Carson City (Friday), June 20, 1997

Senate called to order at 10:52 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Dr. Daigan Lee Matsunaga.
Guided by the power of the ultimate truth, and illuminated by the infinite wisdom and compassion of the enlightenment, let us cross the vast ocean of this turbulent world with all other sentient beings to reach the realm of true awakening. May the other power lead the people of Nevada to the shore of perfect liberation and peace.
In Gassho.

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.

Dean A. Rhoads,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 365, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Mike McGinness,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 340, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

William R. O'Donnell,

Chairman

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, June 18, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 265, 344, 353.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly amended, and on this day passed, as amended, Senate Bills Nos. 230, 294 and 297, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendments.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day respectfully refused to concur in the Senate amendment to Assembly Bill No. 99.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, June 19, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 274, 348, 358, 359.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 573, 576.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 204, 216, 264, 299, 477, 510, 515, 522, 525.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Joint Resolution No. 17.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day concurred in the Senate amendment to Assembly Bill No. 128.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day amended, and passed, as amended, Senate Bills Nos. 29, 129, 260, and respectfully requests your honorable body to concur in said amendments.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Thank you, Mr. President. We often say our future lies in our children, the future of our country and the future of our world. If that is true, then we owe great respect to those individuals who commit and dedicate their lives to educating our children. If that is important, then certainly the work of educating our teachers is even more important. The man we honor today, upon his retirement from the University of Nevada, is one of those individuals who has dedicated his life to the education of children and, in his later years, the education of our teachers. All of us who serve in the Senate believe truly that we have one of the finest education systems anywhere in the country. A great deal of that success, in large measure, is because of the dedication of Dr. Frank Meyers.
He came from a small town where the biggest event in town was watching the barber give haircuts on Saturdays, McClusky, North Dakota. He was educated in two universities that have never been ranked on football polls, North Dakota State University (NDSU) and Northern Colorado State University (NCSU). Apparently, the schools Dr. Meyers attended in McClusky, NDSU and NCSU had something to offer because they produced a person who is preeminent in the field of education. He will be honored at the University of Nevada on the occasion of his retirement as dean of the College of Education. It is significant to note the College of Education has made great strides during the 14 years Dean Meyers has served as dean.
Everyone can be replaced. Certainly, we who serve in this body appreciate that statement. Although Dean Meyers will be replaced, I doubt sincerely the extent of his accomplishments will be equaled. It is fitting today to take a moment to honor someone who has given his life to this important work, one who has had the privilege of seeing so many of his children succeed and his students succeed. It was the start of the whole College of Education of our University system which are now important elements of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and the community college system as well. He is one of the architects of our state's education system. We pause to pay tribute to Dean Meyers. I would ask the Senate to join me in adopting SCR No. 52. It will have a meaningful place in his life, as important to him as he has been in our lives and in the lives of our children.

Senator Rawson:

Thank you, Mr. President. I serve along with others in the Senate on the Education Commission of the States with Dean Meyers. I found Dean Meyers to be a most gracious person. He has always been anxious to see that Nevada was involved and be able to do meaningful work in the commission meetings. There is something ironic about a dean retiring when he gets a new building. I wish Dean Meyers good health and a happy retirement.

Senator McGinness:

Thank you, Mr. President. This resolution is outstanding and honors an outstanding individual. It left out, probably, the turning point in his career: the year Dean Meyers spent at Churchill County Schools were it is rumored that he got his start at the university after being terminated by Superintendent Elmo Dirico. We are happy he went on to be successful at the university.

Senator Townsend:

Thank you, Mr. President. It is an honor for me to stand here today. I am one of those people the Majority Leader made reference to earlier. I am one of Dean Meyers former students. Please don't hold that against him. As a matter of fact, I have two degrees from the University of Nevada, College of Education. More importantly, this gentleman has substantial depth of character. He was the chairman of my masters committee. I remember in my oral exam when someone is as quiet and as thoughtful as Frank Meyers was, you are always waiting for the other shoe to drop. As the other two individuals asked questions, Dean Meyers waited and waited and waited. This is a gentleman who created not just your average 30-unit masters degree, but for someone as slow on the uptake, he created a 60-unit masters degree for me. I was there a little longer than the average masters student. Senator Mathews and I shared more than our fair share of time at the university in the masters program. As I waited for the Dean to get around to me, I thought after a couple of hours where you are trying to honor that age-old advertisement, "never let them see you sweat," I knew there was a question to come. That question was very simple, "If we allow you to have this degree, what are you going to do with it?" I'm not sure I gave a remotely adequate answer, but I know I didn't tell him I was going into politics.
The reason I got into this profession and ran for office, the first time in 1978, was due to the exposure to the multitude of things my masters degree and ultimately my attempting to enter the doctoral program allowed me to learn and do. I thought the political process could probably do more for education based on Dean Meyers background and teachings than if I were to stay in the classroom. There is probably no one with greater influence on me for entering the political process than Dean Frank Meyers. For those of you who get upset with me at times for whatever stance I have on an issue, it is Dean Meyers who is totally responsible. Please take your frustration out on him.
He and his wife have been friends of mine for many years. His wife is a real leader that I hope more people would follow. Everyday she has drug him around the Lakeridge area walking and jogging to try to remain healthy. I see them today as happy as they were when they first got married. It is a joy to behold.
It's part of the wonderful things that have happened to me in the Senate to be here to honor and share this day with Dean Meyers. I wish him all the best and can't wait to see the bill for lunch at Adele's today. Please feel free to give the bill to the Majority Leader, and in a tremendous show of generosity, we will at least pick up $20 of the bill.
Resolution adopted.
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 52 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.
Motion carried.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.

Senate in recess at 11:14 a.m.

At 11:19 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Quorum present.

"Senate Concurrent Resolution--Urging the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada to conduct a study regarding the teacher training programs of the University and Community College System of Nevada.".

"Summary--Urges Board of Regents of University of Nevada to conduct study regarding teacher training programs. (BDR R-1758)".

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 17.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

By Senator Titus:
Senate Bill No. 470--An Act relating to public health; creating a program to increase awareness of health care programs for children and to encourage enrollment in such programs; providing that money in the intergovernmental transfer account may be transferred to an account established for the provision of health care services to uninsured children under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Titus moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By Senator Regan:
Senate Bill No. 471--An Act relating to foster homes; making various changes to provide immunity from liability to certain persons who provide foster care for certain acts of children placed in their care; providing that such persons are criminally liable for the truancy of children in their care only under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Regan moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 204.
Senator O'Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 216.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 264.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 299.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 477.
Senator Rawson moved that Senate Standing Rule No. 40 be suspended and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 510.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 515.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 522.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 525.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 573.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 576.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 187.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 187:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 187 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 448.
Bill read third time.
Conflict of interest declared by Senator James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 448:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Not voting -- James.
Senate Bill No. 448 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 55.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and O'Connell.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 55:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 55 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 62.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 62:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 62 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 71.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Rhoads.
Conflict of interest declared by Senator Adler.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 71:
Yeas -- 19.
Nays -- Titus.
Not voting -- Adler.
Assembly Bill No. 71 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 136.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 136:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Not voting -- Coffin.
Assembly Bill No. 136 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 148.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 734.
Amend section 1, page 2, line 1, by deleting "trust".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, by deleting lines 14 through 20 and inserting:
"118B.215 1. There is hereby created as a special revenue fund in the state treasury the fund for low-income owners of mobile homes, to be administered by the division. All money received for the use of the fund pursuant to NRS 118B.213 or from any other source must be deposited in the fund.
2. The interest and income earned on the money in the fund, after deducting any applicable charges, must be credited to the fund. All claims against the fund must be paid as other claims against the state are".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 22, by deleting "trust".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 25, by deleting "trust".
Amend sec. 2, page 4, line 2, by deleting "trust".
Amend sec. 2, page 4, line 18, by deleting "trust".
Amend the title of the bill by deleting the third through sixth lines and inserting:
"increase that affects a tenant who receives assistance from the fund for low-income owners of mobile homes; requiring a tenant to be the registered owner of a mobile home to be eligible for assistance from the fund; expanding eligibility for assistance from the fund to include persons who are registered owners of ".
Amend the summary of the bill, first line, by deleting "trust".
Remarks by Senators Townsend, Adler, O'Connell and James.
Senator Townsend moved the adoption of the amendment.
Senator James announced that he would abstain from voting on the amendment.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 213.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 213:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 213 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 219.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 219:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 219 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 226.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 226:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 226 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 229.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 229:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 229 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 236.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Regan.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 236:
Yeas -- 19.
Nays -- O'Connell, Washington - 2.
Assembly Bill No. 236 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 287.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 287:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 287 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 327.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 327:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Assembly Bill No. 327 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 360.
Bill read third time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 663.
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 25.5, following sec. 25, to read as follows:
"Sec. 25.5. NRS 661.145 is hereby amended to read as follows:
661.1451. No person is eligible to serve as a director or manager of any bank, organized or existing under the laws of this state, unless he is a bona fide owner of stock of the bank or its holding company, or has a member's interest in the bank. The stock or interest owned must have a total fair market value of at least $1,000. A determination of the value of the stock or interest must be based on its value on the date it was purchased or on its value on the date the owner became a director, whichever is greater. The stock or the member's contribution must be fully paid and not pledged.
2. [Except in the case of a merger between an out-of-state bank and a Nevada bank or an out-of-state bank that acquires a branch in Nevada pursuant to the provisions of chapter 666 of NRS, a majority of the board of directors or managers of every bank must be residents of the State of Nevada, and at least one of the directors or managers must reside in the county where its principal place of business is to be conducted.
3.] For the purposes of this section, "holding company" has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 666.005.".
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 43 and inserting:
"Sec. 43. (Deleted by amendment.)".
Amend the bill as a whole by adding a new section designated sec. 104.5, following sec. 104, to read as follows:
"Sec. 104.5. Section 1 of Assembly Bill No. 8 of this session is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 1 NRS 661.145 is hereby amended to read as follows:

661.145 1. No person is eligible to serve as a director or manager of any bank, organized or existing under the laws of this state, unless he [is] :

(a) Is a bona fide owner of stock of the bank or its holding company [, or

has] ;

(b) Holds stock of the bank or its holding company in a revocable trust; or

(c) Has a member's interest in the bank.

2. The stock or interest owned or held pursuant to subsection 1 must have a total fair market value of at least $1,000. A determination of the value of the stock or interest must be based on its value on the date it was purchased or on its value on the date the owner or holder of the stock or interest became a director, whichever is greater. The stock or the member's contribution must be fully paid and not pledged.

[2.] 3. For the purposes of this section, "holding company" has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 666.005.".

Assembly Bill No. 396.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Adler, O'Connell, Coffin, Augustine, Regan and Titus.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 396:
Yeas -- 16.
Nays -- Adler, Coffin, Jacobsen, Titus, Wiener - 5.
Assembly Bill No. 396 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Randolph J. Townsend,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 388, 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, June 20, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 47.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I also join with the Assembly in supporting this resolution. Certainly, in my district of Carson City and Lyon County, RPEN members have been a major force in their volunteer activities. In fact, you can't find anything done in this community that isn't backed by members of RPEN. They are the backbone of the community. They are involved in the community and the major contributor in the community. I also think we should strongly support this worthwhile resolution.
Motion carried.
Resolution adopted.

"AN ACT relating to animals; prohibiting certain entities from releasing certain animals for adoption unless those animals have been sterilized; requiring persons who adopt certain unsterilized animals to enter into an agreement for the sterilization of those animals; requiring that an agreement for sterilization contain certain matters; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

Senate Bill No. 340.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Transportation:
Amendment No. 660.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 13, after "period." by inserting:
"For the purposes of this paragraph, "additional authorized driver" does not include any person related to the lessee by blood, marriage or adoption who resides in the same household as the lessee.".
Amend the title of the bill, second and third lines, by deleting:
"any additional authorized driver;" and inserting:
"certain additional authorized drivers;".
Senator Wiener moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Wiener.
Amendment adopted.
Senator James moved that Senate Bill No. 340 be placed on the Secretary's desk upon return from reprint.
Remarks by Senator James.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to the Secretary's desk.

Senate Bill No. 365.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Taxation:
Amendment No. 670.
Amend section 1, pages 1 and 2, by deleting lines 19 through 21 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2 and inserting:
"$0 - [$8,000] $12,700 90
[8,000 - 12,700 80]
12,700 - 14,800 [50] 80
14,800 - 17,000 [25] 50
17,000 - 19,100 [10] 25
19,100 - 21,500 10 ".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 5, by deleting "[$500,] $1,000," and inserting "$500,".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 9, by deleting "1990 " and inserting "1997 ".
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 3 and renumbering sec. 4 as sec. 3.
Amend sec. 4, page 2, line 27, by deleting "1997." and inserting "1999.".
Amend the title of the bill by deleting the first and second lines and inserting:

"An Act relating to taxation; increasing and providing for the adjustment of the amount of household income allowed for a senior citizen to qualify for a refund of a portion of the property tax on his primary residence; and".

"Summary--Revises provisions governing assistance for property taxes provided to certain older persons. (BDR 32-101)".

Senate Bill No. 412.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Natural Resources:
Amendment No. 623.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 13, by deleting "[nine] six" and inserting "nine".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting line 18 and inserting:
"(c) Five members who are residents of Douglas County,".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 20, by deleting the closed bracket.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 25, by deleting "four" and inserting "six".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 37, by deleting "facilities" and inserting:
"facilities, flood control or drainage projects".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 40, by deleting "541.350" and inserting "541.340".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 4, by deleting "facilities" and inserting:
"facilities, flood control or drainage projects".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 6, by deleting "facilities" and inserting:
"facilities, flood control or drainage projects".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, line 26, after "waterworks" by inserting:
", facilities, flood control or drainage projects or other projects,".
Amend sec. 2, page 3, between lines 34 and 35 by inserting:

"8. The Carson Water Subconservancy District may, for the payment of general or special obligations issued pursuant to subsection 4, pledge any money received from the proceeds of a tax imposed by a special district established pursuant to subsection 7 if:

(a) The Carson Water Subconservancy District and the special district established pursuant to subsection 7 have entered into a cooperative agreement pursuant to chapter 277 of NRS; and

(b) The cooperative agreement authorizes the Carson Water Subconservancy District to pledge the money received from the proceeds of that tax.".

Sec. 10.5. 1. The board of supervisors of Carson City and the board of county commissioners of each county located in part or in whole within the Carson Water Subconservancy District may levy a tax upon all taxable property within its boundaries at a rate of not more than 7 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation for the acquisition, construction or completion of waterworks, facilities, flood control or drainage projects or other projects. The tax must be collected in the same manner as other taxes ad valorem collected by the local government. The limitations in chapter 354 of NRS upon revenue from taxes ad valorem do not apply to revenue received from a tax levied pursuant to this subsection.

2. The board of supervisors of Carson City and the board of county commissioners of each county located in part or in whole within the Carson Water Subconservancy District may issue general or special obligations to acquire, construct or complete waterworks, facilities, flood control or drainage projects or other projects in accordance with NRS 350.500 to 350.720, inclusive. Any general obligations issued pursuant to this subsection must comply with the provisions of NRS 350.020. The provisions of NRS 541.340 to 541.370, inclusive, do not apply to obligations issued pursuant to this subsection.

3. The board of supervisors of Carson City and the board of county commissioners of each county located in whole or in part within the Carson Water Subconservancy District may pledge:

(a) Any money received from the proceeds of the tax imposed pursuant to subsection 1;

(b) The gross or net revenues derived from waterworks, facilities, flood control or drainage projects or other projects; and

(c) The special assessments collected by the local government for maintaining and operating waterworks, facilities, flood control or drainage projects or other projects,

for the payment of general or special obligations issued pursuant to subsection 2. For the purposes of subsection 3 of NRS 350.020 and NRS 350.500 to 350.720, inclusive, money pledged by the governing body of a local government pursuant to this subsection shall be deemed to be pledged revenue of the project.".

Senate Bill No. 133.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and James.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 133:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 133 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 375.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 375:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- Neal.
Senate Bill No. 375 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 392.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Coffin, James, Adler, Townsend and Neal.
Senator Coffin requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President. I thought the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee did a lengthy explanation of the bill as it became a new bill from the amendment on Wednesday, but I want to ask a couple of questions, if I may. First of all, I do not want to step on his toes if he was going to add any additional comments. (Chairman, Senator James nodded "no.")
I had hoped to have an amendment to this bill prepared and I would ask the chairman if he would consider such an amendment. Since he is particularly perturbed about advertising in the yellow pages, I have asked the Legal Division to draft an amendment which would require that the telephone company publish a directory not containing those "escort" pages and voluntarily prepare a quantity to meet the needs of all of those people who feel they do not want that in their homes. I did that on my own, but did ask the company later if they could do that. They indicated that they could and would do that since they currently publish several different types of books - some smaller, some larger, some with all white pages, etc. It is really a matter of computerization. My first question of the chairman is if he would accept a reasonable amendment. This would avoid much of the first amendment infringement which I see in this bill by allowing the telephone company to publish a book which all of us could have access to. The amendment would require them to do this so we could have a book without this offensive advertising. This would be a book we would want, in our homes, minus the 150 or so lurid pages showing girls. Apparently, the company is willing to do that and the legal division says an amendment can be drafted.

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President. No, with due respect to the Senator who asked the question, I do not support such an amendment and I would not support any delay of the bill to accommodate such an amendment. The phone companies, if they wish to, could do that now. They do not need a law passed to have them voluntarily publish phone books without lurid advertising. I do not intend to go on at length about this bill as I did on Wednesday. I think it has been adequately explained in numerous committee meetings. But, to assure the members of the Senate, there is not a constitutional issue with respect to advertising by the phone book because we do not say anything in the bill about phone books. The words "telephone book" are not listed in the bill, nor is "telephone company." The bill simply outlaws those kinds of businesses which are prostitution referral businesses and we have the right to do that. A state does not have to allow sexually explicit adult entertainment in peoples' rooms. Washoe County has taken that position. Other states have taken that position. That is all we are doing with this bill. The consequence of that is, because you are not a legal business anymore, you can't advertise in the phone book. So, the phone book ads will go away, but will not be a prior restraint or a dictate of what you can advertise. I do not support an amendment. I think the bill should be passed today and I urge you all to support it so it can go over to the other house. We are getting close to the end of session and this is an important measure intended to clean up the quality of life for children in Las Vegas.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President. The Chairman's answer was no, but I want to make sure that he understands that it would not be voluntary. That, in fact, they would be required to publish the necessary number of books made available. Whether they like it or not, they would have to make them available for delivery to the homes of those people who do not want that type of advertising. The reason I am trying to reach a reasonable approach here is that I think you run into prior restraint anytime you tell someone they can't advertise something. The bill is much broader than pertaining to just escort services which are the target of the Senator's wrath. He also, in this bill, aims a rifle right straight at the outdoor advertising industry. This is probably due to some of the tasteless advertising which they accept now and then. On the other hand, there are some definitions as to what outdoor advertising is, in Section 3, even including a sign placed indoors as part of a window display. I have had a retail store selling books, and have placed books in the window that were banned, not only for their content, but perhaps because of the color or content of their dust jacket. In many, many places that would fall under this definition. You are not nit-picking when you find that what you do with a bill like this is to create litigation, expensive both to the local communities and to the state. Without question, there will be litigation when you start interfering with the First Amendment.
Prostitution is already illegal in Clark County. I do not understand why this has become a greater problem, over the past few years, than it ever was before. I think the current sheriff is exercising his due diligence and arresting people who perform acts of prostitution. So, I have another question for the Chairman of Judiciary. That question is, did the sheriff of Clark County indicate to the committee that he was not able to handle this breach of the law?

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I can answer that question. The vice squad did come before the committee and testify in favor of this bill. They stated that this was a real problem in Clark County.

Senator Coffin:
Senator Adler, if you are going to defend this bill, not being from Clark County is perhaps difficult for you; however, you have heard some testimony. Since a representative of the Sting Squad indicated this was a problem, did they indicate that they should put more resources towards eradicating this blight on the community? I am curious as to what the sheriff or his representative did say as to why they are not stopping this from happening. If there is prostitution, which is against the law, why have they not been stopping it since it is illegal?

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President. They have put forth herculean efforts to stop this. They have run sting operations. They have had undercover agents call these numbers in the telephone books which are held out as legitimate entertainment businesses. They have done numerous things, but there are limits. Some people do not believe that you can ever get rid of this kind of illegal activity, but what we can do is make it so that they are not licensed to advertise. That is all we are doing. The bill simply says that you cannot have these kinds of businesses licensed and, if they are not licensed, they cannot advertise. We are not placing any prior restraints. We are just trying to get rid of these illegitimate businesses. By doing that, we clean up the yellow pages, we clean up the taxicab signs which say "call this number for a girl to your room, etc." It is a constitutional and sensible way to go about a very difficult problem occurring in Las Vegas which is harmful to children. I believe we have discussed this ad nauseum and wish we would move it out of here.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President. If I may continue, I have further questions. Did you hear any testimony from children who had called these services and did you get any kind of idea what happens if a youngster calls these services? Do they get serviced or have they just seen these pictures in the book? I am just wondering if these services actually do respond or if they just hang up when a kid calls them. Do they consider it a crank call?

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President, through you to the Senator from Las Vegas. What we heard as testimony from parents was that they were incensed that their children were viewing this. We did not hear about any child calling these numbers. I don't know what would happen if a child called. I can't conjecture what these criminals would do. They are criminals and are running criminal operations. What would they do if a child called? Some of them might deal with the children and some might not, but that is not the issue in this bill. The issue is that the advertising is sitting there in the yellow pages and it should not be there. The harmfulness is when the ad is viewed by a child and has to be explained by a parent. That is what is wrong.

Senator Coffin:
Mr. President, if we could switch from the yellow pages to another form of the other media. Outdoor advertising has apparently become particularly offensive to the committee. There are an awful lot of pronouncements in this bill and in existing law about the morals of the state, particularly anything which might harm the morals of the state. I don't recall that gambling has been listed in our statutes as something that does not harm the morals of the state. Will we now need a declaration, at some future time, that advertising gambling is not harmful to the morals of the state? Gambling advertising is pervasive on billboards and it should be allowed to advertise. But, once you start on the slippery slope of limiting the first amendment and limiting advertising in any media, even though some of it is tasteless, it is probably not much different in some respects than some of the advertising you have been trying to get rid of. It is promising an outcome, success, some thrill and some reward for undertaking what many people in the community feel is a vice, but on the other hand a legitimate business which has not been declared illegal. I believe someone could, using this kind of law, go one step further and attack gambling advertising.

Senator James:
If the Senator will yield, the answer to the question is that first of all, I think it is unfortunate that in the Senator's long query here, he is equating the gaming industry of Nevada with underground, illegal prostitution businesses. I further think it unfortunate that the Senator, in his long query, is equating the advertising by the gaming industry for customers to come, go to the hotels, see the shows and the things we have in our hotels with the definition which resides in the bill of what we are interdicting which is "harmful to minors." In direct response to his question, I think the Senator should be reminded that it was the attorney for the Nevada Resort Association, who is an expert in this area, a young attorney from Lionel, Sawyer and Collins, who drafted most of the provisions that deal with the outdoor advertising signs. He worked with the LCB staff and so I hardly think that the sophisticated individuals who are here on behalf of the gaming industry agree with the Senator that there is anything is this bill which equates to gambling, or anyway that the laws could be used against our states' major industry to interdict any kind of advertising activity or anything else they wanted to do. They participated hand and hand with this project to clean up the garbage of these criminals who are functioning boldly in the Las Vegas area. Frankly, I think we are getting a little far afield.

Senator Coffin:
Mr. President, I obviously do not equate gambling with this measure, but some people do. There are some people who are as blue in the nose as the paper in the amendment which became the bill. They do feel that it is improper. In fact, their religions prohibit them from even participating. Moving on, is there anything in this bill that affects the small counties? I am referring to definitions of what outdoor signage is. It looks, in the first few pages of the bill, in Section 3, that a sign outside a bordello, in any county, would be improper.

Senator Adler:
I move the previous question.

Senator Coffin:
I have the floor and I do not yield for anything other than an answer to a question. I am asking a question, Mr. President, and I want to know if Senator Adler is rising to answer my question.

Mr. President:
I indicated the order in which I was going to call on the speakers. I called on Senator Adler as the next in line to speak.

Senator Coffin:
Then, Mr. President, are you saying that you are in agreement that the debate should end?

Mr. President:
It is not my decision because Senator Adler called for that and it is a decision of the body.

Senator Coffin:
Well, I am asking questions, Mr. President. What I want to know is if Senator Adler is rising to respond to a question or asking for permission to speak on a different topic.

Senator Adler:
I am just calling the question. I am not making a statement.

Mr. President:
He moved the previous question, Senator Coffin.

Senator Coffin:
Mr. President, to interrupt a Senator when he is in the middle of asking questions .

Senator O'Donnell:
Point of order.

Senator Coffin:
.to cut debate, is out of order.

Senator O'Donnell:
Point of order. Mr. President, I believe the body has, at any time, permission to cut off debate when it sees fit.

Senator Coffin:
I don't believe so.

Mr. President:
We'll take a one minute recess.

We're back in session. Senator Coffin, I had announced who was going to be speaking next. Certainly, you had a question. Since there were not people sustaining Senator Adler's motion to move the previous question, I am still going to be calling on Senator Adler. However, I am going to call upon you as the one to speak and then call upon Senator Adler.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President. I will continue asking my question. The question was, is any other county affected because I notice it is a Category E felony to provide directions under Section 6 to someone who provides prostitution services. That includes, very broadly as I can see, all counties of Nevada. It does not indicate a population limit, it does not indicate Washoe and Clark counties, it does not indicate anything else - it includes all counties. I would like an answer to that question from anyone who is on the committee.

Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I can answer that question. This does not impact the other counties for the simple reason that, if you look in the Reno phone book, you will find four ads for escort services - not 200 pages. It does impact all counties in terms of the advertising ban.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Senator Adler. So, then it does affect all counties. I think that is an important declaration from the spokesman from the committee because I think that the members of this floor would like to believe that this is primarily a Clark County problem. What you have then, in essence, in the definition of outdoor advertising being statewide which means that any sign outside indicating the presence of a bordello, in any county in the State of Nevada, or any citizen of any county in the state of Nevada directing someone to - whether it be Joe at the gas station - then I think I can say with sufficient justification that, in addition to its infringement on the First Amendment, this has impact far beyond .

Senator James:
Mr. President, will the Senator yield for an explanation?

Senator Coffin:
I certainly will.

Senator James:
At some point, it just becomes a little silly. I will debate this as long as you wish, but saying things like "this is going to impact licensed houses of prostitution", doesn't it make you feel silly when you read the bill and it says "other than a licensed house of prostitution". We specifically exempted licensed houses of prostitution out in Section 6. We are not trying to do anything, in any way, in this bill to change that law. This is not a bill to change the legal prostitution that occurs in other parts of the state. It applies in terms of the prostitution referral service - which is what you're speaking on at this point - it only applies to prostitution referral services which are other than a licensed house of prostitution situated in other parts of the state. Apparently, it is an attempt to stir interest among other members of the body, by making the comment that "we were led to believe." I don't know who led you to believe, but it certainly wasn't me who led you to believe that because that would be a misreading of the bill.

Senator Coffin:
Thank you very much for your answer, Senator James. That is why I had the legal counsel on the floor with me earlier today so that she could explain that. She felt that it was questionable that "yes" it truly could actually affect those places that do have licensed prostitution. Again, since the Senator has taken the time to make a statement of some kind every time there has been a question, and indicate these questions are silly, I beg the Senators indulgence and patience. Remember, this bill just came out of committee. It is a brand new bill of numerous pages. There are lots of things I don't understand. I proposed what I thought was a reasonable amendment to get to the heart of the matter, but the Senator chose to ignore that. There really isn't anything further except to say that there is no question but that this is on shaky legal ground. It may not be on shaky moral ground unless you consider the First Amendment to be exempt from moral attack. Over the centuries, people have tried to, failed, and the courts consistently have ruled against them. I think we invite court action if we pass this piece of legislation as it presently stands.

Senator Townsend:
Thank you, Mr. President. If the body determines that the issue with regard to telephone books is to come to this body, I would ask those persons to accommodate us with one issue. That is the fact that Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1986 is substantial. There was also one performed by Congress in 1996 and we have what is known as the omnibus regulation that was drafted last year by our own Public Service Commission. During all of that, the debate on the revenues from telephone directories, part of which have subsidized basic service, have been debated whether it is a discretionary service or not. I am not trying to convolute this, I am trying to give you an answer. Therefore, I want to make sure that, if an amendment such as that is drafted, I am able to spend a small amount of time to get an answer to make sure that we don't shift that additional cost to basic service. I can get that answer for you if this body decides it wants to look at that kind of thing. I can have it for you by tomorrow.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have my remarks entered into the journal for this legislative day. I only do this because, on the amendment, the Majority Leader saw fit to make a motion that the votes be recorded. My remarks were not recorded at that particular time. I would like my remarks to indicate that I am in opposition to this bill for the following reasons:
I think that the bill is unconstitutional. It engages the constitutional principle of prior restraint in terms of advertising material. It makes various distinctions between men and women as to who would be charged for showing off parts of their bodies. This bill, along with other bills we have passed this session, Bill 200, the bill with which we dealt with the internet, I think these bills are all unconstitutional and therefore will be borne out as we get to the end of this particular section. I would like to note that when that internet bill came out, the motion picture industry called and hired a lobbyist to deal with that. The other bill, the sexual predator bill, was clearly unconstitutional because we proposed to have a person put into prison on the pretense that the person might commit a crime. This particular bill, S.B. 392, engages in prior restraint and is going to be a burden upon local governments to try to enforce this. We have not appropriated any funds for them to fight these issues which are subject to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The First Amendment to the Constitution is one of the most litigated amendments in that document. When we deal with questions of freedom and reading material and advertising material, there is no particular law which says that you can so construct in a narrow framework as to permit the legality to go forth and have these acts declared constitutional. As I said the other day, I agree with the motive behind this particular measure, but I think the bill we have before us is going to give this state and its political subdivisions some trouble.

Senator James:
Thank you, Mr. President. If I could also have these remarks in response entered into the Journal. First of all, I have great respect for the Senator from North Las Vegas. He has been here for a long time and has been reading these bills. I respect his concern for the Constitution which he has raised many times. I am glad we have him here doing that, but I want to reassure the members of this body that this bill is not unconstitutional. To remind you, the bill does two main things. I think it is necessary to put into the record and remind everyone what is happening here. The first thing it does is to say that you cannot advertise something that is harmful to minors. Let me tell you, there was a decision called Miller v. California. I have chaired the Judiciary Committee for three sessions now and we on this committee have dealt many times with the issues of obscenity, the issues of pornography, the issues of child pornography and prior restraint. Every session, there are a whole number of bills that address these issues. There was a decision, written by Justice Douglas I believe, who was a great defender of the constitution, called Miller against California. That decision said that obscenity is not protected speech. Obscenity was defined as something which appealed purely to prurient interests and had no serious literary, artistic, scientific or political value. The standard has been well accepted over the years. In subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that obscenity, when it comes to what minors are looking at, what children are exposed to always against their will, is different. It is not the Miller v. California standard. It is a higher standard. Several years ago, long before some of us were here, the Nevada Legislature adopted a standard of "Harmful to Minors." I have read it many times and I am not going to read it again. That is the standard taken from the U. S. Supreme Court decisions. What it says is "things that appeal purely to the prurient interest of minors that are harmful to their well-being." Those things you cannot put out for minors to digest. It is not proper. It is constitutional therefore for a legislature, a state, to regulate them; to say you can't put them on a billboard sign, you can't put them on a placard, you can't put them where children are going to have access to them. That is all we are doing with this bill which is why the Resort Association and all the other legitimate businesses around the state, the Chamber of Commerce, and everyone supports the bill. They know it is not unconstitutional. We are not going into untested waters here. This is a tested standard. "Harmful to minors." "Harmful to children." It has already been decided.
The second thing we are doing with the bill is to make very clear and plain that we are eliminating from our state entirely these illegal prostitution businesses which flourish by calling themselves "entertainment" businesses or "escort services." They advertise in our phone books, on taxicabs and blatantly throughout our community to "have a girl come over to your room". Well, it is not entertainment. One hundred percent of the time when they ran sting operations, Metro said they found it was an illegal prostitution ring being run. I will leave it there. Aside from all the things you have heard about the constitution, that is what the bill does. That is what we are doing here today. Let's make no mistake about it, either here or beyond the walls of this chamber.
Senators Mathews, Regan and Wiener moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Senate Bill No. 392.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 392:
Yeas -- 19.
Nays -- Coffin, Neal - 2.
Senate Bill No. 392 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 419.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 419:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 419 having received a two-thirds majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 436.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Coffin, Rawson, Neal, James, Adler and Regan.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 436:
Yeas -- 21.
Nays -- None.
Senate Bill No. 436 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

On request of Senator Neal, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following members of the Committee of 100 Men: James Sanders Jr., Xavier Williams, Joshua Bestman, Jamal Johnson, Mohamed Berro, Flash Bestman, Michael Bardlett, Jared Daniels, Sharod Perkins, Derek Perkins, Deontae Perkins, Torrio Redics, David Crisler, Maurice Andrews, Carlos Ramey, Mike Waller, Alton Cyphers and Otto Jackson.

On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to former Lieutenant Governor Bob Cashell, Nancy Cashell, Jane Cashell, Dean Frank, Margie Meyers, Keith Pierce, Doris Pierce, David Imig, Carol Imig, Donald Meyers, Deede Meyers, Irvin Meyers, JoAnn Meyers, Paul Kaczmarek, Marcella Kaczmarek, Donnie Meyers, Eric Meyers, Patricia Mey6ers, Becky Meyers, Marian Combs, Cheryl Rodby, Pete Goetz, Jimmy Kunz, Sandy Kunz, Ross Kunz, Marcia Kunz, Alexander Kunz, Griffin Kunz and Jason Lee Kunz,and the following officers of the Retired Public Employees of Nevada: Don Crosby, Terry Jones, Kathryn Howell, Mabel Mayes and Charter Member Earl Mayes.

On request of Senator Rawson, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following group from Boys' State: Gary Allen, John D. Anderson, Braden Bales, Philip Barnes, Eric Bayles, Steven Beckett, John Bell, Nicholas Bennett, Jason Bitsko, Phillip Bledsoe, Joseph Burch, Craig Burns, Nick Butler, Caleb Cage, Jason Chadderton, Clint Chapman, Timothy Clark, Scott Colon, Bien Decena, Jr., Valentino Diaz, Brandon Doolin, Adrian Enriquez, Matthey Feeley, Christopher Fesenmaier, Terry Fleck, Corby Frehner, Daniel Gabica, Wesley Guenther, Eric Guideng, Stephen Gustafson, Adam Hair, Benjamin Halverson, Curtis Hammill, Robert Havel, Corey Hawkins, Ryan Heward, Joe Holland, Kirk Hsu, James Jackson, Terry Jackson, Jeremiah Johnson, Kevin Joyce, Mitchell Kallick, Brian Kelch, Ryan King, Terrance Lewis, Aaron Litz, William Magrath III, Jason Makris, Travis Manning, Daren Martin, Sean Martin, Robert Martinez, Ryan McMillen, Douglas Medley, Obren Milanovic, Tim Miller, Dantrel Mingo, Justin Moore, Jason Morris, Mark Murphy, Drake Myers, Carl Netzler, David Nieman, Sean Nolan, James Oravec, Jamie Oster, Rick Perdomo, Earl Peterson, Gary Philips, Mike Pizzi, Matt Raab, Charles Radovich, Brian Reyes, Brian Roa, Garrett Roy, Michael Russell, C.J. Safford, Wayne Sanders, Neil Shackelford, Chris Shearer, Russell Glenn, Edward Snooks, Gerardo Soto, Leonard Souza, Zachary Stockdale, Rocky Sutton, Ja Swallow, Damian Taafe-McMenany, Andrew Taylor, Terry Thornley, David Ting, James Tolles, Jerrell L. Turner, William Tuttle, Roberto Valencia, Jared Wagner, Carl Wander, Jonathan Ward, Greg Warpinski, Jason Webb, Noah Wheatley, Edward Wilkerson, Zachary Wilkes, Jeremy Williams, David Wong, Zachary Woodbury, Jay Wright, William Wright IV, Jordan Yelinek and Sammy Yi.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Saturday, June 21, 1997 at 10:30 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 1:38 p.m.

Approved:

Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.

President of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate