The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining was called to order at 1:35 p.m., on Wednesday, February 17, 1999. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3161 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:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Mrs. Gene Segerblom, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Ms. Bonnie Parnell

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. David Humke (Excused)

Mr. John Marvel (Excused)

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll was taken, the Chairman said she had three proposed resolutions to Congress, which, due to the forthcoming deadline for bill drafts and resolutions, needed to be discussed immediately. If the committee supported the resolutions, hearings would be held after they were requested. She called upon Linda Eissmann, Legislative Counsel Bureau Committee Policy Analyst, to present those amendments.

Ms. Eissmann explained the first issue brief concerned proposed revisions to Nevada’s surface mining regulations, Title 43, Part 3809, from the Code of Federal Regulations (Exhibit C). Those regulations governed hardrock mining operations and mineral exploration activities on public lands throughout the state, primarily Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. She pointed out in January 1997, the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbit, directed BLM to begin its regulatory revision process. In response, BLM developed a task force to meet with interested parties. For a long time, the states had regulated hardrock mining, as well as its environmental impacts, on both BLM and private lands. Some western states were concerned the policy revision process was an opportunity to impose new fees and revise mining regulations.

Ms. Eissmann said BLM developed a Department of Interior task force to meet with states and concerned parties to review proposed policy revisions. Those draft regulations were available for public review and comment until May 1999. Western states were very concerned about changing their long-standing regulatory programs, which worked in conjunction with BLM, and were specific to each state’s particular needs. The Western Governors Association sent a letter to the Department of the Interior expressing concern that BLM had not made a compelling case for revising those regulations. In response to the communication, BLM passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998. Contained within the act was the requirement there be a detailed and comprehensive study of the existing regulations, which would justify regulatory revisions. The study was to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Despite the fact Congress required the study be performed, the Department of the Interior decided the revision process needed to move forward independent of the study.

As a result, Ms. Eissmann explained, 15 United States senators, including Nevada’s senators, sent a letter to Mr. Babbit urging him to postpone finalizing all draft revisions until the NAS study was completed and evaluated. The Secretary of the Interior denied the request, allowing the rule making process to move forward. The proposed resolution stated Nevada agreed with the position of the 15 senators and the Western Governors Association, and requested the Secretary of the Interior postpone the regulatory revision process until the congressionally mandated study was completed.

The Chairman asked if there were any questions, and there were none. She called for a motion.

Mrs. de Braga said a hearing would be scheduled to receive testimony on the resolution. [Later introduced as A.J.R. 19 (BDR 4-1646)].

Ms. Eissmann presented a second issue brief, which concerned toxic release reporting as required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA). The act mandated Congress provide the public with information on toxic chemicals, referred to as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). In an effort to safeguard public health and safety, the TRI was designed to inform citizens of potential hazards in their communities, and required businesses report to state and local governments the locations and quantities of stored chemicals (Exhibit D).

The intent of EPCRA, Ms. Eissmann continued, was to monitor chemical manufacturing. The program was administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A problem arose when EPA expanded TRI reporting to include other industry sectors, such as the mining industry, whose first report would be due July 1, 1999. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (EPA) and the Nevada Mining Association (NMA) did not support the inclusion of the mining industry into the TRI program. The TRI had been designed for chemical manufacturers, not the mining industry. Various toxic elements found naturally in the ground were released into the environment during mining and mineral processing.

According to the program, mines would have to report naturally occurring toxic elements, which presented minimal danger to human health. The proposed resolution would urge the EPA to exclude naturally occurring elements from the mining industry’s reporting requirements and establish specific requirements for the mining industry.

The Chairman asked if the TRI could be expanded beyond its present scope, which currently included the mining industry. Ms. Eissmann said, presently well over 600 chemicals and elements had to be reported, and the program was being expanded.

Mr. Hettrick said he wanted the mining industry to be eliminated from the reporting requirement and suggested changing the proposed language to state it was acknowledged mining activities handle a large volume of material, a portion of which contained potentially toxic elements.

