,
some
that
haven't
yet
received
benefits,
and
how
long
will
it
take
to
get
the
regulations
done
before
we
can
start
seeing
these
potentially
implemented.
L
Before
jeff
gets
into
the
specifics,
I
would
like
to
clarify
some
aspects
of
senator
pickard's
question.
The
current
backlog
we
are,
you
know,
working
as
rapidly
as
we
can
to
continue
hiring
staff
and
implement
technology
solutions.
L
L
C
K
Jeff
refreshment
for
the
record,
if
I
could
also
in
your
question,
you
refer
to
large
employer
organizations.
This
is
not
a
program
that
is
designed
for
large
employer
organizations.
K
K
We
would
anticipate,
since
there
are,
as
the
senator
referred
to
earlier,
27
other
states
who
have
these
types
of
programs.
K
We
would
anticipate
being
able
to
review
their
regulations
and
to
get
the
regulations
up
and
going
we
would
think
would
take.
We
could
do
within
the
time
frame.
There
is
a
conceptual
amendment
to
this
bill
and
we
would
anticipate
being
able
to
do
that,
probably
by
towards
the
middle
of
next
year,
to
have
everything
up
and
going
as
far
as
taking
away
from
our
work
on
the
backlog.
K
C
C
This
really
is
going
to
be
on
for
practical
purposes,
pretty
much
reserved
to
those
organizations
that
have
the
resources
to
be
able
to
be
working
on
a
plan,
while
they're
still
trying
to
keep
their
operation
in
business.
So
I
appreciate
that
anyone
could
conceivably
jump
into
this.
I
suspect
that
the
employers
that
are
having
to
consider
work
sharing
that
are
smaller
than
you
know.
C
A
large
organization
will
be
focusing
on
their
efforts
just
to
stay
alive
and
and
so
from
a
practical
and-
and
this
also
comes
from
you
know,
when
I
first
read
the
bill
and
and
realized
you
know.
C
I
don't
really
know
much
about
the
work
sharing
program
from
an
unemployment
standpoint
jump
online
do
a
little
bit
of
research
and
all
of
the
the
examples
that
I
saw
from
the
states
that
you're
describing
were
all
large
organizations
that
had
gone
through
the
process
of
getting
their
approvals,
and
so
that's
actually
the
segue
to
the
next
question.
K
Jeff
hershman
for
the
record
we
did
meet
with
or
the
staff
did
meet
with
the
state
of
oregon
and
I
do
not
recall
seeing
any
information
on
that
particular
question.
We
could
certainly
follow
up
and
provide
that
to
you,
but
we
don't
have
that
information
at
our
fingertips.
C
Right
now,
all
right,
that's
fine!
If
you
can
follow
up.
That
would
be
interesting,
because
my
work
on
sunset
subcommittee
over
the
past
couple
of
sessions
or
interims
has
really
demonstrated
that
the
ease
and
and
speed
at
which
these
types
of
programs
take
that
that's
that's
critically
important.
So
I'd
love
to
know,
I
I
guess
my
last
question
that
I'll
ask
currently
is
I
I
noticed
that
you've
added
a
400,
000
or
so
fiscal
note,
but
that
appears
to
be
just
the
administrative
side.
C
C
K
Frichman
for
the
record,
I
personally
would
not
expect
there
to
be
any
negative
impact
on
the
ui
trust
fund.
I
had
mentioned
earlier
that
it's
going
to
be
essentially
a
wash
when
senator
neil
asked
her
question,
because,
rather
than
having
again
one
person
collect
270
a
week,
you
would
be
spread
to
five
people
collecting
54
a
week
which
of
course
would
add
up
to
the
270
dollars.
So
it's
really
very
easy
it'd,
be
even
so
that
I
would
not
anticipate
any
drain
on
the
trust
fund.
C
All
right,
I
guess
I
thought
that
the
administrative
fees
were
part
of
the
draw.
Maybe
that's
not
the
case.
Maybe
the
administrative
fee
yeah,
my
thought
was:
you
know
it's
going
to
cost
more
to
administer
the
program
across
five
individuals
that
it
would
for
one,
and
so
that
would
be
an
additional
cost.
So
maybe
it's
not
to
the
trust
fund.
K
Jeff
frichman
for
the
record,
I
would
say
yes,
that
might
be
a
misassumption.
What
we
looked
at
to
explain
those
administrative
costs
to
help
you
better
understand
that,
maybe,
is
that
those
costs
were
primarily
geared
at
number
one
to
initiate
the
program
to
implement
the
program
which
again,
I
believe
we
will
be
able
to.
K
C
All
right,
no,
I
and
I
appreciate
that
and
of
course
I
think,
you're
wise
to
do
it
that
way,
because
we
don't
want
to
count
the
federal
dollars
until
we
actually
receive
them.
But
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day,
you
know
we
we're
still
trying
to
get
out
from
under
whatever
that
backlog
is
and-
and
that's
got
to
be.
You
know
the
the
the
department
hasn't
asked
for
the
money
for
modernization.
C
I
I'm
hopeful
that
some
of
that
will
come
out
of
the.
What
I've
been
referring
to
in
this
committee
is
biden
bucks.
I
I
hope
that
that
gets
paid
for,
because
I'm
assuming
the
programming
you're
talking
about
now
is
in
the
the
30
year
old
cobalt
system,
unless
you're
buying
new
equipment
off
the
shelf,
like
you
did
with
the
poa
system,
but
then
we'd
potentially
have
a
third
computer
operation
that
doesn't
talk
to
the
other
two
and-
and
I
just
see
this
disaster
snowball
increasing.
C
We
really
need
to
get
our
arms
around
the
immediate
emergency
before
we
take
on,
in
my
view,
before
we
take
on
additional,
but
anyway,
I'm
off
the
bill.
Thank
you.
Madam
chair
appreciate
the
opportunity.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
going
to
just
ask
naive
questions.
I
guess
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
somebody
who
lost
their
job.
K
K
N
K
Jeff
krishnan
for
the
record,
I'm
not
sure
that
I
was
clear
in
my
my
response
to
they
would
be
earning,
for
instance.
In
the
example
I
gave
the
32
hours
of
work
that
they
would
be
earning
at
their
regular
pay
and
then
the
eight
hours
a
week
that
they
would
have
been
reduced.
L
If
I
might,
this
is
elisa
cappareta
with
dieter.
So
to
yes,
the
short
answer
is
yes
senator
hardy.
If
I
could,
when
you
go
on
unemployment,
you
are
not
making
your
old
wage
say.
You
were
making
a
thousand
dollars
a
week.
You
make
about
500.
L
L
What
this
program
offers
if
the
employer
wants
to
and
that
it's
a
it's
a
real
benefit
to
both
the
employer
and
the
employee.
In
many
situations,
because
the
employer
keeps
a
well-trained
employee,
they
don't
have
to
find
someone
new
when
the
the
economy
rebounds,
they
can
keep
them
up
to
speed
on
their
skills
and
the
same
benefit
applies
to
the
employee.
L
They
can
keep
their
hand
in
they,
they
keep
their.
In
addition,
they
get
their
health
care
benefits
and
retirement
benefits
and
even
though
their
hours
have
been
reduced,
some
portion
they
get
they
get
about.
Half
of
that
is
replaced
under
unemployment
benefits.
So
it's
it
softens
the
blow
a
little
bit
and
it
keeps
it
keeps
sort
of
your
business
going.
L
The
the
employee
keeps
their
their
job
and
they
don't
have
to
find
a
new
job
so
for
employers
that
can
use
this
program,
and-
and
there
is
even
though
it's
available
to
folks
with
more
than
two
employees-
it's
realistically,
probably
a
little
larger
than
that
there
is
a
significant
benefit.
It's
just
more
flexibility
in
sort
of
continuity
of
business
and
sustainability
of
your
business.
K
Jeff
freshman
for
the
record,
any
employer
with
two
or
more
employees
can
participate
in
it,
whether
they
are
a
contributory
employer,
meaning
a
private
type
of
employer
or,
if
they're,
a
reimbursable
employer.
They
pay
contributions
in
lieu
of
the
money.
That's
been
paid
out,
meaning
this,
for
instance
your
example.
The
state
it's
available
to
any
employer
within
the
state.
Yes,.
A
Thank
you,
senator
neil.
I
think
you
had
an
additional.
H
Question
thanks,
madam
chair,
so
so
the
question.
H
Well,
let
me
take
two
fish
provisions
together
because
I
was
reading
sub
5a,
where
they
have
the
two
jobs
and
you
put
in
the
10
in
play.
But
what
I
was
trying
to
understand
is
how
how
did
you
come
up
with
that
measurement
and
when
I
was
reading
section
1975a
about
the
measurement
and
then
I
went
to
sub
7,
I
you
know
it
just.
There
are
a
couple
of
questions
there,
but
let's
deal
with
the
measurement
piece
of
the
10
percent.
K
Jeff
frishman
for
the
record.
What
this
is
referring
to
is
the
program
and-
and
I
trust
in
it-
I'm
not
sure
that
this
would
be
really
a
question
for
senator
donderolu
is
the
verbiage,
for
this
is,
I
trust,
is
taken
out
of
I'm
not
sure
where
that
language
came
from
I'm,
assuming
that
it's
part
of
the
federal
regulations
that
oversee
this
or
was
taken
out
out
of
it
from
another
state.
K
I
believe
that
for
the
feds
to
provide
the
funding
that
they
do,
that
they
are
going
to
have
certain
requirements
which
I
believe
this
10
is
where
that
came
from.
In
other
words,
if
your
hours
aren't
reduced
by
in
a
regular
40
hour
work
week,
if
they're
not
reduced
by
more
than
four
hours,
is
it
really
worth
participating
in
this,
and
I
I
think,
is
where
that
measurement
comes
from
senator?
H
Surely
I'm
going
to
read
the
I'm
going
to
read
that
federal
language?
I
guess
I'm
not
going.
E
So
like
phone
a
friend
time
so.
H
Section
the
last
is
the
last
question
on
sub
seven.
This
is
the
where
they
they're
working
for
another
employer
and
it's
like
there.
There
are
two
employers
involved,
but
one
they
didn't
work
for
and
how
this
disqualifying
income
comes
into
play
for
their
regular
unemployment
compensation.
I
just
wanted
you
to
you
know
help
me
understand.
I
guess
how
that
provision
works
once
again.
A
real
life
example
of
it.
K
Okay,
jeff
frishman
for
the
record.
What
you
may
have
is
a
situation
where
I
am
working
for
abc
plumbing
and
in
the
evenings.
I
might
be
working
for
at
a
convenience
store
if
abc
plumbing
reduces
my
hours,
but
yet
I'm
continuing
to
work
those
part-time
hours.
K
This
is
addressing
that
dual
income
that
I
would
be
bringing
in
and
how
that
income
could
or
would
affect
my
potential
benefits.
N
K
And
that's
no
different
really
than
what
we
have
for
existing
if
I
was
working
for
abc
plumbing
and
I
got
totally
laid
off
the
earnings
that
I
had
from
that.
Second
employer
could
and
would
potentially
affect
my
weekly
benefits
that
from
the
job
that
I
was
laid
off
from
essentially-
and
I
can't
remember
if
it's
50
or
100,
the
first
50
or
100
dollars-
you
earn-
are
fine,
they
go
into
your
pocket.
K
A
Thank
you.
I
just
have
a
couple
questions
and
compared
to
the
ones
that
have
already
been
asked.
This
is
probably
elementary
or
pedestrian,
but
let
me
try
stab
at
it.
First
of
all
is:
is
this
program
men
mandatory
do
do
companies
have
to
participate,
or
is
it
an
option.
K
Jeff
krishnan
for
the
record.
This
is
an
employer-driven
program.
An
employer
must
opt
into
the
program,
it
is
based
on
their
own
business
decisions
and
their
business
needs.
So
it
is
not
a
mandatory
program,
it
is
voluntary
or
the
employer.
An
employee
may
not
opt
into
it,
but
the
employer
has
has
the
is
holding
the
cards.
Let's
put
it
that
way
of
whether
or
not
they
choose
to
participate.
A
A
Is
this
connected,
and
I
guess
it
is
connecting
you
all-
have
already
answered
the
thing
about
the
salary.
So
is
this
connected
to
some
of
the
programs
that
are
being
implemented
at
the
federal
level.
K
A
If
that's
what
was
to
be
allocated
inside
of
bill
in
march,
does
the
legislation
have
to
pass
before
we
get
that
money
that
extra
money
it
doesn't
have
to
pass
congress
it
just
you
know
the
house
and
the
senate
doesn't
have
to
pass
congress
before
we
get
that
money.
A
B
A
E
You,
madam
chair
and
committee
members
for
hearing
senate
bill
308
this
bill,
as
we
have
discussed,
is
not
really
a
short-term
fix.
It's
a
better.
It's
to
better
serve
our
nevada
citizens
in
the
future,
and
I
would
like
to
especially
thank
miss
cappareta
and
her
team
for
all.
You
have
done
for
all
of
the
citizens
during
the
pandemic,
and
I
certainly
appreciate
your
time
and
expertise
in
being
here
today
and
committee
members.
I
would
love
to
have
your
support
for
senate
bill
308.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
ma'am,
and,
to
that
point
I
agree.
It
hurts
my
heart
to
know
that
so
many
people
have
suffered
director
cavalry.
Can
you
answer
this
and
maybe
not,
but
what
is
the
average
unemployment
or
an
individual
just
give
me
an
average?
I
mean
it.
L
Monthly,
elisa
cafaretta
just
to
clarify
senator
spearman.
Are
you
asking
us
for
the
benefit
amount
or
how
long
folks
are
staying
on.
A
K
A
K
A
L
L
We
think
the
average
is
closer
to
300
something
a
week
and
then
in
there
also
is
the
self-employed
that's
not
covered
by
this,
but
the
self-employed
gig
workers-
that's
480,
something
a
week
maximum
and
I
don't
know
that
I've
seen
an
average
number,
but
we
can
get
those
numbers
for
you.
L
It
is
again
intended
to
be
a
partial
wage
replacement
as
a
bridge
to
a
new
job,
and
it
is
we've
seen
in
the
past
in
situations
of
long-term
recessions.
It
you
know,
employ
former
employees,
need
a
lot
more
supports,
and
so
you'll
you'll
start
to
see
us
talk
a
lot
more
about
our
workforce
training
and
supports
for
folks.
In
addition
to
unemployment,
which
is
only
part
of
the
solution.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
handle
on
so
the
figures
that
you
gave
me
range
anywhere
from
twelve
hundred
dollars
and
some
change
to
sixteen
hundred
dollars
and
some
change.
So
it
would
be
fair
to
say
that
people
who
are
on
unemployment
did
not
receive
a
total
of
two
thousand
dollars
a
month.
Yes
or
no.
L
Elisa
caferetta
for
the
record,
I
would
add
that
in
this
particular
pandemic
we
had
several
bills
from
congress
that
added
to
that
weekly
amount.
So
for
a
time
there
was
the
six
hundred
dollars
a
week.
Additional
so
folks
were
receiving
closer
to.
L
A
L
Elisa
for
the
record.
Yes,
so
we
had
the
cares
act
which
provided
600
a
week
for
a
couple
of
months,
we
had
lost
wages
which
provided
an
additional
300
for
five
weeks
in
nevada
and
currently
the
continued
assistance
act
and
the
american
rescue
plan
are
for
this
year,
providing
an
additional
300
a
week
so
and
that
we
had
no
control
over.
Those
were
congressional
allocations.
A
A
Okay,
yeah
and
that
that
that's
what
I
that's
what
I
was
asking
that
that
the
pandemic
has
has
touched
all
of
us
in
anyway
yeah.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
asking
answering
that
question
committee
members
any
other
questions.
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
montgore
hill
committee
policy
analyst
and
the
first
bill
in
our
work
session
is
senate.
Bill
184,
sponsored
by
senator
hardy.
O
The
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
practice
of
medicine
and
senator
hardy
has
submitted
a
conceptual
amendment
which
is
attached
to
this
workstation
document,
and
that
proposed
amendment
is
to
delete
sections
three
five,
seven,
nine
or,
as
you
were
three
four
five
ten
seventeen
18
22
29,
34,
37,
38,
40,
41
and
45
of
the
bill,
which
make
various
changes
regarding
issuing
a
pa,
license
supervision
of
a
physician
assistance
and
authorizing
a
physician
assistant
to
use
the
title
of
inactive
physician
assistant
and
those
were
all
the
amendments.
A
A
N
C
A
Yes,
thank
you.
Records
show
that
the
motion
passed
unanimously
senator
hardy.
Would
you
take
the
floor
statement.
A
O
M
M
A
N
A
N
N
C
A
And
let
the
record
show
that
the
motion
passed
unanimously
and
I
will
give
that
one
to
pro
statement
to
senator
sea
breast
cancer.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair
committee.
Members.
Thank
you
we'll
go
to
work
session
on
senate
bill
229,
mr
maverick.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
cesar
margaret
hill
committee
policy
analyst,
and
just
to
notify
the
members
we
have
updated
or
uploaded
some
recent
documents
to
some
of
the
bills
later
on
in
the
work
session.
So,
if
you're,
looking
at
this
information
on
nellis,
you
might
want
to
refresh
your
page
senate
bill
229
sponsored
by
senator
ratty
and
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
practice
of
pharmacy,
specifically
collaborative
practice
of
pharmacy.
O
In
addition,
we
have
received
another
amendment.
That's
also
attached
to
this
work
session
document
from
the
honorable
joseph
heck,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
osteopathic
medical
association,
which
proposes
to
amend
subsection
two
of
section
two
to
prohibit
a
practitioner
who
enters
into
a
collaborative
agreement
from
being
so
geographically
distanced
from
the
collaborative
pharmacist
that
it
creates
an
impediment
to
effective
collaboration
in
the
delivery
and
review
of
healthcare
services.
H
Madam
chair,
I
had
a
question
on
the
the
language
in
the
it's
section,
two
of
two:
it's
underneath
the
geographical
distancing
about
and
said
that
provides
healthcare
services
that
include
diagnosis
and
initiate
and
initiation
of
treatment.
And
then
I
was
looking
at
the
language
which
was
the
green
and
section
two.
So
what
I'm
not
clear
on?
B
Hello,
chair,
yes,
ma'am
sounds
like
my
timing,
may
be
perfect.
I
apologize
we
just
wrapped
up
the
senate
subcommittee
finance
senate
hhs
subcommittee,
so
I
apologize.
All
I
just
heard
was
the
last
word
diagnosis.
So
if
we
could
get
the
question
again,
I
would
greatly
appreciate
it.
H
Okay,
so
I
was
asking
a
question
about
the
in
section
two
of
two
underneath
it
has.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
me
to
read
it
from
the
work
session
or
the
green,
where
we're
talking
about.
Is
I'm
trying
to
be
clear
if
it's
a
prohibition
to
diagnose
and
do
the
initiation
of
treatment?
This
is
under
dr
heck.
B
So
thank
you
for
the
question.
So
I'm
very
grateful
to
congressman
heck
represent
representing
the
osteopaths
david
wiest,
representing
the
board
of
pharmacy
and
dr
slamowicz,
representing
dhhs,
who
spent
a
lot
of
time
working.
B
C
Thank
you.
Everybody,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
neal
joe
heck
red
rock
government
relations
on
behalf.
C
Thank
you
on
behalf
of
the.
D
C
Osteopathic,
medical
association,
no,
the
to
answer
the
question:
no,
it
does
not
prohibit
diagnosis
and
the
initiation
of
treatment.
It
just
says
that
when,
in
a
cpa,
using
diagnosis
and
the
initiation
of
treatment,
you
must
follow,
then
the
subcategories
one,
two
and
three:
those
are
the
criteria
in
order
to
be
able
to
initiate
diagnosis
and
treatment.
H
Okay:
okay,
I
just
that's
what
I
want
a
clarification
on.
Okay,
because
I
I
was
reading
it
and
I
was
like
so-
are
pharmacists
now
diagnosing
okay,
because
if
the
answer
is
no
they're,
not
we're
good.
M
Thank
you
the
opportunity
to
answer
the
question
chair
did
that
what
you
need.
A
N
I
am
concerned
that
that
may
not
be
interpreted.
I
don't
know
pharmacist
is
not
diagnosing
if
the
pharmacist
is
treating.
So
how
can
you
separate
those
two
processes?
Is
the
practitioner,
the
one
that's
always
diagnosing,
and
then
the
pharmacist
is
treating
or
is
the
pharmacist
not
diagnosing
just
treating
without
knowing
what
the
diagnosis
is.
B
B
So
the
pharmacist
is
not
diagnosing
and
they
are
only
treating
in
terms
of
whatever
has
been
approved
within
that
protocol
between
the
pharmacist
and
the
practitioner.
A
A
Thank
you
so,
madam
secretary,
please
do
a
roll
call
vote.
Senator
hardy.
C
I'll
be
no
for
now,
until
I
better
understand
the
amendment.
A
Yes
and
the
most
pass
senator
ready,
would
you
do
the
floor
statement?
I'd
be
honored.
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
and
so
now
we
will
go
to
senate
bill
280.,
mr
maverick
hall,.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
says
our
guerrero
committee
policy
analyst
senate
bill
280,
provides
provisions
relating
to
the
real
estate
commission
and
senator
schreibel
proposes
the
following
amendments,
which
are
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
The
first
amendment
is
to
add
a
new
section
to
the
bill
to
amend
the
veteran
revised
statutes
645.060
to
require
that
members
appointed
to
the
commission
hold
office
for
terms
of
three
years.
In
addition,
provided
that
a
member
serves
until
their
successor
has
been
appointed
and
qualified.
A
Thank
you
have
any
questions.
Senator
pickard.
C
Hey
madam
chair,
just
a
quick
question
on
the
amendment
specifically
with
respect
to
section
two:
the
new
sub
c.
C
The
way
I
read
this,
it
says,
to
the
greatest
extent
possible,
represent
the
minority
or
underrepresented
group
that
reflects
the
general
population.
So
I
the
way
I
read
this
is
that
this
would
establish
a
quota
based
on
that
populations
or
sub-populations
representation
in
the
state.
I'm
wondering
if
that
was
the
intent
or,
if
we're
trying
to
increase
to
the
greatest
extent
possible
the
number
of
minority
or
unrepresented
groups
that
are
on
the
board.
M
This
is
senator
scheibel
and
I
also
have
administrator
chandra
here
with
me,
who
may
or
may
not
want
to
weigh
in
on
this,
but
this
does
match
language
that
is
already
in
the
nrs
and
645.060,
I'm
sorry
0.60
elsewhere
in
the
nrs.
M
C
Yes,
it
just
solidified
my
answer.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and,
and
so
many
times,
unless
we
refer
to
that
as
statute,
the
comeback:
when
there's
no
diversity
is
we
couldn't
find
anyone
so
additional
questions.
A
Yes,
is
that
senator
hardy?
I
guess
I
you
know,
I
don't
because
I
don't
see
your
hand,
but
I
think
that's
your
voice.
D
Chapter
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division
senator
hardy
to
your
question.
I
think
we
had
two
women
on
the
commission,
but
because
of
term
limits,
but
right
now
it's
all.
I
don't
know
about
the
age,
though
so.
B
M
I
I
don't.
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
that
question.
I
think
that
the
point
of
the
amendment
which
was
proposed
by
the
division
is
to
ensure
that
when
we
are
appointing
the
board,
we're
not
just
looking
at
individuals
but
we're
looking
at
the
makeup
of
the
board
as
a
whole,
and
the
point
is
to
encourage
the
governor
as
he
or
she
or
they
are
appointing
people
to
the
board,
are
taking
that
into
account.
M
M
It's
another
thing
to
look
back
at
all
the
applications
that
you've
approved
or
all
the
appointments
that
you
made
and
realize
that
you
have
appointed
a
board
that
doesn't
reflect
the
community
and
so
to
senator
spearman's
point,
it's
not
to
say
that
we're
not
gonna
hire
or
we're
not
going
to
select
the
most
qualified
person
possible.
M
We
should
always
select
those
qualified
person
possible,
but
if
there
is
some
other
underlying
reason,
like
perhaps
structural
racism,
that
is
causing
only
members
of
the
majority
group
or
the
privileged
group
to
apply
for
these
positions
or
to
be
selected
nominated
recommended
for
these
positions,
sub
section
c
is
supposed
to
tell
the
government
or
tell
the
governor
to
take
a
second
look
and
say
wait
a
minute.
I
think
we're
missing
some
people
here.
Let's
bring
them
into
the
fold
and,
to
the
extent
possible.
M
Let's
make
sure
that
the
real
estate
commission
includes
women,
people
of
color
people
with
disabilities,
lgbtq
people
and
isn't
focused
solely
on
groups
of
people
who
are
already
well
represented
in
our
government.
D
Madam
chair,
this
is
chandra
for
the
record.
Just
just
wanted
to
add.
I
know
mr
akin
is
on
there
will
keen-
and
I
think
some
of
this
language
he
indicated
came
from
other
statutes,
where
there's
just
a
verbage
in
there
that
and
and
really
for
us.
It
was
just
to
facilitate
a
conversation,
because
that
was
kind
of
the
discussion
that
had
at
the
last
meeting
was
adding
language
in
there.
D
That
would
kind
of
just
put
it
put
a
point
in
the
statute
to
look
for
diversity,
and
so
we
just
had
this
thought-
and
I
think
mr
king
can
chime
in
here.
He
indicated
that
there
were
a
couple
of
statutes
throughout
nrs,
where
this
language
was
used
as
a
general
qualifier,
and
it
would
be
good
practice
to
have
it
in
our
statute
and
also
senator
hardy
to
your
question.
There's
one.
D
Women,
a
woman
commissioner
and
she's
from
the
rural
appointment
and
that's
on
the
real
estate
commission.
So
I
was
incorrect
when
I
said
all
were
male
there's
one
female
representation
right.
B
But
if
this
is
a
good
idea,
then
under
645090
we're
going
to
stick
in
the
closet
system,
the
greatest
extent
possible
represent
minority
or
underrepresented
groups
that
reflects
the
general
population
of
state.
So
if
we
agree
that
that's
the
right
thing
to
do
under
645.090,
why
are
we
also
shoving
it
in
under
645060,
stating
that
the
governor
also
has
to
the
greatest
extent
possible?
Why
is
it
only
on
one
section
and
not
on.
M
Both
I'm
not
sure
if
this
question
is
for
me
this
is
senator
scheible
for
the
record.
I
think
it
would
be
redundant
on
both
of
them,
but
if
you're
suggesting
that
amending
it
to
add
it
to
645.060
would
influence
your
position
on
the
legislation,
then
I'd
be
open
to
a
conversation
about
it.
B
M
This
is
melanie
scheible
again.
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
that
the
statutes
will
outlast
the
governor
who
is
currently
in
office,
and
so
I
don't
think
this
is
about
putting
trust
in
a
particular
person
or
even
trust
in
a
particular
office.
M
It
is
about
establishing
going
forward
a
policy
that
we
as
a
legislature
believe
to
be
the
right
policy
and
the
objectives
of
the
legislative
body,
and
it
will
require,
to
the
greatest
extent
possible
that
every
future
governor
of
nevada,
whether
they
share
this
vision
or
not,
does
what
they
can
to
promote.
A
It
hey,
mr
king,
can
you
weigh
in
on
this
please
and-
and
I
did
have
a
question,
and
I
don't
know,
mr
keane,
if
you
can
answer
it
or
someone
else,
can
you
please
tell
me
if
this
wording
is
this
new
wording
from
2019
or
did
it
exist
prior
to
that.
J
Thank
you,
chair
experiment,
for
the
record
will
keen
committee
council
yesterday.
I
began
sketching
out
some
of
the
language
for
the
amendments,
as
I
was
going
over
the
work
session
document
and
with
for
the
first
question
with
regard
to
the
language,
the
green
language
being
proposed.
To
add
to
section
two
sub
one,
paragraph
c,
I
had
searched
through
nrs
and
we
have
language
that
I
think
effectuates.
J
The
intent
of
the
requester
and
that
language
that
I
had
sketched
out
was
that
that
the
members
of
the
commission
must
be
appointed
so
that,
as
a
body
and
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
members
of
the
commission
represent
the
ethnic
and
cultural
diversity
of
this
state,
including
without
limitation,
members
of
ethnic
minority
groups
and
members
of
other
underrepresented
groups,
and
by
using
language
such
as
that.
I
think
we
we
capture
the
intent
of
the
requester,
but
we
are
also
mirroring
existing
language
that
has
been
around
for
a
while
in
nrs.
J
I
I
don't
have
the
history
at
all
the
provisions
of
nrs
that
do
this,
but
just
as
two
examples
in
nrs
389.510
sub
2c.
That
requires
the
governor
in
as
far
as
practical,
which
I
think
is
important
language,
which
we
would
have
in
here
that
the
governor
shall
appoint
members
of
that
council.
That's
handled
in
that
particular
provision
to
reflect
the
ethnic
and
geographic
diversity
of
the
state,
there's
another
provision
in
nrs
388.5966
sub
2.
J
That
requires
various
officials
making
appointments
to
the
board
there
that
the
members
appointed
have
to
reflect
the
gender,
ethnic
and
geographic
diversity
of
this
state.
There's
numerous
examples
that
that
put
different
factors
in
there,
but
that's
the
idea
is
that
is
that
they're
trying
to
get
representatives
to
represent
the
diversity
of
the
state,
not
hard
and
fast
quotas,
and
it's
only
to
the
extent
practicable
and
as
far
as
the
history
goes,
these
these
provisions
have
been
around
for
various
lengths
of
time.
J
A
Yeah,
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
to
see
if
this
was
a
protocol
under
governor
sandoval
or
governor
gibbons,
or
anybody
else
is
this.
I
just
want
to
see
if
this
is
something
brand
new.
J
A
Yeah,
I
no
no,
no,
because
I
was
just
trying
to
make
sure
this
wasn't
brand
new,
because
I
think
senator
settlemeyer's
concern
was
we
either
trust
the
governor
or
we
don't,
and
if
this
is
brand
new,
then
that
should
be
something
that
we
probably
want
to
take
a
look
at.
If
it's
not
brand
new,
then
that
means
that
there
have
probably
been
some
other
bills
that
have
been
passed
similar
to
this.
That
would
state
the
same
thing,
but
not
say
we
don't
trust
the
governor.
A
Thank
you.
Additional
questions.
E
Trust,
the
governor
or
don't
trust
the
governor.
What
we
just
saw
in
an
appointment
for
a
committee
that
had
two
women
on
it,
two
males
were
appointed
in
those
positions.
That
is
a
very
clear
example
to
me
of
why
we
need
this
language,
and
so
I
think,
whenever
we.
C
Hey,
madam
chair,
I
guess
you
know.
I
agree
to
the
extent
that
we
want
to
encourage
diversity
in
everything,
because
diversity
of
thought,
diversity
of
perspective,
diversity
generally
enhances
debate,
the
more
varied
our
perspectives
and
experiences
the
better.
The
result
generally
turns
out
to
be.
I
think
it's
a
mistake
both
practically
and
legally,
to
express
our
animus
towards
any
particular
group
old
white
men
like
me
or
or
otherwise,
but
I
do
like
the
idea
of
diversity.
C
I
just
personally
can't
get
past
the
point
that
we're
inserting
people
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
facilitating
transactions.
I
think
it's
a
mistake,
but
I
I
support
the
idea
of
diversity
always
have
always
will
and
appreciate
the
intent
here.
C
No,
I
was
just
saying
that
I
do
support
the
idea
of
diversity,
because
I
think
diversity
is
important
when
we're
debating
anything
perspectives
are
different
and
I
don't
think
any
one
perspective
is
more
important
than
another,
and
so
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
express
animus
in
any
legislative
history
toward
any
particular
group.
But
I
do
think
that
diversity
is
is
a
wise
thing
to
try
to
achieve.
C
I
just
don't
like
the
way
we're
trying
to
go
about
it,
and
I
guess
I'm
just
suggesting
we
should
probably
seek
diversity
for
the
benefits
not
out
of
an
expression
of
animus
towards
any
other
group.
Thank
you.
N
N
N
Yep,
I
think
it's
a
time
that
we
look
at
well
how
we
can
appoint
people
like
originally.
I
wasn't
real
thrilled
with
this,
but
I
think
reality
is
we're
going
to
give
a
message
to
those
who
appoint.
N
A
Thank
you
and
I
know
to
say
just
for
the
record.
I
think
I
think
that
this
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
I
was
privileged
to
have
a
an
opportunity
to
speak
for
the
for
churro
or
the
docs
or
soon-to-be
docs,
and
what,
when
congresswoman
berkeley
called
me,
she
said
they.
They
had
requested
that
I
speak
on
diversity
and
why
that's
important.
A
A
Excuse
me
from
malcolm
x's
daughter,
who
teaches
a
school
and
teaches
at
a
college
in
new
york
who
asked
me
to
talk
to
speak
to
her
class
and
they
wanted
to
know
about
diversity.
A
So
I
think
I
think
that
we're
on
the
right
path
and
in
2021
you
would
think
that
we
wouldn't
have
to
do
this,
but
but
we
do
because,
if
you
look
around
and
you
see
and
to
the
point
of
the
most
qualified
person
I'll
say
this
as
a
black
woman,
sometimes
I've
been
the
most
qualified
head
and
shoulders
above
whoever
was
selected,
but
because,
if
because
I
was
black
and
one
time
I
was
told
that
one
time
I
was
told
that
you
know
well,
I
don't
think
that
a
woman
or
a
black
woman
can
do
this.
A
Okay.
So
so
these
things
exist-
and
I
think
the
point
of-
and
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth
senator
shy.
But
I
think
the
point
of
this
is
is
a
way
for
us
to
walk
our
talk
again
senate
concurrent
resolution,
one
during
the
30-second
special
session
passed
unanimously
out
of
both
houses
that
was
bipartisan
and
by
camel.
So
I
think,
recognizing
that
all
the
time
the
most
qualified
person
is
not
picked
for
whatever
the
reason
and
many
times
it's
because
of
implicit,
implicit
bias.
A
So,
having
said
that
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
amend
it
do
pass
sound
move.
Have
a
motion
is
that
senator
scheible
or
senator
lange
bender
lane?
Okay,
I
got
to
put
this
back
in
gallery
because
I
can't
see
y'all.
I
have
a
motion
from
senator
lang.
Do
I
have
a
second
second
senator
scibel?
I
have
a
second
from
senator
scheible
additional
discussion.
A
N
A
Okay,
so
with
that,
let
me
ask,
let
me
ask
a
question:
senator
hardy
has
indicated
that
the
real
estate
commission
does
various
and
sundry
transactions.
Is
there
anyone
still
on
the
call
that
could
answer
that
question?
What
what
kind
of
transactions
would
they
do
that
that
that
the
people
and
I'm
not
saying
that
the
person
whoever's
appointed
shouldn't
be
qualified?
Can
anyone
explain
to
me
what
kind
of
transactions
they
do.
D
Adam
chair,
shirat,
chandra
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division.
I
think
to
answer
the
question
and
your
question.
D
The
real
estate
commission
is
a
lot
of
the
disciplinary
action
that
the
commission
takes
is
related
to
real
estate
transactions,
so
these
are
licensees
that
go
before
the
commission
for
things
that
they
have
done
either
harm
the
public
or
created
a
conflict
between
the
statute
and
regulations
and
what
they
were
supposed
to
do,
and
so
a
lot
of
these
come
down
to
those
details.
Did
you
provide
these
documents?
What
was
the
transaction?
D
D
So
those
are
the
kind
of
disciplinary
cases
that
go
before
the
commission.
The
commission
does
also
advise
the
division
and
also
provide
regulatory
guidance
and
and
does
regulations,
but
for
the
most
part
the
discipline
is
against
licensees.
It's
not
against.
You
know
just
clients,
it's
about.
It's
about
licensing
discipline,
so,
yes,
they
do
get
technical,
and
you
know
some
of
the
transactionary
details
require
some
knowledge
of
real
estate
and
understanding.
D
So
that's
that's
just
to
answer
that
question.
Thank
you.
A
D
Currently,
shara
chandra
administrator
for
the
real
estate
division
currently,
as
as
the
regulations
of
the
statute
reads.
Yes,
every
single
member
of
that
five-member
commission,
which
is
currently
five
members.
It
has
qualifications
related
directly
to
real
estate,
they're,
all
practitioners,
so
that's
and
this
bill
adds
two
additional
positions.
So
I
think
there's
two
things
here:
the
bill
adds
two
additional
positions
and
puts
some
qualifications
around
those
two
positions,
so
it
increases
the
number
of
people
on
the
board.
D
The
diversity
question,
I
think,
is
a
separate
question.
That
is
just
a
statement
to
the
extent
possible.
We
need
to
do
that,
but
the
policy
question
we
have
stayed
away.
We're
neutral
in
the
policy
question
whether
adding
two
more
members
to
the
commission
and
what
their
qualifications
look
like
is
something
this
body
has
been
debating.
A
I
know
hold
on
just
a
minute.
I
know
some
people
who
are
realtors
that
are
indian,
not
indigenous
indian.
I
know
realtors
who
are
african-american.
I
know
realtors
who
are
from
the
latinx
community.
A
So
so,
if,
if
the
pool
of
realtors-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
know
that-
because
it's
usually
not
on
the
license,
but
if
the
pool
of
realtors
represents
the
population
in
the
state,
would
it
stand
to
reason
that
someone
who
would
be
qualified
to
do
the
transactions
that
you
mentioned
previously
would
be?
Would
have
the
experience
to
do
that?
That's
that's
my
question.
D
A
Yeah
and
I
need
I
need
to
ask
that
because
I
grew
up.
I
grew
up
at
a
time
when
we
were
trying
to
do
university
and
if
you
were
black
and
in
a
position-
and
you
were
the
first
one,
a
lot
of
times,
people
used
to
say:
well,
you
it's
because
of
quotas,
so
I
just
need
to
be
clear
about
this
and
I
think
I
just
got
a
a
message
that
this
goes
back
to.
The
wording
goes
back
to
1999.
A
I
didn't
live
in
the
state,
then
who
was
the
governor?
Does
anybody
know
who
was
the
governor?
A
A
Okay
miller,
who
was
the
governor
after
that
anybody
known
inguine,
okay,
so
so
one
thing
we
know
is
that
this
language
has
been
has
been
applicable
to
republican
and
democratic
governors,
and
so
it's
not
a
matter
of
do
we
trust
it's
really
a
matter
of
protocol
and
because
we
have
to
do
this,
my
hope
is
in
20
years
people
will
automatically
look
for
the
most
qualified
person
and
if
a
person
of
color
shows
up,
then
they
will
select
them,
but
but
that
that's
not
the
case
right
now,
senator
hardy,
you
had
a
question.
A
Oh
okay,
all
righty,
senator
pickard.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'd
like
to
get
away
from
the
diversity
piece.
I
think
that's
been
beaten.
Well
enough,
it's
no
glue.
I
I
want
to
get
to
the
substance,
and
that
is
we're
suggesting
that
we're
inserting
two
non
expert
or
potentially
non-experts,
but
who
are
consumer
advocates
for
affordable
housing?
C
C
They
really
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
practice
of
real
estate
and
as
a
licensee
myself,
you
know
we.
We
are
required
to
understand
how
to
facilitate
transactions.
That
is
the
role
of
a
real
estate
agent
and
or
broker
to
facilitate,
either
leasing,
property,
maintenance
and
and
and
monitoring.
C
The
management
of
it
also
falls
under
that.
But
at
no
time
does
a
realtor
have
the
ability
to
affect
whether
or
not
a
price
is
affordable,
whether
that's
on
the
leasing
side
or
on
the
purchasing
side.
So
by
inserting
people
with
a
a
focus
completely
outside
the
realm
of
real
estate.
C
I
believe
that
it's
a
mistake
to
add
now:
I'm
not
suggesting
a
non-real
estate
agent
participate
on
the
board,
because
that
outside
perspective
might
be
interesting
when
it
comes
to
disciplinary
action,
but
to
specifically
require
a
focus
on
something
that
is
completely
outside
the
jurisdiction
and
purview
of
a
realtor
or
I'm
sorry,
that's
a
term
of
art,
that's
a
trademark
term,
outside
of
a
licensee.
I
think
I
just
think
it's
a
mistake.
M
Absolutely
share
spearman
with
all
due
respect.
I
think
that
is
exactly
the
problem
is
that
we
have
been
looking
at
real
estate
transactions
and
the
real
estate
industry
as
a
separate
industry
from
affordable
housing,
and
I
think
it's
time
for
us
to
bridge
that
gap
and
for
every
individual
who
works
in
the
real
estate
market
who
helps
people
buy,
sell
lease
homes,
rent
out
properties.
M
Invest
in
properties
has
somebody
in
their
oversight
committee
who
is
concerned
about
affordable
housing
and
ensuring
that
all
of
our
nevada
communities
have
adequate
accessible,
affordable
housing,
and
that's
why
I
have
suggested
adding
this
person
to
the
board,
and
I
would
request
that
we
take
a
vote
on
the
motion.
Cheer.
A
Spearman,
all
right
still,
the
question
has
been
called.
Madam
secretary.
Please
call
the
role
senator.
B
C
A
O
Senator
spearman,
you're,
muted.
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
mcgregor
committee
policy.
Analyst
senate
bill
314,
provides
for
the
regulation
of
high
volume
marketplace
sellers
on
online
marketplaces
and
sponsored
by
senator
neal
and
heard
on
march
30th
2021.
I
would
note
for
this
bill.
There
is
an
additional
amendment
that
it
was
uploaded
to
nellis
this
morning.
So
again,
this
is
in
addition
to
those
amendments,
including
the
work
session
document.
O
O
Third
amendment
is
to
amend
subsection
one
of
section
10
to
change
from
24
hours
to
three
business
days.
The
amount
of
time
when
a
high
volume
marketplace
seller
is
required
to
provide
certain
identifiable
information
to
an
online
marketplace.
After
becoming
a
high
volume
marketplace.
Seller,
in
addition,
include
that
the
information
required
in
subparagraph,
a
through
e
of
subsection
one
to
the
online
marketplace,
will
be
confidential
between
the
seller
and
the
marketplace
and
will
be
kept
online,
be
kept
by
the
online
marketplace
solely
for
the
purpose
of
maintaining
records
on
the
seller.
O
O
The
additional
amendment
that's
included
on
nellis
would
amend
to
increase
from
five
thousand
dollars
to
seventy
five
hundred
dollars
the
threshold
for
the
definition
of
a
high
volume
marketplace
seller.
In
addition
to
these
amendments
and
the
one
included
on
nellis
senator
neil
also
proposes
to
include
an
amendment
to
make
the
bill
effective
on
july.
1
2021
and
those
were
all
the
amendments.
A
Thank
you,
senator
settlemyre.
B
Thank
you
manager.
I
appreciate
the
amendments.
It
looks
like
the
sponsor's
done
a
great
job
trying
to
deal
with
the
outside.
You
know
forces
that
are
out
there
that
are
trying
to
get
them
into
the
bill
and
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
as
little
as
possible
of
the
unattended
consequences.
Unfortunately,
in
front
of
the
documents
I
have
in
front
of
me,
I
don't
have
the
effective
date's,
pretty
simple.
B
H
No,
so
thank
you
for
the
question
senator
settlemyre.
No,
there
isn't
so.
What
was
happening
was
the
folks
that
were
in
opposition
to
the
threshold.
They
tried
to
get
it.
They
wanted
twenty
thousand.
I
was
trying
to
work
with
them.
H
They
wanted,
I
offered
ten
thousand
and
then
they
were
like
no
and
then
I
went
to
7
500
just
on
my
own
to
because
they
kept
saying
that
we
were
going
to
bring
in
hobbyists,
and
so
I
just
selected
that
number
talking
with
retail
to
just
go
ahead
and
say
I'll
at
least
increase
the
threshold.
Since
they
were
saying
we
were
capturing
hobbyists.
H
I
didn't
have
time
to
pull
any
data,
but
I
didn't
agree
with
raising
the
threshold
to
twenty
thousand
dollars,
which
is
what
they
wanted,
because
I
felt
like
you're,
definitely
probably
getting
into
a
high
volume
seller
and
the
issue
that
we're
trying
to
go
after,
which
is
the
organized
retail
theft.
H
We
could
fall
into
that
with
a
twenty
thousand
dollar
threshold,
and
so
I
did
seventy
five
hundred
trying
to
consider
maybe
a
hobbyist
that
might
be
doing
75
and
under
not
being
attributed
to
the
threshold.
So
if
that
changes
your
opinion,
I
will
drop
it
back
to
five,
but
that's
the
only
reason
why
I
changed
it.
B
One
other
question:
just
that
curiosity
is,
I
think
your
bill
goes
a
long
way
trying
to
address
this
problem,
and
I
think
one
of
the
beneficial
aspects
is
some
of
the
other
states
have
looked
at
similar
legislations.
Just
out
of
curiosity,
what
level
have
other
states
used
you
know?
Do
we
look
at
the
idea
of
saying
that
you
know
we
should
follow
the
amounts
of
other
states
so
that
way
it
creates
some
consistency.
I
I
was
just
curious
if
you
happen
to
know
that
information.
H
J
I
am
senator
thank
you.
B
K
For
consistency's
sake,
five
thousand
dollars
it
would
be.
The
standard
arkansas
has
just
passed
their
language
at
five
thousand
and
I
believe
five
thousand
was
also
included
in
the
in
the
federal
bill.
B
It
includes
the
hobbyists,
but
we
appreciate
senator
neil
doing
what
she's
done
and
7
500
was
was
the
direction
she.
C
B
H
Thank
you
senator
settlemeyer,
and
I
unders.
I
appreciate
that
because
it
was
a
struggle
and
I
just
because
some
of
the
provisions
that
they
wanted
to
to
amend
in
like
a
section
11,
it
was
super
hard
to
you
know,
accept
those,
because
when
I
looked
at
the
1099,
what
is
being
asked
for
a
sole
proprietor
literally
is
what
we
have
in
our
bill,
and
so
I
just
couldn't.
I
was
like
if
the
irs
is
getting
it
from
you
as
a
sole
proprietor,
you
probably
should
be
doing
it
in
state
law.
C
Hey
madam
chair,
just
a
quick
question:
senator
neil
I
I
undoubtedly
got
the
same
mass
emails
that
you
did
from
the
etsy
providers
and
others,
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
saw
as
an
advantage
in
this
bill
from
the
outset
was
the
you
know,
know
your
vendor
kind
of
arrangement
where,
having
done
civil
litigation
generally
at
the
first
part
of
my
practice,
that
was
always
an
obstacle
by
eliminating
the
requirement
that
the
information
be
publicly
available.
C
Have
we
affected
at
all
the
ability
of
the
the
buyer
to
in
some
way
obtain
that
information?
If
there's
a
problem
or
are
they
now
just
without
the
ability
to
try
to
find
a
remedy
to
a
defective
item
or
or
maybe
somebody
didn't
send
what
they,
what
the
buyer
thought
they
were
purchasing,
but
now,
if
they
don't
have
the
ability
to
contact
that
person,
let
alone
process
of
service
or
I'm
sorry
service
of
process?
H
So
so,
there's
a
couple
of
things
in
that
one:
the
way
that
the
bill
is
written
there
will
be
seller
information
that
is
given
upon
requests.
But
the
confidentiality
piece
that
I
put
in
there
was
so
that
it's
not
made
public,
because
the
argument
that
was
being
made
was
okay.
We
have
a
sole
proprietor
who
is
selling
from
their
home
and
that
there
was
an
invasion
of
privacy
and
that
a
person,
a
buyer
if
they
lived
in
the
same
city.
H
This
was
the
red
herring
argument
that
they
made
that
a
person
could
come
to
their
house
and
then
try
to
deal
with
them,
and
so
I
was
sympathetic
to
that
and
I
understood
that
as
a
as
a
you
know,
a
person
who
lives
in
a
house-
and
you
may
be
making
pillows-
you
don't
want
to
have
a
confrontation
or
someone
coming
to
your
house
to
deal
with
what
they
felt
was
a
defective
issue.
So
I
put
the
confidentiality
provision
in
there
to
make.
H
Have
the
marketplace
give
that
information
upon
receiving
that
complaint,
but
it
wouldn't
just
be
outwardly
public,
because
that
was
what
they
were
debating
was
that
this
information
was
so
public
that
a
person
could
be
could
find
themselves
in
a
risk
situation,
and
so
that's
that
is
how
I
tried
to
deal
with
that,
which
is
it's
confidential
until
you
have
a
complaint
from
a
person
and
then
you
should
disclose
to
that
buyer.
But
it's
not
just
an
open.
C
N
C
O
A
H
A
Go
now
to
senate
bill
3.
O
20.
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
cesar
mcgregor
committee
policy
analyst.
Our
next
bill
is
senate
bill
320,
which
enacts
various
provisions
relating
to
food
delivery,
service
platforms
and
sponsored
by
senator
neal
and
heard
on
march
30th
2021.
There
is
also
an
updated
proposed
amendment
on
nellis.
I
will
provide
a
make
note
of
which
what
are
the
the
differences
between
the
language
included
in
this
work
session
document
and,
what's
included
on
nellis,
however,
the
the
most
updated
language
isn't
included
on
nellis.
O
O
Second,
amendment
is
to
amend
subsection
2
of
section
13
to
delete
immediately
and
provide
that
the
food
delivery
service
platform
is
required
to
remove
the
food
dispensing
establishment
within
48
hours
after
receipt
of
a
request
of
the
removal,
and
the
amendment
number
three
is
what
I've
identified
as
the
difference
between
the
two
submitted
amendments
so
amend
us.
The
new
proposed
amendment
would
amend
subsection
one
of
section
16
to
delete
that
before
an
online
food
order
is
constant
consummated
with
a
user.
O
A
food
delivery
service
platform
must
disclose
any
commission
associated
with
the
online
food
order,
in
addition
include
in
subsection,
1
and
d
that
the
platform
must
disclose.
In
a
step.
In
a
statement,
the
average
commission
expressed
as
the
highest
possible
percentage
paid
of
the
aggregate
food
purchase
price
by
the
provider
for
a
food
dispensing
establishment
in
nevada.
O
Amendment
number
seven
is
the
men's
subsection
one
of
section
19
to
prohibit
a
food
delivery
service
platform
from
charging
a
food,
dispensing
establishment,
a
commission
for
an
online
food
order
that
exceeds
20
of
the
food
purchase
price
of
the
online
food
order,
plus
a
credit
card
processing
fee.
In
addition,
allow
a
food
dispensing
establishment
to
agree
in
writing
to
pay
food
delivery
service
platform
provider,
a
commission
that
exceeds
20
of
the
food
purchase
price
to
obtain
certain
optional
products
or
services.
O
C
Well,
thank
you
madam
chair.
I
was
just
contemplating
whether
or
not
I
wanted
to
commend
the
restaurant
association
for
their
hard
work.
I
got
a
call
late
last
night
because
they
were
still
working
on
the
amendment
and
I
certainly
appreciate
their
willingness
to
make
adjustments
based
on
what
the
committee
had
to
say
so
kudos
to
them
and
I'll
make
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
C
B
H
Yes,
madam
chair,
I
just
want
to
ditto
senator
pickard
and
thank
alexandria
she's
on,
because
when
I
say
that
this
was
a
challenge
it
was
and
she
took
it
on
because
I
was
just
like.
I
don't
want
any
more
gray
hair,
but
I
will
pass
all
that
onto
you.
So
thank
you,
alexandria.
A
Thank
you,
you
say
right
here
is
a
sign
of
wisdom.
So
a
couple
more
years
I
may
be
deemed
very
smart.
Madam
secretary,
please
do
a
roll
call
vote.
Senator
hardy.
N
C
A
Yes,
ma'am.
Thank
you,
and
so
I
think
that's
all
of
the
work
session
documents
that
we
have
so
now
broadcast.
We
will
go
to
public
comment.
B
B
B
A
All
righty
so
we'll
close
public
comment
and
we
will
bring
this
marathon
meeting
to
a
close.
We
shall
meet
again
tomorrow
morning
at
eight
o'clock
and
we
have
some
more
bills
to
discuss.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
to
the
extent
possible
bills
out
in
work
session
that
we've
already
heard.
If
anyone
has
a
bill
you're
waiting
for
an
amendment,
please
ask
for
a
conceptual.
A
I
don't
think
they're
doing
mock-ups
right
now,
as
for
conceptual
so
that
we
can
get
it
out
of
committee
after
the
night,
it'll
be
too
late,
okay,
and
so
with
that
we
are
in.