MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethics
Seventy-Second Session
May 22, 2003
The Committee on Elections, Procedures, and Ethicswas called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, May 22, 2003. Chairwoman Chris Giunchigliani presided in Room 3138 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Tom Grady
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Bob McCleary
Ms. Peggy Pierce
Ms. Valerie Weber
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District No. 12, Clark County
Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4, Clark County
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District
Senator Maurice Washington, Senatorial District No. 2, Washoe County
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7, Clark County
Senator Valerie Wiener, Senatorial District No. 3, Clark County
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst
Kelly Fisher, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group
Lisa Foster, AAA Nevada Insurance Agency
Dana Bennett, National Association of Independent Insurers
Bonnie Parnell, League of Women Voters; National Alzheimer’s Association
Larry Struve, Religious Alliance of Nevada
Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association
John Sasser, Washoe Legal Services, Advocate, Covering Kids and Families Coalition of Nevada
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby; National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter
Buffy Martin, American Cancer Society
Debra Jacobson, American Heart Association
Dale Ferguson, Walker River Irrigation District
Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club
Lorna Weaver, Nevada Wildlife Federation
Riki Ellison, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
Christine Milburn, Nevada Coordinator, Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum
John Wagner, Nevada Republican Party
Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We’re going to start as a subcommittee. We just found out we have a meeting at 4:00, so I apologize. We’ll do the best that we can. Christine [Milburn], we’re not going to take S.J.R. 7 until the Senator gets here, but Mr. Thompson asked if he could provide testimony, and then he needed to leave. So I won’t take other testimony, if that’s acceptable to you.
Senate Joint Resolution 7: Declares support of Nevada Legislature for America’s missile defense system. (BDR R-1221)
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
[Introduced himself] I appreciate the opportunity to be taken out of order. S.J.R. 7 represents something that everyone should be concerned with. As a result of the things that have happened to this country starting with September 11, 2001, and God knows what’s to come after that, we feel that this is an important step to protecting America, and in addition to that, creating jobs in places they are normally not found. When the MX missile was proposed, we were a proponent of that project. We have worked under the terms of a project labor agreement at the Nevada Test Site. At one time, the Nevada Test Site employed 36,000 southern Nevadans, and I can tell you as kid growing up in Henderson, everybody had somebody in their family that worked at the test site.
We support this resolution, and we would urge you to pass it, not just for job creation, but also for the good of the country. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Thompson? [There were none.] Thank you for your testimony.
We’ll open up the hearing on A.C.R. 27, an interim study on business practices of automobile insurance industry. Welcome, Ms. Ohrenschall.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 27: Directs Legislative Commission to appoint interim committee to study business practices of automobile insurance industry. (BDR R-387)
Assemblywoman Genie Ohrenschall, District No. 12, Clark County:
I’ll make it short and to the point. Historically, we have not had a study of the auto insurance industry. A study during the 1979-1980 interim showed a lot of things that came out with unequal results, including geographic redlining and looking at credit ratings of people, rather than whether they were good drivers and whether they made their payments to the insurance industry.
The people of Nevada need to have something looked at, because they shouldn’t be lumped in with California just because the hugeness of its numbers changes the perception of what is going on and of the likelihood of having accidents in this conglomerate group. We should have our own section.
There are several things that are outlined within the proposal itself that would be very good to have studied. These include insurance credit scoring and how it can result in discrimination against individuals, geographic redlining, credit history, things that can affect and who they affect the worst. This would call for independent economists, impartial experts, as well as professionals in the auto industry and consumers, and the full participation of the Division of Insurance and the Department of Business and Industry.
I think that it’s time that we looked at it and that Nevada was treated in the auto insurance industry as a separate market from California. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. As we’ve been dealing with this issue this legislative session, this is one for consideration.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
I know you’re familiar with it, and we’re in a hurry.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We appreciate your quickness. I have three people signed in on this one: Dana Bennett, Jim Werbeckes, and Lisa Foster. Would you mind coming up together? I apologize for hurried form.
Jim Werbeckes, Farmers Insurance Group:
[Introduced himself] From Farmers’ standpoint, we feel it is appropriate that the Legislature take a look at insurance scoring as well as territorial rating. It will allow the Legislature to have a better understanding of how the system works, and we believe it will show a correlation between someone’s credit and their propensity to have a loss.
However, our one concern with A.C.R. 27 is that it’s only looking at how insurance risks are spread. We will collect the same amount of dollars with or without credit scoring or without territorial rating. From our standpoint, we need to take a look at what is causing insurance rates to go up, and what are the drivers of rising insurance premiums. Some of the questions that need to be asked are, why is Nevada having the same price range as New Jersey and New York? Why do we have the seventh-highest auto insurance rates in the nation? Why do we have the highest average cost per claim on the West Coast?
A.C.R. 27 does not look at any of these items. If A.C.R. 27 is to go forward, Farmers would like to see a comprehensive study done that examines the cost drivers of insurance. Why does it cost more to have a vehicle repaired here in Nevada? Why has the average cost and severity of claims increased over every year for the last five years? With that, Madam Chair, I’d be happy to entertain any questions. From our standpoint, we would like to see a comprehensive study, not one just limited to two items.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. I think your points are well taken. I’ve long suspected the fact that we’re one of the few places that taxes our insurance premiums. That might be a driver in and of itself. It would be timely if we found that out as we’re dealing with the whole tax situation. We might be able to come up with something. If you would like to submit some language regarding that, we’d be more than happy to consider it. We won’t decide on interim study finals until next week, so that would give us some time. Is that acceptable to you, Ms. Ohrenschall?
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall:
Yes, Madam Chair, it would be acceptable. I simply wanted to point out that on page 2 it says, “Resolved, that the interim study must include, without limitation, consideration of...” So it was deliberately written so that other things, such as these very good points, could be included in the study.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Maybe sometimes even terminology of “cost drivers” should be considered so we would not have that argument after the committee was formed, if we have one.
Lisa Foster, AAA Nevada Insurance Agency:
[Introduced herself] I really don’t have anything further to add. We too feel a study would be warranted. We’d be happy to work with you on this study, and I think Mr. Werbeckes had some good points that we agree with.
Dana Bennett, National Association of Independent Insurers:
[Introduced herself] We also agree with Mr. Werbeckes and Ms. Foster and are willing to work with any committee that you put together during the interim. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you for your brevity. We appreciate it. We have no questions. I have no one else signed in, so we will close the hearing on A.C.R. 7. We will open the hearing on S.B. 289.
Senate Bill 289 (2nd Reprint): Directs Legislative Committee on Health Care to study current challenges of ensuring that adequate health care is available to all residents of Nevada, now and in future. (BDR S-720)
Senator Joe Neal, Senatorial District No. 4, Clark County:
[Introduced himself] The bill that you have before you, S.B. 289, is a bill to direct the Legislative Committee on Health Care to study whether or not we could have what we call a single-payer plan for the purpose of the uninsured. This started out as a bill to create that, and we decided that we would turn it into a study committee. We are here to have this passed so the interim Committee on Health Care can proceed to make this study and report back to the Legislature during the interim. It’s for this purpose that this measure is before this house. This bill had unanimous support in the Senate, and we’re here asking you to pass the same. I don’t think it will impinge upon the proposed studies that you are creating, but just direct the committee that presently exists on health care to do this study.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Senator, and thanks for pointing it out. We’ve had quite a few requirements for the Health Care Committee, but I think the way this is written makes it so they can appoint a separate subcommittee, so it will not impact the actual interims that we do.
Bonnie Parnell, League of Women Voters, and National Alzheimer’s Association:
[Introduced herself] I will do just a very loud “me, too” on behalf of both the League of Women Voters of Nevada and the National Alzheimer’s Association. It’s a great idea and something certainly needed in the state. Thank you.
Larry Struve, Religious Alliance of Nevada (RAIN):
[Introduced himself] Access to health care is one of the main legislative issues RAIN is involved with. They’re very interested in how to get a single-payer system, how to insure the uninsured, and certainly a starting point is getting the information of how to do that. We also strongly support the study and S.B. 289 and hope we can work with the committee. Thank you.
Larry Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association:
[Introduced himself] We do support this. Clearly, when you get past the national security issues and the issues of dealing with war, health is back up there in that next tier of issues that worry people. For Nevada, we began seeing the access issue become primary in the recession that preceded September 11, 2001. We have not recovered in terms of the percentage of our population that has coverage. We need to look at this once again with fresh eyes and look at the issues of access to care with fresh eyes. We certainly support this. The Committee on Health Care is a perfect vehicle.
Jon Sasser, Washoe Legal Services, Advocate for Covering Kids and Families Coalition of Nevada:
[Introduced himself] With Mr. Matheis on the board of the Nevada Health Care Reform Project, I’ll support this study and ask your approval.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby and National Association of Social Workers, Nevada Chapter:
[Introduced herself] Both of my organizations support this bill, support the study, and ask that you pass the bill. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much. There are no questions. Does anyone else wish to testify on S.B. 289? [There were none.] We will close the hearing. Thank you for your attendance and your brevity. We will open the hearing on S.C.R. 13. Senator Wiener is still downstairs, but we do have her testimony (Exhibit C) and letters (Exhibit D). Keith Rheault is here to testify, as well as Bobbie Gang, so maybe I can ask you to do the initial coverage for us.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (1st Reprint): Directs Legislative Committee on Health Care to conduct interim study concerning medical and societal costs and impacts of obesity in Nevada. (BDR R-25)
Keith Rheault, Department of Education:
[Introduced himself] I am here on behalf of the State Board of Education. They unanimously supported the interim study. They feel it fits in quite nicely with the health and PE standards that were adopted in the state. Many of the objectives of the study would tie directly to items that could possibly be addressed through some of the K-12 programs. We’re here to support it and would be willing participants on the interim study committee.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. This is another charged to the Health Care Committee, isn’t it? At some point, I need to talk to Yvonne [Sylva] to see how much they can bite off, because there are about five studies that I’ve seen recommended for them.
Bobbie Gang, Nevada Women’s Lobby:
[Introduced herself] We are in support of S.C.R. 13. I’m sure all of you are aware of the problems of obesity and the significance to the country and in our state. I know this whole issue is getting a lot of play in the media recently because there was a Harvard Medical School study on this very issue, which brought forth the cost implications of obesity in the nation.
I first heard about this study while I was driving in my car and listening to Rush Limbaugh when he referenced this study. I also heard about it again when listening to a talk show, it was Paul Harvey’s “The Rest of the Story.” It has been promoted a lot in the national media, and there is a great deal of data out there. I think this is important to our state to gather the data and see what the implications are in costs to our health care system, as well as other societal costs. Thank you.
Buffy Martin, American Cancer Society:
[Introduced herself and read from a prepared statement (Exhibit E)] Increasing evidence indicates the important role that maintaining a healthy weight plays in reducing cancer risk. However, the number of overweight and obese individuals in increasing nationwide—in both men and women and children of all ages, races, and educational backgrounds. Senator Wiener has already shared the alarming statistics with you in her testimony, but one statistic deserves repeating: almost 61 percent of adults are so overweight that it poses a risk to their health.
S.C.R. 13 is an important bill not only to the American Cancer Society, but to me personally. I nearly lost my father this past year due to weight-complicated health problems. My dad used to have a sign that every visitor to his home saw upon immediately entering that said, “I am in shape. Round is a shape.” He was diagnosed with Type II diabetes last November and was told by his physician that unless he lost weight, he would be dead within a year. Fortunately, my father decided that his health and his life were more important than McDonald’s and Krispy Kremes, and he has lost over 60 pounds and still counting and proud that he is no longer classified as “obese,” but merely “overweight.” His blood sugar is now within a normal range.
S.C.R. 13 would not only establish a study of the impacts of obesity in our state, but would also create public education opportunities and avenues for public and private resources to work together to combat the impacts of obesity. The American Cancer Society stands committed to assist with this vital task.
On behalf of the American Cancer Society and our 6,000 statewide volunteers, we ask you to support and pass S.C.R. 13. Thank you.
Debra Jacobson, American Heart Association:
[Introduced herself] I think everyone is pretty clear on the connection between obesity and heart disease. We want to go on the record that we’re in support of this resolution. Thank you.
Larry Matheis:
We do support S.C.R. 13 for the reasons provided in the data and the comments previously. Also, we’re at the front end of this becoming a major national public health effort, including funding. I think those states that are putting together analyses and programs and team task forces that are looking at that in the next year or two are very likely to be eligible for significant national funding in looking at this issue. For a state where the growth of the chronic diseases has been so precipitous, we do need to look at that carefully. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. I’m glad that the Department of Education is involved, too, because I think we need to look at our nutritious programs. It’s all junk food, in my opinion, at least when I taught. The kids bought fries and burritos and chips and whatever. They’d have pop for breakfast, and popcorn, and we have to reeducate ourselves. I have to say the faculty weren’t always any better than the kids were as far as some of the eating habits. We have to look beyond just the curriculum, but also the modeling that has to go along with that as well.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? [There were none.] We have no one else on S.C.R. 13. If Senator Wiener comes up, we’ll be happy to have her say a few words.
We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 13. I will open the hearing on S.C.R. 26. Senator Coffin is stuck in Taxation, so he asked me if I would do the introduction.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 26 (1st Reprint): Amends Joint Rules of Senate and Assembly for 72nd Session of Legislature to clarify time by which Legislature must adjourn session sine die. (BDR R-1328)
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani, continued] I think it’s fairly obvious what the language is tied to. Midnight means midnight, so we don’t get into any kind of problems like we had last session, regardless of Daylight Savings Time.
Is there anyone who wishes to testify on S.C.R. 26? [There were none.] We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 26 and open the hearing on S.C.R. 20.
[Chairwoman Giunchigliani, continued] This is Senator Rhoads’ bill. He may still be in Taxation. Is there anyone here who could offer any testimony on this bill? [There was none.] We’ll hold it. We’ve got a work session document (Exhibit F). We’ll move to that for a few minutes.
Senate Bill 406: Directs Legislative Commission to consider creating document to be used by governmental agencies in determining whether to procure goods and services from public or private sources. (BDR 17‑412)
For the Committee, the first bill to consider is S.B. 406. It directs the Legislative Commission to consider creating document to be used by governmental agencies in determining whether to procure goods and services from public or private sources. Michelle, do you want to comment on it?
Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst:
I think you summed it up pretty well. Michael Stewart was in the Committee last week and presented this on behalf of Senator Schneider, who had chaired the Legislative Committee to Study Competition Between Local Government and private enterprises. There weren’t any formal amendments.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
There were no amendments. I do know Ms. Pierce had a question. I think it was on lines 3 and 4 regarding the privately owned businesses and some concern about making sure that if we did this, we would be assured that employees would not be negatively impacted. I guess the question was, “Why only privately owned businesses?” I think this came out of the competition interim study; is that correct? I think what they were trying to do was simply encourage the government to contract with privately owned companies rather than duplicating the services within the state.
Assemblywoman McClain:
What does it do?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It really doesn’t do a lot. I think it has them create a data book.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Part 2, Section 1, says, “It shall consider and study the creation of a guidebook to use in determining whether making decisions in the best interest of the state.” If there was an interim study, didn’t something come out that would fill that definition?
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
You would normally think so. I think on this interim study, what they came out with was a suggestion that they create a document or a guidebook. Then if the Legislative Commission decides to create that guidebook, that these are the components that should be included within it. Sometimes we do interim studies that don’t always overwhelm us.
Assemblywoman McClain:
Doesn’t this kind of push privatization? [Affirmative answer] As long as it doesn’t force them into it, because I don’t always agree with privatization at all. It’s not always cheaper or better.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
That’s my concern. It says that it “encourages” it. As long as the line [is included to say], “is in the best interest of the residents of this state,” but I’m concerned that what gets studied is fine if you take a state employee who’s making $15 an hour and has health benefits and that kind of thing, and you eliminate that and replace him [with someone who] makes $7 an hour and has no health benefits. I want to be sure that in this study we’re also studying the impact of the loss of health benefits on employees and how that impacts the county hospital. If you’ve got somebody who makes $15 an hour and you turn him into someone who makes $7 an hour, what is the impact on the businesses? Most of the time this stuff looks good because it’s not really studied.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
On its face value, is what you’re saying.
Assemblywoman Pierce:
Yes, because we say, “Oh, look, we can pay $7 an hour. That’ll be great.” And we don’t look at the ripple effects, and there are a lot of ripple effects to creating low-income jobs. That’s my concern. It seems to me there’s probably a great deal of data out there already on this kind of stuff. We should be looking at that kind of comprehensive stuff that’s out there.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
This was for discussion purposes. We don’t have to take action on it tonight. I didn’t have any amendments, but I had made some notes that you had some questions and concerns. Are there any further comments regarding S.B. 406? [There were none.] We will move on to A.C.R. 21.
Assembly Concurrent Resolution 21: Declares that preservation of Walker Lake’s freshwater ecosystem is important to residents of Nevada.
(BDR R-1302)
In our work session, I went ahead and took three different documents and tried to put them together. I asked Greg Ferraro to send it to his folks for reaction as well to see if we can begin to find a resolution.
Dale Ferguson, Walker River Irrigation District:
[Introduced himself] We did receive a copy this morning of the marked-up version of the bill. I would like to make some brief comments on behalf of the District as to why we cannot support the revised version.
The District did not come to the Legislature seeking a resolution on the Walker River issues. The District, in previous meetings of this Committee, has explained why, in its judgment, seeking such a resolution is disruptive to the ongoing mediation process. However, forced with a resolution having been introduced, the District attempted to provide an alternate, which was neutral in all respects concerning the issues on the system, which was supportive of the mediation process. The District appreciates the effort that has been made to meet its concerns in the draft that you had circulated this morning.
However, the District cannot support the resolution as revised. Its title in the declarations retained from the previous resolutions as introduced are not neutral on the Walker River issues and emphasize the treatment of Walker Lake without corresponding and equal emphasis on the other Walker River issues. I’d be happy to answer any questions that any members of the Committee have.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you. I just noticed I made an error when I was working on this. I did not delete the “in public interest,” and I know that had given the group some consternation. That is my error. I was writing quickly last night. That would be for us as we consider it in the summary section as well as in the concurrent resolution section. We had agreed not to have any language the public interest, so I’d have to come up with something more appropriate there.
I took all of your language, and a little bit from Mr. Turnipseed and tried to meld the two together. I appreciate that you’re still not thrilled with it, but we’re trying to get there. I appreciate your comments.
Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club:
[Introduced himself] We support the language as presented. We would also support a mentioned concern about the summary and title only reflecting the lake. I think the text of the resolution attempts to balance between the concerns of the river system and the lake. So inclusion or changing of the summary and title to reflect the changes in the text would be appropriate.
Lorna Weaver, Nevada Wildlife Federation, Coalition to Save Walker Lake:
[Introduced herself] First of all, I’d like to say thank you for hearing this controversial, but nonetheless important, issue. We also support the new amended version of A.C.R. 21, and we appreciate your work on this.
However, we’d like to go on record that the new language is a shift of ideas from the focus on the importance of Walker Lake to the focus on support of mediation. In drafting the first version of the resolution, we purposely avoided a discussion of the mediation to comply with the confidentiality agreement of the mediation to not talk publicly about the issues. We are sorry that A.C.R. 21 became a mediation issue. The Coalition to Save Walker Lake had planned to seek a resolution regarding the status of the lake prior to the start of the mediation. Once talks began, we were given clearance by our mediator to proceed with such plans as part of our campaign to educate the public on the need to save Walker Lake. We in no way intended to impede the progress with mediation. We still contend that A.C.R. 21 has nothing to do with the mediation effort, and we are hurt by the fact that our choice to participate in mediation is blocking our ability to pursue other means of saving the lake.
I would also like to point out that we support your new revised version, but there is one point that we had discussed with Michael Turnipseed that he didn’t support. In the “whereas,” there are a number of interrelated issues on the Walker River system. He was not in favor of using the language “reallocate” for reasons that it’s better for him to explain.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Lorna, could you direct me to where I have that? Is it on the front page?
Lorna Weaver:
In my copy, it doesn’t have any numbers. It’s 13 whereases down.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
It’s the third page in our document, the new language at the bottom of the page, second paragraph.
Lorna Weaver:
He said there’s a legal issue and would have to follow the provisions of state law. So he wasn’t comfortable with that language. I have not talked to Mr. Turnipseed about his support generally of this revised version.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I tried to get it off to him to take a look at it as well.
Lorna Weaver:
That was our first discussions when we looked at Mr. DePaoli’s language, which I believe this came from.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you for pointing that out. We’ll take this up next Tuesday. Hopefully we’ll have mediated the mediation between the mediators.
We will move away from our work session document. We will open up the hearing on S.C.R. 20.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 20 (1st Reprint): Directs Legislative Committee on Public Lands to conduct interim study of feasibility and desirability of changing state boundary line along border with Utah. (BDR R-786)
Senator Dean Rhoads, Northern Nevada Senatorial District:
[Introduced himself] For the last few years, Wendover, Nevada, and Wendover, Utah, have been discussing the possibility of merging into one complex. That would mean that the state of Nevada would move the border over for about 10,000 acres. One of the big advantages is that they’ve got a great airport there that could be turned into an economic boom for northeastern Nevada if it was in Nevada’s hands.
The problem has been that Congress introduced a bill—Jim Gibbons and Congressman Jim Hansen from Utah—and they actually had a hearing in Wendover, Nevada. They took it to a vote to both communities. Both sides overwhelmingly voted for it. The legislators from Nevada and Utah need to get together and come up with a game plan. It’s got to go to the state legislatures first, and then if both sides approve it, then it goes to Congress. Then it has to come back again, and the public has got to vote for it to make approval.
This bill would put the responsibility under the Legislative Committee on Public Lands. It would have the Legislative Commission appoint two people, a Senator and an Assemblyman, to work with the Utah legislators and the communities on both sides for a recommendation to the next session of the Legislature and back in to Congress. That’s basically what it does.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thanks for clearing that up. I knew they had hearings and was being discussed, but I forgot what the outcome had been at that part of it. Are there any questions for Senator Rhoads? [There were none.] Thank you very much. We appreciate your attendance. Is there anyone else who would like to testify on S.C.R. 20? [There were none.] We will close the hearing on S.C.R. 20 and we will open the hearing on S.J.R. 7.
Senate Joint Resolution 7: Declares support of Nevada Legislature for America’s missile defense system. (BDR R-1221)
Senator Maurice Washington, Senatorial District No. 2, Washoe County:
I apologize for the delay.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Danny Thompson did testify on behalf of S.J.R. 7, but he had to go for another meeting. I told everybody else they would wait until you had done your introduction. You have the floor.
Senator Washington:
[Introduced himself] I will start by saying I know that this has been kind of a heated discussion and a heated debate, and political interests have polarized it. But if I can speak beyond that, I’d like to speak to the practicality of applying this process to our nation’s defense. I know that sometimes people have said that we introduce resolutions, and sometimes they have no effect on the act of Congress or any administration. I would tend to believe that whatever resolutions states send to their elected representatives do have some impact. They may not always have the impact that we desire, but there is some impact.
The Missile Defense Treaty is important to this country. There are a couple of issues that come to fruition. One is the increased ability of nations to actually implement missiles that can reach out shores and cause great havoc and great destruction.
I will add that even though this of importance to us as a great threat to the state of Nevada as well, some have asked how a missile defense system will actually protect the citizens of this state. There are a couple of major areas of concern. Taking out our major metropolitan areas both up north and down south and considering whether or not it ever becomes a storage site or not, Yucca Mountain would become a very viable target for those nations that have interest to wreak havoc in this country. Yucca Mountain would become a target.
The third one would be the two major bases, one located in Clark County, which would be Nellis Air Force Base, and the training center up north at Fallon, the Naval Air Station, where a lot of our top pilots are flying out of. Those two installations would be targeted as well.
The fourth one would be our major water resources—the Colorado River and Hoover Dam—which supply a lot of our hydroelectric power for the western region of this country. Taking those into consideration, the state of Nevada would be a prime target for any enemy to seek. With a heightened awareness of weapons of mass destruction, it would be easy for our enemies to target those sites if we allow them to continue the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It’s not farfetched that a lot of these nations already have that capability.
Of course, most of us have been aware of the reports that have been in the media concerning North Korea’s ICBMs, which have the potential to reach our western shores quite easily.
For the record, I have a couple of letters that have come to us (Exhibit G). The one of interest, of course, is the one that comes from our Homeland Security Advisor, Jerry Bussell (Exhibit H). The letter is quite interesting in that it states, “As Homeland Security Advisor for the state of Nevada, I am concerned about the public safety of the citizens of the state. I request the Department of Defense’s position on its policy toward protecting our country and the state of Nevada from ballistic missile attack,” et cetera.
The Secretary of Defense sent his reply (Exhibit I). I’m not going to read the whole letter, but we’d like to have these letters entered into the record. Basically, it says, “Thank you for your letter of 19 May requesting the position of the Department of Defense on protecting our country and the state of Nevada from ballistic missile attack. Throughout his administration, President Bush has made it clear that the United States will protect our citizens against weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, including ballistic missiles.” The rest of the letter is in front of you.
What I found interesting is that even though we talk about missiles and their potentials to deliver not only nuclear warheads but biological and chemical warheads also. When we deal with weapons of mass destruction, you can see the devastating effect that would have on us.
One last letter I’d like to put into the record came from the White House itself (Exhibit J). There’s a paragraph that I think is of importance. “Hostile states, including those that sponsor terrorism, are investing large resources to develop and acquire ballistic missile increasing ranges and the sophistication of those to be used against the United States and our friends and allies. These same states have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. In fact, one of the factors that make long-range ballistic missiles attractive is a delivery vehicle for weapons of mass destruction to the coast of the United States.”
I think it’s important that we take this very seriously and remove our political and philosophical differences and take a real look at the concern and safety of our citizens. With that, I’d like to turn my portion of the testimony over to Riki Ellison, who can give you some technical information on how intercontinental ballistic missiles work.
Riki Ellison, CEO and Founder, Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance:
[Introduced himself] I am a non-profit. I am nonpartisan. I don’t represent any special interests. I’ve been doing this for 20 years. It’s a passion that I studied in school, and I firmly believe in the concept of defending our population and defending our allies and troops from this type of threat.
I’m here asking for your support for S.J.R. 7, and its endorsement and encouragement of getting some protection for your citizens in the state of Nevada and also citizens of our country, our allies, and our troops overseas. This system is a system designed to stop all types of ballistic missiles, not just long-range, short-range, medium-range. It’s certainly not the end-all-do-it-all for security. This is one of many vulnerabilities in this country, but this is a significant vulnerability. This has bipartisan support in Washington. This has already been funded, and I’d like to walk through a couple of charts to explain the situation we’re in (Exhibit K).
First off, as of earlier this year in the testimonies in Congress, both chairmen had stated that we have absolutely no defense against a ballistic missile attack in place right now or in the future.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Mr. Ellison, may I interrupt for just a second? I don’t want you to feel that we’re being rude, but Taxation has to go in and I’m going to lose a few members. Please feel free to continue with your testimony. Thank you.
Riki Ellison:
If we start with this first chart, if you look on the left there are over 25 countries that now possess ballistic missile systems to deliver weapons of mass destruction. In 1973, when we had our anti-ballistic missile treaty in place, we also had the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in place. That chart continues to increase. I think as you saw in what happened with the Iraqi war recently, conventional warfare is strong enough to deter the United States, and these countries are looking to have something that is cheap, viable, and that can deter the United States.
In 1991, Iraq launched its first Scud missiles and attacked U.S. soldiers that were killed in that first Gulf war. In 2003, 15 ballistic missiles were fired in the Iraqi war at the citizens in civilian populations of Kuwait. Ten of them were intercepted, and we see a continual movement of more and more countries that will get those weapons of mass destruction.
The threat is very real. This first quote is from Osama bin Laden: “We have chemical nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If America uses them against us, we reserve the right to use them.” The second quote is from North Korea: “We’ve got nukes. We can’t dismantle them. It’s up to you whether we do a physical demonstration or transfer them.” This is a real threat that we have to deal with, and we have no defense against that.
Earlier this year, a CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) director is quoted saying, “The United States faces a near-term ICBM (Intercontinental ballistic missile) threat from North Korea.” As the quote is read, they can threaten the United States. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also stated that aspect of it. This is a true 3-stage missile that can hit the western United States. A lighter load of a biological or chemical weapon would increase the range of that capability. These countries also possess short-range missiles called Scuds that can also be put on transport ships close to our shores’ international waters, and can also be fired 700-800 miles. That is a real threat that is on us right now.
This is not Star Wars. This is not President Reagan’s plan of $100 billion. This is $8 billion out of our defense budget. Homeland security is $27 billion. It’s very affordable and needs to be in place. As you saw with the World Trade Center, New York lost $90 billion and 3,000 lives. For that cost, missile defense is a very efficient and very needed system for our country.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Mr. Ellison.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Senator Washington, we have a budget deficit here in the state of Nevada. I see that we’re asking for $8 billion for missile defense. That’s about the same amount of money that our biennium budget is. Do you think there’s any chance we could get that money from the federal government instead?
Senator Washington:
Only if you send a letter!
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So the total cost of this system is $8 billion?
Riki Ellison:
It’s already been funded. It’s an annual that puts up a limited system. They’re putting forth 10 missiles next year in 2004, deploying them at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California and Alaska. It also supplies another 10 Aegis cruisers, and it does research and development to evolve the system.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I have to say I don’t follow this very much, but hasn’t there been discussion that the whole missile defense system might be antiquated before we even get anything up and running, and that there might be other things to deal with causing countries not to want to attack?
Riki Ellison:
I’m not familiar with that discussion. I understand that if this system does what it’s supposed to do, it will deter other countries from investing and purchasing ballistic missiles and purchasing systems if we can defeat those systems. So it is a deterrent.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
So you feel this is a deterrent?
Riki Ellison:
I think the Secretary of Defense, in that statement that you have (Exhibit I), explicitly states the case of why they believe that a system like this will deter other countries from further investing in this technology.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
As you discussed the issue of weapons of mass destruction, they still haven’t found the ones that supposedly were in Iraq that we went into war for. I question whether or not there are all of these weapons of mass destruction, other than the ones that we already own ourselves. It’s just one of those things that we have to grapple with.
Riki Ellison:
I think another good point is the fact that if we did have a system in place, we might not have to send our troops in to go out and get these weapons of mass destruction. We’d offer another option for our Congress and our President to negotiate rather than putting lives at stake. Again, this is not a system designed to kill any life. This is a life-saving system. There’s no destruction of life at all in the system.
Assemblyman McCleary:
You mentioned a dollar figure of $9 billion, so I assume there’s a plan on the table?
Riki Ellison:
There is a plan on the table.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Who’s going to build this?
Riki Ellison:
This is a combination of the three forces, the air force, the army, and the navy, all in a joint effort. It’s subbed out to a majority of defense contractors.
Assemblyman McCleary:
So you don’t know the subcontractors themselves?
Riki Ellison:
In terms of?
Assemblyman McCleary:
Who they would be.
Riki Ellison:
I think every major defensive subcontractor in this country is involved with this.
Assemblyman McCleary:
We talked earlier when you came to my office. You’re saying $9 billion, and I think that sounds cheap. It just sounds cheap to me. Then my mind reflects upon—and I won’t mention any state—a computer system that was supposed to cost $20 million and ended up costing $100 million, and it still doesn’t work. When someone starts throwing numbers around, I’m skeptical.
Riki Ellison:
President Clinton started this back in 1994, and they’ve invested around $7‑8 billion a year, each year, in developing. This is not a number that came up all of a sudden. This is a gradual process. This number here actually represents deploying 10 warheads, the 10 ten missiles in Alaska and Vandenberg, and also some capability at sea.
Assemblyman McCleary:
So this is just for 10 missiles?
Riki Ellison:
Ten missiles and also 10 or so missiles, Aegis cruisers, and some other testing in research and development to make the systems more efficient.
Assemblyman McCleary:
How many missiles altogether?
Riki Ellison:
For this first year, I believe 20.
Assemblyman McCleary:
When you say “this first year,” you mean...?
Riki Ellison:
2004.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Is that the $9 billion?
Riki Ellison:
It’s a portion of the $9 billion. And again, they’re just trying to stop the threat from North Korea. That is stationed there to give a credible defense against them. Their hope is to be able to fire two or three of those missiles at one of them coming in if something did happen like that to increase their odds of making contact.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Are these the missiles that were tested in the Pacific that they’ve had such a hard time with?
Riki Ellison:
They’ve had over 120 tests in the last 2 years, and they’ve hit 5 out of 8. This is a multi-layered system.
Assemblyman McCleary:
If I remember correctly, they shot multiple missiles at each target, correct?
Riki Ellison:
I don’t believe that’s correct.
Christine Milburn, Nevada Coordinator, Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance:
[Introduced herself] I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be heard on this important resolution. I would also like to thank Senator Washington for his forethought in submitting this Senate Joint Resolution for consideration.
As you’ve heard from the testimony of Senator Washington, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Danny Thompson, and others, this resolution is not going to make the missile defense system one way or another. However, what it will do is show Nevada’s support to enlist another tool in defending our country and possibly save some of our men and woman from having to fight abroad by being able to mount a defense against ballistic missile attack from our shores. This will also send a strong message to rogue nations such North Korea that they cannot afford to threaten or launch missiles of mass destruction without consequences from the United States.
An effective missile defense system will stop the proliferation of weapons where they are rendered useless. I encourage you to adopt S.J.R. 7 and ask for your support. I would be glad to answer any questions from you.
Assemblyman Conklin:
I have a couple of questions based on the comments that you just made. First of all, if you’re concerned that any nation in this world feels like they have no credible return threat from the United States should they fire missiles upon us, I’m uncertain. I mean, we’re one of about three countries in the world that have a triple threat. If somebody should fire one missile or a thousand missiles on us, wipe out the entire population in the U.S., we still have capability beyond that to destroy the rest of the world. We’ve done that through proliferation over the last 60 years. I’m a little concerned about that in the first place.
The second thing is more of a philosophical position. Countries live in peace when they feel mutually secure. When the people of every nation feel mutually secure, they live in peace, and business prospers. If right now people live mutually secure—and I’m not saying they do—but we go out and we invest in a system that’s 100 percent foolproof—which this wouldn’t be, but if it were, because that would be the goal of anything that we take on—then we’d be the only country in the world with the ability to stop everyone from attacking us, but we’d have every ability to attack them. How secure would the rest of the world feel? What impact would that have on our foreign policy, our foreign relations, and our economy with those countries who feel less than secure with America? I think that’s one of the hard issues we have to tackle with this particular system.
Riki Ellison:
I do want to start by making the statement that there are two other countries in this world that do have a fully national missile defense system in place. Russia and Israel have systems in place to protect their countries from this type of threat.
I agree with some of the comments you made. I want to push you back to September 11. Since September 11 happened, we have other countries that don’t care and aren’t deterred from attacking the United States. We’ve lived in peace and harmony with having the triple offense of having a mutually assured destruction theory that nobody would strike us because we would strike them. From my understanding, that has gone away because we don’t have superpowers anymore. We now have some rogue countries that are not going to be deterred no matter how hard we hit them with offense capabilities. We have to have some sort of defense.
Secondly, I think our defense is very limited. It is only 10 or 20 missiles. We don’t have 2,000. We’re not going to do an SDI missile shield. We’ve been in consultation with Russia. In fact, Russia was in the White House the other day and doing mutually agreed technology transfers on this very specific subject of missile defense. China has allowed this to happen. Again, it’s a limited system. This is not a system that would derive imbalance around the world. Other countries—Poland, India, Australia—have all come in to get technology to get some sort of system—Patriot system, aero system—to protect them against that. I agree with you. There’s no reason we should be the only country that can defend, and I think the plan right now—and again with Clinton—is to have a very limited capability to protect our civilian population against one or two unstable regimes that could fire on us.
Senator Washington:
I was hoping we wouldn’t get on a philosophical debate on the merits of the resolution, but I guess the resolution lends itself to some ideology. I would say that Mr. Ellison and myself, Mr. Beers, and some of our other colleagues here are pretty big men. If we ever decided that we wanted to become bullies, we could probably bully a lot of people until somebody decided they got tired of us being a bully and decided to defend themselves and retaliate. Sometimes the best defense is to show that person, whoever the bully is, that you’re not afraid and that you’re not reluctant to retaliate to keep peace. That’s just philosophical. I know where I grew up and where I came from, and usually that’s the way it works. You pick on the weaker until they decide they want to defend themselves. Once they whip you, you leave them alone. That’s just the way of the world.
Assemblyman Conklin:
Mr. Ellison, to your rogue state comments, you said it yourself. They’re not going to stop no matter what. If this system is designed to block terrorist attacks, they will simply find another way to attack. This is only useful in the scheme of national defense against other countries who will use more conventional means to attack. That would just be my personal opinion.
Secondly, Senator Washington, I happen to agree with you on the bully bit with the exception that I think my resolution to that would be then just don’t be a bully. Then we don’t have that problem at all, unless somebody else wants to be a bully on us, in which case we don’t need a missile defense system, we need more missiles.
Senator Washington:
I would say you’d still have to defend yourself.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
We’re going to be sending you an anti-bully bill this weekend, anyway, A.B. 513, where we actually try to teach people to de-escalate problems beforehand. I think that’s part of the philosophical discussion that we’re having here. It’s how do you show that you’re one with strength, but you’re not a bully. I personally believe in negotiation and peace and non-conflict, if that can be brought to bear. I think there are other ways to deal with problems. This is one way that you’re suggesting. We may agree, or we may not agree. That’s part of the political process.
Senator Washington:
Isn’t it nice that we live in such a great country that we can have these debates and not worry about getting bullied?
Assemblyman Christensen:
I have a comment and a suggestion. As I heard this I thought, “Who in the world would be against this kind of bill?” Then I got to know the Vice Chair a little bit better, and I came to see where this was. People weigh in with different positions, and I agree. It is what makes this body, this state, this country as great as it is.
I just wanted to briefly share my perspective. One of my business mentors shared a great quote that I think applies to this. In terms of business philosophy, working with my clients is to “leave nothing to chance.” Why would we leave something to chance? Why not cover every base? I think the U.S. military is a great example of an organization that leaves nothing to chance.
We’ve had conversations about the rogue nations. It’s not so much the rogue nations that I worry about. Our thinking right now, today, would be those would be the countries that would be able to fund a system of missiles to fire at the U.S. But do you know what? Conventional thinking changes all the time. September 11 is an example of that. It changed everything. I’m more worried about the rogue groups. What if a country goes haywire?
Riki Ellison:
Earlier this year, a container shipped from North Korea was caught with a boatload of Scud missiles that they are just selling. You can purchase that technology and put it on a boat 200 miles offshore. They’re going to have that capability, whether we like it or not. Until we stop it, until we deter that, they’re going to continue buying that technology.
Assemblyman Christensen:
To that end, things change. Something like that could change. As far as the suggestion as you’re rallying support, you could probably get Canada to support this resolution. I’m sure they would love us to have a very good missile defense system, because any missile going to Canada we’d probably think was coming to us, so we’d take them out. I just wanted to share that.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Sometimes another good business premise is, “You get what you give.”
Assemblywoman Weber:
In looking at the chart that shows “the states in harm’s way,” since we’re just one of eight of those states, what are the other seven states’ positions on that?
Riki Ellison:
Several of your neighboring states have passed resolutions on behalf of this same sort of generic language. The states of Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Alaska have all done that. Obviously, I haven’t been able to get to every state, but California, Washington, and Oregon have not heard this.
Assemblywoman Weber:
Do you know if it’s pending on their legislative schedule?
Riki Ellison:
I don’t believe it is. There are other states besides these western states that have put this forward: South Carolina, Missouri, and Georgia. There are several that believe this is an important thing for their citizens. There should be some protection given by the federal government for the citizens.
Assemblywoman Weber:
There’s nothing noted on the East Coast. It’s always us.
Riki Ellison:
That’s because the North Korean threat is the most real threat to us. Everyone is vulnerable to container ships with mobile launchers on them at this point, but the most direct threat is from North Korea.
Assemblywoman Weber:
So you said there were five states, including Alaska, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico?
Riki Ellison:
Yes.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much. We have no further questions. [Recognized Senator Titus]
Senator Dina Titus, Senatorial District No. 7, Clark County:
[Introduced herself] I’m here to give you the other side of the story. I’d like to share with you an editorial that appeared in the Reno-Gazette Journal (Exhibit L). I’m here in opposition to this resolution for many of the same reasons I oppose the resolution of Congress concerning the Estrada appointment. We have too much to do and very little time left to do it. As the Reno-Gazette editorial page stated, this resolution has nothing to do with Nevada. It certainly has nothing to do with the state Senate, a group of lawmakers with some tough decisions to make and fewer than 60 days in which to make them. Their constituents surely would have more sympathy for their complaints if they stuck to the job at hand and kept their noses out of national politics.
This resolution has nothing to do with terrorism. We’ve done an awful lot this session about terrorism. Both the Speaker and the Majority Leader of the Senate had bills on terrorism. Senator Rawson had a bill to quarantine. We had a bill to put in place Mr. Bussell’s organization. There are probably half a dozen more. Resort hotels have had to come up with plans to deal with terrorism. We’ve done a lot about terrorism. That’s not what this bill is about.
This national defense system that’s being touted in this resolution deserves a little more attention than what you’ve seen in these charts. I want to give you a little of that additional information to kind of help you put it in perspective.
As you heard from Mr. Ellison, to date there have been 8 missile defense tests. Three of those have failed. That means 3 of those missiles that they shot at didn’t land. Each test costs $100 million. The entire project, according to the Bush administration, is expected to cost not $9 billion, but $60 billion. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office—and that’s a bipartisan, bureaucratic budget office—concluded that the real cost could be over $230 billion. If you took that amount of money and divided it up among the states by population, Nevada would get enough money to pay for 7,730 children in Head Start, provide health care coverage for 16,673 children, build 783 affordable housing units, and hire 1,173 elementary school teachers. Now, aren’t those the kind of things we should be focusing on here in the Nevada Legislature? Not the missile defense. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Are there any questions from the Committee? [There were none.] Thank you. You helped give us another perspective for our consideration. We appreciate that.
Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum:
[Introduced herself and presented Exhibit M] I’ve been involved in promoting defense for the United States for many years. I began with High Frontier with General Dan Graham and was one of the spokesmen for that strategic defense initiative. I think one of the wonderful things about this whole idea is that it’s actually defensive rather than offensive. The whole purpose of it is to protect the American people. We talk about a lot of things that the United States Government does, and some of them I’ve spoken to you about in this Committee, such as their unconstitutional activities including HAVA.
Let me make a point here that one of the things they do have a constitutional authority to do is to defend the American people. This is one of the things that would do that. I think it’s great, because it actually protects lives. It won’t make any difference how many children we can help with Head Start if they’ve been killed by missiles if there’s nothing to stop them.
Right now, we don’t have any defense against ballistic missiles. There are some 36 nations that have them, and many of those are rogue states like North Korea, Iran, Algeria, Libya, and Syria. They don’t fall with this idea of mutually assured destruction. We don’t have anything to stop those missiles now. We can’t defend ourselves with regards to protecting the American people. We just have to hope that somebody isn’t going to send a missile our way with some kind of chemical or nuclear or biological weapon. This is great, because it can intercept missiles before they hit us.
I really encourage you to think about the real responsibility that you should encourage the federal government to be exerting, and that is to defend us so that you’ll have the opportunity to be here. If we happen to have a missile land in Las Vegas or at Nellis, it won’t matter about what you’re doing here, and it won’t matter about Head Start or any other program, because that won’t be our priority when our nation has been hit by a nuclear or chemical weapon.
This is basic to survival. If we don’t have a good defense, especially because it’s defensive rather than offensive, if we can’t protect the lives of American people, the rest of it doesn’t make any difference. We simply won’t have the opportunity to let anything else make the difference if we’re hit by a nuclear weapon. That’s going to be our total priority. I encourage you to rethink this, because we’re not creating weapons to harm anybody else. These are simply designed to protect us, which I think is our real duty and obligation. It’s to defend ourselves and to protect American lives. Thank you.
Assemblyman Beers:
I was somewhat in a reverie taking notes. It was Ms. Hansen’s presentation that snapped me back to attention, and I wanted to comment that I really have a hard time believing that even the Reno-Gazette Journal would state that this particular issue doesn’t have an impact on Nevada since we’re two of the targets on that map. We’re close enough to the coast that I think this is an important Nevada issue. Thank you.
John Wagner, Nevada Republican Party:
I strongly support S.J.R. 7. The number one function of government is to defend the American people. I believe some offices, when you take the oath of office, you’re supposed to say you defend America against all enemies domestic and foreign. I remember doing that when I went into the army. I swore that same oath to defend this country against all enemies, domestic and foreign. By having a defense, it does deter anybody else’s offense, like they say in football. I think it’s timely, and I think it’s necessary.
They’re talking about $8 billion. My background was in engineering, and a missile launched from one area has a trajectory, a known pattern. It’s going up there. You’re going to intercept that missile the same way. It’s done mathematically with computers. A missile can be taken down very easily. All you have to do is pierce its skin.
For example, and this is only a concept, we all know about flak in World War II. It pierced the airplanes. Airplanes can fly pretty well shot up. You put a hole in a missile, and it’s going to be uncontrollable. That’s one concept that was discussed in taking down missiles. It would be a flak thing. You get close, you blast it out there, the kinetic energy—you can get something like a ball-bearing size [piece of metal] with kinetic energy at a high rate of speed—it can pierce the missile probably in and out. Whatever’s in the middle gets taken out with it. It’s very feasible.
Anybody that has witnessed what happened in Iraqi Freedom, which we just got through doing, our technology is absolutely phenomenal. We destroyed their armies. We destroyed everything with high tech. We have a high-tech type of government. I would much prefer to have us defend it than take a chance at somebody else’s good will. Yes, maybe we could destroy them. But in the meantime, they could destroy an awful lot of us. I would prefer to be on the safe side and have some kind of a shield.
Also, with our satellite situation, you can see something leaving Korea. It’s a long ways away. It would be much easier to take that missile down over the ocean than it would for you to take it down over our soil as it’s coming down on us.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you, Mr. Wagner. We always appreciate your little bit of history that you provide for us as well.
Lynn Chapman, Nevada Families:
[Introduced herself] This is not my realm of expertise, but common sense tells me that in these days of wars and rumors of wars, America does need to have some type of protection. John started to say a little something that I was going to say. I heard a football coach once say that the best offense was a good defense, and I think that’s very timely and it fits this bill. We do have to be careful. We do need some type of protection. A defense makes more sense than going on the offense all the time. We do have to remember that we could become the west coast very easily. We support this resolution. I also wanted to say that Dave Schumann had to leave, and he wanted me to say that he represented the Nevada Full Statehood Committee and the Independent American Party, and they also support this resolution. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
I had him signed in, so I will note that for the record as well. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Chapman? [There were none.] Is there anyone else who wishes to testify on S.J.R. 7? [There were none.] We will close the hearing on S.J.R. 7.
Senator Wiener, we will reopen the hearing on S.C.R. 13. You had excellent testimony represented here, and we appreciate your handout.
Senator Wiener, Senatorial District No. 3, Clark County:
I appreciate the time crunch. I will be very quick. If I may, I’ll just pick out pieces of my testimony and ad lib as I go. I am here to ask your support for S.C.R. 13, and I appreciate those who testified before me. I’ll just give you some information about the problem with obesity.
NCSL, which is one of the organizations we work with, considers obesity one of the leading causes of preventable death. It’s at least as deadly as poverty, smoking, and problem drinking. We find that the percentage of overweight children has more than doubled in the past 20 years. The number of overweight adolescents has more than tripled. We know that overweight and obese children have at least one medical complication and miss four times as much school as normal-weight children. Seventy-five percent of overweight adolescents will remain so as adults.
A 2003 report of the Journal of American Medical Association indicates that being obese at the age of 20 will cut up to 20 years off of a person’s life. Most medical professionals now consider obesity an epidemic. In 2000, obesity comprised 9 percent of our nation’s total health care costs. An April 7, 2003, issue of State Health News, a publication of NCSL, now considers America’s number one health problem as obesity. It is replacing under nutrition and infectious disease as the most significant component of ill health. Twenty-nine percent of adults today live totally sedentary lives. It is a direct component in exacerbating high blood pressure, gall bladder disease, Type II diabetes, and all the kinds of diseases we can think of. Seventy percent of the people who have cardiovascular disease are obese. More than 75 percent with hypertension are obese. More than 40 percent of the people with colon cancer are obese.
The New York Times April 24, 2003, issue said that losing weight could help prevent 1 out of every 6 cancer deaths. For every 2 pounds overweight, you are 9 to 13 percent likely to suffer from arthritis. Obesity also affects mental disorders, eating disorders, emotional problems, chronic obsession, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Obesity affects us with every health condition that we could think of. In the resolution I brought before you, I initially asked for an interim study.
I am thrilled with the offer of the Legislative Affairs Committee to send it to a subcommittee in the Health Care Committee in the interim. They would be addressing the 10 recommendations in the bill, hopefully, and work to facilitate some important resolutions for the state. You’ll notice the subcommittee would have two members from each house as well as a representative from Education and one from Health, because these are critical components of making sure we can turn this epidemic around in our state. For these reasons, I would urge your support for S.C.R. 13 as a subcommittee in the Health Care Committee. Thank you.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much, Senator Wiener. Just so you know, Larry Matheis, Buffy Martin, Bonnie Parnell, Debra Jacobson, Kim Neiman, and Keith Rheault all testified in support.
Senator Wiener:
And I want to thank them, too.
Chairwoman Giunchigliani:
Thank you very much. We are adjourned.
[The meeting was adjourned at 5:11 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Kelly Fisher
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, Chairwoman
DATE: