THE FORTY-SEVENTH DAY
Carson City (Friday), March 19, 1999
Senate called to order at 10:43 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present except Senator Rawson, who was excused.
Prayer by the Chaplain, Dr. Ken Haskins.
Dear Heavenly Father, the earth is Yours and the “fullness thereof.” You are more than able to provide all that Your servants will ever need. Bless these Senators and provide them with the clear vision and the courage that they will need in order to decide rightly the important issues facing them today. In the Name of our Lord, 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. 417, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Government Affairs, to which were referred Assembly Bills Nos. 127, 128, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Also, your Committee on Government Affairs, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 341, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass, and place on Consent Calendar.
Ann O’Connell, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Human Resources and Facilities, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 285, 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 Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 264, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and re-refer to the Committee on Finance.
Also, your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 19, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and re-refer to the Committee on Legislative Affairs and Operations.
Also, your Committee on Judiciary, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 314, 359; Assembly Bills Nos. 20, 85, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
Also, your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 326, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Mark A. James, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 67, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Memorandum
March 19, 1999
TO: All Nevada Senators
FROM: Lieutenant Governor Lorraine T. Hunt. President of the Senate
SUBJECT: President Ruling on Senate Standing Rule No. 106
In response to Senator Neal’s request for a ruling from the President in regard to Senate Standing Rule No. 106, specifically addressing the questions: 1) If passing Senate Bills in skeleton form out of the Senate to the Assembly is constitutional, and permissible under the Senate Standing Rules, and 2) if the Senate has control of legislation before it is enacted if a bill is sent to the Assembly in skeleton form? Senator Neal’s concern is well taken, and I appreciate his asking for a ruling on this subject.
Attached is a copy of an opinion by Legal Counsel Brenda Erdoes. I have thoroughly reviewed her opinion. She has done an excellent job in explaining the changes in the rule. It has been beneficial to me since I am new to the process. I have also reviewed the Constitution, the Senate Standing Rules and our legislative process.
In reviewing our process, when a Senate bill is amended by the Assembly, the Senate must either concur or not concur in the amendment; if it is not concurred in, the bill is then referred to a conference committee.
If a Senator is interested in tracking a Senate bill in its skeleton form, the Assembly hearing dates are posted. Senators may testify on the skeleton bills when in the Assembly committee hearings. When an amendment is adopted the bill is reprinted. Senators can review the new reprint of the bill on the Internet by using their laptop computers. It is available for review in the afternoon on the day the bill was amended during a floor session; hard copies of the bill are available the next day.
After passage in the Assembly, what was once a Senate skeleton bill is returned for concurrence in the amendment. The amendment is reviewed in the committee process and during a floor session. And as previously mentioned, if the amendment is not concurred in, the first conference committee is appointed. The conference committee must conduct a public meeting to discuss the bill and either render a compromise between the Houses or declare a no decision reached status. Senators may attend these meetings and ask questions or make suggestions regarding the bill. At that point, the conference report is submitted to the Houses with the declaration that no decision was reached, and a second conference committee is appointed. If the second conference committee can reach a decision, the result may be that the Senate will accept the Assembly amendment, or not, and/or further amend. The conference committee report and supporting amendments, if applicable, must be reviewed by the Senate during a floor session, at which time remarks and questions can be asked by Senators.
Now that I am more informed about process, it is my ruling that Senate Standing Rule No. 106, as amended in Senate Resolution No. 1 on February 1, 1999, is sufficient to ensure the Senate does have adequate control of legislation before it is enacted. However, I would ask the Senate Committee Chairmen and members to carefully consider skeleton bills, most particularly in regard to Assembly amendments to ensure that the legislation properly conveys the legislative intent.
Legal Opinion
March 15, 1999
Dear Lieutenant Governor Hunt:
You have asked whether the practice of passing Senate Bills in skeleton form out of the Senate is constitutional and permissible under the Senate Standing Rules and, if so, whether the Senate has control of legislation before it is enacted if a bill is sent to the Assembly in skeleton form. Your questions all relate to a change that was made in Senate Standing Rule No. 106 by Senate Resolution No. 1 in which the Senate Standing Rules were adopted for the 70th Legislative Session.
The Senate is required by section 6 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution to “determine the rules of its proceedings” and does so with the adoption of the Senate Standing Rules. As one of the measures to ensure that all proposed legislation would be drafted and passed out of the House of origin within the new timelines established to ensure that all legislative business was completed within the prescribed 120 days, Senate Standing Rule No. 106 was amended to eliminate the requirement that a skeleton bill be completed before transmittal to the Assembly, thereby providing that a bill could be passed out of the Senate in skeleton form. The purpose of the amendment was to provide an additional option to ensure that potentially lengthy bills could be efficiently processed by the Legislature without causing the entire measure to be drafted before it was determined that both Houses were interested in pursuing the basic concept of the bill. Because of this change in Senate Standing Rule No. 106, the practice of passing Senate Bills in skeleton form out of the Senate is permissible under the Senate Standing Rules.
Additionally, the practice is constitutional because it does not cause the Senate, or the Legislature as a whole, to violate any of the constitutional requirements for the enactment of laws. Section 16 of Article 4 of the Nevada Constitution provides that a bill may originate in either House and that all bills passed by one House may be amended in the other. Section 17 of Article 4 requires that laws embrace only one subject and prohibits the Legislature from revising or amending a section by reference to its title without including the text of the section. Section 18 of Article 4 sets forth the procedure for the final passage of bills. It requires bills that are not placed on the consent calendar to be read by sections on three several days in each House except in cases of emergency. This section also requires the vote on the final passage to be by yeas and nays entered in the Journal of each House and sets forth the requirements for signatures. The only other section in the Constitution regarding the procedure for enacting laws is section 35 of Article 4 which sets forth the procedure for presenting the bills to the Governor for signature. Therefore, there are no constitutional restrictions on the passage of a bill out of the House of origin in skeleton form.
Your question as to whether the Senate has control of legislation before it is enacted if a bill is sent to the Assembly in skeleton form is a more difficult one for me to answer. The test must necessarily be whether the Senate, as a body, has the ability to direct or influence a bill that is passed out of the Senate in skeleton form. Strictly speaking, because the Assembly is free to redraft, in the same subject area, any Senate Bill after it has been passed by the Senate, it would appear that passing a bill out of a House in skeleton form does not affect the ability of the House of origin to direct or influence the contents of the bill. Upon amendment of a Senate bill by the Assembly, the bill must be reconsidered by the Senate to determine whether the body will concur in the amendment made by the Assembly. This reconsideration generally occurs in both the committee to which the bill was referred upon introduction and the Senate as a whole. Additionally, if the Senate as a whole votes not to concur in the amendment, the amendment bill will be considered by one or two conference committees, as well as the Senate as a whole. Further, the Senate still retains the absolute control that is provided by the constitution as the bill cannot be enacted without a majority vote of all members elected to the Senate.
Although a persuasive argument can be made that there is not a loss of control that results from the passage of a bill from the Senate in skeleton form, the answer to your question depends entirely upon the particular bill to be passed out and the timing of that action. For example, if a bill proposes to make only a few substantive changes but there are many references to those changes throughout NRS that would also need to be revised as a result of the substantive changes, passing the bill out of the Senate in skeleton form would not result in a loss of control by the Senate because the Senate made the substantive choices and the amendment required to complete the skeleton bill will be purely mechanical. The Senate would need to review the measure upon its return from the Assembly to determine that no other substantive changes were made to the bill or that any such changes made were agreeable to the Senate, but such a review would be no more necessary in this situation than the review given to any Senate Bill that has been returned from the Assembly in an amended form.
However, in other cases, loss of control of a bill may be more likely. For example, if the bill provides for the establishment of a complex new program or proposes many different complex changes to an existing program, the second House makes the decisions as to how the program will be established or changes. By not determining all of the details of the program or the changes to the program, the Senate may lose some ability to direct or influence the contents of the bill simply by not participating in the process of making the decisions necessary to complete the bill.
Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the practice of passing Senate Bills in skeleton form out of the Senate is constitutional and permissible under the Senate Standing Rules. Additionally, the Senate retains the ultimate control of a bill which is sent to the Assembly in skeleton form because the bill cannot be enacted without the approval of the amendment made by the Assembly to complete the bill by a majority of the members elected to the Senate. However, there may be certain complex bills for which the Senate may lose some ability to direct or influence the contents of the bill simply by not participating in the process of making the decisions necessary to complete the skeleton bill. Finally, it should be noted that the change to Senate Standing Rule No. 106 to allow the Senate to transmit bills to the Assembly in skeleton form makes the practice discretionary. Therefore, the Senate may choose to complete some skeleton bills before transmitting them to the Assembly and to pass others out of the House in skeleton form.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
Brenda J. Erdoes
Legislative Counsel
Remarks by Senator Coffin.
Senator Coffin requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Thank you, Madam President and thank you for delivering your opinion. I object to it; although, I realize there is not much I can do to change your opinion. I would however like to state a couple of reasons for my objection. One, the President of this body has come to us with some political experience having served four years with the Clark County Commission which is a unicameral legislative body. As such, the President has had experience with a large number of complex legislative issues. On the other hand, the President has not participated in the wild free-for-all which occurs in the Nevada State Legislature during the closing days of any session, whether it be a 120-day mandated session or a previously unlimited schedule. What the President has done is to caution us on complex legislation for which I am glad, but all legislation is complex. This is because all legislation has the potential for ending up in court. A good defense attorney could take a very simple bill on crime and plead the defense that the legislature did not act properly. What is to be done, based on our counsel’s ruling on such a major issue, if one decision renders a skeleton bill void? In essence, will we then have to look at all bills that were passed in skeleton form? In previous reference, would they all be declared unconstitutional through some future ruling? I think we have to consider that possibility.
Also, going back to the realistic aspect of what occurs in the Legislature, what the Lieutenant Governor has pointed out is that there is a way for Senators to follow legislation after it leaves this House. But, in practice, I defy the President or any member to admit that they know how to follow each bill in the other House, in conference or in the rush to close the session. That is how our House operates, because it is bicameral.
Rules are made to protect the minority. As a member of a minority here, I think you would find just reason if you were in the same position to protest this kind of ruling because what it does is to pass undue control to the majority. That was the whole purpose for the original rules. When we endorsed the 120-day session, we were not told that there would be a shortcut in our legislative process within those days. I do not believe it was our intent, when we passed that measure, nor do I believe it was the intent of the voters, when they passed it, that legislation should be incomplete at any given stage. I think that, on important issues, it should be noted that this legislator feels that the intent of any legislation passed, in skeleton form, is questionable. I intend to have it so noted today, so that in the future if anyone is looking through the history of legislation to have a feel for the intent of the legislators, that at least several members of this legislative body felt that our work was incomplete and that they can look to the courts for relief from this legislation. I realize that some of the skeleton bills are simple, as was one of the ones that came to our House several weeks ago, but we do not know what the ultimate outcome will be concerning that bill. And, I voted against that bill.
Therefore, I object and I feel that what the President has witnessed here is a very tortured opinion which ignores the fact that the Constitution requires that a bill be read three times in front of each House. I think it will now have to be up to the courts to decide its legality. I think we should now give notice that this can happen.
Senators Neal, Titus, Coffin, Carlton and Wiener appealed Madam President’s ruling.
The question was put: “Shall the ruling of the President stand as judgement of the Senate?”
Remarks by Senators Neal, James, O’Donnell and Titus.
President Hunt requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I understand what is attempted by this ruling. In our haste to meet the mandate of a 120-day session which has been imposed upon the Legislature, I do not think that we should violate our Constitution in doing so. The issue of skeleton bills is an issue that arises out of our rules, but rules should not contradict the Constitution of the State of Nevada. Under Article IV of our Constitution, which is the organic rules which govern the passage of bills in the Legislature, nowhere is there to be found mention of any skeleton bills being passed out of this House. In fact, it states, in Article IV, Section 17 that “each law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace but one subject.” When we are talking about bills in skeleton form, it raises the question as to whether or not there would be other subjects contained within a particular skeleton bill which would be contradictory to our Constitution. As I have said earlier, we do not depend upon the other House to take care of the business of the Senate. Therefore, it seems to me that it is unwise for us to pass measures from this House to the other House that we have not completely examined. If we are going to pass a bill, once we bring it to the floor of the Senate. We have followed the constitutional mandate by having it read three times. We are indicating to the public as well as the other House that we want this bill to be enacted into law. How then can you have a skeleton bill to become law when you do not know what form it is going to become? I understand what you stated in offering your opinion, Madam President. I also read the opinion of the Legislative Counsel. She engaged in some legalistic gymnastics in terms of dealing with the language on this rule. I disagree as to what the purported conclusion of this seems to represent to this House. We, in the Senate, are supposed to be a proud group in terms of the work we do. We indicate to the public, when we place our stamp of approval on a measure that it is what we want to become law.
For a moment, let’s examine a skeleton bill which is referred out of this House and sent to the other House. When the bill is voted out of this House and is accepted in the other House, we lose control over that measure until such time as the Assembly acts upon that particular bill. Assuming that the other House does not act, the bill would be sent back to the Senate and we might be able to deal with it as a body. But, if they decide to amend the bill to that bill, then the dynamics in terms of the consideration of that bill changes. It is then left to the President and the Majority Leader to appoint a conference committee to deal with that measure. It does not come before the entire membership of the Senate because, in terms of making changes, the bill must go to a conference committee for its approval. Everyone in this House should have the right to seek an amendment to that bill. This is not so when it has been sent to a conference committee. Only those members who are appointed to the conference committee can consider those particular changes.
To develop a policy on a procedure to allow skeleton bills to leave this House is, in effect, allowing tyranny of majority to usurp the authority and the will of each member to make a judgment on what the terms of the amendment to that bill should be. We know that we are in the minority on this particular issue. But, in what we are attempting to do here, I want my position to be clear that I feel what we are attempting here is wrong. I want the Assembly and the entire state to know that this ruling on Senate Standing Rule No. 106, as being interpreted by you Madam President, is wrong. It contravenes our constitutional responsibility to pass out laws that we think are good for the public. If we wanted to deal with only concepts of legislation, then there is no need for us to come and sit in this body. Why not just do it by telephone? Call in your comments, have the legislative counsel put it in writing, bring it to the floor, push a button and send it to the other House. That’s what this boils down to. Now, legislation is a painstaking process. We do not deal with this process in a cavalier manner. When we pass a law, it affects every citizen in this state who can avail themselves of that law; therefore, we should ensure that the laws we have enacted are good ones. We should deliberate on the measures which become laws and not just have had a conversation about them as it would be with skeleton bills that are enacted. The people who elected me their Senator did not send me up here for the purpose of conversation. They sent me to deliberate. That is surely the process written into the Constitution. Even if you look at your Mason Manual of Legislative Procedures, which has longstanding credibility in terms of the legislative process, nowhere would you find reference to a skeleton bill being passed out of one House into the other House. In fact, I don’t think you will find a skeleton bill mentioned in the Constitution.
Even though, Madam President, I asked you for the ruling, I happen to think that the ruling is wrong, and I respectfully disagree with its conclusion.
Senator James:
Thank you, Madam President. I want to commend you on the study and deliberation you have given this ruling. Having now read it thoroughly, I believe it is correct. I want to point out that the arguments you have just heard against your ruling are directed toward the alleged unconstitutionality of this provision, but they overlook the fact that any changes made in the other House in a bicameral legislature have to be concurred in by the House of origin. If we send a bill to the Assembly where changes are made to fill out the body of the skeleton, so to speak, it has to come back to the House of origin. Those changes, in the form of an amendment, are sent back to a committee. The committee which originally heard the bill in this House deliberates on those changes and considers them. I would not want there to be any impression by the people of this state, from the arguments you have just heard, that we are treating this process cavalierly. Or, by enacting skeleton bills in this House and sending them to the other House for consideration, that we are in any way contravening the structure of the legislative function as stated in the Constitution. We are not doing that. I do not think there were verbal gymnastics in the opinion from the Legislative Counsel. I think this opinion very clearly says “there are no constitutional restrictions on the passage of a bill out of the House of origin in skeleton form.” The reason for that is that this House retains control over the ultimate changes. We have to concur in all those changes. If there is anything in a skeleton bill that we don’t agree with, such as in the one that passed out of this House recently, when it comes back to the committee we will look at it and indicate that we do not concur with the changes. Then the amendment goes to a conference committee where it is further considered and members of both Houses confer as to whether this is good policy for the State of Nevada. So, I think the opinion is well taken and correct, and I do not think the appeal is in order.
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the comments you made on not having bills in skeleton form that deal with any kind of substance. Let me give you an example of something that may come through this House. Years ago, I remember that we changed the name of one of our agencies from NIC to SIIS. All we were doing was changing the name, but there were hundreds of statutes that had to contain this name change. If the body did not approve that change, we would have had thousands of hours of legal time put forth into changing the name of an agency. Then those changes would have come to the floor in a huge bill. If we had voted against the change, all of that work would have been for nothing. What we are doing here, with skeleton bills, is to allow a little economy and realization of what is going on. Basically, the President just said that she does not want to see any skeleton bill in this chamber that deals with any substantive issue. I agree with that. The skeleton bill that just passed out of this House dealt with a change in a definition. It had nothing to do with any substance. If we change the definition of one part of the law, we have to change it throughout. For the life of me, I can not figure out why we are even having this discussion. Be it as it may, we are here.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to respond to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s correction of the Senator from North Las Vegas. I am afraid I have to agree with my colleague from North Las Vegas. It is true that a bill will come back from the Assembly to this body where we have the opportunity to concur or not concur on any changes that are made in the Assembly. But, as a body, we have no opportunity to bring out our own amendments and offer our own changes. Those are the ones my colleague was referring to that have to go through a conference committee where there is little participation except by a small number of specially chosen members. I would conclude by asking if we could possibly imagine the U. S. Senate sending to the U. S. House a skeleton bill and trusting them to put the meat on the bones.
Senators Neal, Coffin and Titus requested a roll call vote on Madam President’s ruling.
Roll call on Madam President’s ruling regarding Senate Standing Rule No. 106:
Yeas—12.
Nays—Carlton, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Wiener—8.
Excused—Rawson.
The roll call having received a majority, Madam President declared the ruling sustained.
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 490—AN ACT relating to the department of motor vehicles and public safety; creating a revolving account to pay for the cost of issuing special license plates; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 491—AN ACT relating to transportation; reorganizing the taxicab authority into the transportation services authority; revising the provisions governing the judicial review of certain decisions by the transportation services authority; revising the provisions concerning taxicabs operating pursuant to lease agreements; making various changes to the provisions governing the regulation of common motor carriers; prohibiting certain persons from offering money in exchange for a recommendation for patronage of certain licensed establishments; increasing certain administrative and criminal penalties; providing penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 492—AN ACT relating to civil practice; authorizing the supreme court to adopt rules to govern written offers of judgments; 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 Judiciary:
Senate Bill No. 493—AN ACT relating to criminal procedure; revising the provisions relating to the filing of an information against a defendant who is discharged by a magistrate after a preliminary examination; 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 Taxation:
Senate Bill No. 494—AN ACT relating to taxation; extending from 2 years to 3 years the interval between studies of the ratio of assessed to taxable value of property in each county; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator McGinness moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Taxation.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Commerce and Labor:
Senate Bill No. 495—AN ACT relating to industrial insurance; revising the provisions concerning employee leasing companies; revising the provisions concerning the modified programs of industrial insurance for the department of prisons, jails and other detention facilities; revising the provision concerning the timing of payment of premiums and reporting of payroll to insurers; clarifying that a rate service organization used by an association of self-insured public or private employers must be licensed; clarifying the authority of the commissioner of insurance over private carriers who provide industrial insurance; specifying the authority of the commissioner of insurance to suspend the authorization of a private carrier to provide industrial insurance; revising various provisions to facilitate the authorization of private carriers to provide industrial insurance; reducing the penalty for misrepresenting information that will affect the amount of an employer’s premium; revising the provisions concerning payment from the uninsured employers’ claim fund; increasing the amount a real estate licensee is deemed to receive as a wage; 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. 496—AN ACT relating to education; creating the millennium scholarship trust fund; creating the millennium scholarship board to award scholarships from the trust fund to eligible students; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Standing Rule No. 40 be suspended and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.
By the Committee on Transportation:
Senate Bill No. 497—AN ACT relating to traffic laws; making various changes concerning court-ordered installation of a device in the motor vehicle of a person convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to prevent him from driving if he has consumed alcohol; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Senator O’Donnell moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Raggio moved that Senate Bill No. 263 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Motion carried.
SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT
Assembly Bill No. 113.
Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Bill No. 36.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 36:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 36 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 46.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Raggio, Titus, O’Donnell and Porter.
Senator O’Donnell disclosed that his wife is a teacher.
Senator Porter disclosed that his wife is a teacher.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 46:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 46 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 47.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 47:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 47 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 199.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Carlton, Raggio and Townsend.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 199:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 199 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 281.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 281:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 281 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 282.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Raggio.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 282:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Senate Bill No. 282 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 22.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Care.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 22:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 22 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 23.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 23:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 23 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 24.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Care, Neal, Raggio, O’Donnell and James.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 24:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 24 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 45.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and Amodei.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 45:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 45 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 55.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Raggio and James.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 55:
Yeas—18.
Nays—Neal.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 55 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 68.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Washington.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 68:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 68 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 73.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 73:
Yeas—17.
Nays—Mathews, Washington—2.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 73 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 79.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, James, Raggio and Carlton.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 79:
Yeas—18.
Nays—Neal.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 79 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 83.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and James.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 83:
Yeas—18.
Nays—None.
Not Voting—Coffin.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 83 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 104.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 104:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 104 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 105.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 105:
Yeas—19.
Nays—None.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 105 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Assembly Bill No. 120.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, James, Coffin and Raggio.
Roll call on Assembly Bill No. 120:
Yeas—17.
Nays—Coffin, Neal—2.
Excused—Rawson, Rhoads—2.
Assembly Bill No. 120 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Townsend moved that Senate Bill No. 64 be taken from the Secretary’s desk and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Townsend.
Motion carried.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Signing of Bills and resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Bill No. 63; Assembly Bills Nos. 93, 98.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to teacher Katie Menante, chaperones Pat Mathews, Dale Andrews, Leslie Dandos, Linde Pirtle, and Dixie Hoback and the following students from Billinghurst Middle School: Matt Breslow, Jimmie Casarez, Nicole Chamblin, Bryan Coffee, David Daniels, Jet Dewkin, Robin Eich, Genni Faulkler, Cameron Faulk, Brian Gipson, Jake Glynn, Jackie Harwood, Mike Hill, Chris Laughlin, Brixtany Marquez, Katelyn Matzoll, Joe Ostrander, David Rogers, Nevneet Samra, Nick Smith, Somera Angel, Shannon Tucker, Natalie Valentine, Chris Ventura, Mike Wilson, Joanna Medina, Zach Adams, Troy Ayala, Patrick Bagchi, Shounak Billings, Kristin Coletti, Brittany Dankworth, Nic Eliot, Jon Estrada, Sara Fisher, Sean Franco, Tony Gonzales, Aaron Henson, Rayanna Jones, Genne Krause, Amanda Lyninges, Kyla Mares, Matt Nason, Chris Olsen, Zach Peebles, Matt Pope, Reyne Reyes, Dylan Siri, Alex Seibold, Chris Stewart, Devin Stoll, Ricky Teinert, Lisa Tollison, Evan Warner, Emil Yankov, Luis Piedra, Julian Aguirre, Krystal Anson, Rosa Armendariz, Richie Brooks, Brittney Ceno, Tommy Cox, Sarah Daniels, Kelsey Fox, Robert Harper, Shannon Henderson, Crystal Hickman, Josh Jones, Kevin Kramer, Jessica Large, John Mann, Manuel Matos, Tim Nowman, Abner Ortega, Jessica Penley, Joey Plates, Taryn Ray, Travis Ring, Clara Sosa, David Wells, Robin Wiseman, Matt Duvalle and Robert Vera.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, March 22, 1999 at 11 a.m.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas