The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:45 p.m., on Wednesday, March 12, 1997. Chairman Marcia de Braga presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman

Mr. Douglas Bache

Ms. Deanna Braunlin

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. David Humke

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Roy Neighbors

Mr. Brian Sandoval

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Mr. Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman de Braga noted the committee would hear testimony on A.B. 163, and welcomed the Speaker of the Assembly, Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Assembly District 38.

Speaker Dini explained A.B. 163 was introduced as a protest against the Federal Government for removing freon from the market in the United States. As a result of the freon ban, a 1 pound can would cost the consumer $30 compared to $2 before the ban. The state of Arizona had passed a similar bill, and Speaker Dini theorized, while legal problems would have to be addressed, the bill would be beneficial.

Merritt K. (Ike) Yochum, representing himself, submitted "The Freon Bill: Chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs), Legal Facts—The Courts, and Scientific Facts—The Scientists," as Exhibit C. Mr. Yochum’s testimony addressed the exhibit as follows:

• A letter from the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) Assemblyman Joseph J. Dini, Jr., which noted possible constitutional problems with the bill; plus, the response to the issues raised were addressed in sections 1, 2, and 3, respectively, of Exhibit C.

• Section 5 discussed ozone holes, and stated air conditioners, refrigerators, and freezers in homes, offices, schools, hospitals, and so on, would have to be replaced or extensively modified to enable operation with the new coolants. Halons used by fire fighters would have to be replaced, even though there was no substitute available. The costs of replacement or modification would cost the consumers over $100 billion.

• Section 6, contained the testimony of S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., presented to the House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing on Stratospheric Ozone: "Myths and Realities," which discussed the federal policy to accelerate the phase out of CFCs. It stated ". . . There was no scientific consensus on ozone depletion or its consequences. . ."

• Section 7 discussed the incorrect 1992 prediction of severe ozone loss over North America; also, the findings that the chemicals chosen to replace CFCs were inconclusive as to whether it was hazardous to the ozone level.

• Section 8 listed the scientists who supported the belief that CFCs were not hazardous to the ozone level. The prediction was made that 20 to 40 million people would die annually from starvation and disease in the Third World because of the increased cost of adequate refrigeration on transportation, the storage of food, blood and medication, and from skin cancer. Also, there was no scientific evidence to support the necessity of the CFC ban.

• Section 10 delineated the 1992 claim by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that the depletion of the ozone level was imminent. Two weeks later, the Space Shuttle Atlantis measured man-made chemicals in the upper atmosphere, and found that only infinitesimal quantities of CFCs ever rose into the stratosphere. Several months later, NASA officials admitted their prediction was incorrect. However, the phase-out was unaffected.

• Section 12 accused the DuPont Corporation of masterminding the CFC phase-out because the company’s freon patents expired in 1992, and would have resulted in several million dollars lost. The new refrigerant, HFC-134a, which DuPont held exclusive rights, was a less efficient refrigerant, and was the only refrigerant authorized for use in new car air conditioning systems.

There were no questions for Mr. Yochum from the committee.

Alan Edwards, representing himself, testified in support of A.B. 163. Mr. Edwards read portions of Exhibit C, section 5 concerning Halons, ultraviolet radiation, and its affect on the atmosphere. There were no questions from the committee.

David Horton, Committee to Restore the Constitution, addressed the committee in support of A.B. 163. His testimony was contained in Exhibit D. Mr. Horton stated LCB’s objection to the bill (Exhibit C, section1) were unfounded and not supported by the United States Constitution. Referring to Exhibit C, section 3, Mr. Horton suggested the committee amend A.B. 163 with the language contained under the heading "Changes for BDR 40-563."

Assemblyman Mortenson asked what Arizona did regarding CFCs. Mr. Horton responded A.B. 163 was based on Arizona’s bill. The were no further questions for Mr. Horton.

Dan Hansen, Independent American Party, addressed the committee in support of A.B. 163, stating the ozone scare was unfounded. Federal regulations and controls, such as the ban on freon, were responsible for the rise in the national cost of living, and the decline in the standard of living for millions of Americans. He urged the committee to pass the bill and exert local control and local government to protect the people from federal regulations, which were bankrupting the former thriving economy of the United States.

Janine Hansen, President, Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke in support of A.B. 163, and also expressed the belief that DuPont was the driving force behind the freon ban in the United States because the company was in danger of losing millions of dollars when their exclusive freon patents expired in 1992. The replacement refrigerant, HFC-134a, was incompatible with the refrigerant systems in cars, air conditioners, and appliances built before 1992, and was less environmentally friendly. HFC-134a was a less effective refrigerant, required a larger compressor to create the same cooling effect, and thus, required higher fuel consumption and greater quantities of carbon dioxide emissions. HFC-134a was caustic to humans, presented health risks to air conditioning technicians not present in freon, was inherently less efficient as a refrigerant, and since the larger compressor was needed, would not fit into the confines of existing engines. The DuPont Corporation owned the exclusive rights to HFC-134a, the only refrigerant authorized for use in new car air conditioning systems, and as a result of the patent, would continue to make millions of dollars.

Ms. Hansen submitted Exhibit E, "Senate Joint Resolution No. 1," which was the reaffirmation of the 10^th Amendment of the United States’ Constitution. Wherein the amendment stated ". . . The powers not delegated to the states by the Constitution nor prohibited to it by the state are reserved to state respectively, or to the people . . . By requiring the various states to carry out certain federal mandates, the Federal Government is demonstrably treating the states as agents of the Federal Government . . . Many federal mandates may be in direct violation of the constitution of the United States, therefore, infringe upon the power reserved to the states or to the people by the 10^th Amendment."

The resolution referred to the Supreme Court Case New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992) ". . . the Congress of the United States may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states . . . Congress exercises its conferred powers subject to the limitations contained within the Constitution . . ."

In the Resolved section ". . . the State of Nevada hereby claims sovereignty pursuant to the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution of the United States . . ."

In conclusion, Ms. Hansen informed the committee that as legislators, they had the authority under the Constitution of the United States to assert themselves as a sovereign state legislature by opposing the freon ban, and urged the committee to pass A.B. 163. There were no questions from the committee.

Francis Gillings, from Sparks, Nevada, spoke on behalf of himself in support of A.B. 163. Mr. Gillings also supported the belief that the DuPont Corporation’s financial greed was responsible for the freon ban. There were no questions from the committee.

Richard Brengman spoke on behalf of himself in support of A.B. 163. Mr. Brengman stated he had experience pertinent to the bill. As a worldwide computer mainframe installer, he explained every building where he installed computers were protected by Halon systems. A display advertising Halon had a man sit in a booth attempting to light a cigarette in a Halon atmosphere. No harm was done to the individual nor the atmosphere, and the cigarette could not be lit. That same demonstration could not be carried out with the new refrigerant because HFC-134a was toxic.

Nevada’s growing majority of inhabitants were retired people who lived on fixed incomes and could not afford to replace their appliances, air conditioners or cars because of the new regulations. Mr. Brengman urged the committee to support the bill, bring Nevada to the forefront, regain the people’s rights under the 10^th Amendment of the Constitution, and tell the Federal Government Nevada would protect its citizens. There were no questions from the committee.

Juanita Cox, representing the People to Protect America and the Americans who died from the effects of Agent Orange, addressed the committee in support of A.B. 163. Ms. Cox reiterated previous testimony regarding the DuPont Corporation’s expired freon patents, the company’s exclusive rights to HFC-134a, and informed the committee DuPont had lied to the public repeatedly in the past. DuPont insisted Agent Orange, the chemical used to kill foliage in Viet Nam, was safe. However, Agent Orange had been proven to be a cancer- causing chemical which resulted in the deaths of many Americans. DuPont’s parent company, I. G. Farben of Germany was responsible for the production of Zyclon-B, the chemical used to kill the European Jewish population in the Holocaust during World War II. DuPont should not be trusted.

Ms. Cox urged the committee to pass A.B. 163 and stand up for science, the economy, small businessmen, and the perspiring constituents of Nevada. There were no questions from the committee.

Joseph Johnson, representing the Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter, addressed the committee in opposition of A.B. 163. Mr. Johnson stated while there were scientists who claimed freon was not a danger to the Earth’s ozone, there were also many credible scientists who claimed it was dangerous, and the argument was one for discussion. There was a preponderance of statistics that there was potential risk. The bill’s proponents claimed that the ozone layer studies were nonscientific and inconclusive, and their conspiracy theory should not be supported upon the due process of which the decisions were made by the Federal Government.

In conclusion, Mr. Johnson stated he did not believe the committee received a balanced presentation on the scientific merits or demerits of the issues presented in A.B. 163, and urged the members to consider all the scientific findings before making their decision.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if a 1985 automobile with a freon air conditioner would require the installation of the new HFC-134a system. Mr. Johnson replied he did not know the answer, however he owned a 1988 automobile and recently had the air conditioning unit serviced without installing the new system. The service was more expensive, and Mr. Johnson was told by the technician the price increase was due to the new federal regulations.

Mrs. de Braga, referring to the contents of the LCB letter, explained the enactment by Congress required the termination of both the production and consumption of CFCs by January 1, 2000.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked if new cars were produced with the new coolant system; also, when had manufacturers ceased production of the freon systems. Mr. Johnson stated new automobiles contained the new freon-free systems. In response to Mr. Neighbors’ second question, Mr. Johnson explained he did not know when that change was made. There were no further questions from the committee.

Exhibit F, supporting A.B. 163, was submitted by Norm and Peggy John of Minden, Nevada.

Mrs. de Braga closed the hearing on A.B. 163. Mrs. de Braga then informed the committee about a planned committee trip to the wildlife areas in Churchill County.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Carmela Porcella,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Chairman

DATE: