Carson City (Wednesday), May 14, 1997

Senate called to order at 11:13 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present.

Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend William McCord.
Creator God, the God who has made all that is. You have given us this day and every day to use for the benefit of those around us. You have blest those gathered here and placed them in positions of power enabling them to look after the welfare of others. Help them to be firm in their conviction but tender hearted as they bring into legislation welfare reform that looks after the less fortunate of our state. This we pray to You our God, who was always more interested in those at the bottom than those at the top.

Amen.

Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.

Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.

Randolph J. Townsend,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 330, 359, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mark A. James,

Chairman

Mr President:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 156, 247, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Mark A. James,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations, to which was referred Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 37, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Be adopted.

Kathy Augustine,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 249, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mike McGinness,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, May 13, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 36.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 364.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 390--An Act relating to protection of older persons; requiring the peace officers' standards and training committee to establish certain programs of training concerning the abuse, neglect or exploitation of an older person; requiring certification of a peace officer who regularly is assigned to investigate reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of an older person; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 391--An Act making an appropriation to the Division of Child and Family Services of the Department of Human Resources to provide financial assistance to adoptive parents of children with special needs under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 392--An Act relating to sexual activity; prohibiting certain advertising in certain locations by certain sexually related businesses; prohibiting certain acts relating to prostitution; providing that certain places in which certain acts relating to prostitution are conducted constitute nuisances; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator Regan:
Senate Bill No. 393--An Act relating to insurance; providing immunity from civil liability in certain circumstances to persons who provide information concerning acts of insurance fraud; requiring reporting of the conviction of a person for insurance fraud to certain licensing agencies of this state; requiring such an agency to report to the legislature concerning action taken by the agency against the convicted person; prohibiting certain acts relating to insurance fraud; making various changes concerning collateral benefits paid or payable to a plaintiff in certain civil actions; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Regan moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

By Senator Regan:
Senate Bill No. 394--An Act relating to insurance fraud; requiring the establishment of a fraud control unit for insurance within the office of the attorney general; transferring the duties for investigating insurance fraud from the commissioner of insurance to the fraud control unit for insurance; authorizing the fraud control unit for insurance to issue subpoenas to obtain documents relating to such an investigation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Regan moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By Senator Regan:
Senate Bill No. 395--An Act relating to mental health; revising the provisions governing the commitment of mentally ill persons; requiring a district attorney to investigate suspected violations of certain provisions concerning mentally ill persons; directing the legislative commission to study the quality of care provided by this state to mentally ill persons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Regan moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 364.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 300.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 336.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 336:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 336 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 215.
Bill read third time.
Senator Raggio moved that no further consideration of Amendment No. 348 be made to Senate Bill No. 215.
Senators Titus, Adler and Neal requested a roll call on Senator Raggio's motion.
Roll call on Senator Raggio's motion:
Yeas--12.
Nays--Adler, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener--9.
The motion having received a majority, Mr. President declared it carried.
Remarks by Senators O'Connell, Neal, Adler, James, Titus, O'Donnell and Shaffer.
Senator Adler requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator O'Connell:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call the attention of the Senate to the item that has been placed on everyone's desk. I think it might help you in following the explanation I am going to give on Senate Bill No. 215.
Section 1 addresses only the major party candidates and changes the law for filing time from the first Tuesday in March through the first Tuesday in June to only two weeks in May. The thinking behind this is to try to shorten the time that people begin to campaign. Ballot question 10--you will remember that it not only limits the campaign contributions, but also imposes a felony penalty for violations. This caused the committee to review the penalties in both Chapters 293 and 294 of NRS. You will find those sections in 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the bill. They all change the penalties from a category D felony, requiring jail time, to a category E felony, which gives the court the latitude of the sentence imposed.
Section 4 is changed from an unspecified sentence to a category E.
Section 7 however increases the penalty for voting twice to a D felony.
Sections 8 and 9 changes the penalty from D to E.
Section 10 is directory language meaning that the following sections will be newly added to NRS 294A.
Section 11 simplifies the reporting for candidates who receive less than a total of $1,000 in campaign contributions.
Section 12 provides a civil penalty for violations of the reporting requirements and puts into place a sliding scale for penalties of late filing and this also allows the Secretary of State to start the process.
Section 13 prohibits funneling of contributions through another person.
Section 14 clarifies the reporting in a nonelection year when a candidate is collecting early money.
Section 15 speaks to false statements about a candidate and authorizes a candidate who believes this section has been violated to request an opinion from the Ethics Commission.
Section 16 deals with a person who works for the candidate with the intent to impede their election.
Section 17 addresses express advocacy. This is a very important section because of the confusion over what groups and organizations must report. Advocacy relates expressly to the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or question on the ballot.
Section 18 expands the definition of a "candidate" to include a person receiving $100 for a campaign contribution.
Sections 19, 20 and 21 implement language from ballot question 10. They define the contributions, the volunteers, the person and prohibits a contribution of more than $10,000 total for both the primary and the general elections and requires a category E felony penalty for a violation to these sections.
Section 21 lowers the reporting threshold from $500 to $100 as well as bringing the reporting deadline closer to the election. Several sections address this very same area, sections 24, 25, 30, 31, 32 and 33.
Section 23 changes the penalty for failure of setting up a separate account for contributions from a misdemeanor to a civil penalty.
Section 24 adds political parties and caucuses to the same reporting requirements as those of candidates.
Section 25 adds ballot questions to the reporting requirements.
Section 26 requires a candidate, who has accepted more than $5,000 from one entity before the end of the primary and is defeated in that primary to return anything over that $5,000 to the contributor.
Sections 27 and 28, the Clark County District Attorney's Office requested that the committee change the sections dealing with misdemeanors to civil penalties and that is what these sections do. They also deal with improperly disposing of unspent campaign contributions.
Section 29 again brings the campaign expense reporting deadline closer to the election. That deals with all elections except for the city election. That is addressed in another section.
Sections 30 and 31 again changes deadlines and lowers the threshold.
Sections 32 and 33 adds the same provision applying the NRSs dealing with the recall of elected officers.
Section 34 is the same as Section 23 in that it changes the penalty from a misdemeanor to a civil penalty.
Section 35 makes the same changes as Section 34 and applies them to organizations for a political party.
Section 36 again goes from a misdemeanor to a civil penalty for the violation of publication of election materials. It clarifies that a natural person, meaning a person who is acting on their own, is not subjected to this particular statute.
Section 37 deals with the city election and the reporting closer to the election time.
Section 38 is a very important part of the bill for anyone running for office or who is involved with an election in that this section requires an explanation of the law on the filing forms and stating the reporting requirements and the penalties.
Section 39 reduces the threshold and adds political parties and caucuses to the statute that requires the Secretary of State to make campaign reports public.
Section 40 identifies the Secretary of State as the enforcement officer and lays out the appropriate procedure for the enforcement of the violation.
Sections 41 through 46 provides the process which must be followed if someone alleges that a violation has occurred of Sections 15 or 16.
Section 47 provides the penalties should the Ethics Commission find that there was or has been a violation of either Sections 15 or 16.
Section 48 repeals the statute that conflicts with ballot question 10.
Section 49 simply affirms that this measure is not retroactive.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President, to you and through you to the members of the Senate. I am reminded of reading the history of the Romans, when I look at the bill which is before us, when Brutus participated in the stabbing of Julius Caesar. He found himself surrounded by the army of Marc Antony and Augustus. He cited the immortal words "that there comes a tide in the affairs of men which if taken at the crest would lead to good fortune, but if omitted, all the days of our lives would be left wallowing in the shallows."
This particular bill today has been one that has been before this body and been clearly managed by the Majority Party. They have not even allowed the Minority Party to seek adoption of an amendment or be heard on this measure. I do not recall this type of activity being presented where the minority voice could not be heard on a piece of legislation we call critical as this measure is labeled to be. I find myself in a position, as with the previous amendments to this measure, to be opposed to it because it fails in many respects to correct the weakness of an Ethics Commission which no doubt would be the downfall of this bill. If you cannot take advantage of the words that are so written, and if you cannot make an appeal and have that appeal heard, then there is no need to have the written word. Time and time again we have spoken to this bill. An amendment was offered as was a bill introduced in this house this morning to try to deal with this particular issue.
I guess, when you are in the majority you do what you want even if it means stifling the voices of the minority. Maybe this bill not only has shown the weakness of this body to deal forthrightly with the issue of campaign reform, but has also shown there can be an abusive power by the majority by not allowing others to be heard on this issue. The only amendments that we have had on the bill, on this floor, are the two amendments that were introduced by the majority. We now have a bill before us which we want to send out of this house under the title of campaign reform. We know that it is not campaign reform; it is campaign deform because this bill leaves us with a tremendous hole in terms of it being able to do those things which are necessary to bring some sanity and respect to the campaign process. This measure, as it is now written, does not do that. No matter what we have had in terms of support; legislative opinion be not, does not render and cure the defects that I see in this piece of legislation. As long as we have a commission that is weak and cannot enforce the law, no one will even be able to seek the proper redress that the public is now calling for. So, I say to you who are going to be voting for this particular measure, let's not lie to the public and tell them that this is campaign reform; it is not. It is campaign deform and this bill is only a crutch that will not support those who have a complaint to be able to have the proper redress that is so often called for in the many campaigns we have seen in this state, particularly on our local level.
So, Mr. President, I don't know what we are doing here. I don't even understand the strategy anymore because the minority voices are not being heard. I hope that someone will be able to look through this bill and say that this is the mechanism or the law that is really going to make a change in this process in which we have a lot of mudslinging. No, Mr. President, this bill does not ride the tide of good fortune, but leaves us wallowing in the shallows. It leaves us to mudslinging in campaigns. This bill is one that I will be proud to vote against. Then, I can go back and tell my constituents that we did not pass campaign reform, but instead, passed campaign deform.