The Chairman asked if there were any other questions, and there were none. She called for a motion.

Ms. Eissmann said the last proposed resolution concerned federal regulations of confined animal feeding operations. The agriculturally based resolution required owners and operators of Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) to assist in the restoration and maintenance of the integrity of ground and surface water by eliminating discharges from those facilities. Large numbers of AFOs were referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) was designed to protect wetlands and other aquatic habitats through a permitting process to guard against water pollution, including AFOs and CAFOs. The EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) had identified large animal feeding operations as significant nonpoint sources of water pollution. In 1997, those federal agencies proposed increasing federal and state regulation of AFOs (Exhibit E).

In 1998, Ms. Eissmann continued, a preliminary plan was released by EPA and USDA called the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, which called for the development of comprehensive nutrient management plans for all animal feeding operations. It also proposed EPA and the states fully regulate and issue permits to large CAFOs by the year 2002 and to fully regulate and permit smaller CAFOs by the year 2005. The issue for Nevada was EPA had suggested reducing the number of animals that qualified an animal feeding operation to be considered a CAFO by approximately 50 percent. The result would be smaller operations previously exempt from the permitting process would be required to conform.

Ms. Eissmann said she reviewed the proposed revised standards with the Divisions of Agriculture and Environmental Protection. Both agencies agreed reducing the number of animals to a level under the previously established threshold would require many more operations throughout the state to comply with the permitting process.

The resolution recommended states be granted the authority to protect their natural resources from potential negative impacts resulting from livestock production. That would be accomplished by enacting statutes based upon sound science, economic feasibility, and the specific needs of the state. The proposed resolution had the support of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and the Nevada Division of Agriculture. The main concern of those agencies was to keep AFO and CAFO permitting at the state and local level, rather than move the permitting process to the federal level.

The Chairman asked if there was anything in the regulations which specified the amount of time a particular number of animals would be allowed to remain in a specific location. Ms. Eissmann said she did not know but would find out. Mrs. de Braga said it was her opinion the levels suggested by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture were probably on target. She added it was possible a feedlot or dairy could adversely affect both underground and surface water qualities; however, it was also possible those facilities might not have any effect on either underground or surface water quality. She said the Federal Government failed the states because it assigned numbers and control levels without considering the amount of time animals would remain in the facility and without legitimate proof of environmental impacts. She wanted that point to be included in the proposed resolution. Mrs. de Braga added farmers and ranchers should be held to a high standard, but there were cases where federal mandates did not apply.

Mr. Carpenter stated 1 or 2 percent of the population produced food for everyone else. If farmers and ranchers were doing such a poor job, there would not be such a great supply of food at such low prices. It was speculated 60 percent of the degradation of impaired rivers was the result of agriculture, but some consideration should be given to the fact farmers and ranchers were responsible for feeding the world.

The Chairman asked if there were any other questions or comments, and there were none. She called for a motion.

Chairman de Braga said the resolution would be made after finalizing several remaining points, after which time, a hearing would be scheduled to receive testimony. [Later introduced as A.J.R. 21 (BDR R-1649)].

Mr. Neighbors asked if the three resolutions would be sent to Nevada’s congressional delegation. Chairman de Braga said in the past resolutions were sent to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to Nevada’s Congressional Delegation, and to specified committees.

Ms. Eissmann thanked Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for its help in preparing the briefs on the three resolutions.

Mr. Hettrick added it would be wise to send the resolutions to other states and invite them to prepare similar resolutions of their own. He suggested the resolutions be sent to the Council of State Governments in other western states. They would have a greater impact if 8 or 9 states were involved.

The Chairman agreed Mr. Hettrick’s suggestion would be included in the requests for the resolutions. The hearing was closed on the discussion of resolutions and opened on A.B. 103.

Mr. Hettrick was the first to speak in support of the proposed legislation. Mr. Marvel initially sponsored the bill, but Mr. Hettrick explained he would be presenting it to the committee because of Mr. Marvel’s absence due to illness. He explained section 1 of the bill would establish the Divisions of Agriculture and Mining as separate entities from the Department of Business and Industry. Sections 2 through 6 would change the Division of Minerals to the Department of Minerals. Sections 7 through 20 would change the Division of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Hettrick complimented Mr. Iverson on his thorough and articulate presentations to the both the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, and the Committee on Ways and Means. He also complimented the Division of Agriculture on doing an extremely fine job. The proposal to make the Division of Agriculture its own department was justified because Mr. Iverson was a very capable administrator, and because the division had recently assumed many more responsibilities in addition to the tremendous scope it already assumed. Mr. Hettrick said the responsibilities of the Division of Agriculture warranted a department status because it was important to have direct contact with the governor, a bigger voice with federal agencies, and clearer opportunities in the line of communication with both the state and Federal Government.

Mr. Hettrick pointed out the mining industry was critical to the state, and provided many job opportunities to people in rural parts of the state. He said the Division of Minerals should also be elevated to the position of department in order to have a clearer voice in state and Federal Government affairs, and a more direct line of communication with the governor. Mr. Hettrick said he wanted to make it clear the decision to support those divisions becoming departments was in no way a negative inference to the Department of Business and Industry. It was merely recognition those divisions did not fit under the Department of Business and Industry. He pointed out consideration was being given to the suggestion the Division of Minerals become a Commission on Minerals rather than a department.

The Chairman said she preferred to see the proposed legislation amended with Mr. Marvel’s approval. The amendment would be to include all agriculture related agencies and sub-agencies, if they wanted, under the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Hettrick agreed with the Chair, adding Mr. Marvel would agree as well.

Ms. Parnell asked Mr. Hettrick if there was a fiscal note attached to A.B. 103, to which Mr. Hettrick replied in the affirmative, adding the fiscal note amounted to zero. He explained there was not fiscal impact of making the change. Department of Business and Industry collected allotted costs from the Division of Agriculture, which amounted to approximately $35,000. That money would be transferred back to the Department of Agriculture if the measure passed. Both divisions were self-sufficient and not asking for anything additional, making the proposed legislation revenue neutral.

Jim Connelly, Chairman of the Nevada State Board of Agriculture, was next to speak in favor of the measure. He pointed out the Division of Agriculture had been a department before state government was reorganized in 1993, and had retained the infrastructure to operate as a department once more. He said the mission of the Division of Agriculture was to benefit the welfare of the citizens of the state by encouraging the advancement and protection of Nevada’s agriculture and related industries. The division was responsible for the administration of over 50 programs, 11 budgets, and 185 full and part-time employees. Mr. Connelly’s testimony was contained in (Exhibit F).

John Falen, President of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, was next to speak in favor of the measure. He said he concurred with Jim Connelly’s testimony, and urged the committee to pass A.B. 103.

Mrs. de Braga asked Mr. Falen if sub-agencies of the Division of Agriculture, such as the Beef Council and State Grazing Boards, were planning on becoming a component of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Falen said he expected the sub-agencies to transfer along with the Division of Agriculture.

Joe Guild, President-Elect of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, addressed the committee in support of the measure. He pointed out most states throughout the nation gave department status to agricultural and mineral agencies. It was a logical progression to return Division of Agriculture to its own department.

Representing Nevada Board of Sheep Commissioners, Stephanie Licht, spoke in favor of the proposed legislation. She said the division’s sub-agencies were prepared to follow Division of Agriculture to department status. Ms. Licht provided the committee with the following three handouts, which supported her position:

• A letter from Department of Business and Industry’s Board of Sheep Commissioners supporting the proposed legislation, and providing NRS references particular to the commission (Exhibit G).

• A letter from the Nevada Junior Livestock Show Board, a sub-agency of the Department of Business and Industry, stating its support of the measure (Exhibit H).
• Division of Agriculture’s sub-agencies contact list, provided by State of Nevada Board of Sheep Commissioners (Exhibit I).

Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President of Nevada Farm Bureau, was the next to speak in favor of A.B. 103. He said the benefits of re-establishing the Department of Agriculture were potential cost savings and prompt access to the governor (Exhibit J).

The next to speak on the measure was Bob Barengo, Chairman of Nevada Dairy Commission. He said he was neither for nor against the proposed legislation. Mr. Barengo said the Dairy Commission’s three members would be meeting soon to discuss the position of their agency.

The Chairman said she would appreciate hearing from the Dairy Commission as soon as it had reached a decision. Mrs. de Braga pointed out questions remained regarding any fiscal impacts the measure would have. She called upon the administrator of Division of Agriculture, Mr. Iverson, to address the issue.

Mr. Iverson said his agency paid approximately $35,000 to Department of Business and Industry from the fee-based agencies under Division of Agriculture. He said his division had 11 different budgets, and 55 percent of Division of Agriculture’s budget was from fees. Mr. Iverson said the infrastructure of his agency was already in place, and passage of A.B. 103 would not affect or change it in any adverse way. There would be no additional cost involved in changing the division to departmental status. Aside from already having its own building, Division of Agriculture had signage and stationery bearing the Department of Business and Industry logo, which would eventually need to be replaced. In an effort to spare expenses, his agency would not incur the cost of printing new stationery until all the old stationery had been used. He assured the committee the sub-agencies of Division of Agriculture would not be adversely affected by the change. Mr. Iverson said 2-years ago the division assumed responsibility for the Nevada Beef Council.

Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Iverson when Division of Agriculture took over the six sub-agencies. He said that occurred in 1993 as part of state government reorganization.

Ms. Parnell asked the Chairman to explain how A.B. 103 might cause a fiscal impact on Employers Insurance Company of Nevada. Chairman de Braga said there was no actual fiscal note attached to the bill. However, there might be some changes to the insurance program of which she was not aware. She said if there was a fiscal note at all, it would show a cost savings.

Mr. Hettrick said Department of Business and Industry currently collected $35,000 annually from Division of Agriculture. He recommended eliminating the services provided by the division in order for the Department of Business and Industry to feel no impact from A.B.103. Mr. Hettrick said there was a net fiscal impact on the state of zero.

Chairman de Braga concurred with Mr. Hettrick, and added the Department of Business and Industry charged Division of Agriculture an administrative fee, or cost allocation. However, if Department of Business and Industry was not providing services, the cost to it would be neutral.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Iverson if he was satisfied with the inclusion of various sub-agencies in agriculture’s change from division to department status. Mr. Iverson said those sub-agencies belonged under the Department of Agriculture, just as they belonged under the Division of Agriculture. They were agriculture and natural resource related sub-agencies, that was where they belonged, and they would continue to operate as they always had. Those sub-agencies were as follows:

• Junior Livestock Show Board
• High School Rodeo
• Sheep Commission
• Beef Council
• State Grazing Boards
• Predatory Animal and Rodent Committee

Chairman de Braga said when the state organization took place in 1993, it was not without great outcry from those involved. It was widely understood then agriculture was a highly specialized industry, which never fit under Department of Business and Industry. It should not have been moved at all, she added.

Mr. Carpenter commented that having all those agriculturally based sub-agencies together under one department was a convenient and efficient way to service the community and other agencies.

Alan Coyner, Administrator of the Division of Minerals, spoke next. He explained his agency was also seeking independent status from Department of Business and Industry; however, his agency was considering a commission position under the governor to be more desirable than departmental status. Mr. Coyner provided the committee with the following handouts:

• State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Division of Minerals, "Summary of Division Activities" (Exhibit K).
• "Major Mines of Nevada 1997: Mineral Industries in Nevada’s Economy" (Exhibit L).
• State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Division of Minerals, "Fourth Annual Exploration Survey, October 1998 (Exhibit M).
• "Economic Overview of the Nevada Mining Industry 1997" (Exhibit N).

• Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special Publication MI-1997, "The Nevada Mineral Industry 1997" (Exhibit O).

Mr. Coyner introduced Ronald Parratt, Commissioner with the Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources. Mr. Parratt explained the Division of Minerals was a small division of state government but represented the second largest industry in Nevada. The agency was also responsible for geothermal activity, and natural gas and oil exploration and production. Division of Minerals also promoted mineral education programs and managed the abandoned mine program. In addition, Division of Minerals served as an advisory agency to the governor. The agency was also responsible for administering the state bond pool for mine operators. The Commission on Mineral Resources, comprised of seven governor appointed members, oversaw the division.

Mr. Parratt assured the committee the change to commission status would pose no fiscal impact on the state, and would prove cost effective. He said the commission would be a more efficient agency than the Division of Minerals. The changes suggested by A.B. 103 would ensure the responsible use of Nevada’s natural resources.

Hugh Ingle, Jr., President of Nevada’s Miners and Prospectors Association, was next to speak in support of the measure. He said he was a member of the Nevada Commission on Mineral Resources. Mr. Ingle said he supported the Division of Minerals becoming either a commission or a department because direct access to the governor was the most important issue. He said he was not certain if departmental status would prove to be unwieldy and not as cost effective as a commission under the governor. The Chairman agreed that point had not been clarified, and it needed to be.

The next speaker in support of the measure was Frank Lewis, a private citizen from Ely, Nevada. He was a retired mining contractor who worked with the Commission on Minerals and supported its activities. He adamantly supported the concept of establishing Division of Minerals as its own independent entity (Exhibit P).

Michael Johnson, representing the Commission on Mineral Resources, explained he was an economic geologist who had worked in the mining industry all around the world. He said it was imperative to continue educating people, in particular children, about the mining industry and its benefits. He supported establishing an independent mining department or commission, and urged the committee to support the measure.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any other questions or comments on the proposed legislation, and there were none. She explained the committee would not be voting on the measure that day, and referred it to a subcommittee comprised of herself as chairman, Mr. Hettrick, and Ms. Parnell. With that, the hearing on A. B. 103 was closed.

The Chairman introduced the next speaker, Wayne Perok, Administrator of Nevada Division of State Parks. He presented the committee with Nevada State Parks map and tour guide brochure (Exhibit Q). Mr. Perok‘s discussion was accompanied by a slide presentation, which showed the many beautiful and accessible state parks throughout Nevada. He explained the division was also responsible for administering two federal parks and recreation programs. They were: 1) Land and Water Conservation Fund, from the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-578; and 2) National Recreation Trails Program from the National Recreation Trails Act of 1991, P.L. 102-240.

Mr. Perok explained the goal of the division was to manage, protect, and maintain existing and future units of the Nevada State Park System. The division was devoted to the ideal of acquiring, planning, developing, and maintaining a well-balanced system of parks comprised of outstanding scenic, recreational, scientific, and historical landmarks throughout the state.

Mr. Perok introduced Steve Weaver, Chief Planner and Developer of the Division of State Parks. Mr. Weaver presented the committee with a handout, "Values and Benefits of State Parks: A Framework of Points" (Exhibit R). The handout outlined the enormous benefits a well-balanced and highly maintained structured state park system provided for the citizens of the state, country, and world. Significant historical and scientific sites contained within Nevada were important to preserve for posterity because they presented tremendous educational resources. Mr. Weaver also stressed the importance of parks for pure enjoyment, affording priceless recreational opportunities, and gorgeous vistas for the soul. Mr. Weaver pointed out the Nevada State Park System was comprised of a total acreage of over 132,000 acres, and 447 structures. The combined testimony of both Mr. Perok and Mr. Weaver was contained in Exhibit S.

The Chairman asked if the Division of State Parks would be acquiring Winter’s Ranch, or was that part of the federal park system. Mr. Perok explained the ranch project was still in progress, and nothing had been determined.

Mrs. Segerblom asked if more boat ramps would be built along the Colorado River in Laughlin. Mr. Weaver explained the work in Laughlin expanding the picnic area and completing the maintenance building was almost completed, and no additional work was scheduled. Mrs. Segerblom asked Mr. Weaver what was planned for the Belmont Court House. He explained structural engineers were currently inspecting the building due to the deplorable condition of the structure’s foundation. That project’s status was presently undetermined.

Mr. Mortenson asked what state park was most visited, to which Mr. Weaver responded Lake Tahoe State Park, which received approximately 900,000 visitors annually. Mr. Mortenson asked how many visitors annually visited the Valley of Fire. Mr. Weaver said that number was 435,000, the highest it had ever been. He added that figure was increasing annually by approximately 6 percent.

Mr. Neighbors asked how ISTEA money (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) could be accessed. Mr. Weaver explained that grant expired in 1998, and was replaced by TEA-21 (Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21^st Century). There were more funds available in TEA-21 than in ISTEA. In regard to state parks there were very few projects that qualified for the new transportation enhancement program. All projects must meet stringent guidelines and had to be specifically transportation oriented issues.

Mr. Neighbors asked if the TEA-21 grant program required a matching grant. Mr. Weaver replied in the affirmative, adding there were three different programs in the TEA-21 funding source, all of which were managed by his agency. Those three programs were described as follows:

• TEA-21 transportation enhancement program required as little as 5 percent state match.
• The Scenic Byways Program required a 20 percent state match.

• The Recreation Trails Program, which required a 30 percent state match.

Mr. Lee asked Mr. Perok if Nevada could receive an update on offshore oil money Congress stopped providing. Mr. Perok explained currently there were eight different proposals before Congress in an attempt to regain that funding. He said his agency, along with other state park systems throughout the country, where attempting to rally the citizens of the United States to join a letter writing campaign to demonstrate to Congress interest in national and state park systems. Mr. Lee asked if Nevada could receive any of that funding in the future, to which Mr. Perok responded his agency was hopeful Nevada would be eligible for that funding.

Mr. Lee pointed out the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining had recently met with representatives of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). During the agency’s presentation, those representatives went on record stating they would consider a fee sharing arrangement with the Red Rock Recreational Area and the Spring Mountain Ranch.

Mr. Lee asked if there was any way to determine if the very tiny Pup Fish in the Spring Mountain Ranch pond were still thriving. Mr. Perok stated he was there not long ago and the fish were thriving. His agency lowered the level of water in the reservoir, and the fish hibernated in the moss beds on the bottom of the pond. He assured the committee the fish would become more active as the weather warmed. The fish were less than an inch long and recent counts revealed a thriving population.

Mr. Carpenter asked if the division was having problems with jet skis in areas other than Lake Tahoe. Mr. Perok said jet skiing was a popular activity and was posing problems for his agency in many areas around the state, including Big Bend along the Colorado River in the southern part of the state and Lake Lahontan in the northern part of the state. Besides pollution, Mr. Perok concluded, noise and nuisance complaints were common wherever jet skiers were used.

Chairman de Braga asked if Division of Parks issued permits for pine nut gathering. Mr. Perok said those permits were issued by BLM for forested areas where pine nuts were prevalent. The Chairman said she had received numerous complaints regarding large commercial gatherers harvesting pine nuts to such a great extent none were left for the public to gather. She suggested limiting commercial ventures in an effort to leave pine nuts for private citizens. Mr. Perok said he was certain all commercial ventures had to have permits to harvest large quantities.

Mrs. Segerblom said she had joined the letter writing campaign last year requesting Congress grant more ISTEA money to Nevada.

Chairman de Braga asked if there were any more questions and comments, and there were none.

Mrs. de Braga said she had received new language from Assemblyman Collins regarding A.J.R. 2. She assured committee members all would be receiving a handout with the new wording prior to the committee’s next meeting.

There was no further business before the committee. The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sharon Spencer,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: