MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR Sixty-eighth Session June 1, 1995 The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, June 1, 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 Molly Dondero, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Martin, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Homeopathic Physicians Dr. Fuller Royal, President, Nevada Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners Dr. Chester Chin, President, Homeopathic Medical Association David Horton, Lobbyist, Alternative Therapy Support Group Dorothy Colley, Nevadans for Health Freedom Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers-Nevada Paula E. Kaley, Interior Designer John Derrell Parker, Interior Designer, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers- Nevada Ronald L. Warren, Coordinator, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers-Nevada John Breternitz, Architect Member, Nevada State Board of Architecture Gloria Armendariz, Executive Director, State Board of Architecture Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President, Carson City Chamber of Commerce Jeff Martin, Vice President, Operations, Winans Furniture Max Hershenow, President, American Institute of Achitecture (AIA)-Nevada Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, State Board of Psychological Examiners, State Board of Landscape Architects Dr. Robert G. Whittemore, Nevada State Psychological Association Sharon Weaver, Actuary II, Division of Insurance A bill draft request (BDR) was introduced. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 55-1999: Revise procedures for discovery in actions relating to Community Reinvestment Act. SENATOR SHAFFER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 55-1999. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR AUGUSTINE WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The hearing opened with a discussion of Senate Bill (S.B.) 492. SENATE BILL 492: Makes various changes relating to homeopathy. Bob Martin, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Homeopathic Physicians, presented Exhibit C. He commented the "homeopathic assistant" will always be under the supervision of the homeopathic physician. The homeopathic assistant will not be independent. He discussed section 9 of S.B. 492. He stated it was intended "to provide an alternative way to license homeopathic physicians." He gave an example by stating: At this particular time, one of the practicing homeopathic physicians in the state has two children in medical school in California. When they graduated from medical school, under this particular provision, and finished their internship, they would be allowed to come here, be examined, and licensed as an advanced practitioner under a homeopathic physician, and rather than serving a residency as an allopath or an osteopath, they would do their residency as a homeopath and would able to be licensed directly as a homeopathic physician without having to go through the requirements for either an allopathic or osteopathic physician. Senator Townsend asked why they should consider this proposal and why it is necessary. Mr. Martin concluded they would be content with the bill without section 9. He indicated it is a substantial change in requirements. Mr. Martin suggested deleting section 9. Senator Townsend asked why there is a request for an increase in fees. Mr. Martin stated the fee increase will offset the board's losses. Mr. Martin explained it is important to include the provision for the homeopathic physician assistant and medical assistant. Senator Townsend asked if he "equates those two with anything which is going on in the allopathic licensing provision." Mr. Martin stated he did. He stated the advanced practitioner of homeopathy will be a homeopathic equivalent of a physician's assistant. He stated there are very carefully detailed regulations pertaining to a person who is acting as an advanced practitioner of homeopathy. He emphasized the physician remains the person of liability. Senator Townsend asked if pages 1 and 2 will infringe on the scope of practice of those who practice allopathic medicine. Mr. Martin stated it will not. Senator Neal questioned section 11, lines 25, 26, and 27. He stated those lines seem to eliminate any court action. Mr. Martin stated it is not the intent to eliminate a person's right to a jury trial. He stated: "It was phrased in that fashion so that it would make it possible to take a direct court action based on that . . . [The phrase] it can be appealed to the board . . . " which would seem to provide for an additional option. Senator Townsend pointed out that a board's responsibility is to the public first and the licensees second. He stated the language in S.B. 492 does not address that. He pointed out it precludes someone who lost at the administrative level, who is a patient from filing in court. He stated it simply says that the licensee may go to the board. He emphasized that is not acceptable. He suggested working on the language to remove this prohibition from the bill. Senator Augustine asked if a homeopathic assistant differs from a physician's assistant. Mr. Martin stated the average physician's assistant has little or no knowledge of homeopathy. Senator Augustine pointed out the physician's assistant could take appropriate courses and be trained in homeopathy. Mr. Martin stated the physician's assistant is subject to licensure under the allopathic board. Dr. Fuller Royal, President, Nevada Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, stated the board would like to see section 9 removed from S.B. 492. He pointed out the board is in need of funds. Senator Lowden pointed out some of the fee increases are considerable. Dr. Royal stated they are substantial increases, but the fees are still less than the fees in other states. He commented Arizona's fees are up to $1000 for renewal. He stated the fee of $400 requested by the board is not unreasonable. Senator Townsend asked what complaints are most frequent. Dr. Royal stated since 1983 they have received 42 complaints. He stated most of the complaints address fees. He stated they have had a few more serious cases with which they have dealt. Senator O'Connell asked how many new homeopathic doctors have been licensed since 1993. Dr. Royal stated they have licensed three new homeopathic physicians. He stated the problem is that there is not a medical school in the United States which offers homeopathy courses. Senator O'Connell asked if a homeopathic doctor first must be licensed as a medical doctor. Dr. Royal stated the homeopathic doctor must be licensed as a medical doctor or an osteopathic doctor before being licensed as a homeopathic doctor. Mr. Martin stated the statute provides that the doctor must have graduated from an allopathic or osteopathic medical school which they have attended within 2 years of graduation. They must be licensed either as a doctor of osteopathic medicine or a medical doctor in a state, territory or country. Dr. Chester Chin, President, Homeopathic Medical Association, testified in favor of the bill. He stated there has been a great increase in homeopathic services in Nevada. Dr. Chin commented he has been practicing for 40 years and he would like to have assistants in his work. Dr. Chin stated most of the homeopathic doctors are in favor of the fee increases. Senator Shaffer stated there is an increase of 10 cents per patient to cover the fees and he does not feel that is an excessive amount to support a board which is there to consider the public's best interest. David Horton, Lobbyist, Alternative Therapy Support Group, expressed his support of S.B. 492. Dorothy Colley, Nevadans for Health Freedom, expressed her support of the bill. She stressed the need for medical treatment in the rural areas of Nevada. Senator Lowden commented the committee has heard concerns by other homeopathic physicians and patients because the practice of homeopathy is not covered by medical insurance. She expressed her concern that the increase in fees to the doctors will be passed on to the patients. Ms. Colley commented she hopes other pending legislation will require the insurance industry to recognize homeopathic medical care and offer coverage on that care. Mr. Martin stated homeopathic assistants will help to reduce the costs of homeopathic care because they will be able to help the homeopathic doctor. It will not be necessary to charge as much to the patient for the care. They will take some of the work load of the physician which will lower the cost to the patient. Senator Neal commented the supervising physician does not have to be on-site during the treatment. Mr. Martin stated the advanced practitioner does not have to be in the room, but he must be on-site during a treatment. Dr. Royal emphasized the board is not in favor of having physician's assistants or the practitioner outside of the building which the physician must be in, in order to monitor the actions of the assistants. Senator Lowden pointed out the physician's assistants often work without the physician in the building. Dr. Royal stated it will not happen in the homeopathic practice. He stressed homeopathic care is not an acute care practice. Emergency cases should be treated in allopathic emergency rooms and offices. Senator Augustine pointed out section 4 of the bill outlines supervisions of the homeopathic assistant. She stated the doctor can be anywhere if it is not direct supervision. She stated five people are too many to supervise. Dr. Royal disagreed. He stated a considerable history and evaluation is taken from the patient by the assistant. This must be done before the doctor can prescribe treatment. Senator Augustine asked why the assistant will pay the same fee as the doctor. Dr. Royal stated the cap on fees will be $600. Senator Augustine expressed her displeasure with the increase in fees and disagreed that the homeopathic assistant will be paying the same as the doctor. Mr. Martin commented the clinic pays the fees, not the individual. The hearing was closed on S.B. 492 and was opened on S.B. 506. SENATE BILL 506: Provides for registration and regulation of registered interior designers and registered residential interior designers. Bryan Gresh, Lobbyist, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers-Nevada, presented the amended version of S.B. 506 (Exhibit D). He stated S.B. 506 seeks to regulate and license the more than 300 interior designers in Nevada. He apologized to the committee that before they hear any testimony on the bill, they are being presented with an amendment. He stated the amendment is "consensus" language which has been reached by the "tireless" efforts of a group of individuals who will be testifying before the committee. He stated the people testifying in favor of the bill represent Nevada's professional design community. They consist of architects, interior designers, landscape architects, residential designers, engineers, and contractors. Paula E. Kaley, Interior Designer, discussed Exhibit D. She stated her support of the bill. She stated she is pleased to see interior design move into a more professional arena which will require designers to be certified. John Derrell Parker, Interior Designer, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers- Nevada, stated: It is important to recognize in this bill, for the first time since we began negotiations 5 years ago, in the last 6 weeks we have seen a coming together of differing groups with differing ideas about how things should be done. We have all sat down and hammered out a very workable solution to a problem we have had as a design community. I think this amendment which is before you, it covers those items, it also gives the public a greater sense of safety. Mr. Parker stated the State Board of Architecture, the State Board of Landscape Architecture, the Nevada Construction Industry Relations Committee and the American Institute of Achitecture (AIA)-Nevada have all worked on this bill. Senator O'Connell asked for explanation of the amendment. Ronald L. Warren, Coordinator, Legislative Coalition of Interior Designers-Nevada discussed Exhibit D. Mr. Warren discussed a compiled document consisting of information and letters which he stated the people involved with the development of this bill have reviewed. He stated: The proposed amendment provides for a change to the practice of interior design definition which was previously submitted under S.B. 506. This definition incorporates the short form of definition sponsored by the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ). That is the national organization for certification of interior designers. That body is composed of representatives of other state boards of architecture and interior design which regulate interior designers. It is not dominated by any industry. Mr. Warren explained the definition of interior designer is "in general language and embodies the concept which has come out of the meetings in the last 6 weeks. That concept is one of cooperation and mutual respect that I feel is the heart and soul of this amendment." Mr. Warren stated the board members will develop the terms the board will follow at a later date. He stated they will work together to accomplish the goals of the board. He said the amendment is a practice act. He stated it is not a title act. He stated "this controls the actual practice of interior design." He discussed Exhibit D which "incorporates a much higher standard for education than [that] which was previously proposed. It is, however, in accordance with the other states which have adopted practice legislation." He stated they considered the impact this amendment will have on others in the state who may not meet the new, educational standards in the amendment. He stated there is a transition period listed on page 13, subsection 9 of Exhibit D. He stated the approved programs for interior design must either be Foundation for Interior Design Education and Research (FIDER) accredited or approved by the new state board of architecture, interior design and residential design. He stated in all cases certification from the NCIDQ is required for a person to take the test for certification. He stated this requirement has almost unanimous support. Senator Lowden asked if there are courses at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV) or at the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR) to help the people who do not have the courses at this time so that they may become licensed. She asked if the courses are easily accessible. Mr. Warren stated, "absolutely." He stated LuAnne Nissen of UNR and Attila Lawrence of UNLV have appeared before the Nevada coalition of interior designers committee who worked on S.B. 506 "and are more than willing and have a great number of programs which would qualify anyone who does not currently possess or who cannot achieve that by January 1, 1998." Mr. Warren stated the amendment reserves the names "interior designer" and "interior design." These names are removed from the public domain as a practice act. He stated this is to protect the public. John Breternitz, Architect Member, State Board of Architecture, stated: We are exempting . . . non-licensed, nonregulated individuals to maintain the ability to design nonregulated finishes, furniture, colors, equipment, that sort of thing. While we are, on the one hand, proposing to regulate the title, we are, however, leaving the typically thought of selection of materials and finishes, etc. as exempted from the proposed amendment. Mr. Warren stated: This proposed amendment will not impact those who are engaged in the retail sales of furniture, fixtures or equipment. It will not impact those who are, as John [Breternitz] put it, in the business of providing nonrated finishes and materials which covers a wide variety of items. This does, however, involve hotels, casinos, public buildings . . . the finishes that are applied there. And areas that truly demand a higher level of attention to the public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Breternitz stated the board recognizes interior design as a very viable and important part of the industry and they feel the license will address certain life-safety issues. Senator Lowden asked if the interior decorators who work at JCPenneys and Sears who help to pick out draperies and blinds will be disqualified from doing that work. Mr. Warren assured Senator Lowden they will "absolutely" not be disqualified for doing that work. He stated they are restricted from referring to themselves as an interior designer. Senator Lowden asked if casinos were prohibited from having a non-licensed interior decorator. Mr. Warren stated: The casino, itself, will be able to hire architects, registered interior designers, in fact, they are free to hire anyone that they wish; however, [for] an interior designer in this state, after the effective date of this bill, it would be unlawful for them to offer those services to the public, including casinos. No, there are restrictions on holding out to the public and performing these services after the effective date of the bill. But there are a wide variety, perhaps 400 interior designers, who will be registered, not to mention the fact, that those interior designers who choose to come in from out-of- state, and who meet the Nevada requirements can very quickly and easily become registered. Senator Lowden asked what the fee will be for the out-of-state people. Mr. Warren stated the fee schedule will be the same as it is for the State Board of Architecture. Gloria Armendariz, Executive Director, State Board of Architecture, stated the fees have not been discussed. She stated they do not charge out-of-state registrants any more than the residents. Senator Lowden ask if interior designers have already paid fees in other states, will they have to pay another fee in Nevada. Ms. Armendariz stated they will pay another fee. She stated there will be a fee for their application and for the license. Senator Lowden asked if an owner of a casino wanted to do their own interior design, would they be able to do it. Mr. Warren stated the amendment is not geared to affect owners of property. It is geared to affect interior designers who perform services for the public. Senator Lowden pointed out if an owner wanted to choose his daughter, his wife, or someone to do the interiors would the amendment prohibit them to work on the project. Mr. Breternitz stated an owner has the ability, through contractor's law to do certain kinds of work; however, residential houses are exempt from the current statute. He stated if work is done in the commercial area, a licensed, design professional must submit a building permit. He stated the bill will "control finishes in this area for interior design and fixtures and equipment . . . " Ms. Kaley stated: There is no legislation for currently licensing interior designers [so] that as we speak there could be unqualified interior decorators or retailers who are providing interior design services without the qualifications and knowledge of building codes, life safety, and things that impact particularly commercial, hotels, hospitals any kind of structure which might house a large number of people. Senator Augustine complimented the interior designers and architects present at the hearing for putting requirements for a higher educational standard. She stated she is pleased all sides were able to agree on the amendment. Larry Osborne, Executive Vice President, Carson City Chamber of Commerce, questioned the intent of the bill and expressed his concerns for some of the limitations placed on the retail market as detailed in the amendment. He commented he, just like the committee, has not had a chance to study the amendment since it was just handed out. He stated he understood the concerns mentioned by the interior designers and architects, but expressed his concern for the small retail businesses who are in the practice of interior design and will be dramatically affected by this bill. He stated a chamber of commerce member called his office and stated S.B. 506 will force the person out of business. He stated the person works with customers on an individual basis dealing in the service of interior design, selects color schemes for homes, helps select furniture, and is not involved in any public health-safety issues. He stated the law should not force someone out of business simply because they may not aspire to the higher standards of qualifications and they do not do the type of work which impacts public health- safety issues. He stated if the bill prohibits individuals from engaging in business in the private sector, then the chamber of commerce cannot support this bill. Jeff Martin, Vice President of Operations, Winans Furniture, expressed his concerns about the limitations in the retail field outlined in the amendment. He congratulated the coalition of architects and designers for their efforts, but expressed his concern for some of the language in the proposed amendment. He cautioned he just received the copy of the amendment and, just as the committee has indicated, he has not had time to study the information, either. He stated the language in S.B. 506 causes him concern. He read from Exhibit D questioning the language on page 2, section 3. He stated this language applies to any sales person in a retail business because they are design consultants. Senator Neal pointed out page 13 of Exhibit D section 9 and commented those are the qualifications for those people with experience. Mr. Martin pointed out that most sales people do not have, nor do they need, the educational experience in section 9 to sell furniture and he questioned how he will hire new employees who do not have a certificate of interior design. He stated there are single mothers who are trying to provide for their families who work in the retail field doing sales. He stated they cannot be excluded from selling furniture just because they do not have a degree in interior design. He stated sales people cannot function under these regulations. Mr. Breternitz read that page 20, subsection G of Exhibit D clarifies this situation. He stated as long as the components sold are not regulated by uniform design or construction codes, a person may sell the item. Mr. Warren stated subsection F of Exhibit D provides an exemption for employees of registered interior designers. He suggested if Mr. Martin should become an interior designer then his employees may be legal to work for him in his store. Mr. Martin stated: It is presumptuous for another group of business people to try to regulate retail business or any other type of business which is what they are trying to do, it seems like, with the language of this [bill] which is very convoluted, I think and it should be, at least, clarified. Again, I am not opposing the intent of the whole thing, I am opposing the language in relationship in how it applies and deals with retail business and the people that affects. Senator Augustine stated the bill completely exempts retail sales. She stressed, "It does not apply to you at all." Mr. Martin asked, "Where does it say that, I am not reading that." Senator Augustine referred to section G on page 20 of Exhibit D. She stated retail sales will not be affected by the bill. She said, "Retail sales are completely exempt from this . . . It does not apply to anybody who is in the retail sales of these items or [who] suggests to people different color combinations, or anything like that." Mr. Martin referred to page 13 of the Exhibit D. He stated, "Under section 9, that language addresses that issue." Senator Augustine stated: That is if you are going to be an interior designer, not an interior decorator. Your employees are decorators. They are helping people select color combinations, furniture, those sorts of things. Mr. Osborne expressed his concern stating: If an individual operates a small office in their home or in a retail store, it is not a furniture store, they hold themselves out as offering services of helping an individual, helping a family to decorate or design their house. In fact, will come out to a house, not selling furniture, will meet with a client, get to know the client, find out their needs, and things like that and work making suggestions along the lines . . . `This is the color scheme I propose, this is the furniture arrangement, etc.' In fact, would this [bill] allow the individual to continue in business without meeting these standards and being regulated by government. Senator Lowden stated even though she had not yet read the amendment, she feels as long as the person calls themselves an interior decorator and not an interior designer, they may work. She stressed as long as they do not use the name "designer" they may work. Max Hershenow, President, American Institute of Architects (AIA)-Nevada, commented their members have sacrificed a great deal of time and effort to bring this bill about. He complimented all the people who worked on the bill, and AIA- Nevada has a consensus support for the amendment of its members. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 506. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Townsend complimented all the participants in the preparation of the amendment. He stated they need a great deal of credit for creating this legislation and it sets a standard for the country. Senator Townsend closed the hearing on S.B. 506 and opened the work session on S.B. 448. SENATE BILL 448: Revises provisions governing licensing and regulation of psychologists. Paula Berkley, Lobbyist, State Board of Psychological Examiners, State Board of Landscape Architects, introduced Dr. Robert G. Whittemore, Nevada State Psychological Association, who addressed the bill. Mr. Whittemore presented Exhibit E and discussed the provisions of the bill. He emphasized the language in paragraph 3, subsection c. SENATOR AUGUSTINE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 448. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Scott Young, Senior Research Analyst, questioned Dr. Whittemore as to whether paragraph 2 of Exhibit E makes reference to page 5, lines 25-43. He asked if any of the other three proposals are actually going into the bill or are they going to be accomplished through regulation by the board. Dr. Whittemore stated they will be done in regulation by the board. Senator Augustine stated the registration of a new fee will remain as stated on line 22 and the registration of a nonresident will remain on line 24. She stated all other new fee increases from lines 25-43 will be deleted. She stated on lines 9, 16, and 19, the new fees are deleted and the old fees remain in law. A bill draft request was introduced. BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-1947: Prohibit street venders from selling goods on sidewalks without local business license. SENATOR LOWDEN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 15-1947. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The work session continued with discussion of S.B. 196. SENATE BILL 196: Prohibits certain insurance coverages from excluding coverage for certain treatment provided by homeopathic physicians. Mr. Bob Martin returned to testify about the proposed amendment to S.B. 196 which is offered as Exhibit F. He stated he feels it is a benefit to the patients if some language is used from the commissioner of insurance regulations with regard to unfair practices and put them into statute. Mr. Martin stated anyone who is providing treatment within the scope of their license should be paid by the health insurance carrier. He urged passage of the bill. Senator Lowden commented that many businesses have health management organizations (HMOs). She asked if there are homeopathic doctors on the lists. Mr. Martin stated there are homeopathic doctors on many of the lists. He stated most of the homeopathic doctors have declined to join preferred provider programs (PPOs) and HMOs because they do not like the fee structures. Mr. Martin stated he knows one homeopathic doctor on the PPO list. This doctor has experienced a tremendous increase in patient load because he has become the preferred provider of choice. Mr. Martin stressed his concern is for the independent physician who is not part of the organized health management system. Sharon Weaver, Actuary II, Division of Insurance, stated the HMOs require a referral from a primary care physician to a homeopathic physician. A patient may not seek care from a homeopathic physician on his or her own. She stated she is not aware of any homeopathic physician being a primary care physician in the HMO and PPO system. Senator Townsend asked if the language is breaking new ground in terms of reimbursement or is it codification of current regulation. Ms. Weaver stated the language is breaking new ground. She pointed out that the new language in the subsection of section 3 is entirely new ground and goes beyond what is currently enforced in regulation. She commented section 3 of Exhibit F is current language and is what the division tries to enforce. She stated she just received this amendment this morning and has had little time to study it, but she feels section 3 requires court reporting which is different from current language. Senator Townsend asked Mr. Martin why section 3 is in the amendment. Mr. Martin commented he will agree to delete the provision. He suggested it was desired to compare costs between osteopathic, allopathic, and homeopathic physicians. Senator Townsend suggested practitioners should not be telling an insurance company what to do with regard to the insurance division. Senator Lowden asked if the amendment circumvents PPOs and HMOs as long as the doctor is doing an equivalent practice as a doctor within the PPO and HMO system. She asked if the amendment requires the insurance company to reimburse the doctor even though the doctor is not a member of the system. Ms. Weaver stated the bill and the amendment codify the regulation and the type of enforcement which the division is trying to achieve. She stated the bill and the amendment do not go into the treatment or methodology of homeopathic medicine. Senator Townsend asked if the bill and amendment circumvent the purpose of having a PPO or HMO panel by requiring payment to nonmembers. Ms. Weaver stated: In the PPO environment, even if you have [the homeopath] as a preferred provider, you cannot have greater than a 30 percent disincentive for opting out of their preferred network, so you could go to any homeopathic physician that you wanted to see, and receive no less than a 30 percent disincentive. That is currently under the law. Now that same 30 percent disincentive does not reach into the HMO network, that is strictly a closed panel and it is that environment that you only access care through specialty referral from the primary care physician. But in the PPO environment you can still access any health care practitioner whether on the PPO list or not, it is just that you will not receive as high a payment as you would if they were the preferred provider. Senator Townsend closed the hearing at 10:00 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Molly Dondero, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor June 1, 1995 Page