Senator Adler:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of most of Senate Bill No. 215. Originally, I had legislation which was incorporated into S.B. No. 215. This bill, S.B. No. 215, still does much of what we wanted. My chief complaint has been: Nevada is a state awash with soft money. If you look at campaigns, it is not unusual to see a single campaign contribution of $40,000 or $50,000 of soft money. Money that is largely unidentified because it has been run through a political party or caucus. We all know the reason this has been done. Many people feel that they do not want to be associated with the contributors who have contributed to some of their caucuses. S.B. No. 215 by lowering the threshold to $100, makes caucuses and political parties responsible for reporting their contributions. It identifies where the money is coming from and who is influencing the politicians in Nevada. From this perspective, I think S.B. No. 215 is a good bill and does a great deal.
I have already expressed my unhappiness with the provisions on negative campaigning. I believe this issue should be dealt with in a separate bill. We have that separate bill, S.B. No. 386. We need to look at S.B. No. 386 to solve the problems surrounding negative campaigns. We need to hold full hearings on S.B. No. 386 rather than having it amended into S.B. No. 215 which I believe, other than sections 15 and 16, is an excellent piece of legislation. My concerns with sections 15 and 16 stay the same. I believe the provisions that allow the Ethics Commission to decide the truth or falsehood of a statement without a full hearing, without a full presentation of the evidence and without a decision to whether or not there was actual malice is constitutionally defective. That defect is going to come back and haunt this body if we keep those provisions in S.B. No. 215. I feel assured that a judge will say that section does not meet constitutional standards. These flaws can be corrected and can be corrected in S.B. No. 386. We could make what I believe to be a positive statement that we are against negative campaigning, but this mechanism that has been amended in S.B. No. 215 does not work. If we pass S.B. No. 215 in the current form, there will be a flood of complaints to the Ethics Commission within the last two to three weeks of every campaign. The Commission will be overburdened. We are not going to get the careful consideration of these measures that the candidates deserve.. From that perspective, I cannot support that section of S.B. No. 215.
Other than that, I think that everyone concerned with S.B. No. 215, the Secretary of State's Office, the Governor and everyone who has worked hard on S.B. No. 215 including the Senate Government Affairs Committee, should be commended for the job they have done on S.B. No. 215 because it does do the one thing Nevadans have been crying out for: to stop the flow of soft money into campaigns and to identify the true contributors to campaigns in the State of Nevada.

Senator James:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of Senate Bill No. 215. It has been debated at length several times. We have had four different debates on different amendments, and there were extensive committee hearings. I am not going to belabor the debate. I was sitting here listening to the previous two speakers. I listen to tapes by Winston Churchill sometimes in my car. The other day, I was listening to one where he was debating with someone in the Parliament. He listened to their remarks and said to them, "You are absolutely correct, but only if we live in a world of topsy-turvyism." As the two previous speakers were speaking that phrase came to mind because only in a world of topsy-turvyism could what they said have any meaning or force. The first speaker indicated he opposes S.B. No. 215, or at least those portions in S.B. No. 215 dealing with negative campaigning. We do have to have something in S.B. No. 215 to deal with this terrible problem of negative campaigning, but he says what we are doing is not good enough. We are then criticized for not processing an amendment that would eliminate anything being done. We would be doing nothing about negative campaigning. We would pass a bill of campaign and election reform that would say nothing at all about a remedy for mudslinging and false statements in a campaign. It would not have these statements in S.B. No. 215 that you cannot make a false statement of fact about someone's education, their profession or whether they committed a felony crime. I suppose the question is: are we to leave the law the way it is now and allow that kind of negative campaigning to continue uninterrupted, without remedy and without giving the people any remedy as to

Senator Titus:

Mr. President, point of order. We are discussing an amendment that was voted to give no further consideration to the amendment. I cannot understand this discussion.

Senator James:

If I may speak to that, Mr. President, we are not discussing an amendment at all. S.B. No. 215 has been opposed by the prior two speakers because sections 15 and 16 exist within S.B. No. 215. I suppose they are saying they will vote against the measure now. What I'm saying is that these sections are a very important part of S.B. No. 215. They are bound up inextricably with S.B. No. 215 and with the reform policy that was enacted by the Government Affairs Committee which worked on S.B. No. 215 all legislative session. I am telling this body why those provisions are so important; why they belong as part of S.B. No. 215; why they should not serve as a reason, rationalization or excuse for voting against S.B. No. 215 and why S.B. No. 215 should pass out of the Senate with unanimous support those sections included. I am not speaking to the amendment--the amendment which was not considered, but which was considered three times previously when it came up to remove these sections or change them is some way. I would close my remarks, Mr. President, by saying that the Senator from Carson City indicated the people of Nevada are crying out for a cure to the soft money problem. Indeed, they are, but they are also crying out for a cure to the problem that perennially surfaces on their television screens, in their mailboxes and especially on their radios where they are hit with a barrage of advertisements some of which have no semblance of truth within them. There is no remedy. The public cannot go anywhere. The Ethics Commission has no power to deal with candidates who violate these standards. What we are trying to do, now, is set forth some standards, clean up the airwaves, clean up the radio waves, clean up these campaigns. The people of Nevada are crying out for this clean up as well, Mr. President. That is why these two sections are not reasons to vote against S.B. No. 215; they are reasons to pass S.B. No. 215 over to the Assembly in its current form.

Senator O'Donnell:

Thank you, Mr. President. I am perplexed about Senate Bill No. 215. When we heard S.B. No. 215 in Government Affairs Committee, we thought it was an excellent attempt in trying to do what was righteous and fair in exposing campaign contributions. S.B. No 215 would expose campaign contributions and who was getting money from where. We wanted to tell the public we were cleaning up our act. Along comes this provision in the bill, where we were told by certain groups that this provision may be unconstitutional. To make it a criminal sanction for free speech would be a criminal violation against New York v. Sullivan. We agreed to take that provision out and replace it with something that would do just as much good but would keep people from lying, keep people from misrepresenting the truth. We have all been there. We've all had campaigns, and we've had people say things about our campaigns that were not right. We all got livid. We put into S.B. No. 215 a provision whereby the misrepresentation of the truth could be mitigated. We chose a body, the Ethics Commission. I have sat through hearings on the Finance Committee whereby the commission's budget has been augmented so that they will be able to do what we want them to do, a truth squad. It perplexes me as to how we can have an amendment to do away with the very section that gave free speech

Senator Titus:

Mr. President, point of order. We are back to discussing an amendment that was moved for no further consideration of the amendment. It is very clear that that is what we are discussing. Either we consider that amendment or we stop talking about it.

Senator O'Donnell:

I will speak to the bill that was just introduced today, S.B. No. 386. The bill, S.B. No. 386, does exactly what Senator Titus said should be ripped out of S.B. No. 215. I do not understand what is going on here. In the spy world, there are spies and counter spies and other counter-counter spies, pretty soon nobody knows who's trying to do what to whom. In S.B. No. 215, I have no idea who is trying to kill this bill, but I'm not. I don't think any member of this body is trying to kill S.B. No. 215. I think everybody is overreacting and trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I think we should get on with S.B. No. 215, pass S.B. No. 215 and do something that is a public good.

Senator Shaffer:

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be supporting Senate Bill No. 215 with reservations. I don't think I have had an opponent in the last 13 years that didn't lie, and not just one or two opponents but several opponents lied. I am convinced they will have a slush fund for paying the fine for lying, and anything short of a criminal charge will not be a deterrent to my opponents.

Senators Neal, Mathews and Regan moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Senate Bill No. 215.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 215:
Yeas--20.
Nays--Neal.
Senate Bill No. 215 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like my following remarks entered into the Journal for today. I just want to say that I think today marks an all time low in the history of this body when the rules of procedure can be abused in order to thwart the democratic process.

Senator Raggio:
Point of order. That again is a direct violation of the rule impugning the motive of anyone who acts in this body. I think we have tolerated it long enough. The next time we will move for sanctions.

Senator Neal:
Mr. President, if you are going to rule on that particular point of order, would you kindly cite the number in the rule in which that appears so we would clearly have an understanding about all of this. Having been here as long as the Majority Leader, in my judgment I have not heard of any such rule which applies to the statements made by my colleague from Clark County.

Mr. President:
I will get back to you tomorrow on this. Would you wish me to read from the Mason's Manual on the breaches of decorum at this time?

Rule 21. Decorum and debate. In case of breaches of decorum or propriety, any Senator, officer, or other person shall be liable to suspension or punishment as the Senate may deem proper. If any Senator be called to order for offensive or indecorous language or conduct, the person calling to order shall report the language or conduct expected to which will be taken down or noted at the Secretary's Desk and no member shall be held to answer for any language used on the floor of the Senate if business has intervened before exception to the language was taken.

Senator Neal:
Mr. President, may I call your attention to the fact that, when we go to Order of Business 16, we are asking that our remarks be entered into the Journal. When we ask that those remarks be entered into the Journal, anyone who wants to counter that can counter that. I do not think anyone called anyone an S.O.B. on this floor. At least, I have not heard it done. So, when we talk about indecorous conduct, etc. I think people should be able to put information into the Journal under Order of Business No. 16 and those remarks should be recorded. If anyone disagrees with those remarks, they can place their own remarks alongside those.

Mr. President:
We are going to be recording all of these remarks in the Journal for this Legislative Day. I am also going to ask that, since we have done business today, it is sometimes better to wait until another day to continue on.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say, for the record, that I was a little surprised that the young Senator from Clark County did not come to the defense of Senator Titus since he made such an oration on free speech.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. Under Order of Business No. 16, I would like to specifically address the question raised by Senator Neal. I would refer him to Section 124 of Mason's Manual which governs this legislative body. Specifically, it reads "it is not the person, but the measure that is the subject of a debate and it is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member." I would like to have that entered into the record. I did ask the Secretary to put copies of these pertinent provisions on the desk of each Senator; which she did. Apparently, that was overlooked when the Senator raised the issue. Let me indicate that we want to have healthy debate in this house. We need to get away from personalities. That is also a violation of Mason's Manual. Many of us have been here a length of time and we know that we can get angry over issues. We can feel strongly about them, but personalities and impugning motives should not ever be in order. That is the reason recently that I for one have risen on these particular issues. I am hopeful that, in the remaining days of this session, we can continue to have decorum in this house and that we can argue as hard as we want to about the issues. But let's not violate the rules of Mason's Manual.

Senator Neal:
Point of information, Mr. President. Would it be all right for me to mention the party?

Senator Raggio:
Yes, I think so and I would like to respond. Today, since you raised the issue, I did raise the objection properly under the rule on an amendment to be considered. Before we get off too far on that issue, let's make the record clear. The subject of that amendment was debated to the point of ad nauseum in this body for at least two consecutive days. The issue has been debated to exhaustion. I would like the media who reports our events here to properly note that this was not an attempt to stifle the minority. I would characterize it as an attempt upon the part of the minority to overrule the right of the majority. That is in direct response.

Senator Titus:
(Senator Titus raised a point of order, but her microphone was not turned on and her remarks were not audible.)
Senator Raggio:
If he can say it, then I can answer his question. I think that is what it was. I think it was an attempt on the minority to thwart the will of the majority.

Senator Titus:
Point of order. The senator is questioning the motives of a member of this body.

Senator Raggio:
The procedure today does, at least, get this campaign reform bill over to the other house. Like the Senator from Carson City, I also think it has been a long process. The Senate Government Affairs Committee worked long, long hours on this bill. The measure includes all aspects that came to our attention on the subject of campaign reform, not only financial disclosure, not only shortening the time for filing, but dealing with what is even a more serious problem. That problem is the enhanced amount of negative campaigning. I leave here with a very good attitude and a clear conscience, as a member of that committee, that we have committed to serious campaign reform. If anyone sees that as an attempt to kill that bill, that is inappropriate and I will tell you that it has no place in a discussion. We send this bill to the Assembly with a fervent hope that they will consider the amount of time and effort that has been put into this bill and that we have made an attempt to do something about campaign reform that has not heretofore been done. This Senator is the one who made the motion, in committee, to drop the threshold of campaign reporting to $100. I stand by that commitment and so does this house by reason of having passed this bill. The other aspects of the bill enhance the measure, enhance the initial issues which were addressed. I think we have done a commendable job and I think, in the long run, the public will appreciate those efforts and understand why we have done this.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, like many others, held my nose and voted for the bill. But, I wanted to raise the issue since in the next weeks we will have a great many controversial issues to consider. The Majority Leader made mention of the amendment which had not come up for discussion. Apparently, he had read it before any of us since I had not previously had a copy of it. He had a copy and obviously knew the rule to keep it from being debated. The remarks the Minority Leader made were as follows: "Today marks an all time low moment in the history of this Body when the rules can be abused in order to thwart the democratic process." I would like to ask the President to now rule if that was, in fact, an arraignment of the motives of a member or of the measure?

Mr. President.
Since I don't have complete recall of the timing of that, I can't rule on this on the basis that you transcribed those remarks along the way. I do wish that every objection that was raised by the Minority Leader are in the record.

On request of Senator McGinness, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Ryan McGinness and Brian Fralick.

On request of Senator Porter, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Judge Don Mosley.

On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Ira Hansen.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, May 15, 1997 at 10:30 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

Approved:

Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.

President of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate