Carson City (Friday), May 16, 1997

Assembly called to order at 11:06 a.m.
Mr. Speaker presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Assemblymen Berman, Marvel and Tiffany, who were excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, The Reverend Jeffrey D. Paul.
O Lord our Governor, whose glory is in all the world: We commend the State of Nevada to Your care, that we may dwell in Your peace. Grant to the Assembly and to all in authority wisdom and strength to know and do Your will. Fill us all with a love of truth and righteousness, and make us mindful of our calling to serve this people; one God, world without end.

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.

Senate Chamber, Carson City, May 15, 1997

To the Honorable the Assembly:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 300.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day adopted Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 10.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38.

Mary Jo Mongelli

Assistant Secretary of the Senate

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 38.
Assemblyman Williams moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Assemblymen Williams and Chowning.
Resolution adopted.

Assemblyman Perkins moved that the vote whereby Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26 was referred to the Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics be rescinded.
Motion carried.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 26.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.
Resolution adopted.

Assembly Bill No. 156.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Buckley, Close, Goldwater and Freeman.
Potential conflict of interest declared by Assemblyman Close.
Conflict of interest declared by Assemblywoman Krenzer.
Assemblyman Perkins requested that Assemblywoman Buckley's remarks be entered in the Journal.
AB 156 is patient-protection legislation for patients enrolled in managed care. It arises from a need to ensure that care is not denied to patients when needed and that quality of care is not sacrificed in our haste to cut rising medical costs. It also outlaws certain abusive practices that have been implemented by some managed care organizations. The major provisions are these:
First, in section 11, the bill sets forth when covered care can be denied. It provides that coverage can only be denied once recommended by the treating physician if a Nevada physician makes the decision and has the relevant training and expertise to make the denial. This is to ensure that doctors, and not clerks, are making denial decisions.
Sections 12 and 13 require that each managed care organization establish written policies and procedures setting forth the manner in which it determines when to deny coverage or treatment and how it conducts utilization review. It requires that this criteria be prepared with the assistance of providers, be updated annually, and be open for inspection. This is to ensure that protocols on length of stay and other treatment is not used to deny care, even when it is needed, just because a protocol sets the time when a patient can stay in the hospital.
Sections 14 and 15 require an MCO to set up a quality assurance program and a quality improvement committee. This is to ensure that quality of care gets the attention it deserves.
Section 16 prohibits a managed care organization from restricting or interfering with discussions between a provider and a patient. This ends the practice of allowing gag clauses to be imposed upon providers.
Section 17 prohibits a managed care organization from retaliating against providers if the provider advocates or assists a patient.
Section 18 prohibits a managed care organization from paying financial incentives or bonuses to providers for denying or withholding medically necessary care to a patient. This is to combat a practice where physicians may feel they have to deny or delay necessary tests in order to earn payment from the managed care organization.
Section 19 reforms emergency room treatment payment denial abuses. It prohibits an MCO from requiring prior authorization for emergency care treatment. It requires that emergency room treatment be paid for if the patient, acting as a prudent person--an average, everyday person--believes that their situation required immediate treatment or their health will be placed in jeopardy. This reform will ensure that people will seek care when they believe they need it and not be discouraged from doing so because of fear that payment will be turned down.
Section 20 requires that each MCO have a Nevada physician serve as its medical director.
Lastly, sections 23, 24, and 25 require that each MCO establish a grievance procedure with a review board consisting primarily of patients insured by the company. It requires that all decisions be made within 30 days or 72 hours in emergency cases. It requires that all notices of denial be made in clear and comprehensible language.
These patient protections will help many Nevadans and have received the support of patients, providers and the MCOs who have worked very hard to create balanced reforms in this area. It received unanimous support from your Committee on Commerce, and I urge your support.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 156:
Yeas--40.
Nays--None.
Not voting--Krenzer.
Excused--Marvel.
Assembly Bill No. 156 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Assembly Bill No. 291.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Lee, Mortenson, Goldwater, de Braga, Tiffany, Segerblom, Ernaut, Manendo, Gustavson, Von Tobel and Price.
Assemblyman Price requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Assemblyman Lee:
Assembly Bill 291 authorizes the board of county commissioners in each county to impose by ordinance a sales tax of not more than one-quarter of one percent to be used to finance infrastructure projects. An ordinance to impose or make other changes to the tax must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the board at the public hearing for which at least two weeks' notice was given. In a county with a population of 400,000 or more in which the water authority exists, revenues from the tax must be used for the water and wastewater facilities. Cities and towns that are not served by the water authority must be allocated a share of the tax revenue based upon the assessed valuation. The bill requires such a county to report annually to the legislative or interim finance committee concerning the collection, distribution and use of tax revenues. The measure requires the board to review the necessity of the tax within 10 years. In any county with a population less than 400,000, the tax may not be imposed until a plan for the expenditure of revenues has been approved by the board after a public meeting. In a county with a population of 100,000 or more, but less than 400,000, tax revenues must be used for flood control facilities, railroad grade separation projects, public safety facilities or any combination of those uses.
Finally, in a county with a population of less than 100,000, revenues must be used for water, wastewater facilities, flood control facilities, solid waste disposal facilities or a combination of these projects. This measure becomes effective upon passage and approval. Mr. Speaker, your Committee on Infrastructure overwhelmingly passed this bill out of committee, and I would urge the Assembly's support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to my colleagues in the Assembly. A few days ago, I sent a little report--an exercise in basic arithmetic with pie charts on it--to you, and then subsequently you got a couple more of those. I have absolutely no arguments with the two that followed mine, but I do think that, in trying to calculate how much someone spends and how much of that is taxable and so on, that's the hard way to do it. The easy way is to look at the pie charts of the water district or the water authority. The water authority is the one who is going to spend the money, and they have said that 30 percent of the cost of this project will be paid through the sales tax. I maintain that 30 percent of a $2 billion or $3 billion project is not chicken feed. It is a lot of money, and 70-some percent of that will be paid by your constituents and you.
In the beginning of this project the water authorities' blue ribbon panel, after two years of consideration, made a decision. They said that growth should pay for growth, and 79 percent of the cost of this project should be borne by connection fees. They said that residents, essentially, our constituents and you and I, benefit by a little bit of reliability and therefore should pay 21 percent of the cost of the project. I think that was a very good decision, and I think it was very fair. But suddenly, when the sales tax entered the calculation, everything changed drastically. We're told that the sales tax is good because it pays a portion of the project, and that is true. It essentially pays 8.7 percent of the project. That's the little slice of the sales tax that tourists pay. The problem is, the real crime here is, that your constituents and you will pay the balance of that 30 percent, and that turns out to be 21.3 percent. Now, if you add that 21.3 percent to the 13 that is marked for surcharges on the water authority's chart, you are now paying 35 percent, whereas, the blue ribbon panel, earlier in their wisdom said, "You should only pay 21 percent."
Also, remember that that 21 percent--the original 21 percent--includes all of the draconian surcharges that you've been threatened with. If the 21 percent contains all the draconian service charges, then 35 percent--that's draconian squared. Not exactly, but it's bad. If you and your constituents are getting the shaft with this increase in price, who is benefiting? The benefit goes to the housing. It has dropped now from 79 percent down to 52 percent, and you might conclude by this that you are subsidizing the housing.
How did this happen and are you going to let it happen today when you vote? First of all, there has been criticism that connection fees will go up and our children will not be able to buy houses and so on. If the connection fee should go to $30,000 in 25 years, inflation in 25 years will drop it down to half of that, $15,000. I do not believe that $15,000 will ever occur because the water authority has calculated their formulas using an incredibly low rate of growth in the valley. Their demographer is lower than the state's demographers, and both demographers have a past history of underestimating the growth in the valley. If the growth in the valley occurs as it has at a very constant rate of six percent for the last 35 years, then the water district is going to be swimming in money, if you'll pardon the pun. In just a few years, the water district just has not proven that they need this sales tax.
This is a really bad bill for you and your constituents. When you press the button in a few minutes, I hope you will think and do the right thing for your constituents.
Assemblyman Goldwater:
I almost hesitate to rise today, given the extremely eloquent remarks that were made by our Floor Leader and Majority Leader the other day, but I feel I have to rise in support of this bill and to counter some of the arguments that were given by my colleague from southern Nevada.
Let's simplify the argument. Let's bring it down to real common sense. This bill will keep more money in the pockets of Nevada residents, than without this bill, than the current financing system is doing. What we are doing is not building a water system; we are changing the financing mix, or frankly, we're enabling the county government to change the financing mix. We're doing this from the state government as, to quote the Majority Leader, we are holding the purse strings. We are changing the financing mix. We are adding a new element. We are adding sales tax. Why? To take the pressure off connection fees and water rates. The distinguished gentleman referenced the connection fees and population growth figures. An analysis by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and also by independent Hobbs Ong and Associates calculated that, should the distinguished gentleman's population figures be correct, an additional 300,000 to 400,000 connections would need to be made in order to provide the revenue that he has said would be needed. That's 400,000 in addition to what the Southern Nevada Water Authority already is projecting. Should that occur, we would need another water system equal to the size of the one that is currently being built that will cost an additional $1.7 billion in today's dollars.
Now let's talk about water rates. Water rates are paid 100 percent by Nevada residents--100 percent. You get that bill in the mail, you've got to pay that bill. Sales tax--there is a great deal of discretion when it comes to paying the sales tax. If you don't want to pay the sales tax, you don't have to. You don't have to buy a new car, you don't have to buy new clothes, you don't have to. The things that you have to buy we don't tax--food, rent, medicine, things like that.
I submit to you that we need to take the pressure off water rates. We need to take the pressure off connection fees. Lastly, in summation, we need to represent our constituents. Who are our constituents? Are we the only ones who represent them? No, they are represented at the local level where this tax will be invoked. Additionally, the people we represent are members of a myriad of organizations in town. Let me read to you just a few that support and have articulated support for Assembly Bill 291: developers, taxpayers' association, medical community, culinary union, local union, Nevada Resort Association, home builders, chambers of commerce, building trades, environmentalists, and the list grows. These are our constituents. These are the same people who vote for us. They have decided, not in an arbitrary way, after two years of study out of a citizens' advisory committee in a very public way by some of the most brilliant minds in finance, that this is the optimal financing mix for this water system that takes the most pressure off of Nevada taxpayers. Assembly Bill 291 lets southern Nevadans keep more money in their pockets. That's why I'm in support of it.
Assemblywoman de Braga:
During the testimony on AB 291, the Southern Nevada Water Authority stated that with this project, their efforts are targeting expansion of a water delivery system that will bring water to Las Vegas from the Colorado River. It was asked and clearly stated by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, that it is not their intent to use funds generated from the sales tax increase to apply toward efforts to bring groundwater from central Nevada into the Las Vegas Valley. For the comfort of my colleague from District 36 and myself, I hereby repeat this statement to confirm legislative intent of this bill is not to fund the water project commonly known as the Cooperative Water Agreement.
Assemblywoman Tiffany:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to this body. I stand in opposition of AB 291 because it allows each county commission to increase the sales tax by a quarter percent without requiring the vote of the people. When asked what he thought about the views of the people, an absolute French king dismissed the question by saying, "I am the people." I was surprised to hear a similar attitude voiced yesterday in this Chamber when one of our colleagues who is against this requirement for the vote of the public says, "We are the vote of the people." Americans, and especially Nevadans, do not give absolute power to their part-time elected representatives. That's why we have an initiative and a referendum in this state, and that's why the people enacted the Gibbons tax restraint initiative to curb the power of the legislature.
The French overthrew their arrogant monarchy, and the Americans overthrew an arrogant British king under the banner of "no taxation without representation." It's ironic that AB 291 imposes on Nevadans taxation with representation, but it's the representation of every major special interest group. AB 291 is representation for everyone except the people. That's why I vote "no" on AB 291 today.
Assemblywoman Segerblom:
I will vote "yes" for the bill, but I have an understanding that in the Senate there will be an amendment to remove Boulder City from the bill because they have not taken a stand--the city council did not take a stand. Also, there will be an amendment to remove Mesquite. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Assemblyman Ernaut :
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to my esteemed colleagues. When this session started, and throughout our campaigns in this last session, there was one word that kept coming to the top, the most important need of this state, and that word was infrastructure--that we had needs all across this state, whether in the metropolitan areas of Clark county, or the hospital needs in Elko County, or flood control in Washoe and Lyon and Douglas Counties. We had big, serious needs, and it was our job to solve that. And here we are today with Assembly Bill 291. I've been here three terms and two terms before that working in the hallways and sitting behind this screen and watching as the legislature deliberated issues such as this. In my career, I have never seen a more absurd set of circumstances surrounding this bill--more demagoguery, more misinformation, and more flat-out lies about a measure that is so important to the people of the State of Nevada.
My father told me a long time ago that a Basco should never argue with a nuclear physicist, so today, I am not about to argue Xs and Os and pie charts with any of my colleagues. It seems to me that we've discussed everything that this bill is not. We've discussed every nuance, every amendment, but we've never sat down and said, "What exactly does this bill do?" Well, I'm going to tell you exactly what this bill does and I'm going to speak very slowly so all the people in the media can write this correctly. This bill enables--enables--the county commissions--all 17 of them--in this state to impose a quarter-cent sales tax for very specific infrastructure needs. It doesn't in any way prohibit a popular vote of the people. It doesn't in any way prohibit a popular vote of the people. A tax increase is never an easy thing to do. I'm a Republican. It goes against my very grain. So when I'm going to discuss a tax increase, however enabling, I think there are four major barometers that you must look at before you make that very difficult and judicious choice.
The first is need. Let's discuss need for a moment. In all 17 counties, we have a lot of need. In Clark County, we have a water system that is so antiquated that it can't even deliver the present allotment in the Colorado River. It can only deliver 72 percent. It can't even be shut down for maintenance. It is the only straw. It is the only water lifeline of that community--the fastest growing community in the state of Nevada, the fastest growing community in the United States. Three times last summer, the Clark County water system nearly shut down, ending water supply to all of Las Vegas. That is a critical need. In Washoe County and in many of the northern counties, we were hit by the most catastrophic flood that this state has ever seen. Let me just read to you some of the dollar totals: Carson City, $6.4 million; Storey County, $3 million; Lyon County, $19.5 million; Douglas County, $55 million; Washoe County, $540 million in damage. Clark County bit the bullet some years ago and imposed their quarter-cent for flood control; the northern counties have not, and it's time that we do that and this is the mechanism. This isn't a game. This isn't about headlines. This is about people's lives and businesses and families being protected. This is a very tough decision, but one each and every one of you has to make. Every decision amongst us that comes before us is not for the Silver State fanfare being designated as the state march. Sometimes there are very difficult decisions, and before you today is one of them.
If we agree on need, secondly, we have to look at support, support of the community. As the chairman of Infrastructure said to each of us, an unprecedented amount of support across this state--citizens' groups, business and seniors, getting together and studying this issue in Clark County for two years and in Washoe County for a year and a half--prioritizing the essential needs of those communities. The rural counties have mandates from the federal government to fix their landfills. Where is it that you think they're going to get the money? They don't have that kind of money. They look to us to make those tough decisions.
If we agree on need and we agree upon the support, then we have to look at the most legitimate and appropriate funding source. There are only two, ladies and gentlemen, there are only two. For us to be able to bond for this kind of money for these massive projects, there are only two. You can bond property tax or you can bond sales tax. Clark County, obviously has another thing in the mix with water rates. The rest of the state does not. In Washoe County alone, if we were to take this to a bonding of the property tax, it would increase property tax by 17 cents, putting us over the statutory cap. We've heard the discussion about sales tax. We've heard this discussion about sales tax starting as early as 1981 when we determined our entire tax base for the state of Nevada on sales tax, and that means that we see that the tourists should pay for a major portion of our tax, taking the burden off the residents. So it wasn't overly aggressive, we exempted things like rent and medicine and groceries so that those on fixed incomes weren't bearing the brunt of the sales tax. I contend to you that this is the most appropriate funding source: sales tax.
Fourth, once we've agreed upon need, and once we've agreed upon support, and once we've agreed upon the most appropriate funding source, we come to the question of accountability. Again, I'm going to read slow so that everybody gets this down. We have seven unprecedented measures of accountability in AB 291. We have a mandatory two-thirds vote of each county commission. In every county outside of Clark, we have a mandatory facilities plan that specifically itemizes each project and all the costs incurred. We have mandatory public meetings with mandatory two-week notifications. In Washoe County we have mandatory oversight by the regional planning commission, which is a citizen advisory board. In all counties, we have mandatory separate accounting, mandatory annual reporting, and a sunset option once the projects come to fruition. So then we agree upon accountability.
This is the fastest growing state in the nation, and it has serious needs. And it takes serious people to address those needs. I'm proud of AB 291. It wasn't easy, but it was right. Leadership is not defined in what is popular; it's defined by your hard work and your perseverance as what is right, and by that action, making it popular. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Assemblyman Manendo:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to this honorable body. For the record, I've had several concerns regarding this issue. If AB 291 as enabling legislation is not passed, what would be the cost of escalating water rates to the seniors in my district in the near future? How would the young families be able to afford their first home, or if you will, their "dream homes?" How would this affect current and future jobs and how would a slowdown of our vibrant economy impact our local and state budgets?
The other concern has always been with the wastewater part of the bill. My constituents, in particular, our Southeast Valley Coalition for Odor Control, which consists of members representing the Whitney Town Board, manufactured home parks, housing developments, townhouses, apartments and area businesses, need assurances that their concerns and the concerns of surrounding assembly districts about odor control would be addressed when it came to passing this bill and paying for additional wastewater projects.
The amended bill responds to these concerns. It now includes "odor control" under the definition of wastewater facilities, meaning a portion of this funding of the wastewater agencies will be spent on just that.
I recently received a letter and other information from the Clark County and the City of Las Vegas Sanitation districts detailing their plans to seeing the odor problem resolved; including, at the Clark County facility: odor scrubbing equipment, a trickling filter bypass structure, sediment removal from sludge ponds, intermediate pumping station odor control, central plant VOC abatement projects, Whitney interceptor and Whitney lift station, and collection system odor control; at the City of Las Vegas facility, consolidation of grit handling facilities, odor control facilities at headworks, primary clarifiers, thickeners at the solids dewatering facility, and finally, reducing odors at the WPCF including odor control gates for the sludge hoppers, modifying trickling filters for odor control and sludge loading bay. Total estimated expenditures of $8.6 million goes directly to solving the odor problem in Assembly District 18 and the surrounding districts; in addition, with the plant expansions, expenditures of roughly $6 million to $10 million in odor control facilities are estimated. With this amendment and commitment in hand, I can now support this bill. The amendment puts the odor issue on the same level as everything else and gives the wastewater agencies monies to solve the problems.
Finally there are no more excuses for not getting it fixed, and for this reason, I do stand in support of AB 291 today and ask that my colleagues do the same.
Assemblyman Gustavson:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To you and through you to this body. I will be a little brief, as I usually am. I rise in opposition to this tax increase. I realize there are many needs out there. We all know this. I realize that this is also enabling tax legislation to the county commissioners, but that's only upon their choice and their decision. As ordinary citizens, we make decisions every day, decisions that affect our everyday lives as well as others. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, taking away the people's right to vote on this tax increase themselves is poor public policy. If I'm going to protect my rights, I must first protect the rights of the voting public, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting "no" on AB 291. Thank you.
Assemblywoman Von Tobel:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a very difficult bill for me, and I think for everybody in this body. I will be voting for AB 291. I have been assured by Senator Porter that he will be able to tweak it to help the outlying areas in my district as my colleague from Boulder City mentioned. I also have learned that it's easy to vote for taxes, but very difficult to lower taxes or take away a tax. I hope that this body will look at any of the measures we have before us, after this passes, for the rest of the session and look for a tax that we can possibly lower to help the burden on the taxpayers.
Assemblyman Price:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I sat here and listened to the remarks of my colleagues, it has reminded me, and I might be paraphrasing, the words of another great Nevadan who came before us, Mark Twain, who said something like, "Whiskey is for drinking, and water is for fighting over."
Assemblyman Mortenson:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I pushed that button in case there might be something that I wanted to rebut, but there was nothing said that I need to rebut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 291:
Yeas--34.
Nays--Arberry, Carpenter, Gustavson, Mortenson, Price, Tiffany, Williams--7.
Excused--Marvel.
Assembly Bill No. 291 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Assembly Bill No. 309.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblyman Herrera.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 309:
Yeas--39.
Nays--None.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Assembly Bill No. 309 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 27.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblywoman de Braga.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 27:
Yeas--39.
Nays--None.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Senate Bill No. 27 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 178.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblywoman Evans.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 178:
Yeas--39.
Nays--None.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Senate Bill No. 178 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 202.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblywoman Krenzer.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 202:
Yeas--38.
Nays--None.
Not voting--Evans.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Senate Bill No. 202 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 232.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblymen Price, Anderson and Collins.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 232:
Yeas--36.
Nays--Anderson, Buckley, Collins--3.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Senate Bill No. 232 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

Senate Bill No. 249.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Assemblyman Amodei.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 249:
Yeas--39.
Nays--None.
Excused--Berman, Marvel, Tiffany--3.
Senate Bill No. 249 having received a constitutional majority, Mr. Speaker declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Senate.

By the Committee on Transportation:
Assembly Bill No. 496--An Act relating to vehicles; redefining a rebuilt vehicle; providing for the issuance of identifying cards by licensees of the department of motor vehicles and public safety; specifically authorizing operators of salvage pools to foreclose liens on vehicles; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Judiciary:
Assembly Bill No. 497--An Act relating to crimes; prohibiting a person from carrying or possessing a dangerous knife while on the property of the University and Community College System of Nevada or a private or public school; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblyman Anderson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.

By Assemblyman Goldwater (by request):
Assembly Bill No. 498--An Act relating to arbitration; requiring the arbitration of certain liens relating to residential dwellings; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblyman Goldwater moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce.
Motion carried.

By Assemblymen Berman, Segerblom, Hettrick, Manendo, Lee, Collins and Chowning:
Assembly Bill No. 499--An Act relating to roads; authorizing the department of transportation to contract for the private establishment of a limited number of toll roads and toll bridges; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblywoman Chowning moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.

By the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining:
Assembly Bill No. 500--An Act relating to state financial administration; authorizing the state board of sheep commissioners to enter into agreements for the administration of the sheep inspection account and the account for control of predatory animals by a county treasurer; changing the name of the accounts to allow distinction from county accounts for the same purposes; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblywoman de Braga moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining.
Motion carried.

By Assemblyman Ernaut:
Assembly Bill No. 501--An Act relating to bonds; revising certain provisions governing the investment of proceeds from bonds issued by the state and local governments; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Assemblyman Ernaut moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.

"AN ACT relating to health care; requiring each policy of health insurance, health benefit plan, health maintenance plan and prepaid limited health service organization to authorize a female insured and her infant to remain in a medical facility for a minimum number of hours after parturition; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.".

"SUMMARY--Requires each policy of health insurance to authorize female insured and her infant to remain in medical facility for minimum number of hours after parturition. (BDR 57-320)".

Assembly Bill No. 147.
Bill read second time.
The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Labor and Management:
Amendment No. 351.
Amend section 1, page 1, line 6, by deleting "concerning" and inserting:
"relating to the medical disposition of ".
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 8 and 9 and inserting:
"unless the initiator of the oral communication:
(1) Maintains, in written form or in a form from which a written record may be produced, a log that includes the date, time and subject matter of the communication; and
(2) Makes the log available, upon request, to the injured employee, his representative and his employer; or".
Amend section 1, page 1, line 10, by deleting "concerning" and inserting:
"relating to the medical disposition of ".
Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 13 and 14 and inserting:
"in a timely manner.".
Amend section 1, page 1, lines 15 and 16, by deleting:
"guilty of a misdemeanor." and inserting:
"subject to the provisions of NRS 616D.120.".
Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 2 and 3.
Amend the title of the bill, third line, by deleting:
"providing a penalty;".
Assemblyman Parks moved the adoption of the amendment.
Remarks by Assemblyman Parks.
Amendment adopted.
Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 236.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 239.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Assembly Bill No. 378.
Assemblyman Perkins moved that Assembly Bill No. 378 be re-referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 396.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 87.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 95.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

On request of Assemblywoman Segerblom, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Patricia Campbell, Barbara Adams and Paul Adams.

On request of Assemblyman Williams, the privilege of the floor of the Assembly Chamber for this day was extended to Fatima Chenaif, Mohammed Beheddane, Abdelkader Moulay, John Werner and Gordon Powers.

Assemblyman Perkins moved that the Assembly adjourn until Monday, May 19, 1997 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.

Assembly adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

Approved:

Joseph E. Dini, Jr.

Speaker of the Assembly

Attest: Linda B. Alden
Chief Clerk of the Assembly