►
From YouTube: 4/9/2021 - Senate Committee on Judiciary
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
A
Sometimes,
multiple
amendments
on
the
same
bill
coming
in
before
one
email
was
even
processed.
So
with
that,
we
are
going
to
work
session
a
lot
of
bills
today,
I
think
we
have
11
on
our
agenda
we're
going
to
go
one
by
one,
of
course,
with
all
of
the
committee's
meeting
today
we
will
have
people
popping
in
and
out
to
answer
questions,
but
all
of
our
committee
members
should
be
here
the
whole
time,
and
for
that
reason
we
might
have
to
have
some
flexibility.
A
If
you
know
we
get
to
a
bill
and
the
subject
matter.
Experts
aren't
here
and
we
have
questions
for
them.
We
can
come
back
to
it,
but
we
will
try
to
get
through
them
as
quickly
as
possible
and
as
a
reminder,
we
do
not
take
testimony
during
work
session.
I
do
understand
that
there
are
a
number
of
people
who
are
watching
and
or
listening,
and
that
is
great,
and
we
appreciate
you
being
part
of
this
process
of
the
work
session
is
not
a
time
to
relitigate
the
bill
or
to
to
grill.
A
The
presenters
is
a
time
for
us
to
determine
whether
or
not
we
want
to
pass
the
bill
out
of
committee
or
not,
and
for
those
bills
that
have
amendments.
It
is
our
opportunity
to
ask
the
sponsors
of
the
amendments
about
those.
I
think
that
covers
all
of
the
preliminary
information
that
I
wanted
to
get
on
the
record,
and
I
will
ask
the
esteemed
secretary
to
please
take
the
role.
C
B
B
A
And
I
am
here,
I
also
wanted
to
let
everybody
know
or
check
in
with
everybody,
our
amazing
committee
manager,
beth
reichers,
delivered
hand
delivered
your
work
session
documents
to
all
of
you,
they're
also
available
on
nellis.
So
hopefully
we
have
no
trouble
accessing
them
and.
A
D
A
A
All
right,
we
are
back
on
track.
If
the
secretary
could
please
mark
senator
harris
present
and
senator
pickard
absent,
we
can
get
started
on
our
work
session.
A
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you,
mr
guy,
and
start
us
off
on
sb6.
E
Thanks
cherysheville
for
the
record
patrick
guynan
committee
policy.
Analyst,
as
chair
mentioned,
we're
beginning
a
work
session
today
on
senate
bill
six,
which
is
a
committee
bill,
brought
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
supreme
court,
and
the
committee
just
heard
this
bill
on
april
8th.
So
I
imagine,
you're
familiar
with
it.
Bill
removes
the
ability
of
a
family
household
member
to
file
an
application
for
an
extended
protective
order,
and
custody
of
firearm
is
removed
from
the
list
of
factors.
E
Bill
also
provides
that
a
firearm
must
be
surrendered
to
the
law
enforcement
agency
of
the
officer
that
filed
the
application
for
the
order,
and
the
adverse
party
must
supply
a
receipt
for
the
surrender
to
the
court
within
one
business
day
on
the
dissolution
or
expiration
of
an
order.
The
court
must
issue
an
order
for
the
return
of
any
surrendered
firearm
and
a
law
enforcement
agency
must
return
it
within
30
days.
A
court
is
required
to
dissolve
an
order
if
all
parties
stipulate,
rather
than
agree
to
the
dissolution
on
a
finding
of
good
cause.
E
E
The
amendment
changes
temporary
in
the
bill
to
emergency,
which
replaces
ex
parte
and
statute
for
the
purposes
of
this
bill.
It
retains
the
ability
of
a
family
or
household
member
to
file
an
application
for
a
protective
order,
but
requires
a
showing
of
imminent
risk
to
the
person
or
others.
It
removes
the
distinction
between
an
ex-parte
order
and
an
extended
order,
and
instead
requires
a
single
application
for
an
order
for
high-risk
protection.
E
It
adds
to
existing
requirements
for
an
application,
a
requirement
to
include
any
supplemental
documents
or
information
and
establishes
procedures
for
a
hearing
on
an
application,
including
the
hearing
must
be
held
within
one
judicial
day
of
the
application.
Filing
court
may
issue
an
emergency
or
extended
order
schedule
a
future
hearing
or
dismiss
the
application.
E
The
court
may
hold
a
telephonic
hearing
on
an
application
filed
by
a
law
enforcement
officer,
and
a
court
is
prohibited
from
issuing
an
extended
order
at
a
telephonic
hearing.
The
amendment
also
states
if
an
emergency
order
is
issued,
it
expires
no
longer
than
seven
days
after
the
filing
of
the
application.
E
The
court
must
hold
a
hearing
during
this
time
period
to
determine
whether
an
issue
whether
to
issue
an
extended
order
unless
the
emergency
order
is
dissolved
prior
to
that
deadline,
or
it
may
extend
an
emergency
period
for
seven
days
to
effectuate
service
of
the
order
or
for
good
cause
shown.
The
amendment
further
states
that
if
a
court
schedules
a
future
hearing,
it
must
be
held
within
seven
days
of
an
application
filing.
The
court
may
issue
an
extended
order
under
certain
circumstances.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
gainen,
and
I
do
want
to
clarify
for
the
committee
that
this
is
the
same
amendment
that
we
reviewed
yesterday
when
we
heard
the
bill
and
now
it's
time
for
questions.
I
see
senator
settlemyre's
hand
go
ahead.
D
Sure
I
know
that
it's
going
to
surprise
you,
but
I
guess
nra
is
in
opposition,
even
if
things
are
changed,
but
my
maker
crux
is
something
that
judge
bell
stated
on
the
record.
She
was
okay
with
which
is
concept
of
leaving
it
at
30
days.
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
bill
and
I
want
to
support
the
bill.
I
do
have
a
question
of
the
concept
of
waiting,
an
additional
15
days
to
return
someone's
property
to
them.
D
So
in
that
respect,
if
you
would
allow,
as
part
of
the
amendment,
what
judge
bell
indicated
is
okay,
which
is
leaving
it
30
days,
I'm
pretty
sure
you'll
have
an
unanimous
vote
out
of
this
committee
for
this
bill,
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
support
it.
I
don't
want
to
be
partisan.
I
would
like
to
have
the
amendment
be
30
days
left
at
that
and
we
get
along
otherwise,
if
you're
going
to
have
to.
A
So
senator
settlemeyer.
B
A
Appreciate
that
and
I
I
would
also
like
to
see
this
passed
unanimously
and
bipartisanly
out
of
this
committee,
and
I
see
your
hand,
senator
hansen.
What
I
wanted
to
explain
is
that
I
think
the
judge
belt
also
mentioned
that
the
original
reason
for
switching
that
number
to
30
days
instead
of
14
was
actually
at
the
request
of
law
enforcement.
A
They
were
having
trouble
turning
around
the
prop
like
the
property
processing
to
return
firearms
in
less
than
30
days.
So
I'm
not
going
to
entertain
a
conceptual
amendment
today
on
that
number
without
consulting
them,
but
I
will
remain
open
to
it
and
I
understand
that's
not
what
you're
asking,
but
you
know
with
that
information
you
can.
I
hope
that
will
inform
your
vote,
knowing
that
I'm
open
to
continuing
the
discussion
but
not
open
to
making
the
change
today.
D
I
appreciate
that
chair,
but
in
the
same
respect
we
could
process
and
we
find
out
that
it's
wrong.
We
can
go
to
30
if
law
enforcement
steps
up
because
again
judge
bell,
indicated
they're
talking,
33
people,
they
didn't
know
there
was
no
evidence
that
they
had
any
problem
getting
them
back
in
that
time
frame.
Yeah
everybody
would
love
more
time.
Everybody'll
have
more
time
to
do
your
homework.
We'd
love
more
time
and
that's
why
we
don't
begin
on
time
around
here.
So
I'm
sorry
it
just.
C
Yeah,
actually,
I
I
think
senator
settler
didn't
mean
to,
but
he
said
30
days
a
couple
of
times
he
actually
meant
14.,
like
the
lives
currently
so
just
going
to
help
him
out
on
that
when
he
was
saying
that
he
meant
he
meant
to
keep
the
law
the
time
frame
that
it
currently
is,
rather
than
the
extension
of
30
days,
so
just
want
to
help
out
there
chair.
Sorry,
that's
it.
A
E
Thank
you,
chair
scheible,
for
the
record,
patrick
gunning
committee
policy.
Analyst
again
we're
now
on
senate
bill
22,
which
is
another
committee
bill
that
was
brought
on
behalf
of
the
department
of
corrections.
This
one
was
heard
by
the
committee
on
march
4th
and
it
addresses
deductions
from
individual
accounts
and
wages
of
an
offender
senate
bill
22
revises
the
order
of
priority
of
deductions.
E
E
The
amendment
retains
the
new
order
of
priority
for
deductions
contained
in
the
original
bill
that
the
director
may
take
from
an
offender's
personal
account
or
from
an
offender's
wages.
However,
it
provides
that
the
director
may
deduct
no
more
than
25
percent
of
any
single
deposit
to
an
offender's
individual
account
and
no
more
than
50
percent
of
any
single
deposit
from
the
wage
is
earned
by
an
offender.
E
These
statements
are
to
be
provided
to
the
offender
at
no
charge
twice
a
year.
Finally,
the
director
is
to
maintain
a
package
program
for
each
offender
that
is
exempt
from
deductions
and
may
only
be
restricted
under
certain
circumstances
and
at
the
director's
discretion
in
relation
to
disciplinary
segregation,
administrative
segregation
or
for
medical
reasons.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
gunnan.
I
do
see
your
hand
senator
hanson,
and
I
want
to
let
everybody
know
that
this
amendment
does
represent
a
consensus
between
the
j-raw
committee,
which
includes
plan
and
the
aclu
and
return
strong
as
well
as
endoc.
Both
parties
or
all
parties
have
seen
this
amendment
they're
aware
of
this
amendment
and
they're
all
somewhere
between
neutral
and
supportive
of
the
amendment.
So
I
think
it
does
reflect
the
best
compromise
that
we
could
come
to
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
take
questions.
Senator
hansen.
C
Thanks
jared
the
question
I
have
actually
I
I
support
the
bill
we
is
in
this
committee.
We
had
a
bill
by
senator
neil
about
making
sure
that
prisoners
get
paid
minimum
wage.
I
don't
know,
do
we
have
that
is
that
coming
up
at
all,
or
I
don't
see
it
on
a
work
session,
and
I
I
frankly
I
know
okay
all
right,
never
mind
then,
but
yeah.
I
I
I
support
that
bill
too.
So
anyway,
thanks
chair.
D
Sure
I
was
just
going
to
ask
for
the
record.
You
know
a
lot
of
this
is
trying
to
make
sure
we're
in
compliance
with
marsy's
law.
The
victims
are
entitled
to
a
full
and
timely
restitution
per
marcy's
law,
and
I
appreciate
your
amendment
trying
to
find
the
balance
to
that.
Does
the
concept
of
the
50
potentially
put
us
in
jeopardy?
With
that?
Should
we
do
no?
I
know
it
sounds
weird,
but
249.
So
there's
no
argument
there
or
I
just
wanted
to
have
legal
or
endoc
way
in
on
that
particular
aspect.
That's
my
only
concern.
F
Mind
thank
you,
chair
scheible,
in
reviewing
the
bill
now,
I
believe
it
would
comport
with
the
intent
in
the
provisions
of
mercy's
law
under
the
constitution
as
written.
D
Appreciate
that,
sir,
in
that
respect,
I'm
not
real
comfortable
with
it,
but
I
I
demand
you
pass
whenever
you're
willing
to
take
sudden
motion
chair.
A
Motion
accepted:
is
there
a
second.
A
F
B
B
D
C
A
A
We
will
now
move
on
to
sb
94.
If
you
would,
please
walk
us
through
the
work
session
document.
Mr
guidan.
E
Thanks
for
shoveling
again
patrick
guidan,
we're
now
on
senate
bill
94,
this
is
sponsored
by
senator
settlemeyer,
and
the
committee
heard
it
on
the
2nd
of
march
relates
to
public
highways,
roads
and
ways
senate
bill
94
adds
the
term
public
way
to
statute
and
defines
the
term
in
relation
to
access
to
public
ways
in
this
state.
The
bill
also
provides
is
not
a
nuisance
for
an
owner
of
private
property,
upon
which
certain
highways,
roads
or
ways
are
located
post.
E
E
Private
property
owner
may
erect
a
gate
or
fence
across
such
a
road
or
a
way
after
applying
for
and
getting
approval
from,
the
governmental
agency
that
has
jurisdiction
over
the
road
or
away
the
government
entity
must
determine
that
such
a
gate
or
fence
will
not
greatly
inconvenience.
The
traveling
public
prior
to
approval
bill
also
sets
forth
requirements
concerning
such
fences
and
gates
and
provides
that
they
do
not
constitute
a
public
nuisance
or
violate
existing
law
against
obstructing
a
road
street
or
alley.
Senator
sotomayor
has
proposed
an
amendment
that
is
attached
to
this
document.
E
A
Thank
you.
Any
questions
on
the
bill.
D
F
D
C
A
E
Thanks
chair,
patrick
for
the
record
again
we're
at
senate
bill
143,
which
is
a
bill
that
relates
to
the
care
of
children.
It
was
sponsored
by
senator
harris
and
assemblywoman
hanson
who
joined
us
briefly
a
moment
ago,
but
had
to
leave.
This
bill
was
heard
on
march
8th,
originally
senate
bill.
143
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
abuse,
neglect
and
endangerment
of
a
child,
negligent
treatment
or
maltreatment
of
a
child
and
circumstances
under
which
these
terms
may
apply
to
a
person
who
is
responsible
for
the
safety
or
welfare
of
a
child.
E
Similarly,
the
bill
revises
the
circumstances
under
which
negligent
treatment
or
maltreatment
of
a
child
occurs
by
adding
and
defining
the
term
negligent
supervision,
meaning
the
neglect
or
refusal
to
provide
necessary
care
or
control.
When
able
to
do
so,
the
term
does
not
include,
and
a
person
does
not
commit
abuse,
neglect
or
endangerment
by
allowing
a
child
who
is
of
sufficient
maturity,
physical
condition
and
mental
ability
to
avoid
substantial
risk
of
harm,
to
engage
in
certain
independent
activities
alone
or
with
other
children.
E
These
activities
include
traveling
to
or
from
school
or
other
nearby,
commercial
or
recreational
facilities
on
foot
or
bicycle
playing
outside
and
remaining
home
unattended
in
consultation
with
the
stakeholders.
Senator
harris
and
assemblywoman
hansen
have
proposed
a
conceptual
amendment
that
is
attached
on
the
following
page
and
a
summary
of
it
is
here
below
and
I'll
go
through
it.
The
amendment
replaces
the
content
of
the
original
bill
entirely
and
makes
the
following
changes.
It
adds
a
section
expressing
the
legislative,
teacher's
intent
regarding
these
children
in
independent
activities.
E
It
removes
all
references
to
negligent
supervision
in
section,
one
creates
a
new
section
two
and
adds
to
the
nevada,
revised
statutes
chapter
four
thirty,
two
b:
point:
zero:
two:
zero
and
new
sub
two
c
defining
independent
activities.
It
amends
current
section
2
of
the
bill,
creating
a
section
3
and
makes
the
following
changes.
E
That's
all
I
have
jerry
scheibel,
I'm
sure
senator
harris
will
answer
questions
authority
thanks.
D
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
appreciate
the
work
that
was
done
by
senator
harris
and
simon
hansen
to
look
at
some
of
the
problems
I'm
going
to
support
out
of
committee
no
problem.
I
was
just
curious
if
one
of
somebody
could
weigh
in
on
whether
or
not
some
of
the
da's,
I
assume,
with
the
gut
and
replace
that
the
da's
concerns
have
been
addressed.
I
just
was
wondering
if
we
could
get
that
on
the
record
or
if
anybody
knew.
F
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
sotomayor
to
you
through
chair
scheible.
I
don't
want.
I
don't
quite
feel
comfortable,
representing
the
the
position
of
the
da's
on
the
record.
F
A
Yes,
correct,
I
think
senator
hansen
still
has
a
question
or
comment,
hopefully
about
the
sponsors
of
the
bill.
C
Very
good,
you,
you
read
it
well.
Actually
I
want
to
thank
senator
harris.
It
was
actually
a
unique
team
working
together
on
this
and
they
did
very
well
my
comment.
Actually
some
of
the
women
hanson
was
here
earlier
today.
37
years
ago
we
had
our
first
baby
girl,
so
she
had
her
first
daughter
april
9th
1984..
C
So
I
wish
she
was
here
because
that
she
would
like
this
as
a
parent.
This
isn't
really
trying
to
establish
parental
rights
and
get
get
some
reasonable
back.
Reasonable
is
back
in
the
law.
So
thank
you
senator
harris
for
working
with
her.
She
was
here
earlier,
but
had
to
go
to
a
committee
so
on
her
behalf,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
and
da's
and
all
the
people
that
worked
so
so
strenuously
behind
the
scenes
to
make
this
happen.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
C
A
Yes,
and
that
means
that,
as
the
motion
to
amend
you
pass,
sb
143
passes
unanimously.
I
will
assign
this
floor
statement
to
senator
harris
and
contribute
oh
moving
right
along.
We
will
go
to
sb
164.
E
Thanks
chair
for
the
record,
patrick
guynham
committee
policy,
analyst
we're
now
at
senate
bill
164,
which
is
sponsored
by
chair
and
senators.
Harrison
warren
shaw,
an
assemblywoman
union.
It
was
heard
by
this
committee
on
march
30th
and
it
revises
provisions
relating
to
human
trafficking
senate
bill.
164
provides
that
any
person
who
is
a
victim
of
human
trafficking,
as
defined
in
the
bill,
is
immune
from
civil
or
criminal
liability
for
several
prostitution
related
crimes.
A
person
may
have
committed
as
a
victim
of
human
trafficking.
E
Bill
also
exempts
an
arrested
person
who
is
subsequently
determined
to
be
a
victim
of
human
trafficking
from
their
requirement
to
be
tested
for
exposure
to
human
immunodeficiency
virus.
These
provisions
apply
to
offenses
committed
on
or
after
october,
21
excuse
me
october,
1,
2021
generally
and
before
october,
1
of
2021
in
the
case
of
a
person
who
has
not
been
convicted
before
that
date,
jericho
has
proposed
an
amendment
which
is
attached
in
a
conceptual
form
on
the
following
page.
E
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
guyan,
and
I
would
like
to
take
a
moment
to
acknowledge
all
of
the
people
who
have
put
in
so
much
hard
work
on
sb
164,
and
I
am
very
happy
to
present
this
amendment.
That
suggests
an
interim
study.
I
think
that
it
was
clear
from
my
presentation
and
from
the
testimony
that
there
are
a
lot
of
stakeholders
who
are
very
invested
in
fighting
human
trafficking
here
in
nevada
and
a
lot
of
perspectives
on
how
to
do
that
and
what's
effective.
I
also
think
that
we've
come
to.
A
We
already
agreed
that
we
want
to
utilize
a
victim-centered
but
also
data-driven
approach,
and
I
want
all
of
you
to
know
that
in
the
week
since
we
heard
the
bill,
I
have
worked
very
hard
and
very
long
with
law
enforcement
with
members
of
metro,
the
chiefs
and
sheriff's
association
with
swan,
the
sex
workers,
ad
alliance
of
nevada,
with
the
cupcake
girls,
with
the
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence,
and
really
what
we
learned
was
that
we
were
not
at
a
place
yet
where
we
could
implement
policy
or
where
we
could
agree
on
policy.
A
There
are
more
conversations
that
need
to
be
have.
There
is
more
information
that
needs
to
be
shared,
and
that
is
why
I
am
proposing
to
turn
this
bill
into
a
study,
and
I
am
proud
to
say
that
all
of
the
organizations
I
previously
mentioned
are
now
in
support,
including
the
shares.
I'm
sorry,
including
metro,
including
the
da's
association,
as
well
as
my
original
advocates,
the
sex
workers
alliance
of
nevada,
the
cupcake
girls
and
the
coalition
to
end
domestic
and
sexual
violence.
Happy
to
answer
questions
about
it.
If
you
guys
have
any.
F
A
F
A
E
E
The
bill
creates
the
nevada,
esports
commission
within
the
department
of
business
and
industry
to
regulate
esports,
which
is
defined
as
a
contest
of
multiple
players
using
video
games.
The
bill
sets
forth
the
qualifications
of
duties
of
the
commission,
which
is
to
consist
of
three
members
appointed
by
the
governor.
Each
member
serves
a
four
year
term
and
the
governor
designates
the
chair
from
among
the
commissioners
who
serves
a
two-year
term
governor
also
appoints
an
executive
director
who
serves
at
the
governor's
pleasure.
E
The
commission
is
to
adopt
regulations
necessary
to
govern
esports
in
nevada
for
both
hosts
and
participants
of
esports
contests.
Senator
kikeford
discussed
a
conceptual
amendment
at
the
initial
hearing,
which
is
attached.
That
amendment
would
revise
the
makeup
of
the
commission
to
expand
the
membership
to
five
commissioners.
It
would
loosen
the
technical
qualifications
of
commissioners
and
remove
the
prohibition
on
commissioner
interest
in
esports
enterprises.
E
It
would
require
the
commission
to
appoint
a
technical
advisory
committee
consisting
of
esports
professionals
from
various
areas
within
within
the
industry,
including
broadcasters
event,
organizers,
judges,
players,
publishers,
teams
and
anyone
else
deemed
appropriate
by
the
commission,
and
the
attack
would
also
provide
recommendations
to
the
commission
on
esports
standards
and
sanctioning
thresholds
for
incorporation
into
regulations
to
be
promulgated
by
the
commission.
Members
of
the
advisory
committee
served
without
compensation,
and
the
amendment
would
also
remove
the
1
000
threshold
for
sanctioning
of
events
by
the
commission
and
leave
sanctioning
decisions
up
to
the
commission.
E
It
would
clarify
that
the
commission
has
approval
authority
when
considering
applications
for
registration,
and
it
would
extend
the
effective
date
of
the
legislation
to
july
1
of
2022
to
give
the
commission
a
full
year
to
complete
its
initial
work.
That's
all
I
have
chair
and
I
believe
senator
kikifer
is
with
us
today.
If
anyone
has
questions.
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
E
Thanks
chair,
patrick
guyan,
again
for
the
record.
Excuse
me:
we
are
now
at
senate
bill
166,
which
is
sponsored
by
the
chair.
It
revises
provisions
relating
to
crimes
motivated
by
certain
characteristics
of
the
victim,
and
the
committee
heard
this
bill
on
march
15th
fed
bill.
166
removes
a
provision
from
law
which
requires
that,
in
order
for
certain
penalty
enhancements
to
apply
to
felonies
committed
because
of
characteristics
of
the
victim,
including
race,
color,
religion,
national
origin,
physical
or
mental
disability,
sexual
orientation
or
gender
identity
or
expression,
perpetrator
must
not
share
those
characteristics
with.
E
Instead,
this
bill
provides
that
the
perpetrator
may
be
punished
by
an
additional
penalty
if
the
crime
was
committed
based
on
the
characteristics
of
the
victim
which
makes
the
standard
for
these
crimes
the
same
as
the
standard
that
applies
in
misdemeanor
cases.
The
chair
has
offered
an
amendment
that's
attached
on
the
following
page.
It
would
add
to
the
list
of
crimes
to
which
the
bill
applies.
E
Those
found
in
nrs
202.448,
which
addresses
making
threats
or
conveying
false
information
regarding
terroristic
threats
and
nrs
392.915,
which
regards
threatening
a
pupil
or
a
school
employee
with
bodily
harm,
and
it
would
add
those
crimes
to
the
statutory
cause
of
action
for
damages
resulting
from
certain
criminal
violations
if
the
person
was
motivated
by
certain
characteristics
of
the
victim.
That's
all
I
have
chair
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
mr
gainen,
and
I
want
to
clarify
for
the
committee
that
this
is
the
same
conceptual
amendment
presented
at
the
time
that
we
heard
the
bill.
Are
there
any
questions?
A
A
C
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
mean
I,
I
made
my
my
points
clear
during
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
so
I
won't
elaborate.
I
just
think
just
like
everybody's
supposed
to
be
equal
in
the
eyes
of
the
law.
I
think
all
victims
should
be
treated
equally
in
the
eyes
of
the
law
as
well.
So
I
will
be
enough.
F
You've
made
some
very
compelling
arguments
for
the
legislation
I'm
going
to
support
it
today
out
of
committee.
I
still
have
some
lingering
concerns
based
on
the
opponent's
testimony
at
the
hearing,
and
so
I
just
want
to
reserve
my
right
to
potentially
change
on
the
floor,
but
I
will
be
supporting
it
today.
A
Thank
you
all
right.
We
have
emotion
on
the
floor.
We
have
a
hotter
discussion.
We
will
go
to
a
roll
call
vote.
Please.
F
C
B
A
Yes,
with
that
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
sb
166
passes,
I
will
assign
this
floor
statement
to
myself
and
that
takes
us
to
sb
203
on
our
work
session,
and
I
believe
that
we
have
ms
brazier
here
to
answer
questions
if
there
are
any
and
or
ms
eaglet
or
perhaps
mr
eaglette.
E
Thanks
chair,
patrick
guys,
for
the
record
we're
not
billed
to
a
chair
mentioned.
This
is
a
bill
sponsored
by
senator
dondero
loop,
and
it
relates
to
civil
actions
involving
certain
sexual
offenses
against
minors.
The
committee
heard
it
on
the
23rd
of
march
sb
203,
eliminates
the
statute
of
limitations
to
commence
a
civil
action
to
recover
damages
for
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
that
occurred
when
the
plaintiff
was
less
than
18
years
of
age
and
for
injuries
suffered
by
a
victim
of
pornography
involving
minors.
E
Senator
dondera
loop
has
proposed
an
amendment
that
is
attached
here
today
and,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
we
have
at
least
two
experts
in
the
room
or
virtually
to
discuss
it,
but
I'll
go
through
it
briefly.
The
amendment
suggests
the
following
and
then
section
1
subsection
3
to
delete
the
definition
of
sexual
contact,
as
it's
contained
in
the
bill,
delete
section,
2
of
subsection
2
and
add
a
new
subsection
2
to
replace
with
federal
statutory
language.
E
An
individual
who
is
a
victim
of
sexual
abuse
or
exploitation
may
bring
a
civil
action
against
the
perpetrator
or
whoever
knowingly
benefits
financially
or
by
receiving
anything
or
value
from
participation
in
a
venture
which
that
person
knew
or
should
have
known,
as
engaged
in
an
act
in
violation
of
this
chapter
and
may
recover
damages
and
reasonable
attorneys
fees.
The
mere
rental
of
a
hotel
room
shall
not
constitute
proof
of
benefit
in
any
establishment
having
200
or
more
rooms.
A
All
right-
and
I
believe,
as
you
mentioned,
this
amendment
does
reflect
a
consensus
of
the
parties
and
we
have
two
people
here
to
answer
questions
about
it
and
is
that
a
question
senator
settlemeyer.
D
Yes,
good,
I
was
not
familiar
with
the
discussion
during
committee
or
when
this
happened,
the
concept
of
the
200
room
limitation.
D
How
does
that
relate
I'm
a
little
bit
that
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
me
saying
that
if
you're
a
bigger
hotel,
no,
you
have
a
different
burden.
I
don't
know
this
seems
kind
of
strange
to
me.
So
if
someone
could
explain
why
that
200
room
was
picked
and
is
that
common
in
other
sections
of
the
statute,
I'm
a
little
confused
by
that.
F
Thank
you.
Senator
the
200
room
limit
was
determined
to.
We
felt
that
the
strip,
casinos
and
the
ones
the
resort
that
plunder
the
resort
nevada
resort
association
have
their
own
protocol
their
protections.
This
we.
F
But
the
the
majority-
I
don't
know
that
any
of
this
happens
in
in
the
nevada
resort
association,
hotels,
but
it
is
these
smaller
hotels
where
these
girls
are
taken.
That
is
that
this
is
where
we
feel
we'll
get
the
most
benefit,
and
this
that
we
feel
that
this
is
a
good
start.
F
C
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
I
am
as
aggressive
as
anyone
in
trying
to
eliminate
this
problem.
I
I'm
very
uncomfortable,
since
this
is
a
civil
action
and
the
burden
of
proof
is
pretty
minimal.
Just
preponderance
of
the
evidence
to
open
this
up
to
an
unlimited
time
frame,
just
seems
excessive
seems
like
the
20
year.
Limit
is
much
more
reasonable,
so
well,
while
I'm
anxious
to
see
those
types
of
people
prosecuted,
the
civil
action
side
of
it
makes
me
uncomfortable
on
that
kind
of
open-endedness.
So
I
will
be
enough.
F
D
C
A
Yes,
and
with
that
the
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
passes,
I
would
like
to
assign
this
floor
statement
to
senator
donderol
loop,
even
though
she's
not
here,
and
so
that
is
what
we
will
do
and
that
takes
us
to
our
next
bill.
Sb
218.
E
Okay,
thanks
chair
patrick
guidan,
for
the
record
again,
we
are
at
senate
bill
218,
which
makes
changes
relating
to
property.
It
was
sponsored
by
senator
ratty
and
we
heard
it
on
march
24th
in
this
committee
senate.
Bill
218
revises
several
provisions
relating
to
residential
rental
property
and
landlord
and
tenant
responsibilities,
establishes
independent
definitions
of
security,
deposit
and
cleaning
deposit
and
revises
how
each
of
those
are
to
be
handled
upon.
E
The
initiation
and
termination
of
tenancy
bill
creates
a
mechanism
whereby
a
landlord
and
tenant
may
agree
to
an
inspection
of
the
premises
prior
to
a
tenant.
Terminating
excuse
me,
tenants,
terminating
a
rental
agreement
in
order
that
the
tenant
may
remedy
any
deficiencies
that
may
cause
a
deduction
from
a
security
deposit
and
sets
force
provisions
governing
this
process.
It
shortens
the
time
period
allowed
for
the
return
of
a
security
deposit
from
30
days
to
21
days
and
authorizes
a
tenant
to
file
a
complaint
for
expedited
relief
for
the
return
of
a
security
deposit.
E
The
definition
of
normal
wear
is
revised
to
include
deterioration
that
occurs
without
any
fault
of
the
tenant.
Grace
period
must
be
included
in
rental
contracts
for
late
rental
payments
and
a
landlord
is
prohibited
from
charging
late
fee.
Until
that
grace
period
expires,
agreed
upon
rental
amount
must
be
disclosed
in
writing
and
printed
clearly
on
any
rental
agreement.
E
Additionally,
rental
agreements
may
not
impose
any
fee
fine
or
cost
that
is
not
expressly
authorized
in
statute,
and
a
landlord
may
not
charge
a
fee
for
the
submission
of
a
rental
application.
An
agent
who
serves
eviction,
notices
on
behalf
of
an
attorney
retained
by
a
landlord
may
not
be
the
property
manager
of
the
premises
in
question.
E
And,
finally,
a
rental
agreement
entered
into
before
this
bill
becomes
effective,
is
binding
and
may
be
enforced,
regardless
of
the
provisions
of
this
bill,
and
I
know
that
there
has
been
a
lot
of
work
going
on
in
this
bill
and
in
consultation
with
a
whole
lot
of
folks.
E
I
imagine
senator
raddy
has
proposed
a
conceptual
amendment
in
a
mock-up
which
is
attached
to
this
document,
and
I
would
also
want
to
note
that,
in
addition
to
this
first
part
of
the
amendment
I'm
going
to
go
through,
we
just
received
an
additional
little
bit
of
revision
this
afternoon,
and
so
that's
also
summarized
in
this
this
discussion.
So
I'm
going
to
go
through
all
of
them.
If
that's
all
right,
chair
and
then
I
know
we
have
some
folks
here
who
can
answer
questions.
E
So
the
amendments
do
the
following
in
section
5,
they
provide
that
a
security
deposit
may
be
applied
for
cleaning
if
the
unit
is
financed
by
a
governmental
agency.
Section
6
provides
that
a
landlord
may
not
charge
a
fee
for
more
than
one
rental
application
at
a
time
and
only
for
the
actual
cost
of
a
background
check.
Section
7
removes
the
procedure
by
which
a
tenant
can
request
an
inspection
of
the
premises
prior
to
the
termination
of
the
tenancy
section.
E
Section
13
provides
that
a
security
deposit
may
be
applied
for
cleaning
if
the
unit
is
financed
by
a
governmental
agency
and
no
cleaning
deposit
was
charged
and
the
landlord
may
claim
the
cleaning
deposit,
but
no
other
amounts
for
cleaning.
The
landlord
must
provide
an
itemized
accounting
of
a
security
deposit
and
the
return
remainder
no
later
than
28
days
after
termination
and
a
failure
to
do
so.
E
Results
in
liability
for
the
entire
deposit
and
waiver
of
claim
to
the
deposit
section
13
removes
the
procedure
by
which
a
tenant
can
file
a
verified
complaint
for
expedited
relief
for
a
security
deposit.
Section
13
removes
the
clear
and
convincing
standard
of
proof
in
actions
relating
to
deposits
and
the
requirement
of
three
written
estimates.
E
E
So
then,
the
divisions
that
we
received
a
little
bit
ago
revised
the
bill
as
follows:
section
six:
the
landlord
shall
not
charge
a
fee
for
the
submission
of
a
rental
application
other
than
for
one
tenant
or
group
group
of
prospective
content
co-tenants
for
one
available
unit
at
a
time
fee
must
not
exceed
the
direct
and
actual
costs
of
the
landlord,
excluding
personnel,
time
and
administrative
costs.
E
In
section,
10
5
sub
b,
the
following
language
is
inserted
clearly
and
conspicuously
printed
as
a
summary
accounting
of
fees
with
a
total
amount
on
the
first
page
of
any
written
rental
agreement
in
section
10b
after
45
days
inserts
in
the
case
of
any
month-to-month,
tenancy
or
15
days.
In
the
case
of
any
week
to
week,
tenancy
section
14,
sub
4
strikes
immediately
upon
transfer
and
replaces
it
with
within
seven
business
days.
E
A
You
thank
you
and
we
have
senator
raddy
along
with
bailey
bordelin
here
to
answer
questions
I
already
see
a
hand
from
senator
hanson
go
ahead.
C
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
missed
a
little
bit
of
that.
Can
you
have
mr
guyan
do
that
again
for
us?
Please,
no,
I'm
kidding!
No
look
honestly,
there's
there's
some
aspects
of
this
bill
that
I
really
think
are
great,
there's
some
that
I'm
really
totally
confused
on
now.
Frankly,
I
I
was
a
strong
no
on
the
original
bill.
A
lot
of
this
stuff
has
been
cleaned
up.
So
just
you
know
chair.
I
am
going
to
vote
no,
but
I
reserve
the
right
to
change.
C
Obviously,
because,
like
I
said,
I
think
I
think
this
actually
goes
a
long
way
in
a
very
positive
direction.
I
think
there's
been
some
abuses
by
landlords
over
the
years.
I
think
that's
very
well
documented,
so,
but
I'm
totally
confused
at
this
point
frankly,
so
I'm
gonna
vote
no,
but
just
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
why.
Thank
you.
A
I
don't
see
any,
is
there
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
A
F
D
A
E
E
For
the
reasons
named
above
as
of
october
1
2021,
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
must
reinstate
the
driver's
license
of
a
person
who
is
subject
to
a
suspended
driver's
license
the
ability
of
a
person
to
apply
for
a
license
who
is
subject
to
a
delay
in
the
issuance
of
a
license,
and
it
must
notify
the
person
of
this
change
as
soon
as
possible.
Dmv
may
not
charge
a
fee
for
reinstatement
of
a
license
or
require
a
person
to
undergo
any
physical
or
mental
examination
to
be
eligible
for
reinstatement
of
a
license.
C
Thanks
josh
does
this
in
any
way
impact
child
support
suspensions?
I
know
that
the
the
the
courts
I
think
under
current
nevada
law
can
suspend
people
are
delinquent
or
deliberately
behind
in
child
support
payments.
Would
this
impact
that
anyway,.
B
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hansen,
nicole
candizzaro,
senate
district
six.
I
do
not
believe
so
because
this
is
a
different
statutory
provision
that
deals
with
the
non-payment
for
court
cases,
but
not,
but
it's
different
from
the
child
support
enforcement
mechanisms.
I
may
be
legally
wrong
on
that.
So
mr
anthony
wants
to
correct
me,
but
I
don't
believe
so.
F
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
one.
One
other
point:
I
I
I'm
very,
I
agree
completely
with
the
majority
leader
casaro.
You
know.
If
you
get
a
ticket
for
500
bucks,
the
judge
doesn't
ask
you
whether
or
not
you
can
make
payments
you
just
kind
of
face
that
possibility,
and
I
think
that
part
of
the
bill
is
completely
accurate.
C
I'm
just
uncomfortable
getting
rid
of
the
discretionary
aspect
where
a
judge
can
can
suspend
it
when
they
willfully
cannot
pay
when
they
intentionally
avoid
it,
I'm
very
uncomfortable
with
eliminating
the
idea
that
they
can
use
community
service
for
people
that
have
an
inability
to
financially
pay
for
their
their
violations
of
the
law.
So
I'm
gonna
vote
no,
but
I
do
see
some
elements
of
it
that
make
make
a
lot
of
sense.
Honestly,.
B
Okay
terrify
me,
I
appreciate
that
senator
hansen
and
I
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
you
on
some
of
those
with
respect
to
the
service.
I
think
the
court
has
the
ability
to
order
that
anyway
in
lieu
of
a
fine.
B
If
somebody
couldn't
pay
a
fine-
and
I
would
note
for
the
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
still
a
bit
of
a
work
in
progress
as
we're
trying
to
work
with
the
dmv
and
make
sure
that
this
is
a
with
the
dmv
and
also
with
the
course
of
limited
jurisdiction
to
make
this
a
workable,
a
workable
policy.
So
I
think,
there's
probably
still
a
few
tweaks
that
we
need
to
make
but
appreciate
the
comments.
A
All
right,
any
other
questions
is
there
a
motion
to
do
pass.
A
F
C
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
to
do
pass,
sb
219
carries
senator
cannizzaro.
Will
you
take
the
floor
statement
excellent
that
takes
us
to
sb
317?
If
you
would
go
ahead,
mr
gaiden.
E
Thanks
chair,
that's
your
guidance
for
the
record.
We
are
now
at
senate
bill
317,
which
this
committee
heard
on
april,
8th.
It's
sponsored
by
senator
orrin
shaw
and
it
relates
to
juvenile
justice
senate
bill.
317
allows
an
employee
of
the
juvenile
justice
services
department,
who
has
been
placed
on
leave
pending
the
resolution
of
certain
criminal
charges
to
use
any
accrued
sick,
leave,
annual
vacation
or
compensatory
time,
and
requires
the
department
to
award
the
employee
back
pay.
If
charges
are
dismissed,
the
employees
found
not
guilty
or
the
employee
is
not
subjected
to.
E
E
The
bill's
provisions
apply
to
an
employee
who
has
a
charge,
depending
on
her
after
july,
1
of
2021
foreign
defense
allegedly
committed
excuse
me,
honor
after
july
1
2021
foreign
defense
allegedly
committed
before
on
or
after
july,
1
of
2021.,
with
senator
orrin
shaw's
support
and
in
testimony
on
the
bill
that
we
just
heard
yesterday,
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers
proposed
an
amendment
that
is
attached
to
this
document.
The
amendment
clarifies
that
the
180-day
period
to
resolve
charges
begins
after
arrest
rather
than
arraignment.
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
gainen.
Before
we
go
to
question
senator
orrinshaw,
did
you
want
to
make
any
comments
about
the
amendment
or
about
the
bill.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
for
the
record
james
original
state
senate
district
21.
The
amendment
that
you
find
in
the
work
session
document
is
the
same
amendment
that
was
submitted
yesterday
during
the
hearing.
I
wish
I
could
say
that
I
have
consensus
among
all
parties.
F
I
think
that
the
ultimate
goal
of
trying
to
protect
these
men
and
women
who
work
with
children-
and
you
know,
try
so
hard
to
help
them
when
they
are
in
caught
up
in
the
delinquency
system,
is
very
important
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
D
I'm
gonna
figure
it
out
someday.
Sometimes
you
turn
my
button
on
and
sometimes
it's
all
confused.
I
apologize.
I
appreciate
the
amendment.
It
goes
after
a
lot
of
the
crux
one
of
the
other
things
that
came
up
during
testimony
people
charged
under
62g
can't
be
around
kids.
Does
this
build?
Does
that
part
of
it
get
corrected?
We
had
djs
jack
martin
talking
about
that
particular
problem,
or
is
that
issue
still
unresolved.
F
F
As
I
understand
this,
while
those
charges
are
pending,
if
they're
active,
there
certainly
is
the
power
for
them
to
be
removed
from
from
their
their
work
duties.
But
again
I
cannot
speak
for
mr
martin,
mr
wellingham.
I
know
they
testified
in
opposition
yesterday
and,
as
far
as
I
know,
they
are
opposed
to
this
amendment
and
I'm
committed
to
keep
working
with
them,
and
I
hope
that
I
can
get
the
parties
together.
We
did.
We
did
make
some
progress
and
I
believe
that
we
can
try
to
try
to
get
there.
D
Thank
you
chair
for
letting
me
ask
questions
and
thank
you,
mr
all,
for
continuing
to
work
on
it.
I
am
concerned
about
any
bill
that
would
potentially
allow
people
who
could
hurt
kids
to
still
be
around
I'll
support
the
villa
out
of
committee,
but
then
I'm
going
to
reach
out
to
mr
martin
to
follow
up
on
this
particular
question,
because
that
is
my
main
concern
is
children's
safety.
Thank
you.
F
A
E
Excuse
me,
which
is
a
committee
bill,
and
we
heard
it
here
on
april,
7th
senate
bill
359
provides
that
if
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs
as
the
result
of
the
unauthorized
manufacturing
or
compounding
of
a
controlled
substance
other
than
marijuana,
a
person
who
has
engaged
in
such
unlawful
activity
is
also
guilty
of
arson.
Similarly,
if
a
person
unlawfully
manufactures
grows,
plants,
cultivates
harvests,
dries
propagates
or
processes,
marijuana
or
extracts,
concentrated
cannabis,
and
that
activity
results
in
a
fire
or
explosion.
The
person
is
guilty
of
arson
in
consultation
with
several
stakeholders.
E
Senator
canzaro
has
proposed
an
amendment
today
which
is
attached,
and
it's
also
summarized
below
and
I'd
be
happy
to
go
through
it
very
quickly.
First
part
of
the
amendment
and
then
section
one
of
subsection
three
of
the
bill
to
read,
in
addition
to
any
other
punishment
that
may
be
imposed
pursuant
to
this
section.
E
If
a
person
violates
any
provision
of
subsection
one
by
engaging
in
the
manufacturing
or
compounding
of
a
controlled
substance
other
than
marijuana,
or
by
attempting
to
do
so,
and
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs
as
the
result
of
such
manufacturing
or
compounding
of
a
controlled
substance
other
than
marijuana
or
an
attempt
to
do
so.
A
person
is
guilty
of
a
category
c
felony
and
shall
be
provided.
E
Excuse
me
shall
be
punished
as
provided
in
nrs
193.130
and
then
the
second
portion
of
the
amendment
and
then
section
2,
subsection,
4.,
and
that
reads
in
addition
to
any
other
punishment
that
may
be
imposed
pursuant
to
this
section.
If
a
person
manufactures
grows
plants,
cultivates
harvests,
dries
propagates
or
processes,
marijuana
in
violation
of
subsection,
one
or
extracts
concentrated
cannabis
in
violation
of
subsection
3
and
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs
as
the
result
of
the
violation.
E
B
I
just
wanted
to,
I
guess,
thank
you,
the
committee
for
letting
me
present
this
amendment.
I
think
it
clarifies
some
of
the
pieces
that
we
heard
during
the
hearing
about
what
degree
of
arson
and
then
what
sort
of
intent
there
would
be,
and
and
rather
just
provides
for
a
penalty
for
when
a
fire
or
explosion
occurs.
D
D
B
So
gross
negligence
would
be
a
legal
standard
to
show
what
kind
of
an
intent
someone
had
and
then
the
category
c
felony
is
just
the
punishment
range.
So
in
nrs
183
130
there
are
various
categories
of
felonies
gross
misdemeanors
and
it
provides
for
what
those
punishments
are.
A
category
c
felony
unless
otherwise
prescribed
in
that
statute,
for
that
particular
offense
is
a
one
to
five
penalty
with
a
corresponding.
B
I
believe
it's
ten
thousand
dollars
now
fine,
and
so
ultimately,
if
somebody
were
manufacturing
or
attempting
to
manufacture
or
compound,
let's
say
methamphetamine,
they
there's
a
separate
penalty
already
provided
in
this
statute,
for
that
particular
crime,
but
if
it
then
resulted
in
a
fire
or
an
explosion,
that
would
be
a
category
c
felony
punishable
between
one
and
five
years.
At
the
discretion
of
the
sentencing,
judge.
A
A
All
right
we
have
a
motion
from
senator
settlemyre.
We
have
a
second
from
senator
harris.
I
see
senator
hansen
as
well,
but
senator
harris
beat
you
to
it
and
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
A
A
F
D
C
A
A
We
have
one
item
left
on
our
agenda,
which
is
public
comment,
but
before
we
get
to
public
comment,
I
just
want
to
once
again
express
my
gratitude
to
every
member
of
this
committee.
We
are
making
it
through
our
first
deadline
day.
You
guys
have
all
been
engaged
in
our
hearings.
You've
asked
fantastic
questions.
You
have
shown
up.
You
have
presented
bills
in
front
of
this
committee
and
I'm
I'm
very
proud
to
work
alongside
you
and
all
of
us.
A
I
know
I'm
going
to
speak
for
all
of
us
to
thank
the
amazing
staff
at
the
legislative
council
bureau
because
you
truly
make
us
look.
Yes,
you
make
us
look
as
good
as
we
do,
and
you
all
know
our
committee
council
nick
anthony,
who
is
a
brilliant
legal
mind
and
wrote
many
of
these
bills,
some
of
them
late
in
the
night
and
in
the
wee
hours
of
the
morning,
and
we
can
never
thank
him
enough.
A
You
all
know
our
committee
policy
analyst
patrick
geiman,
who
also
prepared
these
work
session
documents
late
in
the
night
and
in
the
wee
hours
of
the
morning
and
is
always
available
to
us
to
answer
questions
solve
problems
and
put
out
fires.
You
guys
might
not
know
that
mr
guyan
is
assisted
by
julianne
king,
who
is
a
tireless
workhorse,
who
has
also
helped
us
with
all
of
these
work
session
documents
and
other
research
that
we've
needed.
We
have
amazing
secretaries,
including
pam
king
sally
ram,
pat
devereaux
and
gina
lakasha.
A
We
also
have
our
incredible
committee
manager,
beth
reichers,
and
she
is
the
reason
that
any
of
you
ever
get
any
documents
on
time
or
even
close
to
on
time,
and
she
is
the
only
reason
that
our
agendas
are
ever
published
and
we
ever
know
what
is
going
on.
She
has
also
personally
saved
me
on
multiple
occasions,
as
this
committee
has
thrown
me
some
curveballs.
So
I'm
very
very
appreciative
to
her.
A
I
also
want
to
give
a
thank
you
to
my
legislative
assistant,
kayla
lee,
who
takes
on
some
of
the
attendant
duties
of
being
the
assistant
to
the
chair
and
make
sure
that
I
get
to
talk
to
all
of
you
and
all
of
our
stakeholders
in
a
timely
fashion,
and
we
would
not.
We
literally
would
not
be
here
if
it
were
not
for
broadcast.
Jen
wells
has
been
with
us
since
the
beginning,
and
those
of
you
who
join
us
online.
A
Both
of
them
have
been
absolutely
fantastic
solved
every
problem
under
the
sun
and
more
that
I
don't
even
know
that
they're
solving
and
bryce
kyle,
who
helps
us,
get
testifiers
onto
the
interwebs
using
the
magic
of
the
internet
and
the
robots,
and
he
makes
sure
that
when
people
call
in
they
get
in
a
queue
and
they
get
to
give
their
testimony
and
truly
without
these
people
we
we
would
not
be
able
to
function.
I
I
hope
I
did
not
miss
anybody.
A
If
I
did
I'll
borrow
a
sentiment
from
senator
spearman
and
say,
assign
it
to
my
head,
not
to
my
heart,
because
I
know
that
there
are
so
many
people
in
this
building
who
have
kept
us
all
going,
and
we
appreciate
all
of
you.
I
couldn't
think
of
a
really
appropriate
or
fitting
way
to
express
that
gratitude,
except
to
do
what
I
can
to
allow
you
a
day
off
and
not
have
committee
on
monday.
We
will
not
have
any
meetings
or
we
will
have
meetings,
but
not
this
one,
not
judiciary,
brad
zainer.
A
He
runs
our
cameras,
he's
the
reason
I
look
so
fantastic
every
day
and
that
all
of
your
sprite
shiny
smiley
faces
make
it
to
the
broadcast.
So
thank
you,
brad
and,
like
I
said
there
will
not
be
a
meeting
on
monday.
There
will
be
a
meeting
on
tuesday.
We
will
publish
that
agenda
when
we
feel
like
it
and
I'm
joking.
We
will
publish
the
agenda
ahead
of
tuesday's
meeting,
but
I
do
want
our
staff
to
be
able
to
take
a
long
break
this
evening
and
over
the
weekend.
A
Maybe
some
of
them
will
even
take
the
day
off.
On
monday,
that's
out
of
my
control,
but
we
do
appreciate
everything
that
you
do
and
before
I
forget,
we
will
employ
mr
kyle's
services
one
more
time
to
see.
If
there's
anybody
here
to
give
public
comment.