MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
May 10, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 2:15 p.m., on Monday, May 10, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Sherry Nesbitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Faiss, Attorney, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel, Nevada Resort Association
David Belding, Chairman, Nevada Resort Association
Patricia Becker, Senior Vice President, General Counsel,
Harrah's
Marc Grossman, Vice President-Communication, Hilton Corporation
Gaming Division
William A. Bible, Chairman, Gaming Control Board
William A. Prezant, Lobbyist, International Game Technology
Senator James advised that both bills on the agenda, Senate Bill (S.B.) 241 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 470 deal with the issue of foreign gaming.
SENATE BILL 241: Requires licensees who are involved in foreign gaming to conduct their activities in other jurisdictions in lawful and suitable manner. (BDR 41-324)
Senate Committee on Judiciary
May 10, 1993
Page 2
ASSEMBLY BILL 470: Substitutes continuing reporting for prior approval of foreign gaming. (BDR 41-1406)
Senator James advised that it appeared to him that everything in S.B. 241 is included in A.B. 470. He stated, therefore, he would begin the hearing with A.B. 470 and asked that the witnesses speak to the similarities.
Senator Titus, as chairman of the interim study committee, asked to address S.B. 241. She stated the discussion of S.B. 241 is found in the report of the interim subcommittee at page 19. She advised, in testimony before the subcommittee centered around two major factors relating to the impact of foreign gaming on Nevada. The first factor was the direct economic impact and whether it would be good for gaming in Nevada, or bad for gaming to spread. She stated this is not certain and there were proponents on both sides of the argument. She advised some witnesses stated that as gaming spreads more people will gamble, will enjoy it, and more will come to Nevada. Other people see foreign gaming as competition, and "dipping into Nevada's share of the market." She stated the indirect impact has to do with the integrity of the industry. The state of Nevada wants to be certain that as gaming spreads, it does so in a way that maintains Nevada's integrity and reputation, and avoids scandal in other jurisdictions. She suggested because the spread of gambling is inevitable, the issue of having it remain scandal-free may be the most appropriate direction to pursue. She advised that findings of the interim committee indicated a need existed to strengthen the Foreign Gaming Act which was passed in the 1970s. She stated there was some question as to the constitutionality of that act. Rather than doing away with the act and the prior approval of licensees, the interim committee decided to add a new section. This section is found in section 1 of S.B. 241. She advised all of this section 1 is now found in section 4 of A.B. 470. She stated that, since the committee voted unanimously to retain the Foreign Gaming Act and adding the new section, a number of things have occurred. Both the industry and the regulators have agreed that prior approval may not be necessary if the reporting is strengthened. She advised this was the impetus for A.B. 470. She stated the interim committee is in agreement that this should occur. Therefore, she stated she would withdraw S.B. 241 and proceed with A.B. 470.
Senator James thanked Senator Titus for the background on these two bills. He stated that, unless anyone wished to testify further on S.B. 241, testimony would be taken on A.B. 470.
The hearing was opened on A.B. 470.
Robert Faiss, Attorney, Lionel Sawyer & Collins, Counsel, Nevada Resort Association, provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 470. Mr. Faiss advised that Mr. David Belding, Chairman, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), was also present at the hearing in support of A.B. 470. Mr. Faiss acknowledged the fine work of Senator Titus and the legislative commission subcommittee to study gaming. He stated the subcommittee hearings were the beginning of the work which resulted in the recommendation for A.B. 470. Mr. Faiss acknowledged that, as Senator Titus had mentioned, if A.B. 470 is passed, the contents of S.B. 241 will be passed as well. He advised A.B. 470 was drafted in a cooperative effort headed by Richard Bunker, President, NRA, and William A. Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board. He advised the intent of A.B. 470 was to streamline and strengthen the foreign gaming statutes. He stated the NRA views the bill as a natural step in the evolution of those statutes, following their first adoption 16 years ago. He advised the evolution about which he speaks is defined in the dictionary as "a process of gradual progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions." He stated the evolution began in 1977. At that time, Nevada's foreign gaming statutes were enacted to ensure that participation by gaming licensees outside Nevada would not unfavorably impact on the reputation and stability of Nevada's gaming industry. He advised Nevada licensees are required to obtain advance approval from the gaming commission for any foreign gaming involvement. The legislature, in 1977, was not inclined to have that approval granted unless the commission found "the existence of a comprehensive effective government regulatory system in the foreign jurisdiction." Mr. Faiss stated this meant that no foreign jurisdiction could be approved unless the Nevada gaming authorities had personally investigated and evaluated the foreign gaming control system. He gave the example that no Nevada licensee could operate in Atlantic City, New Jersey until Nevada regulators had passed judgment on the effectiveness of that system. He stated that in 1985, the control imposed by the foreign gaming statutes was given flexibility for the first time, as the legislature granted the commission the discretion to waive any provision of the statutes. In 1987, the legislature accepted the premise that Nevada's standards should not be imposed on a foreign government. He stated at that time, the finding of a comprehensive, effective government regulatory system in the foreign jurisdiction was removed by the legislature. He advised one direct result of that change was the approval of casinos operated by Nevada licensees aboard luxury ocean liners. He stated in 1991, the Nevada Gaming Commission took notice that Nevada licensees were engaged in competition for the award of foreign gaming projects. In some cases, the requirement of prior Nevada approval was an uncertainty which put Nevada licensees at a disadvantage. He gave as an example the requirement of an unconditional bid by a foreign government that was going to award one license. The necessary condition by a Nevada licensee, that it obtain commission approval, could make its bid unacceptable, and that licensee would be out of the running. He advised the commission, therefore, recognized that a blanket system of prior approval could handicap Nevada licensees and could make Nevada a less attractive investment opportunity for new entities. Therefore, the commission adopted a regulation that authorized what was termed a continuous approval to participate in foreign gaming. Nevada licensees who satisfied required criteria were given advance approval for any foreign gaming involvement over the next 2 year period. This approval was granted provided licensees met certain conditions and made comprehensive reports. Mr. Faiss advised this new system has worked and provided evidence that specific advance approval is not necessary to protect Nevada's gaming interests. The result of that regulation has been a reduction in cost, workload, and inconvenience for both the licensees and the gaming control system.
Mr. Faiss advised that A.B. 470 builds on the experience gained since the adoption of the continuous approval regulation. The NRA suggests the bill presents a realistic approach to foreign gaming involvement by Nevada licensees. He stated the bill also incorporates an objective, adopted by the legislative commission subcommittee to study gaming, which is that a Nevada licensee will be held accountable for his conduct in the foreign jurisdiction.
Mr. Faiss explained each section of A.B. 470. He stated section 1 eliminates any reference to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 463.690. He advised this statute, which requires prior approval for a foreign gaming involvement, is repealed. Section 1 also adds the following language to the definition of licensee:
A person licensed as a manufacturer, seller or distributor of gaming devices.
Mr. Faiss stated the latter was a recommendation of the subcommittee to study gaming.
Mr. Faiss advised section 2 eliminates language dealing with the approval process, and provides that the licensee deposit with the Gaming Control Board and thereafter maintain a single, refundable, revolving fund. Mr. Faiss advised this fund will be in the amount of $10,000, or such other amount as the commission may order. He advised this fund is to be used by the board, at its discretion, to investigate the licensee's foreign gaming participation.
Mr. Faiss advised that section 3 deletes provisions dealing with the approval process and establishes comprehensive reporting requirements that must be met, unless otherwise ordered by the Gaming Control Board or the Nevada Gaming Commission. He noted page 3, line 15, requires "all documents" filed with the foreign jurisdiction must also be filed with the Nevada Gaming Control Board. He advised that a part of the legislative history of this bill is Chairman Bible's assurance that the board does not want all documents. It has been determined that this is an impossible and unnecessary burden on the licensee and the board alike. Mr. Faiss advised that Chairman Bible has stated that the board will commit to use its discretion in each case to require only documents which the board deems material to its mission.
Mr. Faiss advised section 4 of the bill encompasses S.B. 241, as previously discussed. This section gives the foreign gaming statutes a strength which previously lacked.
Mr. Faiss concluded by saying the NRA believes adoption of
A.B. 470 is an appropriate step in 1993 in the evolution of the foreign gaming statutes, and urged endorsement of the bill.
Senator McGinness asked if the $10,000 investigative fund asked would be ongoing, or would only be in place for the initial license period.
Mr. Faiss advised the fund would remain in place for as long as the licensee is involved in foreign gaming.
Ms. Patricia Becker, Senior Vice President, General Counsel, Harrah's, voiced support for A.B. 470. She stated that Harrah's appreciates all of the effort expended by the Gaming Control Board and Senator Titus' committee, to repeal the foreign gaming act, and to codify reporting requirements.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 470 does not have pre-approval regulations, but does set forth what a licensee shall not do as a participant in foreign gaming. He also asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 470 does not state that Nevada retains the ability to do the normal regulatory actions if one of the things happens. He asked Mr. Faiss to advise where in the statutes this is found.
Mr. Faiss advised that the present statute also has a specific requirement, saying:
No licensee may be involved in foreign gaming without the prior approval of the commission.
He advised if this provision is violated, it would be disciplined in the same manner as any violation of A.B. 470. The authority for discipline is found at NRS 463.310. He stated this statute gives the board and commission authority to discipline for any violation of NRS Chapter 463.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that Nevada is not losing its ability to deal with any kind of conduct occurring in a foreign jurisdiction, which would be a violation in Nevada.
Senator Jacobsen asked if there have been any disciplinary actions since the statute was initiated.
Mr. Faiss stated that to his knowledge, there had been none. He advised Chairman Bible would be better able to answer the question.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the NRA had fears or concerns in this regard.
Mr. Faiss stated the regulation provides there is now an agreement by the licensee that it will conduct itself in a lawful manner. He advised that this is a reasonable expectation. He stated the adoption of A.B. 470 would provide enforceability for that requirement. Mr. Faiss advised that Marc Grossman, Vice President, Communications, Hilton Hotels Corporation was present to provide oral testimony in support of A.B. 470. He advised that Mr. Grossman was appearing as the personal representative of Raymond "Skip" Avansino, President and Chief Operating Officer of Hilton Hotels Corporation. Mr. Faiss advised that Mr. Avansino, a former member of the Nevada Gaming Commission, appeared before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to deliver the message that an interest in foreign gaming does not mean lessening of an interest in Nevada. Mr. Faiss advised that Mr. Avansino experienced a conflict which took him out of Nevada, and had asked Mr. Grossman to deliver his personal message and that of the Hilton organization. Mr. Faiss stated his belief that it was fitting that a representative of the Hilton organization close the NRA's presentation, because the Hilton, in 1985, was the first Nevada licensee to be approved for a casino operation in a foreign country.
Mr. Grossman provided oral testimony in support of A.B. 470. He stated the roots of the Hilton Corporation run deep in Nevada. Hilton was the first major publicly held company to enter the gaming business in Nevada, some 23 years ago. This demonstrated a commitment to the gaming industry and to Nevada, when it was considered a risk for a reputable company to go public. He stated that Mr. Avansino is a life-long resident of Nevada and a former gaming regulator. Mr. Grossman advised the Hilton's commitment to Nevada continues to the present. He advised that Hilton also has a commitment to maintain its leadership position in the gaming industry. He stated that, unlike 23 years ago, to lead in the industry means exploring and acting expediently on opportunities in other domestic and international jurisdictions, which Hilton has done over the years. He advised the Hilton has been involved in endeavors of securing a license and opening a hotel/casino on the Gold Coast of Australia, obtaining a license in New Jersey, opening a casino in Istanbul, Turkey, applying for licenses in the states of Louisiana and Missouri, and breaking ground for a casino in Uruguay. He stated that, by virtue of these activities, Hilton has established a clear reputation as the worldwide leader in the gaming industry. This is a result of Hilton's brand name recognition, unequaled financial strength, the fact that they are the only investment Grade A rated company in the industry, and Hilton's balanced portfolio of gaming and hotel properties.
Mr. Grossman advised that as a publicly traded company beholding to its shareholders, and since gaming today accounts for about 70 percent of Hilton's profits, Hilton has a fiduciary responsibility to explore and pursue new opportunities, be they in Nevada or elsewhere. He advised this is the official position of Hilton's policy committee. He added that this position should not be viewed as being in conflict with Hilton's overriding and genuine commitment to Nevada. He advised that the legislature must not equate Hilton's need to explore other opportunities with a lack of commitment to Nevada. He stated that, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, most of Hilton's profits today come from its five hotel/casinos in Nevada. It is expected that this will continue for many years to come. He stated, therefore, it only makes good business sense to invest where the market and profits are found.
Mr. Grossman pointed out that Hilton is currently the largest operator of hotel rooms in Nevada, with 11,300 rooms in five properties throughout the state. He advised Hilton operates multiple hotel/casinos in Nevada's two largest gaming markets, Las Vegas and Reno, and another in Laughlin. He stated the Hilton hotels welcome approximately 4 million guests per year, and have entertained a total of 70 million guests since 1970. He stated that making these operations run are 13,700 Nevada-based employees, the largest private work force in the state. The total annual payroll from the Hilton's Nevada properties is in excess of $230 million. He advised these jobs naturally create millions in additional spending in Laughlin, Las Vegas and Reno.
Mr. Grossman stated that, from a pure dollar standpoint, Hilton has made capital investments of over $1.2 billion in Nevada since its entry in 1970. He stated the Hilton's annual state taxes total more than $100 million. He advised one of the latest and most significant examples of investment in Nevada occurred approximately 6 months ago. At the November, 1992 board meeting, Hilton's board of directors approved nearly $250 million in improvement expansion and renovation projects at all five of the casinos in the state. He advised that on that day, Governor Miller appeared before the board and said, "We are appreciative of Hilton's commitment to quality operations, corporate leadership, and investment in the state of Nevada. I encourage Nevadans to be aware of the good works and contributions Hilton has made here in the past 20 years." Mr. Grossman advised each of the improvements are evident at the Nevada properties, and described each, and the cost thereof.
Mr. Grossman added one further example of a visible and tangible example of the Hilton's belief in the future of Nevada gaming. He advised that in 1992, Hilton purchased, for $89 million the former Bally's hotel and casino and in Reno. He stated that in addition to the acquisition price, the Hilton has committed to investing an additional $84 million to refurbish all of the guest rooms, upgrade the restaurants and public space, and develop a western theme for the new Reno Hilton. Mr. Grossman stated there are those in the financial community who question the wisdom of this investment. Hilton has advised them that this is an investment which will pay off, and when the full impact of the major improvements is felt, the skeptics will be proven wrong. He stated that with the two properties in northern Nevada, the Flamingo Hilton and the Reno Hilton, the Hilton has made a bold statement in seizing a leadership role in the resurgence and revitalization of the Reno market. Mr. Grossman stated that Reno is crying out for new properties, new attractions, and a genuine commitment on the part of the major casino operators. He stated his belief that others will follow Hilton's example of this commitment. He stated that when the Reno Hilton is finished in a couple of years it will be the showpiece of northern Nevada, and will bring new tourists, new conventions, and more business to the northern part of the state.
Mr. Grossman stated that when he speaks of commitment to Nevada, he means more than bricks and mortar. He stated he is also speaking of people and corporate citizenship. He advised the Conrad Hilton Foundation, based in Reno, has contributed millions of dollars to worthy organizations in Nevada and throughout the country. He advised the Hilton gaming scholarship program offers children of Nevada employees the opportunity to pursue higher education. He stated these children might not otherwise be able to afford higher education. He advised that scholarship recipients have gone on to study at the University of Nevada campuses in both Las Vegas and Reno, as well as several community and vocational colleges throughout the state of Nevada.
Mr. Grossman stated that the Hilton must, as a publicly held company be responsible to its shareholders, pursue new gaming opportunities. The Hilton has made a conscious decision to not only maintain but to strengthen a leadership role in the gaming industry. He reiterated that these things in no way diminish the Hilton's current and future commitment to the state of Nevada. He stated the Hilton will continue to demonstrate this commitment in the years ahead through investment, employment and corporate citizenship.
Senator Jacobsen asked what are foreign governments' image of Nevada.
Mr. Grossman replied that he believes Hilton has a worldwide reputation as a responsible corporation. He stated the image of Nevada might vary from operator to operator, but he stated his belief that foreign governments do not want "Las Vegas," but instead an infusion of jobs and taxes.
William A. Prezant, Lobbyist, International Game Technology (IGT), testified that IGT supports A.B. 470.
William A. Bible, Chairman, Nevada Gaming Control Board, presented oral testimony in support of A.B. 470. He advised this bill would substitute continuing reporting for prior approval for Nevada licensees who wished to engage in gaming activities outside the state of Nevada. He stated that a foreign gaming requirement was inserted into the Nevada statutes in 1977. This was done principally in response to legalization of gaming in New Jersey. He advised that prior to 1990, the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission experienced various applications for foreign gaming activities, principally in New Jersey or Australia. He stated that in 1990, the commission adopted Regulation 4.705 which has been referred to as an application for continuous approval. This application allows a licensee, in a number of instances, to engage in foreign gaming activities in a jurisdiction other than the state of Nevada without having to first obtain prior approval of the Nevada Gaming Commission. Mr. Bible advised since that time the board and commission have processed applications which have been granted for continuous approvals to Bally Gaming, Bally Gaming International, the Barbary Coast, Ceasor's World, California Hotel and Casino, the Gold Coast, Hyatt, Hilton Hotels, International Game Technology, Jackpot Enterprises, Las Vegas Dissemination, Promise, and the Sands Regent in Reno. He stated his belief there had been a few others, and a number are in process between the board and the commission. He stated the board currently has approximately 40 pending applications for either individuals or corporate entities to engage in gaming activities outside of the state. He stated an applicant has the ability to process an application for either the hotel or casino, or any one of the individuals having an equity position in the operations.
Mr. Bible advised that in 1990 the gaming commission, when reworking the regulations, provided not only continuous approval, but also a process for expedited final approval. He stated a Nevada licensee currently has a wide range of options available for approaching the regulations as to how it would engage in activities in other jurisdictions. He stated that at this time, a system exists in which there are a number of licensees, typically the larger licensees, who have obtained a continuous approval, and who can engage in activities in jurisdictions other than the state of Nevada without a prior approval requirement. He stated there exist a much larger number of licensees who must either request a continuous approval or would be required to come back and obtain a final approval if there exists a definitive agreement constructed in terms of an enterprise in another state. He stated his belief that a disparity exists between those having a continuing approval and those who do not. Therefore, in the jurisdictions outside the state of Nevada there currently exists a situation wherein Nevada licensees, because of the foreign gaming approval requirements, are treated somewhat differently. This situation exists both within Nevada and in the perception outside of the state.
Mr. Bible stated there were fairly heated debates between the board and commission in terms of the adoption of these particular regulations. He stated he, and from time to time other members of the board, felt the process should have gone much more slowly than it ultimately did. He advised there are currently in place regulations which do have a system of continuous approval. He stated the clock cannot be turned back, to return to a system which would require everyone to come back and have prior approvals. He stated it is appropriate at this point in time to process A.B. 470, which removes the prior approval requirement, and imposes the requirements discussed with and recommended by the state committee. This pertains to Nevada licensees engaging in business in the same manner in other jurisdictions as they conduct gaming operations in the state of Nevada. A.B. 470 provides an extensive reporting requirement to ensure this does indeed take place, and provides that the licensee deposit a minor amount of money with the state of Nevada with which to conduct follow-up reviews as the board deems necessary.
Senator James asked if Mr. Bible would agree with Mr. Faiss that from a regulatory standpoint, A.B. 470 would approximate what presently existed with the continuous approval.
Mr. Bible stated A.B. 470 would adopt to a large extent in statute, a number of the provisions either included within the regulations or in the various order of registrations. He added that, in terms of the reporting requirement, the bill strengthens the ability of the state of Nevada to take action should it be necessary, in the event a Nevada licensee encounters some sort of regulatory difficulty in a jurisdiction other than in Nevada.
Senator Jacobsen asked if there had ever been an occasion to call any licensees before the board or commission, after they had engaged in foreign gaming.
Mr. Bible stated this had never been done in a formal manner. He advised the board had not filed a complaint against anyone for activities in which they were involved in a foreign jurisdiction. He stated the board had engaged in a number of informal conversations with licensees in terms of some of the people they had been associated with in other jurisdictions. This was a result of information received by the board which was not available to the licensee, or the licensee had provided information to the board regarding the individual and wanted to discuss the individual's suitability in terms of the operations. He stated those matters were resolved in the normal course of business.
Senator Jacobsen asked if the foreign jurisdictions have an investigating authority, similar to that in Nevada.
Mr. Bible advised this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and some states have a regulatory apparatus similar to that in Nevada. He stated Mississippi adopted the NRS and to a large extent, Nevada regulations, in revising the statutes and regulations in Mississippi. He advised that apparently, they did not make all of the technical corrections, and it appears that as chairman of the board, he has some jurisdictional powers in Mississippi, which simply relates to the manner in which they implemented the Nevada statutes. He stated that typically, Nevada enters into memorandums of understanding with other jurisdictions in which information is exchanged regarding Nevada licensees, activities taking place in Nevada, and potential applicants to Nevada, in terms of how they conduct themselves in other jurisdictions. He stated there has been a very extensive exchange of information since New Jersey legalized gaming.
Mr. Bible advised, in answer to Senator Jacobsen's previous question regarding perception of other states, a gaming license in Nevada is considered a credible document. He stated this assists Nevada licensees as they enter other jurisdictions, as the others have comfort from the investigatory and licensing processes to which the individuals have been subject to here in Nevada.
Senator Adler asked if there was a downside to A.B. 470.
Mr. Bible answered if there was a downside it had probably passed. He stated there is obviously a great deal going on around us in terms of gaming activities. He advised that 3 or 4 years ago, if a piece of legislation such as A.B. 470 had been proposed, discussions regarding legalized activities in many other states would not have been possible. He stated his belief that at this point there is nothing the legislature could do which would prevent foreign gaming and the involvement of Nevada licensees.
Senator Adler asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 470 essentially creates a level playing field for the Nevada properties.
Mr. Bible stated this legislation will put everyone who wishes to conduct business in other jurisdictions on the same standard.
Senator Adler asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 470 maintains the same standards, but makes the entry into the market easier, and that there is no regulatory purpose behind the legislation.
Senator James asked for and received confirmation that A.B. 470 actually augments the standards in terms of operations in foreign jurisdictions.
Senator Shaffer asked what the board's disciplinary capabilities are at this point.
Mr. Bible stated the statutes provide that the board can conduct investigations which they deem appropriate, in terms of compliance with NRS Chapter 463. He stated if A.B. 470 is processed, a standard would be adopted, and the board would have the ability to discipline according to that standard.
Senator James confirmed there was no further testimony regarding A.B. 470, and closed the hearing.
SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 470.
SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
SENATOR SMITH MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 241.
SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James wished to recognize the work which Senator Titus' interim committee put into the drafting of S.B. 241, and other bills relating to gaming regulations.
Senator James advised that the committee had received a request to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1280.
SENATOR SMITH MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-1280.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
* * * * *
Senator James confirmed there was no further business to come before the committee, and adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sherry Nesbitt,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
May 10, 1993
Page 1
Senate Committee on Judiciary
May 10, 1993
Page 1