NEVADA LEGISLATURE
Sixty-ninth Session, 1997
_______________
ASSEMBLY DAILY JOURNAL
_______________
THE ONE HUNDRED AND TENTH DAY
_______________
Carson City (Friday), May 9, 1997
Assembly called to order at 11:01 a.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Bruce M. Henderson.
I found this in my office yesterday:
NOTICE
If you are grouchy,
irritable, or
just plain mean,
there will be a
$10.00 charge for
just putting up
with you.
So Lord our prayer today is short. Give us a sweet spirit. In that Name of Your sweet spirit.
Amen.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the Speaker and Chief Clerk be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Mr. Speaker:
Your Concurrent Committee on Education, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 398, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Wendell P. Williams,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which was re-referred Assembly Bill No. 82, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Douglas A. Bache,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 350, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Douglas A. Bache,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 249, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Douglas A. Bache,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Health and Human Services, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 155, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Vivian L. Freeman,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Infrastructure, to which was referred Assembly Bill No. 291, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
David Goldwater,
Chairman
Mr. Speaker:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Assembly Bill No. 364; Senate Bills Nos. 68, 98, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Bernie Anderson,
Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE
Senate Chamber, Carson City, May 8, 1997
To the Honorable the Assembly:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 22.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day passed Senate Bill No. 263.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day passed, as amended, Senate Bills Nos. 169, 220, 229, 231, 267.
Mary Jo Mongelli
Assistant Secretary of the Senate
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Assemblyman Anderson moved that Assembly Bill No. 361 be taken from the General File and placed on the Chief Clerk's desk.
Remarks by Assemblyman Anderson.
Motion carried.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining:
Assembly Bill No. 470--An Act relating to wildlife; requiring the board of wildlife commissioners to adopt regulations establishing a program for the issuance of special incentive elk tags; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblyman Carpenter moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining.
Motion carried.
By Assemblymen Krenzer, Herrera, Collins, Evans, Perkins, Amodei, Manendo, Williams, Chowning, Freeman, Hickey, Mortenson, Hettrick, Sandoval, Cegavske, Price, Close, Ohrenschall, Buckley, Bache, Parks, Lee, Humke, Giunchigliani, Marvel, Goldwater, Lambert, Braunlin, Koivisto, Gustavson, Nolan, Arberry, Carpenter, Segerblom, de Braga, Ernaut, Dini, Tiffany, Von Tobel, Berman, Anderson and Neighbors:
Assembly Bill No. 471--An Act relating to dentistry; requiring the board of dental examiners of Nevada to issue a restricted license to practice dentistry to certain persons; defining the scope of such a license; revising provisions governing the clinical demonstrations required of an applicant for a license to practice dentistry; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblywoman Krenzer moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.
Motion carried.
By Assemblymen Chowning, Anderson, Ohrenschall, Collins, Manendo, Hettrick, Parks, Herrera, Arberry, Cegavske, Perkins, Buckley, Von Tobel, Freeman, Hickey, Bache, Giunchigliani, Krenzer, Nolan, Mortenson, Price, Evans, Dini, Segerblom, Williams, Goldwater, de Braga, Berman, Neighbors, Amodei, Lee, Braunlin, Gustavson, Koivisto, Marvel, Humke and Close:
Assembly Bill No. 472--An Act relating to motor vehicles; requiring persons who operate garages that repair motor vehicles to register with the department of motor vehicles and public safety; creating an advisory board on the repair of motor vehicles; requiring the consumer affairs division of the department of business and industry and the department of motor vehicles to cooperate for certain purposes and to provide certain information to the general public concerning the repair of motor vehicles; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 169.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Education.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 220.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Education.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 229.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Concurrent Committees on Government Affairs and Ways and Means.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 231.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 263.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 267.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Motion carried.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Assembly Bill No. 67.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Bache and Tiffany.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 67:
Yeas--38.
Nays--Gustavson, Nolan, Tiffany, Von Tobel--4.
Assembly Bill No. 67 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Assembly Bill No. 136.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblyman Perkins.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that Assembly Bill No. 136 be taken from the General File and placed on the Chief Clerk's desk.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 171.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblyman Parks.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 171:
Yeas--42.
Nays--None.
Assembly Bill No. 171 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Assembly Bill No. 333.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Collins and Parks.
Conflict of interest declared by Assemblyman Parks.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 333:
Yeas--41.
Nays--None.
Not voting--Parks.
Assembly Bill No. 333 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker announced that if there were no objections, the Assembly would recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Assembly in recess at 11:42 a.m.
ASSEMBLY IN SESSION
At 11:43 a.m.
Madam Speaker pro Tempore presiding.
Quorum present.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5.
Resolution read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Giunchigliani, Freeman, Hettrick, Carpenter, Price, Close, Humke, Dini, Hickey, Anderson and Williams.
Assemblyman Price requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5 proposes to amend the Constitution of the State of Nevada to provide for annual, regular sessions of the Nevada Legislature. The measure replaces biennial sessions of unlimited length with annual sessions of no more than 120 calendar days in odd-numbered years, and no more than 45 calendar days in even-numbered years. Any legislative action taken at the end of the prescribed period is void.
Further, the measure requires regular sessions to commence on the first Monday of March each year. The governor must also provide the legislature with the proposed executive budget in odd-numbered years, and any proposed appropriations or budget revisions in even-numbered years not later than 30 days before the session convenes. The resolution also limits any special session of the legislature to 20 calendar days and specifies that any legislative action taken after that time is void.
Further, the measure permits the legislature to petition the governor to call a special session. Such a petition must set forth the topics for consideration and must be signed by at least two-thirds of the members elected to the House. Upon receipt of the qualified petition, the governor must convene the legislature within 45 days.
Finally, AJR 5 requires the sample ballot explanation of this constitutional amendment to include a statement that the measure allows legislators to receive compensation for each calendar day of service up to the constitutional maximum of 60 days for each regular annual session. If approved in identical form by the legislature in both 1997 and 1999, the proposal will be submitted to the voters for final approval or disapproval at the general election in the year 2000.
Thank you, Madam Speaker pro Tempore.
Assemblywoman Freeman:
I rise in support of AJR 5. I've had very mixed feelings on this issue over the years, but given the size of the state and the types of issues we're dealing with this particular session, I've decided that going to annual sessions is really imperative for us to be able to plan for the future. I just think it would make our process a lot easier and a lot more effective. I plan to vote for it.
Assemblyman Hettrick:
I rise in opposition to AJR 5. Madam Speaker pro Tempore, it is my opinion that by doing this in this fashion, we virtually guarantee that special sessions will have to be called. It guarantees, the way the Constitution is written, that we would be paid for every special session. It increases our pay by the 45 days of the second session each year. I have no problem with increasing our pay--I would be happy to vote for that. I have a problem with doing it in the fashion of increasing the days to get it. I think it virtually guarantees we would have to have special sessions because the law says that anything you do after the limited day is null and void. If you could not finish business, for whatever reason, up to the twelfth hour of that day, then you must call a special session just to finish. If that happened to be the budget, you'd have no choice. I oppose that.
Mention was just made about the size of Nevada. Texas is far larger than Nevada, and they don't have annual sessions; they have biennial sessions. I believe our system works very well now, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Assemblyman Carpenter:
I, too, rise in opposition to AJR 5. I believe that AJR 5 would increase the number of days we would be here by 37 percent, either by the amendment to the Constitution that we passed last time or by the measure that Mr. Price has always introduced to this House, which called for a 60-day annual session. I believe that this measure increases that time by 45 days, or 37 percent. I really believe that the people of Nevada would like us to be here less time, not more.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:
I would like to clarify some of the points discussed in committee this time. We pondered this differently this time around. We took the citizens' recommendation from the Utah plan that had been done by a task force chaired by former Senator Ashworth and tried to look at what the unique need is in the State of Nevada now. We're growing by leaps and bounds, and not just in Clark County. You have the same impetus and problems from Elko to Alamo, all across the state.
The reason we did a two-tiered approach was to accommodate the fact that we can't do business now in 120 days. We're ahead of schedule right now, in this house at least, as far as our budget process, but we'll be here well beyond 120 days. It's time to be responsible and take a look at the fact that if we can't do it every two years in 120 days, it is reasonable to set up a two-tiered approach: 120 days. Any action after that is void, but that way we get the budget earlier. It calls for the 30-day notice ahead of time and it requires the executive branch to have more public input because we will convene in March, which would be later so that more citizens can run for office--that was another component.
The 45 days in the second year means that we won't have to always redo an entire budget. Hopefully, we will only be responding to revisions and growth needs and those types of considerations. I think it's rather ironic that some of the individuals that may be arguing against this are also arguing that we should have a vote of the people in many other areas. All this is asking is that we be able, for once, to have the House pass this; to put it on the ballot so at least the public can have some say, one way or another, on the issue of whether or not we should have annual sessions. I have to say, to infer that the reason for this is to have an increase in our "wonderful" salaries is an irresponsible remark.
I think the amendment that we put forth very clearly stated that if you work for 60 days, you get paid for 60 days. Other than that, there is no increase in salary; that is already in the Constitution, and we work well beyond the 60 days for which we are compensated. I think that this bill is a very clean, more tiered approach which will give the public an opportunity to recognize the unique needs that we have grown into in this state that our forefathers--and unfortunately not foresisters or mothers--did not have to craft within the Constitution. Thank you, Madam Speaker pro Tempore.
Assemblyman Price:
I certainly enjoyed the comments on the proposed annual sessions. I, too, would like to speak to some of the comments that were made by my colleagues in opposition and also in favor.
A few days ago I put a little book on all of your desks. It has comprehensive information in it that I have gathered over the years about how the citizens feel about annual sessions, what other states do, and so forth. For whatever it's worth, in every poll that has been done for years now by our university system, the citizens of Nevada do favor going to annual sessions. When you talk to a lot of citizens, and, recently, even citizens coming from other states, they wonder how Nevada still operates in the manner that we do. In actual fact, there are only about three states that have been truly operating--even when you look at their constitutions, like Texas--on a true biennial session. What some states do is recess and come back the next year to handle matters. Some come back into regular special sessions and so forth.
I also had this little list that I put on your desks for my colleagues who feel that you cannot get business done in what would be proposed 175 days--which, by the way, I think is a little longer than is absolutely necessary. In New Hampshire, in the last two regular sessions, the total of both sessions was 49 days. They do their session in about 23 or 24 days. Wyoming, the last two regular sessions, a total of 56 days. North Dakota, one regular, one special session, 70 days. Delaware, one regular session, 49 days. South Dakota, two regular sessions, two special sessions, 78 days. Georgia, two regular, one special session, 100 days. Alabama, two regular and three special sessions in 89 days, and the list goes on and on and on.
I had the privilege many years ago to visit Utah, and it was when I first started thinking about annual sessions. I went with former Speaker Ashworth's committee, that he was chairing at that time, which gave a report called "Prospects for Greatness." It was a citizens' committee that looked at a lot of the operations of our state and the legislature. They came back with some excellent recommendations, some of which we've adopted and some we haven't. In Utah they have annual 45-day sessions and the budget is generally the key item. We have started doing a little bit of what they have been doing for many years now. They have identical committees in the Senate and the Assembly; then, for instance, on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, those committees jointly will hear the budget matters. If you are in transportation and hearing all of the stuff that comes under the department of transportation and so forth, the agency talks to both Houses at the same time. You're not getting one story one day in the Assembly Ways and Means and another story from the same people at Senate Finance. They wrap that whole thing up in 45 days. This particular subject matter has gone to the Supreme Court of the United States--where states, unlike ours, leave it open. In those states you can't do any of the tricks that we did in the old days such as covering the clock and saying it isn't really 12 o'clock. If your constitution says that it is the end of the legislative process, then that's when you stop. If you try to play any games to get something passed after that, then it is clearly unconstitutional.
One point I would make is that when you are bound by your constitution, as we would be under this, you will get done. Basically, because we're all humans, we do what we have to do. Many years ago one of our former, very fine senators spearheaded the creation of the Interim Finance Committee. We meet about every 45 days and take all kinds of actions. If we have approved money to an agency and they have to change it to another account, they appear before the Interim Finance Committee. The Interim Finance Committee, or the equivalent, in state after state has been challenged and has been found to be unconstitutional. The Interim Finance Committee was created primarily to avoid going to annual sessions, but what it does is transfers our power, our authority as an Assembly and our authority as a Senate, to a subcommittee. You cannot transfer the authority that voters have placed in us to some subcommittee. In addition, a subcommittee is not balanced. The Supreme Court has ruled that a legislative body must be one person, one vote. We have transferred that to a "sub" body, and it has been challenged in many states and knocked down as unconstitutional. I've never chosen--I've thought about it but I've never chosen, as long as I've wanted annual sessions--to actually challenge the legality. I would rather see it go to a vote of the people and through the regular constitutional process.
Last week someone made a statement on a TV show I was doing on annual sessions, and I think they said it all. They said Nevada is a state that has full-time needs and full-time problems and a part-time legislature.
Assemblyman Close:
I rise in support of AJR 5. During our last session, I also supported a similar resolution. As I use my simple mathematics, 120 and 45 adds up to 165 days. That would still be less than the number of days we spent here in our last legislative session, so I don't think that we're going any further than what we have demonstrated in the past. We also tried, within this bill, to start later in the year--starting in March as opposed to January--which gives us an additional two months in preparation time.
As many members of this body know, the biggest thing that drives this session is the budget aspect of what we have to deal with. We are, as my other colleague from Ways and Means described, ahead of schedule at this time. I think that if we started in March, we'd have greater preparation time, not only for each one of us but also for our freshmen, who need to have that learning curve to catch up to those things which we do within this body. I think also, as has already been stated, if we have the budget earlier than right now, it would help us to evaluate the budget before we get here and therefore have certain things accomplished.
I also think, Madam Speaker pro Tem, that the biggest factor is that we'll refine the process. I strongly believe that we fill the time that's available to us. I am of the belief this session should have been out by June 1. I know there are those who might disagree, but I still think we could have done that if we really were put under the gun to get it done. I think that if we have 120 days, we'll get it done in 120 days. I do not think that we're going to get into a situation where we won't get our job done.
Another aspect that might be looked at is that many of us are blessed to have arrangements in our homes and in our businesses that allow us to be here for 165 or so many days every other year. But there are many out there who would like to be here as a citizen legislator who cannot spend that type of time, but possibly, they could spend the 120 days and then the 45 days. I believe that this would increase the cadre of citizen legislators that would be available to this body to serve, and I would urge your support.
Assemblyman Humke:
I rise to reluctantly oppose the measure. I have voted both ways in my legislative career on these measures, which are always sponsored by the chief sponsor of this measure. This measure has many good things in it that have not always appeared before, so it is a close question. I will get to a couple of those in a second.
I feel that the basic problem is that the measure is premature. It is premature, first of all, because the legislative process in Nevada needs additional reform. The previous speakers spoke about the budget process. I feel that that is where additional reform is still needed. We have made great strides--thanks, incidentally, to the tireless work of you, Madam Speaker pro Tem--in the budget reform process, and that is a mosaic that is continuing and needs to continue further. To sort of wrap up this point, I feel that the thing that will speed up our budget process the most is a legislative budget office.
This session happens to be a good example of one in which the chief executive has inadvertently caused a certain amount of delay in the budgetary process. We all have seen many innovative programs that are on the desk. In many of those, we're still awaiting further detail or we're awaiting some initial detail. I don't mean to show disrespect to the current incumbent, the chief executive. In my experience, this has been an inherent problem with chief executives in this state in reaction to the legislative process.
The next reason why this measure is premature is that there is another pending resolution--call it a competing resolution--but it is ahead of this one chronologically. That is the one that I believe was generated by the Senate, calling for a 120-day biennial limited session. If this measure goes through the legislative process, I think it will confuse the people because the other resolution is out there.
Finally, I think that there is a false economy of legislative time that is sought by this resolution. The Minority Leader spoke of the possibility of rampant special sessions under this measure. In my experience in talking with legislators around the West who the chief sponsor referred to, many of those states have limited off-year sessions in which they deal mostly with the budget or limited matters. But they also have numerous, numerous special sessions, and I don't feel that that's a good policy.
Assemblyman Dini:
I rise in support of the resolution. I don't think we just picked 120 days out of a hat and said, "Let's try 120 days." I've had a little experience in operating this House. This is my seventh term as Speaker. I think I have the background to tell you that if you can get that budget done in less than 90 days, you're going to be standing on your head and working every weekend to do it. Once you get the budget heard, you need a couple of weeks to close it and you need a week to get the Appropriations Act out and all these things put together, and you can't do it in less than 120 days. That's just practical management.
The 45-day session will allow us to review certain parts of the budget. It will put less emphasis on the Interim Finance Committee. By the way, Mr. Price, I chaired the committee on "Prospect for Greatness."
The other thing I'd like to say is that we're going to vote in 1997, we're going to vote on this again in 1999, and the voters get to make the selection in the year 2000. The first annual session wouldn't start until 2002, so we're planning for the future. The way that it is growing, this state will have 2,000,000 people by 2002. I don't think we do a good job of taking care of local problems in a short session. As you know, it takes us 169 days now. If you have 120 days certain, you start the budget process earlier, you get out of here in 120 days. I think it has a lot of advantages, and the real advantage is the small session in between which allows you to come in and clarify things, bring things up to date, take care of a few problems that you may have and go back home.
I think it's a good compromise. I'll tell you this. I cannot vote for a bill that just says 120 days every two years. That is absolutely ludicrous. It will not work, and nobody will be able to serve when you get done with that one because you can't do the job for the people that sent you here.
Assemblyman Hickey:
I rise in opposition to this bill because I think going to annual sessions will significantly change one quality that Nevada has maintained and which contributes to the kind of state that we have and that is the quality of our citizen legislature. I disagree with my colleague from District 15 who says that this measure would allow those folks from the private sector to more easily serve. Combined with not only serving each year, and the additional campaign time that is required every off year, I think you would minimize the participation of persons from the private sector. I believe the other measures ought to be tried, and for that reason, I'll be voting against this measure.
Assemblyman Anderson:
I rise in support of the piece of legislation. I really kind of hoped to keep quiet on this particular issue because I'm sure we will talk it to death. I'm distressed when I hear that we're not going to trust the people to be able to make a choice about what they want to do. In the committee in which I serve as chair, we frequently hear from governmental bodies of the inability for the legislature to respond in a forthright manner to issues that come before the courts relative to the disposition of real issues that are of real concern to people on a day-to-day basis. The reason that we can't respond in a quick fashion is because we're not here. This bill, I believe, will at least set in front of the people two basic things: one, do they want their citizen legislature to be here every year to respond to their needs or not; and two, should we limit the amount of time?
We have heard already that 120 days is the least amount of time in which we can do this job. Now, I don't think anybody is going to complain, at least in the public sector, if we get out of here in less than 120 days. I have real difficulty believing that. So if we can do it faster, then we will, but we know what we believe is the minimum level, and if we can do it faster, then I think we'll have an opportunity to serve the people of this state well. Give them a chance to vote.
Assemblymen Williams, Hickey and Perkins moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5.
Roll call on Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5:
Yeas--28.
Nays--Amodei, Braunlin, Carpenter, Cegavske, Ernaut, Gustavson, Hettrick, Hickey, Humke, Lambert, Marvel, Sandoval, Tiffany, Von Tobel--14.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 5 having received a constitutional majority, Madam Speaker pro Tempore declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Assemblyman Dini moved that the Assembly recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Assembly in recess at 11:51 a.m.
ASSEMBLY IN SESSION
At 11:52 a.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Quorum present.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 10.
Resolution read third time.
Remarks by Assemblywoman de Braga.
Roll call on Assembly Joint Resolution No. 10:
Yeas--42.
Nays--None.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 10 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Senate Bill No. 81.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblyman Anderson.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 81:
Yeas--42.
Nays--None.
Senate Bill No. 81 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.
Assemblyman Ernaut moved that the Assembly recess subject to the call of the Chair for the purpose of hearing a presentation by Katie Phillipi and Kevin Clement of Lenz Elementary School.
Motion carried.
Assembly in recess at 11:55 a.m.
ASSEMBLY IN SESSION
At 11:59 a.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Quorum present.
REMARKS FROM THE FLOOR
Assemblyman Perkins requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Assemblyman Ernaut:
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to introduce my students as they are going up to the podium. They are from the Elizabeth Lenz Elementary School, which actually sits on the border between my district and the district of my colleague, Mr. Humke. We have with us Katie Phillipi, who is in sixth grade, and she is a class representative, and Kevin Clement, who is the president of the student council, and he is also in sixth grade. They have a resolution that they'd like to read to all of us today.
Katie Phillipi:
Whereas, the Elizabeth Lenz Student Council representatives acted as advocates against youth access to tobacco through a National PTA sponsored program called Stop the Sale, Prevent the Addiction; and
Whereas, representatives displayed anti-tobacco use posters throughout the school and reported facts and statistics about the dangers of all tobacco use on the Lenz Morning News broadcast; and
Whereas, more than ten Student Council representatives performed skits about chewing tobacco, fake identification cards, tobacco's effect on sports and school, what it does to your breath, what tobacco use can lead to such as alcohol and drugs; and
Whereas, Lenz Student Council representatives are here today to commend the Nevada State Assembly for their commitment to making youth access to tobacco more difficult; and
Whereas, we represent the voices of many children and adults of Nevada who ask that you continue working hard to Stop the Sale and Prevent the Addiction; now therefore, be it
Resolved, that as you finish the 69th session of the Nevada State Legislature, Lenz Student Council is confident that you will keep us in mind when considering matters dealing with tobacco use; and be it further
Resolved, that the Lenz Student Council hereby presents a Certificate of Thanks to both the Nevada State Senate and the Nevada State Assembly.
Kevin Clement:
We would like to present this plaque for your great efforts in "Stop the Sale, Prevent the Addiction."
Mr. Speaker requested the privilege of the Chair for the purpose of making the following remarks:
Thank you so much. We are very honored that you came over today and made this presentation. We'd like to see you kids just continue the political career you've started here today. You probably could get everybody to vote for your resolution, I'll bet, if we tried hard, huh? Thank you very much for coming.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Assembly Bill No. 382.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 178.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Senate Bill No. 202.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objection, the Speaker and Chief Clerk signed Senate Bills Nos. 9, 28, 66, 164, 173, 191.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF ASSEMBLY FLOOR
On request of Assemblyman Arberry, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Jimmy Lee McDowell.
On request of Assemblyman Bache, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Nicholas Ganski.
On request of Assemblywoman Berman, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Juanita McGaughey Clark.
On request of Assemblywoman Braunlin, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Michael Gray and Lell Gray.
On request of Assemblyman Carpenter, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Wilde Brough.
On request of Assemblywoman Cegavske, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Matt Minty.
On request of Assemblyman Close, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Vivian Kilarski.
On request of Assemblyman Collins, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Douglas Thornley and David Stix Jr.
On request of Assemblyman Dini, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Cheryl Sample, Pat Boyd and Jack Pursel.
On request of Assemblyman Ernaut, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Katie Phillipi and Kevin Clement.
On request of Assemblywoman Evans, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Niki Hannevig.
On request of Assemblywoman Giunchigliani, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Suzi Rust and Allenda Zionch.
On request of Assemblyman Goldwater, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Thelma Bosowski, Joyce Maddaford, H. W. Perry, Angel Lynn and Judi Lynn.
On request of Assemblyman Herrera, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Debbie Ace.
On request of Assemblyman Hettrick, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Vic Hyden.
On request of Assemblyman Humke, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Bob Deery and Neil Brown.
On request of Assemblywoman Koivisto, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Marta Minty and Rebecca Minty.
On request of Assemblywoman Krenzer, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Kim McCann.
On request of Assemblywoman Lambert, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Nancy Mertz.
On request of Assemblyman Lee, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Jim Gritis and Patricia Gritis.
On request of Assemblyman Manendo, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Doris Gulmatico.
On request of Assemblyman Mortenson, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Nancy Amend.
On request of Assemblyman Perkins, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Lisa Stanfill.
On request of Assemblyman Price, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Judy Brown and Marsha Thornley.
On request of Assemblyman Sandoval, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Susan Herman and Juliene Allman.
On request of Assemblywoman Segerblom, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Bill Davis and Douglas Gerwitz.
On request of Assemblywoman Tiffany, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Meri Bowers and Paula Pearson.
On request of Assemblywoman Von Tobel, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Christi Lynn, Dawn Haviland and Annette Thaler.
On request of Assemblyman Williams, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Ronda Nassersharif and Tammy Geary.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that the Assembly adjourn until Monday, May 12, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Assembly adjourned at 12:21 p.m.
Approved:
Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
Speaker of the Assembly
Attest: Linda B. Alden
Chief Clerk of the Assembly