Senate called to order at 11:37 a.m.
President Hammargren presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senator Townsend, who was excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Marvin Dennis.
Lord, I pray as we enter this special Holy week that You will guide each of us as we continue to follow You in another week of our lives. May You watch over and give Your blessings upon each member of this Senate and their staff. Thank You for the privilege to call You our Heavenly Father.

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.

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 224, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

William J. Raggio,

Chairman

Mr. President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bill No. 146; Assembly Bill No. 17, 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, March 20, 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. 22.
Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

By the Committee on Taxation:
Senate Bill No. 233--An Act relating to taxation; authorizing a partial abatement of the property taxes on the personal property of certain new or expanded businesses; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.

By Senator Jacobsen:
Senate Bill No. 234--An Act relating to veterans; revising the provisions relating to the use of gifts of money or personal property donated to veterans' cemeteries; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Jacobsen moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. I need to speak briefly to the bill itself and then to the amendment. Assembly Bill No. 224 was introduced in the Assembly on March 5,1997 and only came to us last week after an extended period of processing. The bill was heard this morning in the Senate Committee on Finance. The main purpose of the bill is to provide the money required for the state to participate with local governments in the match required under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for public assistance programs. When we adopt the amendment and act on the bill, I can discuss the total cost and the amount of money stipulated in the bill.
This amendment would, in effect, delete Section 1 of the bill. For whatever reason the bill, as it came to us, did more than just make the appropriation for this purpose. There was a discussion early on, and a compromise reached between the Governor's office and the local entities involved in dealing with the effects of the New Year's Day flooding, that the state and local governments would share the local match required under FEMA. The discussion centered around whether or not the local governments would have an opportunity to obtain a loan from the stabilization fund for this limited purpose. The compromise was that, for this purpose and this time only, they would be allowed to do so. According to the testimony we heard this morning in committee, it seems that the local entities may not even be required to avail themselves of the provision which is Section 4 whereby they would be eligible to apply to the stabilization fund for this purpose. To that extent, that may be a moot issue.
For whatever reason, Section 1 in the bill, would amend the stabilization fund that is presently created by the Legislature to deal with certain specific situations of state fiscal matters and would, in the future, authorize up to 15 percent of the stabilization fund to be used for the purpose of dealing with natural disasters. That was unacceptable to the Committee on Finance and has been unacceptable in discussions that have taken place leading up to this measure. For that very reason, the Senate Committee on Finance as well as Senator Jacobsen, introduced other measures which will be heard by the committee that will, in the future, establish a disaster fund to deal with these kinds of situations.
There is no reason for Section 1 to have been put into this bill. There is no significant support that I am aware of to have the stabilization fund which we created in this legislature, on a bipartisan basis, to be changed in this manner. If you will look at Section 1 in the bill, Section NRS 253.288, subsection 3, the legislature was clear that the fund to stabilize the operation of state government may be appropriated only for two specific purposes. (I might add, in passing, that someone named this the "rainy day" fund, but there is nothing in here to indicate this should be a "flood fund.") This is for two purposes only: one of which is that if the total actual revenue of the state falls short by 5 percent of more of the total anticipated revenue, then the stabilization fund is there. It is to enable us not to have to go through the process we did in 1992 by having to go to agencies and telling them they had to cut their budgets by 10 to 20 percent. It was to avoid that when we have a cyclical downturn in the economy. Or, if the legislature and the Governor declare that a fiscal emergency exists, that can happen, but this is not a fiscal emergency.
For those reasons, the committee is very mindful of the need to process the bill quickly in order to provide the funding required for the match under FEMA and we are prepared to deal with this on an emergency basis and send the measure back to the Assembly. There is a one-time exception, in Section 4, which I have indicated which we have acceded to. If they need, on this occasion, to borrow the money, we will go along with that and have agreed to it. There is no significant support, otherwise, to change the stabilization fund in the manner that is set forth in Section 1 of the bill. I believe that would be a violation of the specific intent of the legislature when it dedicated this fund.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to this amendment for several reasons. As was pointed out by the sponsor of the amendment, long hours, meetings and negotiations over the past several months have taken place in order to come up with the bill that is now before us. That is the reason it has taken so long for us to get the bill. It has not been lingering in the Assembly; they had it for a total of only five days. Those negotiations involved Democrats and Republicans; they involved leadership from both houses; they involved local representatives and the Governor's office. This was a bipartisan effort with all the stakeholders at the table. To change the bill, after all of these negotiations to work out the best possible solution, at this late date with a last minute, rather secretive amendment would be inappropriate. And, to suggest that there is no support Section 1 which is being removed by this amendment is to totally ignore the fact that it passed unanimously out of the Assembly. Furthermore, last week, the Assembly killed a similar amendment to this bill for the very reason that I have stated. Negotiations had taken place and these amendments were not part of those negotiations.
Secondly, if we amend this bill, we will hold it up even longer. We have already set the record as the state which has taken the longest to meet the FEMA match and get some relief to these victims. The longest any other state took was about a week. We are now in day 82 of trying to get any money to these poor people who suffered as a result of the flood. If you amend this bill, you will send it back to the Assembly. I have heard that they are not very likely to concur in the amendment and then we will have additional negotiations. This will further delay getting relief to victims.
Finally, I am opposed to the amendment because we have tried very, very hard not to make this a sectional issue. We feel that the people who are harmed in a disaster deserve Nevada's help no matter where they live or what district we are from. If we pass the bill with this amendment, we will be saying that this money will be available to the people who were victims of the Northern Nevada flood just this year. If tomorrow there is an earthquake in White Pine County or a nuclear disaster in Nye or Clark County, those people will have to come to us and negotiate for relief rather than having something in place. I heard mention of some other disaster relief bill floating around, but there is no guarantee that it will pass. Meantime, this is on the table, so why not put it in place and vote on it the way it is without the amendment?
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question I would like answered for my clarification. As I understand, the amendment would be taking out Sub section 4 of Section 1 of the bill which would allow the funding of 15 percent to local governments for disasters which have been declared by the Governor. In the language which would remain in the bill, we are saying that we could grant up to 25 percent to match funds from the Federal government. And, that the State of Nevada would be responsible for only giving one half of that grant match which the local governments would receive. My question is this: If we are removing the language that says that local government will have to pay back that 15 percent match and we are now going with the language where the state would pay half of the match and the full amount where government agencies are involved, why are we making that distinction?
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. If I may respond to the question asked by the Senator from Clark County. I believe you misheard me on the amendment. The amendment does not change Section 4 other than to allow the fund to be utilized not withstanding the fact that the stabilization fund is otherwise limited to certain situations. The amendment would delete Section 1. The effect of that would be to leave the stabilization fund, in the future, available only for the purposes for which it was originally created. The only amendment to Section 4 is the language that, "not withstanding the provisions of the stabilization fund", the local governments would be allowed to access the stabilization fund for this limited purpose. They would still have to pay the money back as indicated in the language in Section 4. Under FEMA, the Federal government for these purposes pays 75 percent. There is a 25 percent state or local match required. The agreement with the budget office, the Governor and local entities was that the state would pay half of the local match and the local governments would be required to pay their half of the match. It was recognized that many of them would have difficulty doing that at this time. This was not foreseen so this is a one-time authorization. It does allow them to access the fund for their purpose and to repay it as set forth. Did the Senator have another queston?

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. The question my reference was to was Subsection 4 of Section one. That particular section says, in essence, that if the local government wants this match, they can get it in terms of a loan, but they would have to pay it back. Is that correct?

Senator Raggio:
I don't think so. I think that what the amendment in Subsection 4 does is to provide a means whereby, in the future, the stabilization fund can be accessed for disaster assistance. That is exactly the point. Our position is that the stabilization fund should not be changed, in the future, for disaster assistance purposes, but that it should remain in tact for the purposes for which it initially was established.

Senator Neal:
Let me just read the language so that we can both be sure we understand what is being said. I am referring to Subsection 4 of Section 1 which says "if the Governor determines that a disaster has occurred in the State of Nevada, the Legislature may provide for not more than 15 percent of money in the fund to be loaned to local governments for the required proportional match funded by Federal grants for the disaster assistance." That says to me that, once we remove that particular language, it then falls upon the state to meet that match. Half of that could be levied against any governmental entity. That is the way I understand it.

Senator Raggio:
Let me see if I can clarify it for you Senator. The language in Subsection 4 is the language that is proposed to be added to change the purposes of the stabilization fund. Deleting that has nothing to do with whether the state, in the future of the local governments, comes up with the money. This does not address that at all. This simply states that the stabilization fund can not be used for loan purposes for this type of situation in the future. Under FEMA, those particular programs which deal with public assistance is a Federal law, where it has been approved require a 25 percent state or local match. In some states, the state pays it all. In other states, local governments pay it all. In some states, it depends upon the situation in that particular state. In this situation, as set forth in Subsection 4, that sets forth the agreement reached on this particular occasion and for this particular event. It has nothing to do with what happens in the future other than for whatever precedence might be established.
If I may go futher, Mr. President, let me assure the Minority Leader that she is in error. There was never any agreement of any kind, as she suggests, with this house. This house, the membership and the leadership of this house, is consistent. From the very beginning, they were informed that the stabilization fund was inappropriate for these purposes. In any discussions, that part of the bill has not been an issue. We dealt with Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the bill and we are in agreement. We have made a concession, in Section 4, for this purpose. But, you are wrong in saying otherwise. First of all, the bill did not pass unanimously out of the Assembly, to my understanding. That however is not the issue here. If, by your remarks, you suggest that this house is captive to what goes on in the other house, let me assure you that as long as I am the Majority Leader that is not going to happen. You were the first one to reference this as a sectional issue. This is not a sectional issue. that is the very reason we have introduced bills to provide for disaster assistance in the future. I would think you would be the first one to be supportive of that. Those bills are in committee, will be processed and we will deal with that issue. We are dealing with the issue now, as you suggest, that it is very timely and necessary to provide the funding for the match. We are in accord with what was agreed to.
Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to rise in opposition to this amendment, but not because I am necessarily opposed to the comments of the Majority Leader on the proposed policy behind the amendment. My position is this; we have been informed by the Assembly that there is no possible way that they are going to accede to our amendment. That means that we are going to be set back another week. My district can't wait another week to get disaster relief money. I don't know whether or not there was an agreement. I was not privy to any agreement, but I do not think we are in the position to wait another week while we get fight out this amendment. If this is a good idea, we should place this provision in the bill proposed by Senator Jacobsen which deals with the overall question of disaster relief and try to pass that measure. I do not feel that we are in a position to wait another week for disaster relief money while the Senate and the Assembly debate this particular provision which has nothing to do with the money contained in this bill for disaster relief.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have been associated in discussions on this bill since the first day that it was drafted, even before it was introduced. We have an emergency that the entire Legislature responded to very quickly. There was a $1 million appropriation for the immediate humanitarian aid of the people who needed to be moved out of the danger zone. And, the same attitude should prevail in taking care of the more extensive and wide spread damage. In fact, I think most of the people in the Legislature really feel that way. The question here is how do we pay for that. It is not an issue of whether we can pay for it. We know that we can pay for it. We know that we have a moral obligation to pay for it. The issue is whether or not we should pay for it out of surplus or should we pay for it out of the equivalent of our retirement, the stabilization fund. That is a significant policy. It is understandable that there are people who would like to do it out of the surplus fund. There are also people who would like to pay it out of the retirement fund so that they can spend the surplus. That is what this issue really boils down to. It is inexcusable to use the anxiety and the hardship suffered by people injured in a disaster as an excuse to change our state policy on fiscal responsibility. It comes to the point of drawing this out until FEMA is ready to leave the state and saying that if we do not have the money there is not going to be a Federal office here and there is not going to be any matches.
Those people who worked on the budget stabilization account worked hard on that issue and feel strongly about it. Presently, while we are enjoying a surplus, it may seem unnecessary to have put away a surplus. But,I have lived through two of the serious downturns, in this state, where we destroyed agencies because the revenue was not there. The stabilization fund is vital to the health of this state. So, let's leave it alone. There is a misunderstanding between the Assembly and the Senate presently. The compromise will allow this to come out of the stabilization account one time while we put into place a long term standing policy which will really address this issue. Both sides have agreed to do it in that manner. What we received, in the Senate, was a bill which changes the stabilization policy. Now, we can move on beyond this. Leadership in the other house can act as responsibly as we in moving this through our house in a day's time. If they are really concerned about the people who have suffered in the flood, this issue can properly be put to rest.
Senator Schneider:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question to ask of the Chairman of the Committee on Finance concerning this amendment. This bill came over to us on an emergency measure after some discussion in the Assembly. I was wondering if the chairman reviewed this amendment with the Speaker or any of the leadership of the Assembly rather than letting the bill come over as an emergency measure and then in a very fast action drop the amendment on this bill. I would like to know if there was any discussion with the Assembly before this amendment was placed on the bill.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. You must realize that we just received this bill last Wednesday. It was scheduled to be heard on Monday. I met with several of the Assembly members on the bill on Friday. Even though it is a day for the Legislature to meet, it was very hard to find anyone to discuss the bill with. However, I did speak with several of the Assembly members. I talked with the Speaker last week and again this morning telling him that we intended to amend the bill. I also spoke with the Chairman of Ways and Means to advise him of what we were doing. Let me emphasize, since the question was raised by the Senator from Carson City, that this is not the bill to change the stabilization fund. Leaving it in changes it forever. If we want to argue this point, let's argue it when we have the other bills before us dealing with how we set up and where the funding comes from for a disaster fund. It should not be in this bill. That has nothing to do with the present, but what we do in the future.

Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have one additional question I would like to ask. What would be the operational effect of leaving Subsection 4 of Section 1 in the bill? My question is what is the operational effect of this?

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. Because that section changes forever what the stabilization fund can be used for. That is the point I am indicating. We do not want to change what the purposes and usage of the stabilization fund are in the future. That is a policy for what we do in the future for handling disaster assistance, but that is not what this fund was created for. Everyone is apparently trying to make out that this was what it was created for. It was not. It never was the intention of the stabilization fund to be used in the future for these purposes.

Senator Neal:
I gather then, that we could change it if we wanted to, but we do not want to change it because it would affect something in the future. Is that true? I am trying to get a feel for this so I will know how I want to vote on this measure.

Senator Raggio:
I appreciate the Senator's question and I think it is a good one. This is a policy decision and I keep saying that we have other bills which will address how we set up a disaster fund in the future. We should have one. I am not prepared to say today, and I doubt that anyone else has that kind of knowledge to say that this is where we should create a disaster fund. There is a lot of alternatives and opportunity to discuss this issue, but not during one or two days on the floor of the Senate when we are trying to deal with addressing the needs of our constituents. We have only had a few days to do this. To the extent that I have been involved, I do not think they have had policy discussions in the other house on this aspect of the bill. Someone decided it was a good idea to throw it in the bill. I assume it was the Governor because it came from that office. I can tell you that this Senator and others who have dealt on this issue in this house have consistently said that is not an appropriate use of the stabilization fund and it will not be supported. We acceded, in Section 4, for it being used in this time. I wish we had more time to discuss this. They had a month in the other house, but we haven't.

Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President. Since I was corrected on the floor earlier, I would like for the record to show that the vote on A.B. 224, in the Assembly, was unanimous with 2 members excused absent not voting. All those present voted "yes" for a total of 40 in favor of the bill.
Senators Raggio, Rawson and Rhoads requested a roll call on Senator Raggio's motion.
Roll call on Senator Raggio's motion:
Yeas--15.
Nays--Adler, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener--5.
EXCUSED--Townsend.
The motion having received a majority, Mr. President declared it carried.
Senator Raggio moved that all rules be suspended, Assembly Bill No. 224 considered engrossed, declared an emergency measure under the Constitution and placed on third reading and final passage upon return from reprint.
Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 39.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Government Affairs:
Amendment No. 70.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 2, by deleting:
"2 and 3" and inserting:
"2, 3 and 4".
Amend sec. 2, page 1, by deleting line 3 and inserting:
"Sec. 2. Except as otherwise provided in section 3 of this act:
1. The governing body of a city or county may create by".
Amend the bill as a whole by renumbering sec. 3 as sec. 4 and adding a new section designated sec. 3, following sec. 2, to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. 1. If a metropolitan police department has been formed pursuant to NRS 280.110, the participating political subdivisions may jointly create by mutual ordinances a review board composed of residents of each participating political subdivision to advise the governing bodies of the participating political subdivisions on issues concerning peace officers or law enforcement that affect the participating political subdivisions.
2. Such a review board may meet at such times and places within the participating political subdivisions as it deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.".
Amend sec. 3, page 1, line 9 after "2" by inserting "or 3".
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:
"An Act relating to peace officers; authorizing the creation of a review board to advise the governing body of a political subdivision on issues concerning peace officers or law enforcement; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".
Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:
"Summary--Authorizes creation of review board to advise governing body of political subdivision on issues concerning peace officers or law enforcement. (BDR 23-773)".
Senator Neal moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Neal.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 136.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 140.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Amendment No. 102.
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 3 through 16 and inserting:
"1 A person legally responsible for registering a birth shall attempt to determine the marital status of the mother by asking her to declare her marital status. If the mother refuses to declare her marital status, the person legally responsible for registering the birth shall use specified factors to determine it. The state registrar shall establish such factors.
2. Within 10 days after the birth, the person legally responsible for registering the birth shall transmit the information determined pursuant to subsection 1 to the county health officer of the county in which the birth occurred. On the 10th day of each month, the county health officer shall transmit the information received by him pursuant to this section during the previous month to the state registrar in the manner prescribed by the state registrar.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, such information determined or reported pursuant to this section is confidential and must not be transcribed on the birth certificate or be made a part of any public record. The state registrar may disseminate the information reported to him pursuant to this section in the form of a statistical abstract that does not include any identifying information concerning the mothers.".
Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:
"An Act relating to vital statistics; enacting provisions governing the reporting to the state registrar of vital statistics of the marital status of the mother at the time of giving birth; providing that such information must not be made a part of any public record; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".
Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:
"Summary--Enacts provisions governing reporting to state registrar of vital statistics of marital status of mother at time of giving birth. (BDR 40-731)".
Senator Augustine moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Augustine.
Motion carried on a division of the house.
Amendment adopted.
Senator Augustine moved that Senate Bill No. 140 be re-referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Remarks by Senator Augustine.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.

Assembly Bill No. 98.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Government Affairs:
Amendment No. 69.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 9, by deleting "water." and inserting:
"water, waste water or sewerage.".
Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 28, by deleting "water." and inserting:
"water, waste water or sewerage.".
Senator Porter moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Porter.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 13 of the 68^th Session.
Resolution read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 224.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, Raggio and Rawson.
Senator Raggio requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President. I have only one other question I would like to ask of the Chairman of the Committee on Finance. Could you tell me how much surplus funds we have in the general fund?

Senator Raggio:
We have a lot since we have not appropriated any of it as yet. If the Governor's budget is approved, how much money will there be in the ending fund balance? The budget always projects at least $50 to $60 million as an ending fund balance. I do not have the dollar amounts, but I can tell you in discussions that this money will come out of the general fund surplus. Mr. Comeaux, of the budget office, indicates that there is sufficient money in the Governor's budget to accommodate both this payment and the payment that was previously made of $1 million.

Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Mr. President. I might just add that the budget stabilization account will be fully funded in the neighborhood of $130 million, but the ending fund balance of $50 or $60 million is really just a solvency factor to ensure we do not have any checks bounce. Beyond that, there is surplus money which will be used in the C.I.P. projects, etc. I hope this places a little better perspective on this matter.

Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Mr. President. I do not want to extend the discussion we have already had on this measure, but since we are now talking to the bill, it may be of interest to those who did not serve on the committee to understand where the numbers come from. The FEMA disaster program, the public assistance grant program, had a total estimated cost of $18.7 million. That was based upon approximately 85 percent of the D.S.R. applications reviewed by FEMA. That includes also an estimated administration allowance of approximately $594,000. Under the terms of FEMA law, and the guidelines for granting assistance, under the various categories the state match was approximately $1.9 million and the local match was about $2 million. So, the money that is appropriated here consists of the money that is required to pay the state match and one half of what we call the state and local match. That is the amount in the bill of $3.5 million give or take.

Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 224:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Assembly Bill No. 224 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 29.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Adler, Neal and Raggio.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 29:
Yeas--19.
Nays--Neal.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 29 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 91.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 91:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 91 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 92.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator O'Donnell.
Senator O'Donnell disclosed that he has a real estate license but does not have a conflict on the bill.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 92:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 92 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 93.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 93:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 93 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 149.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and Washington.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 149:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 149 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 153.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Rhoads.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 153:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 153 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 191.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 191:
Yeas--20.
Nays--None.
excused--Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 191 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senator Raggio moved that Assembly Bills Nos. 15, 141; Assembly Joint Resolution No. 2, be taken from the General File and placed on General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.

The following article is from the Sunday, March 23, 1997 issue of the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

One of the great legacies that will be left by the generation of Americans now passing from the scene will probably go unnoticed, because it will be the legacy of a word not heard or, at least, heard less and less often, until it finally brings only looks of puzzlement.
The word is "first."
Already, one can imagine children asking why Jackie Robinson was the "first" black man to play in the major leagues didn't any talented black athlete before him ever care to learn the game?
We must take care, of course, to make sure succeeding generations understand the sometimes shameful history that made it necessary for brave individuals to be the "first" of their race--or even their religion or sex--to "prove" they could perform a given job as though any proof were really necessary.
Though it was unfair, it took a special kind of steadiness to be that highly-visible "first" black man in the job, knowing critics in far softer seats would rush to point out any sign of weakness.
Fortunately for the nation, enough men of character stepped forward to take that heavier burden on their shoulders, and stay the course with dignity and aplomb.
One of those men was District Court Judge Addeliar "Dell" D. Guy III--combat veteran, community activist, and, yes Nevada's first black District Court judge, who retired last year and died Thursday at the age of 73.
Moving to Las Vegas from Chicago in 1964, Dell Guy became the first black deputy district attorney in Clark County in 1966. In 1975, former Gov. Mike O'Callahan appointed Mr. Guy to be Nevada's first black district judge.
Far from coddling criminals of any color, Judge Guy was known as a firm sentencer. But even as he handed out punishment, he tried not to belittle, but rather to reach those who stood before him, reminding them of the respect they owed him, and themselves.
"When I sentence somebody, I've in a sense taken away their personal dignity by taking away their freedom," said Judge Guy in a 1992 interview. "And I'd rather encourage integrity and accomplishment. That's what I hope to do with some of these kids."
"I've had guys he sentenced come back here and say they thought the judge was fair," commented attorney David Phillips. "He used to get Christmas cards from prisoners."
A man of unchallenged integrity, firmness and courage, it may be a while before we see the likes of Dell Guy again.

On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Reno Host Lion's Club members: John White, Bob Broili, Don Thoreson, Charles Murphy, Chip Cooper, Dale Bohmont, Dennis Schroeder, Dick Minor, Bill Thyr, Vern Heppner, Phyl Likes, Wilma Likes, Nick Conti, Ted Forsythe, Randy House, Frank Monroe, Walter Bantz, Hal Truscott, R. C. Barnes and Loren House and the following teachers from the Lemmon Valley Elementary School: Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Koliha, Ms. Munoz, Mrs. Galvin; students: Levi Arnett, Jason Bennett, Chelsie Bevers Amina Carmazzi, Angie Castellanos, Joslyn Craker, Jeremy Cutler, Jenilyn Estrada, Amanda Ferran, Jesse Ferris, Brian Ford, Savana Freeman, Stephanie Griggs, Christina Holms, Bryan Kellie, Jacob Kersey, Jacob Killeen, Ruby Langry, Nicholas Lenz, Rose McIntosh, Justin Misner, Jeremie Schwartz, Jacob Shelhamer, Cara Stacey, Sarah Stuart, Kristen Venters, Rocky Woods, Brooke Wooley, Josh Arbogast, Kyle Bloxham, Lance Butto, Jacob DeCremer, Brian Erickson, Brian Fraker, Rodney Ginn, Christine Graf, Brianne Hansen, Jason Hill, Shandor Korda, Jillian Lucas, Mike Maloney, Kyle Marshall, Laura Meaders, Casey Olson, Angie Packer, Chris Rasmussen, Tanner Ruf, Mike Shannon, Holly Simak, Scott Sumrall, Ben Tapia, Joshua Titherington, Aaron Whitney, Katrina Wood, Grant Yutzy, Crystal Bacher, Wayne Bogosian, Shirley Burke, Lisa Butler, Kyle Cardwell, Annie Domingo, Sara Frazier, Christy Galloway, Nick Halfacre, Tommy Henry, Tony Henry, J. J. Howard, Alicia Jamison, Kalei Kanekoa, Shane Kapala, Tara Pollack, Tawnya Marble, Monica Martin, William Rawson, Becky Sikes, Andrea Sprague, Kevin Still, George Torres, Holly Warthan; chaperones: Mr. Williams, Mrs. Kellie, Mrs. Adney, Victoria DeCremer, Kate Ginn, Mary Kay Graf, Rosita Korda, Mike O'Farrell, Cindi Rasmussen, Cindi Shannon, Pat Sumrall, Mr. Andrew Domingo, Mrs. Vicki Jamison, Mrs. Cindy Martin and Mrs. Mary Sprague.

On request of Senator Titus, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Jay Jydstrup and Andrea Jydstrup.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until, Tuesday, March 25, 1997 at 10:30 a.m. and that it do so in memory of Judge Dell Guy.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

Approved:

Lonnie L. Hammargren, M.D.

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