THE SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY
Carson City(Thursday), April 8, 1999
Senate called to order at 11:30 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Roll called.
All present.
Prayer by the Chaplain, the Reverend Elaine Morgan.
Lord, open our ears, eyes and hearts to the needs of all of Your people. Help us to show our gratitude for Your steadfast love by displaying steadfast understanding, service and love to others. Bless the efforts of our Senators as they strive to do Your work as they understand it. In Our Lord’s Holy Name, we 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 Finance, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 71, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.
Also, your Committee on Finance, to which was referred Senate Bills Nos. 288, 404, 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 Finance, to which was re-referred Senate Bill No. 157, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Amend, and do pass as amended.
William J. Raggio, Chairman
Madam President:
Your Committee on Taxation, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 244, 262, 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
Madam President:
Your Committee on Transportation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 302, 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 Transportation, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 266, 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.
William R. O’Donnell, Chairman
MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY
Assembly Chamber, Carson City, April 7, 1999
To the Honorable the Senate:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 29.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bills Nos. 459, 588, 630, 648, 678; Assembly Joint Resolution No. 13.
Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 94, 107, 186, 195, 345, 530, 626.
Susan Furlong Reil
Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly
COMMUNICATIONS FROM STATE OFFICERS
Waiver of Joint Standing Rule (s)
A Waiver requested by Senate Standing Committee on Commerce and Labor
For: Senate Bill No. 37.
To Waive:
Subsection 1 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3 (out of final committee of 2nd house by 103rd day).
Subsection 2 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3 (out of house of origin by 78th day).
Subsection 3 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3 (out of final committee of 2nd house by 103rd day).
Subsection 4 of Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3 (out of 2nd house by 110th day).
With the following conditions:
May only be passed out of final committee of house of origin on or before April 23, 1999.
May only be passed out of house of origin on or before April 30, 1999.
May only be passed out of final committee of second house on or before May 17, 1999.
May only be passed out of second house on or before May 24, 1999.
Has been granted effective: April 7, 1999.
William J. Raggio Joseph E. Dini, Jr.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
By Senators McGinness, Amodei, Care, Carlton, Coffin, Jacobsen, James, Mathews, Neal, O’Connell, O’Donnell, Porter, Raggio, Rawson, Rhoads, Schneider, Shaffer, Titus, Townsend, Washington, Wiener; Assemblymen Dini, Anderson, Angle, Arberry, Bache, Beers, Berman, Brower, Buckley, Carpenter, Cegavske, Chowning, Claborn, Collins, de Braga, Evans, Freeman, Gibbons, Giunchigliani, Goldwater, Gustavson, Hettrick, Humke, Koivisto, Lee, Leslie, Manendo, Marvel, McClain, Mortenson, Neighbors, Nolan, Ohrenschall, Parks, Parnell, Perkins, Price, Segerblom, Thomas, Tiffany, Von Tobel and Williams:
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30—Designating April 8, 1999, as Kiwanis Day in the State of Nevada.
Whereas, Eighty-four years ago the “Benevolent Order of the Brothers” was organized in Detroit, Michigan, on January 21, 1915, with the goal of having “a mutual exchange of preferred treatment in professional and business dealings”; and
Whereas, The following year the club’s name was changed to “Kiwanis,” a form of the Chippewa Indian word “Nun Keewanis,” which means “self-expression” and “we make ourselves known”; and
Whereas, Members of Kiwanis work toward six principles, which are (1) the primacy of spiritual values, (2) living by the Golden Rule, (3) adhering to high standards, (4) engendering strong citizenship, (5) building better communities through service and (6) assisting in the formation of sound public opinion; and
Whereas, Since 1917, the California, Nevada and Hawaii district, CAL-NEV-HA, has become the largest district in Kiwanis International; and
Whereas, The State of Nevada is proud of its own state divisions, which consist of Division 23 of Northern Nevada, Division 28 of Southern Nevada and Division 45 of Central Nevada, for their long history of service to communities in this state; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of Nevada, the Assembly Concurring, That the members of the Nevada Legislature hereby designate April 8, 1999, as Kiwanis Day in the State of Nevada, in recognition of the dedication toward helping others and the accomplishments achieved by members of Kiwanis while serving their communities; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate prepare and transmit a copy of this resolution to Governor Clarkson R. “Bob” Maurer, Governor-elect Terri Neumann, Lieutenant Governors Howard Mizell of Division 23, Phil Junkins of Division 28 and Robert S. Ward of Division 45, and Lieutenant Governors-elect Pete Falger of Division 28 and Pat Matheson of Division 45.
Senator McGinness moved the adoption of the resolution.
Remarks by Senator McGinness.
Senator McGinness requested that his remarks be entered in the Journal.
Thank you, Madam President. We are honored to have the governor of the Cal-Neva District of Kiwanis here with us today. He represents 19,230 members and 27,000 sponsored youth activities. I think we all know what service clubs are. Kiwanis has always been near and dear to my heart. My father-in-law indicated that I would no longer have employment or a spouse if I did not join the Kiwanis Club in Fallon. I joined in 1973 and had about 15 years perfect attendance until I was elected to the Legislature. I’m not like the good Senator from Gardnerville who has kept his perfect attendance.
Kiwanis Clubs are an important part of the community. Service projects range from pancake breakfasts to auctions, crab feeds, golf and bowling tournaments, among others. They do such good things in the community. One of the things that impressed me from the beginning about Kiwanis is that there are separate checkbooks. If you have a service project, those fees are all put into one checkbook. If you go to a meeting, they nickel and dime you to death. Any administrative costs from postage to sending people to conferences and conventions have to be borne by the members. If you go to a Kiwanis community event, know that every penny of that goes into a special project fund that is not used for anything else. I support this resolution on behalf of my fellow Kiwanians.
Resolution adopted.
Senator McGinness moved that all rules be suspended and that Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.
Motion carried unanimously.
Senator McGinness moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 11:47 a.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 11:53 a.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 13.
Senator Raggio moved that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Notice of Exemption
April 8, 1999
The Fiscal Analysis Division, pursuant to Joint Rule No. 14.6, has determined the exemption of the following bills: Senate Bills Nos. 321, 399 and 511 which:
(a) Contain an appropriation;
(b) Authorize the expenditure by a state agency of sums not appropriated from the state general fund or the state highway fund;
(c) Create or increase any significant fiscal liability of the state; or
(d) Significantly decrease any revenue of the state.
The Legislative Counsel shall cause to be printed on the face of each bill or resolution the term “exempt” and a notation of the exemption must be included as a part of the history of the bill or resolution.
Daniel G. Miles
Fiscal Analysis Division
INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE
Assembly Bill No. 94.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 107.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 186.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 195.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 345.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 459.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 530.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 588.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 626.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 630.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Government Affairs.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 648.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion carried.
Assembly Bill No. 678.
Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.
Motion carried.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Bill No. 197.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Wiener.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 197:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 197 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 213.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Rawson, Neal, Titus, Raggio, O’Donnell and O’Connell.
Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Madam President. Reading the title of this bill, I think it explains a good part of what the bill does. It essentially allows students who are home schooled or attend private schools the ability to attend extra curricular activities or special classes provided by the regular school districts. By allowing them into the school district, the schools will keep track of them and they will have an FTE count for whatever that adds to their burden. There has been some concern that this might be unconstitutional because it could theoretically allow religious students into classes offered in the public school system which would cause us to run into the barrier of church and state. Our Legislative Counsel Bureau advises us that this measure is written constitutionally. It depends on the manner in which it is implemented whether or not it will be considered constitutional. It appears to me that if there were some wholesale or blanket policy that allowed the public schools to take over the burden of providing such classes as physical education for the Parochial schools, then there would be a problem with it. But, this measure leaves it up to the local school boards to determine how they will institute this policy. It is a needed policy. For years, in the Human Resources Committee, we have had parents come to us and describe the problems they encounter in home schooling of not being able to teach trigonometry, for example, to their children because they do not understand the subject well enough to be able to teach it. The attitude has been that they made their decision so if they home school their children they are going to be dumb, too bad. I believe this measure opens up better communication, and it opens up avenues for children that might not be helped otherwise.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I heard the explanation given by the Chairman of the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities in reference to this bill. However, on page 7, when I look at the exception language of this measure, which says “except otherwise provided in subsection 2 for programs of special education relating to service upon the request of parents or legal guardian of a child who is enrolled in a private school or who is receiving instruction at home, the board of trustees of the school district in which the child resides shall authorize the child to participate in a class or extracurricular activity at the public school within the district.” It goes on to say that “if space is available.” I do not think that the supposition at the end of this paragraph satisfies the constitutional requirement that mandates, under Section 10, Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution which says “no public funds of any kind or character whatever state, county, municipal shall be used for sectarian purposes.” I read that because, as I understand this language, it does not exempt sectarian schools from participating. In fact, this issue has been around for a long, long time. If you look at the opinion of the Attorney General issued by Harvey Dickerson November 16, 1965, it dealt with this very same issue. Let me read to you what he said at that time. “Those who chose private schools or parochial schools can not be heard to complain that their children are denied certain privileges which are extended to pupils attending public schools. This includes instruction in classes which are not offered in parochial schools.”
I do not think that the passage of time can allow us to pass such a bill today unless we repeal that Constitutional Mandate that prohibits public money from going to private, parochial or sectarian schools. This bill, as it is written, would not prohibit that. A child could make application and could receive the benefits of this. I am not saying that those individuals who feel that they have an issue are not right in their particular judgment, but my position is that we can not do this unless we repeal that provision of the Constitution that governs that.
So, for the reasons that I have stated, and the opinion of the Attorney General which I mentioned, I think goes to the heart of my reason as to why I have to vote against this measure. Understanding what the Chairman of the Human Resources Committee has said in regard to the need, we can not accomplish that without repealing this constitutional provision that governs. We can not send vague language out that would allow the contradiction of this Constitutional authority. I believe that this is what this bill does. For those reasons, since it is an issue that many are concerned about in this State, and because we do have parochial schools in this State, and, I am a Catholic, I would like to have my remarks entered into the Journal. Thank you.
Senator Titus:
Thank you, Madam President. I too rise in opposition to Senate Bill No. 213 because I feel, like Senate Bill No. 41, which unfortunately passed this body last week, this bill undermines the states’ commitment to public education. If you can afford to send your child to private school or if you feel that your child learns better in a home setting, that is just fine. That is your choice. But, having made that choice, you don’t then have the right to carry it out at the expense of others who don't have similar options. We all benefit from living in an educated society. Statistics show that educated people commit fewer crimes, they smoke less, they are more tolerant and are more likely to be employed. They earn more money, they buy more products and they pay more taxes. We all therefore have a civic duty and indeed a moral obligation to support public education. In these trying times, we should be doing everything we can to improve it, not rob it of needed resources in order to subsidize private schools.
Senator Raggio:
Thank you, Madam President. This is a debate I did not intend to get into. In fact, I didn’t think it was debatable. I thought that some of the issues being raised had been resolved so clearly, in recent times, that there was no need for this debate. With reference to the statement of the Minority Leader’s about people paying taxes, let us not lose sight of the fact that both the parents who send their children to public schools and the parents who send their children to private schools pay taxes. The difference is that people who send their children to private schools, in addition to paying taxes for the public school system, they are also paying tuition for their children to attend private school. The position of the second speaker is somewhat archaic that he directed toward the issue of the Constitutional provision which mirrors the United States Constitutional provision on the establishment of a religion. That opinion by my good friend Harvey Dickerson, now deceased, might have been appropriate in 1965, but in the recent decade the United States Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions which have clearly defined that there is authority for just this type of measure. There are a number of decisions that have held, for example, that it is appropriate for a state to fund busing of parochial school pupils as long as it does not go to establishment of a religion. The issue has pretty well been put to bed as a result of these decisions. I would suggest the decision of former Attorney General Dickerson’s opinion is no longer controlling. I would indicate to you that it is the policy and the custom of the Legislative Counsel, if she detect any constitutional problem to indicate that. There was no such notice on this measure. I would suggest that there is not a constitutional issue.
Senator O’Donnell:
Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of this measure. I think we need to keep in perspective what is really going on. There are many children now residing in private schools all over this State. If we were to close all those schools tomorrow, dump all those private school children into the public school system, every student would be diminished in some way because of the increased huge burden that would be permeated on the school districts. But, that is still right. They all have a right to a public education. However, they have chosen not to take a public education but to take a private education and, in doing so, positively affect the school district in terms of school district financing. They are able to do more because now, if you look at it this way, all the private school kids are literally subsidizing the public school. If you were to put them in the public school system, we would have to raise taxes in order to accommodate all of these children. I would support this measure. This is a reasonable effort to allow the private school children to participate somewhat in the public school system and still enjoy their private school.
In Chicago, the Archbishop requested that public school buses transport the private school students to school. The school district refused and the Archbishop said Okay. then tomorrow all of the Catholic schools will be shut down and all of these children will be dumped on the public school system. The public school system then reneged and allowed the private school children transportation to school. It goes both ways here.
Senator Neal:
Thank you, Madam President. I was trying to give a philosophical term to this legislation and, in spite of what has been said, the alpha division of the constitution related to this has not been ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the decision stands in terms of my judgment as it relates to this subject. The latest case that I recall is the Folton Case that involved this particular subject. In this case, the question was raised as to whether or not a teacher could go into a public school and teach. That was okay. But, the point we raise here is a whole new issue because, what you have are parents who have made the choice to send their children to a private school be it sectarian or otherwise. In doing so, they have now discovered that over in the public schools there are courses or basketball games or football games that they would like for their children to participate in. This particular bill is saying that we can let that child come for two hours a day and take those classes in the public school and allow them to participate in those games. Something is wrong with that because you are cluttering the management of the public school system by doing that. If that child happens to come from a sectarian school, the courts have not ruled on this particular issue, but I would daresay that anybody that brought a case in court would find that this measure is unconstitutional in light of the fact what we have set out in our Constitution.
If that child was going and participating fully in the curriculum of public schools, then, yes, we don’t have a problem with that. But we are talking about a dichotomy or a bifurcated program, if you may, in which that child is taking the benefit of the public schools while in private schools. We are saying that we should allow this? My answer is “No,” as long as article 11 is in our Constitution, section 10 of that article is there, I think it prohibits this from happening. I do not quarrel with kids having an education. All children need to be educated. If you make a choice to take your child out of public school and put him in a private school, then why should you have the accommodation of having the two school systems to educate your child. Do the children in the public school have the benefit now to go over to the private school to have their education? I would daresay that they would not have that opportunity to do so. They would not be eligible to get in. There is no obligation for a private or sectarian school to take non-sectarian students although some do. That is the argument that I make, Madam President, relative to this bill. I happen to think it is the wrong public policy. If you want to go to public schools and have a teacher from the public school to come at some hour to give instructions to a disabled child, that is okay. As long as it is not teaching religious instruction. I think that the state could obligate it. There are conflicts of the decisions that governs the free exercise clause and establishment clause of the First Amendment. Those issues are still unresolved. These issues relate to the State of Nevada and our Constitution would still stand in terms of prohibiting this proposal as proposed in this bill.
Senator O’Connell:
Thank you, Madam President. It might be of interest to the body to know that we are one of only five states that does not allow this to happen. Also, if we have children in a private school as well as in a religious school they can receive special services under federal law. The special education sections in the bill would allow us to extend the same privilege to home schoolers. That federal law does not prevent us from doing it, but it does require a change in our statute to accomplish it.
Also, let me just give you two examples of the reason that this is needed. One has to do with a young girl who has decided that she would like to graduate from high school early and she does attend a private school. They do not offer summer schools. So the young lady and her parents inquired as to her ability to be a part of a summer school class. She was turned down and they were told that she would have to resign being a student in a private school and become a public school member before she would be allowed to attend summer school and even though you pay for summer school which the parents were willing to pay for this, but she was told she could not attend.
The second example is with a child who needs speech therapy. The parents do home school. They have moved from a state where this law was in force and they were allowed to receive this special service. Our district has turned them down. Therefore, this child does not have the benefit of being able to have therapy for the handicap they are now saddled with. I can appreciate the good Senator from North Las Vegas’ concern about this, but this is not something that is unusual for states to do.
Senator Rawson:
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to make one more thing part of the record. We have a report from the United States Department of Education Office of Special Education programs in which there are two quotes on this that I would like to enter today.
One states that private school pupils, as a group, must be afforded a genuine opportunity for equitable participation in special education programs conducted by the local education agency (school district). This continues to say that the determination of whether a particular home education arrangement constitutes the enrollment of a child with a disability in a private school or facility must be based upon state law. If under the law of your state, home education constitutes enrollment in a private school or facility then the requirements of 34CFR 300.403 and 34CFR, Section 300.452 would apply. They are the special education statutes. And essentially, we can not receive federal funds for special education unless we include these students, unless we make an arrangement for these students.
Things are changing and the federal law recognizes that we have to include everyone.
Senator Neal:
Is the Senator suggesting that this bill only applies to special education?
Senator Rawson:
No, in reference to that, I was just illustrating one point, and there are many points that can be made on this. I was illustrating from federal law one specific point.
Senators Townsend, Jacobsen and O’Donnell, moved the previous question.
Motion carried.
The question being on the passage of Senate Bill No. 213.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 213:
Yeas—16.
Nays—Carlton, Coffin, Neal, Shaffer, Titus—5.
Senate Bill No. 213 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 389.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 389:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 389 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 392.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal, Townsend, Porter, James, Coffin and O’Connell.
Senator Porter moved that Senate Bill No. 392 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Porter.
Motion carried.
Senate Bill No. 412.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Rawson and Mathews.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 412:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 412 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 442.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Rhoads and Neal.
Conflict of interest declared by Senator Porter.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 442:
Yeas—20.
Nays—None.
Not Voting—Porter.
Senate Bill No. 442 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 445.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senator Rawson.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 445:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 445 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 452.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators Neal and Townsend.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Motion carried.
Senate in recess at 12:55 p.m.
SENATE IN SESSION
At 12:59 p.m.
President Hunt presiding.
Quorum present.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 452:
Yeas—20.
Nays—None.
Not Voting—Townsend.
Senate Bill No. 452 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 490.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 490:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 490 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
Senate Bill No. 532.
Bill read third time.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 532:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 532 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES
Senator Schneider moved that Senate Bill No. 168 be taken from the Secretary’s desk and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.
Remarks by Senator Schneider.
Motion carried.
Senator James moved that Senate Bill No. 322 be taken from the Secretary’s desk and placed on the General File.
Remarks by Senator James.
Motion carried.
GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING
Senate Bill No. 322.
Bill read third time.
Remarks by Senators James and Schneider.
Senator Schneider disclosed that he has a contract with a timeshare developer.
Roll call on Senate Bill No. 322:
Yeas—21.
Nays—None.
Senate Bill No. 322 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.
Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Signing of Bills and Resolutions
There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28; Assembly Bills Nos. 2, 275; Assembly Joint Resolution No. 23; Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 44.
REMARKS FROM THE FLOOR
Senator Raggio requested that Mr. Joel Wortman be designated as Assistant Sergeant at Arms for this legislative day.
GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR
On request of Senator Amodei, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Dr. James A. Hamtak.
On request of Senator McGinness, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Joel Wortman, Bob Mauer, Doe Mauer, Howard Mizel, Phil Junkins, Sylvia Junkins, Robert Ward, Deborah Ward and Pat Matheson.
On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Chris Vargas.
Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Monday, April 12, 1999 at 11 a.m. and that it do so in memory of Dottie Raggio as requested by Senator O’Donnell.
Motion carried.
Senate adjourned at 1:17 p.m.
Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt
President of the Senate
Attest: Janice L. Thomas