NEVADA LEGISLATURE
Sixty-ninth Session, 1997
SENATE DAILY JOURNAL
THE THIRTY-SECOND DAY
Carson City (Thursday), February 20, 1997
Senate called to order at 10:41 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senator Rawson, who was excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Elaine Morgan.
Heavenly Father: Help us in these days of deliberation to maintain a spirit of dignity, a sense of humor, and an attitude of trust. Help us to accomplish by ourselves. Help us to be gracious enough to accept those things individually on which we cannot agree. Grant us Your support and holy blessing now and always.
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.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mr. President:
Your Committee on Commerce and Labor, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 88, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Randolph J. Townsend,
Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, February 19, 1997
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 78, 98.
Jacqueline Sneddon
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By Senator Neal:
Senate Bill No. 145--An Act relating to convicted persons; requiring a convicted person to register in Nevada for an offense committed elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in Nevada; revising the provisions concerning registration for subsequent offenses; making various other changes to the provisions governing the registration of convicted persons; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Neal moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By Senator Mathews:
Senate Bill No. 146--An Act relating to government finances; including property held in trust for an Indian tribe in determining basic ad valorem revenue for the distribution of the supplemental city-county relief tax; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Mathews moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 147--An Act relating to collective bargaining; transferring the duty to submit a list of potential mediators if a local government employer and employee organization do not agree upon a mediator from the labor commissioner to the commissioner appointed by the local government employee-management relations board; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 148--An Act relating to administrative process; authorizing the department of human resources and the department of education to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses at hearings that are conducted pursuant to certain federal programs; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 78.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 98.
Senator O'Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 15.
Amendment No. 22.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amend section 1, page 3, between lines 2 and 3, by inserting:
"5. A member of the board who is designated to act upon an issue or case pursuant to this section and who does not attend in person the hearing on the issue or case shall be deemed to have heard the issue or case and may act upon the issue or case if the member:
(a) Participates in the hearing by telephone or video conference; or
(b) After the hearing:
(1) Reviews a videotape of the hearing;
(2) Reviews the file or record relating to the issue or case; or
(3) Discusses, in person or by telephone, the issue or case with a member of the board or a case hearing representative who attended the hearing in person."
Senator Porter moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Porter.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 17.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:
Amendment No. 21.
Amend sec. 3, page 3, by deleting lines 22 through 36 and inserting:
"7.] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, when making an appointment to the board, the governor shall, to the extent practicable:
(a) Appoint a person who has experience in the field of:
(1) Prisons;
(2) Parole and probation;
(3) Law enforcement, including investigation;
(4) Criminal prosecution as the attorney general, a deputy attorney general, a district attorney or a deputy district attorney;
(5) Social work or therapy with emphasis on family counseling, domestic violence and urban social problems; or
(6) The advocacy of victims' rights; and
(b) Ensure that each of the fields listed in paragraph (a) is represented by at least one member of the board who has experience in the field.
6. No more than two members of the board may represent one of the fields listed in paragraph (a) of subsection 5.
7. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 213.133, a decision on any".
Amend the title of the bill, second line, after "parole;" by inserting:
"changing the provisions relating to the professional experience of members of the board;"
Senator Adler moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senators Adler, Neal and Raggio.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 96.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 5.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 10, by deleting "of $50." and inserting:
"as provided in NRS 623.310.".
Amend sec. 5, page 3, by deleting lines 13 and 14 and inserting:
"623.310 The board shall, by regulation, adopt a fee schedule which may not exceed".
Amend sec. 5, page 3, between lines 18 and 19, by inserting:
- "For a processing fee for an examination for registration as an architect 50.00".
Senator Townsend moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
The Sergeant at Arms announced that Assemblymen Carpenter and Berman were at the bar of the Senate. Assemblyman Carpenter invited the Senate to meet in Joint Session with the Assembly to hear an address by Representative John E. Ensign.
The President announced that if there were no objections, the Senate would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Senate in recess at 11:02 a.m.
IN JOINT SESSION
At 11:09 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
The Secretary of the Senate called the Senate roll.
All present, except Senator Rawson, who was excused.
The Chief Clerk of the Assembly called the Assembly roll.
All present.
The President appointed a Committee on Escort consisting of Senator O'Connell and Assemblyman Ernaut to wait upon Representative John E. Ensign and escort him to the Assembly Chamber.
The Committee on Escort in company with The Honorable John E. Ensign, United States Representative for Nevada, appeared before the bar of the Assembly..
The Committee on Escort escorted Representative Ensign to the rostrum.
Representative Ensign delivered his message as follows:
message to the legislature of nevada
sixty-ninth session, 1997
Thank you, Mr. President; Mr. Speaker, Senate Majority Leader Raggio, Senate Minority Leader Titus; Assembly Minority Leader Hettrick; all the Supreme Court Justices that are here; all the Constitutional Officers; and a special welcome to my colleague and the junior member of the Congressional delegation, Jim Gibbons.
I am pleased to be able to address you and all of those in the audience today as well.
Most of you don't know, especially up here in northern Nevada, some of my background. Some of my early stomping grounds when I was here in the fourth and fifth grades were right here in Carson City--in fact, right where we're standing. As a matter of fact, driving in here today, I drove by where my first job was. I think it was called the Lamplighter located off of Winnie Lane. I used to take the garbage out for the bar that we lived next door to on Winnie Lane. I have a lot of fond memories here in Carson City. I spent a few years in Reno, and then many years up at Lake Tahoe.
My family has been a Nevada family since 1906. My grandmother was born in Ely, Nevada; my grandfather was born--I think there were three houses at the time--in Dayton. I don't think that he, God rest his soul, would recognize Dayton as it exists today. My mom was born right here in Carson City. I will never forgive my mother for moving out of state. So I cannot truly call myself a native Nevadan even though my grandparents, my mother, and my children are all native Nevadans.
I was reading a newspaper article the other day, and it was about whether Congress had its continues resolve to devolve power back to the states without increased mandates that Washington sometimes likes to do.
Today, I want it to be absolutely clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am totally committed to the tenets founded in the Tenth Amendment; to bring back decisions, power, money, and everything that goes along with it, to chambers like this across the country, because I truly believe that we can solve problems here in our own state much better than Washington can solve them and I am committed to that.
Two years ago, I spoke before this body and I talked about the real changes that were going to happen in the bastion of bureaucracy back in Washington, D.C. I talked about prohibiting the federal government from imposing unfunded mandates on the states and about the need to allow states and local governments the flexibility and resources to solve local problems.
Let's take welfare reform as an example. In what has been called the most sweeping social policy change in 60 years, the federal government was said to have ended welfare as we know it. We are not. We are allowing you to end welfare as we know it. We are just getting out of the way. Today, welfare rolls in Nevada are down 32 percent since the spring of 1995, and we're not done yet.
A lot of credit goes to a lot of different people: the booming Nevada economy; Governor Miller, and many of you in this room, especially State Senator Maurice Washington. These reductions will translate into significant savings for our state as the funding formulas--the block grants--were locked in at 1995 levels. Since our rolls are now down 32 percent from that level, you now have the flexibility, as well as the money, to look out and say, "Let's have a true welfare reform that talks about compassion and getting people from welfare into real jobs that make for a brighter future for them and their children."
Much has been made about the hardship cases on the welfare rolls. I've read many articles in the press about that. You now have the resources and flexibility of a 20-percent exemption from the work requirement to handle any of the hardship cases. There truly are those who cannot work, so we gave that flexibility to you to handle it the best way Nevada knows how.
In addition, I realize that any block grant approach could be dangerous to such a fast growing state, and to compensate for this I had included in the bill a growth formula. By the way, Nevada had already qualified for the growth formula before the law was actually penciled in. As soon as the law was penciled in, we qualified for that growth formula. It will help offset a lot of our sizable growth. We didn't do this alone. We did it working together with the governor and this legislature to develop a solution not mired down in politics. When we succeeded in devolving power to the states, we did it by listening to those of you who told us that you could do it better, and we did it by spending money smarter rather than just throwing more money at the problem
Along with the population growth formula, Nevada has the ability to take advantage of another key provision in this welfare bill.
The five states that are most successful in decreasing out-of-wedlock births without increasing abortions are eligible for $20 million each in additional funding. For the State of California, which spends billions of dollars on their welfare programs, $20 million is not a lot of money. But to the State of Nevada, if we could quality for the $20 million, that would be a 50-percent increase in our welfare funding, so it is worth the interest of the people and of you to design innovative programs to decrease the out-of-wedlock births. Not only will we be doing a service for all of those people and those children that are unfortunately born out-of-wedlock, but we will also be doing our state a service with an additional $20 million.
In America, we must not only look at individual welfare reform, we must also look at the whole corporate welfare state. Many provisions written into our federal tax code and trade laws don't benefit small businesses. They benefit the multinational mega-conglomerate corporations. For example, when we passed the Freedom to Farm Act which phases out all the farm subsidies over seven years, those farm subsidies were not going to the small family farmers. Those farm subsidies were going to several large, mega-national corporations. They were intended to help the family farmers, but that is not where they ended up. We have just begun to scratch the surface in the area of corporate welfare. We will continue to look for other ways to slash subsidies and loopholes for big business without calling everything under the sun "corporate welfare." There are legitimate business expenses that a lot of people are calling corporate welfare, and we don't want to include those. However, there are subsidies out there that we do need to eliminate at the federal level.
I mentioned before that I have more faith in Nevadans to solve our problems that I do in the federal government. My faith in state and local government to find solutions is not the only reason for my fight to return power and money to Nevada. The other reason is that the more the federal government spends, the more economic damage it can do to our state.
Let me explain. Simply stated, Nevada ranks 15th in the amount of money per person that we send back to Washington. We rank 45th in the amount of money we receive back per person from Washington. If your stockbroker delivered this kind of return on your money, I don't know if you would keep that stockbroker employed too long; I certainly wouldn't. That's why I've been fighting to limit Washington's spending and get some money back here in the state. We, as Nevadans, must understand that this happening and work together to continue to reduce Washington influence.
I want to talk about the balanced budget for a moment. It is critical that we balance the budget in Washington. A balanced federal budget, aside from being the right thing to do, will have a positive effect on each and every American. In order to get our fiscal affairs in order, we must focus on reducing what Washington spends rather than on increasing taxes on middle-class Americans. If we continue as is at the federal level, perhaps in the year 2020 or 2025, tax rates on average middle-class Americans will have to be set at 80 percent. Think about that. Think about what it was 30 years ago and how little of your dollar actually got spent on local, state, and federal taxes. Are going to tell our children that we don't have enough fiscal discipline and that we want them to pay 80 percent tax rates in the future?
There are some economic benefits to balancing the budget as well. Interest rates will drop by two percent. What does that mean? In real terms, it means a savings--and economists agree on these--$37,000 on the average middle-class home in America, over $2,000 on the average student loan, and $1,800 over five years on the average car loan. Folks, these are real dollars for real people we're talking about. This is real money in Americans' pockets to help them do better and make better decisions for their own families.
Some people say that a balanced budget amendment is not needed. We seem to agree that we need to enact a balanced budget, but agreeing on how we get there--therein lies the problem. Our country has not had a balanced budget since 1969, and because of that, every child born in 1997 will have to pay $200,000 in their lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. Think about that--$200,000 just to pay the interest. They get nothing for that. They get no roads; no education; no Medicare; no Social Security; no national defense. That's just their share of the interest on the national debt because people in Washington have not had the discipline to live within the money constraints that Americans send them every year.
There are two main reasons people give for not enacting a balanced budget amendment. The first is that we don't need a balanced budget amendment; we just need to enact a balanced budget. The second is that the balanced budget amendment would be a threat to Social Security.
Let me start with the first argument. As an example to show you how I think we need to force this fiscal discipline on Washington, we only have to look at the President's latest budget. While I applaud the President for bringing a balanced budget to the table, the problem is most of the savings are in the years 2001 and 2002. He will be out of office, and because we enacted term limits on committee chairs, those committee chairs will also be gone from their current posts. That means all new people will be in office. Do we really expect them to make the difficult choices without the fiscal discipline that is required with a balanced budget? I think not.
The second argument states that using a balanced budget amendment is going to be a threat to Social Security. We have had what is called a "unified budget" for as long as I can remember. Any member of Congress who was there last time or in the Congress before that has voted for using Social Security trust funds to fund the government. We've been using it all along. In the President's current budget, he proposes doing the same thing. The people who are suggesting that Social Security would be hurt, need to tell us where we are going to get the $350 billion in additional cuts that are going to be necessary if we exempt Social Security and take it completely out of the budget process. It is ironic that these are the same people, if you look at their careers, who have voted. for most of the spending increases in Washington. I think it is time for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. It is just one of the steps necessary.
Let me now turn to Medicare. Medicare is one of the most important issues facing our country. It is going bankrupt. Everybody agrees it is going bankrupt by the year 2001, maybe even a little earlier than that. This is according to the President's own trustees on Medicare. It is absolutely time to quit playing politics with Medicare.
The last election is behind us. There's a new attitude in Washington about bipartisanship. Medicare is going to be the true key test to bipartisanship. We are ready to join the President. He needs to show leadership on this. He has brought one proposal to the table so far. It's a good start, but we need to save Medicare for the 37 million seniors and disabled people that are currently dependent upon it. We can't just do it from a numbers game.
I believe strongly that our current Medicare system, as well as the rest of our health care system, is really a "sick care system." If somebody gets sick, we pay doctors and all the providers. We pay to fix them, but we won't pay to keep them healthy. That is why I think it should be called a "sick care system."
I co-authored a bill this year with a Democrat, Carol Maloney, from New York, that will provide annual mammograms for women over the age of 65. The bill is needed because as a woman ages, her chances of contracting breast cancer increase. Yet when she turns 65, Medicare only pays for mammograms every two years. This is called prevention. This is called keeping people healthier. There are other proposals, as a matter of fact, including the President's proposal, that states we're going to teach diabetics how to stay healthier and we're going to pay for prevention to keep them healthier. A large percentage of the total Medicare dollars spent today are on diabetes and diabetes-related diseases. If we can keep people healthier and out of the hospital, not only is it better for the people themselves, but in the long run, it is better for the taxpayer; it is better for the federal budget; and it is better for all the things government does that are good.
I believe strongly we need to continue to look for better ways of doing things in Washington and here in Carson City as well as in the local governments around the country.
I want to now turn my attention to taxes because I believe that our current tax code is unfair. It picks winners and losers in business. People make business decisions based on arcane tax code and tax laws, not necessarily according to whether it is a good business practice. We have such things in our tax code as a marriage penalty. We penalize you if you get married. We have such things as a death tax, known as the estate tax. You get up in the morning and you get in your car. Of course, you've paid the gasoline tax, you've paid your road taxes, you've paid your property taxes. You go to work, and, of course, you pay your payroll taxes, and you pay your Social security taxes and you pay your Medicare taxes. If you get through all of that, and some of the other fees and taxes along the way--you get down to the end of the day and you decide to go home--and if you happen to be somebody who enjoys some of the simpler pleasures in life like maybe a Budweiser at the end of the day, you now pay 42 cents out of every dollar for beer that you drink. At the end of your life, if you happen to have accumulated a little money that you want to leave to your kids, they slap you with a 55-percent death tax. Our tax system needs to be changed. It needs to be changed in a way that simplifies it, makes it fair, and makes America more competitive in the global economy.
The 104th Congress governed smarter by deregulating the telecommunications industry thereby creating millions of jobs over the next 10 years in America; by allowing workers to take their health insurance with them when they change jobs without the fear of denial due to preexisting conditions; by by giving small businesses tax relief and even some expanded pension and health care options; and by reintroducing personal responsibility to individual behavior by encouraging work rather than welfare.
As a member of the 105th Congress, I will again fight to balance the budget, save the Medicare program from bankruptcy, and work in a bipartisan manner with the rest of our state delegation to make sure that Nevada does not end up being the nuclear dump site for the rest of the country. And, by the way, as you are attempting to tackle campaign finance reform, we will also attempt to bridle the beast of campaign finance reform at the federal level. It will be a very difficult process.
Let me now turn to some state initiatives. Infrastructure is a big issue at the state and local levels this year, but the federal government does have a role. Our infrastructure needs have never been greater as the fastest-growing state in the nation. Besides fighting for our fair share of highway tax dollars, called ice tea, Senator Bryan and I have introduced a bill. We introduced it in the last session of Congress. We now have the entire Nevada delegation in agreement on it. It's called the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. On the House side, we affectionately call it the Ensign/Bryan Lands Bill. I allow Senator Bryan to call it the Bryan/Ensign Land Bill on the Senate side. This was done in a bipartisan fashion. It's an excellent piece of legislation and it will help pay for some of the desperately needed water infrastructure in southern Nevada. I believe this is the type of legislation that came together with developers, environmentalists, and local governments, the federal government, state government, and everyone coming together with better, smarter governmental solutions to some of our problems. We need to continue to use that as a model.
I would like to commend the governor and every member here today for your support of a state veterans' home in Nevada. We are one of the few states without a veterans' home, and we have the highest population of veterans of any state in the Union. We surpassed Florida last year with the highest percentage of veterans. This project is absolutely critical to those Nevadans who have proudly worn the uniform in the United States Armed Forces, and I urge quick passage of the bill at the state level.
Let me turn briefly to education, because education is such a critical issue. It can get partisan at times. It shouldn't be partisan. What we should be doing is thinking of the kids and the future of our great country.
I attended George Whittell, which at that time was grades 7 through 12, up at Zephyr Cove. George Whittell School was one of the best educations I can possibly even tell you about. One of the reasons that it was, and I can compare this to the schools in southern Nevada, is because it concentrated so heavily on the basics--reading, writing, and arithmetic. Everything else became easy. I believe very, very strongly in technology, but until our schools start teaching the basics again at an early age and introducing discipline, we will never have the finest schools in the world.
Another item in educational reform is the concept of character education in our public schools. During most of our history, character education--or the teaching of core values--was considered just as important as intellectual knowledge. I think most of us would agree that character education has been taken out of our schools, especially our public schools. I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal which detailed the positive and dramatic results that character education had on some inner city schools, both in student behavior and academic performance. Let me just read a little bit from this article.
- The Allen Elementary school, an inner city school in Dayton, Ohio, with 60 percent of its students coming from single-parent homes and 70 percent from families on welfare, was a near disaster in 1989. Allen was 28th out of Dayton's 33 elementary schools in test scores, and teachers couldn't teach because of disciplinary problems. The principal implemented a comprehensive character education program. Five years later Allen was number one in test scores without any increased funding and its behavior problems had improved dramatically
They had other examples in this article. What I found the most fascinating was that it was submitted by a nonprofit character educational partnership. Board members included Barbara Bush and the Reverend Jesse Jackson. If those two people can come together on educational reform, can't we, as Republicans and Democrats, realize the importance of teaching core values in our schools and start doing it so Nevada schools become the best in the entire United States?
Let me close by quoting Elie Wiesel, the Romanian writer and Holocaust survivor who once said, "I've looked for answers in many ways--religious, political, humanistic, in different places. I have come to believe there is only one response, the moral response. Whatever we do must be measured in moral terms."
So easily spoken, yet often so difficult to practice.
I remain totally committed to continuing to return money, power and influence to all of you. This is morally right for our future as a nation and becomes simply a matter of political will. I'm enthusiastic about this session of the legislature and what you're doing here. I want to commit my efforts to joining with you in having this be a bipartisan, let's just say nonpartisan, session of this Legislature and session of Congress where we start serving our parties best by serving our state and our country first.
God bless you. Thank you for allowing me to be here.
Senator Adler moved that the Senate and Assembly in Joint Session extend a vote of thanks to Representative John E. Ensign for his instructional message.
Motion carried.
The Committee on Escort escorted Representative Ensign to the bar of the Assembly.
Assemblywoman Lambert moved that the Joint Session be dissolved.
Motion carried.
Joint Session dissolved at 11:43 a.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 11:47 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Quorum present.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Senate Bill No. 44.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 74.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 75.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 77.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 81.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 24 of the 68th Session.
Resolution read second time and ordered to third reading.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Bills Nos. 4, 7, 95; Senate Joint Resolutions Nos. 1, 2, be taken from the General File and placed on General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SIGNING OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Assembly Bill No. 57.
REMARKS FROM THE FLOOR
Senator Raggio made the following announcements:
On February 24, Monday, there will be a resolution honoring the Procter R. Hug High School Marching Band and Dance Team for participating in the President's Inaugural Parade.Also, there will be a resolution honoring the Nevada Taxpayers' Association.
On February 26, Wednesday, there will be a resolution honoring the Parent-Teacher Association of Nevada.
On April 22, Tuesday, Mr. Joseph J. Frank, National Commander of the American Legion, will address the Senate and Assembly at 11 a.m. in the Assembly Chambers.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Congressional Representatives from Nevada; John Ensign and Jim Gibbons and Chief of Staff; Mike Dayton.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, February 24, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 11:53 a.m.
Approved:
Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate