MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 15, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:00 a.m., on Monday, May 15, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert F. Martin, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Homeopathic Physicians, Nevada State Board of Homeopathic Medicine David Horton, Lobbyist, Member Board of Directors, Nevada Homeopathic Medical Association Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association Laurel Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter The chairman opened the hearing as a subcommittee consisting of himself, Senator Lee and Senator Porter. He took care of some general business and opened the hearing on the scheduled items. SENATE BILL 423: Expands scope of professional organizations to include homeopathic medicine. Robert F. Martin, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Homeopathic Physicians, Nevada State Board of Homeopathic Medicine, addressed the committee giving an overview of the letter he wrote to Senator James (Exhibit C) in support of Senate Bill (S.B.) 423. Before Mr. Martin proceeded the chairman called the hearing to order with a full committee. He asked the witness to proceed. Mr. Martin explained the bill is designed to correct an oversight in the statutes since the Homeopathic Practice Act was passed in 1983. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 630A does not consider homeopathic physicians in its considerations of allowing physicians to incorporate for the practice of medicine. The bill is a straight-forward approach to remedy that oversight, he reported. The chairman called for questions. There were none. He asked if there was any opposition represented. There was none. The next witness, David Horton, Lobbyist, Member Board of Directors, Nevada Homeopathic Medical Association, asked to add briefly to Mr. Martin's testimony. He noted there is an increased trend toward health maintenance organizations and managed care groups. This trend results in a need to incorporate homeopathic medicine in this overall service. Mr. Horton referred to a reprint from a radio program he participated in in 1993 (Exhibit D). Dr. Frank Shallenberger was a guest on the program and he pointed out that in the 3 years after France incorporated homeopathic services into their overall health care, the costs dropped by 80 percent, the witness noted. This points up the need to allow homeopathic physicians to incorporate their practices. Senator James stated he has had personal experience with the homeopathic medicine and he found it to be very beneficial. He stated his support for the bill. There was no further testimony on the bill and the chair called for a motion to do pass S.B. 423. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 423. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR TITUS WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 84: Revises provisions governing placement of criminal offenders in programs of treatment for abuse of alcohol and drugs before sentencing. ASSEMBLY BILL 92: Requires revocation of driver's licenses of certain juveniles who drive under influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled substance. ASSEMBLY BILL 93: Makes various changes to provisions governing assignment of offenders to program for treatment of abuser of alcohol or drugs established by director of department of prisons. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 71 OF THE SIXTY-SEVENTH SESSION: Directs Legislative commission to conduct interim study of drug and alcohol abuse among criminal offenders. The chair opened the hearing on Assembly Bills (A.B.) 84, 92 and 93 which are a result of the Assembly Concurrent Resolution (A.C.R.) 71 of the Sixty-seventh Session interim study subcommittee. Assemblyman Bernie Anderson introduced the bills to the committee. These bills, Mr. Anderson told, result from the interim study subcommittee's research into the cause of the recidivism rate in the state's prisons. A.B. 84 attempts to revise the circumstances under which drug addicts who are arrested and convicted of crimes related to their addictions can move into drug treatment programs, Mr. Anderson stated. Questions raised by the Assembly in their hearings of the bill were; how many times can [an individual] go back to the "well?;" and who should be eligible for the program? Mr. Anderson explained there was an amendment made to the bill (lines 7-8) which diverts persons convicted of domestic violence to programs other than those encompassed by this legislation. The "number of times to the well" question is answered with the provision for two, but not more than three attempts at the program, as outlined on line 1 of page 2 of the bill. In section 2, subsection 4 of the bill, the witness noted, there is a program instituted which provides for the participant in the program to pay for it, or to perform supervised community service in lieu of paying. Mr. Anderson told of a concern regarding the successful completion of a program. The bill allows for individuals to reenter a program, from which they have withdrawn, at a later date when they are more likely to be successful. These are the basic components of the bill, he explained. The chairman called for questions on the bill. Senator Washington, referring to page 2, section 2, subsection 4 of the bill, asked for confirmation that the section requires payment for treatment from those individuals who have the means. Mr. Anderson confirmed this understanding, noting this is the current situation in the Las Vegas drug court. He further noted it will be up to the court to decide who can pay and what arrangements to make for those who cannot pay. Senator Washington asked the assemblyman for an update on the drug courts. Mr. Anderson told him the Washoe County drug court is developing a two-step program. The A.C.R. 71 of the Sixty-seventh Session study subcommittee recommended the program be modeled after the one in Las Vegas. The Washoe County program will also include a juvenile section for youths with drug abuse problems. This will be the first in the nation, he noted, and it is expected to begin soon, if the expected funding is forthcoming. Additionally, there is about $90,000 available to be used by the rural areas of the state to institute treatment programs, Mr. Anderson said. Until now, there has been a tendency to send drug and alcohol offenders to prison, from the rural areas, in hopes they will receive treatment there. He told the senator there are bills pending before the Assembly ways and means committee which would provide $250,000 into the Clark County program, $100,000 into Washoe County, and $90,000 for the rural areas. Finally, Senator Washington noted there is community concern that there are not enough treatment facilities to handle the persons who are going to be diverted out of the prison system. He asked the assemblyman if he had heard these concerns, and what his outlook is in response to it. Mr. Anderson explained there currently exists a successful program for post-release treatment of convicts. He observed that judges have a tendency to tell convicts to get treatment, but have to follow- up. A.B. 84 provides constant monitoring of the program and the participants, noting the participants are testing frequently for drug use, there is required reporting to the courts, and the constant interaction between court, prosecutors, and participants should afford greater levels of success. For these reasons, the witness testified, he strongly supports the bill. Senator Adler asked a technical question, wondering if the wording on page 3, lines 30-32 refers to two felonies from separate incidents, or from any situation whether separate or singular, noting the vague wording could lead to disagreement as to the intent. Mr. Anderson agreed the wording is vague and could result in confusion. There was some discussion with attempts to formulate a scenario which would result in two separate alcohol or drug offenses. The assemblyman assured the senator the wording is intended to mean two felonies from separate incidents. Senator Adler asked that there be a change in the wording to clarify the intent. Next, Senator Adler pointed out the dilemma of the rural counties without any funding for treatment programs. Mr. Anderson reminded him there is legislation pending which will provide funds designated for the rural programs. Senator Adler stated he is unaware of this legislation. The witness assured the senator it includes an allocation of $10,000 per jurisdiction. Senator Adler suggested what is needed is a sum of money that several counties can use together "to hire a counselor who can implement this program." He also asserted most of his constituents cannot afford to pay for treatment programs. Mr. Anderson acknowledged there is a special problem in the rural counties, one that has been recognized by the study subcommittee. He maintained there needs to be an understanding that most of the crime and most of the criminals originate in the larger metropolitan areas, and this is where the most focus is placed. The assemblyman stated there are several counties the subcommittee felt could "come together and bring the treatment programs together through beta funding and coordination." There are bills pending in the ways and means committee of the Assembly, he reiterated. These bills provide for funding, a coordinator, and assistance with setting up the drug court in the jurisdictions, he told. A.B. 92 is a recommendation of the interim study subcommittee, which recognized what is currently being done is not working, said Mr. Anderson. This bill, which revokes for 6 months the drivers' licenses of juveniles who are convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances (DUI). The chairman noted the committee has previously heard this bill and one question which arose was a concern about equal protection. The bill provides an additional penalty for juvenile offenders that is not imposed on adults, he noted. This question was researched by the committee research analyst, who informed the committee there is no such equal protection problem resulting from the bill, Senator James noted. A.B. 93 was amended to include a provision that an offender who is assigned to a program must have a likelihood of completing it, the assemblyman reported. He noted the amendment "flies in the face" of studies which show treatment programs do reduce recidivism, whether the program is voluntarily entered or not. It is now understood that as many as 25 percent of persons involuntarily enrolled in treatment programs will not recidivate or recommit crimes, Mr. Anderson stated. This bill gives the prison director some discretion when considering individuals, the witness stated, who may or may not complete the program, how long they have to terminate their sentences, and whether to enroll them in the type-one or type- two program. In section 2, lines 27-34, the bill outlines criteria which should be considered by the director, Mr. Anderson explained. He offered to answer any questions, noting his strong support for all three bills before the committee. He stated it is important to use the prison and criminal justice system for more than protecting the public and providing punishment to offenders. It is important to attempt to change the behavior of the offenders, so they will not return to the system, he emphasized. SENATE BILL 43: Makes various changes in judicial system related to treatment of certain persons who abuse alcohol or drugs. Senator Adler noted he is not "thrilled" that the inmate must agree to treatment. He noted there is another proposal (S.B. 43) which requires the inmate to cooperate with the treatment program or lose good-time credits. The assemblyman stated he personally would not be terribly disappointed if the Senate decided to process their bill, even though there are parts of this bill he feels are good. Senator James noted A.B. 93 provides some good-time credit penalties if they enter a program, but fail to complete it. Senator Adler asserted S.B. 43 is much tougher. There were no further questions for the assemblyman and he was excused. Bruce Glover, Chief, Drivers' License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV&PS), addressed the committee regarding A.B. 92. He apologized for having missed the point earlier, subsection 2 of section 1 causes the department some concern. This section states the judge may require testing for the reinstatement of the juvenile's driver's license. The department would request this discretionary language be removed, he said, and replace it with some affirmative language, either requiring the test or not. The problem, he explained, is with the computer system of the department, which will require a lengthy process, going through two systems to determine which individuals will have to retest and which will not. The overtaxing of the drivers' license bureaus in the metropolitan areas, he observed, will be exacerbated by this requirement. Mr. Glover opined that individuals who commit the same offense should face the same consequences. He asked the committee to change this discretionary language. Senator Adler pointed out the section states "... submit to tests or other requirements which were adopted by regulation." This, he observed might mean more than just drug or alcohol tests, and it would remain nonspecific, even if the wording is changed. Mr. Glover believing there is some misunderstanding, redirected the senator's attention to the portion of the bill referring to test. He stated the department considers the "test" to be a written or driving test. As far as drug or alcohol testing is concerned, Mr. Glover noted, the department has no part in it. Continuing, the witness wondered by one person would be required to take the test and another not be required. Senator Washington asked Mr. Glover if there is a problem with testing the individual, if required. Mr. Glover replied there is no problem with administering the test, only in determining who must retest. Currently, every adult who has their license revoked because of a DUI must take the written and driving test to reinstate their driving license. If some juveniles are required and some are not it causes a great deal of confusion, he opined, with individuals claiming "the judge said this, or the judge said that." Senator Washington offered support for the change, stating a test should be required. Senator Adler observed that comments about the bill have been that the penalties are tougher than those imposed on adults. However, he stated, if an adult is picked up for driving on a revoked license, the penalty is an automatic 30 days in jail. This does not apply to the juveniles, and therefore, the bill is not really any tougher on them than on adults, he said. Senator Adler concurred with the proposed amendment. Ben Graham, Chief Deputy, Clark County District Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys Association, stated the Nevada District Attorneys Association has participated in the hearings which resulted in these bills. He stated with the alternative programs and diversionary placements, the association "supports the concepts and the direction that the three bills are headed." Senator McGinness asked Mr. Graham if there were other statutory provisions which provide a greater penalty on juveniles than on adults for the same offense. The witness admitted he was unaware of any, but stated a justification exists for this-the youth of the offender. This presents no constitutional concerns, he stated. Mr. Graham stepped down. Laurel Stadler, Lobbyist, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Lyon County Chapter, spoke regarding A.B. 93. She offered a copy of her prepared testimony (Exhibit E) She stated the bill would eliminate the phase I treatment component of the 305 house arrest program for some DUI inmates. She observed the bill would make the eligibility evaluation for the 305 program a "front-end" review, done prior to phase I participation." The current program calls for evaluation of an inmate for phase II house arrest upon successful completion of the phase I program. Ms. Stadler opined that simply because an inmate may not meet all criteria for the phase II program does not automatically indicate that phase I treatment should be overlooked. Treatment specialists have stated that any treatment while incarcerated, whether voluntary or involuntary, is "better than no treatment," the witness reported. The lack of rehabilitative services is one of the main criticisms of the prison system, Ms. Stadler noted. The phase I program is available and should be utilized by as many participants as possible. In sum, Ms. Stadler stated, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports the retention of phase I of the 305 program as mandatory for all felony DUI offenders who are certified as drug or alcohol abusers. The witness pointed out some particular concerns with the language in the bill. She reported the testimony of the prison director during the Assembly hearings on the bill seems to be that the director wished to prioritize who goes into the program due to a shortage of beds for the program. The director seemed to feel that those who had the greatest potential for successful completion of the entire program should be the first ones able to participate in phase I. If space remained, others would be put into the program. MADD strongly feels all the felony DUI offenders should be put in the program at some time during their incarceration, Ms. Stadler asserted. The subsequent printing of the bill has not resulted in any changes to the situation, the witness observed, directing the committee to page 1, line 18 in subsection 3, "the director shall not assign the offender to the program...unless the offender agrees in writing that he will complete the entire program..." This eliminates anyone who states they do not wish to be in the program, she opined. The MADD association "strongly feels" this treatment should be required. Secondly, Ms. Stadler referred to page 2, line 36, which seems to provide a sanction for the unsuccessful completion of the program. This seems to nullify the requirement to sign a promise to complete the program, by making their good-time credits contingent on completion. Completion of the entire program would vary depending on the definition applied for "entire program" as outlined on page 2, line 12. This would eliminate concerns about inmates who cannot qualify for phase II of the program because they do not have a job, or no family with whom to live when released. This seemed to be the intent of the section, based on testimony at previous hearings, Ms. Stadler noted. MADD supports this provision. Finally, page 3, section 3 seems to set up a front-end evaluation which pre-qualifies individuals for the program. This section would be unnecessary if everyone is entered into the program, she asserted. Thus, MADD believes it is important for all felony DUI offenders to be required to participate in the treatment programs available, whether voluntarily or not. She offered to answer any questions from the committee. Senator Adler opined A.B. 93 conflicts with S.B. 43 which was a result of the interim study committee on criminal justice. S.B. 43 contains the provisions that MADD wishes, the senator noted, but added there is a problem with the bill. It has a fiscal note of $5,864,000 because it requires treatment programs and longer sentences for offenders who fail to participate. He speculated it might be possible to insert some of the requested provisions into A.B. 93, but stated he is not comfortable with allowing inmates to choose whether or not to participate in treatment programs that are available. He urged the use of good-time credits as leverage to convince the inmates to participate. Continuing, Senator Adler opined the Assembly bill sends a message that if a drug addict or alcoholic wishes to continue down the same path, it is alright with the Legislature. This is not the message he wishes to send, he stated. He told of the occurrences of repeated DUI convictions in very short periods of time. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated, and this bill seems to say it will be tolerated. The chairman asked Senators Adler, McGinness and Washington to work as a subcommittee to combine the best aspects of S.B. 43 and A.B. 93 to develop one or the other into a workable bill which incorporates the preferred aspects of both bills. He asked them to work quickly and to reduce the fiscal note associated with the bills. Senator Adler noted that from the size of the fiscal note attached to S.B. 43 it is hard to believe there is no fiscal note with A.B. 93. There was no further testimony on A.B. 84, 92 and 93 and the chairman closed the hearing on them. Next, Senator James opened a work session to address two of the bills heard this day, as well as others. He asked the committee's sentiment on A.B. 92. He noted there is some concern about the greater penalty for youths, as well as the requested change in language for the DMV&PS. Senator Adler stated he is less concerned about the bill than he had been previously, noting he would support passage with the requested affirmative language Mr. Glover suggested. Senator McGinness stated he does have concerns about the greater penalty. He agreed taking the driver's license is appropriate, but opined doubling the length of revocation seems to send the wrong message. He said he feels the youths will find the law patently unfair. Senator Washington offered his support for the bill, noting it sends a good message. He stated he thinks the bill will tell youth there will be no tolerance of drunk driving. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 92 WITH THE CHANGE IN LANGUAGE REQUESTED BY THE DMV&PS. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS JAMES AND McGINNESS VOTED NO.) ***** Senator McGinness notified the chair he might wish to propose an amendment to the bill when it is introduced on the Senate floor. Senator James asked Senator Adler to carry the bill to the floor. He then turned to A.B. 84, asking the committee for comments. He called for a motion to do pass. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 84. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Titus reminded the committee of Senator Adler's question about whether the bill talked of separate or singular convictions for two or more felonies (section 3, subsection 4). Senator James stated he feels the intent has been clarified in the record. Senator Adler asked to propose a brief amendment, because if a criminal statute is not clear there is much discussion and argument about its meaning. The senator proposed that subsection 4 of section 3 should read ...two or more convictions from two separate incidents," to ensure everyone realizes the person must "go through the system twice." The chairman asked Senator McGinness for an amendment to his original motion. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 84 AS OUTLINED BY SENATOR ADLER. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator James asked Senator McGinness to carry the bill to the floor. SENATE BILL 284: Clarifies provisions governing representation of certain entities in small claims court. The next bill is S.B. 284 which was originally prepared to clarify that corporations that go to small claims court do not have to be represented by an attorney. The bill said the corporation could be represented by an agent, the chairman stated. The word "agent" carries a specific legal meaning as a designation of attorney, he explained. The committee amended the bill to say "employee or other representative," and this phrase was further amended by the Assembly to say "director, officer or employee." The question is whether to concur or not with the Assembly's amendment, Senator James explained, noting he did not feel it creates a problem. Senator McGinness asked if the wording would apply to collection agencies, the entities that appeared to testify in support of the change made by the Senate. He wondered if collection agencies would be considered employees of the corporation, or how would they fit into the scheme. Senator James opined they would accept the debt on assignment and would go to court "on their own" as the corporation, and would be covered by the language as amended by the Assembly. SENATOR TITUS MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 284. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 91: Makes various changes to provisions governing admissibility and maintenance of duplicates and copies of certain records. SENATE BILL 91 was also amended by the Assembly, Senator James stated. He explained the amendment added a reference to "optical disk imaging or any other equivalent technique designed to ensure accurate reproduction of the original." It is a technical amendment. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 91. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 263: Revises provision governing alternatives for court action upon arrest of probationer. SENATE BILL 416: Makes various changes regarding sentencing of persons convicted of felonies. S.B. 263 is a bill proposed by the Governor, which the committee has already heard, Senator James explained. The proposal was incorporated into the truth-in- sentencing bill, S.B. 416. He called for a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 263. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 263. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. Senator Titus asked for further clarification of the action taken on the bill. Senator James explained the provision has been incorporated in the S.B. 416. It is the provision that says the judge retains the option to decide what to do with a violating probationer. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 391: Revises provisions governing execution of death penalty. S.B. 391 was heard on May 4, 1995, the chair noted. It was requested by the Department of Prisons, but was such a minor change in policy the director, Robert Bayer, agreed to incorporate the provision into an Assembly bill. The requested change was to remove subsection 5 of the bill, and adding in "and the county coroner. Senator James called for a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill. SENATOR PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 391. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 256: Requires attorneys to carry malpractice insurance. Senator James explained he has been advised by Senator Joseph Neal that he received a letter from the Nevada State Bar. The letter explains how malpractice insurance is handled by the state bar and indicating the state bar opposes the bill. Based on this information, reported Senator James, Senator Neal no longer wishes to move the bill, and asks that it be indefinitely postponed. The chair called for such a motion. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 256. SENATOR TITUS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 245: Prohibits state board of pardons commissioners from commuting sentence of death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole to sentence allowing parole. The chairman stated he would continue to hold S.B. 245, but noted the provisions are already incorporated into S.B. 416. SENATE BILL 375: Prohibits performance of act or neglect of duty in willful or wanton disregard of safety of persons or property. The final bill to be addressed was S.B. 375. The previous week the committee took a vote to amend and do pass to classify the crime as a category C felony. Senator James noted this is not the appropriate action. There is a conflict amendment needed once S.B. 416 passes the Assembly, therefore, the appropriate motion is to do pass the bill. Thus, the chairman instructed, the proper action is to vote to rescind the previous vote and then take a new vote on a new motion. Senator James further explained that anyone who voted in favor of the motion can move to rescind it. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO RESCIND THE COMMITTEE'S PREVIOUS ACTION ON S.B. 375. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** The chair then called for a motion to do pass S.B. 375. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 375. SENATOR PORTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator Adler asked the chairman to suspend the committee rule which prohibits committee introduction of bills, noting he has yet to receive a bill he requested to correct a problem in the bankruptcy law. This bill is important so that inmates cannot discharge their financial obligations through bankruptcy, as well as to remove the ability to shelter $50,000 in a retirement fund, the senator explained. Senator James stated if the majority of the committee concurs, he will allow bills previously requested by the members of the committee an extra week to be brought before the committee. This would apply only to bills already requested, and only to bills requested by the committee or its members. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY RULES AS EXPRESSED ABOVE. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** There being no further business before the committee, the hearing was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary May 15, 1995 Page