MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE Sixty-eighth Session June 19, 1995 The Committee on Commerce was called to order at 3:40 p.m., on Monday, June 19, 1995, by the presiding Chairman, Sandra Tiffany, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Larry L. Spitler, Chairman Ms. Sandra Tiffany, Chairman Ms. Maureen E. Brower, Vice Chairman Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Ms. Barbara E. Buckley Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Ms. Chris Giunchigliani Mr. Lynn Hettrick Mr. David E. Humke Mr. Michael (Mike) Schneider STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Research Analyst GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Joseph Dini, Assembly District 38 OTHERS PRESENT: Sam Sorich, National Association of Independent Insurers Brooke Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General Rose McKinney-James, Director, Department of Business and Industry Dave Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Investigations Division David Hall, Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Insurance Ann Fleck, Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Insurance Bob Feldman, President of General Insurance Company Alice Molasky, Insurance Commissioner Charlie Joerg, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association Gub Mix, Executive Director, Nevada Manufactured Housing Ass'n. Renee Diamond, Administrator Nevada Manufactured Housing Div. Jeannie Deeg, State President of the Nevada Association of Nevada Mobile Home Owners Wayne Tetrault, Former Administrator - Manufactured Housing Div. Sam McMullen, Representing Private Clients Fred Hillerby, Nevada Optometric Association Following roll call, the hearing was opened on A.B. 331. ASSEMBLY BILL 331 - Makes various changes relating to investigation of insurance fraud. Coming forward to explain the bill, Sam Sorich, Assistant Vice President of the National Association of Independent Insurers, told the committee the members of his Association were responsible for approximately 25 percent of the property casualty insurance premiums written in Nevada. Although he noted amendments had been suggested, his organization was supporting A.B. 331 in its original form. Explaining his reasons, he stated insurance fraud hurt everyone because everyone who paid insurance premiums had to cover a portion of what was wasted on insurance fraud. Nationally, this was estimated to be some $20 billion to pay for fraudulent claims, and approximately 10 percent of all auto insurance claims were fraudulent. Mr. Sorich pointed out the existing Insurance Division Anti-Fraud Program was funded entirely by assessments paid by insurance companies, and while his organization believed this was a good program, the bill would work towards making it a better program. It provided a clear definition of what fraudulent acts were, and the existing program, he believed, had lacked focus for lack of statutory definition of fraudulent activity. The sponsor of the bill, Assemblyman Joe Dini, Assembly District 38, came forward to explain he had been approached by Mr. Sorich and others in the insurance industry, in June 1994. In their discussions it was learned Arizona had just passed legislation strengthening their fraud unit and the ability to deal with insurance fraud. Representatives from the industry in Arizona predicted Nevada would see ever- increasing insurance fraud problems, particularly in the metropolitan areas. Ms. Giunchigliani noted the Senate Finance Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means had taken action in joint budget closings to eliminate the Insurance Advocate. She wondered if this would leave anyone to work with the public regarding their concerns on insurance fraud. Mr. Dini did not believe the Insurance Advocate had anything to do with fraud. It was that person's job to analyze policies and make this known to the public. He did not believe there was any overlap, and indeed, there was an insurance fraud unit within the Attorney General's Office. What was being proposed by A.B. 331 was the shift of all fraud-related issues from the Insurance Commissioner to the Attorney General's Fraud Unit. Mr. Dini indicated during discussions regarding the bill, they had worked with both the Insurance Commissioner and the Attorney General to make certain no future conflicts occurred. Although the committee might decide certain amendments were needed, the most important thing to consider was the importance of passing some kind of legislation which would prevent insurance fraud. Responding to Chairman Tiffany's request, Mr. Sorich reviewed the bill section-by- section, stressing perhaps the most important part of the bill was the definition section, which was not presently available in Nevada. He outlined the sections, as follows: - Section 3. Specifically defined insurance fraud. As introduced, the bill would specify the Attorney General's Office to be the primary office for investigation and prosecution of insurance fraud. - Section 3. Clarified existing practice regarding assessments. The assessments insurance companies presently paid went to the Insurance Commissioner to run that program. It had become a practice, however, to allow the Insurance Commissioner to send some of those funds to the Attorney General's Office for prosecution of fraudulent cases. - Section 3. Release of confidential information. According to present law, the information gathered during an investigation of insurance fraud was confidential; and Mr. Sorich opined this was meritorious during an investigation. However, the bill proposed when the information was needed to protect the public or insurance companies from ongoing fraudulent activity, the Insurance Commissioner should be given the discretion to release information apprising the public of the fraudulent activity. - Section 12. Stated the Insurance Commissioner should have a program in place to investigate unfair and deceptive trade practices by insurance companies. Speaking for the Insurance Commissioner, Alice Molasky, Rose McKinney-James, Director of the Department of Business and Industry, noted the Insurance Commissioner was currently testifying before another committee, and she was not prepared to speak for Ms. Molasky. However, Ms. McKinney-James said, she had participated in meetings with the Attorney General's Office and the Insurance Commissioner, and she would respond as she could but would defer to the Assistant Attorney General, Brooke Nielsen. Currently, Ms. McKinney-James said, she understood there was a unit within the Insurance Division that worked cooperatively with the Attorney General's Office, and the Division had several consumer representatives responsible for investigating issues of fraud. Chairman Tiffany indicated the committee would appreciate hearing more details on how the issue was currently being addressed. Ms. McKinney-James said she would see if Ms. Molasky could appear before the Commerce Committee. In the meantime, Ms. Nielsen and David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Justice Division, came forward in support of the concept of A.B. 331, strengthening the laws against insurance fraud and deceptive insurance practices. Ms. Nielsen offered background on the bill, relating the text of the meetings between Assemblymen Dini and Spitler. Because the bill represented such a major change in the current operation, including a major increase in the assessment level, and the transfer of the authority to make the assessments to the Attorney General's Office, it was determined more time was needed to talk to the Insurance Commissioner and representatives of the insurance industry. Jointly, agreement had been reached on the items which could be accomplished during this Session of the Legislature, and what substantive changes would be considered during the 1997 Session. From the perspective of the Attorney General's Office, Ms. Nielsen stated, their only current role was to investigate fraudulent cases and conducted criminal prosecutions. The funding for this came from the Insurance Commissioner through assessments on the companies, which was presently capped at $500 per company. Ms. Nielsen submitted a list of proposed amendments to A.B. 331 (Exhibit C), and reviewed these for the committee. Referring specifically to Section 11, Ms. Nielsen said this had been placed in the bill at the request of the Insurance Commissioner, to clarify the Insurance Division's ability to keep certain investigative records confidential. Ms. Nielsen noted Ann Fleck, of the Insurance Division, had notified her the Division was suggesting another amendment to the language originally proposed. This proposal was shown on Exhibit D. These amendments, Ms. Nielsen concluded, would not change the focus of the original form of A.B. 331. In response to Chairman Tiffany's question regarding how widespread the problem appeared to be, Ms. Nielsen said she believed the industry representatives, the Attorney General's Office and the Insurance Commissioner all recognized there was more fraud and deceptive trade going on than they were aware of. This needed attention. Chairman Tiffany observed when the Attorney General's and Insurance Commissioner's budgets were heard in the Committee on Ways and Means there was nothing mentioned regarding additional staff for fraud units, nor was there any mention of a great problem in this area. She stated, "... This is a bill that surprises me a little bit -- I don't think we have as severe a problem as this bill might address, is what I'm getting at, 'cause I didn't hear it from either one of you for the six months." The problems seen in the Division, Ms. McKinney-James said, concerned enforcement items which were related to fraud, and the industry felt there was a need to strengthen those enforcement efforts. The reason more emphasis had not been placed on this issue during the budget hearings had more to do with the fact they were still trying to work through their understanding of the bill. As a better understanding of the goal was achieved, meetings were scheduled. When originally drafted, Ms. McKinney-James said the bill went somewhat beyond what her office deemed appropriate. Thus, the amendatory language had been developed. Ms. McKinney-James suggested Ann Fleck and David Hall come forward to answer any concerns. Ms. Buckley observed there were already a certain number of protections against fraudulent claims built into the system. She wondered how this ranked in terms of priority. Ms. Nielsen agreed with Ms. Buckley's assessment, but from the Attorney General's point of view, any fraud was a priority for their office. Although she had no figures, she did believe there were many more cases the Attorney General's Office would be able to address. She recognized the process would need more funding, and noted the bill raised the assessment from $500 to $5,000 per company. Also, Ms. Nielsen remarked, the Attorney General's Office questioned whether each company should be assessed the same fee. Thus, Ms. Nielsen concluded time was needed between sessions to determine if the increased fee was justified. In response to a question from Ms. Giunchigliani, David Sarnowski, Chief Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Investigation Unit, told her the Attorney General did, in fact, have an insurance fraud section within the financial fraud control unit. That section was funded through the assessments collected by the Insurance Commissioner. Historically and to date, the focus of their staff was on fraud perpetrated against insurance companies, i.e., fraudulent claims, attempts at claims, etc. He said his Division did not pursue what might be called fraudulent activity by insurance companies against consumers. The section most important to the Attorney General's Office, Ms. Nielsen pointed out, gave the definition of insurance fraud, which focused primarily on fraudulent claims by the insured against the company. However, the language was broad enough to include any employee of an insurance company who conspired in any way, or allowed any fraudulent claim or application to be presented. The focus had really been on false claims. Ms. Giunchigliani was not convinced. David Hall, Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Insurance, reiterated his office currently had a fraud program. The original intent of the bill was to move the authority of the fraud unit, now part of the Insurance Division but housed in the Attorney General's Office, entirely into the Attorney General's Office. He admitted the bill had gone beyond the original intent and caused the Insurance Division some problems in that it usurped some authority from the Commissioner. Under NRS 679(B).153, there was a program in place which included the Consumer Services office to answer consumer complaints regarding an agent or an insurance company. If the bill was enacted, the Attorney General's Office could work with the Division of Insurance between sessions to develop an apportioning authority. Also representing the Division of Insurance, Ann Fleck indicated support of the amendments presented by Ms. Nielsen in Exhibit C and Exhibit D. Offering closing testimony, Bob Feldman, President of the Nevada General Insurance Company and Auto Insurance America, recalled testimony before the Senate on insurance fraud. According to the latest national figures, insurance fraud was costing every family $200 per year in insurance premiums. In Nevada he believed this would be closer to between $400 and $500. Also, in meetings with the state fraud unit, the Attorney General's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Mr. Feldman said they had been told that currently there were 300 cases sitting on the desk of the U.S. Attorney for fraudulent activities, including some sophisticated fraud rings which operated throughout Nevada and several other states. Mr. Feldman stated adamantly, he did not believe it was unreasonable for an insurance company to pay from $500 to $5,000 in assessments if the money was used effectively. He asserted he would be happy to pay the $5,000 assessment because just one of these claims could cost many thousands of dollars in legal fees and investigation. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 331. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. Clarifying, Co-Chairman Spitler said the amendment would be to adopt the proposals set forth in both Exhibit C and Exhibit D. Mr. Hettrick expressed concern regarding the proposal to delete Sections 13 through 19, and questioned whether this referred to the amendments to Sections 13 through 19 or whether this recommended deletion of the entire sections. Coming forward to explain, Alice Molasky, Commissioner of Insurance, said she had concerns because NRS 679(B).153 and NRS 679(B).154 were those particular provisions the Insurance Division would not want to see repealed, as this was the source of much of the authority of the Commissioner and to do so would seriously hamper their office. Mr. Hettrick continued to question whether this was the entire sections or just the amendments. Ms. Nielsen said she was responsible for preparing the proposed amendments, and her intention was to remove those sections completely which would mean they were not repealing the section Ms. Molasky spoke to. Those two provisions would remain in statute. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL 494 - Repeals requirements for initial and continuing education for certain persons licensed by manufactured housing division of department of business and industry. Representing the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, Charlie Joerg and Gub Mix, Executive Director of the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, as well as the Executive Director of the Arizona, Idaho and Utah Manufactured Housing Associations, came forward to explain the intent of the bill. Following the introduction, Mr. Mix offered his written comments (Exhibit E) and read his testimony into the record. The Administrator of the Nevada Division of Manufactured Housing, Renee Diamond, came forward in opposition to S.B. 494, and submitted two exhibits: 1) Written testimony from Thelma Clark, mobile home owner in Las Vegas (Exhibit F); and 2) a compilation of letters from mobile home manufacturers attesting to the merits of the legislation passed in 1991 (Exhibit G). Ms. Diamond acknowledged this bill would delete all requirements for initial and continuing education for dealers, responsible managing employees, sales people, installers, service people and rebuilders in the mobile home industry in Nevada. She opined that an educated sales and work force within the industry was essential to the protection of the consumer public interest. Ms. Diamond went on to explain the details of current statute. She said when the requirements for continuing education were put in place by the Legislature, there was no budget or personnel provided. Until now, this had been done by personnel within the Division who were also responsible for other tasks. She agreed with comments that some of the classes had not been job-specific enough and that courses were redundant, but she predicted this would change with approval of the new budget. The person who got the position would not necessarily teach classes, but would coordinate classes. In addition, there were classes dealing with lending being given within the real estate division and financial institutions. These would be beneficial and would add to the list of certified classes. Ms. Diamond called attention to the fact the program was only two years old, and was just now coming into its own with a full-time budget. She urged the committee to defeat S.B. 494 in order to give the Division the chance to improve and make the program what it was meant to be. The State President of the Nevada Association of Nevada Mobile Home Owners, (formerly called Mobile Home Owners League of the Silver State) Jeannie Deeg, said any bill curtailing the continuing education of manufactured home dealers and setup entities would be grossly unfair to the consumer. She maintained the manufacturer of these homes should be assured that sellers and construction crews of any kind, knew their trade and knew it well. It was a matter of consumer protection badly needed against unscrupulous and uncaring business people who offered no recourse to the consumer for a faulty product. In the case of manufactured homes, it added to the burden of the Division of Manufactured Housing which had to become involved in consumer complaints, some of which had resulted in court action. Testifying in opposition to the bill, Wayne Tetrault, representing himself, observed in years past he had come before the Commerce Committee as the Administrator of Manufactured Housing. Mr. Tetrault recalled since 1977, the Legislature had accomplished a great deal in protecting the consumer against unethical and in some cases, illegal manufactured home sales. In 1977, when a great amount of fraud was seen, the Legislature acted, creating laws to protect consumers, and consistently showing an interest in education. Mr. Tetrault traced the progress since 1977. He took exception to Mr. Mix's comment regarding unanimous agreement in the Association against the educational requirements. Mr. Tetrault declared he saw many people who worked in the industry, and throughout his association he had heard very little complaint from people about the 12 hour education requirement over a two-year period. Referring to comments made by Ms. Diamond, Mr. Allard questioned the introduction of new courses and asked her to comment on what plans had been made for the future. Ms. Diamond responded presently the budget covered one position, but the problem had been there was no one assigned to search out good courses. She said it was true that the Real Estate Division and financial institutions offered courses applicable to the mobile home industry, but there was no one person to certify the courses as effective for the mobile home industry. Also, with a person available to coordinate matters, there was the intention to bring in representatives from the National Council on State Building Codes, a licensee from HUD who worked within the industry both with industry people and state administrative agencies. This council had an education program, and she intended to bring them back. Also, Ms. Diamond noted the Nevada Manufactured Housing Association had a Congress which brought people in from all over the country; and they had such good educational components the Nevada Division of Manufactured Housing certified their once-a-year Congress. She also believed there was merit to having these courses offered through the community colleges, and further, believed the new person would search out these possibilities. Ms. Buckley suggested the use of video tapes which could be used on a continuing basis for fulfillment of the continuing education requirements. Ms. Diamond said they intended to explore all strategies including courses being given in other disciplines that would pertain to mobile homes. Mr. Hettrick asked Ms. Diamond if she testified in the Senate when the bill was heard. Responding for Ms. Diamond, Co-Chairman Spitler stated he wished to answer this question for a very special reason. He said, "On the day that this was heard in the Senate, Thelma Clark came to my office and said she wasn't allowed to testify. I found that appalling and thought, 'there has to be some error in this.' So, I went and got the tape and sure enough, what happened is in the middle of the testimony being presented, I think Senator Neal made a motion to do pass, it was seconded and it was voted out of committee. Two people stood up and said they had not had an opportunity to be heard and they had, in fact, signed in. I went down, I got all of the exhibits myself, I listened to the tape myself because I couldn't believe this had happened. "When I realized what had happened -- because Renee Diamond was in the room and both had held their hands up, when the do pass was made -- prior to that they were not heard. I went down to see Senator Townsend the day that this occurred and said that I was stunned that this had occurred because I found it unconscionable that someone would come to testify and not be heard. He said to me that the minute that they voted to do pass the bill, that he then said that they could come back at the end of the work session and be heard. There were numerous bills on the schedule that day. "Thelma Clark left -- she went someplace else to another hearing -- Renee hung around for four hours waiting to be heard on a bill that had already passed. And he then -- I went back again and said, 'this is wrong that people could not be heard to come testify' and he said that he would hear the bill again, although they did not rescind their action, I believe, on Friday. "I explained to him that it was very difficult for people from southern Nevada, particularly individual citizens who have to pay their own way up here -- to come back again. I believe Renee was able to come back [Ms. Diamond said she did not come back, but she was able to speak at the end of the Session when everyone was on their way out.]. So I feel that I can respond to what your question was, 'Did they testify?' no, they did not." SENATE BILL 557 - Authorizes optometrists to form certain business relationships with physicians. Sam McMullen, representing an optometrist and an opthomoligist, who wanted to do business together within their scopes of practice, stated this was the entire intent of S.B. 557. Ms. Giunchigliani questioned the rationale prompting the request for the bill, and asked Mr. McMullen to please explain. Mr. McMullen continued with a section-by-section explanation of the bill. He said the bill had been requested after an attorney had advised his clients the present statutes required a separation that, in fact, precluded his clients from grouping together for a practice. Also, according to NRS Chapter 636, the parties could not even be separated by a wall down the middle of the two practices. Mr. McMullen pointed out the bill addressed independent professionals, and said he believed the goal would also serve to comply with a coming trend in the provision of services of optometry and opthomoligists. Co-Chairman Spitler questioned why the statutes had been crafted in this manner. In response, Mr. McMullen said it was his understanding it was a long-standing provision which appeared to be primarily a professional issue for the optometrists. In discussion, Co-Chairman Spitler expressed some surprise there should be this kind of barrier when the move in the health care industry appeared to be more cooperative in relationships. Mr. McMullen opined perhaps the interim standing health care committee might look at these kinds of relationships. He did not know the answer to Co-Chairman Spitler's query as to how many states had this kind of barrier, nor did he know if there were any states without this type of barrier. Clearly, the lobbyists in the optometric field had crafted this bill, with the general agreement from Marsha Berkbigler, Fred Hillerby and himself that this was language which would not be opposed in the industry. Mr. McMullen said frankly, this bill was necessary because of the state of the optometric laws and regulations. Attorneys were advising them to separate, but the bill, while maintaining the separate association, would allow the two professions to share an office and to better serve the individual needs of customers. This bill met with a certain amount of doubt related to whether it was necessary. Ms. Giunchigliani observed two of the statutes cited were referenced to the self- referral legislation passed during the 1993 Session. Statute NRS 636.300 stated it was an improper association for optometrists to work with opthomoligists. She recalled there had been two Attorney General Opinions regarding optometrists and opthomoligists being able to entertain that type of working relationship. Mr. McMullen assured the committee there was nothing in the bill that affected self- referral. Mr. Allard observed this might go a long way towards defusing the present obstacles between optometrists and opthomoligists. Ms. Tiffany noted she had no problem with the bill, but did object to the language on page 3, lines 30 and 31. She believed this went against the combination of practices and reducing the cost of health care. She said, "... so this doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever." She requested this language be deleted from the bill. Mr. McMullen was uncertain whether this would be agreeable to the other parties. In response to Chairman Tiffany's request to delete language dealing with an optometrist being able to be hired by a physician, Fred Hillerby, representing the Nevada Optometric Association, said the provision regarding employment had been in statute for a number of years and, in fact, had withstood a Supreme Court test some ten years previous. He believed the issue was somewhat the same as "self- referral." Chairman Tiffany insisted on obtaining a commitment from Mr. Hillerby to remove this language from the bill. After some discussion regarding the formation of associations, Chairman Tiffany said she did not want to broaden the scope of the discussion. She merely wanted to confine this to the language on page 3, lines 30 and 31. Mr. Hillerby asked for time to further consider the proposal. Referring to a remark from Mr. Allard, Mr. McMullen said he looked at this as a way to start facilitating interaction between the two professions. Changing the status quo at this point in time might open up issues not previously considered. He suggested an acceptable alternative might be to look at all the issues relating to the association, or interaction, of these two professions over the interim. Chairman Tiffany maintained she did not see any reason to pass a bill that was single-incident driven as opposed to policy, if policy needed to be changed. If this was just to accommodate a client of Mr. McMullen's this was not reason enough. ASSEMBLY BILL 192 - FIRST REPRINT - Makes various changes to provisions relating to hearing aid specialists. Co-Chairman Spitler reviewed the bill, noting it had been passed out of committee on April 17, 1995, with an amend and do pass. The Senate had made amendments as follows: 1. Page 1, line 18, as follows: "... Pursuant to Chapter 630 of NRS an advanced practitioner of nursing licensed pursuant to Chapter 632 of NRS and an audiologist. 2. Page 3, line 25. Delete 200 and insert 100. Co-Chairman Spitler noted all references to 200 had been amended to 100. 3. Page 5, line 14. Change the reference to "3 years" to "2 years." 4. Page 5, line 21 - 1st Reprint. The original bill had referred to "2," the Assembly Commerce Committee had changed this to "10," and the Senate had amended this to "5." Committee discussion followed. It was decided by committee consensus to not concur in the Senate amendments shown in the First Reprint and to set up a conference committee composed of Assemblymen Hettrick, Buckley and Brower to meet with a Senate conference committee to resolve the issue. As a matter of housekeeping, Co-Chairman Spitler noted the amendments had been received for three bills which the committee had worked on previously. He suggested the rules governing notice be suspended on A.B. 647, A.B. 667, and A.B. 545 in order to hear the bills the next hearing day which would allow the bills to move along in the process. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO SUSPEND THE RULES FOR HEARING ON A.B. 647, A.B. 667, AND A.B. 545. ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. SENATE BILL 448 - SECOND REPRINT - Revises provisions governing licensing and regulation of psychologists. Again reviewing the progress of the bill, Co-Chairman Spitler called attention to an amendment which had been submitted by the proponent of the bill (Exhibit H). Referring to the amendment proposed on line 29 and the deletion of the words "alcoholism, substance abuse," Mr. Spitler was troubled by testimony from the representatives from the Bureau of Alcohol and Drugs Abuse (BADA) which indicated psychologists could work with disorders of alcoholism and drug abuse, or addictive behavior of any kind. He told the committee the psychologists had agreed to delete this language. Ms. Giunchigliani agreed with the deletion of this language. Discussion followed. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 448. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 72 - Prohibits practice of respiratory care without certification by national organization. The Principal Research Analyst, Paul Mouritsen, distributed amendments to the bill (Exhibit I), and reviewed the proposals presented by Senator Augustine and Christopher Logan. After hearing the bill, Ms. Buckley remarked she had a concern with Section 9 regarding educational requirements, and wondered whether the language went too far. Chairman Tiffany explained the educational process and opined this language was not too strident by any means. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT I AND DO PASS. ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN SCHNEIDER AND HETTRICK WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 344 - Revises provisions relating to licensing of chiropractors and chiropractors' assistants. Co-Chairman Spitler noted the bill had been discussed on June 7, 1995, and there had been indications the language should remain the same on page 2, lines 18 through 21. Also, in discussion, there were comments the language on page 3, lines 18 through 21 should remain the same; and a new fee of $100 had been suggested. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 344. ASSEMBLYMAN ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. Restating, Chairman Tiffany indicated the motion would be to amend by restoring the language on page 2, lines 18, 19 and 20; restoring the language in the brackets; and deleting the amendatory language on page 3, lines 19 and 20. THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC VOTED NO, ALL OTHERS VOTED YES. ASSEMBLYMEN HETTRICK AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) SENATE BILL 193 - FIRST REPRINT - Prohibits use of designation or abbreviations which indicates person is licensed or registered dietitian under certain circumstances. Mr. Mouritsen submitted Proposed Amendments to S.B. 193 (Exhibit J). He indicated the amendments had been submitted to him by Charlie Joerg and Joe Guild, and agreement had been indicated. Mr. Mouritsen went on to review the amendment. ASSEMBLYMAN FETTIC MOVED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT SHOWN IN EXHIBIT J AND TO DO PASS S.B. 193. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. (ASSEMBLYMEN ARBERRY, HETTRICK AND SCHNEIDER WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) With no further testimony, the hearing on S.B. 193 was closed, and the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _____________________________ Iris Bellinger, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Commerce June 19, 1995 Page