Senate called to order at 11:06 a.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Jim Sadilek.
O my God! O my God! Unite the hearts of Thy servants, and reveal to them Thy great purpose. May they follow Thy commandments and abide in Thy law. Help them,. O God, in their endeavor, and grant them strength to serve Thee. O God! Leave them not to themselves, but guide their steps by the light of Thy knowledge, and cheer their hearts by Thy love. Verily, Thou art their Helper and their Lord.
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.

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 10, 147; Assembly Bill No. 63, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 43, 46, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Ann O'Connell,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 113, 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

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, March 12, 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. 16.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 144, 148, 189.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bill No. 162.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 17--Designating March 13, 1997, as Kiwanis Day in the State of Nevada.

By Senators Titus, Adler, Coffin, Mathews, Regan, Schneider, Shaffer and Wiener:
Senate Bill No. 209--An Act relating to assistance to the medically indigent; requiring the department of human resources to reimburse certain providers of hospice care for the costs of providing hospice care to persons who are eligible for such assistance; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Titus moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By Senator Rhoads:
Senate Bill No. 210--An Act relating to public works projects; exempting certain contracts for public works in certain counties from the payment of the prevailing wage; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Natural Resources:
Senate Bill No. 211--An Act relating to the commission for the preservation of wild horses; revising the qualifications of certain members of the commission; requiring the members of the commission to elect a chairman and vice chairman; prohibiting the filing of certain documents by the executive director or an employee of the commission unless approved by the commission; requiring the commission to submit an annual written report to the governor and the legislature or the legislative commission concerning the status of wild horses in Nevada and the activities of the commission; requiring the commission to encourage cooperative efforts and to participate in programs for the removal and disposal of wild horses under certain circumstances; authorizing the commission to enter into agreements with the Federal Government to provide financial assistance for the removal and disposal of wild horses under certain circumstances; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rhoads moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources.
Motion carried.

By Senator Schneider:
Senate Bill No. 212--An Act relating to sales of residential property; making various changes to provisions governing the disclosures required upon the sale of such property; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Schneider moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Senator Schneider:
Senate Bill No. 213--An Act relating to justices' courts; increasing the monetary limit on the size of a claim for money that may be adjudicated in justices' courts under the procedure for small claims; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Schneider moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 214--An Act relating to state government; revising the requirements for the submission of certain requests for opinions from the commission on ethics; revising the provisions regarding the confidentiality of matters before the commission; authorizing the commission to impose civil penalties and assess attorney's fees against certain persons in certain circumstances; revising the provisions regarding the disclosure of gifts on statements of financial disclosure; eliminating the criminal penalty for willful failure to file a statement of financial disclosure; establishing a civil penalty for failure to file in a timely manner statements of financial disclosure; 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. 215--An Act relating to elections; revising the period for filing a declaration of candidacy or an acceptance of candidacy for certain candidates; prohibiting a person from making a contribution in the name of another person; revising the definition of "contribution" for the purposes of limiting and reporting campaign contributions; revising the amount of money that may be contributed to or accepted by a candidate for certain public offices; expanding the type of entities that are restricted in the amount that they may contribute to a candidate for certain public offices; requiring political parties and committees sponsored by a political party to report the campaign contributions received; reducing the monetary threshold for the reporting of certain campaign contributions and expenditures; revising the periods for the reporting of certain campaign contributions and expenditures; increasing the penalty for voting or attempting to vote more than once at the same election; increasing the penalty for giving or accepting an illegal campaign contribution; 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 Finance:
Senate Bill No. 216--An Act relating to the public employees' retirement system; increasing the additional annual percentage of allowances and benefits to which certain retired employees of the system may be entitled; increasing the rate of contribution to the system; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 217--An Act making an appropriation to the Department of Museums, Library and Arts for the processing and indexing of archival records by the Division of State Library and Archives; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 218--An Act relating to state financial administration; creating the disaster relief fund; authorizing allocations or loans of money from the fund to state agencies or local governments under certain circumstances; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 219--An Act relating to industrial insurance; revising the provisions governing appeals officers appointed to conduct hearings in contested cases involving industrial insurance benefits for injuries or death; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Senate Bill No. 220--An Act relating to education; authorizing the formation of charter schools for a certain period; prescribing the process by which an application to form a charter school is submitted and approved; restricting the number of charter schools that may be formed in one county and in this state; making an appropriation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 144.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 148.
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 Senators Rawson, Coffin and O'Donnell.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 162.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 189.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 90.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 106.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Amendment No. 25.
Amend section 1, pages 1 and 2, by deleting lines 3 through 17 on page 1 and lines 1 and 2 on page 2.
Amend section 1, page 2, line 3, by deleting "3." and inserting "1.".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 9, by deleting "4." and inserting "2.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, by deleting lines 21 through 26 and inserting:
"diligence should have known, concerning the manufactured home or concerning the sale, purchase or lease of the manufactured home.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 27, by deleting "7." and inserting "6.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 28, by deleting "8." and inserting "7.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 35, by deleting "9." and inserting "8.".
Amend sec. 4, page 3, line 36, by deleting "10." and inserting "9.".
Amend the title of the bill by deleting the third line and inserting "industry;".
Senator Townsend moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Amendment adopted.
Senator Townsend moved that Senate Bill No. 106 be re-referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.

Senate Bill No. 125.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Amendment No. 64.
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 4, by deleting "1.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 5, by deleting "[1.] (a)" and inserting "1.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 7, by deleting "[2.] (b)" and inserting "2.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 9, by deleting "[3.] (c)" and inserting "3.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 13, by deleting "[4.] (d)" and inserting "4.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 16, by deleting "[5.] (e)" and inserting "5.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 19, by deleting "[6.] (f)" and inserting "6.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 21, by deleting "[7.] (g)" and inserting "7.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 23, by deleting "(h)" and inserting "8.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 24, by deleting "(1)" and inserting "(a)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 26, by deleting "(I)" and inserting "(1)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 30, by deleting "(II)" and inserting "(2)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 32, by deleting "(2)" and inserting "(b)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 35, by deleting "(3)" and inserting "(c)".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting lines 38 and 39.
Amend sec. 3, page 2, line 41, by deleting "1.".
Amend sec. 3, page 2, line 42, by deleting "[1.] (a)" and inserting "1.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 1, by deleting "[2.] (b)" and inserting "2.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 4, by deleting "[3.] (c)" and inserting "3.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 6, by deleting "[4.] (d)" and inserting "4.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 10, by deleting "[5.] (e)" and inserting "5.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 13, by deleting "(f)" and inserting "6.".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 14, by deleting "(1)" and inserting "(a)".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 16, by deleting "(I)" and inserting "(1)".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 21, by deleting "(II)" and inserting "(2)".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 23, by deleting "(2)" and inserting "(b)".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 26, by deleting "(3)" and inserting "(c)".
Amend sec. 3, page 3, by deleting lines 29 and 30.
Senator O'Connell moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator O'Connell.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 166.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 38.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 38:
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 38 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 83.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators O'Connell and Coffin.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 83:
Yeas--17.
Nays--Augustine, Coffin, Raggio--3.
not voting--Shaffer.
Senate Bill No. 83 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 68^th Session.
Resolution read third time.
Remarks by Senators Titus, Schneider, Raggio, O'Donnell and Rawson.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Titus:
Unlike last session, I intend to vote "yes" on Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 today. I have not changed my mind about the problems of limiting the legislative session, but I believe the voters deserve an opportunity to speak on this proposed change. I only hope they will carefully consider the implications of such a major change and not simply vote "yes" on something that appears at first glance to be a good move.
Let me take a minute to point out some of the negatives to consider. First, limiting the legislative session at this time flies in the face of the fact that Nevada is the fastest growing state, with the fastest growing senior population, and two of the three fastest growing cities in the nation. The problems and demands being placed on government are increasing not decreasing. To shorten the time during which elected representatives can address the people's needs, clearly, would be a step in the wrong direction.
Second, limiting the legislature is in effect stifling the voice of the people because the legislature is the most representative body of government with the closest ties to the voters. We are the most accessible to voters, and we can be more readily held accountable than any other body. If the legislature is muzzled, executive officers, the judiciary and, worst of all, unelected, faceless bureaucrats will step in to fill the power vacuum, and policy will be made and followed with little or no public scrutiny and input. This is contrary to the democratic principles upon which this nation was built.
Third, the proponents of shortening the session, who compare Nevada to the other states with limited legislative sessions, conveniently ignore some important facts. Twenty-seven of the 32 states with limited sessions meet annually, not every other year like Nevada. Furthermore, those states with limited sessions which do meet biennially are often called into special session during the interim which is always much more expensive than a regular session. For example, Kentucky which is one of the five biennial states with limited sessions, had one special session in 1996, three in 1995, two in 1994, three in 1993, two in 1991, etc.
Fourth, the sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 claims it will result in meaner, leaner government; i.e., a more efficient and economical legislature. Let me remind you, that the Nevada Legislature, with its current unlimited session, was ranked the second most efficient in the country by Expansion Management Magazine, a conservative, business-oriented publication which compared the 50 state legislatures in 1996 using a number of criteria.
I certainly agree that we should make every effort to save money wherever and whenever possible. That's why last session I opposed a building expansion that now has cost us in excess of $19 million and includes new offices for committee chairs which are larger and more plush than those found in the U.S. Senate. Can we really justify expenditures like these and then turn around and try to save money by short-changing the time we spend on issues such as education, crime and infrastructure?
Finally, I would challenge the sponsor of this resolution to prove his argument that we can take care of business in 120 days by adjourning on May 19 instead of having yet another record breaking session. Just because there is currently no constitutional limit on the session, there's no reason why, if it is indeed possible and desirable, we can't wrap it up and go home in 120 days. But if we do so, let us make sure that we can face the voters and tell them we really took care of the business they sent us here to do.
Senator Schneider:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I stand in opposition to this resolution. I gave it a great deal of thought and I find that this resolution flies in the face of what we should do. I know, in my business as a builder of custom homes, that people often ask me how long it takes to build a home. I can tell them it takes six months or 120 days or a year. Each home is different. This compares to legislative sessions. Mr. President pro Tempore, you have been here for a number of sessions, more than I have, but in the short time I have been here I can tell you that each session is different. Each session has different priorities and each session will probably take a different number of days to complete. We do not know how long it will take to complete a session because of the types of bills that come in.
Today, we are sitting here with new technology on our desks. We do not know what the technology of the future will bring us. Maybe legislators, 50 years from now, will be with their lap top computers and be called from Carson City and hearings will be held instantaneously around the state. Then we really won't have organized sessions of 120 days. Why should we put all these conditions in the Constitution of Nevada and limit future legislators by a time frame. It is the same with the stamp allowance. In 1964, $60 was a lot of money for stamps, but it doesn't fly today. I think placing a number in the constitution is not what we should do. Thank you.
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I had not planned to address this measure today since we have argued pro and con on this for many sessions. It passed this house last session as well as the other house. If it passes this session, it will be placed on the ballot. As the distinguished Minority Leader stated, the public will then have an opportunity to vote it up or down.
For many, many years, those of us who have served in this legislature have been concerned about the length of the session and the cost of the session. This year, the session has been budgeted for $10 million. We spent $8 million last session. Surprisingly, to my recollection, the Senate Minority Leader was one of those who voted and supported the appropriation for the remodeling of the building. I do not know what relationship that has as to whether or not we attempt to limit the session. I would take it as an argument in support of this resolution.
There has been concern, among the taxpayers, that we continue to have longer and longer sessions. We have been going into the first part of July. As in 32 other states, this would give a finite date for adjournment. A state like Colorado, for example, is much larger than Nevada, but with its own growth problems, meets those deadlines. As long as there is not a finite date the legislature will take its time upon the issue of adjournment. If 32 other states can do that, then certainly the voters of this state should have the opportunity to determine whether or not that is appropriate for our state.
The measure does provide for a couple of other things which are important. Instead of convening on the third Monday in January, the legislature would, if approved by the voters, convene on the first Monday in February. The limit on the session would then be 120 days from the first Monday in February. That gives some additional time for preparation for the opening of the legislature. It still would allow the legislature to meet during the term that normally is utilized by legislatures in other states, and that is important.
The other aspect of this measure is, as I have indicated in previous discussions about this measure, that it would require the governor to submit to the legislature the executive budget 14 days prior to the start of each regular legislative session. That meets the objection raised continually by, not only the media, the members of this body both now and previously, that we waste the first couple of weeks of session while waiting for submission of the governor's budget. If this measure is approved, we would have the budget 14 days before the session begins. That would in no way shorten the time that governors have to prepare budgets, but everyone, not only the money committees, would have the opportunity to review the budget 14 days before the session starts.
This is a measure which cries out for support. Evidently, enough of us felt that way last session when we approved it. If approved in this session of the legislature, the voters will have the opportunity to express their approval or disapproval. It may be that, if the voters approve this measure, it will obviate the necessity for annual sessions. We don't have any problem in this state in developing a budget bi-annually. As a matter of fact, it is probably the easier and more expeditious thing to do. Most other states, who have this procedure, wish they had the opportunity to develop bi-annual budgets rather than annual budgets. I think it is the best effort we can put forth to streamline and make more cost effective the entire legislative process.
I believe it is inappropriate for us to just take all the time we want. I do not think that is cost effective. I think we must consider the cost of this process. Whether or not the public agrees with us, we will find out if this measure passes. This will at least give them the opportunity to vote on it. To vote against this measure, I believe is to indicate that you do not want the public to express its opinion. Those of us, who have served here for any length of time, are constantly faced with criticism from the media and from our constituents that we take too long to get ordinary business done. That is the other side of the argument. I think the voters should have the opportunity to decide whether or not we should join 32 other states which have fixed dates for their legislatures to complete their business. We are not one of the states which has a full-time legislature such as California, New York and Illinois. We are a state like Texas and Oregon which are both larger than we are and also meet bi-annually. They are able to do their legislative job in that period of time.
As a citizen-type legislature, I don't think the citizens of this state, whether we have growth or not, have sent any mandate that they want to have professional legislators in this state. The longer these sessions creep into July or further, it is going to be more difficult for legislators to come here and serve. We pride ourselves on being citizen-type legislators and you should not expect these people to give up more than 120 days out of their lives and be away longer from their families in order to serve. I would submit that this is a measure we should let the voters have the opportunity to approve or disapprove.
Senator O'Donnell:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I rise in support of this measure. I think a lot of us have been asked the same question as to what do we do, why don't we meet every year and why don't we spend more time or are not in session. I have to explain to them all the time that the reason we are not in session is because we have a bi-annual session. We meet every two years for six months or so. Then I ask them if they realize what we do in Carson City. They answer "no, what do you do, do you pass laws?" I tell them that we mostly raise taxes and spend money. That has a very chilling effect on their question because, at that point, they realize that they don't want us up here full time every year. Government is like a cancer. It will grow and grow and grow. Every new assemblyman, every new senator that comes into this body has a new bill for a new ombudsman, new agency, new fire truck, new quail guzzler or something which they need for their district. They need this so that they can go back to their district and explain to their constituents what a wonderful job they did for their people. The part they do not tell them is they did it with their money. I would be very supportive of this measure so that we stop this no-constraints legislature from going on and on. In fact, that was what one of the "buttons" that the governor's office sent over last session said: "It keeps going, and going and going." That is the sentiment. It does keep going and going. If we have a finite date which we can adhere to, then we will do the state's business and get out of here. Those issues which are important will rise to the surface and we will deal with them. Those that are not will go by the wayside. We will get the state's business done and get out of here.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I do not want to belabor this. I would like to mention a few things which have not been brought forward in the general discussion on this measure. We are trying to correct a number of things by setting the date and limiting the time. One of the problems which has evolved over time is that our budget has become much more complicated. It is much larger than it has ever been before. It isn't an issue of having enough time to go through the budget, it's an issue of being able to prepare the budget for the legislative session. The governor and his staff try to the best of their ability to meet the present deadlines. We receive a budget that the governor is able to speak about in his State of the State address, but it is not complete. The budget is still being changed and modified. Reports are being given to us regularly. We have been in session for 51 days and I would like you to consider some of the major, major issues of legislation which face us in this session that have not as yet been delivered to the legislature. We have a welfare plan which is going to cost us hundreds of millions of dollars yet none of us can look at it. We have a technology plan which has not yet been written. We are talking a commitment of over $100 million for that plan of which nearly half will be spent in this biennium. We have a major health care reform package which will be the most extensive health plan package to ever hit the state and it has not been drafted or presented to either house of the legislature. We have been here 51 days, nine days short of what is listed in our constitution as the time we should be going home and we have not even considered these issues as a legislature. That may sound as if I am criticizing the governor. That is not what this is about. I am trying to say that the governor needs more time to put his budget in shape to be able to present it to a legislature which can then expeditiously deal with it. We have gone through the budget and are now working in subcommittees. We are ready to close our budgets, but we do not have all of them presented to us.
One of the pet peeves I used to have had to do with the legislators who used to serve here and said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, it is broke. We are wasting time when we have to go through budgets and we do not have the details. We are wasting time when we have to deal with issues such as health care at $500 million a year and we do not have that plan in our hands. There does not need to be blame placed on anyone. We need to just fix it. This measure is a good way to start the approach of really fixing it. Thank you.
Senator Schneider:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore for the opportunity to speak again. Maybe I did not clearly express myself the first time I spoke. I think anyone from Clark County, if told that they could go home on June 1 or a specific date, everyone would like that. I know where my family is going to be on July 1. They are going to be in Coronado whether I am there or not. I don't believe that is the issue here. I think the issue here is management. That is what I am trying to say is that this body can perform its work. The Senator who spoke before brought up the problem. It is a management problem. I don't believe that you are going to correct management problems by setting a date. If that were true, General Motors would set a date whereby they could build a car in six hours. They can't do it. I think by exercising proper management here, we can handle these problems. Also, when you put a time of 120 days in the constitution, even with the new technology of the future, they will use the 120 days even if they can complete it in 90 days. That is why I oppose this measure.
Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 68^th Session:
Yeas--20.
Nays--Schneider.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 68^th Session,. having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 of the 68^th Session.
Resolution read third time.
Remarks by Senator James.
Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 of the 68^th Session.
Yeas--21.
Nays--None.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 of the 68^th Session having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

On request of Senator McGinness, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Ray Brown, Terri Miller, Renee Bell, Becki Mouser, Marie Mouser, Dakota Mouser, Nelson Tucker, Elva Tucker, Reid Allen, Jr., Howard Naylor, Joan Booth and Kathy Allen.

On request of Senator Regan, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Fran Wagner.

On request of Senator Schneider, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Jessica E. Winters.

On request of Senator Townsend, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Lauren Walchli.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, March 17, 1997 at 10 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

Approved:

Lawrence E. Jacobsen

President pro Tempore of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate