The Committee on Government Affairs was called to order at 8:15 a.m., on Wednesday, April 21, 1999. Chairman Douglas Bache presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Bache, Chairman

Mr. John Jay Lee, Vice Chairman

Ms. Merle Berman

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

Ms. Gene Segerblom

Mr. Kelly Thomas

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

Mr. Wendell Williams

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Kathy Von Tobel

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, representing Western Nevada Senatorial District, and chairman, Nevada Veterans’ Services Commission, explained S.B. 263 created the Office of Veterans’ Services, which would be a stand-alone agency responsible for all of the veterans’ affairs and administered by the governor. He felt the changes were realistic because of what had transpired with the approval of veterans’ facilities throughout the state.

Ms. Segerblom asked where would the new Office of Veterans’ Services be located. Senator Jacobsen replied there would be no changes. The offices in Reno and Clark County would remain. Concerns had been expressed in the Senate with regard to an attached fiscal note. It was thought the veterans had requested additional funds. He informed the committee the budget presented to the military, and the one currently being presented to the committee were one in the same.

Concerning section 5, Chairman Bache asked why was the Office of Veterans’ Services exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act. Charles Abbott, executive director, Office of Executive Director for Veteran Affairs, replied he was unsure but would get back to the committee with the answer.

Ms. Gibbons asked what was the reason for the name change. Mr. Abbott replied there had been much confusion whether the Office of the Veterans’ Affairs was the state office or the federal office. It had been suggested to change the name to the Office of Veterans’ Services to preclude the confusion.

Senator Jacobsen related a personal experience relating to the Veterans’ Commission for Nevada for which he once chaired.

Mr. Abbott stated it had been the policy of the United States to maintain a small, professional army. Currently there were 25 million veterans who once served in the military. Of those, 200,000 were in Nevada. He explained the effects of enlisting in the service and its effect on professional careers and family.

Mr. Abbot said promises made to those who had gone to war included care for the wounded, healthcare if wounded for life, and care of their widows and orphans. Laws were passed and agencies had been established in order to carry out those promises, and to a great extent the government did fulfill those promises for veterans; however, there was great disparity in the way the benefits and care were administered. Because it was human nature to forget ill times, the deeds of those veterans were oftentimes forgotten or overlooked.

Mr. Abbott explained individuals did a great job perpetuating information and knowledge, but did a poor job of perpetuating emotion. Even though monuments were constructed to memorialize our veterans, promises made were overlooked. In order to ensure those basic promises were kept, the office responsible for establishing veteran policy was elevated to the highest level.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan recognized the importance of the nation’s commitment to the veterans and elevated the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs to a presidential cabinet level. He reiterated in Nevada there was a disparity in the way disability and compensation was administered to the veterans. Although those were federal programs and issues, they were problems which could ultimately and directly impact up to 17 percent of the population. Mr. Abbott said those were just some of the issues that needed to be brought to the attention of the leadership of Nevada. The best way of accomplishing that would be to create a Nevada Department of Veterans’ Services.

Mr. Abbott explained all states had an office comparable to the Nevada Commission for Veterans’ Affairs, and in an informal poll taken approximately 4 years ago, it had been determined approximately one-fourth of the states had elevated the Office of Veterans’ Affairs to a gubernatorial cabinet level. The creation of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs was recommended by the Nevada Veterans’ Service Commission and endorsed by all the veterans with whom Mr. Abbot spoke. He felt there would be minimal fiscal impact in creating the departmental office.

Lieutenant Colonel David Pennington, representing Nevada National Guard, testified he appeared on behalf of Major General Clark to lend support for passage of S.B. 263. He agreed with Mr. Abbott the creation of a departmental office would be in Nevada’s best interest.

Daryl Mubley, Commander of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), thanked the committee for their help and answers relating to the privatization of the veteran’s home, and stated he supported the passage of S.B. 263.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 263.

Doug Busselman, representing Nevada Farm Bureau, favored passage of S.B. 291. From the research conducted on the subject, the proposed change of adding livestock to the definition of "domestic use" conformed to the approach currently taken by the Office of the State Water Engineer. The changes outlined in the bill would clarify the matter should any future questions arise. The Nevada Farm Bureau supported the bill as written and urged support from the committee.

In response to Ms. Gibbons’ question, Mr. Busselman said Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) chapter 534.180, was the section that established the amount of water appropriate for pumping on a domestic well, which was 1,800 gallons per day.

Mr. Neighbors asked what would be the need for S.B. 291. Mr. Busselman replied there had been confusion expressed and questions about whether or not a domestic well could be used to provide water to livestock. S.B. 291 had been drafted in response to that question and as a proactive measure in order to clarify the authorized extent of water usage from domestic wells.

Cindra Smith, representing the Horse Council of Nevada, said through conversations and meetings with Community Development of Washoe County, she had determined the domestic wells should be used for livestock, not only for household pets. The Washoe County Ad Hoc Livestock Committee had addressed the issue regarding the zoning problems, and animal and livestock used for recreational, as well as casual purposes. After conducting research she had determined currently there was no case law that defined "domestic animal." S.B. 291 would clarify the law for those wishing to provide water to their horses from a domestic well.

Richard C. Simmonds, D.V.M, representing himself, read from prepared text (Exhibit C). He owned 10 acres in Storey County on which he kept horses and maintained a domestic well on his property. As the law was currently written, he could not legally water his horses from that well, nor could a 4-H or Future Farmers of America (FFA) participant provide water to his lamb or calf. Although the bill would not change the quantity of water permitted to be withdrawn from the well, it would allow for livestock to be legally provided with water from the well.

Dr. Simmonds urged the passage of S.B. 291 and thanked the committee for allowing him to present testimony.

Nancy Samon, representing herself, provided the committee with personal information. Several instances had been encountered whereby domestic wells were being used as a means to cause difficulty for a livestock owner with regard to that owner’s ability to water their animals. She urged passage of the bill. No further discussion ensued.

C. Joseph Guild III, representing Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, said he supported S.B. 291. The association had been involved in the deliberations in the Senate, and had expressed concern 4-H projects were being affected by the policy. The state water engineer had never had a problem with the use of domestic well water for livestock purposes; however, a governmental agency within Washoe County did. He felt the bill would clarify any further ambiguity.

Mr. Humke asked if the bill was driven primarily by proposed actions of the state water engineer or by the Washoe County Commissioners livestock ordinance. Mr. Guild replied no. It was not the policy of the state water engineer who condoned the practice. The livestock ordinance was related to the policy only in the respect that it had been generated in the same office concerned with implementing livestock control policy using a loophole in the domestic use portion of the water law. Ms. Samon added she had been present at the meeting in which the ill-fated livestock ordinance was proposed. The Washoe County Ad Hoc Task Force was the outcropping of that meeting. The commissioners convened the task force in order to deal with issues brought forth during that meeting, and since then, the task force had been meeting on a regular basis in order to address issues including those relating to zoning, water, and the environment. During research conducted by the task force it had been discovered that because of the loophole situation in the water law, it was possible for a neighbor to object to the livestock of his neighbor and create a neighborhood dispute over the ownership.

Mr. Humke asked if Washoe County Commissioner, Ted Short, was supportive of S.B. 291, to which Ms. Samon replied affirmatively. Ms. Smith added she had spoken with Mr. Short about S.B. 291. He had expressed concern about his constituents and their ability to utilize their wells; therefore, he was also supportive of the bill.

Hugh Ricci, deputy state engineer, Division of Water Resources, informed the committee of the division’s position on the bill. Testimony had been presented to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and there were some amendments made to the original bill. The bill had been amended to ensure the watering of livestock came from a domestic well, and not another well on the property.

Mr. Ricci stated not only did NRS 534.180 set the limit on the quantity of water withdrawn from a domestic well, but also relieved the requirement of a person to obtain a permit for the use of the well.

Mrs. Freeman asked how a "draught" (pronounced "draft") was measured, to which Mr. Ricci replied there were a number of ways. A meter had never been required on domestic well unless there appeared to be a significant amount of use from that particular well. Based on the information received from the larger water purveyors, the state maintained estimates on the quantity of water a particular animal used for drinking purposes.

Mr. Humke asked what was the water consumption of a horse or a cow. Mr. Ricci replied both animals consumed an estimated 20 gallons per day per head.

Chairman Bache asked if there was a clearer way of expressing what the bill was stating. He felt the term "draught" might lead to some confusion. Mr. Ricci replied he was unsure how the spelling originated; however, the term "draught" meant how much water came out of the ground.

Ms. Smith understood when developing the bill with the cooperation of Senator Mark James, whose expertise was in water law, the terminology was very common in its usage, and was contained in verbiage throughout NRS chapter 534.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B. 291.

Marvin Carr, state fire marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, explained S.B. 389 originated from two different areas. It had been parallel to an assembly bill that had been recommended by the Clark County Commission to raise the population figure relating to the number over which the marshal had authority to act. The intent of S.B. 389 was not to increase the authority of the State Fire Marshal, but to maintain the status quo until the next census had been conducted.

Mr. Carr said the bill would allow the division to provide services to the 14 smaller counties with regard to hazardous materials inspection. It would not affect the larger counties, which would be exempt. No further discussion ensued.

With no further testimony, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.B.389.

Andrea Reitan, deputy chief of staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, introduced Terry Simmons, Ph.D., attorney and president of the Nevada World Trade Council, who would discuss the trade and commerce of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and Thomas Tait, executive director, Commission on Tourism, who would provide the committee with a brief history of section 110, as well as inform them on recent developments.

Thomas Tait, executive director, Commission on Tourism, explained section 110 was a small portion of a law that had been crafted and passed in 1996, and had reformed the process of immigration in the United States. Congress had been given the impression section 110 dealt specifically with air travelers exiting the country.

Mr. Tait said the act created entry-exit provisions for the first time in the history of the United States. Individuals who left the country would be stopped and inspected for credentials. Section 110 called for the implementation of entry-exit provisions and border inspection stations at all land borders, airports, and seaports in the U.S. When the commission learned of the provision, the governor had been contacted. Ultimately the National Governor’s Association had been led in opposition of the section, along with the Travel Industry Association of America and numerous trade and commerce groups.

Mr. Tait expressed concern the section did nothing to prevent terrorism, drug smuggling, or any other forms of illegal activity. The section required the inspection of not only foreigners travelling across the borders of the United States but also all U.S. citizens crossing the borders. Such delays and inconveniences would discourage tourism by Mexican and Canadian citizens. The commission was not calling for additional provisions to slow down the process of inspections upon arrival into the United States; however, for the first time in U.S. history, individuals would be inspected upon departure.

According to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) in its report to Congress, the only aspect section 110 would provide for was a record of those individuals who legally entered the U.S. and overstayed the period of time to which they were lawfully entitled. INS would then report to Congress the number of individuals overstaying their welcome. That provision would cost upwards of $100 billion. The section would not provide for location identification of those who overstayed, nor would it provide for INS assistance in the apprehension of those individuals. It had been determined only modest penalties would be assessed to those who overstayed the period of time to which they were lawfully entitled.

Mr. Tait commented information received from Windsor (the border between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, Canada) estimated the United States would expend $2 billion to construct the facilities necessary on the border to stop and inspect vehicles travelling past. The commission was extremely opposed to the section, as was the National Governor’s Association. It was hoped through legislation passed in the 1999 session, the commission would be able to call upon the National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, and other grassroots legislative and community leader organizations to make their position known to Congress.

Mr. Tait said the commission was able to get an extension on the implementation of section 110 to April of 2001.

Ms. Segerblom asked if a person who had overstayed their allotted time was kept from departing the country. Mr. Tait replied no. That individual was prevented from returning for a period of time. If it had been determined the individual overstayed a period of 6 months or less, they would not be allowed to return for 1 year. If the period was longer than 6 months, they would not be allowed to return for 5 years.

Mrs. Freeman asked what was Congress’ rationale behind passing the act. Mr. Tait replied Congress was under the impression it would apply only to those who traveled by air. The passage of the bill was considered to be a mistake when it became clear it was to all foreign travelers the bill had referred. The United States Senate had attempted to rectify that issue in the 106^th Congress and the chairman of the immigration committee had prevented the United States Assembly from doing so.

Chairman Bache asked how many pages were contained in the bill passed by the U.S. Senate of which section 110 was a small portion. Mr. Tait replied the bill was over 200 pages, and section 110 constituted only 2 ½ paragraphs.

Terry Simmons, president, Nevada World Trade Council, emphasized how section 110 affected international trade, trade between the United States and Canada, and the United States and Mexico. The United States currently maintained a well-developed, interactive relationship with Mexico and Canada along its borders. Thousands of individuals traveled between both borders every day for a wide variety of reasons including business and personal.

Mr. Simmons emphasized section 110 was considered to be a major threat to commerce and daily life on the U.S. and Canada border. If the provision was implemented, the millions of people who entered the U.S. from Canada and Canada from the U.S. every year would be required to stop at the border, tying up traffic for miles at already crowded border points. The congestion would severely disrupt the flow of goods and services across the borders. He explained on the border between Seattle and Vancouver, Canada, an individual could anticipate a routine wait time of 1 to 1 ½ hours.

Mr. Simmons said opposition to the section was universal among governments in both countries, and Nevada would be affected by the gridlock for two reasons. Canadians, who wished to come to Reno, Las Vegas, or Lake Tahoe, might be halted in their decision because of the processes involved with crossing the border. Another reason provided was any new process or control would increase not only the wait time, but also the cost and uncertainty for those who wished to cross the border. He provided the committee with examples of how, if the provision of the act was enacted, commerce and tourism might be affected.

Mr. Simmons called the committee’s attention to the pages in the packet he provided that regarded the international trade data between the U.S. and Canada (Exhibit D). The volume of goods, services, and income from investment flowing between Canada and the United States constituted the largest bilateral exchange in the world.

Mr. Simmons concluded by stating free trade and travel were vital to the economy and any situation which impeded that, or made them more timely, more costly, or more complex, would create problems.

In response to Ms. Tiffany’s question, Mr. Tait said there was a general consensus that everything that could be done to ensure the borders were safe for inbound traffic was constant. He did not feel there was a movement to soften the inbound activity whatsoever, and felt it was agreed by those involved there needed to be more border inspections for inbound traffic. Anything that could be done to curb drug trafficking, terrorist activity, or other forms of illegal activity needed to be done. Every governor in the United States had assumed the position outbound traffic was not a problem.

Ms. Tiffany asked if with the new presidential race and primaries for governors did he see inbound immigration as an issue to be discussed during the campaign process. Mr. Tait replied inbound immigration would always be an issue. In that particular case, Congress had not examined the border crossings (by land) between Mexico and Canada. Congress had reviewed the number of inbound Korean and Brazilian visitors (by air) who had overstayed their welcome in the United States. There was no method to track the length of time those visitors stayed. The bill would provide the vehicle by which INS would be able to track the length of stay of individuals from those two countries and was created to examine the stays of those lawfully admitted to the United States and overstayed their allotted time period. Mr. Simmons added most of the political and enforcement problems with immigration dealt with those entering the country legally or illegally and overstayed with the intention of becoming permanent residents, with or without the endorsement of the Federal Government. He clarified it was those people who entered the United States as tourists with visas and international businessmen to whom were being referred. Section 110 would not assist in eliminating the problem and would provide nothing in the way of improving enforcement.

In response to Ms. Segerblom’s question, Mr. Tait said he would defer the question to Ms. Reitan. Ms. Reitan replied she had spoken with Congressman Jim Gibbons, and Senators Richard Bryan and Harry Reid, who had indicated they were in support of S.J.R. 19. They had cautioned the intent of the resolution was to target visa-overstayers.

Mr. Mortenson asked, could the Federal Government access the records of the airlines and perform name searches to determine the arrival and departure dates, then compare the information with a visitor’s visa in order to accomplish the intent of section 110. Mr. Tait replied there were a number of mechanisms in which to analyze the data that would cost a great deal less, and not put citizens from every country through a screening process.

Chairman Bache commented having family members in both the United States and Canada on border cities. He added the implementation of section 110 would present a great economical hardship for those who passed over from country to country every day in order to work, and would devastate border towns if they were tied-up in paperwork.

There being no further business, Chairman Bache closed the hearing on S.J.R. 19 and adjourned the meeting at 9:35 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Rachel Baker,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman

DATE: