MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 28, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 28, 1995, in Room 226 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association and RJ Reynolds Tobacco USA Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Philip Morris, U.S.A. Mary Santina-Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General John "Jack" Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Tobacco Institute Sher Todd, Citizen Senator James noted there were some items of business to be taken care of prior to the start of the hearings. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. He noted that Senate Bill (S.B. 416) has a number of amendments (No.1280, No.616, and No.812) which were made by the Assembly. He explained the amendments, stating that No.616 is the only amendment to make substantive changes to the bill. The senator reported these changes were agreed upon when he testified before the Assembly. The Assembly added language to the surety bond provision which indicates the court must determine if the individual has the financial ability to post such a bond before requiring it, Senator James explained. Additionally, the Assembly removed the provision which deals with modification of the sentence by a subsequent judge in the case of a probation violation. ASSEMBLY BILL 317: Makes various changes related to juvenile courts, sentencing, crimes and punishments. The chairman pointed out there is a modified version of this same provision still intact in Assembly Bill (A.B.) 317. In that bill there are certain restrictions placed on the judge, and it includes the requirement to notify the victim of the crime before the sentence can be modified. On page 2 of Amendment No.616, there is a reconciliation of the two crime bills (A.B. 317 and S.B. 416) in regard to commutation of sentences by the pardons board. The remainder of No.616 addresses conflicts with various bills. The other two amendments are conflict amendments to the bill, the chairman reported. He called for a motion to concur. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO CONCUR IN ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NOS. 616, 812, AND 1280 TO S.B. 416. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The next bill be to brought forward was S.B. 374. SENATE BILL 374: Revises circumstances aggravating first degree murder. This bill eliminates depravity of mind as a requirement. There is conflict Amendment Number 1324 to the bill. The chairman called for a motion to concur. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR IN AMENDMENT NUMBER 1324 TO S.B. 374. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** SENATE BILL 401: Revises provisions governing regulation of gaming. S.B. 401 addresses cashless wagers, Senator James explained. He called on Harvey Whittemore, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, to explain the amendment. Mr. Whittemore explained the amendment adds a number of substantive items which were discussed prior to the bill going to the Assembly. The first amendment is to section 6 subsection 5, which adds a provision to declare that periodic payments cannot be assigned, unless they are paid to the estate of a deceased patron or upon dissolution of a marriage. This applies to such winnings as "Megabucks." The change is to help prevent an unwilling assignment to creditors, the chairman noted. The amendments to page 2 of the bill are technical, the witness reported, and asked the committee to refer to page 4, which has a provision requested by the Nevada Gaming Control Board. This provision would require that information given during the course of proceedings in front of the Nevada Gaming Control Board or Nevada Gaming Commission may not be revealed without specific authorization by the board or commission. The next substantive change, which was requested by gaming operators in Reno, occurs in section 18. This provision, Mr. Whittemore explained, adds the words "keno and bingo." For purposes of calculating the gross revenue from games and slot machines, under subsection 3 on page 8, keno and bingo are not included. Finally, there is an amendment that is very substantive, but a matter of good public policy, Mr. Whittemore opined. In section 21, on page 10 of the amendment document, this bill would allow individuals who receive parimutuel wagering to receive them from patrons within the state, as well as from patrons in other states where such wagering is legal. This is an expansion and innovation in the Nevada gaming industry, he explained. The chairman called for questions. There were none. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NUMBER 1258 TO S.B. 401. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS McGINNESS, TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Requires revocation of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who drive under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. A.B. 92, the chairman noted, is a bill which was amended on the floor, as well as having an amendment made by Senator O'Donnell. The Assembly has not concurred in these amendments and the Senate has been asked to recede. Senator James asked Senator Adler if there is any new information regarding the bill. Senator Adler stated it is his belief that Senator O'Donnell was correct in his assumption that this bill concerns what would be a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction, but if the Assembly version of the bill is adopted, this conviction would not be reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety or to the driver's insurance company. This seems inconsistent, he observed. SENATOR ADLER MOVED THE SENATE NOT RECEDE IN THEIR AMENDMENT TO A.B. 92. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The chairman assigned Senators Adler, McGinness, and Porter to a conference committee on this bill. SENATE BILL 154: Makes various changes to provisions governing securities. Dale A. R. Erquiaga, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the Secretary of State, came forward to explain the amendment to S.B. 154. The Assembly amended this bill, he reported, at the request of the secretary of state's office and the Securities Industry Association (SIA). He explained the head of the SIA and the securities deputy worked out the amendment, with extensive discussions. The amendment replaces the bill's original definition of an investment advisor representative with an industry standard definition. This definition uses some broader terms and covers the "wrap-around" situation that is of concern to the industry. The amendment clarifies that persons who provide clerical and administrative support are clearly exempted from this definition, Mr. Erquiaga noted. Senator James stated the same thing was attempted in the Senate hearings and the witness agreed, adding this change goes even further. Additionally, the amendment establishes a means of exempting industry personnel who have either taken the series 65 or series 66 exam or have a demonstrable level of expertise and experience. This exemption is granted by the administrator's order. Finally, the notice time was changed from 15 days to 45 days. Senator James pointed out the provision that makes it illegal to split fees is still retained in the bill. Mr. Erquiaga agreed it remains in section 4. The chairman called for questions. There were none. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO CONCUR IN ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT NUMBER 860 TO S.B. 154. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** This completed the unfinished business before the committee. The chairman opened the hearing on A.B. 621. ASSEMBLY BILL 621: Makes various changes governing support of children. Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, came forward to explain the bill for the committee. Ms. Florence provided a copy of a prepared statement regarding the bill (Exhibit C). The chairman noted the length of the bill and asked the witness to "keep it pithy" by providing a succinct overview. Ms. Florence explained A.B. 621 is an agency-requested bill designed to provide for the new federal provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) 1993 in the state's child support enforcement program. OBRA looked to two areas which required additional attention within this system: establishing paternity, and the provision of medical coverage in support orders. Ms. Florence referred to Exhibit D, a section-by-section analysis of the bill, which she said was self explanatory; and Exhibit E (Original on file in the Research Library.), which is a side-by-side comparison of the original printing of A.B. 621 along with citations to federal law requirements that apply to that provision. She pointed out that many of the changes incorporated in the bill are simply statements required by federal law. Ms. Florence emphasized the child support enforcement program is 66 percent funded by federal funds. The balance of the funding is derived through collections, and there are no general fund moneys in the program, she stated. The goal is to have an effective program that will enable individuals with children to receive support provided by the non-custodial, absent parent. Ms. Florence started a brief summary of the various sections of the bill, as outlined in Exhibit D. Senator James interrupted the overview to ask about section 3's presumption of paternity provision. This section goes back to the blood testing, Ms. Florence explained and it is a federal requirement. She continued. Senator Washington referred to section 3, subsection 2, asking for an explanation. Ms. Florence told the senator there are cases where the mother may claim she is unsure who the father of her child is, pointing to two or three potential fathers. Based on DNA testing of a blood sample, funded 90 percent by federal funds, if one of the potential fathers meets the standard shown on section 2, page 3 of the bill, he would be the presumed father. Senator Washington asked who would instigate this blood test. Ms. Florence explained that in state-assistance cases, the applicant must cooperate with the child support enforcement program. As part of the application process, welfare works with the mother to determine who the father of the child is. The witness continued her presentation. In reference to section 14, which contains the requirement that parents who have health insurance available must provide this coverage to all their children. The provision says that no child may be precluded from being covered in a parent's plan, regardless of specific enrollment periods. Senator McGinness asked if this provision is an order to the insurance company or to the parent. Ms. Florence replied, if the court has ordered the child to be covered by the non-custodial parent's medical insurance, the insurer must enroll that child, thus, it is an order to the insurer. Senator Porter, in attempting to understand "the benefits being paid in reference to the non-custodial parent, asked the witness if that parent is paying the insurance premiums, will the reimbursements from the insurance company go to the custodial parent or to the non-custodial parent. He asked the witness to assume the deductible has been met and a doctor or hospital has been overpaid; who would receive any excess payment made by the insurance company? Ms. Florence replied it was her opinion the excess would go to the non-custodial parent, unless the non- custodial parent is in arrears in child support. Ms. Florence noted the remainder of the bill deals with requirements made by OBRA and these provisions relate to either the medical insurance component or paternity establishment issues. She offered to answer questions, expressing regret the bill came to the committee so late in the session. It is a complex bill, but is very important to ensure the state's participation in the federal program, she stated. ASSEMBLY BILL 299: Regulates provision of health insurance for small enterprises. Senator James asked the witness to explain conflicts that exist between A.B. 621 and A.B. 299. Ms. Florence apologized for failing to do so earlier. She noted that there are three areas that need to be addressed: 1) language in section 39 of A.B. 621 needs to be deleted, with similar language being inserted into A.B. 299 in order to require small business insurance plans to not exempt adopted individuals for preexisting conditions; 2) A.B. 299 requires a 30-day enrollment upon a court- ordered coverage which needs to be addressed. Such a provision is not in the best interest of the state, Ms. Florence explained, in the case of child support orders. This is because Medicaid coverage may be lost if the child is not enrolled during that 30 days. Therefore, the Welfare Division does not recommend adding a similar provision into A.B. 621. Third, any reference to "insurer" should be changed to "carrier" to clarify and unify the two bills. Ms. Florence asserted the second issue, whether to allow the 30-day enrollment period for court-ordered coverage, as is in A.B. 299, to be included in A.B. 621 is a policy decision which must be made by the committee. It is her recommendation not to allow the 30-day enrollment window, as it will likely cost the state if the individuals are not enrolled during that period. She maintained the exception for small employers should not apply to all insurers in the state. The chairman asked who processed A.B. 299. The response was the commerce committee. He stated he has a problem with A.B. 621 because there are two sections which actually fall under the judiciary committees purview, and the rest fall to other committees. Mr. Whittemore offered to bring someone to answer the chairman's questions regarding the two bills. Senator James objected to amending the other bill (A.B. 299) in order to make this bill effective. Ms. Florence agreed this bill causes problems. She observed the provisions of OBRA affected over 16 chapters of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Some are related to income and wages, as well as medical insurance, she reported. Ms. Florence stated, if it would expedite the processing of the bill, the Welfare Division would agree to the recommendation of adding the provisions of A.B. 299 to this bill, even though it may have some impact on some individuals getting coverage. Without the bill, the state will not be in compliance with federal law, which jeopardizes approximately $30 million in funding, she stated. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, came forward, noting he has been involved a little bit with this bill. He asserted it protects 92 percent of the funding in Clark County. He asked the committee to do an amend and do pass, with the provision that the proponents of A.B. 299 and A.B. 621 will work out any conflicts, to ensure the state is in compliance. The chairman agreed to this. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 621. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Washington stated he understands what the Welfare Division is attempting to do, however, he is hesitant to give his support because it is such a comprehensive bill and the committee has had little time to study it; especially in relation to A.B. 299. He asked if the vote could be postponed for an hour to allow the committee to read the bill. Senator Porter jokingly requested not to be responsible for explaining the bill on the floor. He asked if there are other bills to be heard, which could be heard before the vote is taken on Senator Adler's motion. Senator Adler opined it would be possible to vote to amend and do pass the bill, in order to have the amendment prepared. Then the committee could have an opportunity to review the amendment in order to look at the bill and the amendment together. Senator Titus asked if A.B. 299 was the measure which removed the benefits for the preventative care. The response was in the affirmative. She agreed it would be good to "sit on this bill for a while." Again, Senator Washington requested more time to study the bill. Senator Adler responded he would be more comfortable with an actual, printed amendment to examine. This is why he made the motion, he explained. The chairman called for a vote on the motion. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS McGINNESS AND WASHINGTON VOTED NO.) ***** The hearing on A.B. 622 was opened. ASSEMBLY BILL 622: Revises provisions related to tobacco. Mr. Whittemore, representing RJ Reynolds Tobacco USA, came to the witness table. He explained there will be a panel of witnesses to explain the various provision of A.B. 622. He noted the bill is a product of over 14 months of intense negotiation among parties representing the tobacco industry, retailers, and enforcement agencies. It is clearly a compromised bill, he reported. The bill, he asserted, is an unfortunate state response to federal legislation which requires the state to do three things. One, it must enforce existing state law that would attempt to prohibit teens from smoking. Two, there must be random, unannounced inspections of retailers who sell tobacco in the state. Three, the results of these inspections must be reported to the federal government. If the state fails to comply with this federal regulation, 10 percent of federal funding to alcohol and drug abuse programs would be forfeited, Mr. Whittemore testified. This would amount to a loss of $640,000, currently, and that amount could increase over time. Mr. Whittemore explained that section 3 of the bill provides a mechanism for conducting random inspections. In section 4, lines 26-29, the bill requires the reporting entity (the attorney general) to compile the results of these inspections, and report them to the federal government. In section 8, lines 22 and 23 provide that coin-operated vending machines with cigarettes as well as other products are prohibited. Most importantly, Mr. Whittemore stressed, on page 3, lines 23-38 are deleted from law. This language allows minors to purchase tobacco with written permission of a parent or guardian. This deletion also removes the exception which allows for children at the Caliente Youth Center to smoke. Senator James opined the effect of not passing this bill would not be losing the money, but, rather it would be to let some other agencies attempt to produce the compliance. Mr. Whittemore said, if the bill is not passed, it would be necessary to pass a bill to remove the provisions which allow a child to buy tobacco with a written permission, as well as removing permission for the Caliente Youth Center residents to smoke. Additionally, it would be necessary to include a provision separating tobacco products from other things in vending machines, he asserted. One of the provisions under existing law is, if there is a conviction for selling tobacco to a minor the business license is forfeited, not simply the license to sell tobacco, Mr. Whittemore. That language would be removed under this bill, but the bill does provide punishments for this violation. In the negotiations of the bill with retail representatives and others, Mr. Whittemore explained, the goal was to find the best way to proceed and the most fair and impartial entity to conduct the random, unannounced inspections. The original entity proposed to make these inspections was the sheriff's offices, the witness reported. However, this was unacceptable to those agencies, because there was no funding provided. Next, the attorney general and other affected agencies were contacted to come up with a program where the attorney general would be responsible to develop a program which would allow for the inspection and enforcement of this provision. Additionally, it was decided to authorize the attorney general to contract with the sheriff or police or any other fair and impartial entity to do the actual inspection. The point was to avoid having some antismoking group involved in the inspections, for fear of entrapment attempts, he stressed. Section 3 states, if a child is going to be used in an inspection, there is a particular process to be followed. He recommended the committee use the process outlined in this section, rather than allowing the inspectors to develop their own. Additionally, there is a mechanism built into the bill which protects the retailer from individuals who provide false identification, as long as there is a reasonable belief that the individual is over 18 years old. Senator Porter asked why a sting operation using a child is any different for tobacco than it is for anything else. Mr. Whittemore replied the "methodology" was important because of the loss of federal funding. In the case of tobacco, the fear was that antismoking groups would get involved and produce "sort of false results" which would create problems for the retailer. Senator Porter questioned the difference, because without law enforcement involvement, private antismoking groups would have no authority. Mr. Whittemore opined the federal law would allow such groups to bring civil actions in the place of the state. The witness continued, asserting the mechanism in section 3 of the bill is a consistent and fair mechanism when using a child under 18 in the inspections. This provision requires a photograph of the child, to ensure the child appears to be of an age close to 18. The policy question, Mr. Whittemore insisted, is whether or not the state can afford to lose the funding. At this point, Senator Porter read a portion of a communication he received from Willie Edwards, the Tobacco Education and Information Officer for the state. The senator noted the communication reads: This bill would tie the hands of Nevada...; makes law enforcement responsible to the attorney general...; if Congress repeals the Sinar amendment [ to 42 United States Code (U.S.C.)], no one would have authority to enforce Nevada law pertaining to the sales of tobacco products to children. Mr. Whittemore declared this to be "absolutely false." He asserted there is nothing in this bill that takes away the obligation of policemen and law enforcement officers to enforce the law. Of the statement about tying the hands of towns and counties and prohibiting them from passing their own ordinances, Mr. Whittemore agreed. He told there is a preemption provision. Senator Titus asked if this preemption is something that is needed to meet the federal regulation. Mr. Whittemore responded it is not required, but rather something the tobacco companies have requested. He added it is consistent with existing state law, and from "our" (the tobacco companies') perspective it is an important provision. She asked about lines 33-40, page 3, which reduces the penalty to the retailer for selling tobacco illegally. The senator wondered if this change was required. Mr. Whittemore noted this provision was added at the request of the retailers, so the business license would not be forfeited after the second offense. He explained the change criminalizes the conduct, provides civil penalties, and puts the money into enforcement. Senator Titus restated the provision as lessening the penalty from what currently exists in the law. ASSEMBLY BILL 637: Revises provisions governing crimes related to tobacco and licensing of cigarette dealers. Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Philip Morris, U.S.A., addressed Senator Titus' question. He noted that A.B. 637, in its previous form was put together by the antismoking lobby. In that form the same violation had a penalty of only $100, he reported. Senator Porter referred to section 8 of the bill which addresses vending machines. He wondered what the reasoning is for this. Mr. Whittemore explained it is to avoid having "twinkies" and "Marlboros" together in the same machine. It is state policy that we do not want children under the age of 18 smoking or having access to tobacco. Senator Adler referred to page 2, line 21, which says "no civil or criminal action based upon the alleged violation may be brought...unless..." He wondered if a citizen observed an obviously underage child purchasing cigarettes, could this be reported. Mr. Whittemore explained this is possible, the prohibition applies if the child was enlisted by you to purchase the cigarettes. The goal is to avoid a situation where the enforcement entity uses entrapment. The senator asked if the penalty for this would be the same as for a violation resulting from an inspection. The witness replied the penalty is outlined under section 7, lines 39 and 40. Senator McGinness asked if the federal government has any regulations dealing with the sales or service of liquor to minors. The witness stated they do not. Whittemore opined the federal government is "blackmail[ing]" the state to comply with their regulations. The senator asked why the bill did not emerge sooner in the legislative session, if it has been in the works for 14 months. Mr. McMullen represented it was because it took a lot a negotiation with the other interests to develop a core bill. There were a couple of reprints with amendments requested by the various parties, he reported. Mary Santina-Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada, spoke next. She stated she has been more active in putting this bill together than anyone else at the table. The bill is drafted to deal with problems that are real, not just anticipated, Ms. Santina-Lau reported. Other states have had bad experiences with sting operations. The retailers were adamant that, since they are on the firing line of this regulation and legislation, the penalty for violation should not be the loss of the business license. Another portion the retailers feel strongly about, she explained, is the required use of law enforcement to conduct the inspections. Because of these strong requirements, Ms. Santina-Lau stated, the antismoking faction did not invite the retailers to participate further in the process. She pointed out the antismokers have not testified about A.B. 622. She asked the committee to remember there has been a lot of work, as well as the fact that retailers want equity in dealing with the issue. The witness said it was the retailers who insisted on state jurisdiction over the regulations. In California, local jurisdictions have become so strident in their regulation of graffiti as to limit what kind of markers merchants can sell. Ms. Santina-Lau reiterated the retailers need to have state jurisdiction, law enforcement and the bill's passage, in its current form. The chairman called Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, forward to present the attorney general's view of this bill. She advised the committee that she "basically" agrees with the comments offered, that the attorney general's office has been involved in discussions. In its current form it appears there will be no jeopardy to federal funds and that the inspections can occur in a fair and impartial manner. Ms. Nelson stated the attorney general's office could undertake the enforcement, should that duty be assigned to it. There is one concern, she stated: there is no discretion to contract with other than local law enforcement. Some local law enforcement agencies, she reported, are unable to do this type of enforcement due to resource problems. It was hoped there would be an ability to work with other entities, she stated. She stated the office is satisfied with the bill as it is crafted in the second reprint. Senator Porter asked Ms. Nielsen if she has spoken with Willie Edwards. She replied she has not, but that she is aware of his concerns. Despite these concerns, she stated, a program is needed in order to comply with the federal requirements. This bill seems to do that. Senator Porter asked her opinion as to removing all authority in this area from the local governments. Ms. Nielsen replied the bill does not take away local authority. They still retain criminal jurisdiction to arrest and to enforce the law. It is simply the unannounced inspection program that is given to the attorney general's office to set up and coordinate, she explained. Senator Porter stated he is uncomfortable with this portion of the bill, as he interprets it to say, "any agency, board, commission or political subdivision or this state, including any agency, board, commission or governing body of local government shall not impose more stringent restrictions on smoking, use, sale distribution, marketing, etc." Ms. Nielsen agreed this is a limitation on their ability to impose more stringent statutes, but the local authorities can enforce the state statutes. The chairman called the next witness. John "Jack" Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Tobacco Institute, asked to point out that existing law has a pretty broad preemption. This bill does not contain a major change from existing law. The chairman pointed out the bill adds the wording, "use, sale, distributing, marketing, display, promotion" "Are those things covered by current state law?" he asked. Senator Washington asked what would happen if the federal government repeals this regulation. He wondered if the statute would remain in effect. Mr. Jeffrey explained the provision about sting regulations would only go into effect as required by federal law. He explained the bill was crafted to be the least onerous possible. Mr. Jeffrey asked the committee to pass the bill without amendment, if possible, considering the amount of effort already put into it. Senator Titus opined there is an inconsistency in the bill. On one hand the bill says children smoking is a more serious problem which requires better enforcement of the prohibition. On the other hand, the bill reduces the penalty, she observed. This does not make sense to her, she stated. Senator James observed the bill is an attempt to comply with the federal Sinar regulation. It is not a spontaneous bill, developed in Nevada. He observed if there are going to be sting operations, it is better to allow a slightly lighter penalty. He asked Senator Titus if she wished to suggest an amendment, or if she could accept the reasoning behind the reduced penalty. Senator Porter noted for the record that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association are in favor of the bill. Sher Todd, Citizen, addressed the committee. She stated she is a nurse and a parent and is opposed to the bill. She noted while the bill purports to help Nevada enforce existing federal law, it will result in three things detrimental to its stated purpose. The first is that the bill ties enforcement to compliance with applicable federal law. This is a reference to 42 U.S.C. (United States Code), also known as the Sinar amendment. Congress is, at this very moment, considering repeal of the Sinar amendment. If this happens there will be no federal law with which to comply. Thus, there would be no enforcement in Nevada, she observed. Secondly, the bill would stop police officers from taking appropriate legal action against someone they observe breaking the law by selling tobacco to a child. It does this in section 3, subsection 6, by not allowing criminal action based on an alleged violation of NRS 202.2493, unless it is done as part of a compliance check conducted by the attorney general or contractees of that office. Ms. Todd stated she see this as the equivalent of telling a police officer they cannot arrest someone for selling illegal drugs unless the sale is made to an undercover officer. Finally, the bill prohibits Nevada cities, towns, and counties from passing laws or developing their own ordinances which would address the issue of illegal tobacco sales to minors. Thus, the bill proposes to do to local communities just what the state complains the federal government does to it--force a "one-size-fits-all solution that won't work," while making it illegal for the local governments to do something that will work. Ms. Todd stated if this bill is passed, it will make enforcement so difficult it will guarantee the loss of these federal dollars. "More importantly," she asserted, "it will guarantee the tobacco industry continues to enjoy unfettered access to Nevada's children." She asked the committee to consider the future of Nevada's children and not pass this bill. Senator Adler pointed out he raised some of the same questions as the witness. He suggested the wording, "as necessary to comply with federal law" is unnecessary. Ms. Todd stated she has a problem with the Legislature "buying into a bill that is supported by the tobacco industry. She emphasized her total opposition to the entire bill and refused to suuport any amendments to it. The chairman called for further testimony on A.B. 622. There was none and he closed the hearing. He called for a motion. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 622. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER VOTED NO. SENATORS TITUS AND WASHINGTON WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 502: Makes various changes relating to discriminatory practices. Senator James explained the bill was opposed because of the punitive damages provisions that were inserted, as well as wording, "at the expense of the commission." He reported he possesses the amendments on these concerns, and they appear correct. On page 6, line 44 of the bill the words, "at the expense of the commission" are removed. On line 47 of page 6, the reference to punitive damages would be limited to federal caps. There was a change on the effective date, page 12, section 30, lines 44-46 are deleted. Instead the phrase, "The provisions of this act relating to the enforcement of discriminatory housing practices by the Nevada Equal Rights Commission do not become effective until the...." These provisions are the only ones which must be delayed. He asked for questions. There were none. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 502 AS OUTLINED ABOVE. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. The chairman was reminded of one other amendment. On page 1, line 14, it was requested the word "interior" be removed. He asked Senator Adler to amend his motion. The senator agreed. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 585: Makes various changes to provisions prohibiting abuse, neglect and exploitation of older persons. ASSEMBLY BILL 560: Revises provisions permitting attendant to support prosecuting witness at preliminary hearing and trial. Finally, this bill, dealing with elders' rights, was held to confirm it did not conflict with A.B. 560 regarding the attendant provisions for minors, as well as to examine the penalties to determine if they are consistent with S.B. 416. They are consistent, the research analyst confirmed. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 585. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** There was no further business and the hearing was adjourned at 3:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary June 28, 1995 Page