MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR Sixty-eighth Session March 7, 1995 The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, March 7, 1995, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman Senator Ann O'Connell, Vice Chairman Senator Sue Lowden Senator Kathy M. Augustine Senator Raymond C. Shaffer Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Young, Senior Research Analyst Vance Hughey, Senior Research Analyst Molly Dondero, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Douglas Dirks, General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System Jan Meyers, Northern District Manager, Industrial Insurance Regulation, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry Larry Zimmerman, President, CDS of Nevada Kevin Higgins, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Workers' Compensation Fraud Unit, Office of the Attorney General Eloise Koenig, Self-Insurance Coordinator, Workers' Compensation Section, Division of Insurance, Department of Business and Industry Cecilia Colling, Assistant General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) Jack Jeffrey, Secretary-Treasurer, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council Claude (Blackie) Evans, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) Arleen Heaton, Management Analyst, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) Michael J. Busick, Business Manager and Financial Secretary, Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 567 Glenn Goza, Owner/Manager, Olsten Staffing Services Kay Armstrong, Attorney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Mark Haversack, Workman's Compensation Coordinator, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Compliance Officer, Harrah's Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce/Nevada Self- Insurers Association Senator Townsend began the hearing with an introduction of two bill draft requests (BDRs). BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-17: Require each occupation al licensing board to have two representa tives of general public and prohibit service on such boards for more than two terms SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS BDR 54-17. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 54-205: Exemp ts certain part- time reposse ssors from licensi ng under certain circums tances. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO DO PASS BDR 54-205. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend explained the procedure for the work session on the list of proposals as organized in Exhibit C. All proposals will be referred to by their number and do not indicate any order of preference. Senator Townsend took testimony on Proposal 3. Senator Shaffer was concerned a company not affiliated with the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) could move into a building and by its location, imply it is an extension of the system. Senator O'Connell stated she is not happy allowing government agencies to take business away from the private sector. She declared her opposition to the proposal. Senator Townsend asked if there is a statutory prohibition against renting excess office space to nongovernmental entities. Douglas Dirks, General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), commented the statutes prohibit leasing office space to anyone other than governmental agencies. Senator Lowden asked if there is extra space available at this time for leasing. Mr. Dirks responded there is some space available. He stated he would like the flexibility to fully utilize the assets. Senator O'Connell stated she would prefer selling the asset rather than renting it because selling it would put it back on the tax rolls. Senator Neal asked if the proposal is requested by SIIS and for how much will they rent the available space. Mr. Dirks responded SIIS requested the change and that rent is approximately $1.35 per square foot in Las Vegas. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO DELETE PROPOSAL 3. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NEAL AND LOWDEN VOTED VOTED NO.) ***** Senator Townsend opened discussion for Proposal 4. He questioned why SIIS could not accept facsimile C-4 and C-3 forms. Mr. Dirks stated the acceptance of facsimile (fax) forms is not allowed for in statute and the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) had, previously, taken the position such transmissions were prohibited, though, currently, they are allowing them. He stated they would prefer to set up computer links to allow electronic filings, and to be able to accept information over the telephone allowing SIIS to fill out the C-3 form, then send the form back to the employer for a signature. This would allow SIIS to accept the claim immediately. There is a prohibition against this type of filing procedure. Jan Meyers, Northern District Manager, Industrial Insurance Regulation, Division of Industrial Relations, Department of Business and Industry, commented the department authorized a pilot program allowing SIIS to take the documentation by fax. They would, then, obtain the original and keep it for the files. Senator Townsend asked why this needs to be placed into statute. He suggested the decision be a management decision. Ms. Meyers stated she does not have a preference as to how they receive the information from SIIS, just as long as they receive it. Senator O'Connell requested her statement be noted in the minutes. "On approval of this committee that Doug [Dirks] is free to exercise his management skills." Ms. Meyers indicated her agreement with the statement. Senator Townsend referred, again, to Proposal 4 questioning why the physician does not currently retain the original forms for a period of 3 years. Mr. Dirks stated SIIS retains the documents. The proposal asks if a fax is sent, then the doctor may retain the C-4 forms in his records and the employer may retain the C-3 form. Ms. Meyers suggested the committee review the state's records retention laws to determine if there is a conflict. She stated electronic claims' filing is a trend for the 1990s. She stated the state records laws may be in conflict with the 3-year requirement. Mr. Dirks stated if the facsimile is considered an acceptable document, there is no need for the doctor or employer to retain the original. He stated SIIS is prohibited from filling out the C-3 for the employer. They would like to be able to take the information over the telephone and fill out the C-3. Larry Zimmerman, President, CDS of Nevada, commented the electronic filing for the C-4 form is computer generated containing no signature. He stated then the signature is on record in the doctor's office or the employer's office and neither SIIS nor the Managed Care Organization (MCO) has a record of the signature for their files. Senator Townsend explained his desire to have less in statute. He stated the committee is not going to dictate to the system on how to file forms. He suggested it is important to allow Mr. Dirks to run SIIS and to limit the statutory requirements for day-to-day running of the system. Mr. Zimmerman stated allowing electronic filing is a problem for the self-insured employers. Kevin Higgins, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Workers' Compensation Fraud Unit, Office of the Attorney General, stated his concerns for allowing electronic filing. He stated without an original signature on the form, fraud is unprosecutable. Senator Townsend suggested to Mr. Higgins that he and Mr. Dirks work out the problems addressed in proposal 4. No action was taken on Proposal 4 and discussion began on proposal 5. Mr. Dirks indicated current investment statutes are out of date. He wished to adopt the new National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Model Investment Act. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO ADOPT PROPOSAL 5. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend opened discussion on Proposal 6. Mr. Dirks indicated they could only disperse funds by check. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO ADOPT PROPOSAL 6. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend opened discussion on Proposal 9. Eloise Koenig, Self-insurance Coordinator, Workers' Compensation Section, Division of Insurance (DIR), Department of Business and Industry, stated currently the department requires audited financial statements and proprietary information from all self- insured employers. The information is considered public information. Many self-insured employers are private and request to keep the proprietary information confidential. She stated she has no difficulty with the request. She indicated the liability information would be available to the public. She stated she wants DIR to be able to obtain any information needed from the records. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO ADOPT PROPOSAL 9. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was opened on Proposal 12. Cecilia Colling, Assistant General Manager, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), explained SIIS's desire not to make payments to someone who is in jail. Mr. Dirks explained if a person has an illegally generated income, for example, from selling drugs, he is in violation of the requirement that someone have no source of income. Senator Townsend questioned if a person is injured at a legal job, then turns to illegal activities, should they be denied their claim. Mr. Dirks stated the income, legal or not, constitutes employment. Jack Jeffrey, Secretary-treasurer, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, stated the language of the proposal is too broad. He cautioned people are cut off from benefits based on accusation, then they must prove their claim at the appeal level to have benefits reinstated. He stated there are degrees of illegality. He cautioned if the proposal indicates "any illegal activity," it is too broad. Claude (Blackie) Evans, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), commented there is more to consider than just the person in jail. Usually the person has a family who is depending on the income from the disability payments. If the person commits a crime and the family is cut off from the disability payments, the family will end up being supported by the state one way or another, whether through Welfare or SIIS payments. No action was taken on Proposal 12. Discussion was opened on Proposal 13. Mr. Evans explained the origin of Proposal 13. Many employees suffer frustration at not knowing if a claim is going to be denied or accepted. Senator Townsend explained if the requirement is placed into statute, it will hinder SIIS by accelerating acceptance and denial without adequate time to accurately investigate the case. Mr. Evans indicated he is not in favor of the proposal. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DELETE PROPOSAL 13. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend asked for discussion on Proposal 14. Mr. Dirks explained the statute currently restricts payment of temporary total disability awards, but permanent total disability payments were left out of the last legislation. Senator Neal stressed the need for compassion for the families of the incarcerated disabled employee. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 14. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Proposal 16 was discussed. Ms. Colling stated there is an ambiguity in the statutes which this proposal seeks to clarify. This allows a paid corporate officer to reject coverage. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 16. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend opened discussion on Proposal 19. Mr. Zimmerman discussed employee leasing. He explained leasing is not temporary employment, but the agencies who lease out the employees are temporary employment agencies. He stated leasing is a very small part of their business. He commented it is illegal to self-insure when leasing employees. Arleen Heaton, Management Analyst, State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS), explained why the restriction is necessary to prevent leased employees from being covered under self- insurance. Nationwide, there has been problems with employee leasing. There have been instances where companies have taken advantage of employees by not supplying them with any benefits. She indicated there is no third-party accountability, and no certain way of assuring the premiums collected by the employer are being applied to the workers' compensation fund or to the retirement plan. She stated SIIS opposes the language in the proposal and SIIS will propose their own language. She stressed the current proposed language will make it very difficult to determine if an employee is temporary or leased. Michael J. Busick, Business Manager and Financial Secretary, Painters and Allied Trades Local No. 567, expressed the union's opposition to the proposal. He stated the proposal allows a group to become self-insured without having to form a group insurance system. Glenn Goza, Owner/Manager, Olsten Staffing Services, clarified the difference between temporary services and leasing companies. Temporary service companies occasionally have an employee in a position for longer than a year. He stressed a temporary employee is an employee of the employment agency no matter how long they work for a business, even if it is longer than a year. He stated a leasing company goes into a business and takes over the existing employees and leases them back to a business. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO HOLD PROPOSAL 19 FOR ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was held on Proposal 24. Mr. Jeffrey stated the proposal allows an injured worker to sue the uninsured employer and SIIS will recover all costs. No action was taken on Proposal 24. Proposal 25 was discussed. Mr. Dirks explained the way the law is currently written, it does not provide any flexibility other than drawing a line at the total amount of premium paid, making a calculation as to who is subject to penalty. He asked that SIIS be allowed the discretion to either, draft a regulation which would govern the situation, then take it to public hearing, or to place the regulation in statute. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 25. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was held on Proposal 30. Mr. Higgins stated there is not a false identification statute in Nevada. Senator Neal asked how false identification is used. Mr. Higgins stated there have been cases where people have submitted several claims under several different Social Security numbers. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 30. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Mr. Higgins discussed Proposal 31. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 31. SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** An explanation was given for Proposal 32. Currently there is nothing in statute which allows a doctor to testify when they think a patient is committing or is about to commit fraud. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 32. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Mr. Higgins stated Proposal 33 is needed to prevent out-of-state employers who work in Nevada from not supplying needed worker information. He said "reasonable" time could be the same as subpoena power which is 10 days. He stated the medical records would still be confidential. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 33. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was held on Proposal 34. Kay Armstrong, Attorney, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, stated if a person commits a misdemeanor, denying his entire claim is excessive. A misdemeanor is less than a $250 fine. She illustrated a case she is working on at the moment where a man may have made telephone contacts instead of personal contacts to conduct his job search. The system had let him search on his own for a job for over 6 months, when they are supposed to only allow a person to search alone for a few weeks. She feels he was not given proper instruction, or assistance. He could lose all his benefits because the people contacted cannot remember him coming into the business. Mr. Higgins stated if a person commits fraud, denying a claim is often the only way of punishing them. He said there are some people who do not knowingly commit the crime, but do so through ignorance of the law. He stated most people committing fraud, however, know exactly what they are doing. He stressed this proposal applies only to a conviction. No action was taken on the proposal at this time. Proposal 35 was directed to the money committees. Proposal 36 was discussed by Mr. Higgins. He said the State Contractors' Board claims their records are confidential and will not allow the Workers' Compensation Fraud Unit access to the records. He stated statute does not specifically allow the fraud unit access to the State Contractor's Board and would like to see this changed. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 36. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Mr. Higgins discussed Proposal 37. He stated the intent is: If [a worker] was injured here and working here, they should stay here to receive benefits. The Attorney General has expressed to me what she thinks is probably a constitutional problem with this provision. Mr. Jeffrey commented it seems unconstitutional. SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO DELETE PROPOSAL 37. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Colling discussed Proposal 53. She requested SIIS be allowed the discretion to manage cases which fall outside the MCO areas. Mr. Jeffrey commented he feels removal of the 20-mile rule will create a problem for workers in outlying areas. Mark Haversack, Workman's Compensation Coordinator, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Compliance Officer, Harrah's, stressed southern area workers in the border areas usually seek medical care in those border towns. Arizona has different workers' compensation regulations than Nevada. He stressed none of the owners in the Laughlin area are opposed to paying travel expenses for their injured workers. They are willing to pay overnight expenses for those workers. He summarized they wish to keep the care for their workers in Nevada. Mr. Jeffrey stated the construction industry is not in favor of changing the 20-mile rule. Ms. Colling stated currently under statute the worker must stay within the 20-mile limit to obtain treatment through managed care. Senator Neal asked if the workers who work at properties in Laughlin, but who live in Bullhead City, Arizona, could be treated in Bullhead City. Ms. Colling stated SIIS maintains control over out-of-state treatment instead of a MCO controlling the treatment. Mr. Jeffrey stipulated the employer decides who the MCO will be for his business. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 53. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Ms. Colling explained the need to delete the 20-mile rule from workers' compensation. She stated many employees live more than 20 miles from their doctors. By deleting the 20-mile rule the entire management of the claim would follow the patient. Currently, if a specialist is more than 20 miles away, the worker falls out of managed care. Mr. Jeffrey objected stating the 20-mile rule could be expanded. He commented the worker might be forced to travel farther than necessary for treatment. Senator Lowden asked how SIIS will protect the worker. Ms. Colling stated common sense and flexibility are a key element in managed care. She stated an MCO will try to place a worker into another system closer to where they live if that worker is injured away from home. Senator Shaffer expressed his concern a worker may be manipulated by the system to eliminate the claim. Ms. Colling asserted a 90-mile rule is a more appropriate distance. Senator Townsend suggested common sense must dictate the care for the worker. He expressed his outrage that logical people cannot focus on the needs of the injured worker and do what is best for the worker. Ms. Colling suggested limits can be set contractually on the distance traveled to see physicians. She stated the statute only applies to SIIS, not to the self- insured. Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce/Nevada Self-Insurers Association, commented there is no need for the 20-mile rule if jurisdictions of the MCO and SIIS extend to wherever the injured worker needs to seek treatment. He submitted Exhibit D. Senator O'Connell requested the intent of the Legislature be stated, "the injured worker is going to be cared for no matter where he is injured, no matter where he resides." Mr. Jeffrey commented the law, not the intent, is what matters to a judge. Senator O'Connell requested the contracts with SIIS reflect the intent of the Legislature. She stressed the purpose of the system is to take care of the injured worker. Ms. Colling stressed, "We want to accommodate the needs of the injured worker, and to make sure they have quality care. We will commit to have that included in the contract." In response to a question of authority by SIIS made by Senator Neal, Ms. Colling said the MCOs have the ability to deny treatment, but SIIS may overrule that denial. Mr. McMullen commented case management should extend to the location where treatment is administered for the betterment of the patient. He stated there is no desire to keep an injured worker from obtaining the best treatment he deserves. An arbitrary mileage limit is not the best for the worker. Medical treatment should be paid for even if the physician is not on the provider list. He stressed it is important the case still be under case management, regardless of where the treatment is given. Senator O'Connell commented the employer is paying the system to have the injured worker helped. The employer should contract with an MCO which will accommodate the needs of the employees. Mr. Jeffrey stated he would withdraw his opposition if it is made clear that medical costs for a person living outside the MCO area will be picked up by the system or the employer. Senator Townsend clarified it is logical for a worker to be able to go to their local doctor for treatment and case management will follow the worker to his doctor. A worker should not have to travel to a doctor just because that doctor is on a list. He suggested a worker who needs specialist treatment should be able to travel outside his area for treatment. He questioned why the contracts do not reflect this logic. Ms. Colling stated the contracts cannot be set up as indicated because of the 20-mile rule. Senator Regan stated the bill is supposed to follow the injured worker wherever he lives. The bill should be paid. Ms. Colling stated in some cases medical treatment is not paid for if the worker has not followed the network of the MCO. She stated if a worker moves outside the 20-mile area, then the worker's case is shifted to SIIS and the coverage continues if it is an approved treatment. Senator Neal suggested the regulation should state, "The case management will follow the worker." Mr. Jeffrey stipulated if the 20-mile rule is eliminated, then the worker is required to go to the treatment. Senator Townsend stressed if the 20-mile rule is eliminated then: It must have the common sense of what we are trying to accomplish, which is to manage the claim, and if the injured worker lives outside of an urban area, then the case management follows him. If he does need a specialist who is not in his locale, we have to get him to that specialist. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 54, DELETION OF THE 20-MILE RULE. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO) ***** Proposal 55 was discussed. Senator O'Connell expressed her concerns that the figure indicated is too low. Ms. Colling stated it is for the Carson-Douglas area. She stated the issue can be handled contractually. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO DELETE PROPOSAL 55. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was conducted on Proposal 60. Ms. Colling stated there have been rulings by appeals officers that cases originating between the implementation of the law, and the start up of the MCOs are not covered by MCOs. Senator Neal objected to the proposal because it is a retroactive law. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 60. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL VOTED NO.) ***** SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 62. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 63. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 64. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was held on Proposal 69. Mr. Dirks expressed his support for the proposal. No action was taken at this time. Senator Neal discussed Proposal 78. He asked Mr. Dirks what cases would apply to the proposal. Mr. Dirks stated the law requires to impose the 3-times penalty even though the error may have occurred because the employer is from out-of- state and is not familiar with the rules. He stressed lack of communication is often the reason for the error, not through deliberate intent by the employer. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 78. SENATOR LOWDEN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Discussion was held on Proposal 81. Senator O'Connell stressed she would like to include the language, "until remarried." Ms. Colling stated the dependants will receive the benefits, but not the remarried spouse. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 81. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Neal requested an explanation of Proposal 108. Senator O'Connell explained this proposal offers light duty work to the injured worker and sets up a pool of employers to offer that work. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 108. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NEAL ABSTAINED) ***** Mr. Dirks discussed Proposal 109. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 109. SENATOR SHAFFER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Mr. Dirks explained Proposal 110. He stated the statute is very restrictive and prevents SIIS from determining experience modifications of businesses from out- of-state. SENATOR O'CONNELL MOVED TO INCLUDE PROPOSAL 110. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The hearing was closed at 11:00 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Molly Dondero, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor March 7, 1995 Page