NEVADA LEGISLATURE

Sixty-ninth Session, 1997
_______________

SENATE DAILY JOURNAL
_______________

THE NINETY-SIXTH DAY
_______________

Carson City (Friday), April 25, 1997

Senate called to order at 9:31 a.m.
President pro Tempore Jacobsen presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senator Regan, who was excused.

Prayer by The Reverend Jeffrey Paul.
Almighty God, You have given us this good land for our heritage: Grant that we may always prove ourselves mindful of Your favor. Bless our state with honorable industry, sound learning, and upright manners. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those to whom we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace for the common good; in Your Name we pray.

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 pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 192, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Raymond D. Rawson,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 212, 240; Assembly Bills Nos. 34, 80, 162, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mark A. James,

Chairman

Mr. President pro Tempore:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 245, 246, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.

Mike McGinness,

Chairman

MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, April 24, 1997

To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Senate Bills Nos. 64, 88.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 28, 29.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 198.

Jacqueline Sneddon

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE

Assembly Bill No. 198.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.

SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT

Senate Bill No. 109.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Amendment No. 222.
Amend sec. 7, page 4, line 42, by deleting "2007." and inserting "2009.".
Senator Townsend moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 49.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 51.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 52.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 106.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING

Senate Bill No. 140.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Adler, Neal, Augustine, Titus, Coffin, Mathews and Rawson.
Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Adler:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I have looked at this bill for a long time as it has bounced around from amendment to amendment. One of the problems with this bill is that it probably does not go far enough. While it has been noted that we need to record these illegitimate births of persons who venture into this status by accident, I would point out to the members of this body that there are a larger number of individuals who seem to achieve the same status through striving throughout an entire lifetime. Those individuals should be acknowledged as well as the ones who are born into this status. For instance, this morning on my way to this building, I had a person cut me off in traffic. I think he needs to appear on this register and should be included in these statistics. In fact, I have quite a long list I would like to supply to the Bureau of Statistics. I am opposed to this bill if we do not also include those who have achieved this status by merit rather than just those poor children who fall into this status through no fault of their own.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore and members of the Senate. I have a more serious concern about this measure. When we met in the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, we did not get the opportunity to consider this measure fully. At the time, we were led to believe that all of the business had been concluded relative to the matters that were before the committee at that particular time. However, the problem I have is with subsection 1 of the bill. The bill speaks of an individual who is legally responsible for registering the birth saying "he shall attempt to determine the marital status of a mother by asking her to declare her marital status." Of course, if the mother refuses to do that, then the person who is legally responsible for registration of the birth "shall use specified factors to determine that particular status. The State Registrar shall establish such factors." I do not understand what the meaning of those factors are. I do not know what the reach of that is. As far as having this information declared, it seems as though we are more or less reaching into a black hole and trying to pull out something in determining what these specified factors are and how they will be used. That troubles me greatly because it adds a certain vagueness to the reporting requirement of this particular bill. We could easily have said, because we are seeking funds, that we want this information reported for that purpose. We do not say that in this particular measure because, even when you read the federal law, the state presently receives funds and will continue to receive funding. I do not know if anyone reads this bill who will make the determination that the state will continue to receive funds based upon the number or lack of pregnancy in this particular state as to whether or not their interpretation of this measure would limit that. I don't know that and it troubles me greatly. We seem to be asking, first of all, for something which is clearly not needed according to federal statutes. If it was needed, according to federal statutes, why did we put this in the bill? We could have said "pursuant to Federal requirement, we want this information reported." We have not done that and I don't know if, by this measure we are asked to pass today, as to what effect this would have upon the funding already being received by the state in relationship to this issue. That is the problem that I have with the bill. I had asked the prime sponsor of the bill as to whether or not we could seek an amendment to have this bill expire at such a time as these particular funds were no longer granted. However, the amendment came out and addressed the issue in terms of having Human Resources certify to the Legislative Counsel that the enactment of any federal legislation that repeals the reporting requirement, under federal law to which the state reports to federal agency information regarding the marital status of a mother at the time of giving birth. It says that this becomes effective July 1, 1997 and expires by limitation on the date the certification is received by the Legislative Counsel from the Director of the Department of Human Resources that the federal legislation act is repealed for these reporting requirements. If we are talking about funding, then we seem to have missed the boat because the funding could be eliminated and yet the reporting requirements in the bill would still remain. We were sold on the fact that this measure was supposed to aid us in getting federal funding, yet the amendment which was adopted to this bill depends upon the repeal of the reporting requirements. If the funds are discontinued and the act itself is not repealed, this would mean that the state would have to continue to report the marital status of these individuals. Whoever asked to draft the amendment to this bill has, I believe, done a disservice to this legislature because the falsity of this amended bill goes far beyond what the committee was attempting to consider. I asked for an amendment to have this requirement expire when the funds are no longer granted. The amendment to the bill went much further than that. The amendment to the bill states that the reporting requirement expires when the act itself expires. That means that this requirement will continue to remain in our statutes, if we pass it, until such time in the future that the Federal act expires. Here again, to reiterate, I have a problem with the amendment and a problem with those specified factors since I do not know what they are. I would have to vote against the bill on that basis.
Senator Augustine:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I think there are a lot of misconceptions concerning this bill. First of all, in response to the first question of the Senior Senator from North Las Vegas, the Bureau Chief for Health Planning and Statistics from the Nevada State Health Division in his testimony on February 25, stated that currently designated hospital staff ask for marital status. If the mother refuses to answer, the hospital staff checks other hospital records to determine if a husband is listed on these records in order to verify the mother's marital status. The hospital then enters the mother's marital status electronically into the registration system for data collection. This is the procedure they have set up in the Nevada State Health Division. It has nothing to do with anything that is being required by this bill. In answer to the second question; the statement received by the Administrator of the Nevada Department of Human Resources and Welfare Division says that this data for out-of-wedlock births is required for both temporary assistance to needy families and for the child support programs they administer. It comes out of Public Law 104-193 enacted by the 104 Congress on August 22, 1996. Under Section 411:
Data Collection and Reporting

Quarterly reports by the state, general reporting requirements, contents of report: each eligible state shall collect on a monthly basis and report to the secretary on a quarterly basis the following disaggregated case record information on the families receiving assistance under the state program funded under this part.
(1) The county of residence of the family.
(2) Whether a child receiving such assistance or an adult in the family is disabled.
(3) The ages of the members of such families.
(4) The number of individuals in the family and the relation of each family member to the youngest child in the family. (5) The employment status and earnings of the employed adult in the family.
(6) The marital status of the adults in the family including whether such adults have never married, are widowed or are divorced.
(7) The race and educational status of each adult in the family.
(8) The race and educational status of each child in the family.
(9) Whether the family receives subsidized housing, medical assistance under the state plan approved under the Title XIX food stamps or subsidized child care and if the latter due the amount received.
(10) The number of months the family has received each type of assistance under the program.
(11) If the adults participated in the following and the number of hours per week of participation in the following activities: education, subsidized private sector employment, unsubsidized employment, public sector employment, work experience or community services, job search, job skills training or on the job training vocational education.
(12) Information necessary to calculate participation rates under Section 407.
(13) The type and amount of assistance received under the program including the amount and reason for any reduction of assistance including sanctions.
(14) The amount of unearned income received by any member of the family.
(15) The citizenship of the members of the family.
(16) From a sample of closed cases whether the family left the program and, if so, whether the family left due to employment, marriage, the prohibition set forth in Section 408.87, sanction or state policy.
This is all included under the data collection reporting, so you can see there is reporting done in every aspect of somebody's life under the Welfare Responsibility Act.
Under annual reports to Congress by the secretary, not later than six months after the end of fiscal year 1997, and each fiscal year thereafter, the secretary shall transmit to Congress a report describing whether the states are meeting their participation rates described in Section 407A and the objectives of (1) increasing employment and earnings of needy family and child support collections and (2) decreasing the out-of-wedlock pregnancies and child poverty.
Also included in those annual reports will be the demographic and financial characteristics of families applying for assistance, families receiving assistance and families that become ineligible to receive assistance. The characteristics of each state program funded under the part and the transient employment and earnings of needy families with minor children living at home. These are all required of the State of Nevada under Public Law No. 104.193 passed August 22, 1996. This is not just a brain child the State of Nevada decided to establish.
As far as the monies, that were questioned, for combating out-of-wedlock birth and promoting paternity establishment, once again in federal law, the new law gives the states wide flexibility along with added funds to combat the rising number of out-of-wedlock births which increase welfare use and long-term dependency. The new law also contains several provisions and encourages marriage and family and discourages out-of-wedlock child bearing. More specifically, the legislation creates a $90 million TANF block grant for states to use to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. That is the first burst of funding received. It requires state plans to establish goals and take action to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies with special emphasis on teenage pregnancies and to establish numerical goals for reducing the state illegitimacy ratio between 1996 and 2005.
The third, provides a total of $400 million in added grants of up to $25 million annually per state for the five states that are most successful in reducing the number of out-of-wedlock births while decreasing the abortion rates. It makes states that are successful in reducing illegitimacy, strengthening families and meeting other program goals eligible for a share of a new $1 billion performance bonus fund. It rovides $50 million in entitlement funding for abstinence education for each fiscal year 1998 through 2002. And allows any state to establish a family cap policy ending the practice of increasing federal cash welfare benefits when mothers on welfare have babies. The new law goes on and on listing several funding mechanisms for the state.
I am a member of the Junior League of Las Vegas, I am sure you have all received copies of a publication entitled "Focus on Nevada's Children." Nevada's teen pregnancy rate is the second highest in the nation. The highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. These are the types of things the federal congress had in mind when this legislation was enacted. By codifying that law into our state statutes makes us eligible for millions of dollars in grants. The State of Maryland has already started a program, airing on television, to reduce the number of unwed births in their state without increasing the abortion rate in order to receive up to $25 million a year in grant money which our state could also use. I hope this answers the question posed by the Senator from North Las Vegas.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I certainly support decreasing the teen pregnancy rate in Nevada. In fact, after my first session in this Legislature, I served on an interim committee which addressed that very problem. I do not believe, however, that this statute will have anything to do with reducing the teen pregnancy rate, nor do I believe that this is required by law in order for us to receive federal money. I have gotten confused though and have a question about all this information that "big brother" wants when you go in to have a baby. Do we ask these questions of every woman who goes in to have a baby? If I am pregnant and enter a hospital, are these questions asked of me? If I do not want to answer those questions, can they look into my background for all this information? Or are these questions asked only of those who are on the welfare rolls who go into the hospital to have a baby?
Senator Augustine:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. These statistics are collected on every birth in the State of Nevada. It is not just confined to those women on welfare or state assistance. There is a standard birth certificate. At the bottom of the birth certificate, is a statistical form. That form is filled out by someone in attendance at the birth. The bottom of the form is then torn off leaving no information on the certificate of live birth. At the bottom of the form, statistics regarding low birth weights, medical risk factors for the pregnancy, other risk factors including tobacco and alcohol use, obstetric procedures used, complications of labor and/or delivery, method of delivery, abnormal conditions of the new born, congenital anomalies of the child are recorded. All of this information is collected on the bottom part of the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth. The bottom part of the form is torn off and all of those statistics are included in the report to the Health Division.
Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I have a question. The sponsor of the bill has done a good job of explaining some of the reasons for bringing this bill forth, but there are a couple of questions on technical problems that I might see. They deal with the idea that a woman giving birth is protected as in subsection 3 of Section 1 "the statistical abstract does not include any identifying information concerning the mothers. I would like to know if information about fathers is protected equally since they are not mentioned in this statute. I particularly raise this issue because many times a woman giving birth may not know the identity of the father. In fact, might have multiple options as to who the father might be. Or, thirdly, perhaps most dangerously may name someone as the father just because that is her choice of who she thinks should be the father. Do the records adequately protect the names of all parties concerned including the fathers, punitive or otherwise?
Senator Augustine:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. Yes, they do. The father's name, if the mother chooses, can be placed on the birth certificate. This is another part of the problem. So many women do not use their married names, so we were not receiving accurate information in the past. This information was also being collected before the federal law went into effect. On the certificate of live birth, the mother has the option to specify the name of the father, but we do not collect that information for statistical purposes.It is up to the birth mother whether or not she specifies the father's name. Also, I failed to mention that the amendment requested from the Legal Division on the expiration of this act states that, in fact, once the Federal Government no longer requires this information, then the state is no longer required to collect any of this data. This is the way the bill drafter said it had to be put into the bill. The exact language says that once the requirement, by the state, to report the statistics no longer exists, then by statute the requirement by the legislature to require that the Health Division collect these statistics also no longer exists.
Senator Coffin:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore, to you and through you to the sponsor of the legislation. You just stated that one of the reasons for the measure was because women frequently maintain their own names which may differ from that of the husband. That is the case in my family. In the case in my family, my wife's name is Hausch and I have helped deliver two children, being on the receiving end, in fact. If that is one of the reasons for the legislation, I find that highly intrusive. I feel it is no one's business and I find it hard to understand that to be a justification. I can say that as a matter of opinion. On the other hand, you still did not answer my question about protection for the father from a woman who is giving birth and may desperately name a man falsely or otherwise who might not be the father.
Senator Augustine:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I am obviously not being clear. We are not talking about names. There are no names. These are statistics. These are numbers. We are not talking about fathers or mothers names. Whatever someone chooses to place on their live birth certificates is their own business and that is private, personal, confidential information on their child's certificate of live birth. This bill does not deal with names. That information is confidential. That is an issue between a mother and a father of the child. This bill deals with the statistics, a number, and only a number. We pointed out, for that very reason, when this bill was amended, anything transcribed would not be part of a public record. That information and section is confidential, must not be transcribed on the birth certificate or made a part of any public record.
Senator Mathews:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I am going to be voting against this bill. My reason is because this is just one more place the government is intruding in the family's life whether you are married or unmarried. It seems "big brother" has one more foot in the door. So, I will be voting against this bill. I don't think we need it. The information needed by the state is already being collected.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. I guess we could say that I really do not care whether this measure passes or not. The state is going to continue to collect the statistics in one way or another as they are now doing. The problem is that there is not a consistency. Every county does not do this in the same manner. The information is tabulated and is used in the decisions the public health department decides upon. Medicaid spending in this country has increased about 10 times during the time I have served in the legislature. One of the largest portions of that spending is related to the teen pregnancy issue. Nevada ranks very high in the country as being a problem which has been unaddressed. It is a public health issue. It is just that simple. I have never been as surprised on any issue as I have been on this one to see the obfuscation of what the real issues are. As I sit in the Finance Committee, and I listen to the agencies which come before us and tell us they need funding to be able to accomplish such and such a purpose. Then, the bill that addresses that purpose is argued in another committee. It makes no sense. I suppose the consequence of this action is that we go back into the budget and start paring positions. We start stripping out the basis of the public health effort in our state. It does not make any sense. We, at one time, were the worst state in the country for the survival of low-birth-weight babies. We concentrated on that issue. People were brought into the state with the expertise. We started paying attention to the statistics and went to No. 1 in the country in being able to save those low-birth-weight babies. That is what public health is and what this issue is about. It is a significant national problem. The federal government has recognized that so much as to place incentive awards into the first few states that are really able to look at and address this issue. Somewhere along the way, someone in this state read this bill and came to the conclusion that this was a means of identifying the number of abortions so that that issue can be debated again. False. That is not the issue. That is not what is behind this. We find that it has been our democratic counterparts in the states close to us that have introduced this bill and we have seen the bill go through their legislatures without any division, without any debate and without any of this rancor. We have more important things to be addressing in this issue. If we are going to fight over some things, lets get down to some real philosophy and fight. The birth certificate comes in a two-piece form. The top part of that form is filled out with name information and the bottom contains the statistics. It is torn in half, the name information is given to the parties and the statistical information goes to the state. That is the way it is now and that is the way it will be in the future. This is not an issue we should be fighting over.
Senators James, Raggio and O'Connell moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Senate Bill No. 140.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 140:
Yeas -- 10.
Nays -- Adler, Coffin, James, Mathews, Neal, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Townsend, Wiener--10.
Excused -- Regan.
Senate Bill No. 140 having failed to receive a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it lost.

Senate Bill No. 249.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 249:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Excused -- Regan.
Senate Bill No. 249 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 130.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 130:
Yeas -- 19.
Nays -- None.
Excused -- Regan.
Not voting -- Townsend.
Assembly Bill No. 130 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 202.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 202:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Excused -- Regan.
Assembly Bill No. 202 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Bill No. 230.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 230:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Excused -- Regan.
Assembly Bill No. 230 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4.
Resolution read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4:
Yeas -- 20.
Nays -- None.
Excused -- Regan.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 4 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. President pro Tempore declared it passed.
Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Consideration of Assembly Amendments

Senate Bill No. 146.
The following Assembly amendment was read:
Amendment No. 156.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 3, after "shall" by inserting "distribute".
Amend section 1, page 1, line 6, by deleting "2:" and inserting:
"2 [:] , to:".
Amend section 1, page 1, line 7, by deleting "For" and inserting "[For]".
Amend section 1, page 1, line 8, by deleting:
"distribute to each county" and inserting:
"[distribute to each county]".
Amend section 1, page 2, by deleting line 5 and inserting:
"(b) [For all] All other counties, [distribute] the amount remaining after making the".
Amend section 1, page 2, line 6, by deleting "county" and inserting:
"[county] of these counties".
Senator McGinness moved that the Senate concur in the Assembly amendment to Senate Bill No. 146.
Remarks by Senator McGinness.
Motion carried.
Bill ordered enrolled.

Signing of Bills and Resolutions

There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Bills Nos. 10, 57, 63, 179, 189; Senate Resolution No. 4; Assembly Bills Nos. 4, 8, 95, 101, 393; Assembly Concurrent Resolutions Nos. 5, 17, 18.

REMARKS FROM THE FLOOR

Senator Augustine requested that the following memorandum be entered in the Journal.
MEMORANDUM April 25, 1997

TO: SENATOR RAYMOND D. RAWSON, CHAIRMAN, HUMAN
RESOURCES AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE

THROUGH: MYLA C. FLORENCE, ADMINISTRATOR

FROM: LELAND SULLIVAN, CHIEF, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

SUBJECT: SENATE BILL NO. 140

Per your request of April 18, 1997, the Region IX Office of Child Support
Enforcement confirmed the following information on state laws requiring
the reporting of marital status on birth records reported to vital statistics
unit of the State Health Division.

The National Center for Health Statistics reports Nevada is one of four
states without such a state law. The three other states are Michigan, New
York and Connecticut, however, the State of Connecticut is close to
obtaining such law. Texas obtained their law in 1994 and California
obtained their law last year.

I trust this information is beneficial. Should you have any questions, please
give me a call at 687-4744.

cc: Charlotte Crawford, Direcotor, Department of Human Resources
Mike Willden, Deputy Administrator, Program and Field Operations
Don Winne, Deputy Attorney General
Patty Williams, Staff Specialist
Yvonne Sylva, Administrator, Health Division
Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst,
Legislative Counsel Bureau
LS/lba

Senator Neal requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Thank you, Mr. President pro Tempore. In reference to the correspondence read by the Senator from Las Vegas, I would like the members of the Senate to note that the letter did not say that this state would lose any funding. This should be a matter of record.

GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR

On request of Senator Adler, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to the following students from the Dayton Intermediate School who visited the legislature on April 23, 1997: Cesar Adrian, Amy Ali, Hannah Armstrong, Amber Ballam, Paul Bennetts, Willie Bowman, Vienna Cabrita, Jose Castaneda, David Fatino, Thomas Fultz, Keeli Garcia, James Keathly, Carey Kytle, Samantha La Londe, Tim Larson, Isaac Marquez, Joe Olschowka, Drew Self Owen, Ashlee Robeson, Jaime Torres, Tabor Volberding, Candace Wade, Greg Webb, Allison Wetzel, B. J. Wilkerson, Laura Wilson, T. J. Ames, Julio Arias, Nichole Becker, Lisa Briggs, Tye DeForest, Falon Foster, Randy Foster, Jesus Gutierrez, Kathryn Hardy, Andrew Holmes, Joshua Hopper, Megan Isbell, Joseph Lopez, Kaitlen McKinnon, Chad Niblett, Joshua Patterson, Nori Richarz, Christopher Scholl, Joshua Scott, Rubin Shelton, Casey Skog, Leah Studebaker, Joseph Wachtveitl, Mark Webster Jr., Natalie Wells, Elijah Zachry, Cotton Baratti, Caleah Barnwell, Andrew Boucher, Vanessa Cabrita, Justin Cassinelli, Frank Cavataio, Adam Diament, Annette Dorado, Woodie Forant, Ashley Gatlin, Roxanne Hammer, Thomas Hopper, James Jaklich, Abigail Lupena, Tyler McKee, Christie Nelson, Alicia Nungaray, R. C. Remington, Joe Sandoval, Joseph Slivkoff, Rodney Stockton, Corey Thompson, Adam Watts, Jacob Watts, Danyelle Wynands, Kristopher Achenbach, Stephen Beach, Matt Bowman, Nichole Bumgarner, Daniel Calli, Justin Cross, Sean Carroll, Brandon Dimit, Grant Dykstra, Krista Etchison, Louis Grinker, Jenna Fowler, Bradford Kato, Brenda Kennard, Shane Maddox, Justin Menesini, Jared Monzello, Jeff Olschowka, Jennie Parker, Danielle Rodriquez, Mark Scott, Kendra Talavera, Joanna Taylor, Timmy Torres, Dustin Watkins, Dustin Wylie, Chace Ault, Jeffrey Bushey, Fred Butterbret, Matt Clark, Jess Dillon, Kyle Downs, Savannah Elder, Kristal Evans, Kirsten Forsell, James Francis, Daniel Green, Robin Johnson, Timothy Langley, Patrick Lassak, Natalie Malekos, Leif Meyer, Kevin Mezquita, Kenneth Pollock, Michelle Reeder, Andrew Rice, Amanda Ring, Danielle Salamone, Stacy Shamblin, Kerry Stogsdill, Jeremy Thornton; chaperones: Sandra Guzzetta, Karen Bowman, Mr. And Mrs. Phil Armstrong, Paula Armstrong, Kellie Ballam, Wendy Fultz, Maxine McKinnon, Char Richarz, Terri Skog, Dave Scott, LuAnn Holmes, Annette Gatlin, Linda Dorado, Tim Watts, Bob Kahn, Kelli Clark, Debbie Dimit, Debbie Fowler, Helene Reimold, John Johnston, Bob Gardner, Daniel Rice, Rosi Meyer and Pat Salamone and teachers; Mrs. Hadley, Mrs. Connet, Ms. Stringham, Dru Service and Mrs. Menesini.

On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Ronald Lee Arnce.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, April 28, 1997 at 10 a.m.
Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 10:34 a.m.

Approved:

Lawrence E. Jacobsen

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Attest: Janice L. Thomas
Secretary of the Senate