THE FORTY-FIFTH DAY
Carson City(Wednesday), March 17, 1999
Senate called to order at 11:05 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, the Reverend Ken Haskins.
Almighty God, You did not give to us a spirit of timidity, but the spirit of power, love and self-discipline. May Your Spirit equip these Senators with the power which is truth, the love which promotes the best interests of all and the self-discipline which keeps them on track. In Jesus’ Name I pray.
Amen.
Pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Senator Raggio moved that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with, and the President and Secretary be authorized to make the necessary corrections and additions.
Motion carried.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Madam President:
Your Committee on Commerce and Labor, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 199, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Finance, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 46, 47, 281, 282, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
William J. Raggio, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 263, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 36, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Mike McGinness, Chairman
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Joint Resolution No. 18—Proposing to amend the Constitution of the State of Nevada to require election by majority vote by incorporating the use of instant runoff elections.
RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JOINTLY, That section 9 of article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as follows:
And be it further
RESOLVED, That section 4 of article 5 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as follows:
[Section] Sec. 4. 1. The returns of every election for United States senator and member of Congress, district and state officers, and for and against any questions submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada, voted for at the general election, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government, directed to the secretary of state, and the chief justice of the supreme court, and the associate justices, or a majority thereof, shall meet at the office of the secretary of state, on a day to be fixed by law, and open and canvass the election returns for United States senator and member of Congress, district and state officers, and for and against any questions submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada, and forthwith declare the result and publish the names of the persons elected and the results of the vote cast upon any question submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada.
2. The persons having the [highest number] majority of votes for the respective offices , incorporating the use of an instant runoff election if necessary, shall be declared elected, but in case any two or more have an equal and the highest number of votes for the same office[,] after the use of an instant runoff election, the legislature shall, by joint vote of both houses, elect one of said persons to fill said office. The legislature shall provide by law for instant runoff elections.
And be it further
RESOLVED, That section 14 of article 15 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada be amended to read as follows:
Sec . [:]14. A [plurality] majority of votes [given] is required at an election by the people, [shall] incorporating the use of an instant runoff election if necessary, to constitute a choice . [, where not otherwise provided by this Constitution.]
Senator O’Connell moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Joint Resolution No. 19—Urging Congress permanently to mitigate the consequences of Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 11.
Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the resolution.
Resolution adopted.
President Hunt gave notice that she would render her ruling Friday on Senate Standing Rule No. 106 regarding introduction of skeleton bills.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 453—AN ACT relating to statutes; ratifying technical corrections made to sections of NRS and to multiple amendments of sections of NRS; correcting the effective date of, correcting certain provisions in and repealing certain provisions in Statutes of Nevada; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator James moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 454—AN ACT relating to the City of North Las Vegas; amending the city charter to provide that the city attorney is appointed by, serves at the pleasure of, and is under the general direction and supervision of, the city council; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 455—AN ACT relating to local governments; revising the manner in which the revenue from certain fees for business licenses is calculated; revising the provisions for increasing certain taxes or fees on private enterprises; providing additional notification for certain types of changes in fees imposed upon private enterprises; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 456—AN ACT relating to public defenders; requiring the deputies of the public defender to be governed by the merit personnel system of the county in certain counties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 457—AN ACT relating to impact fees; including fire suppression projects and park projects as capital improvements which local governments may finance by imposing impact fees on new developments; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Government Affairs:
Senate Bill No. 458—AN ACT relating to airports; requiring certain entities organized to operate an airport to post the federal regulation concerning the overbooking of flights at each area from which passengers are boarded onto an aircraft; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Senator O’Connell moved that the motion whereby Senate Bill No. 458 was referred to the Committee on Government Affairs be rescinded.
Motion carried.
Senator O’Connell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Taxation:
Senate Bill No. 459—AN ACT relating to taxation; clarifying the application of sales and use taxes to contractors based outside this state for a contract in this state; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 460—AN ACT relating to unemployment compensation; restricting the use of certain anticipated distributions to conform to federal law; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 461—AN ACT relating to public accommodations; requiring an owner or keeper of a hotel, inn, motel or motor court to maintain a printed statement of the charge or rate of charges by the day for lodging and to make that statement available upon request; eliminating the requirement that the rates be posted in every bedroom of the establishment; eliminating the provisions that prohibit such an establishment from requiring a person to pay for a greater number of days than actually requested to secure accommodations; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 462—AN ACT relating to insurance; changing the date by which an insurer must furnish proof of its entitlement to the credit against the insurance premium tax for maintaining a home office or regional home office in this state; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 463—AN ACT relating to workers’ compensation; expanding the definition of “police officer” for the purpose of determining eligibility for workers’ compensation for occupational diseases and eligibility to elect to receive normal salary in lieu of compensation; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 464—AN ACT relating to unemployment compensation; revising provisions in cases of delinquency in payment of employers’ assessments; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 465—AN ACT relating to financial institutions; authorizing banks to maintain trust offices in various locations under certain circumstances; authorizing the commissioner of financial institutions to collect fees for trust offices; clarifying the circumstances under which a foreign trust company or bank may be appointed to act as fiduciary in this state; amending the requirements for the articles of incorporation and organization of a trust company; amending certain requirements of an application for a license as a trust company; providing for the qualifications of the directors and officers of a trust company; revising the investment powers of a trust company; authorizing the commissioner of financial institutions to impose administrative penalties for violations of certain provisions governing trust companies; providing a penalty; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Townsend moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Finance:
Senate Bill No. 466—AN ACT relating to education; providing in skeleton form for the revision of provisions governing education; revising the composition of the state board of education; making appropriations; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 467—AN ACT relating to vehicles; providing the department of taxation with access to information held by the department of motor vehicles and public safety through license plate numbers; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the motion whereby Senate Bill No. 467 was referred to the Committee on Transportation be rescinded.
Motion carried.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Taxation:
Senate Bill No. 468—AN ACT relating to taxation; providing for the imposition of certain taxes on the casual sale of used motorboats; excluding the value of a motorboat taken in trade from the sales price of a motorboat for the purposes of certain taxes; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:
Senate Bill No. 469—AN ACT relating to persons with mental disabilities; extending certain governmental services relating to mental retardation to persons with related conditions; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Neal requested that Assembly Bill No. 120 be taken from the Consent Calendar and placed on the Second Reading File.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Senate Bills Nos. 242, 268, 312; Assembly Bills Nos. 93, 98.
Bills read by number.
Roll call on Senate Bills Nos. 242, 268, 312; Assembly Bills Nos. 93, 98:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bills Nos. 242, 268, 312; Assembly Bills Nos. 93, 98 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared them passed.
Bills ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Assembly Bill No. 68.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 73.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
Assembly Bill No. 120.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Bill No. 125.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Neal.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 125:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 125 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 202.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and O’Donnell.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 202:
Yeas—20.
Nays—Neal.
Senate Bill No. 202 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 232.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Porter, Neal, O’Connell, Raggio, Rawson, O’Donnell, Washington and Titus.
Senator Porter requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to give an explanation of Senate Bill No. 232. This bill is the result of a series of meetings that I had in Southern Nevada with child advocacy groups during the interim. The bill requires the Division of Child and Family Services to disclose information regarding any behavioral, emotional or psychological problems of a child to the prospective adoptive parents. The measure also requires child-placing agencies to give preference to the placement of the child with his or her siblings in situations involving adoptions, termination of parental rights and children in need of protective services.
Finally, Senate Bill No. 232 provides that the fees charged by the Division of Child and Family Services for private adoption services must not exceed the usual and customary fees charged in the local area by private adoption agencies. According to testimony, private adoption agencies charge approximately $7500 or more for their services. The Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) currently is limited, by statute, to a fee that does not exceed $2500. The purpose of the revised fee is to discourage individuals who can afford to pay for private adoptions from utilizing the limited resources of DCFS. The revised fee sets the maximum that DCFS may charge for its services and does not prohibit DCFS from charging a lower fee. Existing law, which is not modified by Senate Bill No. 232, authorizes DCFS to waive or reduce any fee if it determines that the adoptive parents are not able to pay the fee or the needs of the child require a waiver or reduction of the fee. The new disclosure requirement regarding the behavioral, emotional or psychological problems is designed to provide full disclosure to adoptive parents. Existing law requires only the disclosure of the medical and sociological history of the child.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. When I looked at this bill, some questions came to my mind because you are asking, through an interview with the natural parents, about the medical history and the sociological behavior of the child. Also, you are asking whether the child has any behavioral, emotional and psychological problems. I wondered, when I saw that particular language, are we now putting into law that when the agencies engage in the business of adoption that they can only put a perfect child up for adoption? If that is the case, I find something wrong with that. It has not been in our statutes before and to put it in there now is to say that they have to consider others in that sociological thing, that troubled me a bit because I don’t know what you are talking about. Does it mean that their parents lived in a black neighborhood; did they live in an Hispanic neighborhood; did they live in a Jewish neighborhood, or what are we asking?
Senator Porter:
Madam President, to you and through you to my colleague from North Las Vegas. I shared the same concerns as my colleague when these ideas were brought to me during the interim. First and foremost, there must be a fast and easy way for our children to be adopted. Currently, there are a number of obstacles. During testimony, a key issue was ensuring that all the agencies, public or private, would provide the available information. Currently, this information is being provided according to DCFS policy. This bill will codify DCFS disclosure practices to ensure this is always provided to adoptive parents. Also throughout testimony, there were requests that we encourage—not mandate―that siblings be adopted together. But I too shared the same concerns as my colleague that we ensure that all of our children are given the opportunity. Currently, 92 percent of these children are considered special-needs children. Full disclosure will provide advance notice of potential problems, which will allow adoptive parents to prepare themselves to deal with these when they arise. I hope that helps my colleague. As I said, I too shared his concerns. I believe that the testimony in committee speaks to his concerns.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I feel that those who adopt children should share the same risks as those who have children by natural birth. If your child has defects, you live with that. But to have an agency go out and identify all of these defects, you are not improving the adoption; you are lessening the adoption process. That is one of the problems I have with this measure. The sociological issue disturbs me.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President. The questions are currently being asked by DCFS. This measure is really putting into statute what the DCFS is currently doing. We want to make sure that these children are adopted, that there is nothing put in their way, but that the parents receive the information they need to make informed decisions.
Senator O’Connell:
Thank you, Madam President, through you to the sponsor of the bill. I wonder if, during hearings, they gave them an update on the number of children that we have waiting for adoption? I did understand the sponsor to indicate that the goal of the bill is to help these children to be adopted more quickly. But I wonder what is being done as far as our state agency goes in order to see that that happens. I realize the bill is meant to encourage more private adoptions, but I am concerned with those who cannot afford to do that and must go through the state agency.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President. To my colleague from southern Nevada, the intention of the bill is to encourage and expedite the adoption of our children. Possibly, my testimony did not clarify that. Currently, it costs approximately $7500 or more to process a private adoption. We have individuals coming here from other states, private sector individuals, and possibly wealthy individuals who are able to use the public system for $2500 where currently it costs approximately $7500 for private adoptions. We are encouraging the use of the state system for private adoptions by changing the law allowing our services to charge the same amount of money. The goal is to actually expedite and encourage the adoption of our own children. If you can afford a private adoption agency, you should go there. If you cannot afford a private adoption agency, ours should be available. But we are spending so much time doing private adoptions, instead of taking care of our own kids, the intention of this measure is to allow us to be competitive for those who can afford it. The cost is on a sliding scale. Also, it encourages the adoption of our own children instead of private adoption.
Currently, there are 1600 children in foster care, not including the children with special needs. There are thousands of children looking for homes. If we can free up the time for DCFS to be allowed to place our children instead of working on private adoptions, I think this measure will expedite the process. We are spending so much time doing private adoptions that we don’t have the time to do our own.
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Madam President, through you to the speaker. I was concerned about the disclosures that are provided and whether or not, if the natural parents so desire, that their identity is preserved as confidential. Has that been changed in any way by this measure?
Senator Porter:
Madam President, to my colleague from northern Nevada. I cannot answer as to whether there has been any change in how the current law reads. I do not believe so, and we did not address any changes to that disclosure.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Madam President. I’ve given recommendations, numerous times, to couples on adopting. Often times, it is a special-needs adoption because that is the only way they can, relatively quickly, get a child. The need for having those evaluations goes to this point: if a couple wants to, they can consciously decide to avoid high risk behaviors. It isn’t just a throw of the dice as to whether or not the child is likely to have birth defects. Yes, they may have some random problem, but when a mother is an alcoholic, then there is a very good chance that the child is going to be affected by that. We have heard the bills on fetal alcohol syndrome. It is the same thing with smoking, the same thing with crack cocaine or other drugs. I think that is why that was originally made a part of the bill. There are still couples who will adopt children with these special problems. In fact, that is the case in many of the situations where I have served as a reference. I have seen one young man who had a hip dysplasia. He subsequently ran track, played sports and has now graduated from high school. The couple adopted that baby knowing that there might be problems, and they were prepared to deal with those possible problems. How much better that was than the situation like Jeremy Stroemeyer. That was a blind adoption with no information given on him. Although that may be a tactic being used now to divert the blame from himself, his natural mother was schizophrenic. If his adoptive parents had known, they could have watched for signs of that and interceded at a point where it could have saved Sherry Iverson’s life. I think there is need for that kind of information even though there may be concern.
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Madam President. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to sign onto this measure. I do support it. I don’t know if anyone else in this room has been the parent of a severely handicapped child, but I have and I know what it is like to live with one. I know the pain and suffering, but I also know the joy, the love and the depth of character it takes to raise a child like this. I can tell you that if I were ever to adopt, I would want a handicapped child because you learn more about love, life and what life really means by having a handicapped child than you do by having a perfect child. A perfect child is easy to raise. A handicapped child is a lot more difficult to raise. I think most people who are in a category of putting their homes and themselves on the line for being adoptive parents, they are a special breed. They are a special group of individuals who give their lives for another child. They don't have to do this. They want to do this. I would support this measure. I think it is a good measure. I think the more information you have about the character, the anomalies, the diseases or whatever, and that information is known up front, then you are better able to make a decision on how to care for and treat that child in order to make that child a better and more productive creature in this world.
Senator Washington:
Thank you, Madam President, through you and to my good friend the Majority Leader. The confidentiality of the parent is still held in confidence if the parent so requests. Having gone through the process of adoption myself, in regards to my nephew, the more information you know about the sibling(s) and the medical conditions they face, the better equipped the doctors and the adoptive parents are to make sound judgments concerning medical treatment for that child. I supported the sponsor’s bill because I thought it was a great idea. I’ve known some people who have adopted children and do not realize the things they are going to be facing with that child whether it is a mental of physical handicap. Knowing that information helps the adoptive parent serve that child and obtain the treatment that they need. This is a good bill which I would encourage my colleagues to support.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I have a question. The information being sought here, does that come before the child has been adopted?
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President. Yes, it is compiled before the child is adopted. It is made available to the adoptive parents prior to the adoption.
Senator Neal:
This is done before the adoptive parents actually sign the papers? This information is obtained?
Senator Porter:
That is necessary so that prospective adoptive parents can make informed decisions regarding the special needs of 92 percent of these children.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. Most of the discussion has focused on the section of the bill mandating the provision of certain information to prospective parents, but apparently this is already occurring and the bill simply codifies current practice. What is of greater concern to me is increasing the fee for adoption from $2500 to approximately $7500. I understand that this is intended to encourage the use of private adoption agencies, but it seems to me that it is going to discourage adoptions overall. I think we should be moving in the opposite direction.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President, to the Minority Leader. DCFS policy is to disclose all available information. This bill will codify DCFS policy to ensure compliance. Again, when I first heard this proposal I thought the same way as my colleagues. I can understand why there is some question. Currently, 92 percent of our children are special-needs children. There is no charge for the adoption of this 92 percent. The problem is that our system is so overloaded processing private adoptions that they don’t have time to take care of the children in the State’s care. The professionals in the field felt that if we could charge a sliding scale with a maximum fee comparable to the private sector, it would encourage those folks who want a private adoption to go to the private sector where there are companies, attorneys and firms that do that. The intent of this measure is to first and primarily encourage adoption of those children that are in our system. We have approximately 8.5 employees handling private adoption matters. Most of those adoptions could be handled by a private agency. We are suggesting that DCFS staff must have the time to take care of those children whom we are charged with caring for. We need to give DCFS staff the time to devote to those adoptions. Madam President, I would be happy to roll this bill over to the next day if there are other questions to be answered, but I think this is a very important way for us to improve the care of our children.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. I hear what the bill’s sponsor is saying, but it seems to me that the result will be that if you are rich and can afford $7500, you can get a perfect baby; but if you are poor, then you can just get one of the special-needs children for whom there is no charge. I do not think that is the message we should be sending. Nor do I believe that making perfect babies more expensive will result in greater adoption of special-needs children.
Senator Porter:
Thank you, Madam President, I would like to respond to the remarks of the Minority Leader. Ninety-two percent of our children are special-needs children. There is currently no charge for adoption of special-needs children. All we are trying to do is to expedite finding homes for these and the other 8 percent that are currently in our care and do not enjoy the benefit of outside counsel or private firms. We want to allow DCFS staff to put their energies into taking care of our children first. It has nothing to do with whether or not that family has a million dollars or a hundred dollars. If they would love to adopt one of our children, it may well only cost $100, $500 or $2000. But this allows us, if in fact the adoptive family is not in need, to charge a similar fee as private agencies.
Senator Neal:
This is in my judgment a disturbing piece of legislation. It would allow those who are adopting a child to select that child based upon some sociological model whereby only the “perfect” child would be adopted.
To allow this to be placed in statute is setting the state on a course similar to that of Nazi Germany where distinctions were made between those who allegedly had the perfect genes as opposed to those who were infirm in some way. The intention of those who are sponsoring Senate Bill No. 232 may be good, but they did not consider my position on this issue. We are dealing with laws, and as such, we must consider not only what our own intentions are in passing such, but how the law may be used. Therefore the spirit of Senate Bill No. 232 may be good, but the letter of this bill can be misused. It is for this reason I am voting “no.”
Senator Porter:
Senate Bill No. 232 is not a radical departure from the current procedures relating to adoptions. The language requiring the disclosure of the medical and sociological history of the child is part of existing law under former subsection 7(b) of NRS 127.152. Therefore, adoptive parents currently receive the sociological history of the child. The bill only adds disclosure requirements for any behavioral, emotional or psychological problems of the child. Such disclosure would enable the adoptive parents to provide any necessary and available treatment or counseling for the child. In addition, providing such disclosure prior to the adoption would help to prevent failed adoptions which can be devastating for a child. For these reasons, the additional disclosure is in the best interests of the child.
No parent can be guaranteed a perfect child. Adoptive parents should receive the same information that natural parents have to provide the best care for the child. Both natural and adoptive parents will seek help for a child if the parents know of any behavioral, emotional or psychological problems. Help cannot be provided if the adoptive parents are not informed. Providing early intervention is in the best interests of the child. Judges who testified in favor of Senate Bill No. 232 emphasized that the disclosure will only strengthen the adoption process because the adoptive parents enter into the situation fully informed.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 232:
Yeas—17.
Nays—Carlton, Mathews, Neal, Titus—4.
Senate Bill No. 232 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Bills Nos. 233, 300; Assembly Bills Nos. 22, 23, 24, 45, 55, 79, 83, 104, 105, be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Bills Nos. 77, 87; Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 21; Assembly Bills Nos. 125, 126, 177; Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 17.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Jason Roland and Melissa Yarde.
On request of President Hunt, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Kathy Trudgen and Devin Trudgen.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 12:05 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas